Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Rise of the Second-String Psychopaths
The great writer Kurt Vonnegut titled his final book A Man without a Country. He was the man; the country was the United States of America. Vonnegut felt that his country had disappeared right under his – and the Constitution’s – feet, through what he called “the sleaziest, low-comedy Keystone Cops-style coup d’état imaginable.” He was talking about the Bush administration. Were Vonnegut still alive in the post-Bush era, he would not have felt that his country had returned.
How had our country disappeared? Vonnegut proposed that among the contributing factors was that it had been invaded – as if by the Martians – by people with a particularly frightening mental illness. People with this illness were termed psychopaths. (The term nowadays is anti-social personality disorder.) These are terms for people who are smart, personable, and engaging, but who have no consciences. They are not guided by a sense of right or wrong. They seem to be unaffected by the feelings of others, including feelings of distress caused by their actions. Straying from a decent way of treating people, or violating ethical codes causes no anxiety, the anxiety which is what causes the rest of us to moderate our more greedy impulses. If most children feel anxiety when they are pilfering the forbidden cookie jar, psychopaths feel just fine. They can devour the cookies, shatter the jar as evidence and stuff it in the trash can. When accused, they can argue with apparent sincerity that the cookie jar has been missing for at least a week. There suffer no remorse, no guilt, no shame. They are free to do anything, no matter how harmful.
Psychopaths can be very tricky to recognize. As psychiatrist Dr. Hervey Cleckly wrote in his classic The Mask of Sanity in 1941, psychopaths are not technically insane. They don’t have a psychosis, like schizophrenia. They are experts in appearing normal. They can act the role of a caring, concerned executive, even though they actually do not seem to experience such feelings. If they hurt somebody, they don’t modify their behavior.
The United States corporate and government spheres have become, Vonnegut suggested, a perfect habitat for psychopaths. What has allowed so many psychopaths to rise so high in corporations, and then government, he wrote,
“is that they are so decisive. They are going to do something every fuckin’ day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don’t give a fuck what happens next. Simply can’t. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody’s telephone! Cut taxes on the rich!"
In a country in which much of human culture has been rendered into machines for the manufacture of money, psychopaths are the ideal leaders. They are very focused. They are outcome oriented. They are frequently charming, and usually very bright and able. They can lay off thousands of people, or deny people health care, or have them waterboarded, and it does not disturb their sleep. They can be impressively confident. Psychopaths can be dynamic leaders of enterprises, but are handicapped by their lack of feelings for relationships. They may be accomplished captains of industry, or senators, or surgeons, but their families are frequently abused and miserable. Most psychotherapists have seen the wives or husband or children of such accomplished people.
Since psychopaths are usually very smart, they can be quite competent at impersonating regular human beings in positions of power. Since they don’t care how their actions affect people, they can rise to great height in enterprises dealing with power and money. They can manufacture bombs or run hospitals. Whatever the undertaking, it is all the same to them. It’s just business.
The economic system that remains after the destruction of American local cultures has created an excellent employment picture for psychopaths. But the opportunities open to them are now so vast that there is apparently now an actual labor shortage. At least that is the only explanation I can find for the rise of a cadre of psychopathic leaders who resemble the usual type in all ways but one: they’re simply not that smart. One has only to look at right-wing not-so-Christian fundamentalists to see the peculiar emergence of a second-string of psychopaths.
The US has been endowed with abundant resources, and there have always been a more than sufficient supply of psychopaths of the first intellectual grade to supply corporate suites and their subsidiary, the Congress. Why is there now a downgrade to the dumb ones, like the lowering of standards for military recruits to deal with a shortage of cannon fodder?
It is no secret that the Koch brothers and others of the super-rich seem to have undertaken a final push to consolidate control through the conversion of a marginally democratic to an essentially fascist state; extreme right-wing, authoritarian, and demagogic. This kind of government is ideal for control of a populace by the moneyed elite. To carry this out requires the employment of many ‘kept’ politicians to excite and misdirect scared and angry – and ignorant – voters. Lest the citizenry realize who stole their money and storm their castles with torches, the rapacious elite need politicians who will carry out the work of re-directing anger at teachers, or labor unions, or the poor. I can only conclude that the people who now own the country couldn’t find any first-rate psychopaths to carry out their work. Or maybe the smart ones were all occupied. So they had to go to second-stringers, people who could actually believe what they were told to say.
