Thought experiment: Should public leaders be tested for psychopathy?

[Z Buck McFate]

As the means to test for psychopathy become more and more objective- where we aren't finding the answer from asking a person questions, but actually scanning brains to find out if their empathy centers are active- is there any reason we shouldn't test people who run for positions of public leadership?

(And remember this is just a thought experiment.)

My own thoughts:

1) I actually kind of think such test results- if there were to reveal a person isn't a psychopath- might extinguish a lot of political animosity, rather than incite it.

2) It's my understanding that people with only cognitive empathy are dangerous, pretty much any way around it (unless maybe you know that's what you're dealing with and can defend yourself accordingly).

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

sure, and so should citizens who wish to vote.

 

[Lord Lavender]

There are far too many factors that could determine how well a candiate rules. For instance a candidate who is sociopathic but then again their rockets and torture devices are aimed att the enemy is a far better choice than a dumb idealist who goes around slapping people with an olive branch or applying first aid to the bad guys. As for Anaxes idea regarding the population again on a larger scale we would let Lennie from Mice of Men vote but not some smart but sociopathic guy who can see the bigger picture and understand concepts. Again this is all tying back to my thread I made before about voting rights for people and many factors were debated such as IQ, mental health e.t.c. I think that the only people who should vote are people with a modest IQ of at least the upper double digits, no mental disorders and between 30-50 so they are old enough to be wise and experienced but not behind the times or too tradtionlist.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

and so should citizens who wish to vote.

Ha! Interesting. It kinda raises further questions, like if it were possible to test en masse what should be done (if anything) about people who test positive.

(I'm not entirely sure I agree about the not voting thing, but I do think major leaders should be tested.)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

There are far too many factors that could determine how well a candiate rules. For instance a candidate who is sociopathic but then again their rockets and torture devices are aimed att the enemy is a far better choice than a dumb idealist who goes around slapping people with an olive branch or applying first aid to the bad guys. As for Anaxes idea regarding the population again on a larger scale we would let Lennie from Mice of Men vote but not some smart but sociopathic guy who can see the bigger picture and understand concepts. Again this is all tying back to my thread I made before about voting rights for people and many factors were debated such as IQ, mental health e.t.c.

Sociopathy is different from psychopathy. I don't have time right now to look it all up and list the differences. But I think in a nutshell, sociopaths want to hurt people for the sake of hurting people- psychopaths don't necessarily want that. They want admiration and power, and don't care if people get hurt in the process. Or something.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Ha! Interesting. It kinda raises further questions, like if it were possible to test en masse what should be done (if anything) about people who test positive.

off to the soylent processing plant.

 

[Amargith]

I think a psych eval in general would a great idea...its just that putting it into practice with all the corruption possibilities would be impossible.

Meanwhile, psychopaths aren't necessarily violent, murderous, or even harmful to others. From what I understand, most learn how to get where they wanna go in life by playing by the rules, without actually *feeling* as deeply as the rest of us do. Even though they lack empathy, they still are susceptible to the rules of self-rewarding behaviour, so if the environment requires them to play fair to actually get somewhere, they tend to be very calm and methodical about doing exactly that.

As I understand it, sociopaths do feel empathy but turn it off, they're often more chaotic and have trouble with impulse control, especially if they came from an abusive background, which makes them often harmful to others. But then that last part isn't only true for sociopaths, it's just more likely to be worse in them.

In general, I think psych evals are definitely part of our the future, however, I don't think we're at a level yet with psychology where we can use it in that way, with utter reliability. That field still needs some serious fine-tuning, especially the actual application and education part.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

As for Anaxes idea regarding the population again on a larger scale we would let Lennie from Mice of Men vote but not some smart but sociopathic guy who can see the bigger picture and understand concepts. Again this is all tying back to my thread I made before about voting rights for people and many factors were debated such as IQ, mental health e.t.c. I think that the only people who should vote are people with a modest IQ of at least the upper double digits, no mental disorders and between 30-50 so they are old enough to be wise and experienced but not behind the times or too tradtionlist.

No,
I didn't say that, you're drawing an assumption.

 

[Lord Lavender]

No,
I didn't say that, you're drawing an assumption.

What I mean is like say that if we are going to test people for psychopathy then why not test for IQ, MBTI, and all other tests out there to get a full profile of the person. Like we only test for psychopathy then not do IQ then we might say for instance leave out super smart business men who have like IQs of 150 but then we let that moral guy with an IQ of 70 who cannot understand who he is voting for and is easily manipulated by leaders but then I suppose if we get all mentally unbalanced people screened out with that idea proposed by OP then that wouldnt happen but still do you want people who dont understand who they are voting for a chance to change the outcome of an election.

