Men and their.. insatiable lust

lazydaisy

Psi,

Who is paying for the research that is then published in these journals? How do the journals pay for their publication? Where do you buy them? Do they have online copies?

Im not automatically discrediting your sources the way you have done with mine, but really lets be fair. As far as I understood the Guardian and the Economist are well respected for being up to date and credible. You're saying they are not? Well then what is up to date and credible in your eyes? Be specific with titles and or authors.

I dont understand why you are so accusatory of me. Im not asking anyone to do anything. Im not asking people to accept anything at all. I didnt realise I was on a witness stand here. What you think Im working on some elaborate plot to trick people? I have provided sources, you have elected to ignore them or not believe them. If you dont accept them, there's nothing I can do about that. Ive talked about this already. Are you deliberately trying not to understand what Im saying??

Im assuming that the question about the chemical mechanisms of guilt was not directed as me, as I never said there was no connection between the emotions and the body.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Psi,

Who is paying for the research that is then published in these journals?

Research comes from many different sources. Everything from private trusts, charities, healthboard funding, uiversity funding, hospital funding, private sector and then lots of other different catagories that may be a mix of any of the above or not.

How do the journals pay for their publication?

Institute libraries pay for subscriptions to the journals. Otherwise individuals pay per download.

Where do you buy them?

From the publication company or online.

Do they have online copies?

yes.

Are you going anywhere with this?

Im not automatically discrediting your sources the way you have done with mine, but really lets be fair. As far as I understood the Guardian and the Economist are well respected for being up to date and credible. You're saying they are not?

No but journalism is (A) simplified and (B) Subjective. Stories are always written with a slant.

The Guardian's Observer newspaper printed the Liam Lawlor crash story did it not?

That is the difference.

Well then what is up to date and credible in your eyes? Be specific with titles and or authors.

Your asking me to source references for you? Ehh I think not. If yo want to make an argument, you provide solid references.

I dont understand why you are so accusatory of me. Im not asking anyone to do anything. Im not asking people to accept anything at all. I didnt realise I was on a witness stand here. What you think Im working on some elaborate plot to trick people? I have provided sources, you have elected to ignore them or not believe them. If you dont accept them, there's nothing I can do about that. Ive talked about this already. Are you deliberately trying not to understand what Im saying??

This is a public discussion forum.

I'm discussing. You make points, I make points. I question your points, you question mine. I reaffirm, you reaffirm. etc etc

Im assuming that the question about the chemical mechanisms of guilt was not directed as me, as I never said there was no connection between the emotions and the body.

Probably not But you asked about it, so I replied

nesf

psi wrote:

No but journalism is (A) simplified and (B) Subjective. Stories are always written with a slant.

The Guardian's Observer newspaper printed the Liam Lawlor crash story did it not?

That is the difference.

I'd argue that the Economist is more than just journalism. It does present data and the analysis of it. Which if not as technical as it could be if it was aimed at an academic audience, is still relevant and credible. But that's in economics and social/political policy. It really doesn't do much from a scientific perspective. But I wouldn't just label it as journalism and palm it away.

Kell

psi wrote:

An evolutionary mechanism to deter people from carrying out actions that may eliminate them from a community.

It does beg the question though of how evolved we have actually become consdering we have developed a range of emotion, such as guilt, that is detrimental to self growth.

Well off topic, but the logical key to everything is truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If everyone was open with everyone else on all levels, the detrimental feelings that people suffer from wouldnt have a place in society.

K-

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

It does beg the question though of how evolved we have actually become consdering we have developed a range of emotion, such as guilt, that is detrimental to self growth.

There is no evolutionary scale so to speak, this is another simplification you will find in popular press. Evolutionary superiority only occurs between species that are playing the same game - for instance humans over our direct lineage, who we competed against for survival and won.

We could not judge our evolutionary superiority over a tiger for instance, because our species and theirs are overcoming very different things in the environment.

If there was an evolutionary scale, we would not be very high in it. From an evolutinary point of view, pressure selects towards specialists. We on the other hand are a generalist. Is such a scale existed, species of bacteria living deep beneath the surface - or perhaps viruses -would probably be classed as the pinnacles of evolution. They do their jobs perfectly effectively and efficiently, they have very little extra mechanisms in their biology beyond what they need to survive and reproduce. The less an organism needs to change to master its environment, the more evolved it could be considered.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

If everyone was open with everyone else on all levels, the detrimental feelings that people suffer from wouldnt have a place in society.

