Why it's Simple and Accurate to Just Presume that Everyone is a Psychopath?

Economics Political Theory
1

I talked to a social liberal. She said she knows personally many politicians. Politicians are not psychopaths, she said. They honestly believe that drugs are bad for you. That’s why they prohibit it. They honestly believe that prostitutes are forced. So that’s why they’re against it.

Also they need votes and that’s what most voters know.

You know what. Maybe she’s right. Then again, maybe religious leaders honestly believe they honestly save you from hell fire, when they beat you up for undermining their authority. Then again, maybe ugly women honestly believe women are being oppressed when they prohibit prettier women from staring in porn.

Maybe single males actually believe that no women would want to share when they prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage. I know. That’s what I actually believe when I were single.

Maybe the thugs that stab you in the back and take your wallet honestly believe that they are performing appendix removal operation for you.

Who care what they believe? If you pay attention that they may be right, you will end up having to argue with millions of millions of total nonsense that somehow justify their acts to you.

Notice that all those strange beliefs follow the same pattern. It justifies acts that believe them. There is a reason why people entertain such beliefs in the first place.

After all, how do they believe all those nonsense in the first place anyway? Simple. Those nonsense reduce the amount of hostility they will get for harming others.

Why shouldn’t they? If I beat people and I said I want money, I would have to face the cops. If I beat people and says it’s God’s will I get less enemies. It’s toward my best interest to say it’s God’s will. In fact, it probably doesn’t hurt much to actually believe it’s indeed God’s will if that can help me convincing others more. Who knows, many people actually want to see somebody got beaten up. They just need a good fairy tales to justify it.

It’s their best interests to entertain it. It’s not to your best interest to entertain it.

Presuming they are psychopaths and not bother entertaining their nonsense allow you to see clearly what you should do. Do not let those people have power over you. Once people have power over you, it’s game over.

Like most psychopaths, politicians and society make laws to criminalizing consensual behavior. It’s simple. They want to enslave you and they want to blame you. That’s what psychopaths do. They blame the victim. And may be they’re right. If you’re a coward that reward their oppression with compliance and benefit nonsense with attention, why shouldn’t people pick on you?

Then again, who says they’re not psychopaths?

I don’t go around robbing people and raping women. Does that mean I am not a psychophath? Who knows? Even if I were, I still wouldn’t go around robbing people and raping chicks. It’s not toward my best interest to do so. I may go to jail and stuff. There are saver ways to get laid and rich.

Imagine if ALL of us believe that we won’t be punished at all for robbing people and raping chicks. How many do you think will do that?

Say 5% would do it. A reasonable number. Imagine if 5% people actually do that and get away with it and every body knows they get away with it. How many would do that the next day? I’d say 100%. In fact, normal people would have gone extinct and everybody would have been a psychopath if “evil” people will just get away with things.

History shows again and again that majority of humans will kill, slaughter, rape, and who knows what when they know they’ll get away with it. Genocide is the norm. Schindler is the exception. Most people are NOT like Schindler. Most are like Genghish Khan. In fact, most people are descendants of people like Genghish Khan. That’s the kind of people that are successful in the gene pool

Yes, like most psychopaths, people would just come up with something to rationalize and justify their acts. Just look what our bible teach: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109135717AAEZFlL. That’s David, a hero in the bible, killing 100 Philistines just to collect their foreskins. What’s the difference between what he does and what psychopaths would do? Somehow, we just believe David’s justification.

David’s dilemma is simple. Usually killing is politically incorrect. Yet now his cost function change. If it’s the philistines, killing is actually rewarding. He can get the king’s daughter. So great. What would any Dave do? Who wouldn’t start collecting those foreskins? Hell, till now many still think it’s actually a good act. If societies approve you for killing people, if killing people is profitable, what would a psychopath and normal people both do? Kill. So what’s the difference?

There are 2 ways to analyze this.

  1. People are not normally psychopaths. However, they see and know violent pays so much they become a psychopaths.
  2. People are inherently psychopaths. They’re just not convinced that robbing and rapping are profitable yet and don’t have the guts to do it yet. Once they know, they do what all psychophats would do.

