Thought experiment: Should public leaders be tested for psychopathy?

[Poki]

Public office does not have the same protections from issues that arise that corporate jobs have. The higher up the more complicated the process to remove and the more damage can be done. Its the difference in rules between public and private.

 

[Amargith]

Wait, sorry, I should elaborate at least a little bit.

At the core, it is a companies perogative to inform themselves about recruits to the best of their ability before hiring, while you might not like it, that's the way it is and there really is nothing ethically wrong with it.

Imagine a country however having the perogative to inform themselves about its citizens and act on that information to remove the rights of the citizens where they see fit.

Well, I think you can appreciate the difference there.




Well, it's important to be able to share your thoughts regardless of what they are, that's what discussion is for. It was presumptious of me to cut off your line of thinking the way I did. You should feel free and unburdened to interject whereever you feel like.

I deeply apologize.

Still, being president is not a job though, it is a privilege and right by democratic standards.

It's ok

Tbh, from where I'm standing, being president is a job and then some. It requires more than just skill to get hired, imho, but that doesn't mean that the public shouldn't be aware of who they are hiring and what their skills are. This would just add to the information that they already dig up on these people now, just in a way less slanderous way, imho

Let me be very clear - only the psychologists know the test questions and their computer system holds the answers given (or the shrink during the interview). They make up the report and only *that* gets released to the client. And, the candidate is entitled to going over the report with the shrinks in detail to get insight into the results, as well.
That was how it worked where I worked, in any case.

If you use the same system regarding elected officials, all you'd do is provide the public with the report of the shrink based on those scores. They wouldn't get insight into the questions asked, the answers provided or the interview part.

 

[Fluffywolf]

It's ok

Tbh, from where I'm standing, being president is a job and then some. It requires more than just skill to get hired, imho, but that doesn't mean that the public shouldn't be aware of who they are hiring and what their skills are. This would just add to the information that they already dig up on these people now, just in a way less slanderous way, imho

Let me be very clear - only the psychologists know the test questions and their computer system holds the answers given (or the shrink during the interview). They make up the report and only *that* gets released to the client. And, the candidate is entitled to going over the report with the shrinks in detail to get insight into the results, as well.
That was how it worked where I worked, in any case.

If you use the same system regarding elected officials, all you'd do is provide the public with the report of the shrink based on those scores. They wouldn't get insight into the questions asked, the answers provided or the interview part.

Well, there are elections for a reason. And even before elections there are processes afoot to try and ensure capable candidates are presented. (I freely admit something must have gone wrong in that department in the last US elections, but that is beside the point).

Still, here is the main issue I have with your proposal. And that is that, aside from things mentioned earlier in the thread about these test being too easily manipulated and therefor impossible to be properly and soundly executed and whatever you could come up with against or for the idea.

It is and always will be a highly unethical thing to do to base any judgement on anyone, regardless of position or disposition, on a test that does not in any way show concrete proof of inability, but rather the notion of potential inability, in a democratic construct.

Democratic being the keyword there, and elected officials being an integral part of this.

I know it sounds romantic to be sure of the fact that the leader does not have a smudge on his paper. But the implications of 'creating smudges' on peoples paper, without any justifiable grounds, and then using specifically that to prevent that person from being part of democratic society is just wrong. There are plenty of justifiable and ethical ways to judge wether or not a person is fit too lead. A psychology test just isn't one of them. You can't justify it and it's just not ethical.

And that's why it's fine in companies. They aren't democratic and frankly don't need to be. That's solely the burden of the society/government itself.

So, sure, you can think of being president as a job. And yes there are plenty of ways you can compare the two. But at the core there is something inherently different that completely changes the way we should look at it. And all of that is due to democracy. Exceptions to the rule only undermine what that stands for. And if you do start to move the line, then the question becomes, where do you stop? If it's okay to ignore ethics here, maybe we can ignore it there too, and there. A democracy must remain resilient to such movements and ideas or it will have a very real possibility of completely crumbling.

 

[Amargith]

Well, there are elections for a reason. And even before elections there are processes afoot to try and ensure capable candidates are presented. (I freely admit something must have gone wrong in that department in the last US elections, but that is beside the point).

