Sociopath Community

AppleGenius said: 

Good said: 

I dont think its related. You can have more good or more evil characteristics and still be dumb or smart.

I think you can be an asshole on the inside but still be good due to your actions. I think there is some relationship, for sure, but I don't know how strong the relationship is.

I think if you are smart, you will adapt to your characteristics and your environment to get what you want. So if you are evil, you will use that to your advantage. If you are good, you will use that instead.

I think the argument is more that being good is in your best interest. A bit like, imagine that society was run by cutthroats. Would you prefer that over a society that was good? Irrespective of your characteristics and tendencies, you would probably want to work together with others towards a better society, because it's in your best interest. Despite the short-term gain from fucking people over and lying. I think recognizing that being moral is in your best interest in the longer term requires some level of intelligence. It's like recognizing meta-level consequences, the consequences that are not immediately obvious on a month or even a year timescale.

For sure, you can't be extremely evil if you want to live in todays society or even most societies in history. But relatively speaking you can act on some of your evilness if you are in a position to do so. And on some occasions, your ability to be evil can be an asset. You just need to know when and what to do, like if you can get away with it.

Long term can be better to be good, but you can be just evil enough, that the fruits of your evilness wont show till you die. And you wont care then.

But i also think you can just not give a fuck about society and be far worse, where they tolerate you just enough. If this makes you achieve the goals you set for yourself, then why should you care that much about your self-interest? It is important to note what your goals are, not everyone care about being comfortable, having power, money and bitches. Some care for only a few of these things, or are satisfied with less than the norm, or care about different things altogether. And perhaps some think the effort is not worth the price.

Does it make a serial killer stupid, if he knew that this would ruin his life and he did it anyway and was prepared for the possible consequences? he decided life is not worth living if he does not indulge in the dark deed, for whatever reason. He will do his thing and be happy. Even if the police shoots him. That was a life he thought was worth living and he achieved it.

No both things are separate aspects of an individual. However intelligent people are statistically more likely to be "good" 

Then again we as a society I don't think can measure "good" or "smart" in a reliable way yet.

Good said: 

For sure, you can't be extremely evil if you want to live in todays society or even most societies in history. But relatively speaking you can act on some of your evilness if you are in a position to do so. And on some occasions, your ability to be evil can be an asset. You just need to know when and what to do, like if you can get away with it.

Hmmhhh, true. However, I'd argue that being good when the system is rigged is not necessarily so much about being good as it is about being foolish.

If you went to Shanghai 15 years ago and you went to the metro, everyone would swarm in to get to the trains and you'd have to fight for a spot. The problem was that the system was rigged such that there weren't enough resources for everyone. Yet, you still needed to get to work. If you didn't fight for a spot, you would lose your job. Not many would fault the Shanghai citizens for doing what they did.

The argument is that dumb people would be taking advantage of their power and athleticism to just live with the system and fuck people over. However, the smart people would be working together with others towards a system where everyone had sufficient resources and you didn't need to fight for a spot, because it was within their best interest.

Likewise, if there was a hole in the system such that you can be fucked over in small ways, like how you describe it, then the argument would be that it's in your best interest to work towards fixing it such that others can't take advantage of you. It's also in your best interest to show compassion to those below you and work towards a system in which those above you show compassion to you.

But maybe it's not a perfect argument. I do think it has its merits.

Good said:

Does it make a serial killer stupid, if he knew that this would ruin his life and he did it anyway and was prepared for the possible consequences? he decided life is not worth living if he does not indulge in the dark deed, for whatever reason. He will do his thing and be happy. Even if the police shoots him. That was a life he thought was worth living and he achieved it.

It doesn't make a serial killer stupid, but it does make him extinct. Evolution selects for self-interest. The argument really works only if we assume the average person. I'm sure there are exceptions. Nevertheless, I suspect not many serial killers actually realize, on a conscious level, the consequences of their actions.

bump

AppleGenius said: 

bump

Lol I saw what this used to say. 

We basically got a lot of the steam out the first time it was talked about. 

Most intelligent people are good people. To lack a conscience requires some level of stupidity. No truly smart person would commit an atrocity for the sake of it. 

The Holocaust was engineered by a man addicted to meth. So even if a person is intelligent, there still might be a cognitive defect which makes them stupid. I guess it's what you call stupid-intelligence.

I truly believe that Stupid people are the cause of all wars. 

Most intelligent people are good honest, hard working decent people.

Mentally challenged people tend to be more aggressive and centred more towards there own self satisfaction.

You can't dispute this. Being evil requires not intelligence but a lack of it. A lack of empathy shows a lack of intelligence. Compare chimps to humans. Chimps are violent, impulsive and have no concept of planning. There acts of violence are carried out without a shred of remorse.

For a human being to do something horrible to anothe human it means you are a throwback to a chimp ancestor surely. Any truly violent criminal human is definitely a throwback to our chimpanzee ancestors. Anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence would understand that violence is wrong.

Prick said: 

Most intelligent people are good people. To lack a conscience requires some level of stupidity. No truly smart person would commit an atrocity for the sake of it. 

The Holocaust was engineered by a man addicted to meth. So even if a person is intelligent, there still might be a cognitive defect which makes them stupid. I guess it's what you call stupid-intelligence.

I truly believe that Stupid people are the cause of all wars. 

Most intelligent people are good honest, hard working decent people.

Mentally challenged people tend to be more aggressive and centred more towards there own self satisfaction.

You can't dispute this. Being evil requires not intelligence but a lack of it. A lack of empathy shows a lack of intelligence. Compare chimps to humans. Chimps are violent, impulsive and have no concept of planning. There acts of violence are carried out without a shred of remorse.

For a human being to do something horrible to anothe human it means you are a throwback to a chimp ancestor surely. Any truly violent criminal human is definitely a throwback to our chimpanzee ancestors. Anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence would understand that violence is wrong.

 My point is. Empathy is a sign of high intelligence. If someone has absolutely no empathy then that person is mentally handicapped for sure.

To construct a society by working with eachother takes more effort than being violent. Because working with eachother means you actually have to intelligently analyse things to make certain functions work without the use of violence to implement them.

Empathy is an independent variable, I've seen some absolute low wisdom low intelligence types still be able to feel out a room. 

Turncoat said: 

Empathy is an independent variable, I've seen some absolute low wisdom low intelligence types still be able to feel out a room. 

 Umm no.

Why are smarter individuals more prosocial? A study on the mediating roles of empathy and moral identity
Highly intelligent children are more likely to develop higher levels of empathic skills because they are more sensitive to other people's emotional cues, and are better able to understand other people's thoughts and feelings (Hay, Gross, Hoekman, & Rogers, 2007; Lovecky, 2009).

AppleGenius said: 

 

Good said:

Does it make a serial killer stupid, if he knew that this would ruin his life and he did it anyway and was prepared for the possible consequences? he decided life is not worth living if he does not indulge in the dark deed, for whatever reason. He will do his thing and be happy. Even if the police shoots him. That was a life he thought was worth living and he achieved it.

It doesn't make a serial killer stupid, but it does make him extinct. Evolution selects for self-interest. The argument really works only if we assume the average person. I'm sure there are exceptions. Nevertheless, I suspect not many serial killers actually realize, on a conscious level, the consequences of their actions.

Evolution is not the best measurement of smartness. On average it is very likely we were happier as a species pre-agricultural revolution. Early agricultural people certainly were far unhappier than hunter-gatherers. Even tho after the agricultural revolution, we multiplied 10x or more times. And I do think being unhappy means you are not really that smart. Unhappy people who are being called smart, are not smart imo. If you are smart you should be able to at least be content.