I’ve shared about relevant pieces that appeared on:

• CNN
• CNN.com
• Fox News Channel
• The Wall Street Journal
• Channel 4 in the UK

Surprisingly enough, there was even a ponerology-related moment on the sports network ESPN, which I also highlighted here.

What you’ll notice is that all of the aforementioned media outlets are ones with national reach. And that’s good news – pun intended – because it means that, through stories like the ones to which I’ve linked, large audiences are receiving information about, as well as being encouraged to consider, the influence of those with low empathy and conscience.

However, there is also something to be said for the impact of a story appearing in local news. Some people feel a closer tie with their local media outlets – whose personalities can come to seem almost like part of their family and with which they may have been engaging ever since childhood – and, therefore, might trust them more. Or they may feel that, if a story makes it to their local newspaper, radio program or telecast, it has more personal relevance to them than they do when they encounter it in a national outlet.

I have posted about at least one ponerology-related report from local news – a “Healthy Living” segment on KABC-TV in Los Angeles that focused on the work of Dr. Ronald Schouten and James Silver, authors of Almost a Psychopath: Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy?

But, for whatever reason, while there seems to have been a minor explosion of coverage on this subject in larger media outlets, it has been relatively rare that I’ve come across it in local media.

However, I was pleasantly surprised this week.

When I visited the homepage of the Detroit Free Press the other day, this is what I saw (see red arrow in the image below) in the list of top headlines, right underneath a nice fuzzy story about a local business leader’s charity-benefiting March Madness bracket success.

(Click image to view larger)

I was surprised because I didn’t expect to see the topic of psychopathy pop up in a hometown paper. I was even more surprised because I really didn’t expect to see it pop up there in this fashion – not just generically, but as part of a headline offering specific guidance to help people consider whether someone in a position of power over them may have the condition. Ponerology had definitely hit the Detroit Free Press.

Here is the actual article entitled “20 signs your boss might be a psychopath.”

As you can see, it is written by Michael L. Diamond and originally appeared in the Asbury Park Press, a local paper from the New Jersey city made famous by Bruce Springsteen. Asbury Park Press, like the Detroit Free Press, is a Gannett Company. So it appears that the story was taken from one local paper and then shared with other local papers owned by the same holding company. Thus, it garnered attention in various areas of the country, but did so by means of local outlets.

Diamond’s story quotes Kean University psychology professor Richard Conti. In a previous post, I’ve asked “Should Kids Learn about Ponerology in School?”. Well, although he doesn’t use (and may not know) the actual term ponerology, Conti seems to believe that, at least at the college level, they should. According to Diamond, Conti is teaching his students about “psychopathic traits found in business and government leaders,” a subject that could hardly be more central to the work of Andrew M. Lobaczewski, author of Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, the book most responsible for popularizing the term ponerology.

Diamond mentions the public’s “complicated relationship” with leaders who are often widely admired as brilliant and strong on account of the very traits that, viewed in another light, might reveal them to be devious and dangerous.

A student of Conti’s is quoted, describing one of the characteristics of psychopaths. I see that quote – the words of a young woman expressing to a journalist her knowledge about a conscience-reducing condition that she has been taught in her school occurs among those in positions of power – as a symbol of something we desperately need more of.

Diamond then lists 20 traits associated with psychopathy, encouraging the reader to rate their boss on each to determine a final score. In the Asbury Park Press’ original version of the article, a sub-headline in big letters above the article copy implores the reader to “Take the test below to find out if your boss shows psychopathic tendencies.” If the score is high enough, Diamond even urges them to “call security.”

Now, obviously, this is not a truly valid means of assessment. A layperson cannot definitively diagnose or rule out psychopathy in anyone using a tool or method like this. But that is beside the point.