The difference between 1 and 2 is subtle and may be even mere philosophical. Both will correctly predict what people would do. Both prescribe that we need tough sentences against robbery if we want to deter people from doing it.

To be frank, #2 is simpler, and correctly predict the same act anyway.

In fact, I do not really understand the difference between homo economicus and psychopaths. What’s the real difference anyway? Aren’t we all? Show me some area where large number of people do not act like they are psychopaths. Maybe I can understand it.

The Greatest Lie is Love
2

The VAST majority of people are not psychopaths. And by vast I mean upward of 99%. Psychopathy is not the same thing as self-interest.

We live in a civilization. We enjoy a higher quality of life than humans ever have before us. These things are not possible unless cooperation is the norm. So even if you think that everyone is a psychopath, it doesn’t matter because cooperation is continually chosen of deviancy.

3

If you think everyone is a “psychopath” - you have to ask yourself why you are studying the social sciences.

Likewise, if you think everyone is an “evil SOB”; it’s probably best to deal with these problems in an existential manner and try to find a way to come to terms with what you see - it may even do good to try to communicate and help as much as possible and in as fearless a manner as possible, while being able to accept failure. Do this while with holding any inclination of an argumentative and judgmental spirit as much as possible (join a charity, a club, or enlist in any social activity- particularly ones you may fear. Ex; if you fear dancing, sign up for a dance class).

4

I read definition of psychopaths, I really do not see why it differs from most people. It’s best explained by this Star Wars quote:

Anakin Skywalker: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.
Supreme Chancellor: And the Jedi don’t?

Yes we are cooperative. We are cooperative because we have carrots and sticks that encourage cooperation. Not because we can be counted on to deviate from normal psychopathic self interest path to help others.

Psychopaths lie to justify their evil acts. So are everyone else. No politicians or voters would say, I prohibit drugs because I am power hungry. They would lie and say that they prohibit drugs for your own good. They may actually believe their own delusion. The reason is the same with psychophats. They simply do not have incentive to be objective. After all, they’re not the consumer.

Psychopaths that murder his wife honestly believe that he loved his wife and kids. Well, that’s delusional.

Religious leaders that beat up ahmadiyah for undermining their power may also honestly believe that it’s God’s will. That’s also delusional.

Social liberals that want government to decide what’s best for our children also honestly believe that politicians actually care. That’s also delusional. A better explanation is, as I said in my updated articles:

In fact, most humans do presume that others are psychopaths. Why do we sign contracts? Why do we have letter of credit? Why not just send the good first and hope that the other guy is not a psychopath and will honor the deal? Because we know that the other side must be a psychopaths too and hence, it’s toward our best interest that it’s toward his interest to pay up.

Even if the other side is not a psychopath, we also know that when they see that others are profiting when by frauding us, they too will turn psychopaths and follow the same path.

If even in businesses, where relationship pays, we presume people are psychopaths that we put so many system to ensure that their selfish interests are properly aligned with ours, how much more we should do that in politic?

What would happen if you trust politicians even more than you trust your business partners, namely something more than at all?

History shows again and again what will happen to your wife and kids. Just look:

Who did that? Businessmen? No. Guess again. Politicians supported by the majority of the population. How can people that count on contracts in businesses could suddenly say, that we can trust politicians to decide on what’s best for our children and family?

Simple. Those people, are psychopaths too, just like the majority of voters. They don’t care about fairness. They don’t care about productivity. They just want a reason to justify robbing from the diligent and controlling the productive. The way to do so is to give power to politicians.

Just like an interviewed psychopath once tell how much he loves his wife that he beat up to death, social democrats also entertain a ridiculous delusion. That delusion is that somehow we can trust politicians, and they, are not psychopaths.

Fortunately, politicians are psychopaths too, and we know what’s the cure. Just bribe them.

5

@OP: Nice try at moral equivocation. Psychopathy has nothing to do with self-interest, it has everything to do with an inability to correctly perceive the world at a very gross level (for example, being delusional and believing you are Napoleon or something like that).

