Quick reminder that he was arrested for SECURITIES fraud - this isn't related to drug prices. Feel free to read the lawsuit filed against him by his former company to understand why Martin got arrested.
The guy is a pure sociopath. I had long ago predicted this day would come and it's quite nice to see. Will be happier when he's convicted and sentenced.
Sociopath is not a term used in psychology. The term closest to your intended meaning is probably antisocial personality disorder. Sociopath is a term used by the public at large and is pretty much always used as a way to dismiss the possibility of empathizing with someone you don't understand or don't agree with.
Well, let's see here...this is a man that spent $2M on a music album that he admits he didn't even listen to in entirety, but then has a man stalked and intimidated by thugs for 6 months over a $3M dispute. And lets not forget the callous interviews he gave that were nothing more than a slap in the face of the thousands of people whose lives might be shortened by his actions. I think the guy probably has a decent shot at a diagnosis for Antisocial Personality Disorder.
You may be right, and I think a discussion where we match up his behavior to the profile for antisocial personality disorder as listed in the DSM-V would be an entertaining and engaging intellectual exercise. What I take issue with is merely dismissing him with a popular label that excuses us from trying to empathize or understand the man. I think the use of the word sociopath limits and discourages discussion and understanding rather than promoting it.
You are misrepresenting my thesis. Did you really read my post as, "sociopath is not a word"? If you did, I would encourage you to ask an adult to read the post for you and explain it to you. "The term sociopath is used by the public at large and is pretty much always used as a way to dismiss the possibility of empathizing with someone you don't understand or don't agree with." That's a rather large sentence to swallow. Here, I'll break it up for you:
"The term sociopath is used by the public at large"
Sociopath is a word, but not a diagnosis.
"and is pretty much always used"
"to dismiss the possibility of empathizing"
"with someone you don't understand or don't agree with."
In this example, you are saying he has no conscience whatsoever. This excuses you from trying to understand who he his, it excuses you from asking a question like, "What values and circumstances led him to make this decision?" You want to believe that no possible set of reasonable values, under any circumstances, could ever lead a man to make these decisions. He must have no values. He must be a "sociopath". A good, normal person like yourself could never make decisions like this. He must not be a good, normal person. He must be something else, he must be "a sociopath". He must be some special label that allows you to put him in a box where you don't have to empathize with him, where you don't have to try to understand who he really is or why he made these decisions.
Your comment was no thesis, it was a halfhearted attempt to derail the conversation by trying to redefine the accepted usage of a word.
His actions were without conscience, therefore he has exhibited sufficient traits for society to treat him as a sociopath. Such social cues are a major part of how humans interact, and your lack of awareness of them probably means your time would be better spent reading up on autism instead of psychopathy.
Those disorders are not closely related. Especially BPD and sociopathy, the symptoms are polar opposites. BPD is characterized by an inability to regulate abnormally strong emotions, not a lack of emotions.
Sorry I wasn't clearer: I was referring to colloquial use of the word, not what's actually clinically accurate. My experience has been that in everyday use "sociopath" can refer to any of the three, even if (as you mentioned) these are very different diagnoses.
But it's not a meme... it's a word. The word is defined as "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience." I think that's a very apt explanation of this guy.
Most people who imagine themselves to be surrounded by sociopaths ironically end up exhibiting the selfsame tendencies of rationalization, misrepresentation, exploitation of others, lack of empathy, paranoia, and self-righteousness.
This guy is just an overconfident scam-artist who made the mistake of believing his own bullshit.
I remember reading something a few years ago that criticized the use of the term psychopath because it wasn't defined in a rigid way and the definition basically tracked the general populations general fears. And because we as a society are afraid of corporations now, CEO's become the target, and possibly the baseline, for the definition of psychopath.
I'm sure that many CEOs share a certain personality type, but to claim that most CEOs have a serious mental disorder seems ridiculous to me.
Psychopathy is defined as scoring a 30/40 or higher on the standard psychometric for it, the Hare psychopathy checklist.
Psychopathy is characterized by a number of traits that are sometimes adaptable and sometimes maladaptive, depending on the context. Those traits include impulsivity, irresponsibility, and a lack of empathy.
There are far more psychopaths in prisons than there are in board rooms. Successful psychopathy seems rare, even among psychopaths. But, being a CEO is rare anyway, and since we can agree that many CEO's share a certain personality type, it's not a stretch to think that the personality type they share is trending towards a personality disorder, namely psychopathy.
Where do you remember reading that? I'd like to vet the reliability of the source before I make inferences on it.