Only when it comes to guilt from lying, it has little to do with unhappiness from other actions ...

If I have a girlfriend, go out and sleep with someone else, come back and tell her exactly what I did, she still gets upset and I still feel bad because she is upset. The truth does little to change that

Or, to use an example from before, if my brother has a gameboy and I come running up to him and knock him causing him to drop his toy, he cries goes running off and I feel upset and guilty. Truth/lie doesn't enter this example either, yet I still feel guilty and he is still upset.

lazydaisy

Kell, I tend to agree with you. I think guilt brings on more problems than it solves. If people were more open than yes we wouldnt be in half the messes we are in. People pleasing, emotional blackmail, control devices, passive aggression are all bi-products of guilt.

When you do things you dont want to do just to avoid offending or hurting someone's feelings that can be very destructive. For example, if I spend every Sunday with my mother and yet I cant stand her company, then I would end up very resentful of her. Whereeas, if I say to her, "I dont want to visit you because I find you very difficult to be around" then openning up that dialogue would be potential for a lot of growth where I can visit her without the feelings of obligation and guilt and we would have a much better relationship.

In WKs example, if you talk out why you slept with someone else then you get to a more honest place about your relationship with your GF. Maybe you cheated because you lack self control, maybe its because your feelings for your GF have changed, maybe any number of reasons. Maybe if you were honest from the beginning that you like to sleep with more than one person, than she wouldnt have been dissappointed in your character.

The truth can change a lot about how bad or good you feel about something. At the very least she knows the person she is dealing with. If you didnt have to see her hurt would you have felt any better or was it her pain and not your sleeping around that made you feel bad?

Vangelis

psi wrote:

There is no evolutionary scale so to speak, this is another simplification you will find in popular press. Evolutionary superiority only occurs between species that are playing the same game - for instance humans over our direct lineage, who we competed against for survival and won.

Would to say that we as a species are competing against any other animal species right now. It feels like we're the only ones who have fully conquered all "hardships".

Hm?

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Guilt is a learned thing. You cannot feel guilty about something that you don't know is bad. But once the environmental seed is planted, the mechanism can play its role.

I see. But languages, facial expressions and gesticulations are also learned things. What would we do if we weren't capable of received other people's messages?

Is guilt in any way 'wrong' in any given scenario? Or has anybody implied that guilt is 'wrong', that it shouldn't exist?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Would to say that we as a species are competing against any other animal species right now. It feels like we're the only ones who have fully conquered all "hardships".

Hm?

It might feel like that from our perspective, but I'm pretty sure that if you pop down to a volcanic springs several thousand feet below sea level, you might find some vent dwelling bacteria that will have conqured the hardships of the environment better than you.

No species competes against another species in evolutionary terms. Anyone who suggests this doesn't understand evolution. You compete with members of your own species (or very, very similar species) for survival. The only creatures we have competed against in evolution is other homnids.

Occasionally you will get an evolutionary arms race between species, where a prey will develop bigger horns and thicker hide and a predator will develop bigger claws and bigger teeth, but the prey and predator aren't competing.

Its in neithers interest to wipe the other out (the predator would lose its food source and the prey would face food shortages due to over-population). The animals that they are competing with are the ones that DON'T develop the features above. In some cases developing these things isn't beneficial. The giant elk and the sabre-tooth tiger went this route. Both were victims of the unsuitability of their evolution to their surroundings.

I see. But languages, facial expressions and gesticulations are also learned things. What would we do if we weren't capable of received other people's messages?

This question is answered within the post you took the question from. The theory is mechanisms for emotions like guilt, developed from or along with the capacity to communicate and form social bonds.

Is guilt in any way 'wrong' in any given scenario? Or has anybody implied that guilt is 'wrong', that it shouldn't exist?

Well imagine if a group of pre-civilisation humans had emerged with an inability to form bonds and the feelings that associate with them.

They wouldn't have occured in clumps, there would have been scattered incidences of these individuals throughout the population.

Assume these humans may not have been able to recognise the community imperative towards co-operation or bond-forming with partners and violated tribal practice - maybe stealing, raping females, refusing to share food and resources.

These individuals would have been dealt with by the tribes, either by banishment or perhaps even deaths. This would prevent the widespread growth of such individuals in the population. By and large the ones who felt emotions such as guilt would do better in society.

Does any of this ring true today?

Kell

An evolutionary mechanism to deter people from carrying out actions that may eliminate them from a community.

Your words psi.

psi wrote:

There is no evolutionary scale so to speak, this is another simplification you will find in popular press.

Also your words psi.

Are they not in direct contradiction to eachother?

K-

Vangelis

psi wrote:

...you might find some vent dwelling bacteria that will have conqured the hardships of the environment better than you.

I don't live in a volcano then.. Thank heavens for that!

No species competes against another species in evolutionary terms. Anyone who suggests this doesn't understand evolution. You compete with members of your own species (or very, very similar species) for survival. The only creatures we have competed against in evolution is other homnids.[/QUOTE]

Does not species compete with species about territory and nutrients?
Does not one species adapt to another's self defense mechanism so that it can hunt it as prey and eat it?
Where does interspecific competition come in? I've read about that, that is' competition between species within any environment.
Is this not true?

Occasionally you will get an evolutionary arms race between species, where a prey will develop bigger horns and thicker hide and a predator will develop bigger claws and bigger teeth, but the prey and predator aren't competing.

Interspecific competition?

Its in neithers interest to wipe the other out (the predator would lose its food source and the prey would face food shortages due to over-population). The animals that they are competing with are the ones that DON'T develop the features above. In some cases developing these things isn't beneficial. The giant elk and the sabre-tooth tiger went this route. Both were victims of the unsuitability of their evolution to their surroundings.

This question is answered within the post you took the question from. The theory is mechanisms for emotions like guilt, developed from or along with the capacity to communicate and form social bonds.

I guess..

Well imagine if a group of pre-civilisation humans had emerged with an inability to form bonds and the feelings that associate with them.

They wouldn't have occured in clumps, there would have been scattered incidences of these individuals throughout the population.

Assume these humans may not have been able to recognise the community imperative towards co-operation or bond-forming with partners and violated tribal practice - maybe stealing, raping females, refusing to share food and resources.

These individuals would have been dealt with by the tribes, either by banishment or perhaps even deaths. This would prevent the widespread growth of such individuals in the population. By and large the ones who felt emotions such as guilt would do better in society.

Does any of this ring true today?

Hmm.. African insurgency soliders commit mass-rapes of women. Nobody does anything... but they complain about it so..

There are still psychopaths, criminals and rapists. Should we kill them to prevent them for producing off-spring? That reminds me of a book I just read about the psychopathic personality. The psychologist author of the book suggests that we all have some psychopathic tendencies within us.

I have a suggestion: Let's volunteer to annihilate our own species!!
No, that's just my dry humour.

Are you saying that guilt prevents us from doing harm to others? (Or at least it is an attempt to do so..)

Vangelis

Kell wrote:

Your words psi.

Also your words psi.

Watch out! He is a 'student of life'! He is omni-potent! ...or at least omni-questioning!

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

Your words psi.



Also your words psi.

Are they not in direct contradiction to eachother?

K-

How so? An evolutionary mechanism occurs within a species. So evolutionary mechanisms are what cause divergence or split in an evolutionary tree. Ie: homo-erectus and homo-sapians are separated by evolutionary mechanism.

A so called evolutionary scale is usually used to imply that humans are "more evolved" than bacteria. This "scale" is a nonsense because humans and bacteria aren't facing the same selection pressures in their evolution.

The two terms have no relation to each other per se and I don't see how you think they may contradict each other. Unless, you try take them out of context and compare them, as you seem to have done.

If on the other hand you read both my posts and understood them, I don't think you would see a conflict.

Could you explain *how* you feel this is the case?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Does not species compete with species about territory and nutrients?
Does not one species adapt to another's self defense mechanism so that it can hunt it as prey and eat it?
Where does interspecific competition come in? I've read about that, that is' competition between species within any environment.
Is this not true?

Again, I think I answered this in the post you are quoting.

Species may compete with each other for resources and they may contribute to enivironmental pressures for evolution, but this isn't evolutionary competition.

Proto-rhinos and proto-giraffe's probably competed for the same resources. Rhino's emerged from proto-rhino's and they were stonger and more fierce and could fight off proto-giraffes and proto-rhinos. Meanwhile with the declining access to food, the giraffe evolves from the proto-giraffe which has access to food unavilable to the others.