We are a country who has become second-best, even in the quality of our psychopaths.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
159 Comments so far
Show AllThere are more of us than them? Time to call them psychopaths. At every opportunity.
Obama could have called them, but he joined them.
Throw them all out- lets just turn our government over again-vote out any returning politician of any party except an only if their actions have produced policy that is thoughtfully beneficial for the American people.. period.
Perhaps it's just as well that our media does such a poor job asking for, and digging up policy facts on our political candidates. By having fawning, celebrity interviews and softball questions, perhaps some of the psychos will occasionally show a flash or two of their ugliness. And, as some of you know, I am an adherent of 'lesser evilism.' Give me a borderline psycho any day over a true top 'one per-center.'
But then you have interesting debates which you have sane and intelligent responses, like from Dr Ron Paul, but it was ignored by the MSM and masses.
What a delicious accusatory bonbon! Most Common Dreamers will sagely nod and figure that it is directed at only the capitalist, war-making, internationalist meddling class bent on monetary profit at any cost. However, to say that a society was taken over by "“the sleaziest, low-comedy Keystone Cops-style coup d’état imaginable”, is also to point an accusatory finger at all political factions and not just the villains de jour.
The "left" as well as the "right" lusts for money and power over the lives of others. Their means differ (the right wants to outsource everything to businesses they control--at a profit no less--and the left wants to bring everything under the authority of governmental regulation (power) and taxation (increasing wealth accumulation)
which they would control) but the results end up the same. That is the brilliance of Dr. Schwartz's article for those perceptive enough to understand it and whether the author intended it to mean that or not.
Waldo: You write convincingly, yet your narrative only allows for an either-or paradigm. You put the right/conservatives on one side of the aisle, and the presumed Left on the other. Is there no room in your calculus for the few principled politicians who go into public service for just that: to SERVE the public?
It should be fairly clear that without a government to stand between the corporate behemoths (some hold assets exceeding those of entire sovereign nations) and the virtually powerless status citizens, that all sorts of for-profit shenanigans will go on.
Today, precisely because DC has become a whore-land embedded with lobbyists, our government has been all but entirely purchased by the highest bidders. Therefore what should operate as a check-balance between corporate trespass and citizens' rights has dissolved. We see the results everywhere: in BP still drilling, in mountain top removal still blasting off, in fracking still poisoning local water bodies, in Monsanto, still sterilizing seeds, in private contractors still making a killing on wars, etc.
You may be correct in asserting that sociopaths gravitate to both political parties. However, I do not agree with your premise that government, itself, is an evil. To the extent government is made up of, and/or otherwise protects the rights of citizens, how can it be evil? What is evil is its purchase... you know, that little tidbit about the love of money being the ROOT of all evil. That item should factor into your analysis. Unless you're here to champion the libertarian party line about big, bad government... as if freed of its constraints, citizens would find themselves remotely protected against the raw sins resulting from the rapacious reach of rabid, rampant, corporate capitalism without conscience.
Sioux Rose:
Your question is a good one
" Is there no room in your calculus for the few principled politicians who go into public service for just that: to SERVE the public?"
but there does not have to be much room for the very few (I wonder if anyone posting on CD can come up with more than one or two) who meet your requirement.
SHEEP: Perhaps you're blaming the apparent result with the process itself? Who vets candidates? Who pays for their expensive campaigns? Why is media unregulated to the point where a handful of corporations own THE PUBLIC'S airwaves, thereby forcing good candidates to sell themselves to special interests in order to secure the funds to make their positions know? Do you know what it costs to run a full page ad in a major newspaper or magazines? Or what it costs to purchase 30 seconds of air-time during prime TV viewing hours? In a land where "For Profit Only" has just about come to replace the National Anthem, name (i.e. product) recognition counts for a lot... if your goal is votes.