Still, here is the main issue I have with your proposal. And that is that, aside from things mentioned earlier in the thread about these test being too easily manipulated and therefor impossible to be properly and soundly executed and whatever you could come up with against or for the idea.

It is and always will be a highly unethical thing to do to base any judgement on anyone, regardless of position or disposition, on a test that does not in any way show concrete proof of inability, but rather the notion of potential inability, in a democratic construct.

Democratic being the keyword there, and elected officials being an integral part of this.

I know it sounds romantic to be sure of the fact that the leader does not have a smudge on his paper. But the implications of 'creating smudges' on peoples paper, without any justifiable grounds, and then using specifically that to prevent that person from being part of democratic society is just wrong. There are plenty of justifiable and ethical ways to judge wether or not a person is fit too lead. A psychology test just isn't one of them. You can't justify it and it's just not ethical.

And that's why it's fine in companies. They aren't democratic and frankly don't need to be. That's solely the burden of the society/government itself.

So, sure, you can think of being president as a job. And yes there are plenty of ways you can compare the too. But at the core there is something inherently different that completely changes the way we should look at it. And all of that is due to democracy. Exceptions to the rule only undermine what that stands for. And if you do start to move the line, then the question becomes, where do you stop? If it's okay to ignore ethics here, maybe we can ignore it there too, and there. A democracy must remain resilient to such movements and ideas or it will have a very real possibility of completely crumbling.

...I think you're conflating the tests that they were talking earlier about with the ones I'm talking about. This isn't some lie-detector test thing that they do, or a test for psychopaths or mental illness or what have you. These are standardised tests that are put together on an individual basis, depending on the kind of job they're applying for. And they come in two categories: personality tests and skill tests. So based on the job-requirements, tests specifically designed to test how they would solve (insert problem they would regularly encounter and is vital to the job), will be compiled into the system.

The kind of personality tests I'm talking about just track the things you prioritise, and the patterns of how you go about things and problem solve. And for high-profile jobs, they do a battery of these tests to get a well-rounded picture. This isn't a black-and-white condemn button, it just gives an overview of how someone's mind works.

The skill based tests that take a look at just how fast someone can solve a particular type of problem, and how they would prioritise the work load.

I'm not talking about exclusion based on these tests, or judgement from these tests. I'm talking about objectively testing the fields that a president is likely to run into (the skill tests) and mapping out their values and priorities

And yes, they do test also for self-esteem issues and problems with stress, but this wouldn't like an 'if you answer this, you will fail' kind of thing. It would just give a clear overview of the way this person would go about taking care of the country. And many roads can lead to Rome. So this isn't about inabilities or potential abilities. Granted, the interpretation done by the actual *shrink* could be problematic here, depending on their biases, I'll absolutely give you that.

Im...gathering that the part you have problems with is the mapping out of their values and priorities? Honestly, that is something I do to every person I meet and is highly relevant in a political setting - it's why they have the debates. People tend to want to vote for those that match their values and priorities, so it would be highly relevant to know, and to be honest, as a leader it is something you should share with others.

I guess..(is this a Ti-thing ) it can feel incredibly intimate to have to share those things with the group about yourself? But if you're going to lead a nation, and you're asking that nation to put their trust in your sound judgement, I feel it is vital information to have. I'm not talking about personal, at home, intimate concrete information, and whatever affairs, or skeletons you have in your closet. But the general patterns of which values you instinctively hold dear, and what you tend to prioritise? I see no qualms in having to share that shit as a potential leader.

Also, elections would still be the deciding factor - this would be just additional information about the candidates for the public to make their decision

 

[Fluffywolf]

...I think you're conflating the tests that they were talking earlier about with the ones I'm talking about. This isn't some lie-detector test thing that they do, or a test for psychopaths or mental illness or what have you. These are standardised tests that are put together on an individual basis, depending on the kind of job they're applying for. And they come in two categories: personality tests and skill tests. So based on the job-requirements, tests specifically designed to test how they would solve (insert problem they would regularly encounter and is vital to the job), will be compiled into the system.

