One of my favorite things in politics is when one side calls politicians from the other side sociopaths. HUH-DOY. It's like calling park rangers outdoorsmen! ALL OF THEM ARE. This is not hyperbole or OMG POLITICS IS STUPID. This just stems from the fucking textbook definition of sociopathy. Don't believe me? Click here.
Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.Ruthless people that everyone seems to like? Eh?
Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright.What politician has ever admitted wrong?
Sociopaths are basically remorseless people who appear either normal, or else especially charming. You know, the kind of person that knows how to shake a hand warmly but is also willing to lie to get their way? The kind of person that will kiss a baby while signing a bill to guarantee that babies are now fed lead-laced cyanide drink at a hefty premium from Murder the Infants Inc.
The reason is simple. These are the people who are most successful under our system. Everyone who meets them likes them, so they get promoted. On the other hand, they're willing to do unscrupulous shit to get their way. They're kittens with dioxin claws whether they're named Bush, Obama or Palin.
Posts
20 comments:
As long we're using words that have specific meanings, I'll just point out that there's a difference between a psychopath and a sociopath.
Yeah, the wiki article confused me because it treated them as the same (sociopath redirects to that article), though that was my understanding, too. At any-rate, all of the information seemed to be about sociopathy so I just ignored that there seemed to be the wrong name at the top of the article.
I think maybe they changed the terminology recently or something? I dunno.
A friendly word of advice, NoT: when you use the lingo of a particular field of science you know otherwise zipshitsquattimesten about*, you not only look, but also rapidly approach being a dipshit, also known as a pundit.
* No, reading a wikipedia entry does not reduce your ignorance by one tiny bit.
I'm not an expert on psychology, but I've read enough to consider myself well informed. What exactly do you think I did wrong?
I admit that it was dum to leave the psychopath shit in there, but it was done partially out of laziness and partially because I didn't understand why it was there to begin with.
The main point is that sociopathy is expressed as a lack of empathy combined with an ability to appear normal and even charming, which I think describes just about every politician ever. Where am I flawed in that?
In case it's not clear, the reason I sited that article was because sociopath was linking directly to it on wiki. I thought at the time that that was odd and wrong, but I assumed wiki knew what it was talking about and so ignored it.
To put it simply: you are making a motherfucking diagnosis without ever having spoken to your subject. Remember Frist and Terry?
Also, even your convoluted definition (what the fuck is normal anyway and don't you fucking get me started on 'charming') does not describe most politicians. For starters, 'doesn't give a shit about me/my people/my class' does NOT equal lack of empathy across the board. Simple observation would suggest that many politicans are perfectly empathetic, just extremely picky about who to be empathetic to.
Also, dude, seriously?
I'm not an expert on psychology, but I've read enough to consider myself well informed.
Swap psychology for economics and you got a McMeganism par excellence.
OK, first of all, again, I'm NOT trying to say I'm an expert in pschology. You somehow using that as an argument as me being an expert in psychology is... well... I guess appropriate. the analogy to Megan is retarded because no one ever took this blog seriously to begin with... and it's gotten significantly worse than that recently. Our beef with Megan is that she claims to write WITH AUTHORITY in AN AUTHORITATIVE PUBLICATION about economics.
second, I'm talking about a field of people, so talking about a diagnoses is completely meaningless. In case it wasn't clear, I was generalizing.
Third, I suppose I should have said sociopathic instead of sociopaths, as I believe that most personality disorders are just descriptions of general personalities taken to such extremes that it becomes an illness. I've heard it put best as "it's not a disorder unless it's fucking up your life." You can have sociopathic traits without being a full blown sociopath. This is another reason why the idea that I'm diagnosing anyone is absurd.
And in conclusion, who or what a politician "cares for" has nothing to do with anything. Yes, most of them certainly have issues one way or another about which the feel strongly, but for the most part they do whatever they feel suits them best. Now this isn't a yes or no question, you can lean towards either extreme and possibly even NOT BE DICHOMTOMIC!!!!! OMG! SHADES OF BLUE! But the point is that politicians are a class of people who act in a sociopathic manner far more than the general population by necessity.
