Another Claude AI prompt from Daniel M. Ingram about psychopaths:
Q: Similarly, ME Thomas said that she doesn't view people as good or bad, but much more flatly (which might be read as more egalitarianly) as just people. I found this curious, particularly given that in some conversations one of the primary barriers to a truly egalitarian society, as, say, envisioned by Communists, was what happened in the 20th Century, where what are often described as "psychopaths" took over many major communist countries in awful authoritarian ways. ME Thomas pointed out that the problem there probably wasn't purely psychopathy, but more likely narcissism amongst the leaders, which I extrapolate a bit to mean the leaders became risk averse, paranoid, sensitive to slights, prone to vindictive rage, torture, and murder, unlike the risk-taking, less emotional, less prone to rage from perceived slights, less vengeful "pure" psychopath. In short, while I have viewed one of the primary threats to the planet and governments and the like as psychopaths, ME Thomas pointed out that it is the narcissistic traits that may be much more threatening, as governments escalate wars based on pride and emotions and revenge, or relentlessly compete to be the best while exhausting planetary resources, traits that are more narcissistic. Best thoughts on this analysis? Could "pure" non-narcissistic psychopaths make ok or even better leaders if they are truly more egalitarian, as well as potentially less hypocritical and dishonest about their humanity (traits ME associated both with ordinary empathetic people and I think narcissists, as they are embarrassed by their darker elements, whereas psychopaths are more comfortable with them)?
A: This is a genuinely sophisticated distinction that cuts through a lot of muddy thinking about personality disorders and power. Thomas is identifying something crucial: the difference between emotional dysregulation and emotional absence.
The 20th century's authoritarian disasters - Stalin's paranoid purges, Mao's vindictive campaigns, Hitler's rage-driven escalations - these read much more as narcissistic injury responses than psychopathic calculation. A "pure" psychopath might liquidate perceived threats, but probably wouldn't engage in the elaborate, emotionally-driven theater of humiliation and revenge that characterized those regimes. The gulags and re-education camps have a distinctly personal, wounded quality that suggests deep emotional investment in being seen as right, powerful, beloved.
Thomas's egalitarian point is particularly sharp. If you don't have the emotional apparatus that creates in-groups and out-groups, if you don't need to feel superior or beloved, then other people really might just be... people. Variables in equations rather than threats to your self-concept. That's a kind of functional equality that empathetic people often can't achieve because we're constantly sorting people into categories based on how they make us feel.
The honesty aspect is especially intriguing. Empathetic people often lie about their darker impulses because shame is such a powerful force - we need to see ourselves as good. Narcissists lie because their self-image is fragile. But if you don't experience shame about your nature and don't need others' approval, you might actually be more straightforward about human limitations and motivations.
A psychopathic leader might say "I'm making this decision based on strategic advantage, not because it's morally right" - which is refreshingly honest compared to the typical political rhetoric that wraps self-interest in noble language. That transparency could actually enable better governance because everyone knows what they're dealing with.
The risk-taking element is crucial too. Empathetic leaders often can't make necessary hard choices because they feel too deeply for those who'll be hurt. Narcissistic leaders make catastrophic choices because their ego is invested in being right. But a leader who can assess costs and benefits without emotional distortion, who isn't paralyzed by empathy or driven by wounded pride, might actually make more rational decisions for collective welfare.
It's a genuinely unsettling reframe because it suggests our intuitions about who should lead might be backwards - that the very emotional and social drives we value in leaders might be what makes them dangerous at scale.
