Fully 1% of us are psychopaths. Really. And while few psychopaths are the Hannibal Lecter type (or the Emperor Palpatine type, as it were), this group has caused untold misery throughout history.
When I read that scientists were finding differences in the brains of psychopaths versus those of normals, I was fascinated. What if scientists could invent a simple way to diagnose this condition? I thought. Would society be justified in monitoring psychopaths? Even before they’ve committed any crimes? And what if we could cure this condition? While answers to these questions may seem straightforward, the deeper I dug, the more unexpected complexities I found.
So I called up Dr. Mike Koenigs at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, one of the scientists doing research in this area. This guy enters prisons and conducts brain scans on psychopathic murderers and rapists—one on one, in a confined space, with the prisoners totally unrestrained. Are you kidding me! This guy has Hulk-sized cajones!
After this conversation (and three books on the subject later) I wrote the novel The Cure, in which the science of psychopathy takes center stage. And because I’ve been a sci-fi geek since I learned to read, I made sure that big science-fictional themes were an integral part of it.
So in celebration of the release of The Cure, I’ve created a sort of quiz involving some of my all time favorite sci-fi movie villains. You have to decide if they are psychopaths… or just very, very pissed off.
To prepare you for the quiz, I’ve provided a few sentences below on what makes a psychopath… well, a psychopath. To begin with, psychopaths experience emotions only superficially, if at all. They are fearless, narcissistic, and impulsive. But what may define them more than anything is their total lack of conscience. Utterly selfish, they are without mercy, empathy, or remorse. Never embarrassed or self-conscious, they can charm the venom from a snake, and are unsurpassed as con-artists and liars. You can find them in all walks of life: they might be unscrupulous doctors, lawyers, or even politicians. (I’m sure you’re shocked that skilled liars with no shame or conscience could succeed in politics, but you’ll just have to take my word for it.)
Before we begin, a few caveats. My knowledge of these fictional characters is not exhaustive, and my assessments are highly subjective. To really know for sure if someone is a psychopath, an expert would need to conduct an in-depth interview, looking for a history of social deviance, lack of sympathy, and personality and behavioral characteristics described above (but good luck getting Voldemort to sit for that).
Okay then. Enough said. It’s time to test your psychopath-spotting skills:
MAGNETO (X-Men 1, 2, and 3)
“In chess, the pawns go first.”
Magneto is a very tough call. The question in my mind is, is he a psychopath? or is he a sociopath? What’s the difference? you ask.
Experts use the word, sociopath, when this condition is due more to upbringing and environment, and psychopath, when it’s more genetic and biological (so in a sense, psychopaths are born, not made). Sociopaths can be brutal killers and still love, and make sacrifices for, their wives and children. Psychopaths have no loyalty or love for anyone. They could abandon their families without a second thought, or even kill them, if it suited their interests.
So back to Magneto. A merciless mass murderer, at first I thought he was clearly a sociopath. After all, he was savagely mistreated during his formative years at the hands of the Nazis. Talk about environments that could potentially drive one toward sociopathy. And he really believes that killing all humans (as Bender might say) is the only way to prevent them from killing all mutants, so in his mind, mass murder is justifiable.
But one scene from X-Men 3 (The Last Stand) turned the tide. In the scene, Mystique gallantly takes a dart aimed for Magneto—which would have erased his mutant powers, but now erases hers instead. She is turned into just an average, naked human (calling a naked Rebecca Romijn-Stamos average may not be entirely accurate, but as a married man, I’m sticking with this adjective). Then, because Mystique is no longer a mutant, Magneto abandons her! After she saved him! Even the cruelest sociopath shows more loyalty than that.
Correct Answer: Psychopath
KHAN (Star Trek Into Darkness)
“And after every single person aboard your ship suffocates, I will walk over your cold corpses to recover my people.”
What can be said about Khan Noonien Singh? Brilliant, charming, fearless, ruthless, and a master manipulator. A psychopath if there ever was one, right?
Not so fast. In my view, Khan is the counterpoint to Magneto. He is absolutely the classic psychopath, except for one thing: his fierce loyalty to his crew. One could argue he believes he needs them to further his goal of conquest, but my sense is that his loyalty goes well beyond this. This loyalty makes him merely a ruthless megalomaniac and sociopath.
