[W:#113]Mass Sociopathy

[RF667799]

Not necessarily. The op points out clear lines of change in societal attitudes brought about including during the neoliberal era of Friedman and Hayek though i would blame the undercurrents of Ayn Rand slapping any sense of civil responsibility and empathy out of America.

No causation shown. But it was forecast from almost if not the the first post.

 

[NWRatCon]

From time immemorial there have been two methods of modifying behavior: carrot and stick. Rewarding behavior that conforms to the hoped for result, and punishing that which deviates. I think the social trends we are observing are essentially the result of those two forces, but not in the ways that society might otherwise anticipate.

A number of posters have essentially missed the point, but I would tend to agree that "both sides" are not equally to blame for the results. This was never intended to be a thread about that, anyway.

What I see, though, are patterns that are explicable. Children who are not disciplined become undisciplined adults, and adults who are undisciplined tend toward criminality, or at least taking unethical advantage. Adam Smith observed that when discussing market behaviors - unregulated markets tend toward monopoly, and monopolies are anathema to free markets, so some level of regulation is essential to keep markets as free as possible.

The same is true in every aspect of community, from families to clubs to nations. There are those in society who have antisocial tendencies, even if not classically diagnosed. In normal circumstances, society would impose its discipline to bring those tendencies to heel - that's what norms are. Our Constitution sets forth our functional national norms.

What we are witnessing is what happens with the deliberate destruction of those norms and the unleashing of the forces that have been held in check by our collective discipline - the carrots and sticks of everyday living.

 

[RF667799]

When someone talks of society as if it is an autonomous, self aware entity that they communicate with such that they know what society anticipates, then my suspicions are aroused.

People exist within their own society, and what appears antisocial to someone outside that society might be perfectly sound behavior within it.

 

[Ambig]

I think this really minimizes the problem to individual actors.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[What if...?]

From time immemorial there have been two methods of modifying behavior: carrot and stick. Rewarding behavior that conforms to the hoped for result, and punishing that which deviates. I think the social trends we are observing are essentially the result of those two forces, but not in the ways that society might otherwise anticipate.

A number of posters have essentially missed the point, but I would tend to agree that "both sides" are not equally to blame for the results. This was never intended to be a thread about that, anyway.

What I see, though, are patterns that are explicable. Children who are not disciplined become undisciplined adults, and adults who are undisciplined tend toward criminality, or at least taking unethical advantage. Adam Smith observed that when discussing market behaviors - unregulated markets tend toward monopoly, and monopolies are anathema to free markets, so some level of regulation is essential to keep markets as free as possible.

The same is true in every aspect of community, from families to clubs to nations. There are those in society who have antisocial tendencies, even if not classically diagnosed. In normal circumstances, society would impose its discipline to bring those tendencies to heel - that's what norms are. Our Constitution sets forth our functional national norms.

What we are witnessing is what happens with the deliberate destruction of those norms and the unleashing of the forces that have been held in check by our collective discipline - the carrots and sticks of everyday living.

And don’t forget the addition aspect.

Super successful people Tend to neglect their families as they spend untold hours every week furthering their amassing of wealth and power. They continue to do this long after the needs of them and their descendants are set for generations.

Did you ever wonder why they do that? Addictions to the reward chemicals associated with being “head of the group” or “first at the fire”. Leading is not inherently fun for good leaders, so leading is rewarded with pleasurable neurochemicals. A cat chases a string because it feels good. It feels good because it increases his chances of catching food and surviving to reproduce.

And these chemicals are addictive. They are the “drug” gamblers and sex addicts and thrill seekers, etc are addicted to.

These chemicals are also exploited by propagandists. Notice how much fear and anger permeates narratives. This is not accidental.

Emotion trumps reason in our minds. But requires ever stronger doses to get the same buzz. Which is why conservative media has gotten so extreme.

 

[Bum]

Assigning a mental disorder with a broad brush to a social/political group who espouse ideas and an agenda I do not agree with.
Can't see how that could end poorly.

 

[NWRatCon]

Assigning a mental disorder with a broad brush to a social/political group who espouse ideas and an agenda I do not agree with.
Can't see how that could end poorly.

If that were the issue, this wouldn't be the thread, now would it? Did you forget where you were posting? I'd think you'd be more careful. This isn't the basement.

"Please read the Loft Guidelines before participating in this forum."

 

[Bum]

If that were the issue, this wouldn't be the thread, now would it? Did you forget where you were posting? I'd think you'd be more careful. This isn't the basement.

Please read the Loft Guidelines before participating in this forum.

I am well aware of the Tavern rules, but several in this discussion are also in violation of those rules....yet you said nothing.
You are simply using this forum to effect an end run around the rules and attack a political party and make this political without actually saying it.
But please feel free to report.
I'll wait.

 

[NWRatCon]

I am well aware of the Tavern rules, but several in this discussion are also in violation of those rules....yet you said nothing.
You are simply using this forum to effect an end run around the rules and attack a political party and make this political without actually saying it.
But please feel free to report.
I'll wait.