The kind of personality tests I'm talking about just track the things you prioritise, and the patterns of how you go about things and problem solve. And for high-profile jobs, they do a battery of these tests to get a well-rounded picture. This isn't a black-and-white condemn button, it just gives an overview of how someone's mind works.

The skill based tests that take a look at just how fast someone can solve a particular type of problem, and how they would prioritise the work load.

I'm not talking about exclusion based on these tests, or judgement from these tests. I'm talking about objectively testing the fields that a president is likely to run into (the skill tests) and mapping out their values and priorities

And yes, they do test also for self-esteem issues and problems with stress, but this wouldn't like an 'if you answer this, you will fail' kind of thing. It would just give a clear overview of the way this person would go about taking care of the country. And many roads can lead to Rome. So this isn't about inabilities or potential abilities. Granted, the interpretation done by the actual *shrink* could be problematic here, depending on their biases, I'll absolutely give you that.

Im...gathering that the part you have problems with is the mapping out of their values and priorities? Honestly, that is something I do to every person I meet and is highly relevant in a political setting - it's why they have the debates. People tend to want to vote for those that match their values and priorities, so it would be highly relevant to know, and to be honest, as a leader it is something you should share with others.

I guess..(is this a Ti-thing ) it can feel incredibly intimate to have to share those things with the group about yourself? But if you're going to lead a nation, and you're asking that nation to put their trust in your sound judgement, I feel it is vital information to have. I'm not talking about personal, at home, intimate concrete information, and whatever affairs, or skeletons you have in your closet. But the general patterns of which values you instinctively hold dear, and what you tend to prioritise? I see no qualms in having to share that shit as a potential leader.

Burp... Tunnelvision. Okay lets do this.

Politicians sort of already share information in this manner, more often than not in such a political manner that you aren't quite sure where their priorities lie, and in fact most of what a politician says and does tries to be as all encompassing as possible. Because taking sides excludes voters. But let's just ignore all that and try and see if there is really any concrete and substantial merit in any of these kinds of tests.

All of these tests are based on bias. They are extremely subjective by nature. So yes, I can absolutely relate to the fact that this information can mean a great deal to people with similar views. And yes, I concede the fact that these tests aren't exclusive or unethical per se in the way you describe them. But does it really provide tangible evidence of capability?

My brain is flooding right now thinking about this and quite frankly. I mean, what makes a person decide to vote on person A and not person B. Well, that's a very interesting question and the more I think about it, the more I realize I am not qualified or capable to fully answer that in any acceptable fashion. There's just too much to consider.

Yes, the information your tests would get, could be of great value to people in deciding who to vote for. Yes, the same information could also cause a lot of people with slightly different biases to vote differently. But I'm not sure if it would add anything concrete to the proccess. I mean, voting is already pretty imperfect as it is. I feel like this just adds more unneccesary noise to the election process.

Ultimately, you should vote for whomever rallies for the things that best improve your personal situation. So it's mainly about policies. That's at the center of the process. Aptitude tests, or whatever test you might think off. I don't think it says anything about what is most important in the voting process.

At the very least though, you raise a serious question about voter incentive that's quite interesting to debate, but that's probably for another topic.

 

[Amargith]

Burp... Tunnelvision. Okay lets do this.

Politicians sort of already share information in this manner, more often than not in such a political manner that you aren't quite sure where their priorities lie, and in fact most of what a politician says and does tries to be as all encompassing as possible. Because taking sides excludes voters. But let's just ignore all that and try and see if there is really any concrete and substantial merit in any of these kinds of tests.

All of these tests are based on bias. They are extremely subjective by nature. So yes, I can absolutely relate to the fact that this information can mean a great deal to people with similar views. And yes, I concede the fact that these tests aren't exclusive or unethical per se in the way you describe them. But does it really provide tangible evidence of capability?

My brain is flooding right now thinking about this and quite frankly. I mean, what makes a person decide to vote on person A and not person B. Well, that's a very interesting question and the more I think about it, the more I realize I am not qualified or capable to fully answer that in any acceptable fashion. There's just too much to consider.