I don't know any major CEO's myself but I can't imagine having to fire 100's of people to make my share price go up a few cents. Yet CEO's do that sort of thing all the time. What do you call people that will put others out of work for no better reason than some short term increase in share price, which will benefit themselves, directly or indirectly?
Citation, please? I mean, specifically, that they don't have qualms about doing it for trivial valuation reasons. There's also an argument to be made for corporations being too reticent to fire deadwood employees. IMHO, that's just as much a problem.
Personal anecdote: I talk to our CEO pretty regularly - she's probably the only billionaire I'll ever meet. I know that she personally feels the responsibility for keeping the business viable, because it's the source of income for nearly 3,000 families.
Of course, my experience is just a single data point. But I don't see that it's any less valid than a viewpoint that, as far as I can see, is based on TV and movie drama.
I have a few data points - I worked in the banking industry for many years and saw this sort of behaviour all the time. People, including entire teams were fired, not because the banks were losing money and had to cut jobs to survive, but simply because they wanted to increase profitability.
If you want citations - there are vast masses out there - here is just one:
This was his previous company that parted ways with him when they found out that his crazy talk was really him being totally nuts! It is interesting that Turning was about find backing with his past grievances so visible. I will give him credit he is sticking with the batsh!t craziness it til the bitter end...
The entire country is out for Wall Street Banker blood, and he painted a massive target on himself by jacking up drug prices.
Based on this and other stories, he's a world class asshole that's publicly admitted to threatening the lives of children. Right now the feds are looking for people like him to take down and make an example of, so it's likely the Securities Fraud charges will only be the beginning.
People throw around the word sociopath. I have know a few sociopaths. I have been told, I have sociopathic tendencies.
That said, I would never take advantage of the poor, weak, or helpless.
If you have sociopathic tendencies--work on them! Whatever you do, don't cross that line where you think it's ok to take advantage of the aforementioned.
I live among a lot of wealthy sociopaths. They are in complete denial, and actually believe, "Hay it's legal! I did nothing wrong? I'll even go to church, or synagogue!".
I look at them with utter disgust. The sociopaths, I know, haven't done the damage to society like this little puke.
I don't care about his SEC violations. Every trader--strike that--successful traders; cheated on order to get their wad.
They all use inside information. Yes, there's some of you who got luckey on this momentum trading these last few years--great. I'm talking about the series 7 boys who always seen to make money.
Raising the price on a drug, a drug that he knew sick patients would be paying "out of pocket" for--that's a true scumbag. The word sociopath is too nice.
Lack of empathy can be overcome with a rational commitment to adhere to a personal system of ethics.
If a sociopath doesn't actually care what happens to other people, they can still formulate a list of rules to follow that prevents them from appearing to be a sociopath.
I recall reading about a brain researcher who was studying the measurable physiological differences in PET scans between the brains of serial killers and the control group brains when he discovered a brain scan that matched the psychopathic pattern in some other scans done for Alzheimer's screening research. It was his own brain. [0]
Surprise! You have a serial killer brain! Why don't you act like one? Maybe you just have better impulse control. Maybe you prefer to amass your wealth as adoration from fans and acquaintances. Maybe you prefer to humiliate others in video game arenas than to get any real blood on your hands.
So a smirking asshole like Shkreli isn't just a matter of sociopathy. It's being a sociopath so incredibly careless and stupid that he just couldn't avoid inciting the torches-and-pitchforks mob against him. If you make enough people hate you, you're going down for something, even if you have been careful about following all the laws to the letter, or at least covering your tracks.
If Shkreli really is a sociopath, he won't care about getting caught or going to jail. The burr up his butt will be that other people are better at his lifestyle than he is, and can prove it. (You lose! Good day, sir!)
James Fallon (the researcher) gave a good TED talk[1] regarding this. What was interesting is that everyone around him (including his wife and children) weren't totally surprised by his findings that he was less empathetic, and that, as you note, he found that he could be a better person (and he wanted to be) by making an effort to do the things that come naturally to others.
Because armchair psychiatry and textbook class hatred is not really an interesting contribution to the conversation. The HN bar is higher than mere handwringing.
But all the comments saying "this guy is a sociopath" or "all big-company CEOs are sociopaths" or "here's a pop-psychology book about sociopaths" are? They're not getting downvoted....
Sociopathy is probably a varying scale. Unless it is actually severe enough to cause problems for you or others it doesn't fit the definition of a mental disorder. I'm sure everyone has at least little bit, but that's just how humans are.
The guy is a pure sociopath. I had long ago predicted this day would come and it's quite nice to see. Will be happier when he's convicted and sentenced.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1438533/0001193125152...