The role of pyschopathy in modern society.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, September 29, 2025 19:26
VIEWED: 9758
PAGE 3 of 10
Quote:
OTOH, many EARLY US studies which you cite were based on even earlier European studies and theories - alpha males, social Darwinism, Freud and his theory of the id, to point out a few.
Yeah, that whole "better men" and "born bad" crap that drives me so bonkers, prettymuch theoretically unchanged from the days of european nobility, bleh.
Thanks for the links, btw.. fascinating, though unsurprising, mostly.
Oh, and Cit ?
The French Revolution was one of them things that start for the best of reasons, but ran into that whole pesky unintended consequences thing - and from my understanding of it, about 2/3rds of the way through they realized the folks they were about to replace the nobility with were indeed just as bad and started lopping THIER heads off, and then it just became total chaos...
But you know, in the end, I bet they did manage to kill off a damn lot of the most warlike among them, which, given the historical record of French military conflicts, probably did them a favor.
The only thing worse than a warmonger, is an INCOMPETENT warmonger.
(Yes, that whole bit was just a wee lil bit sarcastic.)
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
So, what about the 80% of soldiers on the front line who could not bring themselves to fire their weapons, even when it was a really good idea?
Are we concerned at all about that statistic?
It seems to me that having a 5 percent Wolf population would not be so scary if 80% were not Sheep. (Apparently, 15% could become Wolves as needed.)
I'd love to believe that peaceful cooperation is the singular exclusive trait of survival for the future of the human race, but I frequently observe situations where judicious use of violence would be helpful. I see people sitting here worried about a minority who use violence without discrimination, and are glossing over the majority who are incapable of using violence even to save themselves.
If one extreme is an aberration, isn't the other extreme equally bad? Shouldn't we be worried about the crippled majority?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
There is a whole body of analysis on the role of 'cheaters' - those who don't live by the cooperative norm, who feed without remorse on others. The most recent mathematics - which I don't pretend to understand - indicates that due to the existence of 'durable goods' it's possible for cheaters to thrive on the goods left behind by cooperators, until there are so many of them (the cheaters) who are unwilling to maintain the system that the system itself crashes.
The outcome is a boom and bust cycle for economies, cultures and civilizations. Looking at history, I think there's ample evidence that such cycles occur. SOME civilizations figure a way out of that - some examples are given in the book Collapse, authored by Jared Diamond.
But the end result is that the capability to BE a cheater remains embedded in humanity at low levels. It never quite dies out. So it's up to society - that's us - to be smart enough and keep the cheaters from being empowered to - start wars for example.
***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've long wondered if the downfall of the human species will come about NOT because we're so "warlike" but because we're TOO willing to believe what others tell us... as opposed to the evidence of our senses. It's a blessing and a curse. It allows us to build on abstract/ useful concepts like "electrons", but also on abstract/ dysfunctional concepts like "corporations".
I'd love to believe that peaceful cooperation is the singular exclusive trait of survival for the future of the human race, but I frequently observe situations where judicious use of violence would be helpful. I see people sitting here worried about a minority who use violence without discrimination, and are glossing over the majority who are incapable of using violence even to save themselves.
After all, if 99% are getting screwed over (and I believe we are) then why are the 1% still in power?
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting point, Rue.
Alas, one of the "durable goods" that cooperators create is "language".
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, and Cit ?
The French Revolution was one of them things that start for the best of reasons, but ran into that whole pesky unintended consequences thing - and from my understanding of it, about 2/3rds of the way through they realized the folks they were about to replace the nobility with were indeed just as bad and started lopping THIER heads off, and then it just became total chaos...
But you know, in the end, I bet they did manage to kill off a damn lot of the most warlike among them, which, given the historical record of French military conflicts, probably did them a favor.
The only thing worse than a warmonger, is an INCOMPETENT warmonger.
(Yes, that whole bit was just a wee lil bit sarcastic.)
Sure, but doesn't that kinda prove my point?
The next century of French history is them lurching from one military dictatorship to another...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I've long wondered if the downfall of the human species will come about NOT because we're so "warlike" but because we're TOO willing to believe what others tell us... as opposed to the evidence of our senses. It's a blessing and a curse. It allows us to build on abstract/ useful concepts like "electrons", but also on abstract/ dysfunctional concepts like "corporations".
After all, if 99% are getting screwed over (and I believe we are) then why are the 1% still in power?
Corporations aren't so bad. It's the mistaken belief that Markets should be completely deregulated because they always produce optimal results that causes the problems, a fact most economists seem to be realising.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sure, but doesn't that kinda prove my point?
The next century of French history is them lurching from one military dictatorship to another...
Ayeah, and run by the least warlike remainder of a folk that was militarily incompetent in the first place, meh heh heh...
The French do love their irony, don't they ?
Also, Anthony ?
There's a difference between someone defending home and hearth, willing to bust caps over it - and a draftee forced under threat of arms to serve in a foreign country in a war they do not necessarily believe is a good idea, busting caps at people under orders.
You might find, at least in the vietnam war, that many of the folk unwilling to pull a trigger on the NVA, were in fact more than willing to pull it on their own officers had they thought it possible to get away with it.
That's one of the better reasons for not using conscripts, actually, and I am sure the practice had a great deal to do with folks unwilling to fire at people they might have had less of a gripe with then their own nominal superiors.
Worth a second thought, that is.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not sure about that, Napolean was far from 'the least warlike remainder' nor 'militarily incompetent'. In fact it was his military genius that very nearly swept Europe aside in a conflict only matched by the First and Second World Wars over a century later.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ayeah, and run by the least warlike remainder of a folk that was militarily incompetent in the first place, meh heh heh...
The French do love their irony, don't they ?
It took a coalition of every surviving major European nation led by the British to halt Napolean. His namesake of the Third French Empire in the 1860's wasn't all that much better either.
As for Irony, I find it ironic that it was the success of the American War of Independence, something probably not possible if it weren't for French Assistance, that gave the French the idea in the first place. An early form of political foreign policy blowback perhaps?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to move on forward ...
WHY doesn't revolution help humans quite so effectively as eliminating violent baboons did ?
Well, I think that it's because humans build languages, ideas, impersonal social structures and rules, and even physical goods. Unlike baboons and chimps, with these we humans carry the past into the future even after the sociopath is gone.
And as I mentioned above, the capacity to be sociopathic resides at a residual level in our genes. If we didn't have the genes for it, it would be impossible. It would be like expecting a species without eyes to see.
So the genetic endowment is there in at least some of us, and simply getting rid of the sociopaths doesn't work over the long haul.
There was another study which I found interesting. In it people from 'non-monetary' societies were asked to play a sharing game. These societies ran the gamut - from small independent family groups in sharp competition with other families in the jungle, to small villages of herdsmen jostling with fellow villagers for status but quite eager to share with people from other villages who couldn't threaten their standing, to fishing communities competing with other fishing communities for food resources, to African villages where hunted food was shared equally no matter who did the hunting and the sharing was enforced by everyone in the village, and so on. The game was partly to see what was considered 'fair'.
But among the background facts was that the researchers could find NO correlation between physical economy and social structure. What mattered to people in terms of how they divided up resources was WHAT THEY TOLD THEMSELVES 'PEOPLE' WERE LIKE. In fact, while all sorts of economic arrangements were equally viable, each group lived by what they considered to be the model of 'human nature' and 'what the world is like'. So I find arguments based on 'human nature' to be irrelevant. (That includes social Darwinism arguments for capitalism which claim that it's 'natural'.)
What we tell ourselves we are like is more important than anything else.
And I'll have to get back to this later.
***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME