are politicians psychopaths?

[HexHammer]

@Old_Gobbo

It’s based on a lack of empathy. They cannot connect to people. It’s a closed-system of emotion. All sentient beings, I would imagine, experience qualia.

Think you describe sociopaths.

[Gobbo]

Sociopaths are psychopaths. The difference is PC nomenclature.

[anon]

@Old_Gobbo

I supposed ‘required’ may be a strong word, but I certain think it helps a hell of a lot.

I agree that it can help. There is a big difference between that, and it being necessary to help.

Just because a psychopath can make decisions easily doesn’t make them a good ruler, necessarily. I’m trying to say that, in the long run, it’s actually quite bad to have someone like this ruling. As you have someone ruling that almost categorically doesn’t represent the subjects they’re supposed to be serving. One could argue a good ruler makes hard decisions, instead of being a utilitarian calculator because they don’t have emotions.

Great post, O_G.

[HexHammer]

@Old_Gobbo

Sociopaths are psychopaths. The difference is PC nomenclature.

They’r overlapping terms and doesn’t nessesarily have to be the same.

[gib]

@Old_Gobbo

A psychopath isn’t going to get scared, or any other emotion. They are going to simply make a calculation. Maybe I am glossing over the psychology of the psychopath, but I think the main definitional component about them is that they don’t feel emotion in the same way as we do.

I think you are glossing over the psychology of the psychopath. I addressed this in my OP.

[Gobbo]

Think about it: what is a psychopath? Consulting most psychiatric authorities, we get a definition that includes chiefly, but not exclusively: one who lacks a sense of guilt or social conscenience.

I think you might be as well.

[gib]

@Old_Gobbo

Think about it: what is a psychopath? Consulting most psychiatric authorities, we get a definition that includes chiefly, but not exclusively: one who lacks a sense of guilt or social conscenience.

I think you might be as well.

Fine, don’t read my OP.

[HexHammer]

@Old_Gobbo

It’s a lack of empathy: they cannot connect to people. It’s a closed-system of emotion. All sentient beings, I would imagine, experience qualia.

Think of a James Bond romance scene as opposed to a James Bond love scene - which cannot happen. Women are attracted to Bond because he’s the perfect evolutionary mate. He’s a stone cold killer. You think he cares about the fate of the world and it’s occupants? He cares about the mission, and fulfilling baser instinctual desires. He’s a psychopath.

My argument all along is that system of clandestine killing and dead logic has served us well (enough - I mean we’re still here), but now it’s time for a change. Time to grow up. Look around at the material cultism that has developed by elevating the non-emotions of these people. Why continue to do it? What reason can anyone offer other than the Faustian ego-centonism Americans just automatically hold up as a defense mechanism? There really isn’t one, I promise you. I come here every day looking for it.

Should we continue to espouse the positive values of psychopaths they will kill us all, and take your rightful potential for themselves. Have some pride, for christ’s sake.

Even though in itself your decription is good, it lacks much and in the end explains nothing.

One is only psycopath when one unmotivated breaks a relative norm.

• leaders who wage wars against eachother isn’t nessesarily psycopaths, even though their action will cause destruction and death en masse.
• soldiers who goes to war and kills the enemy isn’t psycopaths, nor when they kill civilians colateral.
• civilizations have had slaves for many thousands of years, whipping them, beating them …etc, totally disregarding the slaves feelings without being psycopaths.
• in the past parents would slap, hit and beat up their children, not being psycotic.
  …etc…etc…

[Gobbo]

@gib

@Old_Gobbo

Think about it: what is a psychopath? Consulting most psychiatric authorities, we get a definition that includes chiefly, but not exclusively: one who lacks a sense of guilt or social conscenience.

I think you might be as well.

Fine, don’t read my OP.

Fine, assume that the quote, from your OP, was the only part I read.

Now, of course, one is expected to object: how can a psychopath possibly succeed at governing society? The goal is not for him to gain power, but to see society through hardship and strife and towards prosperity and happiness. How can one who doesn’t give a shit for society possibly be trusted with such a burden of responsibility? The answer is this: when it comes to psychiatric dispositions, the rule of thumb is never to think in black and white. The difference between a ‘normal’ human being and a psychopath is not the difference between a social conscience and the lack thereof, but a difference of degree. Psychopaths do have a social conscience - it’s just pittifully weak. This is good news. It means a psychopath can be made to feel guilty about doing harm to others - it just takes a lot - about as much as an entire society willing to rend your head from your body at the first sign of your ineptitude and potential for making their life miserable - and such a society, let’s admit, can be extremely demanding and intolerant.

The difference isn’t in degree, the difference is categorical. I think you know that, too, as that is what clinical psychology is based on. We’re not talking about extremely self-interested people here; we’re talking about psychopaths. If you’ve ever met a sociopath/psychopath personally you’ll understand the difference. They are simply closed off. As much as they want to, they cannot feel anything but themselves. Their own desires. They will admit this.

So besides the bold being simply false, what you’re talking about there is the leader’s survival mechanism as guiding the leader’s decision making.

It’s interesting to note, though, that nowadays that doesn’t even apply anyways. Psychopaths in power can kill thousands, millions of people, based on the sole fact that they think there are too many people around threatening their rule, and the public is so stupid that there is no fear on the part of the leader. This stuff happens and the guilty are never held responsible. Or very rarely. The victims just shrug and chat on philosophy forums.

[HexHammer]

@ Old_Gobbo I think you should read a bit more than just a few lines of Wiki on psycos.

[Gobbo]

Maybe.