The proto-giraffe and proto-rhino soon die out while the evolved specialised species thrive. This is a vast over-simplification, but it shows that the rhino species and giraffe species were only in competition with themselves, not each other.

Hmm.. African insurgency soliders commit mass-rapes of women. Nobody does anything... but they complain about it so..

Well you see this is modern humans we are talking about.

There are still psychopaths, criminals and rapists. Should we kill them to prevent them for producing off-spring? That reminds me of a book I just read about the psychopathic personality. The psychologist author of the book suggests that we all have some psychopathic tendencies within us.

Why would you suggest that I am implying we should kill anyone?

What purpose does that serve to your argument? I'm actually interested in you answering this question, because your reaction to my posts tend to be imply I am making some ridiculous suggestion that I am not.

Is this how you protect your belief, trying to unjustly ridicule those who oppose your point of view?

To answer your question, I believe for the most part, it is the practice of the human race to exclude psychopaths from the community when identified. I don't believe that prison inmates convicted of serious crume and those declared insane are given leave to procreate.

I have a suggestion: Let's volunteer to annihilate our own species!!
No, that's just my dry humour.

Again you do this. Is this the conviction of your belief?

Apart from being rude and ignorant, its not strengthening your case.

Are you saying that guilt prevents us from doing harm to others? (Or at least it is an attempt to do so..)

I'm not saying it is. I'm suggesting that its a likely explanation.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Watch out! He is a 'student of life'! He is omni-potent! ...or at least omni-questioning!

Three incidents of comments like this in as many minutes..

You come across as extremely secure, honest.

nesf

psi wrote:

I'm not saying it is. I'm suggesting that its a likely explanation.

Just curious. Are you suggesting that there is both a biological and learned social aspect of guilt? It would seem that you are suggesting that guilt prevents, to some extent, "immoral" actions because we have learned that bad action = guilt as we develop as children? Akin to the example of eating something specific giving you a disgusting taste and the inclination of someone (or an animal) not choosing to do it again because of the memory of the disgusting taste?

Could you say though that guilt is simply a social responce or a learned behaviour? i.e. it was a natural outcome of forming social groupings rather than a specific mechanism that actually evolved? I'm thinking along the lines here that guilt seems to be something learned rather than something you are born with. A young child might torture an animal and "not realise what they've done". Yet an adult mightn't do this if they've been taught/conditioned that torturing animals is bad. But if they've been taught/conditioned to not care about animals then they mightn't feel guilty over doing it.

GuanYin

nesf wrote:

Just curious. Are you suggesting that there is both a biological and learned social aspect of guilt?

Broadly yes, specifically, no.

It would seem that you are suggesting that guilt prevents, to some extent, "immoral" actions because we have learned that bad action = guilt as we develop as children?

Well I'm suggesting that a biological mechanism to favour tribal complience may have evolved. It may have come as part of a big brain, it may have come separately.

The terms "immoral" and "guilt" are terms and meanings we have implied - I'm suggesting that the negative feelings that are attributable to chemical pathways borne out of deviating from learned tribal behaviour or breaking formed gender-bonding may have evolved as a mechanism to prevent such actions.

We now call this feeling guilt and our "tribal" rules are far more complex these days, but generally behaviour where we act in ways that society frowns on could be called "immoral". Sooo ermmm, if you accept all that, then yes!

Akin to the example of eating something specific giving you a disgusting taste and the inclination of someone (or an animal) not choosing to do it again because of the memory of the disgusting taste?

yes, and we KNOW this occurs in animals, we can easily simulate it by giving them things that look nice but taste horrible to eat. They shy away. We do the same thing, but call the feeling attributed with it "revulsion".

If "feelings" are not borne out of biological events, then why do animals behave as we do? Its more likely that the biological event and sensation is the same, but brains havethe capacity to personify the sensation as "revulsion".

Could you say though that guilt is simply a social responce or a learned behaviour? i.e. it was a natural outcome of forming social groupings rather than a specific mechanism that actually evolved? I'm thinking along the lines here that guilt seems to be something learned rather than something you are born with. A young child might torture an animal and "not realise what they've done". Yet an adult mightn't do this if they've been taught/conditioned that torturing animals is bad. But if they've been taught/conditioned to not care about animals then they mightn't feel guilty over doing it.

Well thats kinda the point I was making. If a pathway that we will personify as guilt evolved, it didn't do so with any of todays scenarios in mind. All I'm suggesting is the pathway evolved to keep social compliance and allow the species a better chance of surviving. The actual conditioning is separate and indpendant to the mechnism.