Yes, the information your tests would get, could be of great value to people in deciding who to vote for. Yes, the same information could also cause a lot of people with slightly different biases to vote differently. But I'm not sure if it would add anything concrete to the proccess. I mean, voting is already pretty imperfect as it is. I feel like this just adds more unneccesary noise to the election process.

Ultimately, you should vote for whomever rallies for the things that best improve your personal situation. So it's mainly about policies. That's at the center of the process. Aptitude tests, or whatever test you might think off. I don't think it says anything about what is most important in the voting process.

At the very least though, you raise a serious question about voter incentive that's quite interesting to debate, but that's probably for another topic.

Heh - tnx for a very interesting reply

I've taken the tests myself, btw.. I had to, to get a job there

And it was after I was familiar with MBTI, and even after that, I would not have been able to game the system (trust me, my tests showed things I was trying to deny existed, even to myself). Yes, they do tell you 'ok, remember, you have answer HONESTLY and you have to answer with a WORK MINDSET, for it to be valuable'. This is also why they run an entire battery of tests, to figure out any inconsistencies, in case people don't follow the instructions.

Don't get me wrong - they're far from perfect, but honestly...can politics *get* any worse? Right now, we're dependent on what the candidates spout about each other, what everyone else finds in their closet (a WAY bigger invasion of privacy, imho, than to take a test that determines an abstract pattern of what your mind does), and let's not forget the highly scripted debates. It's not like any of these systems are any more perfect than these tests would be and I'd argue that they could be a significant step up, from what I've seen, and ironically...a way less subjective means than the media circus that passes for 'vetting' currently

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I haven't read through the entire thread. So someone may have already stated it but the OP terminology isn't clear.

Psychopath/sociopath are not diagnosed labels.

Someone who exhibits the traits of a psychopath or sociopath will be diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder.

That is the correct diagnosis in which to vet (if you wanted to based on thread premise).

For instance, someone with APD is diagnosed by exhibiting :

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1.
failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

2.
deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

3.
impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

4.
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

5.
reckless disregard for safety of self or others

6.
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

7.
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B. The individual is at least age 18 years.

C. There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

More or less. I'm not up to date with the most recent diagnostic criteria.

But it's really nothing to do with the thread premise (I think it's a poor idea and ripe for abuse as records would be made public, etc)

Besides, people who have APD stick out like a sore thumb! BUT! if they have co-mingling diagnosis of narcissism? (Cluster C, I believe in DSM?) Anyway, that's a sneaky and dangerous person.

It's not simple, even as a thought exercise because diagnosis doesn't work that way. Someone with NPD can kill, that doesn't make them have APD.

Someone with APD won't always kill. They may be violent but may never take a life. It's not so cut and dry.

---
The premise of the thread is to curtail damage by way of vetting politicians via psych diagnosis. I don't think this is a viable possibility and in doing so, will erode more freedom than fix what's wrong.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Don't get me wrong - they're far from perfect, but honestly...can politics *get* any worse? Right now, we're dependent on what the candidates spout about each other, what everyone else finds in their closet (a WAY bigger invasion of privacy, imho, than to take a test that determines an abstract pattern of what your mind does), and let's not forget the highly scripted debates. It's not like any of these systems are any more perfect than these tests would be and I'd argue that they could be a significant step up, from what I've seen, and ironically...a way less subjective means than the media circus that passes for 'vetting' currently

Oh, elections are a cesspool, no question about that.

This is my voting process by the way:

When I vote, here in the Netherlands. I tend to ignore all the fluff in the media. First I look for the two parties with the best policies for my situation (actually I've known which parties those are for a long time now, so don't really have to look for them anymore), after that I compare the two leaders of those two parties in terms of wit and intelligence. How well they present themselves. A subjective notion, for sure, but hey I'm not perfect either. Then I consider the possibilities and ramifications of the expected size of their party and potential coalitions. Then I assign a rather arbitrary value to both the leader of the parties and the coalition ramifications. Usually put more value in the coalition possibilities rather than leader presentability as it's the coalition strength that will ultimately push policies the best. Although I did deviate from that one time, because of a leader I did not like. And then decide my vote based on that.

