What happens if psychopaths take over the world?

euser1984

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

Valetta

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

Napoleon will come to the rescue.

ClovenHoof

You say this as if this hasn't already happened!

Hammer89

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Sociopaths already took over the 'would you date a fat person' thread so.

euser1984

What if they have already taken over the world?

There are numerous secret societies many world leaders have been part of....is it not reasonable to believe that it is in some psychopaths interest to be as powerful as they can be....just like any other man wants and seeks power....

https://youtu.be/1EYHlfRhxfc

fr336

Erm where have you been?

euser1984

ClovenHoof wrote: »

You say this as if this hasn't already happened!

I believe it's happened....I'm just opening a conversation

euser1984

Just to add in here quickly that the idea of the EU was hitlers and the EU made 212 billion euro profit from the recession....predominantly germany that has taken this.....is this world war three behind closed curtains....

artanevilla

Look out the window. That's what happened.

Michael OBrien

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

I think we know what would happen. Just look at the news. It already happens.
Psychopaths have diminished ability to empathize with their fellow human beings, it does not mean they have NO empathy and are not intrinsically malicious. It is a physical condition. A surgeon might be a psychopath to some extent if he can operate without being too much emotionally invested in the patient, but it can also mean he is not distracted and squeamish and can do his job better than others.
A politician can make clinical decisions without undue anxiety about the individual consequences to people, yet it might be overall beneficial to the society. Whether this is good or bad depends on the situation.
It is not a Black and White condition as it is a physical brain development issue I think.

Hande hoche!

Even more scandals involving body parts and pigs.

Earthhorse

Psychopaths don't run the world but they have a disproportionate influence on it compared to their number in the general populace. It's my genuine hope that as more research is done on them we can spot and counteract them and that their influence on our lives will lessen.

NachoBusiness

Who can say where the road goes.

Bongalongherb

Psychopaths are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.

Crafty little divils aren't they. It seems to be very hard to distinguish between a true good person and one of these folk.

fr336

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Even more scandals involving body parts and pigs.

If a working class person did such depraved things (I'm sure one or two do), they'd probably be written off as druggy scum or even arrested all these years later. As it's the wealthy prime minister, "oh well that's what they do at Eton and the like" :eek::eek:

Capt'n Midnight

By next year the richest 1% will own more than every one else.

Oxfam made headlines at Davos last year with the revelation that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent (3.5 billion people). That figure is now 80 – a dramatic fall from 388 people in 2010. The wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009-14.

From earlier Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over

The $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over,

If those 100 people had to pay USC 8% and PRSI at 4% then global poverty could have been eliminated in a little over two years.


Our ancestors used to practice reciprocal altruism in case they needed a favour back later. The super rich have money so they don't need altruism.

euser1984

I'm glad this has attracted interest because psychopaths do run the world at this stage.....of course they do....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBo7Ug_1M8k

the_syco

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If those 100 people had to pay USC 8% and PRSI at 4% then global poverty could have been eliminated in a little over two years.

Without poor people, cheap stuff cannot be made.

But even if we had the money, whom would we give it to? The corrupt governments who made them poor?

Manach

Looking at some examples from the Roman empire, fun times.

Iwasfrozen

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

Psychopaths already rule the world, it's an advantageous personality trait in terms of career progression and in a meritocratic society with equal opportunities people like that will naturally rise to the top.

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

Psychopaths don't run the world but they have a disproportionate influence on it compared to their number in the general populace. It's my genuine hope that as more research is done on them we can spot and counteract them and that their influence on our lives will lessen.

Maybe EH and I can see your reasoning and it's sound at first glance, but it might also be considered that the reason such individuals exist and indeed as you point out can be found to have a disproportionate amount of influence suggests we need them in some way as a species? Or at least the non "I'm gonna wear your skin as a blanket while I feast on your eyeballs" type.