In other words, it's not that sociopaths are the ONLY ones who gravitate towards politics (even if the prospect of power attracts them like moths to a porch lamp), it's that the big money donors only support those willing to do THEIR bidding.
Let us not blame all those who might act wisely in public office for the contamination process that weeds them out before they have a chance to begin.
Some in the forum speak of publicly funded elections.
Others in the forum recognize what media ownership has meant to the corporate take-over of elections.
Then, too, there is the increasingly slippery matter of who counts the votes.
And now, the newest impediment in our pahts, the erroneously labeled, "Citizens United," an obscene free for all, granting OUR remaining liberties to corporate owners.
It's a pretty insidious atmosphere for the honest to operate in.
Talk about a smug retort. Our government was not always run by sociopaths. That statement is WAY too broad; and perhaps it's YOU who ought to consider getting over your self. Who gives a damn about your blog? If I pushed mine the way you do, I'd have the hell squad on my cyber ass faster than I could turn off the computer.
There is not a post you've ever made that intrigued me enough to bother to look at your blog. Others can do as they wish.
I'm pretty sure you've posted here under other names, and been just as hostile.
"Erica" Blair?
No. Eric A Blair... like the real name of George Orwell. Got it?
he didn't have a sense of humour either.
What are you. her ex-husband? Dumped boyfriend?? Spurned would be suitor??! You seem fixated and a bit over the top.
Derp
Waldo -- if you are in contact with any "left" politicians here in the U.S. please write their names and telephone numbers on the back of an envelope and send it to me because I would love to speak with them.
I am pleased you are watching them so they cannot seize power -- but I would just like to know who the heck they are.
Is it just Dennis and Bernie (my best guess) or are there others out there ready to seize power, too?
It is good that you are mustering equivalent vigilance because who knows when Bernie might use his untold secret wealth to silence the Koch Brothers & throttle the kittens of Wall Street... and Dennis may just walk over to the White House and perform a coup d'etat -- voila! -- on the Presidency.
Hey, if Lenin & the Bolsheviks could seize the Winter Palace... what could possibly keep Dennis from seizing the White House?
Well, you are keeping one eye on them ... so we can all sleep better now.
Nope. Ignorantly wrong as one would expect from a right winger.
"The arrogance to pretend our problem resides only on the extreme right wing is sickening. The conceit that the left has all the answers and in them reside all the leadership we need, no matter if we agree or not is disheartening.
"
It is sickening to you because you are on the extreme right wing. It is sickening to you because you are an apologist for slavery and rape.
"This continuous cant of "you do not have to understand, you only have to obey" promoted by this article and similar ragged reasoning agreed to on CD lately is all to familiar.
"
LOL. Says the guy feeding off the military trough.
"Are we always' right? Are they always wrong? If you answered yes twice instead of two no's, you are indeed part of the problem, a particularly good candidate for the government service Kurt Vonnegut defined and your personality profile begin's with the letter P.
.."
Yes, you're always wrong.
likeitornot,
Speaking of second string psycopaths definitely puts a burr under your saddle, doesn't it, pal?
How's that love affair with your bayonet going?
One thing this article neglected was the well documented "entertainment" preferences of psychopaths (first or second string). They seem to get erotic pleasure out of the suffering and/or death of humans or animals. Of course many of them combine work with play, so to speak.
If only your bayonet could speak.
Just like the proverbial bully who is actually a coward.
"One has only to look at right-wing not-so-Christian fundamentalists to see the peculiar emergence of a second-string of psychopaths."
Not to argue with the good doctor here, but what about the democrats? What about the Fourth Estate?
David Schwartz nails it when he characterizes the creepy crew orchestrating and carrying out the USA's 'Great Lurch Backwards' to a nightmarish redux of the Robber Baron era mixed banana republic dysfunction are not even first-rate. That the likes of Karl Rove, Andrew Breitbart, etc., etc., manage to perpetrate their depredations bespeaks poorly of the US corporate political media and the audience that swallows their swill with nary a critical sniff.