For me, any and all media banter or whatever tests or information you might add to that, will undoubtedly be harshly ignored by yours truely. So I guess it all comes down to what you find most important in who to vote for. There is always going to be a subjective element to it. If you think knowing the results of tests is valueble to you, it probably is.

Ultimately though I do hope you consider policies first and foremost.

 

[Amargith]

Oh, elections are a cesspool, no question about that.

This is my voting process by the way:

When I vote, here in the Netherlands. I tend to ignore all the fluff in the media. First I look for the two parties with the best policies for my situation (actually I've known which parties those are for a long time now, so don't really have to look for them anymore), after that I compare the two leaders of those two parties in terms of wit and intelligence. How well they present themselves. A subjective notion, for sure, but hey I'm not perfect either. Then I consider the possibilities and ramifications of the expected size of their party and potential coalitions. Then I assign a rather arbitrary value to both the leader of the parties and the coalition ramifications. Usually put more value in the coalition possibilities rather than leader presentability as it's the coalition strength that will ultimately push policies the best. Although I did deviate from that one time, because of a leader I did not like. And then decide my vote based on that.

For me, any and all media banter or whatever tests or information you might add to that, will undoubtedly be harshly ignored by yours truely. So I guess it all comes down to what you find most important in who to vote for. There is always going to be a subjective element to it. If you think knowing the results of tests is valueble to you, it probably is.

Ultimately though I do hope you consider policies first and foremost.

I use much the same process...with one exception: I don't evaluate wit and intelligence, per se (though intelligence is in the mix), and I'll admit to having less of an informed opinion on how size and coalitions could affect things (but I'm getting better at that).

Instead, I evaluate their emotional states, their priorities, the things they seem hung up on (and why, and how this would likely affect or cloud their judgement if it became an issue), and the values they proclaim to uphold, and the likelihood of them to cave on those under pressure, as well as their ability to execute on those in a realistic way -> this is the information that those tests would definitely help confirm or give more insight on.

People are people.

They can be smart, they can have the best brains ever and the cleverest ideas - but if they're broken psychologically and could care less about others, or what their policies will do to others, that's a ginormous red flag - it's the 'AI will kill humankind' argument, basically. Similarly, idealists are amazing, but if their idealism gets in the way of actually assessing the realistic execution of their ideas, it can end up doing more harm to the cause they proclaimed to support, instead of actually help that cause (our green party in Belgium has a rep for that, for example).

Iow, the road to hell is paved with good intentions - that doesn't mean it's a road I wanna put us on - no matter how charismatic, witty or smart the candidate is.

 

[Fluffywolf]

(our green party in Belgium has a rep for that, for example).

"Groene hobbies"

We have that phenomenon here as well. Spends a lot of money. Does not get results.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread, which is being used to justify unethical suggestions.

Generally speaking, the 3 disorders can be listed in order of severity from least to greatest as follows: Narcissism<Sociopathy<Psychopathy

However, there is a LOT of debate amongst psych professionals as to what distinguishes sociopaths from psychopaths and whether they are even different disorders.

Certainly, people who fall into any of the 3 disordered groups above can harm others, as can people with none of the disorders. ALL 3 will put their needs and desires before the needs and desires of others. Should this exclude them from office/positions of power? Unfortunately, I cannot say "yes." Sociopaths are commonly found in positions of power and are actually beneficial to others at times. Common careers for sociopaths include surgeons, lawyer, CEOs, TV and radio personalities, and others. Do they get to where they are by being cutthroat? Probably. Is that wrong? Probably. Do you care when it's you that needs heart surgery to save you life? I doubt it.

Listen: I hate Trump as much as the next reasonably intelligent person who didn't vote for him (I do not care who hates me for saying that). The man is a weak and vile narcissistic abuser. There is no cure for that shit and it will never stop. He's childish and incompetent, unfit for office. He won based on a platform of hate and lies fueled by the most fearful and ignorant among us, and also a flawed system which allows for the possibility of a majority vote winner to lose. It's wrong to say he can't hold office because he is potentially a sociopath because it's discrimination, no matter how weird and icky and wrong it feels inside to look at it that way. On the other hand, disqualifying him based on his actions and failures is completely justifiable. Unfortunately, everyone ignored the evidence and voted for him anyway.