That would be my take on it anyway. Loads of empathy while it may be healthy for the individual, may not be great when considering wider societal questions. The feels can sometimes get in the way and may actually cause more suffering in a wider context. Consider the current EU crisis, the love topic that dare not speak its name in AH. The empathic response would be to open up the EU and help, the non empathic response would be to look at other examples like Australia and how closing borders actually saved thousands of lives.

Full disclosure here EH, I would and have tested positive* for some psychopathic traits. My psychopathy more operates at a distance though and doesn't involve human organs in the oul fridge. Beyond me and mine my level of care drops right off an emotional precipice. The irony is I can appear more empathic than the average. I appear to "get people" more easily(which can itself be a box tick for a psychopath). It's because it's more a learned and detached thing, rather than an emotional connection thing. I have always enjoyed trying to pull meaning from fluid patterns in reality and people rock very fluid and shifting patterns all the time, so it was more an area of study than a natural thing, if you know what I mean?

Where I go off the psychopathy piste and back to "normal" is I do feel remorse for wrongdoing, I have a real hard on for societal fairness, I do form emotional attachments(though at a lesser rate than most) and generally speaking I'm not that much of a fcukwit. I did say generally speaking… Stop sniggering at the back, otherwise you'll be putting the lotion on your skin. If all that was missing I'd likely have ended up in the Daily Mail as a "Beast!". :pac:

To give an example, the recent photo of the dead child on the beach. I felt nada TBH. For me it was a bit of a media distraction, a collection of pixels that didn't resonate at all beyond the intellectual(Hmm OK so… what's the story, the background, how will this affect opinion, etc). And no this isn't desensitisation courtesy of the interwebs. I was always like this. A little cold, detached. "Psychopathic" as it were. However if it had been a friends child. Huge difference. Though to be perfectly honest I suspect I'd feel it a little less than normal folks even then, or I could compartmentalise it more easily.

I do think it's a sliding scale and as a "pathology" it like others can be advantageous. Autistic spectrum another example. IT is full of such people. Some of the largest clusters of autism are kicking off in "silicon valley" where these folks are marrying and having kids and concentrating the tendency. Your autistic spectrum people are almost like the psychopaths without social skills. A lot less potentially dangerous though, at least on a one to one personal level. Running huge multinationals with bazillions behind them… Hmmm maybe more of a concern.


*a couple of mates and rellies are in the psychology/psychiatry field. Indeed in the latter discipline one of them himself has tested positive in a similar way, but he reckons his detachment makes him better at helping people.

mg1982

There are varying levels of psycopathy and maybe having a certain level of detachment as it makes clear thinking and being decisive much easier. Obviously on the more severe end of it then these people are very dangerous and destructive in society. As has being said many high achievers in this world have psycopath traits such as in politics business and banking.

Earthhorse

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe EH and I can see your reasoning and it's sound at first glance, but it might also be considered that the reason such individuals exist and indeed as you point out can be found to have a disproportionate amount of influence suggests we need them in some way as a species?

Ah Wibbs! Wibbs!!! Too. Many. Words. I'm too tired to disputesyour whole post now but let me just say that no, I don't think we need them as a species we just don't need rid of them enough for it to be our priority so they're still around. I think in the future they'll be handled differently.

Take this recent article which shows that actually the vast majority of people who commit violent crimes aren't psychopaths:

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/people-do-violence-because-their-moral-codes-demand-it/

There's nothing psychopaths do of value that non psychopaths can't. Take Obama for instance; I hugely doubt the man is a psychopath but he has overseen some pretty hairy stuff in his administration. People can be detached, as for example you are, without lacking all empathy.

euser1984

Right then, so is it fair to say that some of the conspiracy theorists are probably correct? Is the world quite possibly run by secret societies?

Earthhorse

euser1984 wrote: »

Right then, so is it fair to say that some of the conspiracy theorists are probably correct? Is the world quite possibly run by secret societies?

Not in the sense that they mean it, no.

QuantumP

TED Talk summary of Jon Ronson's book 'The Psychopath Test', which is brilliant btw.

euser1984

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not in the sense that they mean it, no.

In what sense do they mean it?