In fact, from a realpolitik point-of-view, the main argument against these psychopathic 'Keystone Kops' being empowered is their operational incompetence. As any Psychology 101 student can well attest, psychopaths can do certain things well, but bumble on others. Said 'second-string psychopaths' are quite good at propaganda & stealing power, but can not govern.
I've been studying psychopathy for years; my ex-husband was a textbook psychopath, so I made it my life's mission to understand this pervasive personality disorder and to never fall victim again. Over the years I've learned to easily spot psychopaths, for despite their self-centered belief that they are more special and unique than the rest of us, they all exhibit the same shallow and easily recognizable characteristics.
It is an absolute mistake to dismiss psychopaths as simply crazy, wild-eyed serial killers. Serial killers are rare; and though it's true that most serial killers are psychopathic, most psychopaths are NOT serial killers and, by definition of law, they are absolutely sane: they distinguish the difference between right and wrong and they completely understand the nature and quality of the acts they carry out. Psychopathic individuals are not delusional and should not be confused with people who are psychotic and whose acts can be legally justified by an affirmative NGRI defense.
In fact, contrary to the myths surrounding them, most psychopaths appear quite NORMAL and even charming and charismatic... at first. They quickly reveal themselves, however, as parasitic, lying con-artists who are adept, cunning and ruthless masters at exploiting any perceived weakness, which is why they gravitate to authoritarian politics and find their comfortable niche in the capitalist/corporate/political imperial milieu. I've always found it interesting (and disturbing) that the most important decisions affecting society are placed in the hands of these shallow, superficial, career charlatans because absolutely nothing -- NOTHING -- is more important to them than their own self-interest.
Years ago, as a college student studying the fields of criminal (in)justice and forensic sciences, I recall some of my professors trying to encourage discussions of the types of crimes/criminals we thought presented the most serious threat to society. Inevitably, most of my fellow classmates would dwell on the likes of sensational murderers such as Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez, but I always wanted to talk about corporate and political crime, which I believed then -- as I do today -- stand out as the greatest threat to humanity. Back then, most of my classmates found this topic boring....
Corporate and political malfeasance fall under the quaint euphemism known as "white collar" crime, which sounds very milquetoast. As the world is currently experiencing, there is nothing tepid or inconsequential, however, about the massive societal and evironmental destruction psychopathic corporate and/or political criminals leaves in their wake.
Many years ago I figured out that psychopaths are drawn to positions of power and domination like moths to flame. For instance, there are probably more psychopaths milling about Wall Street and "K" Street than anywhere else on the planet. There is not a doubt in my mind that these "people of the lie" are the poster children of imperial-corporate capitalism and responsible for most of the world's ills.
It's easy to dismiss what the author terms "second-string" political psychopaths as dumb, but I disagree. Certainly the misery they cause society as a whole seems irrational and stupid to most of us, but when the goal of societal pillage through endless war and corporate corruption is not "equality and justice for all", but instead intended to secure obscene wealth for a small cabal of global elites and to promote the profitable interests of transnational corporate imperialism, their reckless behavior makes perfect sense.
I always encourage people who are trying to understand why bad stuff happens in the world to educate themselves about psychopathy. Once one understands this disturbing pathology, many answers start to fall into place.
Hervey Cleckley's classic, The Mask of Sanity, can be viewed in PDF format at:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/sanity_1.PdF
Also, I highly recommend the modern classic by Dr. Robert Hare titled, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. In fact, in my opinion, this book should be on every home's bookshelf.
Suppose, for whatever reason, that daydreams are like night dreams. Their function is to only communicate from the sub concous to the concious a need. Rational set aside to discover the feeling and the need.
Perhaps we need to find a more affective way to deal with psycopathy, to put it in more orderly place in our lives (not in leadership positions).
When ever I think of the part of the Constitution that reads: "All men are created equal", I think, "what about psycopathy".
Society, Christian or whatever, does not deal with psycopothy effectively and we must.
GIOVANNA: Great post!
I hope I don't sound patronizing in saying this, but there really is something good to be generally gotten from most bad situations. In the case of your X, it promoted in you a broad understanding that you now can convey to others.