Yes, maybe some of them don't fit all the criterion of the fucking DSM to be "diagnosed" but that's hardly my point. If you think that that's the important thing, I'd argue that you have an overly literal take on the subject and therefor don't GET psychology.
I'm NOT trying to say I'm an expert in pschology.
I never said you were (saying that you were an expert). My point is that you are acting as if you were an expert. Your statements denying this obvious fact are, while interesting for a completely different reason, totally beside the point.
And yeah, that comparison to Megan was a cheap shot. It was meant as a wake-up call.
second, I'm talking about a field of people, so talking about a diagnoses is completely meaningless. In case it wasn't clear, I was generalizing.
Which is precisely what I meant in my original comment by referring to the lingo. Sociopath is a motherfucking diagnosis and as such, it can only be applied to an individual. Applying it to a field shows how little you know. Your quoting wikipedia didn't help, either.
Re: sociopathic tendencies/traits
You might have a point there, but I am not equipped to judge to what extent is this distinction meaningful, so we leave it at that.
who or what a politician "cares for" has nothing to do with anything.
Who or what - that is actually an important distinction. Your claim that politicians show abnormal lack of empathy (which is supposed to serve as evidence that politicians as a group of people are sociopaths) is based on what exactly? I am assuming - correct me if I'm wrong - that it is based on how often politicians screw over their voters, especially those of certain socioeconomic classes. But that's only one part of the picture and you'll never get to see the rest. So for all you know, Karl Rove may actually deeply care for ... OK, bad fucking example. For all you know, Obama may actually deeply care for his wife and his kids, Dubya truly loves his wife and the twins and Bill Frist is really a good doctor, all of which includes real empathy. The fact that all of them are ready and willing to throw the poor overboard and fuck over the middle class might be evidence of their classism or (in Dubya's and Frist's case) racism, but not of an abnormal lack of empathy. Like I said, the fact that a particular politicians doesn't give a shit about you doesn't mean they are ruthless and/or lack empathy.
Yes, maybe some of them don't fit all the criterion of the fucking DSM to be "diagnosed" but that's hardly my point.
But if they don't fit the criteria of the cocksucking definition, then they are NOT motherfucking sociopaths! I.e. I don't think this word means what you think it means. In fact, I'm pretty fucking sure. Call them ruthless, call them lacking in empathy, call them lying sacks of shit or whatever - all of that, they are. Sociopaths, however, they're ain't.
"Your claim that politicians show abnormal lack of empathy is based on what exactly?"
Well, this is prolly the root of it. My belief is that none of us proles really know the personalities of various politicians. They're so layered with people, and discussed almost exclusively by pundits with an axe to grind, there is almost no meaningful data about what they're really like.
I think politicians are sociopaths for the simple reason that that's what the system selects for. The person who is charismatic will get the staff, and the person that is willing to ignore common ideas of justice will have more tools at his disposal. Every politician I've read anything about seems to fit into this theory. Bush with his cutting down of McCain (and McCain's subsequent abandoning of all forms of moderation.) Obama getting people removed from the ballots on technicalities. These things are underhanded. (To be clear, that is not an equivalence but merely a similarity. The examples you site may well be valid, but I think what I said before about tendencies vs. disorders covers that. I would doubt that even the textbook case of sociopathy wouldn't care about anything.
That people use sociopath outside of its clinical definition is a obvious and trite point. Arguing their stupidity isn't what I find amusing. What I find amusing is the idea that all pols are sociopathic to some extent. Because it's a term about something as complex as personality, I don't think treating the definition as rigorously as you do provides any merit. I am unfamiliar with the convention for official DXes of sociopathy, but I'm aware that for other disorders it's usually a list of elements about 8 things long that a patient needs to show about 4 of. The people who have only 3 might not be defined as having the disorder, but it's certainly not wild abuse of jargon to call them disorder-ish.
but it's certainly not wild abuse of jargon to call them disorder-ish.
Wild? No. But an abuse nevertheless.
FYI, what we call sociopath/psychopath, DMS IV refers to as Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7).
official DXes of sociopathy
General rules for personality disorders:
...
