But here's the question, how is it verified that the tough-minded, remorseless, even mean-spirited people we see in these professions are actually psychopaths?.
Kevin Dutton verified that most of these individuals were psychopaths by subjecting them to a battery of tests, including Hare's Psychopath checklist. Psychologists have studied many of these well-respected professionals and see compelling evidence to conclude that these individuals displayed various psychopathic traits.
Edit: So here's a question, does Saddam qualify as a psychopath? He wasn't fearless in the least. Tough-minded towards others, but not self.
How about George Bush who made many tough-minded decisions and yet "Former US president says rapper calling him a racist during a Hurricane Katrina telethon in 2005 was an 'all-time low'", and his worst moment in his presidency. That is quite hyper-sensitive towards self. It would be interesting to submit the name of any of these supposed psychopaths and see how free from hypersensitivity towards self they actually are. I'd be curious to see how many actually are. That part is news to me.
This takes us right back to our old discussion where you've claimed that psychopaths feel some fear, so they're not fearless. You keep on thinking of this problem in terms of rigid dichotomies, I.E psychopathic or non-psychopathic, fearless or fearful. You've got to stop doing that, there is a continuum between all of these disparate traits. It's not that you either are a psychopath or you're not, it's that some people display more psychopathic traits than others. Obviously even the "pure" psychopaths, if there were any, would still display some fear, but much less than those who are less psychopathic. Again, however, even the most hardened of psychopaths display some fear, but they ignore it much more easily than the less psychopathic people.
In the sociopath next door, Martha Stout argued that hypochondria is common among people who have a very weak or no conscience because such people are intensely self-centered, so they naturally sense many of the threats coming their way, real or imaginary.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sociopath...374378624&sr=8-1&keywords=Sociopath+next+door Hitler was a known hypochondriac too who nourished an obsession of "dying from cancer", it is no surprise that Saddam shared this trait. It is obvious that he could cope with his fears or silence them enough to take many great risks to get in power, but the fact that he was a hypochondriac makes him more similar to most psychopaths and not dissimilar.
Remember, the hallmark of a psychopath is not a complete absence of fear, but the ability to blunt those emotions or easily disregard them when necessary.
Regarding George W. Bush, he had enough psychopathic traits to make the top 10 on this site, but it is likely that he was less psychopathic than many of his predecessors and other notorious world-leaders.
http://kevindutton.co.uk/psychopathy-presidents.html
That is quite hyper-sensitive towards self. It would be interesting to submit the name of any of these supposed psychopaths and see how free from hypersensitivity towards self they actually are. I'd be curious to see how many actually are. That part is news to me.
Again, there is no contradiction between the psychopath's ostensible fearlessness and hyper-sensitivity towards self. His or her brain is naturally wired for radically selfish behavior because he is detached from the visceral emotion of fear, but when he chooses to, he can be very sensitive to his own emotions. Because psychopaths are intensely self-centered, they often choose to focus on their own emotions rather than that of others, but they are able to disregard them with greater ease than normal people.
A person doesn't get to be an expert on fearlessness and courage if they have not ever looked their own mortality square in the eyes, or been physically violated and made to feel completely helpless in excruciating pain.
I don't understand the premise of your argument, why does a psychopath need to experience genuine fear before he can claim to be fearless? This argument is biased in favor of a normal person who can easily get overwhelmed by fear. Your argument seems to fall apart when we apply it to situations in other contexts. Let's pretend for a second that I am a genius (of course, I am not) and I've never struggled with any intellectual pursuit. If that was the case, would you really say that I cannot claim to be undaunted by intellectual challenges because I've never had difficulties in my studies? That seems rather implausible. What about a gifted athlete who claims that he excels at his sport, would you tell him that he can't make this claim because he has never struggled in it?
Essentially, it can be said that you have certain virtues or strengths of character if you display the core competencies associated with these strengths. The end-result is what matters at the end of the day, how you got there is simply another topic altogether. If a psychopath excels at overcoming most challenges where normal people freeze in fear, he clearly achieves the core competencies associated with the virtue of fearlessness, does he not?