You probably know that in families where domestic abuse runs rampant, some of the children (generally the females) turn to helping professions. In extending their compassion to others, they begin to heal their own wounds. (The opposing trend is to repeat the behavior that was learned in the home, and thereby continue the chain of violence.)
In any case, thank you for this valuable contribution to C.D. In my view, a post like this deserves to be published in a wider-reaching forum (or venue). You might wish to consider that route.
Is mosquito cloud net where we learn to become perfect?
Touche'!
This is an exceptionally informative, thoughtful, and insightful comment, Giovanna.
Bravo, Giovanna. Thanks.
"For instance, there are probably more psychopaths milling about Wall Street and "K" Street than anywhere else on the planet. There is not a doubt in my mind that these "people of the lie" are the poster children of imperial-corporate capitalism and responsible for most of the world's ills."
Not to second-guess but do you have any evidence for this claim? Or is it perhaps a bit hyperbolic? Doesn't the article itself castigate those who have no doubt: "Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts..."
Evidence? How about the state of this country and the direction it's heading, courtesy of the pervasive lobbying of K-street whores (not refering to sex workers).
And your evidence that the K-street boys are behind everything? That they alone are responsible for, as you put it: 'the state of this country and the direction it's heading'? No evidence; just your vague contempt for the system - which by the way I share. They are creatures of the system, a system they did not create, but definitely exploit. A system created long before they enscounced themselves there on K-street. They are definitely part of the problem, but the problem is greater than they. If you're going target shooting, make sure you pick the right target.
The evidence is all around you. Giovanna is building on Dr.Schwartz's theme.
Anecdote is not evidence.
That's a bloody useless comment, intended to be dismissive. Giovanna's comments are excellent, based on solid experience and observation.
You're right; it is intended to be dismissive. Her comments - excellent or not - are anecdotal and by themselves not to be relied upon for any greater significance than as a reflection of personal opinion. Unless, of course, you think that personal opinion alone qualifies as 'evidence'. I don't happen to think so.
As an aside, how do you know her comments are 'based on solid experience and observation' or that she can do what she claims - that is, easily spot psychopaths? Just because she says so? I'm not sure anybody can do what she claims. Are you sure anybody can? Have you ever heard of anybody else who said they could easily spot psychopaths? If so, please share the reference with us to bolster your argument. If not, then don't be so upset that I question her claim.
As I've said before, facts and events are Rorschach tests and reveal more about the mind of who observes and interprets them than about the facts and events themselves.
Please don't misunderstand; I'm not attacking her, nor you, since I don't know either of you; but I do question her claim, and your uncritical 'belief' in her claim; and unless you have some evidence for what she claims, you should probably question it too. Unless of course, you believe everything people say; in which case you have my sympathy.
Hi Tirebiter:
I respect and appreciate people who are skeptical. I personally moved from mere skeptic to full-blown cynic years ago. As I stated in my earlier post, in my early 20s I was briefly married to a psychopath who lied about everything from his name to his marital status (he was also a bigamist); consequently, I guard my trust tightly and, now at the age of 47, I still take nothing at face value.
It's unfortunate, but we also live in a system that values lies and liars over truth and truth-tellers, which is one of the reasons why psychopathic predators are able to cut such as wide swath of carnage through society with virtual impunity. People like Bradley Manning and Thomas Drake are vigorously prosecuted for attempting to expose epic crimes to a mostly complacent public, while ruling-class criminals like George W. Bush are treated with royal deference. It truly is an upside down world, tailor-made to benefit the criminal classes.
My comment regarding psychopaths being found on Wall Street and "K" Street was intended to convey my opinion, which I formed after reading numerous books and studies on the subject, that psychopathic con artists, hustlers ("players"), and predators, who charm, lie and manipulate their way through life, tend to congregate around places where they can ply their trade. Where better than Wall Street or "K" Street?
It is also true that Dr. Robert Hare, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, who is widely considered the foremost expert on psychopathy, has said that if he couldn't study psychopaths in prisons, the Vancouver Stock Exchange would have been his second choice.