Sociopathy (which is what I think you’re trying to talk about) is like psychopathy but with respect to basic social facts, i.e., killing another person is wrong or saying hurtful things to a person is wrong, and so on. The inability to correctly perceive social facts and exhibit normal empathy toward human suffering are hallmarks of sociopathy.

Politics has always been filled with sociopaths and the release of the money flood (central bank inflation) draws them out like flies drawn to the smell of fresh, warm shit. This has nothing to do with psychopathy or self-interest. It has everything to do with the essential feature of political action: hypocrisy. A normal person who enters politics must learn, over time, to overcome the screams of his conscience at hurting people. The sociopath has a competitive advantage vis-a-vis the non-sociopath in this regard. He has a very real psychological problem that prevents him from experiencing the usual pangs of guilt at hurting another person or the feeling of empathy at the suffering of another. He breezes through the ranks of political power and quickly rises to the top. The higher you go in the political structure, the denser the sociopaths are.

The Elites are sorcerers and they conjure spirits - the spirit of the Beast is being conjured today as it was just prior to the Great War of 1914 and again just prior to the wars of Europe and the Pacific that started in 1939. The Beast is made of a million men, sociopaths devoid of all natural sympathy, devoid of conscience, psychologically incapable of feeling guilt or moral compunction. They are Beta males, submissive cowards who cannot feel at ease until they have found a leader to attach themselves to. In the Inquisitions of Europe, they were the dungeon-keeps, the torturers, the executioners, the members of the Holy Office, the snitches, the anti-witch and anti-heretic zealots and, of course, the ruling Elites, both secular and religious.

Rob Zombie artistically depicts the sorcery of the Elites here - it is a depiction of the world as seen through the eyes of the Beast after it has been conjured by what he calls the Lords of Salem and what I am calling the Elites. In mythical terms, the Beast is the ancient god Kronos who eats his own children. The Beast is the principle of cannibalism; it is the incarnation of the parasite. It is inexorable, relentless, pitiless.

The Beast is not natural, it must be conjured. The Beast is not an expression of self-interest. Social cooperation does not arise despite human nature but because of it. Every healthy, non-sociopathic human being has all the circuitry in his brain that he needs to be a normal, cooperative participant in society. No Leviathan is needed to create order, in fact, the Leviathan is the source of the destruction created by the Beast. The book of Revelations states that the Beast is conjured by the serpent (Leviathan) and this is precisely what happens. The ruling Elites (Leviathan) conjure the Beast and unleash it on humanity. They’ve done it countless times in human history.

How do they conjure the Beast? Well, it’s never precisely the same ritual but the essential principle is always the same: by redistributing the resources of society to the Beta sociopaths. Every legal and economic advantage is given to the special class of human beings which can only be described as slavishly obedient sociopaths. As these people rise through the ranks of political and economic power and influence, society begins to be restructured and the natural social order is perverted. Upright behavior is penalized while all forms of parasitism and cannibalism are rewarded with higher status, more influence and greater wealth. Once the Beast has been fully conjured, the Elites unleash it on society. The last shackles are removed and the Beast exhausts itself in one last orgy of death and devastation, wiping out untold wealth and entire populations.

Stop trying to peddle this bullshit that the sociopaths of politics are just like the rest of us. They’re not. They’re part of the Beast and - sooner or later - they will be the agents of death and devastation unleashed upon society.

Clayton -

American police-state
6

There are 2 ways to analyze most similar situations.

  1. People are not normally psychopaths. However, when they see and know that violent pays so much, they become a psychopaths.
  2. People are inherently psychopaths. They’re just not convinced that robbing and rapping are profitable yet and don’t have the guts to do it yet. Once they know, they do what all psychophats would do.

The difference between 1 and 2 is subtle and may be even mere philosophical. Both will correctly predict what people would do. Both prescribe that we need tough sentences against robbery if we want to deter people from doing it.

To be frank, #2 is simpler, and correctly predict the same act anyway.

