• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#113]Mass Sociopathy

i read your post above, critial of the array of alternative media sources and wonder if you even were aware that book burning has been a thing for quite a while
your pontifications reminded me of that historical fact
You're welcome to pontificate elsewhere.
 
You're all over the place and not even coherent at this point. Do you even have a point that is anyway relevant to the topic?
i will attempt to simplify my responses for you going forward
 
clearly, you stated that Friedman advocated illegal behavior
I did not, and the very quotation disproves your assertion.

I'm not surprised to learn you did not get an ethics class in school.
 
I'd be content if you'd simply be honest.
point out the dishonest post with an explanation why it should be found to be so

meanwhile, your were the one misrepresenting Friedman to advocate for illegal business behavior
 
I did not, and the very quotation disproves your assertion.

I'm not surprised to learn you did not get an ethics class in school.
here is YOUR post with my emphasis to point out that you accused Friedman of advocating illegal business practices:
As his position began to be taught in business schools it spread and gave justification for all kinds of social depredations and antisocial behaviors, not all of them - but many of them - illegal, but the bulk of them immoral, and all of them amoral.
 
here is YOUR post with my emphasis to point out that you accused Friedman of advocating illegal business practices:
Reading comprehension is apparently another class you skipped.

Seriously, can you not parse a sentence? Even your deceptively emphasized quotation does not say what you claim. Good lord, man. Get a grip.

"As his position began to be taught in business schools it spread and gave justification for all kinds of social depredations and antisocial behaviors, not all of them - but many of them - illegal, but the bulk of them immoral, and all of them amoral."

Do you even know what his position was? He asserted that making money for shareholders was the only imperative of an executive. I didn't say he ADVOCATED dishonesty, as you've claimed, I said, his position "gave justification for" activities... all of them amoral. He never claimed otherwise.

I even posted a link to his discussion about Ford justifying putting a defective car into commerce.
 
Last edited:
Reading comprehension is apparently another class you skipped.
your post regarding Friedman's advocacy of illict business practices:
... his position ... gave justification for ... behaviors, ... many of them - illegal
 
your post regarding Friedman's advocacy of illict business practices:
Still doesn't say what you claim. I'm no longer content with you just being honest. I insist on it.

Yes, I'm saying you are actively lying at this point. You do know this is the Loft, right?

I'll accept your apology and move on... to the actual topic.
 
Last edited:
Still doesn't say what you claim. I'm no longer content with you just being honest. I insist on it.

Yes, I'm saying you are actively lying at this point. You do know this is the Loft, right?
then tell us what that post INSTEAD tells us
 
Next, I want to focus on the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate when it comes to psychological traits. Inherent in my conception is that the sociopathy I am focused on is acquired. In order for it to spread within the population, the mechanism for acquisition is from the society itself, rather than any inherent mental defect (although sometimes it may project as such).

People are not generally "born" sociopaths, although, as I mentioned earlier, some people may be mentally prone to developing such tendencies. It is, principally a "learned" behavior. But, like Autism, I think these traits exist on a continuum or spectrum, and they are displayed on such a spectrum in our society. In this instance, the sociopathy is like or related to antisocial personality disorder. "Some people seem to have no regard for others and can cause harm to them without any regret or feelings of guilt. When this behavior is pervasive, a person may have a chronic mental health condition known as antisocial personality disorder. Sometimes people with antisocial personality disorder are called 'sociopaths.'"

The gist of this conception is how such behavior patterns, that are not inherent, can spread throughout a society. How such "abnormal" psychology can become "normalized".

I mentioned that I was not the first to coin the phrase "Mass sociopathy". As it turns out, it has been used before. In researching this thread, I came across this article: This is Neoliberalism, Part II: Alienation and Mass Sociopathy by Design by Joe Brunoli. It was not the trigger for the discussion, but, conceptually, it is related, so I am linking it here as part of the discussion. What we share in presentation is the belief that the sociopathy is not only acquired, but deliberately germinated.

The starkest example of the concept is "the Big Lie" promoted by Donald Trump. But, I do not want this thread to become about that. Rather, this is an example that sprang from a seedbed of such examples, and a societal trend. Mr. Brunoli identifies one of the sources as "neoliberalism", and I agree. Let's go back to that definition of sociopathy: "a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others." When put together, we call it a pathology, but I think we all recognize it in our everyday lives, and that, my friends, is that point. Where does it come from, and why is it so ubiquitous?

Some people are just jerks, of course - they cut in line, make rude gestures or comments, and are all-around boors. But we call them jerks, boors and "assholes", because those behaviors are "out of line", not the norm, socially dysfunctional, deserving of opprobrium. So how did we get from the point that that was unacceptable to it becoming ubiquitous?
An example of this I like is offshoring of jobs.

And couple of technological developments made it possible: the container ship and dependable money transfers.

The first people who sent their jobs to the desperate poor were assholes, no question. As well as the cohort that jumped on it right after the first folks. Then a bunch of others followed suit just to keep that “vanguard”group from using that advantage from taking their market share. This group wasn’t as venal, but the result was the same.