Actually, loyalty and self-sacrifice are the characteristics that often separate our psychopaths from our heroes. Let’s face it, other than this, our James Bonds and Batmans often exhibit many of the same behaviors as the psychopathic villains they battle: fearlessness, charm, ability to lie and manipulate, and ruthlessness. But our heroes, like James T. Kirk, are usually willing to sacrifice everything for the needs of the one—if that one is Spock, at least—over the needs of the many.
Which brings me to a fascinating finding. Suppose there is a runaway trolley car that will hit and kill five people on the tracks. You’re standing near a manual switch and see that if you switch tracks, the trolley will only kill one person. What do you do? Most people say they would switch tracks, killing one instead of five. But would you still do this if the one person on the other track was your mother? Not so easy this time, is it?
There are a whole host of ethical-dilemma thought-experiments involving this basic scenario that make up a field of ethics called trolleyology (no kidding—I researched this for The Cure). What is interesting is that, while Spock may espouse the view that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, psychopaths have an easier time living this philosophy than do normals. For a psychopath, moral dilemmas like these aren’t really dilemmas at all—they just do the math and follow whatever it dictates. Save two people but lose your mom? No problem. The math is obvious. Because of this, one could argue that in very limited circumstances, a psychopath would make better decisions than a squishy, too-loyal leader like Kirk.
Correct Answer: Not a Psychopath
THE JOKER (The Dark Knight)
“Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can’t savor […] their last moments”
Yes, he may have had a rough childhood, but come on! Manipulative, able to weave brilliantly realistic tales (why so serious?), ruthless, fearless, and ridiculously impulsive. Shows no mercy or remorse. Amuses himself watching the suffering of others. This character is often incorrectly classified as psychotic. While many people use the term psycho to stand for both psychotic and psychopathic, these conditions are very different. While a psychotic is considered out of touch with reality, a psychopath is chillingly sane. While the Joker seems insane at times, schizophrenic voices in his head aren’t what’s driving him. Like all psychopaths, he’s well aware of the pain and suffering he’s causing. He just doesn’t care.
Correct Answer: Psychopath
So what about Bane, from The Dark Knight Rises? A tough customer to be sure, but a psychopath?—not so much. He’s too loyal to Ra’s al Ghul’s daughter, and willing to sacrifice himself to destroy Gotham. Psychopaths aren’t the type to die for a cause. Terrorists strapping bombs to themselves are unlikely to be psychopathic. Terrorist leaders, on the other hand, who glibly persuade others to do so while they remain safe, are more likely to fall into this category.
General Zod (Superman II and Man of Steel)
“The son of Jor-El will be my slave […] forever. Or else, the millions of Earthlings you protect shall pay for your defiance.”
This could go either way, depending on what movie you’re seeing. In Superman II (1980), and in the vast majority of written depictions of Zod, he is a fairly clear psychopath. Cruel to the core. In Man of Steel (2013) he is portrayed as having been a fairly loyal military leader, before disagreements with Krypton’s Ruling Council forced his, admittedly, ruthless hand. But there is one Superman villain for which the evidence of psychopathy is overwhelming: Lex Luthor.
Few fit the bill quite as well as this bald mastermind. Cold and calculating, even during the most stressful situations. A superb liar and con. Smooth as silk when needed. Charming. Self-centered to an impossible degree. And like all psychopaths, never takes blame for anything, and often sees himself as the victim. John Wayne Gacy provides a real world example of this. “I was made an asshole and a scapegoat,” said Gacy, after torturing and murdering thirty-three young boys. “When I look back I see myself more as a victim than a perpetrator.”
Trick Question: Both!
HAUSER (Total Recall, 1990)—Douglas Quaid’s real identity
“Howdy, Quaid. If you’re watching this, that means that Kuato is dead, and you led us to him.”
Hauser appears to be the ultimate psychopath, alongside his evil buddy, Cohaagen, the ruler of Mars who casually initiates the suffocation of hundreds of helpless people, including a three breasted woman and a diminutive hooker. Now that is harsh!
But as evil as Hauser is portrayed, he wipes out his own memory and implants the persona of Douglas Quaid into his mind. He may remain a fearless killer, but he’s now a righteous one—with empathy to spare. So if you subscribe to the definition of sociopathy as being about environmental influences rather than biology (or brain physiology), it is clear Hauser must have been a sociopath all along. If he had possessed a psychopathic brain, no matter what memories of a happy childhood were implanted, he would have remained psychopathic.
Correct Answer: Not a Psychopath
So that ends the first part of the quiz. How did you do? Since there are really no right and wrong answers here, just my armchair analysis, you actually couldn’t miss any. Be sure to stop back tomorrow for another round!
So what would happen if scientists really did find the cure for psychopathy? Well, on the one hand, we could rid the world of its John Wayne Gacys and Saddam Husseins. But on the other hand, our epic movies wouldn’t be nearly as fun. Hmmmm. Tough call.
Douglas E. Richards, who penned The Cure, is a New York Times bestselling author widely praised for his ability to weave action, suspense, and science into riveting novels that straddle the thriller and science fiction genres. A former biotech executive, Richards earned a master’s degree in molecular biology from the University of Wisconsin, where he genetically engineered mutant viruses that are now named after him.
Not sure I can agree with Magneto – like you’ve said, his upbringing during the holocaust, and his belief that the only way of preventing another against Mutants is for mutants to become the dominant group.
I think him leaving behind Mystique fully supports this — she’s no longer a mutant (as far as he knows). Whether you believe it was simply an ‘us vs them’ choice, or the fact that she now has the possibility of a ‘normal’ life, resulting in a less ‘pro-mutant’ stance, she’s (at best) no longer an asset, and is in all likelihood a liability.
I may be mis-remembering, but I remember him looking back at her with regret, but ultimately leaving her behind.
I find the thought of “registering” psychopaths before they’ve done anything wrong fascinating. Just like I did with X-Men. The ethical dilemma and inherent hypocrisies available make for delicious thought problems.
I also want to register my disagreement about Magneto. He seems to me to be extremely caring and passionate for mutants. He often spares the X-men whenever possible for the simple fact that they are mutants, even though they actively oppose him at every turn. He’s an interesting study to be sure. I mean the very fact that in his mind, the only way to prevent humans from persecuting mutants, is to become the persecuter first and most aggressively.
I think it would be more interesting to look at action heros and determine if any are sociopaths or psychopaths…
Also chiming in to disagree about Magneto. Aside from the reasons others have already mentioned, the whole premise is flawed because X-3 never happened.
I know this is restricted to the movies, but I couldn’t help thinking of the Golden Pulp Age. How many of Doc Smith’s heroic heroes were psychopathic? They had no compunctions about pressing a button that would blow up a planet and slaughter millions as long as they were “bad guys” (or at least their leaders were)? The Mule was a psychopath but what about Hari Seldon, who had no compunctions about what wreckage his Plan might leave in it’s path to new and greater Empire? Etc Etc. Discussion?
Another disagreement here with the verdict for Magneto. I think if anything it was a misstep in the script, changing his established character vs all the previous films/comics. And one incident also doesn’t make the verdict for me either.
“Experts use the word, sociopath, when this condition is due more to upbringing and environment, and psychopath, when it’s more genetic and biological”
They do? Elliot Leyton(Hunting Humans, http://www.mun.ca/anthro/faculty_staff/leyton.php), who knows as much about the subject as anyone, says there’s no difference. Which makes the quiz kind of moot.…
My issue is with the description of the Joker as impulsive.
In the comics? I guess.
In the Nolan films, he is excruciatingly meticulous, his plans couldn’t work without that. He is willing to roll with unforeseen outcomes of his plan(his subourning of Dent wouldn’t have worked if he hadn’t been willing to put his money where his mouth was), but he never changes direction or goals at a moment’s notice.
I think we’ve reached a consensus. You are wrong about Magneto. It is known.
My understanding is that “sociopath” is simply an outdated word for “psychopath” and is no longer used clinically.
I don’t think Magneto is a psychopath. He does feel remorse about many of the things he does, but that doesn’t stop him from doing them out of a sense of necessity. He cares profoundly about his people, the mutants, and is driven to do whatever it takes to protect them from the genocide he expects baseline humanity to inflict upon them. But his capacity for remorse and guilt is established very clearly in the comics, notably in Uncanny X-Men #150 where he’s devastated when he thinks he’s killed the teenaged Kitty Pryde.
Although the movie version of Magneto does do a couple of things that seem remorseless. As for abandoning Mystique, I see that as being more about racism than psychopathy; she’s no longer “one of us,” so it’s as though she’s dead to him. But in X2, there’s his attempt to “kill all humans” — or rather, to make Charles Xavier do it for him. I’ve always felt that was out of character for Magneto, because it is pretty psychopathic — not only committing genocide, but making his oldest friend be responsible for the act.
I think the problem here is that it’s not a simple yes/no question. Like most everything else in mental health, psychopathy is a spectrum, and different people have different combinations of diagnostic indicators for the condition. So some villains are more psychopathic than others, and you can’t pick just one quality that makes the difference.
Aeryl@9: Vehemently agreed; The Dark Knight‘s Joker is a brilliantly organised mastermind whose greatest success is convincing everyone he’s an avatar of chaos.
Hi. Thanks for reading my quiz! I’m really enjoying the great comments, so I thought I’d leave just one of my own and then recede. First, I’m not at all surprised that Magneto is the most controversial. He was my toughest call, and most of my friends disagreed with me :). But since I wanted a bit of controversy, and I wanted to discuss psychopathy vs. sociopathy, I knew this would be a fun way to do it. With respect to the differences between psychopathy and sociopathy, many clinicians don’t make/know the distinction, and even at the top of the field there is disagreement — with some believing they are the same. I’ve reflected the position of Robert Hare, who is considered by many to be the guru of this field. Those with interest in this debate might want to read “sociopathy vs. psychopathy” by Kelly McAleer, Psy.D, at this link http://blogs.psychcentral.com/forensic-focus/2010/07/sociopathy-vs-psychopathy/ Thanks again. I hope you had as much fun reading this as I did writing it. Doug
Mods, I flagged 14 as a double post. The dreaded monster reared its head on our valiant blogger.
@15 Thanks! Monster defeated.
@drthanatos:
Its also worth exploring in the context of Mau’dib vs Leto Atretes II. Mau’dib’s basic humanity wouldn’t let him make the necessary choice. He could directly see the consequences of this action, and abandoned it. Compare this to Hari Seldon.
Hari couldn’t see and feel the consequences of his actions. He knew what they would be, but from a cold, calculating distance. This isn’t psychopathy. Its too removed. Not for Mau’dib and Leto, however. they were able to directly experience the consequences of the God Emperor’s path. Even then, I don’t know if Leto would have been able to continue on the path if the path itself didn’t dictate that he not be human anymore.
@18: Point taken, and I’ve removed the reference in question. Thanks.
Thanks a lot, it’s greatly appreciated. Douglas did a great job of describing psychotic conditions without throwing that extra inflammatory word there; it just seem an unnecessary use of a pretty awful social stigma. I mean people with psychotic disorders have enough to worry about without people treating them as something less than human, right?
Just wanted to concur with those disputing Magneto’s diagnosis- he’s not a psychopath. A fanatic, yes. Psychopath, no.
Joker is the uber-psychopath. Zero empathy or remorse, just deranged nihilism.
“What can be said about Khan Noonien Singh?” Well, for one that pale thing isn’t Khan Noonien Singh. Just a poorly written pretender.
Come on, Mr. Richards, bad form not using (or even mentioning) Space Seed and Wrath of Khan.
DrThanatos@6, anthonypero@17
I think the more important point about Hari Seldon is that it isn’t that he didn’t care about the consequences, it’s that he had good evidence that any alternatives would be even worse.
Mikeda@23: Sufficiently advanced utilitarianism is indistinguishable from psychopathy.
In a world of 7.1 billion people, this means that there are about 71 million psychopaths running around out there right now. Scary thought.
@25: Well, as stated, most psychopaths aren’t the violent kind that the media conditions us to associate the word with. Indeed, in some respects, a modicum of psychopathy can actually be directed constructively.
Indeed, this article is about villains, but some protagonists are arguably psychopaths. I’d say Gregory House was one, and the Benedict Cumberbatch version of Sherlock Holmes is said to be one.
@26 No, House and Cumberbatch’s Sherlock might arguably be sociopaths (as even Sherlock himself insists), but they are not psychopaths. Both show loyalty, compassion, empathy, and love.
House is loyal to Wilson — SPOILER for the series end, he fakes his own death rather than leave Wilson to die alone. He demonstrated compassion to several patients (the old lady with syphillis, the little girl dying of cancer, just off the top of my head) and empathy (Thirteen). He loves Wilson and Stacy and said so to both of them.