3. Symptoms are seen in at least two of the following areas:
- Thoughts (ways of looking at the world, thinking about self or others, and interacting)
- Emotions (appropriateness, intensity, and range of emotional functioning)
- Interpersonal Functioning (relationships and interpersonal skills)
- Impulse Control
Now based on my experience, I'd say that most pols have excellent impulse control and amazing interpersonal skills. Emotions we can know very little about, so the only part where they fit the definition of 301.7 is the first one: "The symptoms of antisocial personality disorder include a longstanding pattern (after the age of 15) of disregard for the rights of others." On the other hand, the definition goes on to say: "There is a failure to conform to society's norms and expectations that often results in numerous arrests or legal involvement..." and that just doesn't fit the bill. Pols (and pols in training, like pol sci majors) perfectly conform to society's norms. Also the last part of the definition - "Impulsiveness if often present, including angry outbursts, failure to consider consequences of behaviors, irritability, and/or physical assaults. " - doesn't sound like your average politician.
Here's the bottom line for me: I have met a real multiply diagnosed sociopath (long story) and when I compare him to any of the pols you mentioned or basically any pol I can think of, there is not much overlap. Except maybe for Karl Rove.
I think politicians are sociopaths for the simple reason that that's what the system selects for.
That's a good point. But isn't that true of nearly every power structure?
Interesting. I could've sworn there were two separate DX's for ASPD and sociopathy. Guess i'm not as informed as I thought.
i think that pols do display those kinds of traits, though. they certainly don't lack across the board impulse control, but they do make some bad decisions. Look at all the sex scandals. Of course, that could just be because there are so many pols and you're band to have a few out of several hundred nationally prominent pols.
The relationships bit is actually central to my point. It's true that have amazing interpersonal skills, but they only 'need' that for the most superficial of relationships. Who knows what they're more intimate relationships are like. Those are where sociopaths often fail.
As for thoughts, I'd bet lots of money that pols have a skewed view of their own importance. That's pretty key in sociopathy/ASPD.
Emotions I don't know about.
I agree that an extreme sociopath wouldn't make a good politician, but I view it as a spectrum and I think pols are closer to the sociopath end of it than the middle.
And finally, yes, I think many "important" people are sociopathic to a certain degree. But plenty can get ahead more on their technical ability. Look at Bill Gates or Einstein. They were/are not sociopaths. They prolly just had/have Assburgers :P.
(and for the love of god I hope I don't need to state that the spelling is a joke)
Guess i'm not as informed as I thought.
Yeah. And now pray tell me, how fucking difficult would it have been to get informed before writing? Thank God you don't work for a major news national publication :)
Look at all the sex scandals.
That don't mean shit. A politician's sex scandal is by definition a public affair, especially if misuse of public funds and/or trust is involved or the politician in question is a closeted gay Republican, so naturally they stand out. But whether politicians as a group really have more affairs than average guys, well, get me some hard data.
Also, if this is evidence of anything, then this: guys in general have poor impulse control when it comes to sex. Like I need to tell you.
It's true that have amazing interpersonal skills, but they only 'need' that for the most superficial of relationships.
So? Interpersonal skills are - well, duh - a skillset. How people choose to apply it and to what end, that's another matter entirely. Plus, keeping a wide network of shallow relationships is pretty much a job definition for a politician and so the question is whether politicians shape politics or politics attracts a particular personality type.
As for thoughts, I'd bet lots of money that pols have a skewed view of their own importance.
Dude, no disrespec' or nothin', but that pretty much describes YOUR WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY.
And now pray tell me, how fucking difficult would it have been to get informed before writing? Quite obviously, too difficult.
guys in general have poor impulse control when it comes to sex. True, I think impulse control problems are unlikely in pols and just said that maybe you could consider sex one. But really the next point to me is the key.
Interpersonal skills are - well, duh - a skillset. How people choose to apply it and to what end, that's another matter entirely. Plus, keeping a wide network of shallow relationships is pretty much a job definition for a politician and so the question is whether politicians shape politics or politics attracts a particular personality type.For the first part, I disagree. I think plenty of people are charming and can make other like them when contact is minimal and polite, but have more difficulty keeping close relationships healthy. It's a skillSET, as in more than one thing. No matter how many freethrows I hit, I'm not a good basketball player if I can't dribble. Being good at superficial relationships while bad at meaningful ones is a key trait of sociopathy.
