quote:Rabbit: I beg your pardon-- maybe we're using the term 'clinical' differently. I'll note that sociopathy is somewhat synonymous with psychopathy and interchangeable with anti-social personality disorder according to DSM-IV.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "synonymous" and "interchangeable". There is certainly a lot of overlap in the way the different terms are used. ASPD is a technical clinical term. Psychopathy and sociopathy are not and are widely used in both common english and the scholarly psychological literature to describe a set of behavior patterns that are nonclinical. Given the extremely widespread use of the these terms by both layman and experts in nonclinical contexts, I find your insistence that they are only appropriate in a clinical setting rather silly.
If you seriously object to the word and not my assessment, find me another word that communicates my concern that Newt is a narcissistic charismatic manipulator and pathological liar, who is deficient in empathy and lacks a moral conscience. Give me a word that says I think Newt is a megalomaniac who would have absolutely no qualms about hurting millions of people for insignificant personal gain.
If your argument is really about the word and not whether the above assessment is sufficiently supported to justify serious concern in a potential President, then find me a better word. Scumbag just doesn't say what I want to say and repeating that whole explanation each time is too much of a mouthful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I find Newt's particular combination of charisma, egotism and evident lack of a moral conscience make him far more prone to serious abuse of power than generic scumbaggery.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given the extremely widespread use of the these terms by both layman and experts in nonclinical contexts, I find your insistence that they are only appropriate in a clinical setting rather silly.
Rabbit, you're the one who said:
quote:Perhaps you are under the impression that sociopath implies serious antisocial behavior such as rape and murder. This is not correct. The "successful psychopath" is something widely recognized in the psychological literature. Several studies have found that its fairly common for leaders in business and psychopaths to fit the same psychological profile as criminal psychopaths.
YOU brought the science of psychology into this discussion, not me. I don't think that Newt fits the layman's understanding of what it means to be a sociopath; and I'm not sure he fits the bill for the psychologist's definition (because I don't have the information or expertise to make that judgment).
I'll concede that he is egotistic, combative, hypocritical, untrustworthy, and unethical; those are elements of his character that we have evidence for.
Unempathetic? Meh-- since you've laid that label on me before, I'm afraid that your implementation of it here means very little. Plus, no real evidence. Manipulator? He's a politician. Pathological liar? I dunno-- he's untrustworthy, but "pathological" takes it to a realm I don't know that we have information about.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:YOU brought the science of psychology into this discussion, not me. I don't think that Newt fits the layman's understanding of what it means to be a sociopath; and I'm not sure he fits the bill for the psychologist's definition (because I don't have the information or expertise to make that judgment).
This is a false dichotomy. The words sociopath and psychopath have been used in a wide range of ways by both experts and layman. There is even substantive disagreement among experts about whether it should be considered a disorder at all or if its just a bunch of traits frequently shared by particularly recalcitrant nasty people. What we do know from the scholarly psychological work is that there is a set character traits which are very strong predictors for future abusive, unethical and anti-social behavior. So strong that it is frequently claimed that sociopaths are incapable of changing their behavior. Even clinically, this is never a black and white diagnosis. There is a long list of behaviors and character traits associated with ASPD, the more of them a person has the more likely they are to continue behaving in dangerous abusive and anti-social ways.
Furthermore, there is no contradiction inherent in a person relying on scientific or scholarly work to make a lay judgement. Evidence can be consistent with a particular scholarly theory and yet insufficient to make a definitive judgement. We have to make choices all the time with insufficient evidence. When the scientific evidence is not definitive, the ethical choice is never to just throw the science out. What do I consider the ethical way to use the science when it is not definitive? The precautionary principle suggests we should act cautiously to minimize the risks. That means we weigh (as best we can) the probability that we are misinterpreting the evidence against the potential harm of choosing badly. When the risks of an action are high enough, it is both rational and ethical to oppose that action vehemently on scientific grounds even in the absence scientific certainty.