Whitewinged

Earthhorse wrote: »

There's nothing psychopaths do of value that non psychopaths can't. Take Obama for instance; I hugely doubt the man is a psychopath but he has overseen some pretty hairy stuff in his administration. People can be detached, as for example you are, without lacking all empathy.

I think empathy is about being in touch with your emotions and being able to predict anothers persons emotions based on your own and how you would feel in certain situations. Some people feel this in the present while its happening, others sometimes look back and evaulate and regret how they have treated people, learn from it or deny it and justify with some excuse and others just suppress and dont deal with it. But thats not no empathy. Just other ways of dealing with it. We all probably deal with it in each of these ways at some stage based on different events.

The problem with psychopaths is that they seem to not be able to empathise at all or show very low empathy and understanding emotions. The opposite to empathy is apathy. So they have a lack of concern for other people and thats why they seem detached.

Because they themselves are not concerned for your well being, they believe you have no concern for them. This probably instills fear and self centeredness which creates a strong need for power and control (to protect themselves from people who they believe have no concern for them) but then what you end up with is someone in power with a lack of concern for other people which is dangerous.

ohnonotgmail

euser1984 wrote: »

Right then, so is it fair to say that some of the conspiracy theorists are probably correct? ...

If they are it is only by pure blind luck. Certainly not as a result of any process of logical reasoning.

justanotherone

psychopaths already run the world

the average psychopath is not a serial killer

they are the sort of person who will close down a factory without a thought about the impact on the employees their families and the klocal community

which is why they are so sought after in big business

gormdubhgorm

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

This book "Snakes in suits" covers what you are referring to http://www.amazon.co.uk/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893. But it is not a good book very repetitive!

mufcboy1999

Have you not noticed the amount of selfie obsessed narcissists in recent years ? It's too late. Take a scroll down any social media timeline and you'll see how mad people have become, and the best part is, its now considered normal behaviour, its border line mentally retarded :pac:.

Capt'n Midnight

the_syco wrote: »

Without poor people, cheap stuff cannot be made.

But even if we had the money, whom would we give it to? The corrupt governments who made them poor?

The bottom 50% don't make a lot of stuff.

If I had more money I could buy more expensive commodities.
If the super rich have more money then it's not going to be spent on the same sort of stuff we spend it on. There is no trickle down effect worth talking about.

Lots of people who lost jobs during the bad times had to come back in again at ground level. I don't notice prices going down for lots of things even though a lot of jobs have been yellow packed.

It's probably just a coincidence that the number of billionaires has shot up. The recession was a massive wealth transfer from poor to rich.

Eugene Norman

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

Have you not noticed the amount of selfie obsessed narcissists in recent years ? It's too late. Take a scroll down any social media timeline and you'll see how mad people have become, and the best part is, its now considered normal behaviour, its border line mentally retarded :pac:.

That's not necessarily pyschopathic. And it just proves selfies are easier to take than before.

The Corinthian

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

I've highlighted your original post to demonstrate that what you've written is entirely based upon hearsay. Not having a clue on the topic you want to raise is not a good start to a thread.

euser1984 wrote: »

What if they have already taken over the world?

There are numerous secret societies many world leaders have been part of....is it not reasonable to believe that it is in some psychopaths interest to be as powerful as they can be....just like any other man wants and seeks power....

So psychopaths are actually nine-foot tall lizard-men?

justanotherone wrote: »

the average psychopath is not a serial killer

they are the sort of person who will close down a factory without a thought about the impact on the employees their families and the klocal community

Actually quite incorrect. The difference between someone who has diminished empathy and someone emphatic is how the latter will allow that empathy far greater weight in their decision making. A 'psychopath' will consider the impact on the employees and their families and the local community, but will ultimately make a more utilitarian decision. Meanwhile someone who is highly emphatic will be unable to make unpleasant decisions, even if in the long term it will ironically cause far more suffering not to do so.

Now whether they prioritize company profit, personal gain, or the greater good is another story - the point is that diminished empathy allows for 'cold blooded' decisions that are all too necessary in society, such as cutting funding for one social programme so that money can be diverted to another social programme that will benefit more people, or a combat surgeon choosing who (s)he will save and who will be let die, or simply the capacity to shoot to kill (many cannot, even in self defense).

