6 ms·

Addictive Personality? You Might be a Leader

85 points by tilt 15y ago

FreeFull 15y ago
From the title I would have thought the article would be about personality spreading among people, not about the personality of addicts.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hammock 15y ago
I dont want to sound too hard, but I have an intuition that this is just a load of hogwash. The author racks his brain and comes up with a few examples of addicts who run big companies. What about all the big companies run by non-addicts (the majority)? What about all the addicts who don't run big companies (the majority)? These things need to be addressed before I'll start to buy the argument. And this comment coming from a habitual risk-taking leader himself.
- tilt 15y ago
  Is that me or the author is not implying that good leaders ARE addicts (to drugs) but that they seek success, progress, disruption, quality as an addict would seek pleisure "artificially"?
- jey 15y ago
  > What about all the big companies run by non-addicts (the majority) Sure, but the real question is whether "addicts" are over-represented amongst successful CEOs more than the general population.
  - jey 15y ago
    Looks like I should explain myself: If there was no association between having an "addictive personality" and being a successful CEO, we would expect "addictives" to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives. If being an addictive helps with being a successful CEO, we'd expect a higher concentration of addictives amongst the population of successful CEOs. The grandparent is presenting a argument a much stronger straw-man: that the majority of successful CEOs have addictive personalities. The original post does not make that claim.
    - corin_ 15y ago
      That isn't how statistics work. If 10% of people are "addicts", and 20% of CEOs are "addicts", it's fair to say that there is correlation - despite the fact that there are still five times as many non-addict CEOs. edit: Think this is actually the point you're trying to make, though I think you didn't quite nail it.
      - jey 15y ago
        I mis-spoke when I wrote "expect 'addictives' to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives". I meant to write "expect to find 'addictives' amongst the population of CEOs at the same rate at which they occur in the general popluation" or something. Would've been easier to write it out with math. :P
aj700 15y ago
That applies to everyone. Everyone will be, is likely to be later, or most likely IS addicted to something: caffeine? their lovers? orgasms? money/credit? shopping? chocolate? unhealthy floury carbs? cheese? power over underlings? if any of these are hard to go without in their current consumed amounts, they're addictions.
- tilt 15y ago
  I guess that's because how brain receptors work for anyone. Still, author is talking about people that are LESS satisfied than the norm, so they always need more (like addicts).
Mz 15y ago
The risk-taking, novelty-seeking and obsessive personality traits often found in addicts can be harnessed to make them very effective in the workplace. For many leaders, it’s not the case that they succeed in spite of their addiction; rather, the same brain wiring and chemistry that make them addicts also confer on them behavioral traits that serve them well. This is ridiculous in some ways. Yes, certain personality traits predispose you to certain things. But environment also plays a role. I imagine most leaders suffer from something I would call "bored gifted kid syndrome". And if they find a means to be adequately engaged, it goes away and stops being a "personality problem". In fact, framing it as "addictive personality" helps create problems by vilifying them in a way that seems inescapable -- like "you were born defective". My oldest son is profoundly gifted and was prone to "addictive" behaviors (not drugs or alcohol, but video games and such) and when we figured out how to meet his needs for mental stimulation adequately, he went from behaving like your typical grumpy, socially defective addict to being one of the calmest people I know. I never told him he was "defective". I didn't frame it that way. And it helped him find his way out of what often ends up being a psychological trap. Edit: There is a book that addresses the social aspect of creating addicts by imposing expectations that it is out of their hands -- for example, cultures that blame alcoholism on the alcohol have higher rates of it than cultures that hold the individual responsible. Title: "The Truth About Addiction and Recovery". One wife of an alcoholic who tried to hand me my head for recommending this book then went on to talk about "dry drunks" (people who remain "addicted" to alcohol while not drinking for years at a time) and that the real problem with alcoholism was all the "isms" (by that I think she meant beliefs?) not the alcohol per se. She was on such a tear, I didn't bother to point out that her remarks supported mine rather than refuting them. EDIT: Since comment scores are not visible, I will note that this is being upvoted, downvoted, upvoted, downvoted. I would be curious as to what is so seemingly controversial. Any thoughts?
