Voltaire thought that 'Stupid' was the deadliest force in the Universe: "Against stupidity the very Gods themselves contend in vain", he says, and I am often tempted to agree with him.

Isaac Asimov agreed with Voltaire, to the point of using "The Gods Themselves" as the title of one of his best novels.

I have read a few good books on these subjects, among them Lyall Watson's "Dark Nature - A Natural History of Evil"; James Welles's "The Story of Stupidity" and Paul Tabori's "History of Stupidity".

Slowly a picture is emerging in my mind about the interplay between these 'forces' and their general nature. I am just curious if anyone else has wondered about similar things and what conclusion, if any, they have arrived at.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

What is evil? Who decides? Has not the struggle to define 'evil' been a constant source of strife (and slaughter) for centuries?

For some, it seems defining evil is easy. After all, ethics and morals are the foundations of 'good.' But then how ethical and moral has been the behavior of some intelligence agencies, religions, corporations, judiciaries, etc. etc.? Offering such skeptical comment leaves one open to accusations of 'relativism,' 'nihilism' and 'obscurantism.' Good stuff for intellectuals but, I confess, well beyond my limited thought processes.

Perhaps some can provide a 'universally credible' definition of evil. Please let me know when you hear of one. In the meanwhile, I plan to concentrate my very limited thought to seeking out general principles which might be useful in defining 'civility' and equity which might be incorporated in a platform for a new (and better) Canadian political party. Does that make me evil --- or just plain stupid?

Evil is a commander who orders his soldiers to rape ten year old girls to demoralize the enemy.

Stupid is someone who believes that it will accomplish that.

See if you can come up with a few others and then maybe you will see what I meant.

Stoopid is just stoopid. We all say stupid things at one time or another. I would say stupid means saying something without thinking it through.

Evil is just a word. Ben Laden is considered evil by some. The U.S is considered evil by Ben Laden.

quote:

---

Evil is a commander who orders his soldiers to rape ten year old girls to demoralize the enemy.

Stupid is someone who believes that it will accomplish that.

---

Same applies to Bush and his bombing Afghanistan. He was evil when he ordered it. Those who believed it would accomplish the stated objective (not the hidden one) were stupid.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

For example, I was incredibly stupid in 1990 when I believed that the Gulf War was a ‘just’ cause. It does not make me an absolutely stupid person. I was stupid in that example because I did not see what should have been obvious. It was not ignorance but lack of critical thinking and not seeing connections that should have been obvious.

I learned from it. I still do/say/think stupid things in other areas. Sometimes I get things right.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

Someone is performing an evil act when he is using (for his own personal gain) human beings as if they were inanimate objects (disregarding their rights and/or welfare) and, in the process, deliberately causes physical and/or mental pain and/or harm to these people.

Someone is stupid in a particular situation when he disregards well-established facts and cause/effect relationships (known to him) and performs/recommends an act that is counter-productive to his stated objective.

Someone who consistently and predictably does/says/thinks evil things is an evil person.

Someone who consistently and predictably does/says/thinks stupid things is a stupid person.

These definitions are my own.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

Stupidity is the inability to reason; to discern factual relationships. It may be permanent or temporary, general or specific.

We all have some evil in our nature - some have more than others. And we are all more or less stupid.

I'm not at all sure that stupidity is required for evil to thrive.

People's degree of kindness or meanness does not seem to be related to the bell curve. It's equally possible for a genius and a very stupid person to be cruel or to be kind.

Which means there are four combinations:

1./Evil and Stupid (GW Bush, I think)
2./Evil and Smart (Henry Kissinger is a good example)
3./Good and Stupid (most of us, some of the time)
4./Good and Smart (Ed Broadbent comes to mind)

where Smart means 'non-stupid' and Good means 'non-evil'.

Any one of us can be any one of the four in any situation.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

During World War II, Air Marshall Harris ordered the firebombing of several German cities -- not because they contained important war industries but because the resulting massive civilian casualties would serve to demoralize the German people and therefore persuade them to overthrow Adolph Hitler. Also, President Harry Truman ordered nuclear bombs to be dropped on two Japanese cities not because they were principal military targets but because the massive civilian casualties would demonstrate to the Japanese military the futility of prolonging the war. These actions, deliberately directed against "innocent old men, women and children" were defended because they were alleged to have saved millions who would have otherwise died in extended warfare. The authors of those actions were "good" while the victims were "evil."

