Was Lord Chelmsford a psychopath?

I think Chelmsford might have been a psychopath, as many highly successful people are. I am not being flippant about this. Absolutely not all psychopaths turn into axe murderers - that is a stereotype. It is in fact a common personality trait - I will not use the word disorder as this is not what it is considered to be these days. It is just another part of the spectrum of normalness. Most psychopaths, outwardly become highly successful in their chosen careers through single mindedness and a ruthless determined streak. Highly desirable qualities in many professions.
I don't know enough about the life and times of the good Lord, but those of you who do, run him through Hare's 20 point checklist of psychopathy and give him a score out of 20. Then try it on your boss, and if you dare, yourself!

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.
2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.
3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.
8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.
10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.
11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.
12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.
18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.
19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.
20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.

Oh crikey!

Tasker, Wow ! How the heck did you come up with this topic ? Psychopath is maybe the wrong term, but apparently it is something that exists in all, however, it may only be an insignificant factor in most peoples' 'make-up', though able to be controlled by rational thought and restraint. Sometimes, it appears that in order to accomplish things - science, art, etc., perhaps even feats of daring and heroism, involves a certain amount of madness. Not sure about Chelmsford, but aristocrats did feel above all others anyway, look at the likes of the programme 'Upstairs, Downstairs' or 'Downton Abbey', where the rich and the less fortunate were in distinct classes, all knowing their place in life, the more affluent going on to become gentleman officers, whilst their gardeners became soldiers. I think many dynasties came to an abrupt end, in W.W.1. most of all, when well-to-do parents of officer sons, lost them on the battlefield. Whereas, other well-to-do families, so self-absorbed in their status, only worried about their gardens not being maintained. I did read on many occassions, senior officers had to be somewhat arrogant and have complete confidence in their own abilities to progress throught the ranks. How many high-ranking officers have you read about, that didn't have certain traits that normally would be considered erratic, manic or downright screwball, yet they accomplished great things on the battlefield ?

:lol!: it's all becoming a bit stupid now. :lol!:

CTSG - Don't you mean mad !

Tasker, I'm not sure, but wasn't there such a thing as a 'Section 8' in the British military system ?

Sorry gents tend to agree with CTSG on this one. You have both been posting well lately and keeping entertained, don't ruin it now.

CTSG/John, of course you are right. We are just joking.

Hi ColinJ.
I've heard of the ' Section 8 ' but not sure if it's an English or American terminology ?. Not sure if I heard it when watching the TV
Series M.A.S.H. ( Mobile army surgical Hospital ) ' Max Klinger ' was certainly after one . :lol!: :lol!: . Hilarious back in the day
and still so today !. :lol: .
cheers 90th.

Colin J. wrote:

Tasker, I'm not sure, but wasn't there such a thing as a 'Section 8' in the British military system ?

Hi Colin
Yes, you will have heard of people being "sectioned under the mental health act" or "as being a section 8 case".
Both refer to mental illness but are not the same thing. The section 8 term is still used by the Americans, even though dismissal under section 8 of some former US military law or other doesn't exist anymore; anyone medically unfit for service can be discharged exactly for that, be it a mental, emotional or physical illness.
It was certainly not in use in 1879 and there was no provision for it until the second world war. As you know, some notorious cases of death by firing squad occurred during the Great War when men who were by today's standards were clearly suffering from combat fatigue, or PTSD, or shell shock were shot for being "cowards." I am sure they would have been given very short shrift in 1879 also!
However, I didn't want this topic to go off at a tangent as to whether Lord Chelmsford was a basket case or not, because if you read my original post carefully, you will see that is not what I am asking and that is not what this is about. I only know about Chelmsford's military service, nothing about his personal life.
Based on my limited knowledge of the 2nd Viscount of Chelmsford, I could comment on only about half of the Hare test criteria, and he scores over 50% on that. I was wondering if anyone out there knew enough about him to score him out of 20!
Tasker

Tasker, yes, I did try to approach certain areas of your list in my first post to maybe explain why he was prone to being like he was, as you know he didn't really listen to people, at least pre-Isandhlwana, and was obsessive about small details, as in, organising the transport, etc., as he apparently couldn't/wouldn't delegate others for some tasks, insisting on doing it himself - sounds like a bit of mistrust ? perhaps thinking they wouldn't do it right ? A touch of an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder methinks. As mental health is a difficult subject, and the word psychopath brings up images of nutters, then it'll be the way the topic will go, as it is not our 'area'. However, I do seem to recall both Chelmsford and Glyn went into a deep depression after Isandhlwana, or as Churchill called it -'The Black Dog'.

