Psychological profile of politicians

pragmatic1

Has anyone recognised sociopathic or psychopathic traits among our politicians from simply watching them on TV.

Jesus Wept

I have noticed one key thing which tipped me off, they are politicians.

pragmatic1

The-Rigger wrote: »

I have noticed one key thing which tipped me off, they are politicians.

It does seem a profession that might attract psychopaths and sociopaths. I'd just love to know which ones fit the profile.

Velvety

From the Hare Psychopathy Checklist:

Factor1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Factor2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".

Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release

Traits not correlated with either factor

Promiscuous sexual behavior
Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility

So in the first factor you have some traits that fit with that stereotype of a glib, ruthless politician. But the second and third group of traits are completely incompatible with being a politician.

It's easy to paint politicians as lying, amoral, unfeeling manipulators but where's the reward? There isn't a whole lot of money in it, nor is there any real power. Your every action is scrutinised by literally thousands of people.

The temptation to brand a politician a psychopath is understandable, I suppose. Why else would they promise to do things and then not do them? I think the real answer is probably much more mundane. You say you'll do things, you genuinely intend to do them, then real life happens and a load of **** stops you doing the stuff you wanted to do. Stuff you couldn't anticipate.

EyeOnTheBall

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Has anyone recognised sociopathic or psychopathic traits among our politicians from simply watching them on TV.

Interesting link ref: Obama's narcissism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJqw9XoyN8

Max001

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Has anyone recognised sociopathic or psychopathic traits among our politicians from simply watching them on TV.

Interesting question and I'm not qualified to say. However I did think, before I lost interest in the election campaign, that psychological profiling of candidates might yield some interesting results. Seems to me, voters are entitled to really know who they're voting for, so why not make this a condition of running for office.

Velvety

What do you mean? That it should be a matter of public record whether a candidate has received a clinical diagnosis in their past?

Or that there would be a requirement of candidates to undergo a battery of psychological tests and the results be published?

Or something else? Because both of those are ridiculous.

Max001

No on the former.
Yes on the latter.

Most large employers use psychometric testing as part of their selection processes. I've been using testing for about twenty years in such circumstances. Why not something similar for public office?

Ridiculous? Why exactly? Given the dire quality of politicians in this country, ought not there to be some screening of candidates, other than PR voting?

Velvety

Employers use various forms of aptitude tests, which are usually specific to some particular part of a job. Those tests results have to act as a reasonable predictor of success in the job.

I don't think it would be possible to develop any kind of aptitude test that would be a useful predictor of being a successful politician. What criteria would measure success? By whose yardstick?

If you're referring to other types of psychological testing, like personality or intelligence tests, there is no way you could force someone to undergo those and then have them published nationally.

Max001

You used the word 'force', I didn't. Also, are you seriously suggesting that aptitude for the job of politician is impossible to test for? If you can test for astronaut, fighter pilot, manufacturing operative, police officer, doctor....why not politician? Oh and that was rhetorical

Odysseus

Max001 wrote: »

No on the former.
Yes on the latter.

Most large employers use psychometric testing as part of their selection processes. I've been using testing for about twenty years in such circumstances. Why not something similar for public office?

Ridiculous? Why exactly? Given the dire quality of politicians in this country, ought not there to be some screening of candidates, other than PR voting?

What tests are you using? If you don’t mind me asking. I would be against it, actually very strongly. As it was mentioned the term clinical is fundamental here. As a clinician I very strongly believe that the matters discussed with me, have no place in the public domain.

As a HSE clinician I occasionally have to break that, if I have a genuine belief that the person will seriously harm another or themselves, or a child at risk. However, even then it really takes a lot for me to discuss anything about a clients psyche.

Even as a member of a multi-disciplinary team or when I'm writing court reports I may speak about how a person engages or their attendance. However, a person has the right not to have their psychological life put on display, so I do not disclose the content of sessions.

Over the years so many people have stated that they never spoke of something to another individual in their life and may never speak to anyone else about it. My employer has no right to enter in my psychological life, that is what my own therapy or in some cases external clinical supervision is for.

We insist on our clinical supervision being external to the HSE as even though the organisation may pay my wages, it has no business knowing about how the work I do for it, may impact on my psychological life. My employer has the right to know I am supplying the service I am being paid for; however, it has no right to know any clinical details about me.