Thought experiment: Should public leaders be tested for psychopathy?

[magpie]

Yeah, that went well.

What did you want people's responses to be like? Serious question.

 

[miss fortune]

no

not only would we have nobody to vote for, but the whole slippery slope argument

at what point would I get a polite letter in the mail informing me that I'd no longer be able to vote?

can't get behind that

 

[Fluffywolf]

no

not only would we have nobody to vote for, but the whole slippery slope argument

at what point would I get a polite letter in the mail informing me that I'd no longer be able to vote?

can't get behind that

I haven't quite figured out who you are yet since my return, by the way. Well, to be honest, I started to get bored trying to inverstigate the matter after 2.309 seconds and figured it be best to just ask.

But you changed your name right? I mean, I did see you joined long ago and by your post count I feel like I must know you.

Edit: Thanks, someone enlightened me. I know you very well! Ah whatever...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

What did you want people's responses to be like? Serious question.

I can understand a negative knee-jerk reaction to psychology. The thought of someone being diagnosed as psychopath who isn't psychopathic is horrifying. The history of "professional" mental health assistance has some very shady corners. And currently the whole profession is so ruled by Big Pharma that more things about it than not are still ass-backwards.

That being said- I'd hoped to hear opinions about whether or not psychopathy should disqualify someone from being a leader in a major public office.

At this point, it might be more interesting to ask if psychopathy should disqualify someone from working in the mental health field. Except it'd probably just go right past the point and into "how ethical is it to use brain scans to diagnose psychopathy" again.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I can understand a negative knee-jerk reaction to psychology. The thought of someone being diagnosed as psychopath who isn't psychopathic is horrifying. The history of "professional" mental health assistance has some very shady corners. And currently the whole profession is so ruled by Big Pharma that more things about it than not are still ass-backwards.

That being said- I'd hoped to hear opinions about whether or not psychopathy should disqualify someone from being a leader in a major public office.

At this point, it might be more interesting to ask if psychopathy should disqualify someone from working in the mental health field. Except it'd probably just go right past the point and into "how ethical is it to use brain scans to diagnose psychopathy" again.

The issue is in judging someone not because of what they've done or do, but on what they could possibly or potentially do based on presumptions. So the issue is not in someone being diagnosed with psychopathy wrongly, but with damning psychopaths without legitimate or justifiable grounds.

IE. don't restrict anyone with psychopathy based on their psychosis alone. That's the main crux of the issue.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The issue is in judging someone not because of what they've done or do, but on what they could possibly or potentially do based on presumptions. So the issue is not in someone being diagnosed with psychopathy wrongly, but with damning psychopaths without legitimate or justifiable grounds.

IE. don't restrict anyone with psychopathy based on their psychosis alone. That's the main crux of the issue.

Okay, so by this logic, then it would also be okay/reasonable- if someone was definitely a psychopath, but hadn't done anything yet (or, gotten caught yet)- for them to work in mental health? Or be a nanny for your children? Is there anything they should be put at least on probationary terms for (in Fluffywolf's opinion)?

[eta: And yeah, this is more what I was looking for. Though I've got to go get some actual work done, for now. Boo.]

 

[miss fortune]

but aren't there just as many other psych disorders who could just as easily cause problems if untreated?

are we going to ban them from serving office as well?

 

[Fluffywolf]

Let me just add this to the topic. After this I don't think I have much to add, but I'll be around if you want to ask more.

-Some psychopaths do bad things, sure. But I challenge the idea that all psychopaths are bad by definition.
-There are also many people who aren't psychopaths, but still do bad things.

Let's say this there's this guy, we call him Mr A. And Mr A. is a very bad man, when he was 30 years old he murdered someone in cold blood. Should we have restricted him from becoming a politician or allowing him to vote when he was a teenager? Or maybe when he was a baby even?

Wait a minute, we don't even really know what you are capable of. But judging from what other people have done in their lives, you could very well also eventually do something bad in the future. We'll remove your rights as well.

Oh and him, and her.. Ah look, everyone in the world has the ability and potential to do bad things, screw them all, all rights revoked!

