<p>I’ve wondered, are antisocial behaviour and leadership qualities mutually exclusive? I’ve always imagined a leader to be outgoing, while an antisocial person to be quite reluctant to take charge.</p>
<p>but you have some outgoing people who care if everyone likes them, so they won’t disagree with anyone. doesn’t make a good leader in my book. I know some of the friendilest people who would suck at organizing and managing people.</p>
<p>In my opinion an anti-social person is very unlikely to be a leader, where-as a social person could be, but isn’t necessarily. There are always exceptions, though.</p>
<p>I should be clearer on what I mean. Basically, my premise is that antisocial people don’t have leadership qualities and leaders are not antisocial</p>
<p>Well, what kind of leadership are you referring to? What about leaders of intellectual revolutions? Many of these could probably be considered anti-social.</p>
<p>What kind of “antisocial behavior” are you referring to? Many sociopaths/psychopaths (people who fall under the clinical definition of antisocial personality disorder) are powerful leaders in business and politics. Very many have “outgoing” personalities, if feigned.</p>
<p>^^^^ some leaders have no problem invading other countries, lying to their own people, bombing civilians, and profiteering off genocide…</p>
<p>^^^^ And others <strong>cough</strong> Bush/Blair <strong>cough</strong> prefer to liberate people who had been butchered and killed under the regimes of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers/supporters…</p>
<p>Ok, let’s not go so far as to use outliers that only exist as one out of a million people. I’m not talking about psychopaths when I say antisocial, nor am I talking about presidents or prime ministers of various countries. Let’s just use “normal” examples, whatever that may mean, such as the quiet, antisocial kid in the back of the class, or the outgoing guy in the front who takes charge of class discussions. These are the people I’m talking about.</p>
<p>people often use the word antisocial as the words quiet, introverted, or shy. i dont think that is what it quite means.</p>
<ol>
<li>unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people: He’s not antisocial, just shy.<br></li>
<li>antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening: an antisocial act.<br></li>
<li>opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior.<br></li>
<li>Psychiatry. of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated.<br>
–noun 5. a person exhibiting antisocial traits.</li>
</ol>
<p>—Synonyms 1. unsociable, retiring, misanthropic. 2. disruptive; intimidating; sinister.
—Antonyms 1. gregarious; genial, affable.</p>
<p>i would consider many dictators in the past and present as antisocial. but i would not consider BUsh as antisocial</p>
<p>being shy and antisocial are not really related form what i understand. when i think the term antisocial i think of antisocial personality disorder. being quiet/shy does not have much to do with being unfriendly</p>
<p>I don’t think that leaders necessarily have to be extroverts in the classic sense, but they can’t be anti-social. Someone who is anti-social actively avoids social interactions and, as a rule, dislikes most people. This is very different than a Myers-Briggs introvert, who simply lacks that craving for interaction and occasionally needs some ‘alone time.’ </p>
<p>Lots of great leaders have been introverts, but I can’t think of any that were really anti-social.</p>
<p>stalin was a little antisocial when he killed off his closest associates</p>
<p>“Ok, let’s not go so far as to use outliers that only exist as one out of a million people. I’m not talking about psychopaths when I say antisocial…”</p>
<p>About 4% of adult males are psychopaths. That’s one in every twenty-five.</p>
<p>It seems like you’re actually talking about introverted leaders, not antisocial ones.</p>
<p>In which case, no, your premise is bogus. Introverted people probably won’t enjoy the attention that comes with leadership as much as extroverts, but that’s not always a bad thing–would you prefer someone who leads because they crave the position and validation, or someone who leads because they have the skills and vision to back it up? Not saying that they’re mutually exclusive, but a naturally introverted person seems far less likely to acquire a leadership position just because they want to be at the front of the room. A certain amount of extroverted qualities are useful when it comes to convincing a group of your competence and sharing your ideas with people, but I’ve seen introverted people fake it fairly well, and charisma and extroversion aren’t the same thing.</p>
<p>Didn’t you watch Diehard 3? That dude was anti-social.</p>
<p>Agree with Pseudonym and ntel.</p>
<p>I’m inclined to believe that people who are generally antisocial aren’t “joiners”. How can you lead if you’re not a member of the group in the first place? Though it depends on the context. You can be antisocial and be an ambitious, high-ranking official or an expert in a field. In some careers, it isn’t really necessary to interact with others. So you can still be respected and a “leader”. But I don’t think people who are antisocial are likely to be heading up high school and college organizations.</p>