In my opinion, Newt Gingrich's public behavior indicates a sufficiently high probability that he is a sociopath who would abuse the power of Presidency in dangerous ways. I believe that danger justifies my active opposition to his presidential campaign. "Sociopath" succinctly expresses my reasons for opposing him.
If you do not think the evidence is sufficient to justify use of the term, don't use it, but don't keep accusing me of using hyperbole. I'm not exaggerating for effect, I find the evidence that Newt Gingrich is a dangerous sociopath very compelling and something voters should seriously consider.
[ December 21, 2011, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you do not think the evidence is sufficient to justify use of the term, don't use it, but don't keep accusing me of using hyperbole. I'm not exaggerating for effect, I find the evidence that Newt Gingrich is a dangerous sociopath very compelling and something voters should seriously consider.
The hyperbole portion of my criticism was tied to your claim that electing Gingrich would be the worst thing that could happen to America.
ETA: And I'm afraid, no-- since I don't feel the evidence fits the bill, I will continue to criticize the use of the word 'sociopath' in describing Gingrich.
[ December 21, 2011, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unempathetic? Meh-- since you've laid that label on me before, I'm afraid that your implementation of it here means very little.
You've said plenty of stuff that indicates you are an empathetic husband, father and meat space friend. I don't question that at all.
You have, however, lead me to believe on more than one occasion that hurting me, in particular, does not concern you and that you do not consider empathy for people you know only online to be a virtue worth seeking. Please correct me if I've misunderstood you on this.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You have misunderstood.
I have a hard time reconciling that with some of the very pointed remarks you have made over the years.
I'd be willing to believe that, rather than being a jerk, you just aren't communicating how you feel effectively and aren't sufficiently invested in it to make the effort to clarify. Except you've state in no uncertain terms that you'd rather I consider you a jerk than speculate about your intent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure whether to respond with "One man's meat is another man's poison." or "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little mans" so I'm going with both.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
posted
Yes, despite my typo, I am very familiar with Emerson's exact wording. I recently did an investigation of this premise for reasons completely unrelated to this forum and was surprised how many people have expressed this idea, often in very similar words. The oldest version of it I found is attributed to Cicero who said.
quote:No well-informed person ever imputed inconsistency to another for changing his mind.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I, on the other hand, am highly suspicious of Romney's capacity for flip-flopping.
Agreed. Romney's flip-flopping concerns me almost as much as Ron Paul's 4 decades of dogged consistency, but for different reasons.
Too much consistency indicates a ridged devotion to ideology and an unwillingness or inability to reconsider issues in the light of new data or novel proposals. It raises concerns about the kind of intransigence that results in staying the course come hell or high water.
Too little consistency suggests a lack of conviction and raises questions about sincerity and transparency. It raises real concern that the candidate is far more interested in getting power than how they will use it.
Romney's flip-flops bother me because he hasn't offered any particularly persuasive explanation for why he changed his mind. Nothing he's said seems half as likely as that he is simply willing to say what ever he thinks will appeal to the audience. He hasn't articulated any kind of a clear vision or philosophy so the flip-flops leave me without any clear idea where he really stands.
It bothers me to say that because, unlike most of the candidates, I don't think Romney is a lying scumbag. Based on everything I've heard (and I have friends who've worked closely with him), he's a very decent and competent man. People who know him seem to hold him in high esteem even if they don't like his politics. You never really know about anyone so he could have all sorts of skeletons in his closet, but I'd be quite surprised if does.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney has, in fact, doggedly insisted that he *hasnt* changed his mind, when it is obvious to everyone that he absolutely has, or that if he hasn't, he has a very odd reckoning of his previous positions.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine O'Donnell said she likes Romney because he's so steadfast in his beliefs. When asked about the fact that almost no one thinks that, she said that she likes that he has the flexibility to change his mind. And then said that she liked that since he changed his mind, he's been steadfast in supporting the new things he believes in.
posted
Oh my god yes! I saw the clip of her saying "He's been consistent since he changed his mind!" and I died. That was priceless.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes, I envy the kind of monumental delusion that people like Cain are capable of. It's obviously served him well and been reinforced in his life, and it's only here in an environment of intense scrutiny that it starts to fall apart because he's honestly too ridiculous to comprehend.