You see the point I'm getting at right?

Okay, so by this logic, then it would also be okay/reasonable- if someone was definitely a psychopath, but hadn't done anything yet (or, gotten caught yet)- for them to work in mental health? Or be a nanny for your children? Is there anything they should be put at least on probationary terms for (in Fluffywolf's opinion)?

[eta: And yeah, this is more what I was looking for. Though I've got to go get some actual work done, for now. Boo.]

So my answer to that is yes. I mean, if I am looking for a nanny for my children I'll screen them to a point where I am happy to have them nanny for my children. There is of course going to be a degree of trust involved, but yeah there is always the chance that the nanny has less than honourable intentions. Even regardless of the nanny being a psychopath.

 

[Poki]

but aren't there just as many other psych disorders who could just as easily cause problems if untreated?

are we going to ban them from serving office as well?

Just the highest office, the rest are equalized out. We don't want the crazy leading the crazy

 

[miss fortune]

Just the highest office, the rest are equalized out. We don't want the crazy leading the crazy

so I suppose we couldn't have elected Lincoln because a depressed guy might just go push the nuclear button out of despair?

 

[prplchknz]

I'm not a psychopath but thats what i score highest on the dark triad tests and lowest is narcissism so i can't get mistaken for being trump.

 

[Poki]

so I suppose we couldn't have elected Lincoln because a depressed guy might just go push the nuclear button out of despair?

Would have to see how bad he tested as depressed when elected. I really don't see Lincoln as a Psychopath, its a time under tension type of thing. Everyone has the ability to snap, but people who display the symptoms FREQUENTLY are ALOT more likely to snap in psychopathic ways. Talking to a psychologist, DSMV classification is all about how much it controls your life, we all probably classify under many things but it doesn't control our lives enough to classify it. Should a prior diagnosis affect current decision, depends on how long ago, current extent, etc. I believe people change and get over things, its determining how much they have changed and got over it that's the question.

 

[miss fortune]

Would have to see how bad he tested as depressed when elected. I really don't see Lincoln as a Psychopath, its a time under tension type of thing. Everyone has the ability to snap, but people who display the symptoms FREQUENTLY are ALOT more likely to snap in psychopathic ways. Talking to a psychologist, DSMV classification is all about how much it controls your life, we all probably classify under many things. Should a prior diagnosis affect current decision, depends on how long ago, current extent, etc. I believe people change and get over things, its determining how much they have changed and got over it that's the question.

so are we only banning psychopaths or are we banning other mental disorders as well?

should I step down from running a department at work because I might make a bad decision, despite being treated, just because of what my records say?

in that vein, would you hold it against people for seeking help, as opposed to lying about it and pretending it doesn't exist and remaining untreated, just because they want to get ahead in the politics game?

psych tests require honesty to be accurate... all they'd have to do is lie and you'd get someone a lot scarier than someone with a treated mental disorder into office...

 

[Fluffywolf]

psych tests require honesty to be accurate... all they'd have to do is lie and you'd get someone a lot scarier than someone with a treated mental disorder into office...

There is that too of course.

Even if you disregard the ethicality of the situation, the applicability of such a test is basicly zero. But that arguement is rather mute due to the implications of the much more important overarching arguement of the ethicality of the situation.

 

[Amargith]

We do have currently some culture growing regarding taking aptitude and personality tests when going in for an interview for a job. I used to work for such a company of job psychologists. It is especially common (and way more elaborate) for candidates who are to run a company or take up a hell of a lot of responsibility. You're of course entitled to refuse these tests, but then you don't get considered by the company.

It might not be a bad thing to have these test be mandatory and part of the information (by an expert who can accurately interpret the results) that gets released about the candidates for the office of president, perhaps. Normally, these test results are considered private and are to be kept confidential, safe from for the client (aka the company doing the hiring). When that client is the people of a nation..well, that confidentiality, you could argue, would extend to the entire nation. Again, corruption, bias and slander are a possible issue here though.