7

Politics does not require large scale psychopathy in order to be explained. In fact, there is a much larger amount of useful idiots than there are psychopaths - those who desire a particular end but seek an ineffectual means of attaining it (as in the examples you give). It is those who are used by the very small amount of psychopaths (or, as Clayton says, sociopaths), in order for the latter to achieve their own ends.

8

@Clayton: That was cool

9

I see. Liberals are like useful idiots for Hamas and commies.

We can’t argue with hardcore feminazis or hardcore socialists. They are true psychopaths that have hidden motives. We can, however, convince the useful idiots on how idiotic they are so they get smarter.

But then again, psychopaths are indeed homo economicus. You said that yourself, they are succesful. Maybe we should learn to think like them.

If the world is fair, it make sense to be moral. If the world is unfair, you should properly understand reality the way it really is and make whatever expedient political decission that max out your self interest. That’s essensially, what psychopathy really mean.

What is moral, after all, if not the interests of those who made them.

10

@ genepool

Life is hard, and as soon as you figure out that is ultimately a good thing (and it is a good thing) the better shape you are in. Quit writing these insanely nihilistic posts, and thinking useles nihilistic thinking - they won’t do you any good.

To go the extra mile on you:

I don’t care what you believe or what you wish to believe - anything that is worth a damn in ife is going to show you that life requires effort - and that’s point. Anything that doesn’t, and I don’t care if it is in a rich bourgoise society or a “utopian” leftist socity, is simply BS it is either either blatant advetisment or kooky leftism. Either way ignore both, and learn how to enjoy the fruits of the Earth.

11

I’m not one to agree with Plato, but you sound a lot like Thrasymachus. People have consciences, and nobody is inherently conditioned by the world. You make choices for yourself, and that’s all there is to life, really. You don’t sound very existential, so I’m having trouble relating to what you’re saying.

12

For the benefit of lurkers…

Both fairness and morality are synthetic concepts that can only arise once the particular facts of society are determined, that is, once there are actual beings (such as human beings) to reason about fairness and morality. Hence, there is no a priori concept of fairness against which to measure the world. Is it fair to be borne with a digestive tract that requires you to obtain food on at least a semi-daily basis or face death due to starvation? Is it fair that you have to exert effort to obtain food for yourself? Is it fair that you can only live by killing some other living thing?

Your assertion is gibberish.

Pursuit of self-interest is a bit of a misnomer - humans are not so much self-interested as purposeful, acting beings. Whether or not human purposes (ends) are generally “selfish” or “altruistic” is a separate question from the question of human action: the use of the available means to attain one’s ends.

Psychopathy is a non-specific term with no general agreement to its meaning. Sociopathy or anti-social personality disorder, on the other hand, is a well-defined term. Wikipedia is your friend.

Clayton -

13

Pursuit of self-interest is a bit of a misnomer - humans are not so much self-interested as purposeful, acting beings. Whether or not human purposes (ends) are generally “selfish” or “altruistic” is a separate question from the question of human action: the use of the available means to attain one’s ends.

Good point. The “selfishness” just comes from “what is acting”, or “where the imperative of purpose lies” - which is in the individual

14

Pursuit of self-interest is a bit of a misnomer - humans are not so much self-interested as purposeful, acting beings. Whether or not human purposes (ends) are generally “selfish” or “altruistic” is a separate question from the question of human action: the use of the available means to attain one’s ends.

Ah, but even the term ‘purpose’ requires a value judgment such that one action is preferrable over another in order for a goal to be pursued. What’s wrong with ‘self-interest’ is its implication that the self is always the value being served.

Personally I like way that Robert LeFevre casts it, saying that people seek “plus factors” rather than using the “self interest” term. Because that removes the assumption of the self as the highest value in the term “self-interest”. Using “plus factors” puts the focus on values in general, not merely the self. Meaning that a person’s highest value is what they will seek in the moment and allowing that that value may not always be their own self.

Many have preferred death to betraying truth, or have sacrificed themselves for the lives of others.

This helps us explain why a person might sacrifice their life for another, if that other person’s life is at that moment of higher value to them than their own life, they may choose to act to save another at the cost of their own life, like a parent rushing into a burning building to recover a child. This is not an irrational choice under this rubric, but a completely rational one.