Nowadays, news analysts (advertising agencies, public relations firms, spin doctors etc.) routinely manage, manipulate and otherwise massage "facts" in order to save us stupid citizenry from being deceived by the "forces of evil" ---- especially those who would destroy our superior way of life.

Frankly, all this shit is too complicated for me. There's just too much intellectual crap being thrown about to explain the inexplicable. Fiddle about with definitions, absolute or otherwise if you wish, but it is fiddling ---- and Rome continues to burn.

Again, I prefer to think about matters within the grasp of my limited mentality --- Like promoting democratic election processes that more accurate reflect the opinions, interests and aspirations of our fellow citizenry. Like insisting all our legislative institutions be constituted by free and fair popular elections rather than being appointed by governments in power. Like insisting the financial support and expenses of all political parties be fully exposed to public scrutiny before, during and after elections. Like asserting that citizens be given the option of rejecting/declining presented electoral options which fail to satisfy their aspirations.

If any Canadian political party were to proclaim these principles as their party platform then I would surely join such a party, work on its behalf and vote for it on Election day.

Now is that evil, stupid ---- or practical?

Stupid is the making of a decision even though the outcome can be predicted as a negative result.

So people are no more good than they are evil as it is just a misdirection to begin with.

People are often stupid in the sense they make from time to time choices that they know or can safely assume will have a negative affect to their objective.

An example would, in my mind, be nazi Germany.

quote:

---

An example would, in my mind, be nazi Germany.

I think we can agree nazism was evil. We can also agree, I think, that the average German was not evil. Yet, under the promise of an improved economy and a "greater" Germany, they turned a blind eye to many atrocities.

---

Well, not really. I mean, we are all programed to do what the powers that be tell us to do. The fact that the Nazis killed Jews was evil. But here we are participating in a war that kills Islamic wedding guests! And the popular concensus is in support of that war. Does that make Canadians stupid? The fact that the government of a country is evil doesn't make its citizens evil. The fact is the Germans during the war were lawful citizens of their nation. Just as many of us are.

The fact is, we rely on someone else to tell us what evil and stupid is. Does anyone see a day when the world will agree on those things?

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

Shouldn't we tackle subjects where we might agree --- rather than proposing judgemental notions where we will almost certainly disagree and in the process, commit heinous acts?

Those of us with long memories recall that while the Nazis were committing their evil deeds, we here in Canada were interning thousands of Canadians simply because of they were of German, Italian and Japanese heritage!

Evil (like beauty) is often in the eye of the beholder -- stupid or otherwise. And how is it that victims are usually portrayed as "innocent?"

Many of us might reasonably agree about principles of equity, justice and civility. But there seems a persistant reluctance to seriously examine such principles and to declare them to be foundations of our social-political practice.

It is the very banality of evil and the almost evangelical notions used to describe it, that leaves me uninformed.

But then, I am old and stupid!

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: LEX ]

quote:

---

Many of us might reasonably agree about principles of equity, justice and civility. But there seems a persistant reluctance to seriously examine such principles and to declare them to be foundations of our social-political practice.

---

Fascinating isn't it, Lex? Is ethical action an innate human desire? Is it something we can all strive toward as a species? Is it something we will ever agree upon? And where will the answers come from in the Brave New World? We used to trust others to tell us how to behave, but as the media becomes more powerful we are learning that those we trusted to help us resist corruption are some of the most corrupt. What an endlessly interesting mess!

The black and white ideal of good and evil was handed to us and reinforced by the powers that be. Can we handle the real shade of grey?

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

black dog: Evil is an arbitrary concept.

---

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: black_dog ]

It's funny, but I come very close in my observations about evil as what many religions do. I think sometimes evil is a plasma in society, much like fire, that mimics life.

In my mind, I hold evil to be something that makes you act contrary to your nature. Can some people be "evil"? Yes, I think so. I think it's evil to encourage people to act contrary to their nature, or against their best interests.

"Contrary to their nature" is a loaded phrase. By this I mean our behaviours. We can map a lot of human behaviour, we understand the social arangement of "tit for tat", and other behaviors.

If zenophobia is part of "human nature", a behavior that has outlived it's original purpose and has become a detractor to survival, not, perhaps the aid it once was, then it's "evil" to give into it, to let others lead you into it.

The example of Nazi Germany would see a nation consumed by the plasma of evil.

