tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post8684861806234791794..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Benevolent PsychopathsStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-5140466212999433352017-10-27T03:34:58.091-07:002017-10-27T03:34:58.091-07:00It certainly is easy to predict that people with p...It certainly is easy to predict that people with psychopathic tendencies will find it easier to make decisions based on cold hard reason, and that reason could be either selfish (what's good for me now), or benevolent (what's good for everyone.) <br /><br />And there's an issue of "who is everyone", so for instance, should a politician make the best decision for the country, or the best decision for the party? It is nice that sometimes someone elected to an executive position like president says "I don't represent those who voted for me. I represent all Americans." And he or she can go further and say "I represent all those who have died for our freedom." and "I represent all those who will yet be born." and when you represent people who can't communicate to you directly, that's a much higher responsibility since you have to try to guess what their interests are, and then try to put all those interests from all sides together and find some middle ground that best represents the whole.<br /><br />But maybe the real power of the psychopath isn't in making quick decision, but not second guessing himself, or blaming himself for making a decision that ended badly. So the potential flaw of this is that a psychopath may be "unteachable" since he's not willing to look back at his past mistakes, he's more willing to keep making the same bad decisions over and over. So an ordinary person might get caught in one affair, and be forgiven, and take that as a sign he should reform, while a psychopath will take forgiveness as a sign all is well, and do the same thing tomorrow.<br /><br />I recall Jesus tried to simplify justice and said there are only 2 commandments, Matthew 22:37-49, to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. Perhaps the golden rule comes out of that, and the golden rule can apply to competitive situations. <br /><br />You can say "I'd not like my rivals to cheat, so I won't cheat." But a more competitive person doesn't think that way - he thinks "Everyone else is cheating, so I have to cheat just to keep up." Lance Armstrong said "What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my ass six hours a day." So he tried to shame his doubting critics into silence.<br /><br />So given both sorts of people exist, I guess what we're left with is Reagan's "Trust, but verify" and that's why we have referees and courts to rule on the psychopaths ability to put themselves above the law.<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-35545177728890941102017-10-26T10:26:56.235-07:002017-10-26T10:26:56.235-07:00It's a shame chivalry is something that no lon...It's a shame chivalry is something that no longer really exists. There used to be brave men of good character and good moral standing (say knowing the seven deadly sins or even the four cardinal virtues) - that weren't labelled as being benevolent psychopaths. Shaun Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17425084501514329529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-90937464228211893502017-10-26T08:20:19.809-07:002017-10-26T08:20:19.809-07:00Without more of a context and with the question po...Without more of a context and with the question posed with parameters that are certain, these kinds of questions are meaningless. Unless you're shooting people yourself, you don't know that the "victim" will die or the multitudes will be saved.<br /><br />Without any moral qualms, in the right circumstances, a senior officer should tell his lieutenant to hold a rearguard position while the rest of the formation escapes even knowing that the rearguards will be overrun and probably killed. Both officers understand this context, and the intention of the senior is not to kill the junior. In fact, if he leads the rearguard himself, the point does not change.<br /><br />I believe it would have been morally indefensible for a civilian sheltering a Jew from ze Nazis to betray his trust under the threat of the murder of hostages. Either don't take on the job of protecting the persecuted or be prepared to accept the personal consequences if Hans Landa is pointing a Luger at you as well.<br /><br />On the other hand, in slightly less dire situations, such as civil litigation, the point is to hurt (by forcing them to expend money, time and stress) the other side and keep hurting until they come to their senses and settle. It's just business.Jack Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17873320680596889057noreply@blogger.com