↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

Tell me how you make decisions, and I will tell you who you are

Objective

This page aims to provide tools to avoid being helpless when problem-solving fails.

Summary

We propose a new method for classifying personality structures, based on observing the decision-making process between two individuals.
The ability to clearly identify the different personality structures described here allows one to optimize problem management, ultimately improving how we live together in groups, both at the family and professional levels. In other words, you can view this document as an advanced level of problem-solving course.

Furthermore, this classification is the product of an inverted approach to psychiatry. By that, I mean that for each personality type, psychiatry tends to focus first on the most extreme cases, because these are the ones society entrusts to it. Conversely, we focus here on the milder cases. These, being the most numerous, also face social integration problems and are poorly treated by current psychiatry, which applies, in a weakly adapted form, the diagnostic and therapeutic methods developed for the most severe cases.

Understanding the two-person decision-making process

Different decision-making modes

Two people having to make a common decision will ultimately opt for one of the following three modalities:

1. Delegation of power.
One says to the other 'make the decision'

2. Confrontation of reasoning.
Each presents their reasoning, critiques the other's, until a shared conclusion is reached.

3. Law of the strongest.
One imposes their decision on the other simply because the latter is unable to - or is not ready to pay the price for - opposing it.

Let us examine in more detail the exchange preceding the decision, and what it can teach us about the personalities of the individuals involved.

The a priori choice of the 'delegation of power' modality

First, one of the two people may spontaneously opt for the 'delegation of power' modality.
In addition to renouncing the decision, they thereby affirm their principle agreement with the decision that will be made.

Their motivations may be diverse:

Immediate force, protected by repugnance towards the escalation of violence

It occurs mainly for decisions of low importance, and consists of taking the other person by surprise and putting them face-to-face with a fait accompli. The option taken here is to leave them only the choice between abandoning or escalating violence, convinced that they will choose the first option.

This technique is learned in early childhood, in the family, or at school. In the family and at school, what is forbidden is fighting. An effective technique to improperly appropriate a resource is therefore to occupy the place, i.e., to physically interpose oneself between the other and the resource, leaving them only the alternative of abandoning or facing physical confrontation, knowing that they will very likely be held responsible by adults for initiating a physical confrontation, regardless of the validity or not of the initial obstruction. In childhood, the one practicing obstruction often doubles their act with a triumphant smile at the other, which adults replicate when resorting to immediate force leaving the other only the alternative of yielding or escalating violence.

The cognitive and cultural optimum of a human: the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality

Regardless of the personalities of the individuals involved, the constructive mode of interaction is:
If neither of the two spontaneously chooses the 'delegation of power' modality, then the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality should be applied.

During this 'confrontation of reasoning' phase, in the way the exchange is conducted, the person reveals their relationship to truth.
Is what dominates them sincerity, or social ambition?
Is the objective to approach truth, or to win and implement their pre-selected decision?
Do they engage in reasoning or rhetoric?
Do they prioritize facts, social conventions, beliefs, or particular interests?

However, all these elements that can be observed during this 'confrontation of reasoning' phase are less revealing of personality type than the ability to take facts into account and question beliefs. This ability requires combining a certain mental plasticity with a high level of sincerity. It is therefore less revealing of a specific psychic personality than a reflection of the overall level of psychic maturity.

At the end of the confrontation, a bad loser at the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality can block the situation through one of the following biases:

All these methods consist, once cornered at the argument level, of opposing mental inertia. Their use testifies to a limit in terms of mental plasticity in people who may otherwise be sincere in the exchange.

The following bias is of a different nature:

It consists of actively sabotaging the confrontation. It is therefore the revealer of lack of sincerity.

Finally, the following bias, as we will see further, is more characteristic of a certain personality type:

Giving up, or returning to the 'delegation of power' modality

One of the protagonists may drop the matter and choose to exit by returning to the 'delegation of power' modality.
If it is the protagonist of lower social rank who chooses to return to the 'delegation of power' modality, then everything is socially normal: they affirm that they accept the state of affairs.
In the exceptional case where it is the protagonist of higher rank who chooses to exit, returning to the 'delegation of power' modality, this can be socially interpreted either as a mark of weakness, or as a mark of trust or encouragement towards the other.

Imposing, or resorting to the 'law of the strongest' modality

Conversely, one of the protagonists may abbreviate the matter by adopting the 'law of the strongest' modality.
If it is the protagonist of lower rank who shifts to the 'law of the strongest' modality, they challenge the other.
If it is the protagonist of higher rank, they affirm a social rank gap all the greater as their passage through the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality was brief.

There are different tricks to try to hide, primarily from oneself, the resort to the 'law of the strongest' modality. Their common point is to impose the decision, while potentially validating the validity of the other's position, or showing empathy towards them. This aims to discharge the responsibility associated with the forceful passage. It suffices to invoke something beyond our control, such as the law, regulations, or the state of the art.

As we will see further, when the decision is not ultimately made on the 'confrontation of reasoning' modality, but is the result of a return to the 'delegation of power' modality, or a shift to the 'law of the strongest' modality, the feeling of the person becomes just as significant as the modality of the final decision.

The (non) implementation

Finally, do not forget to observe behavior at the moment of implementation.
Indeed, this is the only observation that truly allows effective detection of insincerity.

Presentation of our approach

Biases of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

We currently do not have a satisfactory model of human psyche functioning.

Faced with this deficiency, psychic therapy (psychiatry and psychology) has organized itself as follows:

This approach has a clear advantage:

However, this also poses multiple problems. First at the diagnostic level:

Regarding therapies subsequently:

Conversely, the approach we have adopted starts from a model of the human, presented in the question 'What is a human?'. This model can be described as behaviorist, in the sense that it explains the general behavior of humans without providing a model of their cognitive system.
In summary, unlike the DSM, we start from a structuring modeling (a theory), which naturally guides us towards problem-solving as the central optimal practice. This attaches us to the Social Problem-Solving (SPS) domain of psychology. However, our approach remains original in that it asserts that it is the transitions between the different stages of problem-solving that provide the most relevant information concerning the structure of personality.

Objectives of our approach

It is important not to confuse the following issues:

We seek to address the first issue.
The trio Police / Justice / Psychiatry deals with the second, even if psychiatry often does so involuntarily.
Psychiatry tends to treat the third issue, and in doing so, becomes largely subject to the individual's conditioning bias towards the vices of society, whether capitalist or communist.

What ultimately grounds our approach is the following dual observation:

This approach also has the advantage of consistency with the entire content of this site 'What to do with one's life?'. Throughout the pages of this site, we posit the capacity to effectively lead problem-solving as the central point of living together well.
Thus we can now define mature persons as those capable of conducting this problem-solving naturally, informally.
At the other extreme, we can define pathology as the impossibility of participating constructively in problem-solving, regardless of the formality adopted (culture, social conventions, reasonable accommodations, if you prefer) to make this possible for the particular individual concerned.
Finally, it is between these two extremes that the formalism described (the method described) in the second part of the book From Capital to Reasonintervenes, to assist groups or organizations in constructively and effectively practicing problem-solving.

Being able to accurately identify different non-standard personality structures, as well as thoroughly understanding their specificities in their implication in problem-solving, is key to effectively leading problem-solving, particularly to avoid wasting time and energy. Moreover, a problem-solving mechanism that works well is key to ensuring social harmony. After presenting the different personality structures, and specifying how to identify them, we will therefore address in the final part of this document some avenues for adapting the problem-solving method to non-standard personalities.

Remarks concerning diagnostic procedures

Note that a significant part of the observations we propose to make during the decision-making process can be made during a simple clash of ideas, that is to say a conversation where the two protagonists do not agree.

However, the therapist's position, whether psychologist or psychiatrist, is generally ill-suited to conducting the observations during decision-making that we have just mentioned, because the material constraints of their profession often provide them with only the testimony of one of the protagonists, as opposed to direct observation of the exchanges in the decision-making situation of that same protagonist. Hence the interest for him/her in provoking a clash of ideas.
Conversely, the protocol we suggest for diagnosing a personality structure is very practical to follow within a family or professional context.