Its much like the pathway that tells animals (and us) they have eaten too much. Its simply a mechanism that evolved to preserve the body and to limit use of resources. We know its a pathway, because enzyme deficiencies switch it off.

We personify this pathway as "hunger" or "being full". Its just the action of enzymes.

I'm suggesting that "guilt" is much the same. The question of social response or learned behaviour, dictates what activates the pathway, not the pathway itself.

nesf

psi wrote:

The question of social response or learned behaviour, dictates what activates the pathway, not the pathway itself.

*nods*

We're pretty much in agreement then. I was unsure from your earlier post(s).

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Species may compete with each other for resources and they may contribute to enivironmental pressures for evolution, but this isn't evolutionary competition.

Proto-rhinos and proto-giraffe's probably competed...

I get that point, but how can something not be evolutionary competition when evolution is all that happens? Species evolve traits to fight other species. In my opinion, that is evolutionary competition, a competition to survive. At least they say so on National Geographic.

Why would you suggest that I am implying we should kill anyone?

I was implying that myself actually.

What purpose does that serve to your argument? I'm actually interested in you answering this question, because your reaction to my posts tend to be imply I am making some ridiculous suggestion that I am not.

Is this how you protect your belief, trying to unjustly ridicule those who oppose your point of view?

I am no ridiculing your arguement, which are very good. I was suggesting that we help evolution on its course by letting people who are biologically fit die instead of nursing them, taking them to hospital, giving them medicines etc. It seems that we are detaining evolution by letting these people flourish and have off-spring. What do you think?

To answer your question, I believe for the most part, it is the practice of the human race to exclude psychopaths from the community when identified. I don't believe that prison inmates convicted of serious crume and those declared insane are given leave to procreate.

Psychopaths are not easily detectable, only those who become serial killers and are caught. So psychopaths still propogate, and so do people who develop schizofrenia, depression, anxiety and whom are genetically predisposed for these diseases. Psychopathy is not hereditary, but othe mental illnesses are to a certain degree. Of course it all depends. My point is that insane individuals have children. Their genes are passed on to the next generation. What is your opinion: Should we allow this to happen?

I am sorry if I appeared as rude, I was not.

I'm not saying it is. I'm suggesting that its a likely explanation.

Fair enough.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I get that point, but how can something not be evolutionary competition when evolution is all that happens? Species evolve traits to fight other species. In my opinion, that is evolutionary competition, a competition to survive. At least they say so on National Geographic.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, although you may have missed their point, either way, the understanding you took is wrong. I explained why already.

When you look at evolution. The phrase "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" can be misleading when you don't realise that these occur within a species.

I am no ridiculing your arguement, which are very good. I was suggesting that we help evolution on its course by letting people who are biologically fit die instead of nursing them, taking them to hospital, giving them medicines etc. It seems that we are detaining evolution by letting these people flourish and have off-spring. What do you think?

Well I'd need specific examples of what you mean by "biologically fit" and who we let die? What you are describing sounds suspiciously like eugenics.

Psychopaths are not easily detectable, only those who become serial killers and are caught.

Thats a ridiculous statement. Not all psychopaths become violent or kill. Many are identified early in life and entered into care.

So psychopaths still propogate, and so do people who develop schizofrenia, depression, anxiety and whom are genetically predisposed for these diseases.

Psychopathy is not hereditary, but othe mental illnesses are to a certain degree. Of course it all depends. My point is that insane individuals have children. Their genes are passed on to the next generation. What is your opinion: Should we allow this to happen? [/quote]

Again, it sounds like you are suggesting eugenics.

nesf

Vangelis wrote:

Psychopaths are not easily detectable, only those who become serial killers and are caught. So psychopaths still propogate, and so do people who develop schizofrenia, depression, anxiety and whom are genetically predisposed for these diseases. Psychopathy is not hereditary, but othe mental illnesses are to a certain degree. Of course it all depends. My point is that insane individuals have children. Their genes are passed on to the next generation. What is your opinion: Should we allow this to happen?

Do you believe that people who suffer these diseases have lives that are not worth living?

Take your head out of the sand if you do.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote:

Do you believe that people who suffer these diseases have lives that are not worth living?

Take your head out of the sand if you do.

Eugenics is hardly so easy to discount, TBH.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

Eugenics is hardly so easy to discount, TBH.