Also bare in mind that lack of empathy does not mean you're a psychopath. People on the autistic spectrum, for example, have emphatic deficits. Indeed, I'm not sure the term 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' is even used anymore; more common terms are anti-social personality disorder or even malignant narcissism.

I recommend you read The Wisdom of Psychopaths as it give a much better description of what psychopathy is than all this 'widely known' 'common belief' illiterate crap being bandied about in this thread and because it also looks at why ultimately we actually need some psychopaths in society, to do the things that need to be done that most of us lack the stomach to carry out.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The recession was a massive wealth transfer from poor to rich.

Well, rule numero uno in buying and selling is buy when people and society is running scared and sell when everybody's happy. A crash is the perfect time to buy. If you have the money and you can find sellers. The sellers part is easy enough as in boom times people inevitably over leverage themselves so can only sit on big assets for so long, the fuse is lit. Boom/bust economics is catnip to the wealthy, they can make money on the way up and on the way down increasing their wealth as they go, while the poor get poorer, the middle class gets contracted and more leveraged.

They have to have the talent to spot when one state is changing into another and the balls to make big decisions though. That's the trick. You also need to be outside the everyday folks working jobs. They're far more restricted(unless their jobs pay them a lot).

Whitewinged

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now whether they prioritize company profit, personal gain, or the greater good is another story - the point is that diminished empathy allows for 'cold blooded' decisions that are all too necessary in society, such as cutting funding for one social programme so that money can be diverted to another social programme that will benefit more people, or a combat surgeon choosing who (s)he will save and who will be let die, or simply the capacity to shoot to kill (many cannot, even in self defense).
t.

I dont think you have to be a pyscopath to cut funding. A good leader can make logical decisions along with compassionate decisions and weigh up what is the best decision overall.

I worked with a woman who was the leader of a team who I believed to be a psychopath. I remember she gave me some valuble information on a task but told me to "keep it quiet" from the rest of the team. The whole team including her would benefit from knowing this information. But she would prefer to give me the information in return for my loyalty to her and keep the information from everyone else to have an advantage over them. Its little things like that, that get them into power but they are probably not the best leader overall.

I would be wary of glamorising the condition as a another type of species as it is a disorded way of thinking. Not that it is right or wrong way of thinking but just how peoples minds adapt and percieve the world.

jimgoose

Psychopathy is more common than you might think, most of them don't run around with chainsaws and hockey-masks. Much. Of course the personality traits of a typical psychopath makes it somewhat likely that they will attain positions of power and influence. That's sort of the nature of the baysht. :pac:

euser1984

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've highlighted your original post to demonstrate that what you've written is entirely based upon hearsay. Not having a clue on the topic you want to raise is not a good start to a thread.

So psychopaths are actually nine-foot tall lizard-men?

Actually quite incorrect. The difference between someone who has diminished empathy and someone emphatic is how the latter will allow that empathy far greater weight in their decision making. A 'psychopath' will consider the impact on the employees and their families and the local community, but will ultimately make a more utilitarian decision. Meanwhile someone who is highly emphatic will be unable to make unpleasant decisions, even if in the long term it will ironically cause far more suffering not to do so.

Now whether they prioritize company profit, personal gain, or the greater good is another story - the point is that diminished empathy allows for 'cold blooded' decisions that are all too necessary in society, such as cutting funding for one social programme so that money can be diverted to another social programme that will benefit more people, or a combat surgeon choosing who (s)he will save and who will be let die, or simply the capacity to shoot to kill (many cannot, even in self defense).

Also bare in mind that lack of empathy does not mean you're a psychopath. People on the autistic spectrum, for example, have emphatic deficits. Indeed, I'm not sure the term 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' is even used anymore; more common terms are anti-social personality disorder or even malignant narcissism.