The point is that Diamond has planted a seed in his readers’ minds, just like the seed his primary article subject, Richard Conti, has planted in the minds of his students. He has provided some basic information about the kinds of characteristics exhibited by psychopaths, which is not only educational, but sure to generate curiosity. And he has nurtured that curiosity, encouraging its development into – and the application of this newfound knowledge toward – healthy questioning about the nature of authority figures.

Both Diamond and Conti are contributing to the emergence in the public of wise skepticism and an enlightened form of discriminating thinking regarding the possibility of reduced capacities for empathy and conscience among those in power. For this, they should both be commended.

I completed my primary writing about ponerology in early 2012. As I worked on it, and then for a number of months after finishing it, I kept thinking about starting a separate blog dedicated to documenting the growing number of cases in which ponerologic issues surfaced in the media. What impelled me to finally create PonerologyNews.com in early 2013 was – as described in this post about it, the very first post on this site – my discovery, at a very coincidental moment, of a Yahoo headline story about psychopathic bosses.

Now, thanks to Michael L. Diamond’s work, the first story of this type that I’ve featured here from a local newspaper is also one about psychopathic bosses.

I think the fact that that particular angle on ponerology – the possibility of psychopathy among workplace leadership – has repeatedly been key is appropriate.

Conscience-reducing disorders affect us profoundly whenever they influence our systems. They may even affect us more profoundly when they influence high levels of power structures. But it is perhaps easiest for most people new to the subject to begin to recognize their impact and relevance on a level at which they are very personally and directly affected.

The level on which this occurs most personally and directly is probably actually the family level. However, for a variety of reasons, there is often tremendous resistance, especially initially, to acknowledging such disturbing dysfunction within the family.

The next most personal and direct level at which to become conscious commonly involves a setting in which people viscerally experience the exercise – and, in some cases, abuse – of power over them on a daily basis, namely, at work. And in a climate in which the “bad boss” is a widely-accepted archetype – as lamented in countless after-work venting sessions and portrayed in iconic films and comic strips – circumstances are conducive for the awareness that is sometimes avoided in the family setting to blossom when contemplating the relationship dynamics in one’s work experience.

To be certain, it is important – and surely Diamond and Conti both appreciate it – that people ultimately recognize ponerologic influences in other areas, including family and government. That’s why I’ve included among relevant resources that I’ve shared ones that assist them in doing that.

But by focusing on psychopathic contacts, including bosses, at work – much as Robert Hare and Paul Babiak do in their highly significant and pertinent book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work – Diamond opens the door for his readers to, over time, make the necessary connections to become even more sufficiently ponerology-conscious.

The post that I came across is entitled “I am angry!” and, in it, Linda expresses her despair about the state of the world and the futility of placing hope in and comforting ourselves with small daily pro-sustainability lifestyle changes in the face of destructiveness on such a massive scale. Like many who have wrestled with this viewpoint, Linda appears to have been influenced by Derrick Jensen, since the post features an image of the graphic novel he produced along with Stephanie McMillan, As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial.

I was moved by what Linda was expressing in that post so I left a comment to share with her the idea that psychopathology may play a key role and to let her know about the field of ponerology, which has shed so much light on issues like this for me.

Linda responded right away with a comment that showed interest in those topics.

Then, a few weeks later, I got an email from Linda. She said my comment had thrown her off on a tangent looking into the ideas I had mentioned in the comment. She also said she was inspired to write an article about ponerology and how screening for psychopaths might improve workplaces, governments, the environment and the world at large. She wanted to interview me for this article.

A couple weeks after that I received a set of interview questions from Linda.

At that time, I was under the impression that Linda was writing an article for her blog that would just consist of the text of her questions and my responses. So I answered the questions at great length, thinking these would make up the bulk of her post. Only later, after I had responded, did I learn that she was actually writing a feature article for an Australian magazine called The Monthly, whose readers share an interest in law, politics and management.