Sherlock is loyal to John, Lestrade, and Mrs. Hudson (you saw The Reichenbach Fall, right?). He showed compassion to Mrs. Hudson after the CIA tried to rough her up, and empathy to Molly after hurting her feelings, and good lord, a blind person could see how much he loves John.
Both House and Sherlock can focus on their cases rather than drowning in empathy for the subjects of those cases. Sometimes they can have so little empathy that you can say they are sociopathic. But they are both emphatically NOT psychopaths.
Holmes? Naah. Aspie, yes. psychopath, never. He just thinks he is.
I tend to think that the Joker is the only one who qualifies here. If ruthlessness and violence in the name of ideology are psychopathy, then practically every political leader and every soldier that ever lived is a psychopath, which seems unlikely. Or at least, if psychopathy is that broad then it’s not a very useful categorization. Characters like Magneto have ideologies and loyalties, which aren’t really typical of psychopaths.
@28: Which is why I wrote “said to be one.” I find it a questionable interpretation of Holmes.
Colin R@29:
If the stats are true, and 1 in 100 people are psychopaths, then why is it so hard to imagine that world leaders and governement types, and soldiers, are comprised largerly of psychopaths. There are currently less than 1.5 million active military personnel in the United States. Most of those are non-combatant support personnel. Actual combatants, account for less than 30% of that force. So, 500,000 or less. There are more than 350 million people, including the undocumented, in the US. That amounts to only 10% of the estimated psychopaths in the united states, leaving plenty of room for the rest to find their way into other areas of life, such as civil service, politics, and crime.
@31
The problem with that line of reasoning is that you assume all psychopaths want the opportunity to kill people. Psychopaths are not defined by a proclivity to violence or wanting to be in charge, but by their lack of empathy with others. A psychopath could lead a perfectly normal life with wife and kids and no crimes committed if he felt that was the best way to get what he wanted.
How in the world did you get that out of what I wrote? Politicians and civil servants want the opportunity to kill people? I simply said that the amount of psychopaths in the country allowed for a large percentage of the military to be comprised of psychopaths and it still wouldn’t amount to 10% of all psychopaths. You’re making the same point I was.
I’m not arguing that there aren’t a lot of psychopaths or that they don’t exist–only that it’s difficult to judge psychopathy from actions, which are primarily what we see of both fictional characters and other people. Like, Magneto (at least the Magneto most familiar to readers or moviegoers) does not seem particularly more violent or psychopathic than any other leader. King David, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, George Washington, Tecumseh, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Adolph Hitler, George Bush, and Barack Obama are all responsible for more death and destruction than most people would ever be capable of, if only because they command the violent power of a nation. Were/are they all psychopaths? Some of them might be. But we don’t really know for sure–there are other forces and motivations and work that can at least explain the impetus for violence.
I know this is a casual article and not a clinical one, but psychopathy is something that clinicians diagnose, usually after a certain level of anlysis of not just their actions, but their thoughts and opinions. We don’t usually get that from fictional (or historical) figures. I think we do have examples of entire communities basically removing their empathy from other groups of human beings–whether it’s war or internecine conflict, sometimes a community will just decide that certain people have to die. So it’s probably enough to recognize that the leaders of communities that have come to those decisions often find themselves compelled to carry out that violence. That is probably a much more likely explanation for how and why leaders are willing to carry out violence than psychopathy.
I think that characters like Magneto or Khan probably fall into that category; they view themselves as tribal leaders. As far as we can tell this tribal identification is genuine–certainly a psychopath might be able to fake that kind of loyalty, but the loyalties here are probably genuine. More importantly I guess, it serves their stories better if they are genuine believers, and not just hungry for violence or domination.
Psychopaths aren’t inherently violent. They simply lack the ability to feel remorse. There are plenty of people who feel no remorse for any of their actions who don’t ever use violence to achieve their ends.
Some even know that something is wrong, and will try not to do it, in order to conform, because they believe that conforming will help them be better off in life. So, yes, its quite possible that MOST people who succeed in politics to the point of becoing a world leader ARE psychopaths.
@35,33
The main issue I had was not with the leaders, but with the soldiers in your original comment. Soldiering is a dangerous job without a lot of tangible benefits and I can’t imagine self-involved-me-before-the-world psychopaths would choose that unless they also craved violence.