It's my experience that truly evil people exist. Yet, we are pretty good at spotting them. They are, for the most part, pretty transparent. We spot them, and avoid them.

"...if we start out at the extremes and proceed systematically towards the middle, somewhere in a zone of not-being-quite-sure-any-more, we can draw our line arbitrarily..."

It helps, of course, if we have some kind of working definition for 'evil' and 'stupidity'.

quote:

---

Is ethical action an innate human desire? Is it something we can all strive toward as a species? Is it something we will ever agree upon? And where will the answers come from in the Brave New World? We used to trust others to tell us how to behave, but as the media becomes more powerful we are learning that those we trusted to help us resist corruption are some of the most corrupt.

---

I don't have an answer. I suspect our perception of ethical and civil behavior has something to do with the Social Imperative which has been developed through historical experience. Notions such as 'evil' and 'stupid' seem of little value to me in trying to understand our political problems. They seem too subject to personal opinion and religious mythology and therefore open to endless dispute.

Ethics and Civility, rooted in our ongoing elaboration of the Social Imperative, seems to me a better route to follow.

But let's face it! We're talking serious politics and social philosophy here and such talk might lead to committment and real political action. Also, working these things out requires an attention span of more than 30 seconds!

quote:

---

defining evil and stupidity only requires a few seconds of superficial thought, right?

---

No. Evading definition only takes a few seconds. Pretending that good and evil are relative, subjective terms is easy. Blaming "the powers that be" (who dat? where they get their ideas?) is easy. Using the words without knowing what one means by them is easy.

Trying to set any standards for Civility, without a bottom line of 'must not's' and a goal for 'should's' is impossible. Deciding what and why we 'must not' takes considerable thought. And it begins with knowing - even if one cannot articulate it well - what we consider good and bad; which human traits we value and which we do not tolerate.

Stupidity, on the other hand, is relative. Easy enough to spot in other people; invisible in ourselves (it becomes evident later, by its results). Impossible to avoid; there are no effective charms or talismans to ward it off.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

News "coverage" on that level does nothing but maintain ignorance. Stupidity cannot be changed much, and therefore it is not worth discussing. Ignorance can be changed, and so to maintain it, despite the power to do otherwise, to allow millions of people to simply watch a man like Negroponte offer up rational arguments against the ICC as if he's some kind of Defender of the Innocent verges on being an accessory-to-evil in my opinion. Because what the CBC did not mention, which would have been far more damning (and I intendthat pun), was Negroponte's crucial function in Honduras during the Contra's horrific criminal war against Nicaragua. To watch him cooly pretend to a moral argument against the ICC was to watch evil virtually flaunt itself in my living room--and the CBC let him, damn it! The only saving grace is that Canada is not being obsequious (so far) like it was with Bustanti and the OPCW. Talk about self-interest: if the ICC were set up, Negroponte's notorious legacy would likely land him in the dock. One can only pray.

quote:

---

Blaming "the powers that be" (who dat? where they get their ideas?) is easy

---

The powers that be (if you were refering to my post) was intended to mean the church and state. As for where they get their ideas, well, that's another thread.

Perhaps we can agree on what is "good and bad." But you can't always be absolute can you? There are many aspects to every story. Killing your kids is bad, but the man that killed his handicapped daughter had an awful lot of popular support. Many countries still have the death penalty even though they live by the rule "Thou shalt not kill" or some interpretation of it. And yet, if I was to kill a murderer with my own hand, I would be a murderer myself. These same nations engage in wars and sanctions with innumerable dead. So where is the absolute evil in killing?

Several posts referred to the ambiguity of Stupidity. Is it really ‘evil in disguise’? The ‘looking the other way’ as WingNut has suggested?

Nobody has suggested yet that evil may be ‘stupidity in disguise’. We seem to have an intrinsic feel for what evil means. It is malevolence, It is in-human, it is a betrayal of our very essence.

Stupidity is suspect.

Is it real stupidity, or just laziness (clersal), ‘willful ignorance’ (WingNut); ‘a matter of choice’ (vaudree) or ‘relative’ (nonesuch)?

There is no doubt in my mind that there is genuine stupidity, as physical disability of making conceptual operations, discerning pattern, recognizing cause and effect relationships.

But there is, also, the other kind. The matter of convenience, the lack of intellectual integrity, the cowardly compromise, the selling out of the soul.

The 'evil-and-smart' ones know this and they do everything in their power to encourage this kind of stupidity, by their control over education and mainstream media.