Linda was then kind enough to share the early drafts of her article with me to get my feedback. As her editing process continued, though, it became clear to her that – perhaps because I had answered the questions having misunderstood their purpose or perhaps for other reasons – the information from the interview wasn’t well-suited to this particular article that she was writing, after all. However, since her questions had helped to surface some valuable information, we both agreed that it made sense for me to just post the interview, in its entirety, here on this blog.

As of this writing, Linda’s article is not yet published. If and when it is, I will link to it here.

So, without further adieu, here are Linda’s questions and my responses.

I’m not comfortable with the word ‘evil’.

Perhaps the deepest debate of all when it comes to the issue of “evil” – and you can tell that I agree that this is a debatable point by the fact that I, too, often put the word in quotes – is whether there is or is not any such thing objectively. People’s views fall all along the spectrum in regards to that question. At one extreme, we have some people who say there is no such thing as evil and, at the other extreme, we have those who are emphatic that evil exists and that denying it has terrible consequences (and that perhaps, in some cases, this denial itself even constitutes an evil act.)

I consider it one of the roles of ponerology to determine, to our best ability, whether there actually is any such objective thing as evil or there is simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil.’” I am not sure if we will ever be able to resolve that question or not, but striving to do so is one of ponerology’s defining tasks and, even if ultimately unsuccessful, the process of striving itself can bring great insight.

Regardless of whether you choose to use the word “evil” or not, we can find common ground around the concepts of:

• Activity that is malicious and…
• Activity that is willfully negligent despite an apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

With that being the case, those who take the stance that there is no actual evil, but simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil,’” can still clearly see the importance and potential benefits of ponerologic study.

What is your definition of evil?

I don’t claim to have a scientifically supportable definition. Like I said, developing such an objectively-based definition for the word ‘evil’ – or concluding that there is no such supportable definition – is a task for ponerology. It may be one that we cannot succeed at for quite some time. And it may be that we never completely succeed at it.

In the meantime, I focus on these two main concepts.

• Malicious activity
• Willful negligence despite apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

Whether you consider these activities evil or just think of the word ‘evil’ as a shorthand term that is often used to describe them and those who partake significantly in them, seeking to better understand them and their origins and devising optimal responses to their role in our world should keep us busy for quite some time.

Are psychopaths actually evil?

Without an objectively-supportable definition of the word ‘evil,’ this question cannot be answered precisely. However, what we can say with strong confidence is that psychopaths act maliciously and with potentially dangerous willful negligence quite frequently. Thus, they often pose a threat to those around them. Pragmatically, this is all we need to know to realize that the influence of psychopathy is an issue that deserves consideration. Philosophically, the debates about the semantic use of the word ‘evil’ and whether it applies to psychopaths – or anybody else – will carry on for some time.

Have you worked with psychopaths?

Given that psychopaths are estimated to make up 1% of the population – and, as suggested by some research, possibly even more in certain sectors of society such as on Wall Street – most people have probably worked with psychopaths at some point. However, it is not often that a psychopath will tell you that they are one (if they even know for sure themselves). In fact, they may spend much of their energy hiding that fact. So we usually will not know for sure whether someone is a psychopath or not. I’ve certainly worked with people who I would consider suspect. But definitively labeling someone a psychopath is not something that I would do without their having been tested by a qualified professional.

What methods are available that reliably diagnose psychopathy?

The best available method that I know of is the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) test devised by Robert Hare. I’ve written about diagnosis of psychopathy here.

Do you know of any examples where organisations or businesses have screened for psychopathy?

I know of examples where researchers came in and screened this way. For instance, Robert Hare studied people in high level management positions at Fortune 100 companies to find out about psychopathy in that population. He describes that work himself in an interview in the movie I Am Fishead: Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths? As I detail in my review of the film, I’m not a huge fan of the second and third parts of the movie. But the first part is a great introduction to this material and includes this interview in which Hare describes his research. You can see the interview here. It runs from 22:00 (I’ve linked to this starting point) through 24:55.