As for world leaders, anybody who is willing to put up with the stuff they go through so they can have a piece of the power is either extremely self-involved or a saint. And I don’t think many are saints. The others are so self-involved the difference diagnosable psychopathy would make in their actions is largely academic in my opinion. The theory of government is all about designing the system to make your leaders do what’s good for the society if they want to stay in power.
See, I don’t really agree that soldiers or leaders are particularly likely to be psychopathic. Many psychopaths are irresponsible and impulsive in ways that can prove obstacles to military or civic jobs. The power or violence available to soldiers or leaders might appeal to a psychopath, but they often don’t have the self-control to stick it out. Those who do are very dangerous of course.
I think lots of people pursue paths to power for what they think are good reasons. I think in practice a lot of them find that they have a lot less control than they presume that they might. Many fall into evil actions not because they set out to do that or because they are dysfunctional, but because they are not up to the task of dealing with the power that they have. Being a leader is hard.
What makes villains like Magneto and Khan scary is that they’re NOT crazy; they are not psychopathic. Their motives are sensible, even sympathetic. It is their methods that makes them villains. Part of what’s comforting about labelling people psychopaths is that it lets us pretend that they are monsters–that they are different in some inherent way from us. Villains like Magneto and Khan are not psychopaths–that’s why they are frightening. Their motives are sane, even sympathetic; only their methods are monstrous. They are not so very different from us–somewhere along the way, they just crossed a line that most of us never will.
A real psychopath like the Joker on the other hand has motives that are inexplicable and alien–his motives are well, mad.
@36 Extreme self-involvement is one of the main traits of psychopathy. There are studies showing that the upper echelons of the corporate world have a disproportionate amount of psychopaths. I really don’t think it’s such a stretch to assume the same for politics. Soldiers, I doubt. You need to be able to cooperate with others and fit into a strict regime to be a soldier. I doubt many psychopaths could manage that.
@37 psychopaths aren’t *crazy*. They’re clearminded and know exactly what they are doing. They just don’t care if they cause other people pain. Most of them don’t have inexplicable and alien motives. Their motives always come back to selfishness. That’s why psychopathy doesn’t fall under “insanity” in courts.
I agree that Magneto isn’t a psychopath though.
@37: Let’s be clear: the word “crazy” is generally assumed to mean psychotic or delusional, out of touch with reality. Psychopathy is something different altogether. Although, granted, a lot of fictional characters who are alleged to be insane, like most Batman rogues, are actually quite sane by legal definition (i.e. they are aware of the nature of reality and the difference between legal and illegal acts), and would instead be classed as psychopaths or antisocial personalities. Using the same label for psychopathy that you’d use for psychosis or schizophrenia only confuses the issue — even aside from the other problems with using a loaded label like “crazy” at all.
I also, to clarify, wasn’t trying to imply that all sodliers were psychopaths. My best friend served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he cares deeply for both me and my family. I was responding to a previous comment, and trying to make the point that EVEN IF all combat type soldiers were psychopaths, there were still plenty more to go around. The exact comment was at @29. I was trying to show that there were certainly enough psychopaths for every world leader and military leader to be psychopaths. Not trying to say that they were.
The Joker is a murderclown who kills with elaborate high-concept jokes–if that doesn’t qualify as ‘crazy’ then we might as well retire the word. :)
Honestly I think ‘crazy’ is a better term for fictional characters than real-world terms like ‘psychopath’, because it creates a distinction between reality and fiction. Batman’s villains (for example) are not intended to represent real mental illness–they are expressions of things that we fear.
“Batman’s villains (for example) are not intended to represent real
mental illness–they are expressions of things that we fear.”
Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree.
Regarding Magneto. Psychopath? Nope. Paranoid, fanatic, and also a tad bit of a selfish hypocrite? Yeah.
The X-men film universe has better examples than him. We can argue that both Stryker and Sabretooth fit the bill better, but the best example is still Sebastian Shaw. He is clearly remorseless, and unlike Magneto, he clearly does not believe in his so-called ideals, he just uses it for his own gain.
The Mule was a psychopath but what about Hari Seldon, who had no
compunctions about what wreckage his Plan might leave in it’s path to new and greater Empire?
Whoa there. Massive misreading. The Seldon Plan didn’t destroy the Empire. The Empire was inevitably going to fall anyway. Seldon a) was the first guy to figure this out b) tried to warn as many people as possible and c) set up the Foundations as a way of saving something from the wreckage..