I don't expect you to take my word for it, though. I do, however, encourage you to read Hare's book, Without Conscience, in which he expands greatly upon this theme. I think after you read the book, and perhaps gain a greater understanding of psychopathic predation, you may find yourself agreeing with me.
In solidarity,
Giovanna
While I still find your initial post somewhat problematic, and provocative, I think it inappropriate to probe it further - given that I know nothing about the participants and the events. But do you really believe you can easily spot psychopaths?
I also find your response far more reasonable, and nuanced, than your initial post and those of your self-appointed defenders - whose protection you do not seem to need. Thank you for that. I weary of dealing with the second-stringers who try to wedge ill-fitting events into their own life-experience to justify themselves. As I said earlier, facts and events are Rorshach tests telling us far more about who observes and interprets them than the facts and events themselves.
Thank you too for the book reference, I have added it to a long list of things. But I may not get to it since I have no greater interest in psycopathy than in other aspects of 'human nature' - whatever that is - and I have only an editorial staff of one.
Tirebiter:
"But do you really believe you can easily spot psychopaths?"
*****
Yes, if given the opportunity to interact with someone, such as a co-worker or gym acquaintance, and observe/experience his/her behaviors over a period of time. I've encountered a number of them over the years. Once I figure out what I'm dealing with, I run like hell!
I'm sorry you found my original post problematic. In a forum such is this, with people expressing a wide range of opinions, often based on personal experiences or specialized education and training, it's understandable that points get lost or confusion ensues. It's impossible to fully express one's self on any issue, especially an issue as complex as psychopathy, in a brief post.
I promise not to belabor the point, but one of the reasons I penned my original post was to simply try to make clear that one is more likely to be swindled out of his or her life savings by a psychopathic con-artist than to lose his/her life to a sadistic psychopathic killer.
I often discover when speaking to people about psychopathy that the term lends itself to movie and TV images of deranged, knife-wielding crazies. Obviously, those people do exist, but they are rare. Most people do not understand that common cheats, liars, forgerers, hucksters, and frauds of all stripes--from two-bit, back-alley hustlers all the way up the strata to wealthy Wall Street speculators and politicians--are often (not always) psychopaths. Deception, exploitation of perceived weaknesses, and manipulation of others for self-gain are typical hallmarks of the psychopathic personality.
At some point in most of our lives, we will all come into contact with one or more of these people. Because most people do not lie and cheat pathologically, a first time experience with one of these charlatans often leads to a feeling of total bewilderment. Obviously, it helps to become acquainted with some their traits.
If you are interested, what follows is a general summary of the key traits and behaviors of a psychopath. An expanded description of each of these key symptoms is available at the link that follows. **
"Also, be aware that people who are not psychopaths may have some of the symptoms described here. For instance, many people are impulsive, or glib, or cold and unfeeling, but this does not mean that they are psychopaths. Psychopathy is a syndrome—a cluster of related symptoms." (Hare)
Thank you for your interest and for allowing me the opportunity to expound further on the subject.
Giovanna
*****
Key Symptoms of Psychopathy
Emotional/Interpersonal:
Glib and superficial
Egocentric and grandiose
Lack of remorse or guilt
Lack of empathy
Deceitful and manipulative
Shallow emotions
Social Deviance:
Impulsive
Poor behavior controls
Need for excitement
Lack of responsibility
Early behavior problems
Adult antisocial behavior
**http://www.hare.org/charming.html
Good conclusions-agreed. Should we narrow it down- many of them are lawyers who have the tools to go along with that no conscience?
Thank you. That explains my question farther down this page. I even have the book, "People of the Lie", though it's been a long time since I looked into it. So many books, so little time!
...remembering, of course, that psychiatry is an art form, not a science, and as such can be made to mean whatever the artful practicioner wants it to mean. It's hard to fudge gravity. It is, as is most Newtonian physics, predictable and easily demonstrated and therefore an example of 'hard' science. But it is nearly impossible to determine and reliably predict the inner working of any human mind; one relies on metaphor to explain phenomena, not predictability.
Tirebiter,
It is certainly very difficult to spot a psycopath if all you look for is work ethic bankruptcy or obvious egotism.