I know nobody mentioned Trump, and I probably just wadded a few skivvies into a bunch, but that's my 2 cents.

Additionally, I am extremely fascinated by sociopathy. I used to read a blog called Sociopath World for fun, just to expand my understanding of human behavior. I almost started a thread about it but changed my mind. I am so very opposite a sociopath, but it is intriguing to imagine what it must be like as well as ponder why the disorder develops only in some.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Don't get me wrong - they're far from perfect, but honestly...can politics *get* any worse? Right now, we're dependent on what the candidates spout about each other, what everyone else finds in their closet (a WAY bigger invasion of privacy, imho, than to take a test that determines an abstract pattern of what your mind does), and let's not forget the highly scripted debates. It's not like any of these systems are any more perfect than these tests would be and I'd argue that they could be a significant step up, from what I've seen, and ironically...a way less subjective means than the media circus that passes for 'vetting' currently

Yeah, this is kind of what was going through my mind. At least here in the States.

Fluffywolf brought up the thing about judging based on brain scans (ie potential to be hurtful) as opposed to what the person has actually done. And the thing is, if a person actually is a psychopath (if my understanding is accurate) the evidence will be there in their past anyway. They might be really good at covering it up, but it will be there if they are psychopaths. There will be bullying behavior, a blatant disregard for others, etc. As I said about James Fallon, he was really surprised to find out that almost no one who knew him- from long time acquaintances to colleagues- was surprised to find out the results and many had in fact already been telling him he was a psychopath for years. So honestly, I would think doing more extensive research into candidates' pasts might yield the same 'results' as a brain scan- without the problematic of using the 'potential to harm' against them.....but somehow someone just got elected in spite of such past stuff surfacing. So I don't even know.

eta: Anyway, it's my understanding that the behavior is always there. If the trademark behaviors aren't in someone's past, then they wouldn't qualify as a psychopath. I think the whole thing about the brain scan studies is that they don't show 'potential to hurt' so much as they show up in people who already have the behavior. But I would agree that the studies haven't been extensive enough to practically use. /eta

***********

Also, my notion of psychopath is kind of shaped by someone I knew (who damaged a lot of people, but who would also certainly fit in the "prosocial psychopath" category)- it's possible not all psychopaths are quite that manipulative or sinister. He did leave a trail of damage behind him but he was incredibly good at spinning reality around to cover it up. It's hard for me to reconcile this comparison to other mental illnesses. Psychopathy (where it isn't violent, but prosocial) seems that menacing to me. It seems like a hyperbolic leap to me to compare it to depression or schizophrenia.

I know nobody mentioned Trump, and I probably just wadded a few skivvies into a bunch, but that's my 2 cents.

Not gonna lie, he definitely inspired the op question. This whole past election inspired the op question. I'm sick of elections being a shitstorm of unhelpful information. And I was thinking about how brain scans don't lie. Our interpretations of them aren't beyond question, but I'm saying people can't manipulate brain scan results.

Additionally, I am extremely fascinated by sociopathy. I used to read a blog called Sociopath World for fun, just to expand my understanding of human behavior. I almost started a thread about it but changed my mind. I am so very opposite a sociopath, but it is intriguing to imagine what it must be like as well as ponder why the disorder develops only in some.

Start it! I actually would like to hear exactly what the difference is between psychopath and sociopath (including the source of that distinction). I think my own conception of psychopath is actually largely based on Fallon's writing and whatever I've read in books about narcissism comparing the two conditions. And what I know about narcissists comes from books on narcissism. It might be a good idea for there to be a thread to compare definitions and share resources.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

@ Z Buck McFate - I figured that was the angle you were coming from. Weird fuckin' times for sure.

 

[baccheion]

Public leaders need to be less about acting like salespeople and more about knowing what they're doing.

 

[ceecee]

There's a presidential physician. I don't see a problem with a presidential psychiatrist.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

There's a presidential physician. I don't see a problem with a presidential psychiatrist.

I would guess that they have one of sorts, but it would be optional or possibly encouraged. Regardless, the presence of one is irrelevant to having control over who gets into office.