Maybe the secret services can do this test behind the scenes to covertly make Third World nations a better place with caring leaders which they need a lot. On the other hand they do say power corrupts all and someone who doesnt test as abnormal on the test proposed by the OP may very well become although not a sociopath or pysocialpath by mental standards they could become selfish and detached from the needs of the populace.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Meanwhile, psychopaths aren't necessarily violent, murderous, or even harmful to others. From what I understand, most learn how to get where they wanna go in life by playing by the rules, without actually *feeling* as deeply as the rest of us do. Even though they lack empathy, they still are susceptible to the rules of self-rewarding behaviour, so if the environment requires them to play fair to actually get somewhere, they tend to be very calm and methodical about doing exactly that.

James Fallon is a neuroscientist who accidentally discovered he's a psychopath. I read the book he wrote about it. He had no idea until he caught a look at his own brain scan, and it happened to look exactly like one in the study on violent criminals he was conducting. When he mentioned this to peers, no one was surprised and he even got a few "We've been telling you this for years" responses. He thought they were kidding. He had no idea there's a kind of empathy other people could feel. He compared it to realizing there's a color that everyone else can see that he had no idea existed.

Anyway, he refers to it as "prosocial psychopathy". Even though they do apparently need to come across as being a positive force, I still found his description of how he goes about maintaining his social position pretty chilling. And more to the point, I seriously doubt a psychopath who was running for office would be nearly as honestly forthcoming as Fallon was in his book. While being loved is a priority and prosocial psychopaths find a way to get it without hurting people as much as the term "psychopath" might suggest- I still wouldn't want one in a major office. (eta: But maybe that's not the best position, and the reason I started this thread is to see if there's a good reason to think otherwise. /eta)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What I mean is like say that if we are going to test people for psychopathy then why not test for IQ, MBTI, and all other tests out there to get a full profile of the person. Like we only test for psychopathy then not do IQ then we might say for instance leave out super smart business men who have like IQs of 150 but then we let that moral guy with an IQ of 70 who cannot understand who he is voting for and is easily manipulated by leaders but then I suppose if we get all mentally unbalanced people screened out with that idea proposed by OP then that wouldnt happen but still do you want people who dont understand who they are voting for a chance to change the outcome of an election.

Maybe the secret services can do this test behind the scenes to covertly make Third World nations a better place with caring leaders which they need a lot. On the other hand they do say power corrupts all and someone who doesnt test as abnormal on the test proposed by the OP may very well become although not a sociopath or pysocialpath by mental standards they could become selfish and detached from the needs of the populace.

I don't think we're in disagreement. I would have a minimum IQ requirement. I've stated this in other discussions.

 

[Amargith]

James Fallon is a neuroscientist who accidentally discovered he's a psychopath. I read the book he wrote about it. He had no idea until he caught a look at his own brain scan. When he mentioned this to peers, no one was surprised and he even got a few "We've been telling you this for years" responses. He thought they were kidding. He had no idea there's a kind of empathy other people could feel. He compared it to realizing there's a color that everyone else can see that he had no idea existed.

Anyway, he refers to it as "prosocial psychopathy". Even though they do apparently need to come across as being a positive force, I still found his description of how he goes about maintaining his social position pretty chilling. And more to the point, I seriously doubt a psychopath who was running for office would be nearly as honestly forthcoming as Fallon was in his book. While being loved is a priority and prosocial psychopaths find a way to get it without hurting people as much as the term "psychopath" might suggest- I still wouldn't want one in a major office. (eta: But maybe that's not the best position, and the reason I started this thread is to see if there's a good reason to think otherwise. /eta)

That is so fascinating...but sure, it's like having a disability in a way, and for some positions...that kind of disability is going to be a serious issue. That said, I'd argue that a sociopath who has been through the ringer in life is a lot more dangerous to have in that kind of position than a 'peaceful' psychopath.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I definately, absolutely, would not want to see that happening. Ever!



For starters, its psychology. Unless there is an obvious issue, no mere test should decide the fate of any one person in our society. And if there are obvious issues resulting in potential lack leadership ability, then the voting process would hopefully eliminate the threat, based on actions, not tests.

Secondly, I also agree that while empathy can be a great asset to any leader, it is not enough on its own to make a good leader and definately not required to make a good leader.

Thirdly, and by far the biggest issue I have with this, is that there is a very fucking good reason confidentiality is a cornerstone of psychology.

Mostly it is chalked up to that it is important to allow people to open up. But what people often forget is that psychology does not only deal with peoples actions, but also peoples thoughts. And whilest everyone can be fully expected to be judged for their actions. I seriously hope I'll never be judged for my thoughts.

IE. This idea is all kinds of wrong and unethical and the thought makes me think about fictional worlds such as seen in Psycho-Pass or Minority Report. It scares the shit out of me.

 

[violet_crown]

As the means to test for psychopathy become more and more objective- where we aren't finding the answer from asking a person questions, but actually scanning brains to find out if their empathy centers are active- is there any reason we shouldn't test people who run for positions of public leadership?

Counterpoint: If you accept the Aristotelian construction that "law is reason, free from passion", is it possible to conceive of a better upholder or executor of the law than someone who does not experience emotions?

 

[senza tema]

Counterpoint: If you accept the Aristotelian construction that "law is reason, free from passion", is it possible to conceive of a better upholder or executor of the law than someone who does not experience emotions?