I have found that humans cannot fake their sense of humor. A psycopath can be spotted by what he finds humorous. Their amusement and sheer pleasure at other people's suffering shows when they believe no one is watching them.
I'm sure Giovanna could point out how her spouse would laugh at things that normal people would cring at.
Also, psycopaths have absolutely no sense of humor when they are the brunt of a joke. Sure, they can fake it for a while but their inabilty to laugh at themselves always comes out.
Sounds like my relatives!
Those without a 'sense of humor' may not be psychopaths, but merely without a sense of humor - which is a very complicated thing.
Who among us will always see the humor at being the butt of a joke? I will not dispute your interaction with humor and psychopaths, since I have no knowledge of it, but must suggest that anecdote does not equal evidence. Facts/events are Rorshach tests. They reveal far more 'truth' about who observes and describes them than what is being observed and described.
As for the rest of your comment, I would be more circumspect at what others may think without more explicit evidence - remembering, of course, what was said in the article about those without doubts. One can be sure of nothing when it comes to assessing human behavior.
In 1927 Julian Benda published "La Trahison des Clercs," which in English (the edition I read) is in print as "The Treason of the Intellectuals." The people he criticized may well fit into the categories of psychopath or sociopath, as discussed in the comments above.
One of his points was that intellectuals have become pragmatic; they sell their souls for power (so did MacBeth). Moral relativism seems to be a good description of their way of thinking. When I read the book, in the 1970's (so my memories may be a bit fuzzy), I thought of Henry Kissenger, whose pragmatic approach to foreign policy allowed him to recommend prolonging a war to achieve some geo-political goals.
I wonder if the difference between Benda's "clercs" and the psychopaths that Dr. Schwartz discusses is one of degree or one of kind.
SHEEP: Here, again, painting with a mighty broad brush. Are all intellectuals therefore sell-outs? If you take this approach, the Nazi party has a place for you!
Because some psychologists assisted in determining the best ways to torture (but not really torture, or so sayeth those who freely use language to mask their deeds) those unfortunate souls kept at off-shore U.S. prison camps, would we therefore make the assertion that all psychologists suffer from sociopathy?
There are intellectuals who sell-out, those who prefer pragmatic operations, and many who do not.
Please! Enough already of these gigantic categorical indictments!
Sioux Rose:
You read too much into my comments. Benda was criticizing a particular set of intellectuals, ones who promoted what became Fascism. His point was that to "rise above" moral considerations requires that one rejects everything one has learned, by studying and by living. He did not condemn everyone in the class he called "clercs."
That is all I was trying to say, Some of today's "clercs" belong in the category Dr. Schwartz discusses, and others do not.
Sheep-
You brought up an interesting point about "moral relativism." There seems to be plenty of evidence around. Colin Powell kind of jumps out at me.
While it does appear that psychopathy is the extreme case (probably a sliding scale as with most human 'conditions') and others just "sell out," the results are always the same. Many innocent people suffering needlessly.
SHEEP: I am sensitive to a number of false memes repeated often enough to be perceived as true in these threads, one constantly blames the left, lumping anyone East of Obama into that category. Another blames Israel. I find these broad-scope indictments reflective of perceptions more appropriate to right wing think tanks. Perhaps I responded to your post, and its depiction of "the intelligentsia" with the reaction I did, due to all the other mis-information wedding itself into CD threads.
This article really hit me where I live. The article, and some of the preceding comments, reminded me of something I'd written last September, which in turn referenced a still earlier comment.
I'm sharing it again here because it speaks to the fact that the "second-string psychopaths" are not just Republicans, reactionary right-wing plutocrats, and Dominionists. I believe that modern technobarbaric culture and increasingly unchecked capitalism combine to create government that's infested by psychopathic power addicts, and correspondingly excludes, and is inimical to, non-psychopaths.
Although what follows focuses on politicians, the question of whether modern institutions favor psychopathic personalities, or the ascendancy of psychopaths to leadership positions, isn't limited to government-- this arguably happens in military, business, and financial institutions as well.
