Do you have to Be a Psychopath To Become a Billionaire?

[IAmReallyImportant]

Everybody with an IQ less than 140 can go pound sand

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Everybody with an IQ less than 140 can go pound sand

Literally 98,8% of people.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[SQAAD]

@captainamerica

8 hours ago, captainamerica said:

I doubt it. I don't agree that it would be a lot better as you are emphasizing. Perhaps @Leo Gura would like to touch upon it. 

Regarding your title question, I believe that people with high intelligence (or even IQ) after a threshold point no longer need to have psychopathic traits in order to protect themselves or function(any form of function) in complex social/business situations.

How would it not be a lot better if the CEOs were more loving and cared more about the people? 

Don't confuse intelligence with ruthlessness. Many intelligent people are not willing to do certain functions you are refering to. People are not robots. Some are more sensitive and have more empathy than others. This will affect their decision-making.

Edited August 3, 2021 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@aurum Good points.

[SQAAD]

@IAmReallyImportant

4 hours ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Bullshit. Becoming a billionaire does not depend on something like psychopathy.

Yea sure buddy.

Quote

People with psychopathy crave power and dominant positions, experts say. ... Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons.

 

[SQAAD]

@Parththakkar12

3 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

 

A big caveat about business in general - if you want to be a good marketer, you do not have the luxury of being a psychopath. You 

Being a psychopath doesn't hinder your capacity of being a good marketer. Just the opposite. Being high on a psychopathy scale makes everything easier for you. Jeff Bezos is a good example of someone with high psychopathy.

[SQAAD]

@IAmReallyImportant

3 hours ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Most or probably all of the Silicon Valley tycoon CEOs have IQs over 140.

 

Most people with high IQ work for someone with an average IQ. Not the other way around.

[Danioover9000]

@SQAAD

14 hours ago, SQAAD said:

I believe psychopathy is on a range and not something binary. Some people have more of it. But when it comes to acquiring billions and billions of dollars, do you have to be a psychopath in order to make it to the top?

I am not talking about millions of dollars. I am pretty sure you can become a millionaire without being a psychopath but when it comes to billions of dollars, i believe only the most cruel, cold and vicious people make it up there.

You have to stomp on a lot of bodies and not really care too much about all of the bottom of the pyramid. It's like you have to be extremely vicious to be a warlord at the time of Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great. Both of these were ruthless mass murderers. You couldn't become Genghis Khan by being someone like Jesus or the Buddha. If the current billionaires were more loving and caring then i guess the current situation in this planet would be a lot better for all of us.

Any thoughts?

   My thoughts about this is simple. You have already answered your question, making this thread mute. And you make your own hell. That's about it.

  Oh, and wake up, too.

[Zizzero]

Careful with that demonization of billionaires and money.

It's actually a limiting belief that you connect owning a certain amount of wealth or having a certain amount of success with a form of immorality or lack of character. This will hold you back in life. It'll make it so that if you get too successful, you'll feel guilty about it and self-sabotage. 

Remember what daddy Jordan Peterson says; not every hierarchy is tyrannical.

[DocWatts]

I think Dostoyevsky's forward in Notes From Underground (which was also quoted at the beginning of American Psycho) seems prescient on how sick social structures and maladjusted cultural values create sociopathic people.

"Nevertheless it is clear that such persons as the writer of these notes not only may, but positively must, exist in our society, when we consider the circumstances in the midst of which our society is formed.

 He is one of the representatives of a generation still living. In this fragment, entitled "Underground," this person introduces himself and his views, and, as it were, tries to explain the causes owing to which he has made his appearance and was bound to make his appearance in our midst."

Edited August 4, 2021 by DocWatts

[captainamerica]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Being a billionaire requires a billionaire.

@Carl-Richard I don't get it. It's not clear enough.

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Interpret that how you want

huh? 

[captainamerica]

6 hours ago, SQAAD said:

How would it not be a lot better if the CEOs were more loving and cared more about the people? 