Synthesis: advantages and disadvantages of the proposed classification

Advantages of the approach proposed here:

Disadvantages:

Overview of the different personality structures

Observing the unfolding of decision-making leads us to propose the following classification:

Please note from now on that we do not consider autism or psychopathy as psychiatric diseases or pathologies, but as variations of the normal. A good metaphor is the notion of weight, or size: being fat, or being tall, is not a disease in itself. It only becomes one in extreme forms.
For the record, we have just defined mental pathology as the inability to participate in the constructive resolution of problems, regardless of the method adopted to help the person.

Implications of the designation

When we say someone is tall, we mean something more than the median size, but not something extreme like 2m30. This means that tall altogether implicitly means slightly tall. At 2m30, we would no longer say he is tall, but that he measures 2m30.
In the same way, saying that someone is autistic without further qualification should be understood as meaning they are slightly autistic. If they are more clearly autistic, it is appropriate to specify that they are autistic like one person in a hundred, one in a thousand, etc.
Furthermore, historically, people who combined social interaction difficulties with mental deficiency were classified as autistic. We propose to reserve the term autistic to qualify the personality structure, and to more precisely qualify autistic people with mental deficiency as Kanner Autists. Today, Autistic Aspergers are qualified as autists who do not present mental deficiencies. Would one have the idea of designating hearing-blind people as blind people who are not deaf?
Naming the broadest class of individuals under the autistic designation instead of restricting the label to the most extreme groups has a social benefit of de-dramatization, and is indispensable for society to become aware of their social value by opposing the confusion between norm and optimum, and thus associating difference with deficiency... which must therefore be corrected. Conversely, no longer naming, for example replacing blind with visually impaired, is a form of counterproductive political correctness in the end because, due to the 'non' prefix that we added at the beginning, it continues to reinforce in the collective imagination the dangerous association between norm and optimum.

In the same way, we understand by psychopath the broadest class. In particular, we do not restrict ourselves to the small subgroup of associative psychopaths, those who commit crimes, and who, being overrepresented on the first pages of newspapers, are consequently overrepresented in the collective imagination.

The case of more than two people

Beyond two people, the individual tends to focus their attention more on the social effect they produce on the group, to the detriment of interest in the coherence of collective reasoning. Furthermore, the complexity of social interactions increases very rapidly with the number of individuals involved.
What can be observed of an individual in a context of multiple interactions – or even simply multiple presences – therefore tends to become more revealing of their social strategy, and their diplomatic capabilities. Therefore, it is not an optimal context for studying the structure of their personality.

The normal personality

We are not seeking here the characteristics allowing us to well identify the normal personality, which we prefer to define as the absence of a particular personality, but to establish some markers concerning normal behavior, which will subsequently allow for a better understanding of the specificities of other personalities.

The initial choice of modality

A normal person often chooses the 'delegation of power' modality when they consider their interlocutor to be of higher social rank, or of superior competence in the domain of the decision to be made.
They also often expect their interlocutor to choose the 'delegation of power' modality if they are of lower rank.

The (non) implementation

Facing a decision that displeases them, and which has been imposed on them by recourse to the 'law of the strongest' modality, a normal person will mainly oppose inertia, bad will.

Social ambition

The level of social ambition varies greatly among individuals with a normal personality structure. Social ambition aims at occupying a high position in the social hierarchy. It manifests through the person's dominant character, and presents an innate component as well as an acquired component through education.
What particularly interests us here is that the level of social ambition shapes how the individual approaches the decision-making process. In particular, the more their level of social ambition exceeds their cognitive talents, the more likely they are to multiply biases in order to avoid the 'reasoning confrontation' modality. However, as stated at the beginning of this document, a constructive decision-making process presupposes that both protagonists accept that the final decision be produced via the 'reasoning confrontation' modality. In other words, the nuisance problem vis-à-vis other group members stems not so much from social ambition itself, but rather from the gap within the individual between social ambition and cognitive competencies.

The level of social ambition can also be measured at the level of the 'reasoning confrontation' modality by the person's tendency to confuse the strength of an argument with the social status of the one who made it.

