Psychopathy and Politicians

[danbaron]

[font=courier new]
External Internal
:) <--------> :D :grrrr: :lol: :twisted: :x :D

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m6d12-Serial-killers-and-politicians-share-traits

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new]
External Internal
:) <--------> :D :grrrr: :lol: :twisted: :x :D

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m6d12-Serial-killers-and-politicians-share-traits


Do you think that ruthlessness may sometimes be necessary if politics? For example, Winston Churchill ordered the French fleet to be sunk in WW2 for fear that it might fall into the hands of the Nazis. A ruthless act. But it could also be thought of as one that saved lives and shortened the war. What do you think?

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I make no claim to know much about history. And, historians, proponents and opponents, can endlessly speculate on a
politician's motivations, but the only one who knows for certain, is the politician himself/herself - and even that
maybe be subject to disagreement.

I agree that in wars, people are going to be killed - and the bigger the war, the more people die.

And, in wars, sometimes the only choice is between, the lesser of two evils.

But, it seems to me, that the justification for perpetuating an act that superficially would be classified as mass
murder, is often that the act resulted in a net saving of lives; for instance, the Dresden firebombing, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. It appears to me convenient, that this argument can never be either proved or disproved; because doing so
would require the replaying of time, and then, not doing what is trying to be retrospectively justified. So, I think,
anyone who uses this argument, although often expressing certainty, is actually, at best, speculating, i.e., "whistling
through his hat". (It's interesting to me how people generally accept the argument without examination, basically
because, that is what they have been told - and it's easier on the conscience, too!)

If there is in fact a connection between politicians and psychopathy, then, I would expect a politician who is
psychopathic to use the argument of the "greater good" (not disprovable), to justify what the non-psychopathic general
population would ordinarily consider to be evil. I would expect that a psychopath who becomes the leader of a nation, to
be someone who has no conscience, and who also deeply craves public adulation. Therefore, I think he would use any
argument that permitted him to do what he wanted to do, just because he (abnormally) wanted to do it (psychopaths have a
low tolerance for frustration), which still assured himself the continued flow of the drug he is addicted to, i.e.,
fawning sycophantic adoration: --> (Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection, after which is named the personality
disorder, known as, narcissism. I think that the subclassification at the extreme end of narcissism, just after
"malignant" narcissism, is, psychopathy.)

(I admit to having the same fascination with psychopathic serial killers, that I think many people have. It's hard for
me to explain exactly why. Maybe because, while I read a book about one of them, my life seems a lot better than it did,
just previously. Anyway, I read this one a long time ago. As I recall, it was difficult to read, and also, difficult to
stop reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Beside-Revised-Updated-Anniversary/dp/0451203267/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275878307&sr=1-7

)

:oops:
Dan :x :P

[LanceGary]

Thanks for the reply.

I am not convinced that the truth or otherwise of arguments about decisions in war can't be established. There seem to me to be two routes. The first looks at the empirical evidence of what was happening at the time. So I have seen attempts to calculate the number of expected deaths in battle of Americans when fighting the Japanese placed against the actual numbers of Japanese killed by the nuclear bombs. (Incidentally I think far more Japanese died in the fire bombing of Tokyo).

The second route looks at what happens when indecisveness rules when an emergency comes about. The placing of individual freedoms above the need to collective defence meant that the different Greek states fell to the far more ruthless Roman empire. The indecisiveness of the British and French in the 1930s was a major "cause" of Hitler's belief that he could do anything and get away with it.

My thought wasn't really to defend horrible people - just to wonder if psychopaths don't have some function in society and gravitate to politics for that reason. Perhaps it was a stupid thought. I certainly believe that the bombing of Dresen was (for example) indefensible (though I understand Bomber Harris's point that the Germans had used bombing as a weapon of terror, in some cases (in Romania) just as badly as in Dresden) and that it is childish to expect others to refrain from doing to you what you have so gleefully done to them.

Cheers

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]One thing I notice, Lance, is that the politicians start the wars, but they don't do the actual fighting. They send
others to do that.

We could also go down the road, of the fact, that the only way many people make money, is from war. The defense industry
(you notice the Orwellian word, "defense"), prospers during war. I wonder if there is a connection between that, and my
observation that the most powerful country in the world (the United States), together with its allies, always seems to
be at war. I'm absolutely certain that some corporate interests do all they can to continually influence politicians to
start wars - for them, almost any war is a good war - the exception being, one that is fought where they reside.

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that, if somehow it became impossible for corporations to monetarily profit
from war, then the frequency of wars, especially involving the major powers, would drop precipitously.

If you look at this link's chart, you'll see that the United States spends almost seven times as much on "defense", as
the number two country, China. Simultaneously, most of its citizens are continually becoming poorer, because of
corporate off-shoring and mechanization. In my opinion, these two facts demonstrate the priorities of those, "pulling
the strings". Additionally, to me, the idea of needing to spend seven times as much as the number two country, on,
"defense", is a joke. It reminds me of the mafia. The mafia man goes to the neighborhood grocer, and tries to sell him,
"protection"; like an insurance policy. What he implies, but doesn't say, is that, the "protection" that the grocer
would be purchasing, is from the mafia itself. In this respect, is there a fundamental difference between the dominant
country, and a gang, such as the mafia? (I think that at some level, many people realize this, but, it is too
frightening and depressing, for them to consciously recognize.) And, the mafia man doesn't go to the police station or
the army base to sell protection. He goes to the little neighborhood stores. Similarly, at least since 1945, superpowers
don't start fights with each other. They look for weaklings, like playground bullies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

:oops:
Dan :x :P

[LanceGary]

This article might be of interest:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_267d63de-5b0f-59fa-a8f7-7fab4774d3ad.html

It seems that psychopathy might be the result of some brain defect. If so then in the future it may be possible to screen politicians for this kind of defect...