I don't see this as a circumstance or outcome deliberately planned and developed by the overclass, any more than bedbugs plan to infest a ripe mattress and render it unfit for human use, or termites colonize a colossal fallen tree. I think it's just evolved-- or devolved-- this way. Here's my recycled screed:
___________________
I've struggled for years with a growing sense that our Elected Misrepresentatives increasingly demonstrate alienated, pathological personality traits. It's not a simple phenomenon. Broadly, it seems to me that only ambitious, domineering, controlling, narcissistic go-getters succeed at becoming Elected Misrepresentatives in the first place. And, as Tolkien so sublimely expressed in his "Rings of Power" metaphor, political power and authority affect personality and character like methamphetamines, presumably in direct proportion to the status of the office.
It pisses me off no end that I can't make this sound better than wifty ad hominem claptrap. Perhaps a comment I wrote in July, 2008 will amplify the point:
___________________
I don't wish to bore or annoy by restating the various observations and arguments that have put such wear and tear on my soapbox during the past few years. But must repeat my view that our political process has slowly transmogrified in plain sight from an imperfect and flawed system predicated on ethical, principled conduct, or at least conduct amenable to ethical and principled behavior, into, well... Organized Crime.
My opinions began crystallizing around small and seemingly-trivial phenomena: Congressmen like John Conyers, David Obey and Barney Frank, still viewed by Democratic loyalists as "good guys" who work(ed) hard to support the common citizen against depredations by the rich and powerful, began responding to those all-important attempts to hold their cloven hooves to the fire on issues like ending the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and impeaching the Misfeasor(s) in the Executive Branch, with naked superciliousness, arrogance, and hostility.
Obey viciously snarled at a soldier's mother who demanded that he stop funding the Iraq debacle, then ranted about "idiot liberals"; Frank excoriated critics taking him to task for these same issues, and his unwillingness to advocate for transgendered rights in his pet LGBT legislation with a withering observation that these critics were "living in Oz..."; Conyers had Cindy Sheehan and others arrested when they refused to accept his discouraging doublespeak regarding the necessity to impeach President Unitard.
After considering incidents like these, it flashed upon me that these politicians sounded very much like imperious technocrats: corporate middle managers or executives denouncing unhappy shareholders as clueless amateurs who didn't understand the system, the way government "really" works. In each case, the politicians were obviously personally affronted and infuriated that their putatively honorable and skillful performances as professional power-brokers were not respected and applauded by even their supporters-- who had, somehow, suddenly become an ignorant and preposterous rabble of critics.
And their outbursts-- including Conyers' twinkle-eyed understated outbursts-- invariably boiled down to declarations that the business of Congress is business. Not just in the narrow sense of acquiring, accounting and disbursing revenue, but in the broader sense of Taking Care of Bidness by ensuring that the quotidian wheeling and dealing proceeds with bipartisan comity.
Congress still poses as a political body, but is virtually a mercantile exchange. The Executive is obsessed with full-spectrum dominance; amoral, self-serving realpolitik pre-empts and precludes humane, principled action.
A veneer of humanity is achieved by means of stage-managed, theatrical, manipulative public relations to sustain the illusion that if our Leaders weren't so damn busy keeping the ship of State on an even keel, they'd be a real swell bunch to hang out with. Family men and women; good people!
Actually, in their collective view, it would behoove the few noisy citizen nobodies swarming around them like gnats to stay the hell home, or else "grow up" and Work Within the System: support your chosen politicians, keep those cards and letters coming in, and/or volunteer for campaign work or some socially redeeming cause that might actually accomplish something. And most importantly, get out from underfoot. There's a familiar hive-mind subtext: Resistance is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated.
Sure, arguably politics has always been about the benjamins, from Benjamin's lifetime and before. But my point is that high office now requires each individual office-holder to function as a wholly-owned subsidiary, preoccupied with managing and enhancing money streams to guarantee that they'll keep their place in the Going Concern of politics.
Money and power: Mammon's own whirligig, his servants in its thrall.
Didn't someone say that the love of money is the root of all evil? And didn't Lord Acton wisely observe that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men"?
One can take Lord Acton's comment a bit further by saying that these "great men" are convinced that power will not corrupt them.