Are politicians sociopaths?

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: spittledip
There is a big difference between someone who is clinically diagnosed as a sociopath and how the op is using it casually here.

Here is the diagnostic criteria from the DSM IV for Antisocial Personality Disorder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...l_personality_disorder

No, most politicians could not be diagnosed with APD.

edit: even if criteria are met, there is more to a diagnosis than just meeting criteria. It is not so black and white

How many politicians have been diagnosed with APD and has that information been released to the public?

I don't know of any politician where that is the case, so we can only go by their behavior. I'm merely asking people's opinions based on the outward evidence.

I would venture that less than 1% could be diagnosed with it, if any at all. Personality disorders are very rare and very serious as they are disorders of the personality- in other words, compleely ingrained int he person. It defines them. This is unlike a disorder like bipolar or schizophrenia where it is a condition rather than a definition of the person.

A ppolitician, if he were to have a personality disorder, would be more likely to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...c_personality_disorder

3% and 1% is 'very rare?'

From your own wikipedia article:

The National Comorbidity Survey, which used DSM-III-R criteria, found that 5.8 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females showed evidence of a lifetime risk for the disorder.[7] According to DSM-IV, Antisocial Personality disorder is diagnosed in approximately 3% of all males and 1% of all females.[1]

I don't think they are merely narcissists. Politicians use people for their own gain with no apparent remorse, and they continuously hurt innocent people with no apparent remorse for that either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I don't think they are merely narcissists. Politicians use people for their own gain with no apparent remorse, and they continuously hurt innocent people with no apparent remorse for that either.

I think you have already decided that politicians are sociopaths and are looking for support for it. There's really no way that anyone can make that diagnosis based upon third party reports of someone's professional behavior that even then you have limited knowledge of.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I don't think they are merely narcissists. Politicians use people for their own gain with no apparent remorse, and they continuously hurt innocent people with no apparent remorse for that either.

I think you have already decided that politicians are sociopaths and are looking for support for it. There's really no way that anyone can make that diagnosis based upon third party reports of someone's professional behavior that even then you have limited knowledge of.

There is a powerful politician in my family who I have observed for my whole life, in the public eye and outside. He controls billions of dollars.

He is a very charismatic man, but it was in a single private incident in which I discovered that he has no empathy. And it was this discovery that lead me to my current inquest into this matter.

So this is not just third party reports. This has been a very personal and direct observation.

What is fascinating, however, is to see how many people believe that a large percentage of politicians are indeed sociopaths. But these same people continue to support politicians.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I don't think they are merely narcissists. Politicians use people for their own gain with no apparent remorse, and they continuously hurt innocent people with no apparent remorse for that either.

I think you have already decided that politicians are sociopaths and are looking for support for it. There's really no way that anyone can make that diagnosis based upon third party reports of someone's professional behavior that even then you have limited knowledge of.

There is a powerful politician in my family who I have observed for my whole life, in the public eye and outside. He controls billions of dollars.

He is a very charismatic man, but it was in a single private incident in which I discovered that he has no empathy. And it was this discovery that lead me to my current inquest into this matter.

So this is not just third party reports. This has been a very personal and direct observation.

What is fascinating, however, is to see how many people believe that a large percentage of politicians are indeed sociopaths. But these same people continue to support politicians.

No it's not a third party report in that case, it's anecdotal evidence which isn't really meaningful in attempting to prove your point.

I will agree that the number of people who believe they are so and continue to vote for them is surprisingly high, but I still see no evidence that would lead me to believe that they are such.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No it's not a third party report in that case, it's anecdotal evidence which isn't really meaningful in attempting to prove your point.

I will agree that the number of people who believe they are so and continue to vote for them is surprisingly high, but I still see no evidence that would lead me to believe that they are such.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I am investigating something for my own purposes. And yes, I fully realize that it is anecdotal evidence. But it was this incident that lead me on to this subject.

 

[Genx87]

Shit, I think that list can be applied to 95% of this forum.

 

[piasabird]

Can you define the term sociopath?

a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

I dont think the term has meaning because it is basically anyone who is not normal. But there is really no normal anymore.