It also helps us explain evil behavior, since a person can seek plus-factors at the expense of other people. A masochist might value his own evil joy at causing pain over the well-being of others (arguably because they in many cases lack the capacity for empathy).

People seek plus factors, but what constitutes a plus factor to them is controlled by their value structure. Thus one person may see a plus factor in causing himself pain, while another prefers pleasure. Both are rational choices, just the one seeking pain believes in ‘no pain, no gain’ and the other prefers comfort over the kind of growth that can only be achieved by painful trials (like, say, weight training).

15

It’s like David collecting 100 foreskins of Philistines civilians under the order of Saul. I do not know whether those 2 are sociopath or not. Most christians, jews, and muslims may believe otherwise. We can agree that the acts of killing people just to collect their foreskins is like a sociopath. But we can all agree that most humans, including biblical heros, including large number of people, either behave like sociopath or condone sociopath like behavior. After, all it’s bible.

The same way, even though most humans are not sociopath, most humans behave as if they are or condone many acts that are like sociopathic acts. The difference between those and true sociopaths are not in the acts, but in perception of the act. Atheists would think David is a sociopath. Christians would think differently. As an economist in economic mode I only judge people based on their action. That’s why it’s simpler to simply say that humans are psychopaths. They act as if they are.

I think typical humans are not far from selfish. Altruism exist only friends, and family such as the case of reciprocal altruism and genetic altruism. Reciprocal altruism is not really altruism because you reasonably expect something greater than what you give. Reciprocal altruism is like you altruistically give brochures to people around you so they buy.

To everyone else, humans behave as if they are sociopath. Not that they truly are, but they behave as if they are even though they’re not realizing it.

And that’s my point. Every deviation from libertarianism can be explained from humans’ natural tendency to want to have power over others so they can more easily manipulate others. Just like some may find it more profitable to just rob rather than buy, many humans psychopatically demand bigger government because they expect to be able to get more.

Just like those who choose to rob others rather than buy may justify their acts with really bizare ideas, such as that it’s for their own good. The same way humans that want to rob us out of our freedom will entertain bizare ideas.

They would argue that ganja is dangerous. They would argue that God hate fags. They would argue that prostitution can’t possibly be consensual. They would argue that all trafficked women are sex slave. They would argue that blondes are dumber and jews are inferior.

Those are beliefs that are so vague or so wrong that it’s utter bullshit. There is very little link between truth and those beliefs. But there is a key to understand the bullshit. That is, the interest of those who entertain and make them.

Like sociopath, people that entertain those nonsense may actually believe them. And that’s why they’re not sociopath. They may actually be honestly well meaning. But they behave as if they are sociopaths anyway because they want to take away our freedom so they can more easily manipulate.

Hence, it’s simple and accurate to just presume that humans are. I do that in businesses. How much more should I do that in politic?

16

Again, nice try with the moral equivocation. You are confusing partisanship with sociopathy. Tribe/clan loyalty is clearly a built-in part of human nature. Thousands of years ago, it served a purpose but it is somewhat maladaptive today. So what?

The “-pathy” suffix should be a hint that your attempt to mangle language is futile - a “-pathy” is some form of suffering which is abnormal. By definition, something which is abnormal affects a minority of people.

The virtue of altruism is partly a genetic disposition (kids share, even without teaching or prompting) and partly learned. Like any virtue, what makes altruism a virtue is the fact that it is rewarding - doing what is right brings a feeling of satisfaction. That feeling of satisfaction is evidence that virtuous behavior is hardwired into our brains - it wouldn’t feel good to be virtuous if our brains were not wired for social cooperation.

Well, moral deficiency is a serious problem. Widespread immorality is a social sickness. The key is to realize that a society may be healthy or sick. The movie Apocalypto, for example, depicts a deeply sick society in the throes of self-immolation.

The uniting feature of all immoral or criminal behavior is hypocrisy. When hypocrisy becomes systemically rationalized by the moral leaders of society, the society becomes infused with the political means (theft, graft, redistribution).