Psychotic personality

The psychotic is the madman, that is to say the person who, generally only at certain moments, has delusional perceptions.
In the article Should we listen to our emotions? we defined the psychic functioning of humans as the superposition of the system we called cognitivo-affective, and of reason which supervises it, possibly. We then presented problem-solving as the optimum functioning of humans, where reason works without hindrance, but also noted that in everyday life, it is much more often the cognitivo-affective system that is at work to make decisions. Among normal individuals, the cognitivo-affective system thus often tends to take precedence over reason, but the senses (sight, hearing, etc.) remain even more powerful than thoughts arising from the cognitivo-affective system. We now define a psychotic crisis as the moment when thoughts arising from the cognitivo-affective system also take precedence over the senses.
The psychotic therefore does not constitute a personality structure per se. Only the psychotic crisis exists, which does not occur in all individuals.

The 'reasoning confrontation' modality

Obviously, the psychotic is identified, quite easily, by the perfectly irrational elements they take into account to build their decision proposal.
The other personality that can use completely irrelevant arguments is the psychopath, but the psychopath's arguments are socially optimized for certain contexts or to destabilize their opponent, whereas the psychotic's arguments are a reflection of their personal anxieties, or more precisely the content of their cognitivo-affective system.

Gifted personality (or more precisely, super-learner)

The gifted person is one who loves learning, whereas for the normal person, learning is an effort that one only consents to in exchange for access to a higher social rank.
In practice, the normal person learns almost as much as the gifted person during their studies, albeit in a more superficial and utilitarian manner (to get good grades), but the gap widens afterwards because the normal person invests mostly in the game of alliances, while the gifted person continues to invest intensively in learning throughout their life.

The 'reasoning confrontation' modality

The gifted person is distinguished by the exceptional mental plasticity they demonstrate during the 'reasoning confrontation' phase, especially in their ability to take into account the interlocutor's objections and to reposition themselves accordingly.

Resorting to the 'return to power delegation' or 'law of the strongest' modalities

The gifted person experiences dissatisfaction in leaving the 'reasoning confrontation' modality when it does not lead to a common vision. Indeed, their mental plasticity and great sincerity allow them to make the 'reasoning confrontation' modality lead almost every time, provided the interlocutor is up to the task.

Autistic personality

The autistic person is one for whom social ambition is not a cardinal value.
In practice, they disrupt the group by misapplying social conventions, without however being in rebellion. One can also possibly see them as a person presenting failures at the level of instinctive social functioning (in what we call the cognitivo-affective system).

Initial choice of modality

An autistic person does not spontaneously switch to the 'power delegation' modality when their interlocutor is of higher social rank.
An autistic person often switches to the 'reasoning confrontation' modality from the start, without even testing whether their interlocutor would opt for the 'power delegation' modality.

The 'reasoning confrontation' modality

The autistic person is distinguished by their lack of use of arguments based primarily on social order, unlike a normal person, for whom for example citing a Nobel prize gives considerable weight to their argument.

Imposing, or resorting to the 'law of the strongest' modality

Like the gifted person, the autistic person experiences great difficulty leaving the 'reasoning confrontation' modality when it does not lead to a common vision. Indeed, the low credit they give to social rank makes it impracticable for them the door: the lower-ranking protagonist opts for the 'power delegation' modality. The exit will ultimately leave a more unpleasant impression on the autistic person than on a socially adapted individual.

(Non-)application

Finally, the autistic person will manifest primarily stress, and not just passive bad faith like the normal individual, in all cases where the 'reasoning confrontation' modality has not led to a common decision.

Other diagnostic elements of autistic personality

The autistic person exhausts themselves during prolonged social relationships, all the faster as the group is large and interactions take place in the mode of 'living room conversation' (psychological games of Transactional Analysis).

Another characteristic of autistic personality

A certain lack of empathy is attributed to autistic people, because they do not spontaneously synchronize their body language with that of others, therefore appearing insensitive.
This criticism ignores that the lack of empathy is general, because the standard personality feels empathy only on condition that the victim resembles them, that they can say 'this could be me'. In other words, their empathy is exercised largely vis-à-vis themselves, or more precisely within the limits of a nepotistic vision of the world: in a us versus them, it could be one of ours. In the general case, human empathy therefore does not exceed caste solidarity.