 

[Mole]

The problem is really interesting in that all politicians seek to maximise their power but liberal democracy limits power. So liberal democratic politicians are pulled in two directions at once, and this takes a toll on their psyche.

But when liberal democracy and the limitation of power are absent, we get dictatorship, or oligarchy, or theocracy, or rule by one family, or anarchy.

So liberal democracy protects the rights, responsibilities, and freedoms of citizens but at the cost of putting two conflicting impulses into the psyches of our politicians.

Does this make our politicians psychopathic? No. I merely puts them under stress as the price we pay for democratic freedom.

 

[ceecee]

I would guess that they have one of sorts, but it would be optional or possibly encouraged. Regardless, the presence of one is irrelevant to having control over who gets into office.

There has been a physician to the president since 1895, none have had psychiatric training. Trump would find it laughable as would many elderly men around his age but for future presidents, I think it would be as important as any other health care provider.

 

[Poki]

There has been a physician to the president since 1895, none have had psychiatric training. Trump would find it laughable as would many elderly men around his age but for future presidents, I think it would be as important as any other health care provider.

Most elderly men have a much more toned down ego issue...they dont want it stepped on. Nothing compared to Trump complaining because his magnificent gold plated statue was called out for what is and not the image he wants it to be. Trump is more like...dont keep me from inflating my ego full of hot air.

I wonder if anyone fears a psychiatrist for the president actually mentally steering him?

 

[nonsequitur]

Firstly: The reason why so many psychopaths become CEOs is because you need to be able to make difficult decisions regarding people in leadership positions. Forbes Welcome

The irony in people who'd be for this sort of thing not realizing that they're the sociopaths themselves.

Actually, I disagree. They're just people who don't understand what either "sociopathy" or "psychopathy" really means. It is quite damaging though, to have to deal with that stigma and internalise that hatred.

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.

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.

Sociopaths don't experience emotions in the way that "normal" people do. Psychopaths experience emotions within a very narrow range that don't relate to others' wellbeing. Both can be very damaging under certain circumstances. For. e.g. the stereotype of sociopaths as killers is a common picture of what they are. But that assumes a drive to kill underneath. For people who don't feel emotions with no drive to hurt others and a strict ethical framework, normal functioning in society is not only possible - it is beneficial. Self-regulation, like any other skill, can be trained.

Psychopaths are very damaging when they have the drive to exploit others for self-advancement. When this happens, they also enjoy the hurt and chaos that they cause. When channeled towards a field like politics, business or law though, it comes across as ambition. These people rise to the top when they are highly capable and manipulate the world to serve their talents.

With regards to empathy. The conversation has been having some pretty good discussion in their series about the nature of empathy and the role that it plays in general society. Here's the first article: Understanding others' feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it?

And here is the relevant section that I want to point out:

Empathy is the ability to share and understand the emotions of others. It is a construct of multiple components, each of which is associated with its own brain network. There are three ways of looking at empathy.

First there is affective empathy. This is the ability to share the emotions of others. People who score high on affective empathy are those who, for example, show a strong visceral reaction when watching a scary movie.

They feel scared or feel others’ pain strongly within themselves when seeing others scared or in pain.

Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is the ability to understand the emotions of others. A good example is the psychologist who understands the emotions of the client in a rational way, but does not necessarily share the emotions of the client in a visceral sense.

Finally, there’s emotional regulation. This refers to the ability to regulate one’s emotions. For example, surgeons need to control their emotions when operating on a patient.

[...]

People often say psychopaths lack empathy but this is not always the case. In fact, psychopathy is enabled by good cognitive empathic abilities - you need to understand what your victim is feeling when you are torturing them. What psychopaths typically lack is sympathy. They know the other person is suffering but they just don’t care.

Research has also shown those with psychopathic traits are often very good at regulating their emotions.

It's possible for people to have cognitive empathy but be unable to feel affective empathy. They'd still be classified as a sociopath. I would also advise people not to use the words "abnormalities in the brain". There is a strong evolutionary advantage to this. Difference does not mean abnormality.

I was quite reluctant to get involved in this thread but felt that there were some huge misconceptions that needed to be cleared up.