This whole process was harmful to both American workers and those desperate poor people. Factories with nets under the windows because employees were jumping out of them.

And the lies that were told, that it was union labor don’t survive basic math. At that time you could get like 6-7 14 hour a day six or seven days a week semi skilled workers for what one American full time minimum wage worker cost. No American could compete and pay the landlord.
 
then tell us what that post INSTEAD tells us
This is the last post I will entertain on the subject.

You remember Charles Darwin, no doubt, and his theory of evolution? "Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce." Now, people have derived various theories from his basic postulate, some of them quite ridiculous and immoral, from "survival of the fittest" (without context), and movements such as Eugenics, "a fringe set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population". The Eugenics movement itself "became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs."

Now, did Charles Darwin propose either Eugenics or try to justify Nazism? Assuredly NOT, but "... his position ... gave justification for ... behaviors, ... many of them - illegal".

Now do you see the difference and the error of your assertion?
 
An example of this I like is offshoring of jobs.

And couple of technological developments made it possible: the container ship and dependable money transfers.

The first people who sent their jobs to the desperate poor were assholes, no question. As well as the cohort that jumped on it right after the first folks. Then a bunch of others followed suit just to keep that “vanguard”group from using that advantage from taking their market share. This group wasn’t as venal, but the result was the same.

This whole process was harmful to both American workers and those desperate poor people. Factories with nets under the windows because employees were jumping out of them.

And the lies that were told, that it was union labor don’t survive basic math. At that time you could get like 6-7 14 hour a day six or seven days a week semi skilled workers for what one American full time minimum wage worker cost. No American could compete and pay the landlord.
Thanks. I think this is a good example of the "permissive mindset" I was discussing.

In earlier years, there was discussion about the "social responsibility" of corporations going back to the turn of the 20th Century, and that included providing labor in the United States (an argument that is resurgent today). Taking jobs off-shore would have been considered anathema - un-American, even (remember when Walmart emphasized its "made in America" approach?).

But, once the focus on the bottom line became "de rigueur" in the business community, such considerations were no long applicable. Off-shoring provided certain advantages and those advantages could be leveraged to benefit the bottom line. As you noted, the "vanguard group" set a new standard, and competition took over, justifying anything. That was the "permissive mindset" construction - they were "given permission" - even mandated by financial responsibility! - to get their products overseas.

I think a similar trend is occurring in political discourse. Those that express the most socially reprehensible views are given a platform - and even elevated to public office! - so it must be not only "okay", but the way it should be conducted. I don't subscribe to it, but I think that is how these behaviors are justified.

They become, by course of conduct, a mass sociopathy. Fascists are just "exercising their first Amendment (or Second Amendment) rights!" See, it's a virtue not a sin!
 
This is the last post I will entertain on the subject.

You remember Charles Darwin, no doubt, and his theory of evolution? "Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce." Now, people have derived various theories from his basic postulate, some of them quite ridiculous and immoral, from "survival of the fittest" (without context), and movements such as Eugenics, "a fringe set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population". The Eugenics movement itself "became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs."

Now, did Charles Darwin propose either Eugenics or try to justify Nazism? Assuredly NOT, but "... his position ... gave justification for ... behaviors, ... many of them - illegal".

Now do you see the difference and the error of your assertion?
no
you did not explain what Friedman said that differed from what i showed ... which was your quoted post excerpt
again, you have been unable/unwilling to explain your post
you are welcome to make a another attempt to explain why you did not intend for him to appear to have advocated for illegal business behavior
your call
 
no
you did not explain what Friedman said that differed from what i showed ... which was your quoted post excerpt
again, you have been unable/unwilling to explain your post
you are welcome to make a another attempt to explain why you did not intend for him to appear to have advocated for illegal business behavior
your call
No. If you haven't got it by now, you never will. As I said, last post.
 
Next, I want to focus on the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate when it comes to psychological traits. Inherent in my conception is that the sociopathy I am focused on is acquired. In order for it to spread within the population, the mechanism for acquisition is from the society itself, rather than any inherent mental defect (although sometimes it may project as such).

People are not generally "born" sociopaths, although, as I mentioned earlier, some people may be mentally prone to developing such tendencies. It is, principally a "learned" behavior. But, like Autism, I think these traits exist on a continuum or spectrum, and they are displayed on such a spectrum in our society. In this instance, the sociopathy is like or related to antisocial personality disorder. "Some people seem to have no regard for others and can cause harm to them without any regret or feelings of guilt. When this behavior is pervasive, a person may have a chronic mental health condition known as antisocial personality disorder. Sometimes people with antisocial personality disorder are called 'sociopaths.'"

The gist of this conception is how such behavior patterns, that are not inherent, can spread throughout a society. How such "abnormal" psychology can become "normalized".