Hare and colleague Paul Babiak have also written about this topic at length in their book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work.

However, I’m not aware of organizations or businesses having such specific screening for psychopathy done of their own accord as a matter of policy. If anyone does know of such cases, I would like to hear about them. Whether such screening should be done, and, if so, how to make sure that it is done fairly and responsibly, are certainly among the very most important and controversial questions considered within the realm of ponerology.

Do you believe labeling people as either normals or psychopaths, as  Andrew Lobaczewski does in Political Ponerology, might be counterproductive? While he does urge that we do not discriminate or persecute psychopaths, this could easily happen regardless (or am I just stuck in political correctness, perhaps the means justifies the end?)

Ponerology is, by definition, a scientific field. So, like all scientific fields, it is concerned with categorizing accurately. The evidence seems to increasingly reveal psychopathy to be a neurological condition that differs significantly from the norm in deeply meaningful ways with quite serious implications. It seems unreasonable to ask scientists to pretend it isn’t a real or substantially abnormal condition simply because some people might use this information in harmful ways.

All scientific knowledge has the potential to be used for harm rather than help. If we restrict scientists to only categorizing knowledge based on whether we think the categories will be used in healthy ways by the public, we will reduce science to a public relations battle. This seems more dangerous than the alternative. What is very important, however, is making sure that science – in this area and others – is being carried out in accordance with the rigors of the scientific method and not being manipulated for the benefit of those with self-serving or potentially harmful agendas.

There is one thing worth noting that makes this case somewhat special. Using – or manipulating – scientific knowledge in order to persecute a group of people is itself something most likely to be carried out, or at least led, by those with reduced levels of empathy and conscience. Becoming aware of those with conditions that significantly reduce empathy and conscience and informed regarding the tactics they use gives us a much better chance to protect people – even psychopaths themselves – from the type of persecution you fear. When people of conscience bond on the basis of a conscious appreciation for their strong conscience itself, recognizing that there is a segment of the population that does not – and may never – share this trait, they can more passionately and effectively work toward solutions that are, on balance, healthiest for everyone involved. So, in this sense, accurately categorizing on this particular dimension, as opposed to some less ethically-relevant dimensions, could actually help reduce, rather than increase, persecution throughout society.

The incidence of psychopaths in the workplace is becoming reasonably well understood, but do you believe  psychopaths in positions of authority are having an impact on our environment, and our subsequent attempt to address climate change and other environmental issues?

I cannot say for sure whether or not psychopathy is significantly and detrimentally influencing our efforts regarding a sustainably healthy ecosystem and environment. But, given what we know, it is reasonable enough to suspect this could be the case that the question deserves serious study. One of the main reasons that I am so passionate about advocating for the firm establishment of ponerology as a respected field of study is so that more people can access a platform and the necessary resources to do just such work.

One of the benefits I’ve experienced from researching and writing about ponerology is that, in the process, I’ve come across people and related fields that I had not previously known about doing work on issues like this one. For example, a few months ago I learned about the field of Green Criminology, which studies the role criminal behavior plays in the process of environmental damage. One of the benefits of running a website dedicated to these issues is that I can then share this information with others, as I did in this feature on Green Criminology that I posted soon after learning about it.

If so, how can we, armed with an understanding of ponerology, deal with psychopathic influences?

Psychopathic influences can occur at all levels and in all facets of human systems and, in each of these, pose different quandaries that both call for and challenge our responses. Just to give some examples:

