Psychologists like to put everything in a nice tidy box. They have a clinical explanation for everything under the sun.

Consider the “illness” known as sociopathy. The dictionary definition of a sociopath is:

“a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behaviour is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

Now, maybe I am being silly here but it seems to me that a person so described is no more than what you might call nasty, a rotter, a cad, a bad egg or an unpleasant sort.

Is there really any difference between a sociopath and a bad sort? I’m not sure there is.

I read recently that a study of sociopathy estimated up to 4% of society “suffered” from the illness. This is the reason we get our bus-stops smashed, houses burgled, streets used as rubbish tips, and every other social ill you could think of.

This is the most common result of sociopathy but if a sociopath happens to be a politician or a member of the aristocracy, the effects of their antisocial behaviour take on new and dangerous dimensions.

A sociopathical politician could for instance, start a war on the basis of some hidden agenda. Surely that could not happen. It does.

There is a link between the morally bankrupt and success.

How many times do you hear of individuals who will stop at nothing to get to the top?
People who are ruthless in their pursuit of wealth?

The world is full of successful people who will rise to power by fair means or foul. In fact the secret of their success is that they are not hindered by and kind of normal moral restraints as you or I may be.

Given that it is easier for a sociopath to achieve the highest levels of success it stands to reason that there will be higher incidences of sociopathy among the power elite.

This helps us to understand why wars are started, economic piracy is conducted on

Get your free registration and log in to view entire article