Psychopathic personality

The psychopath is one who does not access empathy. Behind a superficially respectable facade they maintain with care, only exist the relationship of force, bargaining, and manipulation.
In practice, they are neither mad nor stupid, but with them one cannot practice problem-solving. Either one controls them, or one endures them. Keep in mind that the psychopath is a particular type of scoundrel; not all scoundrels are psychopaths. One can also possibly see the psychopath as a person presenting failures at the level of reason, in opposition to the cognitivo-affective system, or an over-powering of the latter limiting its supervision by reason.

Initial choice of modality

A psychopathic person, if they do not obtain that their interlocutor spontaneously switches to the 'power delegation' modality, will switch to the 'reasoning confrontation' modality, but only at the level of appearances, as we will see.

Conducting the 'reasoning confrontation' modality

In the psychopathic person, the 'reasoning confrontation' modality is practiced in a particular and characteristic way, bewildering, even destabilizing. The general thread is to start from vaguely objective elements, then to drift from sentence to sentence towards something completely irrelevant, based on ready-made arguments and abusive generalizations. There is no possible re-centering of the debate because the interlocutor's factual objections are not really taken into account other than by insisting on shifting the confrontation towards irrelevant arguments. Indeed, the goal of the psychopathic person is not to build a coherent demonstration, but solely to provoke reactions in the other, find weak points, and exploit them. They function a bit like a judoka looking for which hold will allow them to take down their opponent to then take control of them. The content does not interest them.

Moreover, when they are in difficulty at the argument level, the psychopathic person uses all the blocking and sabotage techniques we listed at the beginning of this document (all opinions are equal, I don't believe it, beliefs, derailing the reasoning, postponing the decision, discrediting the person).
It is on this last technique that they distinguish themselves by being practically the only one to use it. Indeed, if they do not obtain that the other person switches to the 'power delegation' modality, then they will completely forget the substance of the initial question and seek to discredit the person opposing them. This is a reflection of the fact that in their mental representation, the other's disagreement is experienced as an aggression, which therefore justifies an aggression in return.

Imposing, or resorting to the 'law of the strongest' modality

Conversely, resorting to the 'law of the strongest' modality poses no problem for the psychopath, because due to their low capacity to consider the other, what is good for themselves is perceived as good tout court. Going to the detriment of the other does not generate problematic psychic consequences.

(Non-)application

Again, the psychopath stands out by not putting into practice a decision that displeases them, even if they had freely accepted it via the 'reasoning confrontation' modality. Indeed, for them, the 'reasoning confrontation' modality is exercised in theater mode, and therefore does not engage real life.

Other diagnostic elements of psychopathic personality

The four other characteristic signs of the psychopath are:
1. An imperfect sense of otherness. The psychopath tends to consider what is good for themselves as good tout court.
2. They do not feel guilt, do not recognize their mistakes.
3. They seek to prevent their interlocutors from speaking directly to each other, and tell them a very different version of the same facts.
4. They do not wish to change; they promise to change when they need to regain trust, and do not change.

Another characteristic of psychopathic personality

In the psychopath, generalized nepotism 'us versus them' does not really exist. More precisely, the 'us' does not exist. There are simply people they consider above them towards whom they will be envious, and from whom they will seek in an obsequious manner the protection, and people below them, whom they will despise, and who will humiliate without shame, and finally those at the same level with whom they will be in struggle.

Other psychic traits influencing the switch between different decision-making modalities

The following personality traits influence the decision mode. However, we have chosen not to present them as indicators of other personality types.

Affective insecurity

It is noticeable during the 'reasoning confrontation' modality by returning more quickly than the exchange justifies to the 'power delegation' modality.

Depression

Depression, or simply sadness, produces the same effect as affective insecurity of leaving prematurely the 'reasoning confrontation' modality to return to the 'power delegation' modality.

In other words, the indicator of prematurely leaving the 'reasoning confrontation' modality to return to the 'power delegation' modality is a sign of a suffering individual, and not an indicator of a particular personality structure.

