Your opinion

[waldo]

What is sick is the presumption that psychopathy is somehow different than other brain abnomalities.

you mean different like... your assertion that being gay is a brain abnormality? Different like that?

[eyeball]

How do you know that psychopathy is a not result of some unidentified poisoning in the womb too? Wouldn't they deserve as much sympathy?

If that's the case then yes, of course they would deserve as much sympathy. I'd also think we'd want to take action to prevent that poisoning from occurring btw.

What is sick is the presumption that psychopathy is somehow different than other brain abnomalities.

Are you aware of any large corporations, political parties or countries being run by FAS sufferers?

[TimG]

If that's the case then yes, of course they would deserve as much sympathy. I'd also think we'd want to take action to prevent that poisoning from occurring btw.

Well there are really only two possibilities: it is a defect caused by prenatal poisoning or it is naturally occurring abnormality like being gay or addiction. Neither would warrant the disdain that many seem to have.

Are you aware of any large corporations, political parties or countries being run by FAS sufferers?

No - but only because FAS people have below average IQs and usually end up in jail because they cannot control their impulses. But there are large corporations run by any number of people with any number of genetic abnormalities provided those abnormalities do not prevent them succeeding within the system. Edited December 30, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Once again you are assuming a causal relationship when you have no rational reason to believe there is one.

I'm not even reading past this because you're wrong. I said the system benefits psychopaths. How the hell do you get a "causal" relationship out of that?

[TimG]

I'm not even reading past this because you're wrong. I said the system benefits psychopaths. How the hell do you get a "causal" relationship out of that?

This explaination is even worse because your claim makes no sense. Psychopaths benefit from any institution that society sets up so any book that attempts to single out business must be suggesting some causal link. If it doesn't then it is nothing but a mindless anti-corporate propaganda leftlet. Edited December 30, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

This explaination is even worse because your claim makes no sense. Psychopaths benefit from any institution that society sets up so any book that attempts to single out business must be suggesting some causal link. If it doesn't then it is nothing but a mindless anti-corporate propaganda leftlet.

The entire point of the book that you're missing is that the skills that are valued in the corporate world, the skills that allow one to succeed give a distinct advantage to psychopaths. They tend to rise to power much easier than others because they're incapable of empathy and they're manipulative. You can keep saying they benefit from "any institution" as much as you want that's just not true. Moving up the corporate ladder is particularly suited to their disorder. Babiak and Hare, the latter being the single most important authority on pschopathy in the world, have shown that a disproportionate number of CEOs are psychopaths, as compared to other professions. So, as usual, you're pissing in the wind here. When the person that created the diagnostic tool for psychopathy says that being a psychopath is a benefit in the corporate world, moreso than any other profession, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about. Just like climate science though, you'll pretend you know better. Edited December 30, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest Manny]

Psychopaths are often very smart and able to manipulate others into believing them. So it's understandable that they will eventually rise to power. We need to be especially on guard when psychopaths dominate in large, powerful organizations where they can do harm to a lot of people.

Thats not to say those organizations wilfully embrace psychopaths to become leaders, but due to their inherent competitiveness and disregard for traits like sincerity and fairness they are prone to it. And they command a lot of money and employ a lot of people.

Today the balance of power has shifted away from governments toward corporations. This shift was inevitable and foreseen for many decades. While legislative power still resides with politicians, our system allows lobbyists to influence political policy and to change laws to better serve the wealthy and to encourage profitability. Corporations band together to form larger entities, even going multinational, controlling vast amounts of wealth and having global influence. In some ways more powerful than a national government. Yet their primary motivation is profit, and constant growth for shareholders. Imagine if these entities are run by a board of governors, populated by completely ruthless people. It's not a stretch. It takes a certain ruthlessness to get into such a level of power. That, and special connections, an inherent disconnect from everyday, common people. The will to power is a complete lack of empathy.

[TimG]

They tend to rise to power much easier than others because they're incapable of empathy and they're manipulative. You can keep saying they benefit from "any institution" as much as you want that's just not true.

You can't say that unless you say specifically what you are comparing it to? A career in the civil service? Hardly an option for psychopath interested in money. A career in politics? I am sure there are as many psychopathic politicians as there CEOs.

When the person that created the diagnostic tool for psychopathy says that being a psychopath is a benefit in the corporate world, moreso than any other profession, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.

Again - compared to what? Being plumber? Arrogant self promoters and manipulators are going to do well in any sales job. Yet that does not mean sales jobs are inherently evil. They are a necessary part of the economy that we have. But that is what you want to imply.

As for your crack about climate science: your problem is you treat everything that you read as truth if it is something that you want to believe. You refuse to acknowledge that most of what passes for 'science' in many fields (especially fields like psychology) is basically opinion where the evidence was selectively gathered to support the pre-determined conclusions.

Edited December 30, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

TimG, ladies and gentleman! Doesn't like the research, so claims it's faulty. He's here all night. Try the veal!