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Nothing wrong with having an addictive personality. I'm like that, and I've never thought of it as an insult- rather, it's something I openly acknowledge. It's just one more thing I know about myself, that lets me try to make better choices to keep myself happy.
ReneeKline 15y ago
I paid $32.68 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, GrabCent.com
matthewslotkin 15y ago
what is the claim here? that some great leaders were addicts, so addiction is a trait of a great leader? please. it is interesting to note that some can simultaneously battle substance addiction and lead productive lives, but nothing in this article even remotely resembles proof of causation. that said, i can believe that the greatest thinkers and inventors in human history are those that were completely obsessed (addicted?) with what they were doing. people can become addicted to pursuing their vision, and in this sense the article has some merit. not well communicated however.
- matthewslotkin 15y ago
  show me a neurological study comparing passion/obsession with substance addiction!
mannicken 15y ago
I definitely feel that in my life. The urge to create things, to grow, to change myself, the condescendence at anyone who is satisfied with current situation. It's like someone is itching my brain, it feels very similar to craving nicotine, or caffeine, or just mind-altering substances. It's like someone is shouting at me "common, this sucks, now go do something" even when everything is seemingly awesome.
- presidentender 15y ago
  You have said in two sentences what I have struggled to express for many years.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
Hyena 15y ago
The article is mostly about addictive personality and the connections between addictive personality and innovation or success aren't really well drawn. Moreover, their anecdata suffers from the problem that people who are in a high stress environment may exhibit addiction-like behaviors which are are actually self-medication for stress.
xmmm 15y ago
Isn't this the reason why doctors give people with ADHD amphetamines? So that they would feel content leading their somewhat mundane lives?
schiptsov 15y ago
Rediscovering sublimation? Again? ^_^ It is said thousands years ago - control your emotions or be controlled by emotions. Freud emphasized that energy bounded to some emotions and mental states can be redirected, transformed, controlled. General Taosist example is a river overflowed with monsoon water. It sweeps out everything when uncontrolled, but if people have built some dams and walls in advance, then all flooding waters will run into more-or-less controlled way. So, if one can control himself why not use ones obsessions instead of being used by them?
- philwelch 15y ago
  "Freud emphasized that energy bounded to some emotions and mental states can be redirected, transformed, controlled. General Taosist example is a river overflowed with monsoon water." Freud was a pseudoscientific hack, and Taoism. while a nice philosophy, is not empirical science either. You've fallen far short of any decent standard of evidence here.
  - schiptsov 15y ago
    I have no time and intention to launch into a big discussion about scientific approach to mental states and their relation to the bodily ones. What I can tell for sure - describing and studying them scientifically in separation from other dynamic processes is deeply flawed approach. You can, for example, find tons of studies about so-called 'attention window' or 'working memory span', but they didn't even mention that those characteristics could be dramatically reduced under stress or any other state of overload. There are a dozen variables on which it depends on, from the time of day to a noise level. And, of course, calling Freudian works a hack is a little bit naive. Yes, you could call his Interpretation of dreams a hack, but he developed and extended a more general theory of mental dynamics, which, ironically, was known for aeons in the East.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      You can, for example, find tons of studies about so-called 'attention window' or 'working memory span', but they didn't even mention that those characteristics could be dramatically reduced under stress or any other state of overload. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=working+memory+under+stress&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C48 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=working+memory+under+str... Yes, you could call his Interpretation of dreams a hack, but he developed and extended a more general theory of mental dynamics, which, ironically, was known for aeons in the East. Which, by the way, is all scientifically unsubstantiated bullshit until you show me some properly documented and controlled experiments demonstrating otherwise.
astrofinch 15y ago
And here's Malcolm Gladwell making the argument that successful people are less likely to take risks: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_... Reality is reality. If you take risks, you open yourself up to failures, but the potential upside might be greater as well.