If we want to fight these bastards, this is the front line, because this is what they draw their main support from. As I mentioned before, it is a symbiotic relationship and we have to fight it, expose it, destroy it wherever we can.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

It is the most chilling description of an evil mind.

He does not have a sadistic enjoyment of other people’s pain and death. He is a responsible, upstanding family man, just doing his ‘job’ the best way he can. He is a man with a total lack of compassion and empathy. Human beings for him are just as many stepping stones to enable him reach his goals. He doesn’t hate them – he just doesn’t see them. Something like Henry Kissinger was at the heights of his influence. Without Kissinger’s cynicism. Something like Bush is today, without Kissinger's intelligence.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Human beings for him are just as many stepping stones to enable him reach his goals. He doesn’t hate them – he just doesn’t see them.

---

quote:

---

But there is, also, the other kind. The matter of convenience, the lack of intellectual integrity, the cowardly compromise, the selling out of the soul.

---

These people are ultimately pitiable, if you can focus beyond all the suffering they cause (not so pitiable that I wouldn't put a bullet between their eyes for the good of everyone, but you take my meaning)

I don't really believe in stupidity, either. At least, not in the sense that people usually mean it, as an inability to comprehend. I don't believe in this inablitity. We all have different talents and proclivities, but just because someone is behind "the curve" in a certain field, doesn't mean they are incapable of getting there. The brain is a constantly evolving organ and it will bear fruit wherever you direct it's efforts.

I'm firmly with Wingnut in the "willful ignorance" camp. What we call stupidity is usually an unwillingness to see other sides and arguements. What we call evil is usually a rationalisation of a deeply scarred psyche. In both cases, we have people clinging to their delusions in the face of all evidence, so perhaps we could say that self-deception is the destructive force of humanity.

But what makes people deceive themselves? I think it is a subconscious aversion to facing the consequences and responsibilities of the truth. In the case of Nazi Germany, for instance, a great meny people found it necessary to convince themselves that what was going on was acceptable. If they admitted the unacceptable nature of the Nazi party then they would be placed in the position of fighting against it, or admitting their own cowardice. Neither option being very appealing, it was simpler to put the blinders on and internalise the regime as their own moral standard.

Ah, the endless imagination of the human species, source of all our joys and woes!

So what I'm saying is that people can't face themselves, nor can they face the society that reflects them. When confronted with the natural goodness of humanity gone horribly awry, they choose to ignore it, and so allow it's propogation. In fact, specifically to avoid having to deal with it, because they feel incapable of righting these wrongs.

It should be clear where I'm going here. Fear is the most destructive factor in the human species. Fear of addressing your insufficiencies and deformaties. Fear of confronting them in others. Everyone knows right from wrong on a simple and intrinsic level but this fundamental awareness has to be ignored and repressed, because otherwise it compells you, fills you with an obligation to correct wrongs. An obligation that few people, unfortunately, find the spirit to fulfill.

I noticed one source of confusion (at least I think it is) here. There are (at least) two levels on which the concept of 'evil' and 'stupid' can be observed.

One level is the description of an evil or stupid act. Just describing what happens, without giving an explanation why it does.

The other level is the explanation about what is behind those acts. Is the person really 'evil' or just 'sick in he head'? Is he really 'stupid' or just 'looking the other way'?

I think it is very important to make this distinction between the two levels.

I tried to deal with the first of the two levels in an earlier post where I gave my own personal difinitions.

If we don't differentiate between the cause and the effect, then we may be tempted to accept unacceptable behaviour a bit more readily than it is healthy for a society.

Remember when, just recently, the excuse of extreme intoxication was successfully used in a rape trial?

I will repeat my dfinitions here and you guys can tell me what you think. Just remember that I am trying to define 'actions' rather than people.

quote:

---

Someone is performing an evil act when he is using (for his own personal gain) human beings as if they were inanimate objects (disregarding their rights and/or welfare) and, in the process, deliberately causes physical and/or mental pain and/or harm to these people.

Someone is stupid in a particular situation when he disregards well-established facts and cause/effect relationships (known to him) and performs/recommends an act that is counter-productive to his stated objective.

Someone who consistently and predictably does/says/thinks evil things is an evil person.

Someone who consistently and predictably does/says/thinks stupid things is a stupid person.

---

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

I really don't believe in evil. I consider people who do evil things to be damaged goods. Sick, twisted, broken people whose emotional baggage has made them like a rabid animal: unable to take any action that does not spread it's pain to others.