What is Social if a person is Anti-Social? You have to have some ideal societal norm first. Would that be Married only once to a member of the opposite sex with 1 or more children living in a house with a white picket fence with a cat and/or a dog for a pet?

Last night there was a program on PBS about interaction and the person doing the study came to the conclusion that kids that are raised in a rural setting are better adapted to cooperating to get a common task accomplished and they have better social behaviour. It was a very interesting show.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: spittledip
There is a big difference between someone who is clinically diagnosed as a sociopath and how the op is using it casually here.

Here is the diagnostic criteria from the DSM IV for Antisocial Personality Disorder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...l_personality_disorder

No, most politicians could not be diagnosed with APD.

edit: even if criteria are met, there is more to a diagnosis than just meeting criteria. It is not so black and white

How many politicians have been diagnosed with APD and has that information been released to the public?

I don't know of any politician where that is the case, so we can only go by their behavior. I'm merely asking people's opinions based on the outward evidence.

I would venture that less than 1% could be diagnosed with it, if any at all. Personality disorders are very rare and very serious as they are disorders of the personality- in other words, compleely ingrained int he person. It defines them. This is unlike a disorder like bipolar or schizophrenia where it is a condition rather than a definition of the person.

A ppolitician, if he were to have a personality disorder, would be more likely to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...c_personality_disorder

3% and 1% is 'very rare?'

From your own wikipedia article:

The National Comorbidity Survey, which used DSM-III-R criteria, found that 5.8 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females showed evidence of a lifetime risk for the disorder.[7] According to DSM-IV, Antisocial Personality disorder is diagnosed in approximately 3% of all males and 1% of all females.[1]

I don't think they are merely narcissists. Politicians use people for their own gain with no apparent remorse, and they continuously hurt innocent people with no apparent remorse for that either.

The problem we have here is a lack of understanding of clinical terms and diagnosis on your part. That is not a statement that is meant to be rude, but it is just very clear from your posts. One of the things that makes this clearis your use of the term "sociopath" as it is not really a term used much anymore clinically.

Also, to use the term "Antisocial" is not the same as saying someone is diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder. The same goes for Narcissism. To say someone is Narcissistic is much different that saying someone is diagnosed with NPD. You are not understanding the actual diagnosis.

As far as percentages, 1 to 3% is very rare. Of course how they came up with that number is questionable. You have to wonder what the population was that they studied, and you have to wonder how many were misdiagnosed, or depending on the means they got the data, if it was self-report (via questionnaire or something) how many people did not correctly answer, etc. Psychology is far from hard science b/c it depends on accurate explanation and reporting on things that are not exactly measurable. Among a host of other things.

REgarding your politician relative, if we were to really minimize a diagnosis and take a stab at it, there is probably no way he would make a diagnosis for APD:

1. We assume he meets these 2 criteria:
a. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
b. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

and also meet one of the following:
a. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
b. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
c. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
d. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
e. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.

Regarding each of the 5 criteria:
a. Has he been arrested much? Is he breaking the law often?
b. Is his life characterized by lack of planning or thinking things through?
c. Is he getting into alot of physical confrontations?
d. this one speaks for itself
e. Is his life characterized by an inability to maintain commitments or "hold his end of the deal"?

I can guess that if he is a politician, (a.) he probably would not have been able to get elected if he had an extensive criminal history
(b.) he would have had to planned ahead some to get where he is
(c.) again, would have had trouble getting elected if he is a regular brawler and especially irritable beyond reasonable explanation
(d.) you might be able to squeeze this one out due to lack of applicable circumstances
(e.) see (b.) and (c.) for similar explanation

So, to make a light case for it, you can see what a stretch it would be (or at least I hope you can see) to diagnose a politician with APD.
--------------

For NPD it is much easier (but at the same time doubtful):

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

The problem here is that you would have to get a lot more information via testing and self report in order to make a diagnosis, or you could make alot of assumptions... which is not recommended But, from that list, one imagines that politicians meet alot of those criteria. But, even if they seem to meet some of the criteria, the clinching actor is: are they as a person DEFINED by those characteristics? If not, then you don't have a diagnosis. On top of that, they have to meet 5 of the criteria. And again, it is much more complicated than just all that.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No it's not a third party report in that case, it's anecdotal evidence which isn't really meaningful in attempting to prove your point.