They do experience emotions though, just not empathy.

 

[Frosty]

That is so fascinating...but sure, it's like having a disability in a way, and for some positions...that kind of disability is going to be a serious issue. That said, I'd argue that a sociopath who has been through the ringer in life is a lot more dangerous to have in that kind of position than a 'peaceful' psychopath.

To me really- even if a person was a sociopath- or tests that way- or anything like that- well, I just believe I guess in giving everyone a chance. And dooming someone because of some sort of abnormal structure in their brain- even one that does maybe point to a propensity for violence and other bad things- just seems really... unfair. Maybe it is stupid to think this way- but in a way people cant help what they are- and some people DO struggle with things like minimal empathy and stuff that they might have been missing since birth... but if they are able to compensate- able to still be 'good' people- still do good things- learn how to somehow relate to the world in a positive way... well... I dont like the idea of anyone being without empathy... knowing someone deep down doesnt feel certain things that I find really important... but I cant completely condemn and dismiss them for it- because maybe they do have something good to offer. I dont know. I wish this was clearer.

 

[senza tema]

I definately, absolutely, would not want to see that happening. Ever!



For starters, its psychology. Unless there is an obvious issue, no mere test should decide the fate of any one person in our society. And if there are obvious issues resulting in potential lack leadership ability, then the voting process would hopefully eliminate the threat, based on actions, not tests.

Secondly, I also agree that while empathy can be a great asset to any leader, it is not enough on its own to make a good leader and definately not required to make a good leader.

Thirdly, and by far the biggest issue I have with this, is that there is a very fucking good reason confidentiality is a cornerstone of psychology.

Mostly it is chalked up to that it is important to allow people to open up. But what people often forget is that psychology does not only deal with peoples actions, but also peoples thoughts. And whilest everyone can be fully expected to be judged for their actions. I seriously hope I'll never be judged for my thoughts.

IE. This idea is all kinds of wrong and unethical and the thought makes me think about fictional worlds such as seen in Psycho-Pass or Minority Report. It scares the shit out of me.

I don't share your optimism about the voting process weeding out obviously unfit candidates but the rest of your post is very well said. Psychology is never going to be "objective," whatever that means, and attacking the confidentiality angle would be an ethical nightmare.

I'm not saying no to any kind of vetting but vetting based on this kind of test seems like a horrible idea to me.

 

[Amargith]

To me really- even if a person was a sociopath- or tests that way- or anything like that- well, I just believe I guess in giving everyone a chance. And dooming someone because of some sort of abnormal structure in their brain- even one that does maybe point to a propensity for violence and other bad things- just seems really... unfair. Maybe it is stupid to think this way- but in a way people cant help what they are- and some people DO struggle with things like minimal empathy and stuff that they might have been missing since birth... but if they are able to compensate- able to still be 'good' people- still do good things- learn how to somehow relate to the world in a positive way... well... I dont like the idea of anyone being without empathy... knowing someone deep down doesnt feel certain things that I find really important... but I cant completely condemn and dismiss them for it- because maybe they do have something good to offer. I dont know. I wish this was clearer.

Oh I agree, which is why my initial point was that an up-to-date psych eval should be mandatory (again, we're not there yet that we can use that properly, but maybe in the future). People change, learn and evolve all the time, so it's important to just know where they're at *right now*

That said, someone who does have problem with impulse control which is a genetic thing - aka, they cannot help or improve on that - maybe shouldn't be in charge of others, or of money, for instance. That however, doesn't mean that they couldn't be like amazing, high level advisers on in their own field of expertise, for instance.

 

[violet_crown]

They do experience emotions though, just not empathy.

If my understanding is correct, I think the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths is that psychopaths are unable to experience emotions at all, including empathy. They either are born with abnormalities to the part of the brain that cause people to process emotional stimuli, or have trauma that makes it impossible for those parts of the brain to process such information. Sociopaths, otoh, don't experience emotions like remorse, regret, or shame, but have limited emotional self-regulation for negative emotions like anger.

To be fair, I think there's a lot of debate over the boundaries of either diagnosis. I've seen them used in some places interchangeably, so who knows.

 

[senza tema]

If my understanding is correct, I think the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths is that psychopaths are unable to experience emotions at all, including empathy. They either are born with abnormalities to the part of the brain that cause people to process emotional stimuli, or have trauma that makes it impossible for those parts of the brain to process such information. Sociopaths, otoh, don't experience emotions like remorse, regret, or shame, but have limited emotional self-regulation for negative emotions like anger.

To be fair, I think there's a lot of debate over the boundaries of either diagnosis. I've seen them used in some places interchangeably, so who knows.

Neither is clinically a diagnosis, so far as I'm aware. They'd be clumped under Antisocial Personality Disorder in the DSM V.

I guess the reason why I'm reluctant to accept that "psychopaths" feel no emotions at all is because they still engage in pathologically self-serving or risk-taking behaviors, presumably because there's some psychological payoff involved, even if it only involves the self.