---

This is an optimistic, and by no means uncommon, attitude in modern (North American? European?)thought. But if we don't believe that evil is part of human nature, then:
We must wonder how we came by the concept in the first place. (ie Skadie: where does religion come from and why does it always make similar rules of behaviour, regardless of its cultural and historical context? Perhaps, as you say, that is another thread. Related, though.)
And, we must have a very broad definition of mental illness. Often, the explanation is circular: he did that because he's mad; he's mad because no sane person would do that.
But then, we have to wonder what's sane. If the majority of people come out to watch a hanging, then, either that spectacle appeals to the 'sane', or only a minority is sane - and how can a minority set the standard for normalcy?

edited to add:
I still don't think evil and stupidity are related. Evil can, and does, use any available material to achieve its ends. It can use intelligence and knowledge, just as well as it can use stupidity and ignorance. It can logic you in, as easily as confuse you; bribe as well as threaten. Else, why are so many scientists on its payroll?

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

nonesuch: I still don't think evil and stupidity are related.

---

At least that's my feeling on the subject.

As for the notion that evil doesn't exist, I submit exhibit A: The psychopath.

Dr. Robert Hare has written several books on the subject and is considered the foremost Canadian expert on it. Psychopaths are incapable of internalizing a moral regulator that prevents one from acting relentlessly in one's self-interest only.

The "cure rate" for such people is abysmal, and so far there is not much room to hope that one can insert a "regulator" well after the age that most people internalize one.

quote:

---

I'm firmly with Wingnut in the "willful ignorance" camp. What we call stupidity is usually an unwillingness to see other sides and arguements. What we call evil is usually a rationalisation of a deeply scarred psyche. In both cases, we have people clinging to their delusions in the face of all evidence,

---

Did anybody else read Sykes and Matza's "Techniques of Neutralization?"

1. The denial of responsibility
2. The denial of injury
3. The denial of victem
4. The Condemnation of the condemners
5. The appeal to higher loyalties

quote:

---

Psychopaths essentially fit the definition of being smart and evil at the same time - since their lack of a moral regulator allows them to be so brazen that they get away with many things that would by rights get one's ass kicked.

---

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

What you are referring to re: Harris's actions, etc, are characteristic of what Dr. Hare calls subcriminal psychopaths. These people are usually highly-placed, powerful people who are drawn to that power since our society values the ball-busting take-no-prisoners attitude they naturally have, little realizing that subcriminal psychopaths in such positions really, literally, do not care one whit about the people whose lives they ruin as they grasp for more power, more recognition, more money and more wealth.

Another point is that there are many factors which go into a person - gender, other personality traits, life experiences which should be expected to mold and shape the manifestion of ASPD differently in different people.

One thing that we keep forgetting is the way that ASPD cognitive tendencies are useful in providing relief for emotional distress. Much of the type of impulsivity associated with ASPD is for the expressed purpose of providing pain relief. For example, a man feels like a loser at work and a big shot when he gambles. He gambles to feel like a big shot because he hates feeling like a loser. When his wife wants him to stop gambling he tells her that she is nagging, but the truth is that his need to feel like a big shot is so huge and overpowering that anything that gets in the way - even the fact that he is two months behind in his mortgage, is the enemy.

Ever notice that it is the people with the most money who always feel that they need more? It is not rational anymore, but it is a need that supercedes all other needs in a way that renders them invisible. But to an extent, we all become slaves of immediate gratifation (ignoring the consequences of our actions) when emotionally distressed - as the following experimental manipulation indicates.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/antisocialpd.htm

The point is that of course different people are going to express their ASPD qualities differently, and, in varying degrees, we all possess ASPD qualities.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

And "moral regulation" works both ways. Many con artists have enough "moral regulation" to avoid being a victem of a scam so as to maintain some sense of superiority over their victems. Many slave-owners used "moral regulation" to keep the slaves "in their place" but became deregulated only when their sense of how things should be was violated. "Moral regulation" is also flexible - such as when it was considered more socially acceptible to beat one's wife than one's boss.

On the issue of Empathy - it requires the ability to trust others and the belief that others would be helpful in ones hour of need and that we should do the same. What do we teach our sons when we chastise them for crying and for displaying their emotions - we teach them to both discount their own feelings and those of others. We teach them that empathy is a form of moral deregulation, add the fact that our society stresses competition and holds winners in higher esteem than loseres - you can understand why many people don't believe in a fuzzy co-operative world.