I mentioned that I was not the first to coin the phrase "Mass sociopathy". As it turns out, it has been used before. In researching this thread, I came across this article: This is Neoliberalism, Part II: Alienation and Mass Sociopathy by Design by Joe Brunoli. It was not the trigger for the discussion, but, conceptually, it is related, so I am linking it here as part of the discussion. What we share in presentation is the belief that the sociopathy is not only acquired, but deliberately germinated.

The starkest example of the concept is "the Big Lie" promoted by Donald Trump. But, I do not want this thread to become about that. Rather, this is an example that sprang from a seedbed of such examples, and a societal trend. Mr. Brunoli identifies one of the sources as "neoliberalism", and I agree. Let's go back to that definition of sociopathy: "a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others." When put together, we call it a pathology, but I think we all recognize it in our everyday lives, and that, my friends, is that point. Where does it come from, and why is it so ubiquitous?

Some people are just jerks, of course - they cut in line, make rude gestures or comments, and are all-around boors. But we call them jerks, boors and "assholes", because those behaviors are "out of line", not the norm, socially dysfunctional, deserving of opprobrium. So how did we get from the point that that was unacceptable to it becoming ubiquitous?
Yeah i tend to agree neoliberalism tends to alienate, atomize, and make all aspects of life an economic transaction and has a very skewed view of marginal improvements that congratulates sweat shops as if thats much better than what was before. Its like congratulating the matchstick factory owners for employing women despite such employment being physically debilitating, deadly, and near slavery conditions.

It also individualizes people and places all burdens for improvement on the individual so any empathy that we would usually have for the downtrodden is sabotaged by saying “well hes gotta live with his choices”.
 
That's how I counsel them -- the ones who will listen a little. Focus on your personal goals. Stop worrying about 'the government' or 'the society' and find a way to get what you want out of life.

They whine when they should be working, it seems to me.

I tell them to run for office if they're feeling so disaffected.
I think this really minimizes the problem to individual actors.
 
I mentioned in passing, earlier, that many business schools in the 70's andr4 80's, specifically taught that a CEO's responsibility was principally (solely) to shareholders. That was a change from the "norm", prior to the influence of Milton Friedman. The criticism of that doctrine has expanded as its influence has corrupted a generation of economists, business leaders and politicians, because it excused antisocial effects.

Similarly, the legal profession has been infected by the doctrine of "originalism", which ignores the actual effect of the law on individuals and society in favor of a sclerotic interpretation based upon idiosyncratic interpretations of what "the founders thought".

This corruption, I assert, is based upon the premise that universities influence their students' behavior in their professions. If unscrupulous, or misguided, individuals gain control over thdhe education process, then, they can inculcate their charges to behave a certain way (even if that way is detrimental to society).

Another source is media. For decades the journalism profession was dedicated to tenets of ethics and factual, socially responsible reporting (largely as a reaction to the lack of it at the end of the 19th century). With the modern advent of "viewpoint journalism" and explosion of unmediated "news" sources, however, notions of ethics and neutrality have been rendered "quaint".

And, of course, there is the political sphere.

(Sorry, tablet crashed again)
Yeah the shift in fiduciary responsibility that occurred in the 80s is very similar to the ways corporations acted in the gilded age and in victorian times.
 
So an objective, unbiased examination of the trend towards a sociopathic society, and why it's mainly that other tribe's fault.
Sometimes both sides arent equally guilty.
 
I'm a strong advocate for ethics. I've had careers in both law and print journalism (short lived), with strong bases in ethics. Conversely, I have visceral contempt for those who practice any profession contrary to ethical standards (like truth). I had the honor to serve with a majority of people in both government and the military who were absolutely dedicated to the interests of the public. True believers.

The impetus for this thought thread is the observation of multiple examples of completely debased behavior, in public, and without apparent shame. Yes, there is an element of this that is influenced by the advent of Trump, McConnell, McCarthy and George Santos, the Freedom Caucus, and events like the coup attempt on Jan 6.

But if that were it, I wouldn't have started this thread, here. I'm really interested in exploring the psychological aspects of what generates such behavior, and on a scale large enough to influence society.

Contrary to some speculation presented here, I think we are the cusp of the fever breaking. I'm optimistic. But if one doesn't understand the mechanism of the disease, one cannot be inoculated and is subject to reinfection. I see waves of such infections in history, so we clearly have yet to find a prophylactic.
This is the society of the spectacle in which people watch movies and play games because the only way to make a big difference is only in fantasy or presented as getting rid of the bad guy. There is barely any mass politics going on in America.
 
Yup.

They no longer do the prisoner experiment. Because the “guards” end up abusing the “prisoners” every single time.
And the guy that did the experiment was influencing the experiment more than he should have.
 
**** "sides".

This thread was a massive example of begging the question.
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.
 
And the guy that did the experiment was influencing the experiment more than he should have.
They did it more than once. Always with the same result.

They don’t do experiments on animals anymore where they put a wire into the brain’s pleasure center and connect the power to a switch the animal can push. Every mammal they did this to pushed the button until it died.

No further need to experiment. They got their answers.
 
Back
Top Bottom