I know exactly how much effect that would have. But, I see shame has no effect on you, nor respect. (Psst, this is not the Tavern, and I'm not a Moderator). Do you have anything to actually contribute?

 

[Bum]

I know exactly how much effect that would have. But, I see shame has no effect on you, nor respect. (Psst, this is not the Tavern, and I'm not a Moderator). Do you have anything to actually contribute?

I don't do shame; I like who I am and feel no need to feel ashamed of who I am or what I say.

 

[NWRatCon]

I don't do shame; I like who I am and feel no need to feel ashamed of who I am or what I say.

Or respect. And we all suffer for it. I assume that means you never had any intent to offer anything for the good of the order. That is good to know. And has been noted.

 

[post]

This is a thought process still in development, so some of the conceptions may be disparate. Because the content will tend to be dark and perceived as accusatory, I began it here in the Loft to focus on the concepts, not the subjects.

In college, as an ancillary to my career path in law, I studied what was called "abnormal psychology". I do not have any credentials in it, but it has been an interest of mine for decades.

As the Thread Title suggests, there are two fundamental concepts at work here, so I am going to define them before I get into the meat of the discussion. First is sociopathy. From Psychology Today:

"Sociopathy refers to a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others. Sociopathy is a non-diagnostic term, and it is not synonymous with "psychopathy," though the overlap leads to frequent confusion. Sociopaths may or may not break the law, but by exploiting and manipulating others, they violate the trust that the human enterprise runs on.

The defining characteristic of the sociopath is a profound lack of conscience—a flaw in the moral compass that typically steers people away from breaking common rules and toward treating others decently. This disconnect, however, may be hidden by a charming demeanor. There is both art and science to spotting sociopathy."

We are confronted, daily, with sociopathic behaviors of varying degrees, even here on these forums (that's the perceived accusatory part), but this is a broader, more nascent conception. The "mass" part refers to both the prevalence and the contagious elements of this abnormal psychological trait.

We're probably somewhat aware of the concept of "mass hysteria", or what is now termed "Mass psychogenic illness (MPI)", which involves "the spread of illness symptoms through a population where there is no infectious agent responsible for contagion." There are a variety of ancillary conditions of relevance here that will probably come into the discussion, such as cult behavior, mob behavior, and such, but they all revolve around the concept of negative social behaviors that are "acquired" in the sense of "nature vs. nurture". Some people may have a predisposition to such behavior, but there has to be a set of conditions that triggers the underlying predilection.

My thesis, here, is that we are in an age of such conditions that I have termed "Mass Sociopathy" (as it turned out, I am not the first to use this conjunction of concepts - more on that in a bit). I find it alarming, which has prompted the initiation of this discussion. More musings to follow.

Joseph Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Elijah Muhammad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

 

[DiAnna]

Moderator's Warning:

Please read, respect and abide by Loft Guidelines when posting in this forum. Thread bans may be issued to posts above this warning. Thanks.

 

[NWRatCon]

There's a separate thread on the NM shootings by a failed candidate, but it's an example of what this thread is about: how we go from a political competition to a program of violent vengeance. Shooting up "the opposition's" homes is not a normal response to losing. And yet...

Permissiveness is, I think, the first step on the path. When I was first learning to be a leader in the Army I was given advice that stayed with me my entire life: if you see something that is not up to standard and don't do anything to correct it, you've just set a new "standard."

In my experience, just pointing something out is an incredibly powerful action. Most people  want to do the right thing, but many times they don't know what right "looks" like. Let them know, and they'll do it (or not do what's wrong).

Much of what we are dealing with, I think, is twofold: those who ignore those standards of "right," and, worse, those who deliberately undermine them. "Manipulation," is wrong; "deceit" is wrong; aggression, and a lack of empathy, are not traits to be lauded. Failing to point them out, however, is condoning them. And that which is condoned becomes the standard of behavior; the new norm; acceptable. What's "acceptable" is then emulated. We have a responsibility, as denizens of our communities, to not let them become acceptable.

 

[justabubba]

There's a separate thread on the NM shootings by a failed candidate, but it's an example of what this thread is about: how we go from a political competition to a program of violent vengeance. Shooting up "the opposition's" homes is not a normal response to losing. And yet...

Permissiveness is, I think, the first step on the path. When I was first learning to be a leader in the Army I was given advice that stayed with me my entire life: if you see something that is not up to standard and don't do anything to correct it, you've just set a new "standard."

that advice, or at least your response to it, flies in the face of the serenity prayer
there are going to be circumstances when one must recognize they cannot correct the wrong they perceive in need to correcting

In my experience, just pointing something out is an incredibly powerful action. Most people  want to do the right thing, but many times they don't know what right "looks" like. Let them know, and they'll do it (or not do what's wrong).