While these tests don't look for psychopaths and the like, they do measure things like emotional instability, amongst many other things, and could give an idea of a candidates personality compatibility and skill levels for that particular job.

 

[Poki]

so are we only banning psychopaths or are we banning other mental disorders as well?

should I step down from running a department at work because I might make a bad decision, despite being treated, just because of what my records say?

in that vein, would you hold it against people for seeking help, as opposed to lying about it and pretending it doesn't exist and remaining untreated, just because they want to get ahead in the politics game?

psych tests require honesty to be accurate... all they'd have to do is lie and you'd get someone a lot scarier than someone with a treated mental disorder into office...

Depends on extent of disorder on job requirements.

Your not high up enough to even consider. You have people above you to watch for issues just like I have people above me to watch for issues. Now a psychotic CEO over a large corporation is a different story. I was going by the scanning of brain and only after its fully vetted with safeguards as a backup check.

It would follow the same standard procedures of everyone else...can you do your job competently, if so then no issues, if not then possible temporary leave or so until you are good enough to do your job. Leave is to long then let go, but this is all standard practice now days for even people without a diagnose. I am all for people getting help, but as a manager you have to balance everything. Any fine grain details is situation dependent, and I don't know your situation much at all.

 

[Fluffywolf]

We do have currently some culture growing regarding taking aptitude and personality tests when going in for an interview for a job. I used to work for such a company of job psychologists. It is especially common (and way more elaborate) for candidates who are to run a company or take up a hell of a lot of responsibility. You're of course entitled to refuse these tests, but then you don't get considered by the company.

It might not be a bad thing to have these test be mandatory and part of the information (by an expert who can accurately interpret the results) that gets released about the candidates for the office of president, perhaps. Normally, these test results are considered private and are to be kept confidential, safe from for the client (aka the company doing the hiring). When that client is the people of a nation..well, that confidentiality, you could argue, would extend to the entire nation. Again, corruption, bias and slander are a possible issue here though.

While these tests don't look for psychopaths and the like, they do measure things like emotional instability, amongst many other things, and could give an idea of a candidates personality compatibility and skill levels for that particular job.

Woooo, I don't want to sound too condescending because I really like you. But lets not start comparing a society with a company. There is really no end to why that is a bad thing.

 

[Amargith]

Woooo, I don't want to sound too condescending because I really like you. But lets not start comparing a society with a company. There is really no end to why that is a bad thing.

I'm not - but being president is essentially a big-ass job, even if it's a bureaucratic job instead of a commercial one. I'm not saying it wouldn't need some serious revisions and tweaking. But there's a baby and there's bathwater, so it's just an idea that might be worth fleshing out

I have no qualms though, about leaving that fleshing out of the nitty gritty shit to the natural gamers of systems - aka Ti-doms

 

[Fluffywolf]

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.

I'm not - but being president is essentially a big-ass job, even if it's a bureaucratic job instead of a commercial one. I'm not saying it wouldn't need some serious revisions and tweaking. But there's a baby and there's bathwater, so it's just an idea that might be worth fleshing out

I have no qualms though, about leaving that fleshing out of the nitty gritty shit to the natural gamers of systems - aka Ti-doms

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.

 

[miss fortune]

Depends on extent of disorder on job requirements.

Your not high up enough to even consider. You have people above you to watch for issues just like I have people above me to watch for issues. Now a psychotic CEO over a large corporation is a different story. I was going by the scanning of brain and only after its fully vetted with safeguards as a backup check.

It would follow the same standard procedures of everyone else...can you do your job competently, if so then no issues, if not then possible temporary leave or so until you are good enough to do your job. Leave is to long then let go, but this is all standard practice now days for even people without a diagnose. I am all for people getting help, but as a manager you have to balance everything. Any fine grain details is situation dependent, and I don't know your situation much at all.

so allow them if they get treatment, or ban them altogether?

most mentally ill people, if treated properly, would be incredibly hard to distinguish from the general population... and most put some extra effort into doing a good job, being competent and being pleasant because they KNOW the stereotypes that society attaches to things...