• At the family level, psychopaths can be abusive or neglectful partners or parents. So recognizing psychopathy and how it works might lead someone to make a different choice about becoming involved or staying involved in a romantic relationship. If they choose to leave, it may inform how they do so in order to be as safe as possible. It may help them understand the trauma undergone by themselves and their children during the period of exposure to the psychopath and to seek the most effective counseling to help them recover.
• In the workplace, an understanding of psychopathy could inform wiser hiring and firing decisions and help in ensuring that roles involving important ethical decisions are filled by those with empathy and conscience.
• At the community level, understanding psychopathy could affect our approach to crime. We might see efforts to prevent or reduce crime in a different light when we realize that a certain percent of the population fundamentally lacks empathy and conscience.
• At the political level, we recognize that it is crucial that those who make decisions deeply affecting the lives of thousands or even millions of people be capable of empathizing with those over whom they exercise this power. But we can only work to ensure this is the case when we become informed about the range of levels of empathy that exist in different human beings.
• At the most basic level, the very existence of the field of ponerology can help provoke people to recognize that these challenges even exist. And, as that recognition grows, its findings can help us better strategize in the pursuit of optimal solutions.

Lobaczewski’s experience at the university – the new lecturer espoused views that appear to influence a formerly benign group. Are we ‘normals’ to a greater or lesser extent, vulnerable to their influence?

I think that, when uneducated about ponerologic issues, ‘normals’ are indeed vulnerable. The vulnerability stems from the fact that we tend to assume, on a very deep level, that other people are fundamentally like us. We realize that they differ in more superficial ways such as gender, skin color, ethnicity, talents and skills and so on. But we assume that they all share the most basic human traits and abilities such as the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, sleep and waking, heat and cold and so on. Experiences like these are so basic as to seem elemental to what it means to be human.

Along the same lines, we assume that the capacities to empathize with others and to experience pangs of conscience are also elemental to being human. Yet psychopaths, while often pretending to experience these, may not actually do so. And, at the same time, they realize that ‘normals’ around them are under the impression that they do. And this is the misinformation gap, the area of ignorance, that they are often able to exploit.

If so, how does a psychopath influence others to behave against their ethical beliefs?

There are a number of tactics that psychopaths use in manipulating others. Lobaczewski talks about and names several of them in his book Political Ponerology. Just a few examples:

• Paralogisms – Particular manners of twisting logic to falsely make the
  illogical appear logical and vice-versa
• Paramoralisms – Specific methods of twisting morality to falsely portray the unethical as ethical and vice-versa
• The appropriation and exploitation of ideology

You’ll notice two things that these tactics have in common:

• They all involve the manipulative use of language. Psychopaths are often very skilled at employing language in ways that mislead and fool people. This is why Lobaczewski proposes the study of what he calls “patho-semantics” to help us recognize how certain forms of communication are used for deceptive and malicious purposes.
• They all work best when the person using them is assumed to have working capacities for empathy and conscience. If we understood or even strongly suspected that this person lacked such capacities, we would be much more guarded against these tactics and skeptical of them. But when we believe they are a person of conscience like ourselves – and, in fact, as we believe in our ignorance, like every human being – we are much more likely to be taken in by their ruse.

Of course, when these tactics alone don’t work, many psychopaths, lacking a conscience to restrict them, are not averse to using explicit or implicit threats or even brute force to get their way.

If an organisation wanted to screen for psychopaths are there legal ramifications? What would they need to do?

As I alluded to earlier, screening for psychopathy – like any form of screening – raises serious concerns about issues ranging from privacy to unfair discrimination. So, if it is done, it needs to be done with care by highly responsible and competent people. I am not expert in exactly how the law applies here, since I’m not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t very quickly be legal challenges as soon as anyone was refused a job or fired or forced to change positions as a result of being identified as a psychopath.

So I think it will be very important to involve legal experts, preferably with specialized training, ideally including education regarding ponerology itself, in developing any solutions in this area.

Having been interviewed numerous times myself I always wish they’d give me a completely open question. So here goes. What is the most important aspect of ponerology that you would like to share?

There are several important points I’d like to make that I don’t think have been raised in the rest of the interview.