He's so far removed from the metacognitive ability to even comprehend how he's woefully incompetent for the jobs that he insists he would be great at. He just thinks he'll belly up and make it work cause he's awesome! And this blindness defines him and makes him who he is. He's a walking dunning-kruger effect.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe he could do well in rapid response military management? Clearly that's what his corporate pizza experience points towards!
It's so nice that Cain has turned out to be such a complete jackass, because it validates those of us who've been saying so back when the ticker was maybe only 65% jackass, and actual less-than-fanatic supporters would stick with him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The being a jackass thing is still ... I mean it still amazes me that this had any room left to be relevant to his candidacy, given how utterly absurd and ignorant most of his policies were.
We were all there. We all saw 9-9-9. He obviously was designing policy based on a wild, ronlambertian, vapid overconfidence in the ability to effectively govern and craft governing policy. his incompetence and overconfidence was flat-out dangerous in multiple fields, chiefly economic and military. He's a great candidate for a country that wholly and passionately wants to destroy itself by electing terrible leaders.
fittingly conservatives seemed to be totally okay with his policies? it took months of sexual abuse controversy to pull him from the lead? he's replaced by Newt "yanno what this country needs, child janitor bootstraps" Gingrich?
posted
Probably could put this somewhere better, but it's marginally related to that moment when people were cheering Perry for having executed many people:
quote:The European Commission has imposed tough new restrictions on the export of anaesthetics used to execute people in the US, in a move that will exacerbate the already extreme shortage of the drugs in many of the 34 states that still practice the death penalty. ... In 2009 the only American manufacturer of sodium thiopental, the Illinois-based Hospira, suspended production because it was suffering commercially as a result of having its drug connected to executions. Then this summer, a Danish manufacturer of pentobarbital, Lundbeck, blocked the sale of its product trademarked Nembutal to any penal institution in the US.
Many states still have stocks of the two sedatives, but many are running low or passing their expiry date, leading to ever more desperate measures.
quote:Earlier this year the Obama administration made a direct appeal to Germany asking for supplies of the anaesthetics, only to be roundly rebuffed by the German vice chancellor Philipp Rosler. "I noted the request and declined," Rosler told Der Spiegel.
Woot!
I'm surprised that the situation would be so serious already. And realistically, I'm sure the US will eventually find a different source or just shoot prisoners in the Utah style, but I still have to give props to Europe for putting their money where their mouth is.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: You could call it Utah style as I suppose they did give up virtually last, but you can't actually be shot in Utah anymore unless you are one of three inmates who specifically requested it before the ban went into effect.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich's campaign director compared the former House speaker's inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which they would recover."I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,""
I didn't know Mitt Romney even watched TV!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's fun observing the reactions of conservative voters with respect to remarks such as Gingrich's campaign blaming their own incompetence to a Pearl Harbor inflicted on them. Had a Democrat, or a liberal, much less a liberal democrat, made such a remark it's fun to imagine how hysterically angry much of the Right would be. Socialist, coward, fool, out of touch, etc etc just a few of the things we could expect to hear.
Just a sign of how far self-pity runs among Republicans these days, to my mind. Pearl Harbor? Really? How is that not still mainstream political news, instead of that hypocritical schmuck getting weepy about his mother (the first time ever for him to get openly emotional, so far as I know) at an event for mothers? Oh, but it 'humanizes' him, according to pundits.
Well, sure, lots of human beings would totally ham up and lie for the cameras like that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich's campaign director compared the former House speaker's inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which they would recover."I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,""
I didn't know Mitt Romney even watched TV!
Apparently he did fifty years ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that's giving me the most entertainment in this ring of the primary is: Ron Paul!
Here's why: he's completely hopeless as a candidate. Guaranteed. While he has more money and campaign infrastructure (and a small cluster of diehards who endlessly rally support for him, primary after hopeless primary), a substantial portion of the party hates him. Many surveys ask questions along the lines of "Do you think that X would be an acceptable nominee?" for each candidate. Some candidates (eg. Santorum, Perry, Bachmann) are low in the polls but rate well on this question, meaning lots of voters see them as valid second (or third) choices, which can translate into real votes as other candidates drop out. Paul, however, always does terribly on this question, with almost two-thirds of voters in many surveys calling him flat-out unacceptable.