85 points by tilt 15y ago

From the title I would have thought the article would be about personality spreading among people, not about the personality of addicts.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

hammock 15y ago

I dont want to sound too hard, but I have an intuition that this is just a load of hogwash. The author racks his brain and comes up with a few examples of addicts who run big companies. What about all the big companies run by non-addicts (the majority)? What about all the addicts who don't run big companies (the majority)? These things need to be addressed before I'll start to buy the argument. And this comment coming from a habitual risk-taking leader himself.

tilt 15y ago
Is that me or the author is not implying that good leaders ARE addicts (to drugs) but that they seek success, progress, disruption, quality as an addict would seek pleisure "artificially"?
jey 15y ago
> What about all the big companies run by non-addicts (the majority) Sure, but the real question is whether "addicts" are over-represented amongst successful CEOs more than the general population.
- jey 15y ago
  Looks like I should explain myself: If there was no association between having an "addictive personality" and being a successful CEO, we would expect "addictives" to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives. If being an addictive helps with being a successful CEO, we'd expect a higher concentration of addictives amongst the population of successful CEOs. The grandparent is presenting a argument a much stronger straw-man: that the majority of successful CEOs have addictive personalities. The original post does not make that claim.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    That isn't how statistics work. If 10% of people are "addicts", and 20% of CEOs are "addicts", it's fair to say that there is correlation - despite the fact that there are still five times as many non-addict CEOs. edit: Think this is actually the point you're trying to make, though I think you didn't quite nail it.
    - jey 15y ago
      I mis-spoke when I wrote "expect 'addictives' to be CEOs just as often as non-addictives". I meant to write "expect to find 'addictives' amongst the population of CEOs at the same rate at which they occur in the general popluation" or something. Would've been easier to write it out with math. :P

aj700 15y ago

That applies to everyone. Everyone will be, is likely to be later, or most likely IS addicted to something: caffeine? their lovers? orgasms? money/credit? shopping? chocolate? unhealthy floury carbs? cheese? power over underlings? if any of these are hard to go without in their current consumed amounts, they're addictions.

tilt 15y ago
I guess that's because how brain receptors work for anyone. Still, author is talking about people that are LESS satisfied than the norm, so they always need more (like addicts).

Mz 15y ago

The risk-taking, novelty-seeking and obsessive personality traits often found in addicts can be harnessed to make them very effective in the workplace. For many leaders, it’s not the case that they succeed in spite of their addiction; rather, the same brain wiring and chemistry that make them addicts also confer on them behavioral traits that serve them well. This is ridiculous in some ways. Yes, certain personality traits predispose you to certain things. But environment also plays a role. I imagine most leaders suffer from something I would call "bored gifted kid syndrome". And if they find a means to be adequately engaged, it goes away and stops being a "personality problem". In fact, framing it as "addictive personality" helps create problems by vilifying them in a way that seems inescapable -- like "you were born defective". My oldest son is profoundly gifted and was prone to "addictive" behaviors (not drugs or alcohol, but video games and such) and when we figured out how to meet his needs for mental stimulation adequately, he went from behaving like your typical grumpy, socially defective addict to being one of the calmest people I know. I never told him he was "defective". I didn't frame it that way. And it helped him find his way out of what often ends up being a psychological trap. Edit: There is a book that addresses the social aspect of creating addicts by imposing expectations that it is out of their hands -- for example, cultures that blame alcoholism on the alcohol have higher rates of it than cultures that hold the individual responsible. Title: "The Truth About Addiction and Recovery". One wife of an alcoholic who tried to hand me my head for recommending this book then went on to talk about "dry drunks" (people who remain "addicted" to alcohol while not drinking for years at a time) and that the real problem with alcoholism was all the "isms" (by that I think she meant beliefs?) not the alcohol per se. She was on such a tear, I didn't bother to point out that her remarks supported mine rather than refuting them. EDIT: Since comment scores are not visible, I will note that this is being upvoted, downvoted, upvoted, downvoted. I would be curious as to what is so seemingly controversial. Any thoughts?

sliverstorm 15y ago
Nothing wrong with having an addictive personality. I'm like that, and I've never thought of it as an insult- rather, it's something I openly acknowledge. It's just one more thing I know about myself, that lets me try to make better choices to keep myself happy.