I recommend you read The Wisdom of Psychopaths as it give a much better description of what psychopathy is than all this 'widely known' 'common belief' illiterate crap being bandied about in this thread and because it also looks at why ultimately we actually need some psychopaths in society, to do the things that need to be done that most of us lack the stomach to carry out.

I'll check out the book but my understanding of the dangerous psychopath is one of self interest only of which there are some, just like there are psychopathic serial killers. I suppose it's those people I'm referring to. What would happen if these people ruled the world?

I just typed this thread up really quickly without googling the numbers (I had a rough idea) to get a conversation flowing.

The lizard men is bizarre yes but can't just be written off completely because it can't be proven. It could also be Ickes' marketing strategy to get his main message out - he is one of the most successful theorists. Do you believe some of the things he says may be valid? I don't like all this connection to the pyramids thing etc. etc. but he does make some valid points....such as how the banking system is set up so the money always goes back to the few.

I do believe there is loads going on around us that our 5 senses can't pick up. I do believe in spirits because somebody that I trust has first hand experience. In physics now, they are talking about other dimensions.

The Corinthian

Whitewinged wrote: »

I dont think you have to be a pyscopath to cut funding. A good leader can make logical decisions along with compassionate decisions and weigh up what is the best decision overall.

I never said you did have to be a psychopath to do so. I said it helps to have an emphatic deficit to do so and that not all those with emphatic deficits are psychopaths. The reason being that any leader who is too emphatic will have problems making any decision that will involve the suffering of others.

jimgoose wrote: »

Of course the personality traits of a typical psychopath makes it somewhat likely that they will attain positions of power and influence.

Not true. Hare's famous Psychopathy Checklist also includes other traits such as:

• Lack of realistic, long-term goals
• Impulsivity
• Irresponsibility
• Poor behavioral controls
• Proneness to boredom

None of which are traits that are likely to get someone into a position of power. Indeed, most psychopaths are in prison, often because they have acted on impulse and thus gotten caught.

allibastor

euser1984 wrote: »

Here's a part from the definition of a psychopath (these are the white collar crime smart guys you hear about) They experience diminished empathy and remorse for actions. In other words they murder somebody, it's just nothing to them. It might be like throwing a little box on the street after your finished eating the sweets out of it.

Or starting a rumor at work about someone to make them look good. It is believed that the guys in Enron were psychopaths. The common belief that a psychopath is a crazy guy running around with a gun killing people is incorrect.

It is widely known and studied that there are (I think) 1 in every 100 people with this condition. That means there are a few around your town, and if they wanted something they could take your life and it wouldn't bother them one bit. They are experts at pretending they are not psychopaths.

When you get to the leadership level in business you find a much higher percentage of psychopaths than that 1%...it is actually regarded as a serious problem for hr to deal with in the workplace.....

IF....

It has happened already. The people with the megabucks who talk about change and do nothing about it really. The wealth that is there is the top 0.5% of the country can clear up most of the problems that the rest of the poor class have, but doesnt.

Plus, you have people working to build more and more out there computer systems to replace the basic function of people, all for profit and advancement. doesn't see that it will end badly.

Is that not Psychopathic behavior.

Whitewinged

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said you did have to be a psychopath to do so. I said it helps to have an emphatic deficit to do so and that not all those with emphatic deficits are psychopaths. The reason being that any leader who is too emphatic will have problems making any decision that will involve the suffering of others.
ht.

Ah yea i know what you are saying. It helps the person themself to deal with their own decisions however this is still not good leadership. You need someone who is going to make decisions for other people to really consider the effect of the suffering they may cause by making that decision and a psychopath is less likely to do this wisely because they are less concerned. Sometimes tough decisions have to be made and a good leader will take all on board beforehand.

Thats why it not good if they are portrayed as another species of man who are tough, hard faced and willing to make tough decisions and you paint a picture of this powerful courages person but really they are people who are making illogical decisions and may miss the overall benefit or impact of decisions they are allowed to make.

a psychopath wont make good decisions and an empath wont make good decisions. But a balanced person will make the best decision they can with the obstacles they are faced with.

