illogical way to argue psychopaths demonstrate empathy

[Sol Logos]

I just saw this one on Youtube on Big Think. It's by a Psychologist called Kevin Dutton. I don't really know much about him to be honest.

Anyway, I figured it would interest some people here. To me it looks like he's trying to show how a psychopath demonstrates empathy better than normal people do.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ&feature=related

Basically he's saying the psychopath would throw a man in front of a train to stop the train from hitting five other people and a normal person wouldn't. So the psychopath saves five and kills one, whereas the normal lets five die. Besides some other major ethical issues, for example if the psycho was so concerned about the five, why not throw himself in front of the train.. in the end in my view, a psychopath by definition wouldn't bother acting this way, unless there was something to gain - like if anyone in the five had something he'd get by saving their lives. So, considering they'd be most likely be random people in this situation, the psychopath would more than likely just stand and watch I'd think.

What struck me was how this piece is presented as logical, when it's clearly something other than logic. Seems to be more about venerating psychopathy.

Edit: (addition) actually just recalled what the deal was with the "fat guy" - he apparently would be heavy enough to stop the train. Probably in that case the Psychopath could justify this and be rewarded, so on more thought, I guess he would do that after all. Still though, the psychopath is capable of killing five to get something from one person, which isn't brought up either..

 

[Voyageur]

I just saw this one on Youtube on Big Think. It's by a Psychologist called Kevin Dutton. I don't really know much about him to be honest.
[...]
What struck me was how this piece is presented as logical, when it's clearly something other than logic. Seems to be more about venerating psychopathy.

A family relation happened upon his book at the library 'Wisdom of the Psychopath'. This SotT article describes it somewhat Link

Pay attention to the comment at the bottom, whereupon reading, it may offer a clue to his motivations about "venerating psychopathy".

 

[Sol Logos]

I can't see the comment on my phone but I must admit there's an assumption on my part about what might be behind the presentation, I haven't dug deep enough to know he's wanting to dress up the psychopath in nice clothes like I made out. (Edited typo )

 

[Voyageur]

I can't see the comment on my phone but I must admit there's an assumption on my part about what might be behind the presentation, I haven't dug deep enough to know he's wanting to dress up the psychopath in nice clothes like I made out. (Edited typo )

Here is the comment from the link:

Comment: Society doesn't "need its share of psychopaths"; society is crippled by the presence of psychopaths. Just look at the state of affairs all these MBAs and CEOs have led us to: economic ruin, environmental wasteland, endless wars, deepening and widening poverty, ad nauseum. The collapse of civilization is the result of psychopaths taking over the world and reshaping it in their image, one void of empathy and marked for a major cosmic clean-up operation.

Oh, by the way, caveat lector, psychopaths too enjoy writing books about psychopaths...

From Internet Troll to Psychopathy Expert: The Con-Artistry of Thomas Sheridan

 

[darksai]

I just saw this one on Youtube on Big Think. It's by a Psychologist called Kevin Dutton. I don't really know much about him to be honest.

Anyway, I figured it would interest some people here. To me it looks like he's trying to show how a psychopath demonstrates empathy better than normal people do.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ&feature=related

Basically he's saying the psychopath would throw a man in front of a train to stop the train from hitting five other people and a normal person wouldn't. So the psychopath saves five and kills one, whereas the normal lets five die. Besides some other major ethical issues, for example if the psycho was so concerned about the five, why not throw himself in front of the train.. in the end in my view, a psychopath by definition wouldn't bother acting this way, unless there was something to gain - like if anyone in the five had something he'd get by saving their lives. So, considering they'd be most likely be random people in this situation, the psychopath would more than likely just stand and watch I'd think.

What struck me was how this piece is presented as logical, when it's clearly something other than logic. Seems to be more about venerating psychopathy.

Edit: (addition) actually just recalled what the deal was with the "fat guy" - he apparently would be heavy enough to stop the train. Probably in that case the Psychopath could justify this and be rewarded, so on more thought, I guess he would do that after all. Still though, the psychopath is capable of killing five to get something from one person, which isn't brought up either..

He misses the part where the psychopath afterwards extorts, emotionally, financially and/or physically, those people he "saved" because they "owe him/her their life".

 

[Joe]

Basically he's saying the psychopath would throw a man in front of a train to stop the train from hitting five other people and a normal person wouldn't. So the psychopath saves five and kills one, whereas the normal lets five die.

I think the point is that a psychopath COULD do that, more easily than a non-pychopath. It doesn't follow that a psychopath WOULD. So his point is irrelevant.

 

[Joe]

Edit: (addition) actually just recalled what the deal was with the "fat guy" - he apparently would be heavy enough to stop the train. Probably in that case the Psychopath could justify this and be rewarded, so on more thought, I guess he would do that after all. Still though, the psychopath is capable of killing five to get something from one person, which isn't brought up either..

The whole situation is a ridiculous proposition. A normal human being would NOT murder the "big person" by throwing him over the bridge. In such a situation, a normal person would realise that there is NOTHING they can do to save the people on the track. A psychopath COULD throw the guy over the bridge, and if he did, it wouldn't bother him at all that he has just murdered another person. Indeed, he might follow up this act by going and murdering a stranger or, stealing someone's good. This is just convoluted apologetics for psychopathy. Psychopathy is not beneficial in ANY context as it relates to normal human society.

 

[Niall]

Kevin Dutton's Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success is getting big airtime at the moment.