ReneeKline 15y ago

I paid $32.68 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, GrabCent.com

matthewslotkin 15y ago

what is the claim here? that some great leaders were addicts, so addiction is a trait of a great leader? please. it is interesting to note that some can simultaneously battle substance addiction and lead productive lives, but nothing in this article even remotely resembles proof of causation. that said, i can believe that the greatest thinkers and inventors in human history are those that were completely obsessed (addicted?) with what they were doing. people can become addicted to pursuing their vision, and in this sense the article has some merit. not well communicated however.

matthewslotkin 15y ago
show me a neurological study comparing passion/obsession with substance addiction!

mannicken 15y ago

I definitely feel that in my life. The urge to create things, to grow, to change myself, the condescendence at anyone who is satisfied with current situation. It's like someone is itching my brain, it feels very similar to craving nicotine, or caffeine, or just mind-altering substances. It's like someone is shouting at me "common, this sucks, now go do something" even when everything is seemingly awesome.

presidentender 15y ago
You have said in two sentences what I have struggled to express for many years.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

Hyena 15y ago

The article is mostly about addictive personality and the connections between addictive personality and innovation or success aren't really well drawn. Moreover, their anecdata suffers from the problem that people who are in a high stress environment may exhibit addiction-like behaviors which are are actually self-medication for stress.

xmmm 15y ago

Isn't this the reason why doctors give people with ADHD amphetamines? So that they would feel content leading their somewhat mundane lives?

schiptsov 15y ago

Rediscovering sublimation? Again? ^_^ It is said thousands years ago - control your emotions or be controlled by emotions. Freud emphasized that energy bounded to some emotions and mental states can be redirected, transformed, controlled. General Taosist example is a river overflowed with monsoon water. It sweeps out everything when uncontrolled, but if people have built some dams and walls in advance, then all flooding waters will run into more-or-less controlled way. So, if one can control himself why not use ones obsessions instead of being used by them?

philwelch 15y ago
"Freud emphasized that energy bounded to some emotions and mental states can be redirected, transformed, controlled. General Taosist example is a river overflowed with monsoon water." Freud was a pseudoscientific hack, and Taoism. while a nice philosophy, is not empirical science either. You've fallen far short of any decent standard of evidence here.
- schiptsov 15y ago
  I have no time and intention to launch into a big discussion about scientific approach to mental states and their relation to the bodily ones. What I can tell for sure - describing and studying them scientifically in separation from other dynamic processes is deeply flawed approach. You can, for example, find tons of studies about so-called 'attention window' or 'working memory span', but they didn't even mention that those characteristics could be dramatically reduced under stress or any other state of overload. There are a dozen variables on which it depends on, from the time of day to a noise level. And, of course, calling Freudian works a hack is a little bit naive. Yes, you could call his Interpretation of dreams a hack, but he developed and extended a more general theory of mental dynamics, which, ironically, was known for aeons in the East.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    You can, for example, find tons of studies about so-called 'attention window' or 'working memory span', but they didn't even mention that those characteristics could be dramatically reduced under stress or any other state of overload. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=working+memory+under+stress&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C48 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=working+memory+under+str... Yes, you could call his Interpretation of dreams a hack, but he developed and extended a more general theory of mental dynamics, which, ironically, was known for aeons in the East. Which, by the way, is all scientifically unsubstantiated bullshit until you show me some properly documented and controlled experiments demonstrating otherwise.

astrofinch 15y ago

And here's Malcolm Gladwell making the argument that successful people are less likely to take risks: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_... Reality is reality. If you take risks, you open yourself up to failures, but the potential upside might be greater as well.