I never said you have to be a good singer to enjoy singing. However, if you want to improve, you may want to consider not singing off by half an octave or how much that was. Many people seem to make that mistake, though.
by Daddy
and if there is a genetic predisposition to psychopathy it would only make sense that it's been bread into our species as some of the character traits ensure reproduction: to include promiscuous behavior, risk taking, manipulation etc.. these things ensure that a sociopath passes on their genes.
I think psychopathy is simply the human animal at it's highest evolution.
You have your fixed idea of what a psychopath is and put them on a pedestal, because you identify as one. How is risk taking even something that ensures reproduction? Truth is you're a bloody narc Jay, you fail to see the downsides because of that.
If psychopaths are so awesome why is psychopathy considered a disorder? The human animal is a social animal, but you claim that anti-social behavior is the highest form of evolution. But there are more successful normal businessmen than psycho businessmen, and if you're a psychopath you have more chances of ending up in jail than becoming a successful businessman, compared to a normal person.
You also think leadership/ dominant behavior = psychopathy, which is bullshit.
I would highly recommend the work of Jim Fallon (neuroscientist, not the tv presenter). He puts forward a 'three-legged stool' hypothesis which suggests that it is a combination of genetics, brain pattern and environment, and that a person would have to have all three to be considered a psychopath.
Personally, I think he contradicts himself a bit with this theory - he claims to have the first two legs of the stool himself but didn't grow up in a bad environment, so by his definition he can't truly qualify, yet a lot of what he describes about himself and his life fits the criteria. I also don't understand how brain function is a separate leg of the stool, as perhaps it could be influenced in some way by genetics. Nevertheless, it's an interesting theory.
You have your fixed idea of what a psychopath is and put them on a pedestal, because you identify as one.
You're right, I do have my own beliefs shocker, as for putting them on a pedestal, with that I disagree. I often play devils advocate because there are two sides to every coin. The concept of sociopathic behavior has been bastardized by the media. Very few people really even understand it, including many psychologists who study it for a living. That being said, I am fully aware of the negative aspects of the "disorder". I have spent many hours figuring out ways to mitigate the negative behaviors that are natural to me in order to avoid ending up in prison, while still allowing my true self to be expressed. This is what makes me a high functioning sociopath. A deep understanding of risk analysis, consequences to behavior, interpersonal relationships, and methods of self regulation.
And as much as you hate the concept of sociopaths they exist for a reason and that reason is because there is a place in this world for sociopaths. We are needed to do the ugly things the softer people can't. To be the ones that make the difficult choices for the better of a group. To kill when necessary, to make detached rational decisions when others would be emotionally overwhelmed. Sociopaths exist for a reason and without them, our species would never have lasted as long as it did.
Truth is you're a bloody narc Jay, you fail to see the downsides because of that.
Congrats you named one of the symptoms of sociopathy... but as I said, I do see my flaws, I am fully aware of my many imperfections. But my ability to shut off empathy and detach from emotion when the time calls for it, is not one of those imperfections.
If psychopaths are so awesome why is psychopathy considered a disorder?
Omg your such a fucking sheep. Why are witches considered evil? You fear what you do not understand. Many people who practiced science in the dark ages were labeled witches because of mass hystaria and social propaganda. You can't always believe what the herd is telling you, the fact that you know nothing about this topic other than what mass media has fed you is only indicative of your deep seated ignorance.
The human animal is a social animal, but you claim that anti-social behavior is the highest form of evolution.
Humans are social animals because evolutionarily it was beneficial for us to work as a group to survive. We are a social species for that reason. To that end we will carry those genes with us for a long time. But the fact is, the need for such social structure isn't as vital to the success of our species as it once was.
But there are more successful normal businessmen than psycho businessmen
Prove it. That's just it, Most successful sociopaths don't walk around telling people they're sociopaths. You are in fact surrounded by such types, the best of whom you would never even suspect of sociopathy. It's not as rare as you would like to think.
and if you're a psychopath you have more chances of ending up in jail
than becoming a successful businessman, compared to a normal person.
Wrong, whether you end up successful or in jail is more often tied to socio-economics than any other factor.
You also think leadership/ dominant behavior = psychopathy, which is bullshit.