Reasonable adjustments

Now that we have outlined the various personality structures and sketched a reliable method for identifying them in the field, let us conclude by examining how best to adapt the standard problem-solving process according to the personality structures of those involved. Indeed, maintaining a problem-solving process that functions satisfactorily remains our guiding principle for ensuring social harmony.

Facing a psychotic person

Temporarily abandon problem-solving: arguments are useless. One must simply focus on the emotional aspect to help the psychotic person exit their crisis.

When one is psychotic

When in crisis, one has lost self-control, and thus depends on the other person’s behavior. All the work therefore consists of what can be done when calm to learn how to avoid crises.

Facing a gifted individual (or more precisely, a super-learner)

The gifted individual is a powerful mental mechanism upon which one can rely. One can therefore allow them to move quickly, construct the analysis and then the solution, while oneself adopting a largely proofreading mode, or even letting things go when unable to keep up. Indeed, if it is later discovered that the overly superficial proofreading performed on the spot led to an unsatisfactory solution, it will suffice to introduce new facts to challenge the decision. The gifted person will not pull the “we already decided, we’re not going back” trick.

What must not be done: if one considers themselves socially superior to their gifted interlocutor, one must never allow oneself to be tamed by one’s own social ambition and seek to dominate at all costs, so that the exchange reflects respective social positions. “I am the parent, I am the teacher, I am the professional, I am the N+1,” etc.

If you want to help a gifted person, do not put obstacles in their path.

When one is gifted

Accept slowing down one’s reasoning to allow the other to keep pace, because if they fall behind, they will have less confidence in the final decision.

Do not forget that while, in the short term, it may be more productive to drag along a less gifted person, in the long term it is more productive to have helped them develop their capabilities rather than to have instilled a habit of passivity.

Facing an autistic person

In the problem analysis phase, the autistic person is less biased by social habits. They are therefore a valuable partner for problem-solving. It is crucial to understand that it is not the autistic person who is biased here, but rather normal personalities who accord excessive importance to social hierarchy, to the detriment of facts and thus of social harmony.

Avoid being normative. “You should have said hello,” “One cannot say that like that,” etc.
Remember that the autistic person does not speak the same language, because the same words do not rest on the same perception of the world. One must therefore first seek to understand each other, as with a foreigner making an effort to speak our language.

Also remember to use one’s own higher social capabilities as a neurotypical individual to calm the exchange. Without external help, the autistic person will follow an ascending stress curve that will both exhaust them and disrupt the decision-making process, or even provoke an outburst of aggression.
Conversely, avoid stings, perceived by oneself as social play (whose ambiguity generally escapes the one who throws them), which are perceived by the autistic person as aggression.

If you want to help an autistic person, teach them problem-solving, as with everyone else. It is just that it will be even more beneficial for an autistic person.

When one is autistic

Learn to perfectly master the elements described in this document, that is, to instantly identify each technique used by the person in front of you to transition to another decision-making mode, block the advancement of reasoning to avoid reaching a conclusion they dislike, or simply to assert their social status. This is far more useful than training oneself to decode non-verbal language.
When trained to decode the decision-making process as it unfolds, one also quickly determines the structure of the personality in front of you, and all this effectively contributes to reducing stress related to the exchange.
Also train to differentiate between problems whose non-resolution stems from a lack of technique/know-how, and problems whose non-resolution is linked to a lack of good will (which biases the analysis or implementation phase), to avoid exhausting oneself unnecessarily with the latter.

Carefully choose one’s social environment, because problem-solving conducted in a non-constructive manner—psychological struggle—costs more. Indeed, autistic people do not have access to the psychological games described in transactional analysis, which serve as a conflictual outlet for people with normal psychological structures, as well as a pathway to intimacy.
We remain social mammals, and as such, we have developed a habit during childhood of creating bonds through 'play-fighting,' that is, confrontations where one does not go so far as to hurt the other. Autistic people are very uncomfortable in such activities and are thus considered asocial by individuals whose access to intimacy necessarily goes through the reproduction of these 'play-fightings.'

