I've some responses about multiple posts, so rather than comment individually I'm making a general comment. First, I also think it's simple to find "a successf

I've some responses about multiple posts, so rather than comment individually I'm making a general comment. First, I also think it's simple to find "a successful psychopath". Take the case of one Bernard Lawrence Madoff. Let's look at some criteria from the article: charm --- yes, clearly charmed people into "investing" with him, "charmed" his way into being the chairman of NASDAQ dishonesty --- yes, c.f. 150 year jail sentence lack of remorse --- I've never read of any on his part, have you? lack of empathy --- yes, otherwise how can you steal so many people's life savings? poor forethought --- yes, the scheme was so simplistic, so harebrained that the SEC ignored warnings, probably because no rational person would believe it! Second, as for "examples of psychopaths working together", isn't that pretty much the definition of "organized crime"? Most of their schemes are very simplistic, they certainly lack empathy for their victims, etc. Finally, I think it's too restrictive to limit the discussion to "rigorous, publishable research". How can you rigorously investigate 99% of these people? That's not possible. E.g. in Madoff's case his pathology was easily identifiable in hindsight, but researchers aren't just wandering around looking for businessmen to study. And certainly most "criminal masterminds" (gotta love that phrase) won't allow themselves to be contemporaneously "researched". Tony Soprano was the fictional counterexample, which is a big reason why that show was so charming. So "rigorous" research is pretty much limited to dead or uncooperative people. And if that's the case, just how "rigorous" is it? How do you understand Madoff's psyche without his cooperation? And yet he's clearly a psychopath. And clearly successful, seeing as he pulled it off for not years but decades.