General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Startling Accuracy of Referring to Politicians as 'Psychopaths'
Video that follows was posted by truth2power in the Video & Multimedia forum.
The Startling Accuracy of Referring to Politicians as 'Psychopaths'
JAMES SILVERJUL 31 2012, 8:35 AM ET
The characteristics that define clinical psychopathy are many of the same that make effective leaders.
<edit>
The question, then, is whether it is reasonable to believe that people with serious abnormalities in the way they interact with the world can be found running for (and winning) office. However unsettling as this may be, the answer seems to be yes. It's possible for psychopaths to be found anywhere -- including city hall or Washington, D.C. Remember, psychopaths are not delusional or psychotic; in fact, two of the hallmarks of psychopathy are a calculating mind and a seemingly easy charm.
In his landmark book on psychopathy, The Mask of Sanity, researcher Hervey Cleckley theorized that some people with the core attributes of psychopathy -- egocentricity, lack of remorse, superficial charm -- could be found in nearly every walk of life and at every level, including politics. Robert Hare, perhaps the leading expert on the disorder and the person who developed the most commonly used test for diagnosing psychopathy, has noted that psychopaths generally have a heightened need for power and prestige -- exactly the type of urges that make politics an attractive calling.
There is more at work than just the drive to seek office, though; psychopaths may have some peculiar talents for it, as well. Research has shown that disorder may confer certain advantages that make psychopaths particularly suited to a life on the public stage and able to handle high-pressure situations: psychopaths score low on measures of stress reactivity, anxiety and depression, and high on measures of competitive achievement, positive impressions on first encounters, and fearlessness. Sound like the description of a successful politician and leader?
Doubtless, it's easier to see some leaders as psychopaths than it is others. Presumably, no one would dispute the notion that Hitler and Stalin were psychopaths at the extreme end of the spectrum: completely unconstrained by empathy or guilt and willing to say or do anything to accomplish their goals. This, though, reinforces the perception of psychopaths as out-of-control madmen who are evil to the core. Might there be other, more mainstream political leaders who have psychopathic traits but fall closer to the "normal" range? Some have certainly thought so.
In 2003, neuropsychologist Paul Brok argued that Prime Minister Tony Blair was a "plausible psychopath" who was ruthlessly ambitious, egocentric, and manipulative. Respected psychologist and researcher David Lykken has written:
If we can believe his biographer, Robert Caro [...] Lyndon Johnson exemplified this syndrome. He was relatively fearless, shameless, abusive of his wife and underlings, and willing to do or say almost anything required to attain his ends.
more...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Those factories are called "business schools."
SamKnause
(13,110 posts)of effective leaders.
Yes, psychopaths hold many powerful positions in government and business, but I would not say they are effective leaders.
I would say they do very destructive and outright evil things.
I would venture to say that psychopaths control:
The IMF
The World Bank
The Federal Reserve
The Pentagon
The Congress
The Senate
The Supreme Court
The Military Industrial Complex
The Police
The Prisons
Pharmaceutical Companies
Global Corporations
Wall Street
and the majority of governments on this planet
Effective leadership is in very short supply on planet earth.
Starting wars and stealing the wealth of countries and individuals would not be my definition of effective leaders.
If these effective leaders were not in power we could feed, house, and clothe every person on this planet.
Nice video.
Thanks for posting.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Salviati
(6,008 posts)The major problem one of the major problems, for there are several one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
reddread
(6,896 posts)JHB
(37,161 posts)By 1963, all Islanders willing to leave the island had left and the remaining Islanders started to fight the plans of Metro to remove their homes. While demolitions still proceeded, the Islanders' alderman David Rotenberg pushed the Islanders' cause and the number of demolitions dwindled. In 1969, the Toronto Islands' Residents Association (TIRA) was formed. Still, by 1970 only 250 homes, on Ward's and Algonquin Islands, had escaped the bulldozer. The 1970s saw no further demolitions as the Metro Parks plans were thwarted by year-to-year leases and the changing of the guard on Toronto City Council to a group more sympathetic to the Islanders. In 1973, City Council voted 172 to preserve the community and transfer those lands back to the City. However, Metro Council remained opposed and the Islanders started legal challenges to Metro's plans in 1974 to delay Metro's plans of expropriation. By 1978, Metro Council had won several legal battles and had obtained 'writs of possession' for the 250 homes. At the time, a minority provincial Progressive Conservative government was in place with both the Liberals and NDP opposition parties in favour of the Islanders and the Islanders appealed to the provincial government, winning more time when the province agreed to act as mediator between the City and Islanders and Metro.[18]
Matters came to a head on July 28, 1980, when a sheriff sent to serve eviction notices to remaining residents was met at the Algonquin Island bridge by much of the community, whose leaders persuaded the sheriff to withdraw.[19] On July 31, the community won the right to challenge the 1974 evictions. The Islanders lost the challenge, but by this time, the province had started a formal inquiry headed by Barry Swadron into the Toronto Islands. On December 18, 1981, the province of Ontario passed a law legalizing the Islanders to stay until 2005. This kept the lands in Metro's ownership, to be leased to the City who would lease it to the Islanders.[20] Wrangling over the terms of the lease payments to Metro took several years.
The community's fight for survival was finally rewarded in 1993, when the Ontario Government passed the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, which enabled Islanders to purchase 99-year land leases from a Land Trust.[21]