[TimG]

TimG, ladies and gentleman! Doesn't like the research, so claims it's faulty.

You are projecting your own deficiencies on others again. I consider any soft science research claims to be nothing more than opinion even when I happen to like the claims. Edited December 30, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You are projecting your own deficiencies on others again. I consider any soft science research claims to be nothing more than opinion even when I happen to like the claims.

So you're just going to write off a number of academic disciplines because you believe they're nothing more than opinion? Sorry, but nobody cares what you believe.

[TimG]

So you're just going to write off a number of academic disciplines because you believe they're nothing more than opinion? Sorry, but nobody cares what you believe.

You are just bitter because you want think you can end a discussion by dropping some opinion piece by someone which you have annointed as an 'authority' (translation: someone who tells you what you want to hear).

In any case, I have explained why I don't consider soft sciences to be a reliable source of knowledge. The fact you cannot understand or refuse to understand my legimate criticisms says more about you than me.

Edited December 31, 2011 by TimG

[Guest Manny]

nobody cares what you believe.

[cybercoma]

You are just bitter because you want think you can end a discussion by dropping some opinion piece by someone which you have annointed as an 'authority' (translation: someone who tells you what you want to hear).

Sorry. I didn't annoint anyone anything. Writing off Robert Hare in a discussion of psychopathy is nothing short of hilarious. If this guy is not an authority on it then no one is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hare_(psychologist)

[TimG]

Sorry. I didn't annoint anyone anything. Writing off Robert Hare in a discussion of psychopathy is nothing short of hilarious. If this guy is not an authority on it then no one is.

Your problem is you take someone who may know alot about a topic and treat every related claim they make as gospel. In this case, he wrote a book that appears to imply that there is something wrong with corporations because the attract psychopaths. This smear by association is nonsense and one does not need to be an expert in psychopaths understand that. All it requires is basic understanding of logic (which you seem to lack).

To put it clearly: psychopaths are be attracted to corporations because that is where the money is. psychopaths are also master sales people so they will often do well in corporations where selling stuff is rewarded. neither of these facts provide any evidence that we should not have corporations or sales people. Yet that is what you and others are taking this guys book to mean.

So sorry if I upset your sensibilities by refusing to accept illogical assertions simply because they are assertions made by an expert.

Edited December 31, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

he wrote a book that appears to imply that there is something wrong with corporations because the attract psychopaths.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what the book is about. When you rattle off your opinions from a position of ignorance, your opinions become meaningless. Hare makes no value judgments whatsoever about corporations. Hare simply mentions that the attributes of psychopaths benefit them in these environments and goes on to discuss the ramifications of having psychopaths in positions of power. If you can't see a problem with psychopaths in positions of authority, where their decisions have serious ramifications for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people, then there's no point in having any sort of discussion with you because there's something seriously wrong with you.

[TimG]

You clearly suggested there was a problem with corporations when you said:

The point is you have to ask yourself is if the best system for humanity is one that promotes and benefits those who are completely incapable of empathy and compassion, like psychopaths.

If I am misunderstanding the book it is because of the things you are posting here about it.

If you can't see a problem with psychopaths in positions of authority, where their decisions have serious ramifications for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people, then there's no point in having any sort of discussion with you because there's something seriously wrong with you.

So please explain how exactly you would prevent this in situations where no law has been broken? Please explain why your system of "pre-crime" detection would not apply equally to any number of other groups of people who are potential risks (addicts, FAS, ex-cons, you name it).

Regards of what one thinks of psychopaths I think it is appalling that you would even consider denying someone a job based on how they score on a psychological test (tests that could easily be faked if required).

Edited December 31, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

It's appalling, eh? So you're out there advocating for pedophiles to be elementary school teachers? Do you also think they should get rid of all criminal background checks for every job? I mean, come on, we're denying people jobs based on mental illness (pedophilia) or discriminating based on criminal past.

[TimG]

It's appalling, eh? So you're out there advocating for pedophiles to be elementary school teachers? Do you also think they should get rid of all criminal background checks for every job? I mean, come on, we're denying people jobs based on mental illness (pedophilia) or discriminating based on criminal past.

Holy straw man batman! You are advocating that people who have committed no crime be barred from jobs because of how they score on a psychological profile. You need serious help if you can't see why that is different barring *convicted* sex offenders from working with children.

[cybercoma]

Holy straw man batman! You are advocating that people who have committed no crime be barred from jobs because of how they score on a psychological profile. You need serious help if you can't see why that is different barring *convicted* sex offenders from working with children.

You don't need a conviction to be a pedophile. You're advocating that someone with no criminal record that scores a particular way on a psychological profile shouldn't be barred from working with children, even if there is a strong likelihood that they would be sexually attracted to them.

[TimG]

You're advocating that someone with no criminal record that scores a particular way on a psychological profile shouldn't be barred from working with children, even if there is a strong likelihood that they would be sexually attracted to them.

Without a criminal record you have no grounds to justify testing of any sort.