Just look at that title: Dutton isn't referring to 'successful psychopaths' as Hare and others understand it in the literature on psychopathy, that they have successfully hidden themselves within the normal population; instead, his book attempts to build a case for the enrichment of society thanks to the 'achievements' of psychopaths!

 

[Sol Logos]

The whole situation is a ridiculous proposition. A normal human being would NOT murder the "big person" by throwing him over the bridge. In such a situation, a normal person would realise that there is NOTHING they can do to save the people on the track. A psychopath COULD throw the guy over the bridge, and if he did, it wouldn't bother him at all that he has just murdered another person. Indeed, he might follow up this act by going and murdering a stranger or, stealing someone's good. This is just convoluted apologetics for psychopathy. Psychopathy is not beneficial in ANY context as it relates to normal human society.

Yeah, come to think of it a guy of any weight stopping a moving train defies the laws of physics!

Kevin Dutton's Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success is getting big airtime at the moment.

Just look at that title: Dutton isn't referring to 'successful psychopaths' as Hare and others understand it in the literature on psychopathy, that they have successfully hidden themselves within the normal population; instead, his book attempts to build a case for the enrichment of society thanks to the 'achievements' of psychopaths!

Interesting he puts the words wisdom and psychopaths in the same phrase. I don't doubt they can have intellectual knowledge, be cunning, great at manipulation etc. but none of that is a show of wisdom from what I understand it to mean.

 

[Paragon]

Seems like the PTB are doing some damage control over the reality of psychopaths with this piece of lies. It disturbs me that this is getting 'airtime', and that some people may accept this as truth.

 

[Sirius]

Basically he's saying the psychopath would throw a man in front of a train to stop the train from hitting five other people and a normal person wouldn't. So the psychopath saves five and kills one, whereas the normal lets five die.

I think the point is that a psychopath COULD do that, more easily than a non-pychopath. It doesn't follow that a psychopath WOULD. So his point is irrelevant.

Exactly what I thought initially. The question is really who is capable of doing what, not what will or would person A do opposed to person B in situation S. The psychopath would or could act immediately and determinedly according to some protocol without any emotions (which would likely slow down the time of response in case of a non-psychopath anyway).

The train example is bit way off of situations that usually occur in reality, it's more TV world where everything is perfectly coordinated. A better example would be shooting down airplanes in order so save a greater number of citizens which could be otherwise murdered. In such cases, one can observe traces of psychopathic influences in terms of ethical conclusions. Namely, psychopaths just express lives in numbers. They just calculate and that's it.

 

[EricG]

Seems like the PTB are doing some damage control over the reality of psychopaths with this piece of lies. It disturbs me that this is getting 'airtime', and that some people may accept this as truth.

In this weekend edition of 'De Stentor' a newspaper with several editions in the East of the Netherlands there was a one page article with Kevin Dutton speaking about his book, with a header that translates into 'A psychopath will be fine'...

All in all, this article seems indeed some kind of damage control.

Some quotes:

"Psychopathy involves a number of features that can come in handy in the social functioning: ruthlessness, charm, concentration, mental toughness, fearlessness, mindfulness and willingness to act"

The keyword is context. Those who have the power to apply certain psychopathic characteristics only be used as needed, can go far.

In some professions, some degree of psychopathy might indeed be indispensable: You don't become a good manager or lawyer if your decisions keep you from sleeping.

 

[Sirius]

In this weekend edition of 'De Stentor' a newspaper with several editions in the East of the Netherlands there was a one page article with Kevin Dutton speaking about his book, with a header that translates into 'A psychopath will be fine'...

All in all, this article seems indeed some kind of damage control.

The left side of the attached picture is somewhat blurred so that it is hard to read. I could understand it roughly. Thank you for the few excerpts. Telling they are!

Indeed, now all kinds of ‘experts’ concerning psychopathy suddenly emerge out of nowhere with answers, explanations, views, opinions, experience, and so on. They give interviews, write books, articles. But what do they actually do? Just pick up some available material and put their own twists on it? Exactly what the PTB wish.

And what about this Puzzling People thing? Recently I stumbled upon it rather by chance and followed up the forum thread and saw the Sott article about the author also.
As soon as the subject attracts more attention and becomes more popular, damage control enters the picture immediately.

A belittlement of psychopathy is obvious in this article. Its message is that a psychopath is basically superior to a human being and has qualities or properties which are helpful or even necessary? What a twisted view. In society there is already circulating the idea that a CEO or decision-maker has to be to a certain extent inhuman, and that someone with too much empathy and understanding is unable to lead equally well (similar to discriminating women). One might ask, who invented it and for what purpose? In order to protect the existing structure with psychopaths in critical positions perhaps?

 

[benbuehne]

I would be careful not to discount scientific evidence that does not fit with your version of reality. That is why studies are replicated... results replicated... it's why you need to take the evidence as EXACTLY what it tells you and no more.

What the study wouldn't tell you is that the psychopath only answers that they would save this person because this is part of their mask... but in reality if faced with this situation they would care less either way unless there was something in it for them.

 

[Eongar]

I think that somehow, now that the issue of psychopathy is an issue that has spread among the general public, there will be attempts to "normalize" as a concept, and even venerate or justify it in some aspects.

Here other example (In Spanish):

http://es.sott.net/article/16340-Son-los-presidentes-estadounidenses-psicopatas