Actually, I think most thieves understand what they are doing is wrong. The whole point is that politics and political religion are a moral whitewash that exonerates those who employ political means to do what would otherwise be simple crime.

Those are all rather inferior issues to the central purpose of politics: redistribution from the productive class to the parasitic class.

Clayton -

17

You’re completely missing the point. It doesn’t matter if they believe that marijuana is harmful or that Jews are inferior. What matters is that they think it’s in their own interest for the state to use force to supress those things. In doing this, almost everyone looks only at a single effect or a few effects, rather than on all the possible effects, and the effects of those effects. This is why people do not have to be sociopaths to pursue such policies - rather they are looking at the seen and ignoring the unseen. If, after reviewing and properly understanding the effects of these and similar authoritarian policies, the vast majority still supported them, the liberal would probably accept that yes, they are sociopaths.

The difficult question is whether there is in fact a significant amount of people who have the time, inclination, and ability to properly understand all of these things.

18

If, after reviewing and properly understanding the effects of these and similar authoritarian policies, the vast majority still supported them, the liberal would probably accept that yes, they are sociopaths.

Aristippus, I am not missing the point. My point is EXACTLY like yours in predicting what people would do. Basically the difference between them and psychopaths are not what they do but what they know and understand. But then again, many psychophats are indeed delusional and honestly believe they are helping, like most voters.

That is exactly my point. They behaves as if they are psychopaths even though most of them are not..

However, if we see just what they do rather than what their state of mind is, which is what economy is all about, then yes they are psychopaths.

Economists also says that humans are rational even though most of us are emotional. We behave as if we are rationals. The same ways, voters and politicians behave as if they are psychopaths whether they truly are or not.

Giving power to politicians are then like giving power to psychopaths. Fifteen percents of politicians are psychopaths. The other behaves as if they are psychopaths. They selectively choose to believe opinions that justify their self interest while ignoring the rest. The different between psychopaths and normal people is that psychopaths are more enligtened. That’s it. They do the same thing.

As for they don’t know. Why don’t they know? Because they have very little incentive to know. If I decide what’s best for me, I go the extra mile knowing the truth. If people decide what’s best for others, it’s toward their best interest to look only on aspects that justify giving more power to them.

So it’s as if they are psychopaths.

That’s my point. Not that most humans are psychophats. But we won’t falsely predict what they will do if we presume they psychopathically max out the interest of their kind..

19

Yeah I suppose we’re saying similar things in that regard. The point I was making is that it isn’t the (probably incorrect) beliefs about ganja or the Jews that lead to pseudo-sociopathy/psychopathy, but the beliefs about the role of the state in society that do.

20

That’s correct. The idea that the state has positive role (if it’s small, at least) is not necessarily a delusion though. While anarchism may be good, it’s not tried and tested yet. So far, it’s scientific that monarchies are more prosperous than anarchy and democracy are more prosperous than monarchy. If we want to promonte anarchy, we must remember that while it may be good, it’s not proven.

When I said we should presume that everyone is a psychopath is not far from Adam Smith’s assertion that humans are rationally selfish. In fact, it’s how what most people think when they see rationally selfish mean. We don’t magically stop when our acts are wrong. We simply delusionally work our reasoning so that somehow the wrong is right.

Sample: Johns pay women more than husbands.

Profitable path: Prohibit prostitution

Delusional justification: Prostitutes can’t possibly do it consensually (which is a lie)

Sample: Porn stars are prettier than feminazis

Profitable path: Prohibit porn

Delusional justification: Porn cause rape. Recent scientific evidences show that the truth is the opposite. I do not see any that’s hell bent on prohibiting porn now want to make porn mandatory in light of new scientific evidences that porn reduce rape.

Sample: Hot babes that don’t mind becoming sex objects end up living happily with richer males

Profitable path: Prohibit men from thinking that women are sex objects

Delusional justification: Women are not sex objects.

So you see, simply seeing what’s most profitable for a person will help us predict what he will do. Also knowing what’s politically correct and vague will help us guess what bullshit they will come up with.