The Corinthian

euser1984 wrote: »

I'll check out the book but my understanding of the dangerous psychopath is one of self interest only of which there are some, just like there are psychopathic serial killers. I suppose it's those people I'm referring to. What would happen if these people ruled the world?

The problem is that you don't really know what a psychopath is. This is understandable as even the psychiatric profession does not seem to know either and the definition has changed numerous times over the years.

This has led you to postulate that because some in power share some traits (in fact only one) with psychopaths, then they must also be psychopaths - which is a logical fallacy.

The lizard men is bizarre yes but can't just be written off completely because it can't be proven. It could also be Ickes' marketing strategy to get his main message out - he is one of the most successful theorists. Do you believe some of the things he says may be valid? I don't like all this connection to the pyramids thing etc. etc. but he does make some valid points....such as how the banking system is set up so the money always goes back to the few.

No, I do not believe that some of the things he says may be valid. I believe that his 'theories' are frankly delusional constructs that are easily betrayed by their completely unsupported complexity.

And there are no 'connections' with the pyramids. There may be, probably loose, correlations (a classic device in the conspiracy theorist), but you can get those anywhere (you know more people have accidents during the day - should we become nocturnal?). Correlation does not imply causation.

In short, it's bollocks.

I do believe there is loads going on around us that our 5 senses can't pick up. I do believe in spirits because somebody that I trust has first hand experience.

If you choose to believe in a great spaghetti monster in the sky, that's your business, but all it means is you're willing to believe in something on the basis of faith. Nothing more. Maybe you need to believe in something greater than you. Or in some overarching conspiracy that rules the World.

And maybe there is. But faith is not a good enough reason to believe in it.

In physics now, they are talking about other dimensions.

If you understood what dimensions actually are, you probably would not lump them in with 'spirits', TBH. It reminds me of Clarke's Third law; any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Whitewinged wrote: »

Thats why it not good if they are portrayed as another species of man who are tough, hard faced and willing to make tough decisions and you paint a picture of this powerful courages person but really they are people who are making illogical decisions and may miss the overall benefit or impact of decisions they are allowed to make.

TBH, the only people who paint them as such are those who don't have a clue what they are in the first place.

For them, apparently they are a different species; lizard-men.

a psychopath wont make good decisions and an empath wont make good decisions. But a balanced person will make the best decision they can with the obstacles they are faced with.

Depends on how you define a 'good' decision. There's quite a few competing philosophies and ideologies in that discussion.

Whitewinged

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, the only people who paint them as such are those who don't have a clue what they are in the first place.

For them, apparently they are a different species; lizard-men.

Depends on how you define a 'good' decision. There's quite a few competing philosophies and ideologies in that discussion.

Yea i was comming from the angle that some people were saying we need them as though they are capable of doing things that are neccesary that others cant do just as efficiently or better.

decisions can be made and successful and it may appear to be the best decision with the best intent but the outcome and motive of the decision were not related.

The Corinthian

Whitewinged wrote: »

Yea i was comming from the angle that some people were saying we need them as though they are capable of doing things that are neccesary that others cant do just as efficiently or better.

But in some cases I suspect that's true. In a zombie apocalypse, I suspect the community run by a psychopath will likely outlive other communities that are less ruthless.

decisions can be made and successful and it may appear to be the best decision with the best intent but the outcome and motive of the decision were not related.

No, but any decision can be subject to the pitfalls of imperfect information or unforeseen consequences.

Whitewinged

The Corinthian wrote: »

But in some cases I suspect that's true. In a zombie apocalypse, I suspect the community run by a psychopath will likely outlive other communities that are less ruthless.

No, but any decision can be subject to the pitfalls of imperfect information or unforeseen consequences.

Ha ok zombies, well i think their community would not thrive as well. If you think of for example (i know its only fiction) but The Governer in The Walking Dead was probably a psychopath whereas Rick is a good leader.

with psychopaths and decision making what i am saying is that it might look like they are making good decisions sometimes but they are probably making them for the wrong reasons which means somewhere down the line they are more likely to make a big mistake

euser1984

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem is that you don't really know what a psychopath is. This is understandable as even the psychiatric profession does not seem to know either and the definition has changed numerous times over the years.