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]That's a really good one, Lance.

Dan

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt](Quotes in blue, are from the link, just above.)

Interestingly, these patients had led perfectly normal and healthy emotional lives until their brains were damaged. Then
they started acting like psychopaths — to the extent that scientists have labeled their condition “pseudopsychopathy”
and “acquired psychopathy.”

(Another link, in support of the above quote.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/phineas-gage-1

Newman has come up with a potential explanation for this puzzling behavior. In another study done two years ago on
prisoners, he says, he found that an attention deficit rather than lack of emotion could explain psychopathic behaviors.
This would suggest that the psychopathic game players may have been unable to focus on more than their initial anger at
the lowball offers. “It’s not that they are incapable of emotion, or not motivated to use it,” Newman says. “It’s that
when attending to a goal, they become oblivious to everything else. I see that as a kind of learning disability.”

I have read previously, that psychopaths seem unable to project into the future, to see potential negative consequences
to their actions. I have also read, that when caught in a lie, a psychopath, will make up a second lie to cover the
first. Then, when caught in the second lie, he will make up a third lie to cover the second. Soon, there is a long
string of lies, that together, obviously, to the observer, comprise an impossibility of circumstances. But, the
psychopath seems oblivious to the unlikelihood of the sum of his claims.

If, their brains are unable to process more than one idea at a time, then these phenomena might be explained. Say, he
thinks, "I want 'A'". He would be unable to simultaneously think, "Getting 'A', may result in 'B', which then may result
in, 'C'", etc. Similarly, if caught in lie, 'L', he would make up, explanation, 'M'. If then caught in lie, 'M', he
would make up explanation, 'N', etc. He would be unable to notice the absurdity of the chain, L, M, N, O, P.., because
he could not contemplate the entire sequence, only the individual pieces. Maybe, it would be like, as the saying goes,
"being unable to see the forest for (because of) the trees".

It seems, that in the future, a person who commits a crime will be subjected to some advanced type of brain scan. And
then, depending on the result (score?), he may be able to successfully use a legal defense of, "diminished capacity",
implying, "diminished responsibility". And, like you suggested, candidates for powerful positions would also be
subjected to the scan. For those with physical brain defects, the positive implication might be, that they would be held
to a lower responsibility for their actions. The negative implication might be, that they would be precluded from holding
higher positions of power.

My guess is that if the test existed today, and everyone in high positions of government, politics, business, and
banking was forced to undergo it, then, probably 90% of them would be found to be occupying positions above the limit
deemed safe for society.

(On the other hand, the impression I have about psychopaths, is that they have no empathy, no sympathy. They don't
imagine how they would feel in the position of the victim. But, that could be because, in the position of the victim,
they would not feel much at all. In other words, maybe in order to have a conscience, you need to have feelings. And, if
your ability to feel is weak, then so will be your conscience.)

:oops: :x :twisted:
Dan

[LanceGary]

On the importance of feelings you might like to read Antonio Damasio (a Portuguese neurologist who runs one of the largest brain research institutes in the world). One of his books is called "The feeling of what happens", another "Descartes error" (Descartes thought that human rationality depended on reason rather than emotion or feeling). Damasio has done research showing that without proper emotions people (who score very well on IQ and reasoning tests) are unable to make sensible decisions, hold a job, etc).

Classically the importance of "sympathy" for morality was emphasised by the British philosopher David Hume - and there are a variety of modern philsophers who still support his position. The psychologist Martin Hoffman has empahsized the importance of moral "induction" when training a child. In other words if you punish a child who has done something wrong in such a way that they only think of their suffering from the punishment you will not be encouraging moral growth. A parent needs to get the child to see the pain and problems aused by their behaviour - in other words they need to feel sympathy or empathy for the person who they have hurt if they are to grow morally.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]In every case, the feelings come first, then come the intellectual arguments to support the feelings.

You see it especially, in politics, but people seldom realize it. Most people think their beliefs are perfectly rational, but, they're not (including mine).

Without feelings, there is no force to drive logical justifications.

There have been people who have suffered severe injury to a certain part of the brain, I think it is the amygdala. After that, they no longer have emotions (feelings). And, like you said, then, the people no longer have any criteria for making decisions. It becomes impossible for them to prioritize importance. They no longer will get dressed, they no longer will go to work, etc. I think I've said this before (or something similar); but if an affected father's daughter fell down and broke her leg, he would be unable to decide whether it was more important for him to take her to the doctor, or to brush his teeth.

A long time ago, they did frontal lobotomies, I think to violent criminals. If I'm correct, those subjected to the procedure, then became totally passive. They would just sit in chairs at the mental hospitals, and stare at the walls. But, their intellectual abilities were the same as prior to the procedure.

Dan