And then there is the way empathy is manipulated with propaganda. The movie "Pearl Harbour" was written so that all ones emphathy went to the Americans rather than to the Japanese. The media tries to manipulate us into having more empathy for corporate welfere bums than for people just trying to raise their children. How easy is it to be freely empathetic when we discover than empathy is something powerful others use to manipulate and control us?

And then their are females (who according to these messures are supposed to be more emphathetic than males). What good does a kind trusting nature do to a virgin alone with a guy? Or should I say ex-virgin.

Except in cases of severe brain damage, most ASPD is learned. To say that a person has a genetic predisposition towards it is like saying that a person has a genetic predisposition to vote Alliance. If there is such a disposition - it is not the whole picture.

We should be asking instead why we possess as much emphathy as we do - it will explain why others possess less.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

And "moral regulation" works both ways. Many con artists have enough "moral regulation" to avoid being a victem of a scam so as to maintain some sense of superiority over their victems. Many slave-owners used "moral regulation" to keep the slaves "in their place" but became deregulated only when their sense of how things should be was violated.

---

vaudree, your entire post overanalyzes and misses my simple, basic, fundamental point. The above is an example of it.

I will respond once more by saying that the moral regulator I speak of is that which most humans learn and internalize in order to differentiate right from wrong.

Psychopaths lack this and it is also why they score so badly on empathy tests. They haven't got any!

Other terms for moral deregulation being "impulsivity," "lack of inhibitory control," or Russell Barkley's favorite, "faulty executive functions."

quote:

---

Dear LEX, considering what an impractical waste of time you think this thread is, I am surprised you spend so much time in it

---

I don't believe I have stated or implied I think this thread is an impractical waste of time. But since you express surprise that I continue to participate in this (and other babble discussions), perhaps it would be useful if I clearly stated my motives.

For well over fifty years, I have been a political activist. Most have considered me a radical leftist.

Over this half century, my consistent aim has been to work toward political transformation of Canada's 19th Century based Parliamentary Democracy into a more flexible, dynamic, representative and contemporary system of governance. My participation in selected "threads" of babble reflects that intention. I was attracted to babble by and through brief correspondence with Judy Rebick. It seemed to me that babble might provide a useful and rewarding forum to discuss political action options.

That is why I proposed the idea of a "Virtual Party" some months back ---- the idea being to see if fellow babblers might be interested in probing possibilities for practical political action.

I recognize and understand that commitment to radical political action and change is not a major preoccupation for many babblers. But I don't consider the effort to enlist babblers in the struggle as an impractical waste of time.

One difficulty of "political activism" is that it is a complex, profound and often frustrating undertaking. Rabble.ca and babble is a broadly based venture attracting and incorporating many diverse and often incoherent elements. But that's life!

For what little positive contributions I have been privileged and able to render, I can assure babblers I feel I have been more than amply rewarded, frequently informed and often inspired.

For those who may be interested in pursuing specific topics of radical political action options (which may be gleaned through my writings in babble, Straight Goods etc), I am always ready to discuss and exchange ideas. I can be contacted through the "private Message service" of babble --- and would be pleased to forward longer documents via e-mail as attachments in Word Perfect, Microsoft Word or Lotus formats.

Best regards,

Certain things can't be changed. I had better work on those that still can.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]

quote:

---

Very few common factors link psychopaths. Only one seems to occur with any regularity, and even this is not strictly true for all of them: A fair chunk appear to have lacked any emotional bond with a human being in their early years (i.e. before 5 years old).

---

Have you ever seen any of the old Bugs Bunny WWII cartoons?

No talk yet on how feeling ones victems deserve it reduces cognitive dissonance?

And while we are at it - what is your opinion concerning aspies - are they all "psycho?" http://www.isn.net/~jypsy/whataspe.htm

There are holes in any blanket statement - no matter how snuggly the blanket feels.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

Very few common factors link psychopaths. Only one seems to occur with any regularity, and even this is not strictly true for all of them: A fair chunk appear to have lacked any emotional bond with a human being in their early years (i.e. before 5 years old).

---

Empathy is the ability to project oneself into the emotional and physical situation of another. You need experience to do that; babies, and some adults, haven't the experience to use for empathy. Some of the people who treat panhandlers with contempt are unable to empathize because they haven't walked a mile in those shoes.

