Talk:Psychopathy in the workplace

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutral point of view

This article reads like a corporate presentation, and it's a tad prejudiced towards people with schizotypal personality disorders. Maybe it should be reviewed for bias. Coediteranno (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. How do we motion to delete? This article has numerous problems and promotes a pseudoscience209.180.174.141 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Cwobeel

Name me one thing that isnt sourced ? Are you looking at the right article ? I could easily list dozens of other psychology articles that are genuinely sparsely cited but not this one. --Penbat (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources

The sources are very poor, mostly from news articles and popular writers instead of psychology journals. Dutton especially has been criticized for a loose definition of the diagnosis. The spelling isn't great either, "organisations" really?

Hybridjaguar (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Snakes in Suits' is based on sound research from Babiak and Hare, two leading researchers. 'Corporate Psychopathy: talking the walk' is a genuine high-quality scientific paper, and they quote nearly 4% of top corporate personnel as clinical psychopaths. However, Dutton's assertions re jobs. are based on a website form that any 7 year old can fill in and are scientifically meaningless. http://www.thegoodpsychopath.com/great-british-good-psychopath-survey/ and https://www.dmarge.com/2017/10/psychopaths-professions-study.html 78.151.72.148 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling "organisations' is a valid variant of the word (it is the British spelling of the American English word "organizations"); see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. However, I agree that this article is largely based on popular psychology works rather than serious academic research. How psychopathy affects workplace and corporate culture and dynamics is largely speculative, there aren't even any reliable estimates of the prevalence of people with high psychopathic traits in the upper echelons of society and the economy (psychopathy cannot be reliably diagnosed in the non-criminal population under the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, developed to study psychopathy in criminals, so most studies in the general population use the Psychopathic Personality Inventory, which measures personality traits that reflect the core characteristics of psychopathy; you cannot be a psychopath, only relatively psychopathic under the PPI, and that alone makes it difficult to define psychopathy in non-criminal subjects).—Ireadandcheck (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

This article reads oddly. I think the tone is akin to that of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article and, as others have highlighted, the sources are sub-par. I suggest a rewrite, with a focus on summarising studies.--Hazhk (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary & Secondary Psychopathy

Primary Psychopaths (Genetic Psychopaths): have more corporate success, high IQ as a result of genetic natural selection that resulted in eliminating lower IQ primary psychopaths, this allows them to have little risk of legal penalties.
Secondary Psychopaths (Sociopaths) : Are more successful in Gang culture as outlaws, they have less success in the corporate world, due to breaking the law on a regular basis & being more neurotic. DSM V (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions needed

In the section describing the top ten occupations with psychopaths present, what is the difference between a journalist and someone who is tv or radio (media)? I know someone who can be described as both and the two occupations seem to be the same. Can this be made more clear? 96.91.182.205 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the trope of the "corporate psychopath"

This article seems to take it as a given that there's a preponderance of "corporate psychopaths" in upper management, and cites only sources that agree with this view. The belief that there are people with extreme forms of antisocial personality disorder (characterized by patterns of recklessness and impulsivity) who are commonly found in upper management or as CEOs of corporations (when they make up such a small percent of the general population) is fanciful and almost certainly incorrect. Films like American Psycho aside, in the real world psychopathic behavior will get you fired immediately.

The studies that promote this notion of a "corporate psycho" rely entirely on questionnaires that seem to encourage the belief that this is common, which in turn encourage the responders to engage in psychiatric name-calling against coworkers (and they may have legitimate reasons for disliking a coworker, but not for diagnosing them with a psychiatric disorder). The evidence in the literature supporting this view is weak and unscientific, and this article should present studies that dispute this notion altogether (such as[1]) to maintain NPOV. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]