This has led you to postulate that because some in power share some traits (in fact only one) with psychopaths, then they must also be psychopaths - which is a logical fallacy.

God this is getting complicated; the focus of this thread has moved to the wrong thing. Words and meanings aside, when I said psychopath, I was referring to a person that has no remorse for morally wrong decisions in ones own favor; and, who chooses to take morally wrong decisions in ones favor.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I do not believe that some of the things he says may be valid. I believe that his 'theories' are frankly delusional constructs that are easily betrayed by their completely unsupported complexity.

And there are no 'connections' with the pyramids. There may be, probably loose, correlations (a classic device in the conspiracy theorist), but you can get those anywhere (you know more people have accidents during the day - should we become nocturnal?). Correlation does not imply causation.

In short, it's bollocks.

Where do you get all your information from to build your construct of the world? Mass media?

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you choose to believe in a great spaghetti monster in the sky, that's your business, but all it means is you're willing to believe in something on the basis of faith. Nothing more. Maybe you need to believe in something greater than you. Or in some overarching conspiracy that rules the World.

And maybe there is. But faith is not a good enough reason to believe in it.

I'm not inclined to believe it but I don't choose to say it's not possible, a person doesn't need to believe it anyway to get some of Icke's points; you can even take it in a metaphorical sense, whatever suits....some call him an anti-semetic. Jews are the chosen people of course over all others - that's what there taught anyway I THINK.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you understood what dimensions actually are, you probably would not lump them in with 'spirits', TBH. It reminds me of Clarke's Third law; any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Ok ok, I know what you are saying about dimensions, I've got an idea of the concept of dimensions from a physics pov. Point taken back.

I don't rule out the possibility that there may be alternative realities/dimensions (in my sense of the word) if we had the right senses to detect them. If you want to believe science alone that's fine, I often go on my gut instinct with things and it seems to work.

Mesrine65

The Genesis of evil on a macrosocial scale you say...

Whitewinged

The Corinthian wrote: »

But in some cases I suspect that's true. In a zombie apocalypse, I suspect the community run by a psychopath will likely outlive other communities that are less ruthless.

No, but any decision can be subject to the pitfalls of imperfect infþormation or unforeseen consequences.

also if you are talking about the need for psychopaths in survival situations as leaders, take for example the 1972 Andes Flight disaster.

They had someone who recognised that the only way they were going to survive was by eating their dead friends and relatives. This was a logical decision made by discussing the issue with the other surviving passengers. Because he approached the situation correctly with them, they could see the logic and decided it was the best they could do. His motives were for survival of the people.

If a psychopath was in the same role then he may have decided that it was not in his best interest to tell the other passengers as their reaction may be negative. So he might go behind their backs and do it himself in secret to save himself and they will not survive. Or they will catch him doing it and look on him and the action itself as wrong and will not take part in the cannibalism because their "leader" did not make the right decision and handle it in the best way by showing them it was a logical act and best chance of survival.

DarkyHughes

The former most powerful man in the world thinks God speaks to him & tells him to go on crusades. That's pretty mental already.

Earthhorse

allibastor wrote: »

Is that not Psychopathic behavior.

Alas, no, it isn't. It's selfish, sh*tty behaviour but not necessarily psychopathic.

The problem here is psychopathic is just being used as a substitute term for undesirable behaviour. Someone commits murder; psychopath. Someone cheats on their partner; psychopath. Someone shuts down a factory; psychopath. Someone leaves out the milk; psychopath.

To reiterate what's already been said on thread. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by non psychopaths. Only one in ten CEOs of major firms are psychopaths. And you can be pretty sure the number is similar in other seats of power such as government. By no stretch does a 10% stake represent a majority.

What's far more frightening to think is that all that terrible behaviour is actually being perpetrated by people with no behavioural disorder. I suspect people don't want to face up to that which is why they hide behind the term so often.