Take a moment to think about Frank and Claire Underwood from the hit Netflix show "House of Cards." These characters are egomaniacal, cold-hearted political climbers who, without giving anything away, will do just about anything to make it to the top. Admittedly, although I realize these characters have such inhumane qualities, I find myself rooting for them, liking them at times, even. Their ruthlessness and dedication to power inevitably gets them ahead, and the audience is obsessed to see how far they can go up the political ladder, silently cheering them on.
From an early age, we are presented with conflicting values. On one hand, we should share with others, be ourselves and do what we love, no matter what. On the other, we are faced with the harsh reality that in order to achieve monetary and social success, one might have to forgo his or her passions to some extent in order to reach higher echelons of society.
About 1 percent of the general population fit the criteria of psychopathy, and about 4 percent of CEOs are found to fit the criteria of psychopathy. Some criteria for being considered psychopathic include being selfish, unemotional, charismatic, over confident, having a lack of feeling and having a willingness to be violent or inflict violence. In a very popular book called 48 Laws of Power, the author Robert Greene elaborates on his ideas of power and success. Some of the laws include “conceal your intentions,” “get others to do the work for you but always take the credit” and “play on people’s need to believe to create a cult like following." This is not a book collecting dust at the back of Hayden Library — this is a best seller in the U.S.
This book appeals to many people, but has particularly appealed to celebrities and inmates; one could say two ends of the success spectrum in society’s terms. What is interesting to note is that psychopathy is found in about 15 percent of prison inmates, so how do the 4 percent of psychopathic CEOs correlate with this population? The only difference is perception.
CEOs are typically seen as the epitome of success, whereas prison inmates have been caught or were unsuccessful in their efforts to conceal their crimes. Had certain inmates risen to the “top” and made billions of dollars, I think we would consider them to be successful, we may even support them as presidential candidates.
This is not to say that we should all change our ideals of success (being cutthroat, hyper-confidence and showing a lack of empathy), or that aspiring to be or being a CEO is inhumane. This is to say that we should create ideals of success that are correct for our own personality — not everyone possesses the same qualities that reach societal expectations of success. And we should not have to compromise who we are in order to feel that type of validation. Realistically, we cannot change our paths if we feel that there is no future or stability in it. We can change our perspective and learn to incorporate doing things we love into our daily lives without forgoing them completely because of the fact that they won’t “benefit” us in the long run.
The fact is that right now is the long run. Our careers, family life or love life may change in five or 10 years, because success is a continuum. What matters is that we always make time for our own personal self-growth outside of the standards of society.
Reach the columnist at anshakoo@asu.edu or follow @ashak21 on Twitter.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
