This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Walking the Line Between Good and Evil: The Common Thread of Heroes and Villains

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by biorays

I pulled this excerpt from the article just to highlight a point I often feel inescapable whenever I give my time to taking seriously the claimed science of pyscho-writers.

Read the list and see if you can substitute any professions (especially ones involving finance) for the title sociopath.

"Sociopath:

  • Low impulse control

  • High novelty-seeking needs (desire to experience new things, high need for arousal)

  • Shows no remorse for their actions (lack of conscience, no experienced guilt)

  • Inability or unwillingness to see past own needs in order to understand how another feels (lack of exhibited empathy)

  • Detached emotionally from situations, personal relationships

  • Willing to break rules, defy authority

  • Always acts in the interest of himself, in whatever fashion ultimately serves him best (selfish, self-protective)

  • Extremely fragile or unstable ego, or self-identity

  • Extreme emotional sensitivity"

  • It does not take long to realise how there is an often impenetrable language barrier to explaining anything about 'stereotypical' personalities - let alone disorderly ones. I can easily foresee how a wealthy personality disorder might gain enough popularity to set up their own country, or religion, whilst a poor one ends up in the local clinic. Historically this is very provable. Double standards abound throughout the 'classes' of society.

    Hence, for me, psychology is a necessary pseudo science, seeking to understand and explain that which needs far more concise explanation, but which, it seems, cannot fail to fall into the trap it seeks to eliminate - becoming stereotypical about things it seeks to reduce the bigotry and bias respecting.

    It's why I often want to take it very seriously but find I default to missing the mark. I perceive many of Its manoeuvres from theory to reality as a bridge too far! In fact I often consider the 'psychology expert', and especially underlings thereof, to be employing a high degree of circular hypothesis akin to that which religious thinkers employ in support of their 'feelings' about others behaviours/thoughts/attitudes.

    I'd have hoped for a far more science specific approach but maybe there isn't one and that's the problem that perpetuates the irony of attempting to. Some things just avoid scientific analysis - and often deliberately so!

    Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:19:46 UTC | #613456