1. Not all psychopaths are the same. Lobaczewski, in Political Ponerology, distinguishes several different types of psychopaths.
2. We have recently seen increased recognition regarding those who are not technically psychopaths, but share many of the same traits to a significant and troubling extent. These people are often referred to as “almost psychopaths.” Ronald Schouten, an M.D. and J.D. affiliated with Harvard Medical School, along with criminal defense attorney James Silver, has written a book about this subject called Almost a Psychopath: Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy? I covered this topic, a television news story about it and Schouten’s and Silver’s book on this blog post.
3. We have focused entirely on psychopathy here. But, as I emphasized in the title of one blog post, ponerology is not only about psychopathy.There are other conditions marked by significantly reduced levels of empathy and conscience that also play a role in the development of unhealthy systems. Lobaczewski’s name for a process by which human systems become pathological is ponerogenesis. And, in Political Ponerology, he goes into some detail about the various roles that his work revealed not only different types of psychopaths, but those with conditions besides psychopathy – as well as vulnerable normal people – to play in this process.

   I believe the other conditions most often involved are some of those that psychiatry has, for quite some time, classified as the Cluster B personality disorders, namely:

   • Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
   • Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
   • Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
4. Finally, I just want to say that, like many fields of science, but perhaps to an even greater extent than most, ponerology attracts its share of pseudoscientists – people who either speculate in a non-scientific manner on the material within its purview or take scientific findings that it has revealed and then twist and misuse them to serve an agenda. Since ponerology is a relatively new and unknown field, many people, when first investigating it, may come across the pseudoscientists first, recognize their work as not credible and then dismiss ponerology as a whole. This is a shame because there are also many very credible scientists in a variety of related disciplines doing fantastic and responsible work on these issues.

   I hope that people will not let the fact that some misappropriate the name and ideas of ponerology keep them from putting in the effort to learn about the solid and important work being done in this area. I try to encourage this effort by documenting the growing body of such critical work at PonerologyNews.com.

I frequently see spots focusing on other mental health conditions, such as depression and bipolar disorder. This is partly because these conditions are prime treatment targets for drug companies, who then have an incentive to run advertisements about them. Perhaps it is also partly because awareness about these conditions poses less of a threat to fundamental cultural beliefs and, thus, they are less controversial to discuss on television.

And of course you can barely turn on the television at all without seeing spots focused on lifestyle issues of all kinds ranging from dry skin to erectile dysfunction.

And yet, the conditions that may affect human relations at the deepest level of all – that may even shape whether our species (and many others) can sustainably survive on this planet – are barely mentioned at all.

This background explains why I was so glad to come across this “Healthy Living” news segment from Denise Dador of Los Angeles’ KABC-TV called “Are you dealing with an ‘almost-psychopath’? Are you one?”

The segment does a good job of helping viewers recognize that psychopaths are not just the sensationalized serial killers we see in the movies, but are everyday people – friends, family members, co-workers – with whom we all interact every day, and who take advantage of and exploit those around them.

It especially focuses on the large proportion of the population that “operates in the gray areas between normalcy and true psychopathic behavior,” those that Dr. Ronald Schouten, an M.D. and J.D. affiliated with Harvard Medical School calls, in his book on the subject, “almost psychopaths.”

It also quotes Schouten’s co-author, criminal defense lawyer James Silver, stating that he believes that about one in seven people fit the “almost psychopath” description. One in seven!

Says Silver:

“We’re confident that there are tens of millions of ‘almost-psychopaths’ in the United States. And these are people who you have to deal with.”

The segment goes on to explain how to identify an “almost psychopath” in relationships and at work, why it is so important to be aware of them and how to know if you yourself might be one.

On a lighter note, I found it humorously coincidental that one of the news anchors who introduces the segment is Marc Brown, who some that frequent the Internet might recognize from this popular – and oddly relevant – viral image.

While Brown’s resemblance to the suspect on whom he is reporting makes for a silly joke, the information about “almost psychopaths” makes for anything but.

Kudos to Dador and KABC for investing in educating the public on this crucial issue. Here’s hoping to see many others following suit.