Don't confuse intelligence with ruthlessness. Many intelligent people are not willing to do certain functions you are refering to. People are not robots. Some are more sensitive and have more empathy than others. This will affect their decision-making.

@SQAAD You said Billionaires, not CEOs. Universe of a difference.

Even then whole management and political systems would have to be changed to create sustainable change. Most CEOs are proactive whereas a lot of management is not, you are talking about change in 10s of millions of people. Heck, in many industries if the CEOs changed they would be fired by management. It kind of sucks. That is why people looking to make change should carefully choose better industries for themselves. Even then there are natural constraints. 

Don't forget 70 million people voted for Trump in the latest election. Since this reality is constructed or based in many people it is not possible for one sub holon to change it the way you are probably expecting to. 

 

 

 

Regarding your second point, you need to be more clear as there is no confusion between ruthlessness and intelligence. Not sure why you got that impression. Maybe it is because of my reference to the protection tendency of psychopaths? A more nuanced version of this would be protection in excess is excessive self-preservation leading to harm to others and oneself. In deficiency, this leads to self-harm/loss and harm/injustice to one's family, employees, etc. In balanced or middle it is protection. We don't want excessive or deficiency. The insight is that it is still one spectrum, not 3 separate things, and seeing it as such leads to a more nuanced understanding of the situation. It also leads to more skillful ways of positively changing the system, like a surgeon instead of a butcher 

In my previous post by protection I referred to the whole spectrum, did that lead to confusion? Will keep that in mind next time. My subconscious assumed you would clearly see which nuances I am referring to given the context, plus you yourself mentioned spectrum in your original post, my bad.

Edited August 4, 2021 by captainamerica

[IAmReallyImportant]

8 hours ago, SQAAD said:

@IAmReallyImportant

Most people with high IQ work for someone with an average IQ. Not the other way around.

Of course, if high IQ people are rare, then it is likely that most of them work for average IQ people. Simply because there are fewer of them and of that fraction, only a fraction are interested in doing bigger things. People usually don't dream big and have the drive to follow through. But if someone with an IQ over 140 does want to change the world, it is much more likely that he would succeed than some average person.

You can still earn some money and have a family with average IQ. However, the greatest inventors and big tech CEOs usually have a very high IQ. And silicon valley tycoon CEOs probably exclusively so far.

Edited August 4, 2021 by IAmReallyImportant

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, captainamerica said:

@Carl-Richard I don't get it. It's not clear enough.

huh? 

It requires a very specific type of personality ("the billionaire personality") – an internal factor, and/or it requires that your father is also a billionaire  – an external factor.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[captainamerica]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

It requires a very specific type of personality ("the billionaire personality") – an internal factor, and/or it requires that your father is also a billionaire  – an external factor.

@Carl-Richard The latter one is clearly incorrect as a majority of the billionaires did not inherit their wealth.

The solution for those who did inherit a lot of wealth is proper inheritance tax at the time of inheritance, not showing up after decades of growth, value and innovations created by the person on top of the inherited wealth and claiming "YoU aRE NoT SelFmAdE" or "it wAs OuR WeALtH".

If you can be more specific about your first point...

Edited August 4, 2021 by captainamerica

[Carl-Richard]

55 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

 

If you can be more specific about your first point...

Conscientious, ambitious, industrious, high-energy, intelligent, assertive, strategic.

[IAmReallyImportant]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Conscientious, ambitious, industrious, high-energy, intelligent, assertive, strategic.

Everything besides intelligence can be trained. But this requires a trigger. At the end the more intelligent one wins on average.

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

Everything besides intelligence can be trained. But this requires a trigger. At the end the more intelligent one wins on average.

Yeah no.

[IAmReallyImportant]

56 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yeah no.

Yeah yes. You don't understand

[Windappreciator]

@IAmReallyImportant 

I side with @Carl-Richard on this one. Intelligence can be trained.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Windappreciator