I wasn't discounting eugenics in general. I was responding to a single point she has made. If she expands this into a discussion of eugenics in general then we have a different argument on our hands. As is, she is discussing mental illness alone. Which is a far easier thing to refute.

Kell

psi wrote:

The two terms have no relation to each other per se and I don't see how you think they may contradict each other. Unless, you try take them out of context and compare them, as you seem to have done.

Go to post 335. And then 336. I have not taken them out of context.

I also notice your last reply to me said *feel*. Please explain the implications of your asterix'.

K-

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

Go to post 335. And then 336. I have not taken them out of context.

I see them and there is no contradiction.

Perhaps if you would like to explain what you see as a contradiction rather than have me guess?

I also notice your last reply to me said *feel*. Please explain the implications of your asterix'.

K-

What post? Don't see it in my last one to you.

Care to provide a quote?

Vangelis

psi wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, although you may have missed their point, either way, the understanding you took is wrong. I explained why already.

I'm going to check this out about competition.

Well I'd need specific examples of what you mean by "biologically fit" and who we let die? What you are describing sounds suspiciously like eugenics.

Those who can survive in our society. The beautiful, the successful, the intelligent, those who are considered to be perfect. I'm assuming that these people have what it takes biologically to be the fittest and that their ways of living and their strong social positions are a manifest of their biological strength and their viability. Do you agree?

Thats a ridiculous statement. Not all psychopaths become violent or kill. Many are identified early in life and entered into care.

Could you instead say "That statement is incorrect". Saying that it is ridiculous makes you come across as a bit attacking/hostile/miffed. Perhaps you are now ridiculing me. I did not say that all psychopaths become violent and kill. In fact most of them don't.

I'm going to check out exactly how detectable psychopathy really is and how many are 'taken into care'. Psychopathy is not cureable so any form of 'care' does not help.

Again, it sounds like you are suggesting eugenics.

I am. It'd be a good way of removing all unwanted/unhealthy genetic traits from the human gene pool.

Vangelis

nesf wrote:

Do you believe that people who suffer these diseases have lives that are not worth living?

Of course not! I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

Why should they have a right to live when their harmful genes can be passed on and very often are? We have to improve our DNA, don't we? Life is a constant struggle for that, so why not let this struggle lead us?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I'm going to check this out about competition.

Yes, you should.

Those who can survive in our society. The beautiful, the successful, the intelligent, those who are considered to be perfect. I'm assuming that these people have what it takes biologically to be the fittest and that their ways of living and their strong social positions are a manifest of their biological strength and their viability. Do you agree?

Ok, this is a completely different question to the one I asked you to clarify.

If you can't keep up with your own posts, how am I supposed to.

Could you instead say "That statement is incorrect". Saying that it is ridiculous makes you come across as a bit attacking/hostile/miffed. Perhaps you are now ridiculing me. I did not say that all psychopaths become violent and kill. In fact most of them don't.

Well you made a statement as fact based (I can only assume) on your own opinion. So I stand by my original post. And no I wasn't being "miffed" or hostile.

I'm going to check out exactly how detectable psychopathy really is and how many are 'taken into care'. Psychopathy is not cureable so any form of 'care' does not help.

Indeed, I wait with baited breath....how are you going on the previous things you were to "check"?

I am. It'd be a good way of removing all unwanted/unhealthy genetic traits from the human gene pool.

Rather conflicts with the teachings of the bible does it not?

Vangelis

psi, I have found some extremely interesting links for you on psychopathy.

One is an article about psychopath-bosses with references. There is a slide-show down right which suggests that Walt Disney and Henry Ford were psychopaths. Interesting! Obviously, none of these or the other business-people portrayed were taken into care.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

Two of the persons mentioned here are experts on psychopathy, Dr Robert Hare and Babiak. Dr Hare'ss website is:

http://www.hare.org/home

A load of more information, both news articles, commentaries and such suggests that psychopaths are everywhere. They're successful business men, husbands, wives, lovers and so on.

Check out this excellent information source:

http://www.psychopath-research.com/whatis_psycho_2.html

You need to do a lot of reading, but I have made sure only to select credible websites that have references. This last link is a good introduction and then you can move to "Home" and see loads of more tidbits. I assume that you know something about psychopaths allready, but there's bountiful of broad knowledge here.

Also, an excellent webpage:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/robert_hare/index.html