When one is a psychopath

What I describe here is the psychopath whose education did not teach them to tame their nature, that is, who remained the all-powerful four-year-old child who does not access the age of reason. The psychopath does not access shared pleasure; only their personal pleasure exists, and the rule of the strong crushes the weak. If this shocks you, refer to the abundant testimonies in the book The Mask of Sanity which clearly show how psychopaths repeatedly deceive well-intentioned people. Also keep in mind that there is a continuum between normality and the marked psychopathy described here and in the book.

The psychopath is therefore simply not interested in problem-solving: the collective interest is nonsense to them, and showing interest in it is seen as a form of naivety. They approach the decision-making process as a pure rhetorical exercise coupled with commercial negotiation. Reason counts for nothing; only the effect produced on the other matters. In this sense, the psychopath is not only amoral, but also and above all irresponsible.

Facing a psychopath

Being diplomatic with a psychopath is to take one’s own dreams for realities, or more exactly, to display naivety or cowardice.
Facing the psychopath, the least uncomfortable position is to be above them in their representation of the social hierarchy, and impose a rational and balanced solution. By balanced, I mean that a third party to whom the problem would be exposed would find the decision pertinent, but also fair. However, I emphasize: impose. Negotiation is illusory, because once a global agreement is reached through negotiation, the psychopath will only apply the parts favorable to them and will forget the counterparty commitments.
An additional constraint when facing a psychopath is therefore to formulate the problem-solving solution either as a single proposal as suggested previously, or as several, but in all cases ensuring that one is in a position to impose the full application of one of them.

When a discussion regarding a decision to be made is initiated by the psychopath, and they spontaneously propose a solution, keep in mind that they may be trying to lead you into something shoddy. Furthermore, they will prioritize a verbal agreement, and if things go wrong, they will not hesitate to try to cover themselves by producing a written document that absolutely does not correspond to the initial verbal agreement.

If you want to help a psychopath, teach them problem-solving, as with everyone else. It is just that with a psychopath, it will be less effective, or not effective at all.

Deepen

Start with the fundamental question 'What is a human?' which describes our common general behaviors stemming from our shared genetic heritage.

But above all, to better understand what we ideally mean by 'confrontation of reasonings,' refer to the question 'What conditions must be met to produce a serious reasoning? Problem-solving.'

To better understand autism as we understand it here, refer to the book Asperger's Syndromeby Tony Attwood. The diagnostic method we have just presented is very different from that proposed in the book and in the DSM, which correspond to the state of the art. We merely claim that ultimately, our method identifies, more reliably, the same subgroup of people, these people being ultimately identified by the account of the singularities of their personal histories as reported in the book. In particular, our method is more stable regarding the autistic person’s capacity for compensation with significant intellectual abilities, the capacity for compensation related to women’s greater social aptitudes, and finally, the capacity for compensation related to the know-how of bypassing social obstacles acquired by the elderly.

Similarly, to better understand psychopathy, refer to the book The Mask of Sanityby Hervey M. Cleckley. Here again, our diagnostic method is very different, but we claim to identify, more reliably, the same subgroup of people whose singular personal histories are reported in number and detail in the book. In particular, our method is more resistant regarding the specific dissimulation of psychopathic people.
As a starting point to simply dispel clichés concerning psychopathy, and in particular that of the serial killer psychopath, watch the report 'Is There a Psychopath in Us? 42 - The Answer to Almost Everything' by Luise Donschen broadcast by Arte and probably available on Youtube.
Then, one can refer to the site:

  https://psychopathyis.org/

Finally, at a more general level, there are numerous proposals for classification by personality types or traits:

↣ Wikipedia article 'Personality type'

The problem with all these classifications is that they seek to divide the entire population into subgroups of similar people, which has little practical interest. Indeed, what is important from the perspective of the second great question of philosophy (namely 'How to get out of mutually destructive natural attitudes?') is: Will two people be able to reach a common decision that suits both? Our classification is more relevant vis-à-vis such an objective and aligns better with psychiatric observations.

Premise for validating the proposed classification:
Is psychopathy associated with the use of impulsive social problem solving strategies? G.T.B. Gerards, Bachelor Thesis, Tilburg University