I believe a good leader knows how to detach himself emotionally, manipulate others for the greater good, and take control when needed. These are all skills of a sociopath.
"Explain to me how living a parasitic lifestyle, being selfish and self-centered, irresponsible, reckless, experiencing almost constant boredom, having poor impulse controls, poor behavioral controls, a failure to accept responsibility, grandiosity and criminal versatility are advantageous to humanity."
Maybe not good for humanity, but they arguably have an edge over it when paired with other advantages. With power also comes the means to create a setting that goes along with their preferences. For the sake of argument, using your list:
Parasitic Lifestyle: At the top, his money's coming from the labor of others. It's arguably parasitic.
Selfish: In a few ways, it helps to be selfish. It could get in the way to not be selfish in a competitive setting, since those you deal with certainly will be. Understanding how a selfish person thinks helps with understanding those you're dealing with, and you'd be more prone to expecting it when you yourself possess that tendency (whee projection). Generosity is best used as a PR Move.
Self-Centered: How is this a problem for someone in charge, save for dealing with things like Unions maybe?
Irresponsible: Could translate as a "Risk Taker", and for what areas he (might) see as a problem, such as excessive spending? He can hire someone to budget for them, as a basic example. Irresponsible doesn't always amount to stupid, especially if he's aware of that risk.
Reckless: Again with "Risk Taker". Someone who is too afraid to act when it ought to be done might lose out where someone reckless could take a risk and possibly succeed.
Constant Boredom: How would that get in the way of his own workers doing their jobs?
Poor Impulse Control: As long as he does enough to keep himself in check versus liability it's fine, if not find ways to brush those mistakes under the rug.
Poor Behavioral Controls: He's the boss, and it's his building. A boss could get away with a lot in that position as long as said boss don't do something that their name can be undeniably pinned to.
Failure to Accept Responsibility: Someone at the top has all sorts of people they can sacrifice for their mistakes to save face. Could even hire people to find out who that is for him.
Grandiosity: If he doesn't do it idiotically, others are likely to believe it fits him, being a boss and all. Some more impressionable types eat that shit up.
Criminal Versatility: This could be handy for someone with the means to hide a paper trail. Business is cutthroat.
"How is risk taking even something that ensures reproduction?"
Lets use male geek/nerd culture as an example. Many of them are without girlfriends (or boyfriends), but not all of them. What sets those who have them apart from those who don't, generally at least? Either mere luck, or they were willing to take risks to get someone. There's people out there for them, geek culture is actually pretty spread now among both genders, but many just won't take the risks. Even someone undesirable can be endearing, or even seen as brave for trying.
Willingness to take a risk is the backbone of much success, reproduction or otherwise. If they never try it's as bad as failing.
"If psychopaths are so awesome why is psychopathy considered a disorder?"
Like all disorders, the squeaky wheel can make everyone of a group look bad.
I assume you're asking me if I like to be contrary for the sake of it. I don't do it for merely the sake of it, but because the best information or moments come from when ideas clash. Every perspective has some weight, and the contrary ought to be represented to come to a more informed conclusion (if there's one to find anyway). It also can help measure the conviction behind their words, which itself can show other things.
Typically, if I argue a perspective that isn't my own, I'll phrase it in such a way. The post you're replying to me from I don't disagree with myself on.
I don't think that being an irresponsible, impulsive, reckless risk taker has very much benefit. Calculated risk is something else entirely. A risk with 95% success and various contingency plans is still a risk, but it's neither reckless nor impulsive.
If you're already the boss to start with, you'll be able to get away with sociopathic weaknesses, but unless you were born into power or money, you have a very small chance of ending up the boss at all. ME Thomas wrote about how her lack of respect for authority and social norms, combined with her restless impulsiveness, cost her a good job with a lot of potential at a law firm.
Someone might see a person in power make cold-hearted, rational decisions, but that doesn't mean that sociopathy=power, it just means that a person who has worked their way up the ladder to arrive at that position of power is a person who doesn't let their personal feelings prevent them from doing their job successfully. It's a mistake to view the two as inherently related. That "sociopath" on Wall Street or in the Pentagon probably loves his kids and his dog as much as anyone else would.