The reason that I say they are sociopathic more than other things is that, as far as I know, sociopaths are almost if not completely unique in this trait combined with a lack of empathy. To me, the best non-clinical definition of someone with sociopathic tendencies is someone who is charming but can't keep relationships and lacks empathy so will be unscrupulous. Other, more blatantly deviant behaviors might occur in sociopathy, but they also occur with a wide range of personality types. The wolf in sheeps clothing aspect of sociopathy is what sets it apart from other disorders. I get annoyed not because people use it for people who aren't clinically diagnosed as sociopaths, but because they use it as a catch all for "bad" in the same way that they say fascist or communist or whatever. I recently heard a woman say that all muslims were sociopaths, which makes NO sense.
I wasn't familiar with the DSM criteria with sociopathy specifically because I tend not to find its take on psychology to be very interesting, but I went and read it after reading what you wrote. It seems that they refrain from making a distinction between it and ASPD, and that many experts disagree with this. I understand the reason for that, but I think that they are not the same thing. But that's just my ignorant, overinflated American opinion on the matter.
Dude, no disrespec' or nothin', but that pretty much describes YOUR WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY.Ain't my country, man. I'm just living in it.
Being good at superficial relationships while bad at meaningful ones is a key trait of sociopathy.
Yeah, but you just don't know how good politicians are at meaningful relationships.
the best non-clinical definition of someone with sociopathic tendencies
That's the problem, right there: what the fuck do you need a non-clinical definition for? "Sociopath" is a fucking terminus technicus with a specific meaning agreed upon by professionals. You either use it as it is intended or not at all.
I get annoyed not because people use it for people who aren't clinically diagnosed as sociopaths, but because they use it as a catch all for "bad"...
Oh I get that. It's just that I think your misuse/abuse is just as bad. You use "sociopathic" as if it were synonymous with "ruthless", "egoistic", "unscrupulous" or "asshole." It ain't, that's what I'm trying to tell you.
It seems that they refrain from making a distinction between it and ASPD
And for good reason - it is pretty damn difficult to tell if someone is a real sociopath or just an asshole, i.e. someone you don't like.
I can see why you say that, but I guess that's just where we'll have to disagree. I think it's fairly common among other things. Calling someone "ADD" colloquially seems fine to me. I feel like psychology is useful outside of clinical settings, and using those terms in in conversation expands understanding about other people.
I don't agree that I'm using sociopathic as synonyms for those terms, at least, not individually. I honestly believe that pols fit the term sociopathic to a large enough degree to make it a useful thing to say. I suppose one does have to have the understanding that I don't mean clinically sociopathic, and maybe it fails because people won't assume that. I don't think that it does, for the same reason people use it completely wrong. No one really things you mean "diagnosed as" implicitly for these things anymore than they think they should be slipping their goofy/hyperactive friends aderol in their drinks.
I think it's fairly common among other things.
I hate to point out the obvious, but so is rape and murder. That don't make it ok.
Also, that still doesn't change the fact that you are assigning your own meaning to a word with a pretty narrow and exact definition. Think Goldberg and fascism, any wingnut and socialism or Strunkians and passive voice.
Calling someone "ADD" colloquially seems fine to me.
Well, yeah, colloquially, as an exaggeration or perhaps a useful shorthand. But that's not how you've been using "sociopath(ic)" here.
Take the Goldberg - fascism example. I think it's ok to use the adjective "fascist" colloquially to describe far right-wing philosophy or totalitarian regimes or some such and based on what you said, you'd agree. But I'm sure you'd also agree that there is something wrong with with how Goldberg uses the word.
I feel like psychology is useful outside of clinical settings
Of course it is. But here, little knowledge is especially dangerous. Just because you've mastered the lingo, it doesn't mean you understand it. I've seen it too often with people who've had some training in psychology - they will learn the lingo and get acquainted with some techniques and they believe that's all there is to it.
Also, one final thing: DSM IV, which we've been throwing around, is a manual of American Psychiatric Association. Psychology - psychiatry. Big fucking difference.