Tasker
I don't understand. Your original question to start the topic off was, "Was Lord Chelmsford a Psychopath?"

Hi Tasker,

What may have started off as a bit of a joke when raising this question is actually based on some serious considerations.
I dont know enough about the persona Chelmsford to score him against your criteria , but I will venture to say that at the very least he was very Eccentric, to the degree where his interaction with others was disfunctional. This is a personal trait of no good to a leader of people, ie a very senior army officer who the Empire was dependant on.
To translate this all into today's management language, where were his POLC ing skills.ie;

P lanning
O rganising
L eading
C ontrolling.

barry

barry wrote:

Hi Tasker,

What may have started off as a bit of a joke when raising this question is actually based on some serious considerations.
I dont know enough about the persona Chelmsford to score him against your criteria , but I will venture to say that at the very least he was very Eccentric, to the degree where his interaction with others was disfunctional. This is a personal trait of no good to a leader of people, ie a very senior army officer who the Empire was dependant on.
To translate this all into today's management language, where were his POLC ing skills.ie;

P lanning
O rganising
L eading
C ontrolling.

barry

Thanks for that reply Barry, good point raised.
As you well know, Army officers were not appointed on merit back when Chelmsford's commission was purchased, but there was an amount (not very much) of promotion based on performance.
Chelmsford must have performed competently enough throughout his early to middle career to have been promoted up to the star ranks. Man management skills and interaction with others were not one of the criteria for promotion back then - in fact most generals and the household name leaders that we hold up as great leaderss were often sods to work for.
In today's army, any officer who treated his men like Wellington, Haig, Nelson, Guy Gibson or Chelmsford for example would be subject to disciplinary process and dismissed long before they made it to lt cdr / capt / sqn ldr. (Of course they wouldn't have failed in their careers, they would have received a modern education with modern moral values). However, a good leader back then and a good leader today share all the same qualities, and for the highest rank, (and this includes civilian careers also) elements of psychopathy are not a disadvantage. On the contrary, they can help build a stellar career - but other aspects of that person's life (social, family etc) may often be dysfunctional.

Tasker, you know a while ago there was a programme on, and what they did in it was employ a psychiatrist/psychologist to build a detailed profile on Marshal Ney, based on all known knowledge of him, including his actions at Waterloo. Interesting stuff. Do you think that'd work for Chelmsford ?

hi Colin, yes, that is what i was hoping to see build up on here.
if you can find the name of the Ney programme, i would really like to see that.
do you remember the conclusion Colin?

In Hare's criteria, I would score Lord Chelmsford 8 out of 8 on the first 8 criterium
Q9 and beyond, i do not know enough about him.

Admin.
Can you bring this topic to a halt? It's become very pointless, and very, very tiresome!
Thanks

Quote :

Admin, please would you remove my membership from the forum permanently. Thanks.

Done.

I guess there always will be casualties of war. it's pretty pathetic really why people seek attention buy throwing in the towel when it doesn't go their way.

I think there are many successful people who have psychopathic tendenices. My understanding is that a psychopath lacks normal human empathy. If this is chanelled appropriately he/she may acheive great things and be lauded by society. If it chanelled inappropriately we end up with Ina Brady etc. I do not think Chelmsford was a psychopath. I think he was an incompetent general but not a psychopath.

Eric. I think you have just save this thread from being locked down.

I aim to please.

Quote :

I do not think Chelmsford was a psychopath. I think he was an incompetent general but not a psychopath

And let's leave it there. Topic locked.