I will agree that the number of people who believe they are so and continue to vote for them is surprisingly high, but I still see no evidence that would lead me to believe that they are such.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I am investigating something for my own purposes. And yes, I fully realize that it is anecdotal evidence. But it was this incident that lead me on to this subject.

Also, one incident is not enough to even suggest a diagnosis. If they had a personality disorder, it would be hard not to know if you are around them fairly regularly. It would be harder for a clinician to know b/c they do not associate with them outside of the office.

 

[LtPage1]

Only the good ones. Remember most "politicians" aren't in Washington. There are plenty of normal, well-adjusted nice people who serve as public servants at the local and state levels.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

The problem we have here is a lack of understanding of clinical terms and diagnosis on your part. That is not a statement that is meant to be rude, but it is just very clear from your posts. One of the things that makes this clearis your use of the term "sociopath" as it is not really a term used much anymore clinically.

Also, to use the term "Antisocial" is not the same as saying someone is diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder. The same goes for Narcissism. To say someone is Narcissistic is much different that saying someone is diagnosed with NPD. You are not understanding the actual diagnosis.

As far as percentages, 1 to 3% is very rare. Of course how they came up with that number is questionable. You have to wonder what the population was that they studied, and you have to wonder how many were misdiagnosed, or depending on the means they got the data, if it was self-report (via questionnaire or something) how many people did not correctly answer, etc. Psychology is far from hard science b/c it depends on accurate explanation and reporting on things that are not exactly measurable. Among a host of other things.

REgarding your politician relative, if we were to really minimize a diagnosis and take a stab at it, there is probably no way he would make a diagnosis for APD:

1. We assume he meets these 2 criteria:
a. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
b. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

and also meet one of the following:
a. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
b. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
c. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
d. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
e. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.

Regarding each of the 5 criteria:
a. Has he been arrested much? Is he breaking the law often?
b. Is his life characterized by lack of planning or thinking things through?
c. Is he getting into alot of physical confrontations?
d. this one speaks for itself
e. Is his life characterized by an inability to maintain commitments or "hold his end of the deal"?

I can guess that if he is a politician, (a.) he probably would not have been able to get elected if he had an extensive criminal history
(b.) he would have had to planned ahead some to get where he is
(c.) again, would have had trouble getting elected if he is a regular brawler and especially irritable beyond reasonable explanation
(d.) you might be able to squeeze this one out due to lack of applicable circumstances
(e.) see (b.) and (c.) for similar explanation

So, to make a light case for it, you can see what a stretch it would be (or at least I hope you can see) to diagnose a politician with APD.
--------------

For NPD it is much easier (but at the same time doubtful):

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

The problem here is that you would have to get a lot more information via testing and self report in order to make a diagnosis, or you could make alot of assumptions... which is not recommended But, from that list, one imagines that politicians meet alot of those criteria. But, even if they seem to meet some of the criteria, the clinching actor is: are they as a person DEFINED by those characteristics? If not, then you don't have a diagnosis. On top of that, they have to meet 5 of the criteria. And again, it is much more complicated than just all that.

Ack! A post that is both reasonable and informative! Kill it! Kill it!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: spittledip
The problem here is that you would have to get a lot more information via testing and self report in order to make a diagnosis, or you could make alot of assumptions... which is not recommended But, from that list, one imagines that politicians meet alot of those criteria. But, even if they seem to meet some of the criteria, the clinching actor is: are they as a person DEFINED by those characteristics? If not, then you don't have a diagnosis. On top of that, they have to meet 5 of the criteria. And again, it is much more complicated than just all that.

Yes, I see your point. I will have to investigate this further. Some people on AT P&N seem to believe that politicians are indeed sociopaths. So if anyone voted in the poll explain why you voted that way.