No one really things you mean "diagnosed as" implicitly for these things anymore
And THAT is the problem. That is how you get to "Obama is a communist", "White man is the Jew of liberal fascism" and that sort of shit.
You wanna be the solution or you wanna exacerbate it?
OK, so if sociopath doesn't mean, colloquially, "someone who's superficially charming but secretly lacks empathy and remorse," then what does it mean?
It doesn't mean anything, that's the point. To use a previous example, ADD can serve as a useful shorthand because it describes immediately observable behavior. The colloquial "sociopath" does no such thing (you yourself said it - "but secretly lacks...") - it merely provides your interpretation of motivation and sometimes not even that. You wanna say ruthless, say ruthless. You wanna say egoistic, say egoistic. No need to hide behind big words.
And that's the bottom line for me: Every time a non-specialist uses a specialist word, it's not about the meaning, it's about the air of faux expertise it provides. It's an extension of appeal to authority and as such a logical fallacy, with a tiny hint of plain ol' bullshitting (considering the fact that even your average educated person is likely to be unfamiliar with most specialist words). Now why would you do that and who does that remind you of?
I don't understand why the appeal to authority argument works for sociopathy, but not for ADD. Whether or not you can observe the traits seems independent of that. It seems to me that argument would preclude the use of both. We already agreed that people use professional words in everyday speech as a matter of course. I don't see why in some instances there is an inherent appeal to authority adn in others there aren't.
As for the idea of whether or not sociopathy can be observed, I think that's a fair point. All of these things end up being subjective. Even the ADD example is subjective. It might be more easily agreed upon that a loud person who moves around a lot is hyper compared to others, but at some point lines blur. Behavior is not a measurable quantity.
My decision to call someone sociopathic or not is based on observations. Is their world view consistent or self serving? Can they admit fault? Have I seen them make real sacrifice for the sake of fairness or kindness? Yes this all opinion, but so is anything about personality. We glean people's intent from their actions all the time. Obviously that's colored by my world view, but that's the point of it being me talking. If I'm not allowed to infer someone's intent, then I'm not allowed to make any kind of good/bad judgments about a person. I can merely call them competent or not.
Also, for the love of fuck, will people stop saying that anything they disagree with is Megan like. that's a fucking abuse of jargon.
Whether or not you can observe the traits seems independent of that.
On the contrary. Most symptoms of AD/HD are pretty specific and can be immediately spotted:
* Be easily distracted, miss details, forget things, and frequently switch from one activity to another
* Have difficulty focusing on one thing
* Become bored with a task after only a few minutes, unless they are doing something enjoyable
* Have difficulty focusing attention on organizing and completing a task or learning something new
* Have trouble completing or turning in homework assignments, often losing things (e.g., pencils, toys, assignments) needed to complete tasks or activities
* Not seem to listen when spoken to
* Daydream, become easily confused, and move slowly
* Have difficulty processing information as quickly and accurately as others
* Struggle to follow instructions.
Symptoms of sociopathy are anything but specific and immediately observable, that's one of the difficulties with the diagnosis. Yes, I understand your 'diagnosis' is based on observations, but they are vague at best and in any case provide nothing but a fraction of the picture. As I've repeatedly pointed out:
* Is their world view consistent or self serving? - You have no way of knowing that. You only see their public face which is a carefully constructed mask.
* Can they admit fault? - You have no way of knowing that. Ability and willingness to are two completely different things, also see above.
* Have I seen them make real sacrifice for the sake of fairness or kindness? - You see maybe 20-30% of their lives, so again, you have no way of knowing whether they are capable of that.
We glean people's intent from their actions all the time.
The fuck? What's intent got to with anything?
I don't understand why the appeal to authority argument works for sociopathy, but not for ADD.
Two points of difference:
1. "Sociopath" contains an explicit judgment (a negative one), ADHD does not.
2. ADHD can be used as a useful shorthand for a specific type of behavior characteristic of those suffering from ADHD. "Sociopath" cannot.
Also, for the love of fuck, will people stop saying that anything they disagree with is Megan like.
In my last comment, I wasn't thinking of Megan, but rather of politicians. But hey, I call 'em like I see 'em.
Post a Comment