Hacker News Reader

Comment by javert | Hacker News Reader

that's where the research is pointing

Are you defending the claim that businessmen and Republicans are psychopaths? I'm sorry, but that's generally untrue, and no amount of valid research will ever prove it.

View on HN

About one in one hundred people are probably psychopath in the general population. When you look at some sub-populations you find higher representations of psychopaths, or of tendencies associated with pyschopathy. One clear example given in the article is in the prison population. Other examples include high-level businessmen and politicians. Obviously saying "there's an over-representation of psychopaths among politicians" is not the same as a simplistic "all politicians are psychopaths".

Better quality research is needed, and pop-psychology books are pretty frustrating.

Is there any evidence that high-level businessmen and politicians are more likely to be psychopaths than the general population?

For business at least, there seems to be: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422644

Research I've seen reported seems quite dubious. For instance, a CEO may take decisions that 'harm' hundreds of employees and not appear to feel anything like 'remorse.' That could be because he's a psychopath... but a more likely explanation is that he is confident that his decision was ethical and justified.

A justified decision may be appropriate to be painful. Do you think the person who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima should feel good about it, even if it were universally agreed to be the lesser evil?

If a group advocates more self-reliance and less organised help for the less fortunate then it's not unreasonable to accuse them of having less empathy.

I completely disagree. You can't enjoy life on the dole. The nanny state is a form of cruelty. I truly believe these things. I could go on at length, but what's the point.

Fiscal conservativism != less empathy.

You added the word "dole" and thereby changed the content of what you claimed to reply to.

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't edit my post, if that's what you mean by "added."

I took the reference to Republican advocacy for "more self-reliance" as synonomous with Republican advocacy for less welfare. welfare == dole.

Although in actuality, almost all Republicans are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), because almost all of them are altruists that advocate expanding the government/nanny state, just at a less rapid rate than Democrats. So "Republican" in this discussion may be a misnomer.

</rant>

Are you sure it's "less organized help" they are advocating for, or is it "not forced help"? I find it to be the latter in almost all cases. People tend not to argue against charity, but rather "forced charity" (which is not something I would consider charity at all).

I think GP is using "organized" to mean the same thing you're using "forced" to mean - given by a governing body from its tax revenue. Funny how we tend to choose the adjective that puts our personal views in the best possible light. :P

Reply on news.ycombinator.com