Outside of American conservatives, his position is even worse. He does not have moderate support. He does not have liberal support. Conservatives are polarized in a way which works reliably against him: the effect that validity fracture like his has on an election allows that you can easily bet heaps of money that he would lose a 1v1 matchup against pretty much anyone who the democratic party could offer for the election. Against Obama, it's particularly grim; it disheartens the conservative base and catapults Obama to victory with such force that he could be (but wouldn't be) carried merely on the backs of people who would vote for Obama just because he's not a man who wants to put us on the gold standard and who legitimately cannot understand how we could possibly be better off with food and drug regulatory government policy than without. Melamine must taste pretty good, I suppose, in milk, or even in koolaid.
So, on the surface, it's very, very profoundly simple: even if Paul stood a ghost of a chance at the primary, he would hand Obama a win if he won the Republican primary. I would find a Republican Paul nomination to be utterly fantastic, because the debates would be actually interesting, and I could just pack up and go home, because the election's already over.
But why's it so entertaining?
Because there is a small and active bubble of complete Ron Paul delusion that exists and defies comparison. A really adorable core of Ron Paul supporters who make proclamations that would be bold even if studies of national polling and electoral/primary probabilities ever demonstrated any viability of the man as a candidate: that Paul could not only contend with Obama, but that he would utterly destroy Obama. You won't see the same phenomenon existing for the rest of the GOP's also-ran hopelesses, but every day I come across a reason why Paul would win versus Obama, and every day it's even more divorced from reality than the last.
I'm going to start clipping quotes, man.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A conspiracy theory idiot I work with is a big Paul fan. His latest gem was suggesting, after I challenged him on the notion that the US only intervenes for oil or money by pointing to Serbia (he paused for several seconds, I could see him trying to think up a reason), was to say and this is almost a direct quote, "Just wait, you'll see, that was just the puppetmasters setting the stage for Russia. Russia's next, it's so obvious."
Anyway, this fruitcup didn't like it much when I pointed out that (according to him) that when the USA becomes a Third World country inside a generation, and everything is in the crapper and all is chaos and misery, he didn't like it when I pointed out that if the only way your guy could ever be elected was if he was literally the last, desperation resort, that it was hardly an *endorsement*.
Other gems: the reason humans and other primates bear so much genetic similarities to one another is because we're all built from things on the periodic table, so similarities are to be expected. Another was when he was telling a story of how, in his class (he's since been fired and blacklisted in the county) a kid in one of his elementary school classes claimed Lebron James was his father; upon hearing that, he told the kid flatly that that wasn't true, his mother was making that up. Effectively called a kid's mother a lying trollop to his face in class.
And man, does he love Ron Paul! Heh. Usually I'd have to go to the Internet for this sort of weird craziness in my politics, but it's different when you hear it with your own ears.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There could be some argument that intervention in Serbia would have some geopolitical effect as to weaken Russian influence but it is fairly tenuous. It was mostly a NATO operation regardless wasn't it?
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sure, there are plenty of honest, plausible motives why we got involved there besides 'do the right thing!' After all, we frequently don't do the right thing when some asshole somewhere decides some race murder needs to happen. Whole world, really. But for oil or resources? Naw. Absurd.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Probably unless there's some vested interest by American telecomm companies who wish to invest in emerging markets and want a friendlier government to work with. いま... This is speculative though.
IP: Logged |
posted
Theories such as that only hold up if it's suggested the politicians behind things are *only* beholden to such companies, and that those same politicians don't stand to lose more elsewhere than those companies would gain.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Isn't it a proof of fact though in American politics though that they are in *fact* beholden to corporate interest? Also what *could* they lose elsewhere? Its a relative minor intervention in a rather small and contained conflict zone there's little risk of a quagmire.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