As for broad stupidity, it's often the result when one's mind is either too long obsessed with a single subject, or it is too long diverted by too many subjects. On the one hand, you lose the forest for the sake of a tree (over-specialization, substance over form), and on the other you cannot see a single tree for the forest (too much entertainment, too much information, multi-tasking, form over substance).

Zatamon, you are probably familiar with the brilliant Hungarian film "Mephisto," directed by Ivan Szabo, with Klaus Maria Brandauer as an actor in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. There is both stupidity and evil in that character's actions--but, as Roger Ebert put it, "...the man...maintains one love affair all through everything, using his love as a sort of token contempt for a society whose corrupt values he otherwise completely accepts. The fact that he can still love, of course, makes it impossible for him to quite deceive himself. That is the price he pays for his deal with the devil." "Henrik is not a very good actor or a very good human being, but he is good enough to get by in ordinary times. As the movie opens, he's a socialist, interested in all the most progressive new causes, and is even the proud lover of a black woman. By the end of the film, he has learned that his liberalism was a taste, not a conviction, and that he will do anything, flatter anybody, make any compromise, just to hear applause, even though he knows the applause comes from fools."

quote:

---

clersal, you cynic! To be psycopathic implies that one must understand the damaging consequences of one's actions, and yet choose to disregard them due to a lack of empathy. A baby hasn't the ability to foresee the consequences of its actions, therefore it isn't psycopathic just because it's not empathetic. You need both understanding and a lack of empathy to earn that profile. Babies are merely narcissistic.

---

Not to sure about this. Perhaps a baby has not the ability to forsee his actions. A baby does not have the experience. I still think that empathy is learned. There are adults who are narcisstic and not psychopaths.

As for babies/children, empathy would seem to be a natural outcome of the stage in which the child believes the world is not separate, that it is an extension of the self. From The Uses Of Enchantment by Bruno Bettelheim:

quote:

---

Like all preliterate and many literate people, 'the child assumes that his relations to the inanimate world are of one pattern with those to the animate world of people: he fondles as he would his mother the pretty thing that pleased him; he strikes the door that has slammed on him.' It should be added that he does the first because he is convinced that this pretty thing loves to be petted as much as he does; and he punishes the door because he is certain that the door slammed deliberately, out of evil intention.

---

Sometimes an experience of great emotional magnitude can occur to us, at any stage of life, that has the power to alter, at least temporarily, our normal, personal level of empathy. As in "Steppenwolf," those rare life experiences that shake our entire perspective. So if empathy can be altered, that does suggest it has been acquired in the first place, rather than primarily biologically inherited.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: flotsom ]

quote:

---

But when you actually speak to people, you rearely hear them dismiss the needs of others. Much more frequently you hear people talking about their own fears that properity won't last, that the market won't last, and that, in the current state of affairs, if something bad does happen they can't count on others to be there for them. ...

Greed, then, seems like the logical stance: get what you can while you can, because once you can't, no one will care enough to take care of you. ...

It takes acts of public solidarity and caring to break through our certainty that we are alone. Until then, most of us will remain scared. And greed is a disease of fear.

---

And then there is NDP psychopathy - the belief that we should be there to help others but the tendency to not trust others to be there to help us - the ability to alleviate in others what we cannot even touch in ourselves - our own inability to trust in others. In this kind of psychopathy, helping others makes us feel invincible.

In the concervative typle of psychopathy, it goes one step further - the belief that not only will one not help you if you are hanging from a cliff but that the person will actually step on your fingers to increase the odds of you falling. In this kind of psychopathy, hurting others makes us feel invincible. It is like cross checking the other team's best scorer during the first game of seven - there is a feeling that doing that increases one's odds of victory.

We are as likely to learn that outside the home as we are to inside the home.

Now, I would submit that the structure of our society and economy make it easier for subcriminal psychopaths to do what it is they do, and for younger psychopaths who are looking for avenues that fulfill their narcissism to find legally permitted avenues to conduct their rip-offs, scams, heart-breaking and people-harming.

quote:

---

Strictly applied it is the mental condition that exists in a human being who cannot empathize with others, is effectively antisocial in outlook and seeks an entirely narcissistic solution to anything that faces him or her.

---

On the topic of substance abuse - how does it influence empathy? ARe we more empathetic drunk or sober? Are we more empathetic when we are feeling good or when we are in pain?