Much of what we are dealing with, I think, is twofold: those who ignore those standards of "right," and, worse, those who deliberately undermine them. "Manipulation," is wrong; "deceit" is wrong; aggression, and a lack of empathy, are not traits to be lauded. Failing to point them out, however, is condoning them. And that which is condoned becomes the standard of behavior; the new norm; acceptable. We have a responsibility, as denizens of our communities, to not let them become acceptable.

ibid

 

[NWRatCon]

that advice, or at least your response to it, flies in the face of the serenity prayer
there are going to be circumstances when one must recognize they cannot correct the wrong they perceive in need to correcting

ibid

So, nothing (again)? Do you forget what it actually says? Or the part about "the courage to change the things I can". I'm neither a nihilist or a coward.

 

[justabubba]

So, nothing (again)? Do you forget what it actually says? Or the part about "the courage to change the things I can". I'm neither a nihilist or a coward.

let's try this again:

Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other

notice the implication that some changes cannot be made

 

[NWRatCon]

let's try this again:

notice the implication that some changes cannot be made

Yes, and the acknowledgement that some things can be. That has always been my point. And that some things should be.

 

[justabubba]

Yes, and the acknowledgement that some things can be. That has always been my point. And that some things should be.

that was what was missing from your post - for me - a recognition that sometimes a change cannot be effected and it is legitimate to acknowledge that

 

[NWRatCon]

that was what was missing from your post - for me - a recognition that sometimes a change cannot be effected and it is legitimate to acknowledge that

And then the question becomes, so? Do you believe it can't be? I don't. My suggestion is that if no one ever tries, it is self-fulfilling, self-defeating, as in, "you miss 100% of the shots you never take."

Do you believe, as a real-world example, that Kevin McCarthy could exert some discipline on MTG, Paul Gosar or George Anthony Devolder Santos for excesses of rhetoric, behavior or dishonesty? Should Solomon Peña not be tried because he didn't actually kill anyone? Should the Jan 6 insurrectionists be left off the hook because the coup failed? Should we simply ignore "attempts", "solicitation" and all inchoate crimes? Where should the line be drawn? What standard is "acceptable"?

The point, from the outset, is that failure to address excessive behavior from any quarter encourages excessive behavior from all quarters and leads to antisocial behaviors. It becomes self-reenforcing, cyclical and exponential. Hence, "mass sociopathy".

Should we never call out bad behavior? Should we, as a society, simply accept the worst common denominator? Let bullies win, just because? Hand our wallets to the nearest thief? I don't think so.

 

[justabubba]

And then the question becomes, so? Do you believe it can't be? I don't. My suggestion is that if no one ever tries, it is self-fulfilling, self-defeating, as in, "you miss 100% of the shots you never take."

Do you believe, as a real-world example, that Kevin McCarthy could exert some discipline on MTG, Paul Gosar or George Anthony Devolder Santos for excesses of rhetoric, behavior or dishonesty? Should Solomon Peña not be tried because he didn't actually kill anyone? Should the Jan 6 insurrectionists be left off the hook because the coup failed? Should we simply ignore "attempts", "solicitation" and all inchoate crimes? Where should the line be drawn? What standard is "acceptable"?

The point, from the outset, is that failure to address excessive behavior from any quarter encourages excessive behavior from all quarters and leads to antisocial behaviors. It becomes self-reenforcing, cyclical and exponential. Hence, "mass sociopathy".

Should we never call out bad behavior? Should we, as a society, simply accept the worst common denominator? Let bullies win, just because? Hand our wallets to the nearest thief? I don't think so.

you have posted about having been in military service
there was a time, not that distant, when a gay man could not acknowledge his sexual orientation and continue to serve
and for a long span of time, a service member who opposed such an obligation to keep one's sexual orientation concealed and then attempt to change that military expectation, would have been a career killer
by taking yourself out of the military by pursuing such change, what would you have accomplished?
in my view, nothing
sometimes we have to be inside the organization to change it ... eventually
which is why i oppose your argument

 

[NWRatCon]

which is why i oppose your argument

I don't think that is it at all, frankly. I think that is a cop out, and not a very persuasive one.

Did the policies of the Department of Defense change from the inside? No. Your example is inapposite, and in fact defeats itself. It was sustained and vociferous objections that created that change, and that same effort changed the entire nation's attitude about sexual orientation.

Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage: Public opinion on same-sex marriage (Pew Research)​

In Pew Research Center polling in 2004, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 60% to 31%.

Support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown over the past 15 years. And today (2019), support for same-sex marriage remains near its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2019, a majority of Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose it.

Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues (Pew Research)​

118th Congress breaks record for lesbian, gay and bisexual representation (Pew Research)​

The same dynamic is at work here, or can be. Being vocal, being direct, and being specific counteracts the efforts to ignore the problem or do anything about it.

 

[oneworld2]

Having watched the slow take over of power by a psychopathic corporate elite, with "democracy" serving as a sick joke, it is obvious why there has been a shift towards a mass sociopathy. Creatures evolve to the environment they live in. Any changes to that environment will illicit changes in the culture and ultimately in the people.

Have psychopaths shaping the culture, expect a mass sociopathy to follow on from it.