|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 26 2019 02:44 Wombat_NI wrote:
Of psychopathic traits, lack of empathy isn’t the useful one for becoming one of the mega wealthy. Grandiose sense of self and especially a tendency towards risk taking are the more pertinent ones.
Those are both important as well, however they come with narcissism which often accompanies psychopathic traits but can manifest without them. However it begins to fail at the top tiers where you're surrounded by narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths, and so on. To climb to the top of that heap takes a wild lack of empathy that either causes practically unbearable internal suffering for someone with the capacity for it, or screens them out altogether.
Narcissists and sociopaths share much of the tier of wealth under psychopaths imo/e.
|
It's not necessarily bad for a charity to accumulate money. Funding is important, and the best way to make money is to have more money. It makes sense to me, especially when they're tackling big problems people aren't willing to spend money to meaningfully fix.
|
If we were to take that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths, why mention them in the first place? Why even mention "psychopath" in every sentence that you try to explain something in the previous post?
If the wealthy are completely normal people now, so what? Your explanations still make no sense that "the inevitable emptiness and inability to love great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again."
|
On April 26 2019 02:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If we were to take that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths, why mention them in the first place? Why even mention "psychopath" in every sentence that you try to explain something in the previous post?
If the wealthy are completely normal people now, so what? Your explanations still make no sense. If you think the rich don't have feelings you care less about what happens to them when the glorious revolution happens.
|
On April 26 2019 02:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If they aren't exclusively psychopaths, why mention them in the first place? Why even mention "psychopath" in every sentence that you try to explain something in the previous post?
Because we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism?
On April 26 2019 02:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 02:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If we were to take that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths, why mention them in the first place? Why even mention "psychopath" in every sentence that you try to explain something in the previous post?
If the wealthy are completely normal people now, so what? Your explanations still make no sense. If you think the rich don't have feelings you care less about what happens to them when the glorious revolution happens.
Actually I'm the type of revolutionary that thinks they should be saved, but they and their supporters sure do try to make that difficult.
|
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
I imagine some are as described.
Most people don’t lack empathy, they lack certain framing devices. Empathy isn’t magically pulling emotions from other people, it’s pushing your own psyche into someone else’s position.
Probably part of why ‘I did x why can’t you?’ is such a prevalent mentality.
|
On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences.
I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups"
Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace
On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up.
to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
|
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes.
|
On April 26 2019 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences. I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups" Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up. to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term.
Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior.
|
On April 26 2019 03:22 Wombat_NI wrote:
Eat the rich
Or cake, I hear cake is a popular alternative.
On April 26 2019 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes.
The armchair psychology (besides the stuff aimed at me that no one called out before today) isn't being performed by me. I'm just sharing popular professional opinions combined with a critique of capitalism.
As to the necessity, clearly there is one imo otherwise people can't understand why they aren't paying their fair share already.
On April 26 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences. I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups" Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up. to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term. Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior.
The bold is my argument, not that "money makes people bad"?
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
I tend more towards the whole cultural edifice of capitalism insulating people from the grim realities of the world than any personal fallibilities of all but the most genuinely scumbaggish of folks.
|
On April 26 2019 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 02:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If they aren't exclusively psychopaths, why mention them in the first place? Why even mention "psychopath" in every sentence that you try to explain something in the previous post? Because we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism?
What has that got to do with:
On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
the inevitable emptiness and inability to love great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again.
When I take that society favours psychopaths, you admit that there is a logical disconnect with your explanation of that "they have little to no capacity for empathy". Yet they have "inevitable emptiness" despite this lack of capacity and "attempt to feel again" despite never having that capacity for empathy in the first place; to which you say that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths.
Which still renders your post unexplained.
And then we are back to your saying psychopaths having a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism and so your explanation goes round in a circle...
...that I take that society favours psychopaths, you admit that there is a logical disconnect with your explanation of that "they have little to no capacity for empathy". Yet they have "inevitable emptiness" despite this lack of capacity and "attempt to feel again" despite never having that capacity for empathy in the first place; to which you say that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths.
Which still renders your post unexplained.
And then we are back to psychopaths having a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism and so your explanation goes round in a circle...
...that I take that society favours psychopaths, you admit that there is a logical disconnect with your explanation of that "they have little to no capacity for empathy". Yet they have "inevitable emptiness" despite this lack of capacity and "attempt to feel again" despite never having that capacity for empathy in the first place; to which you say that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths.
Which still renders your post unexplained.
And then we are back to psychopaths having a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism and so your explanation goes round in a circle...
|
On April 26 2019 03:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 02:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If they aren't exclusively psychopaths, why mention them in the first place? Why even mention "psychopath" in every sentence that you try to explain something in the previous post? Because we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism? What has that got to do with: Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
the inevitable emptiness and inability to love great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. When I take that society favours psychopaths, you admit that there is a logical disconnect with your explanation of that "they have little to no capacity for empathy". Yet they have "inevitable emptiness" despite this lack of capacity and "attempt to feel again" despite never having that capacity for empathy in the first place; to which you say that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths.
Which still renders your post unexplained. And then we are back to psychopaths having a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism and so your explanation goes round in a circle... ...that I take that society favours psychopaths, you admit that there is a logical disconnect with your explanation of that "they have little to no capacity for empathy". Yet they have "inevitable emptiness" despite this lack of capacity and "attempt to feel again" despite never having that capacity for empathy in the first place; to which you say that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths. Which still renders your post unexplained. And then we are back to psychopaths having a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism and so your explanation goes round in a circle... ...that I take that society favours psychopaths, you admit that there is a logical disconnect with your explanation of that "they have little to no capacity for empathy". Yet they have "inevitable emptiness" despite this lack of capacity and "attempt to feel again" despite never having that capacity for empathy in the first place; to which you say that the wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths. Which still renders your post unexplained. And then we are back to psychopaths having a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism and so your explanation goes round in a circle...
I tried, I don't think I can help you understand my argument further than I have at this point and think continuing would be the type of engagement I'm trying to avoid.
On April 26 2019 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
I tend more towards the whole cultural edifice of capitalism insulating people from the grim realities of the world than any personal fallibilities of all but the most genuinely scumbaggish of folks.
I feel like this discussion is a good example of that. Someone actually used a term offensive to marginalized people to defend from discrimination against rich people.
|
On April 26 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Or cake, I hear cake is a popular alternative. Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes. The armchair psychology (besides the stuff aimed at me that no one called out before today) isn't being performed by me. I'm just sharing popular professional opinions combined with a critique of capitalism. As to the necessity, clearly there is one imo otherwise people can't understand why they aren't paying their fair share already. Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences. I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups" Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up. to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term. Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior. The bold is my argument, not that "money makes people bad"?
Upon second reading, yes. Although I think you could have been clearer on the subject and took efforts to make a clear dividing line between the study and your critique of capitalism. Maybe linked the work up front too. The argument that the business world is designed to favor remorseless assholes isn’t a hard sell. And by extension, great society finds the making of money to be meritorious.
|
On April 26 2019 03:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:22 Wombat_NI wrote:
Eat the rich Or cake, I hear cake is a popular alternative. On April 26 2019 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes. The armchair psychology (besides the stuff aimed at me that no one called out before today) isn't being performed by me. I'm just sharing popular professional opinions combined with a critique of capitalism. As to the necessity, clearly there is one imo otherwise people can't understand why they aren't paying their fair share already. On April 26 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences. I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups" Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up. to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term. Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior. The bold is my argument, not that "money makes people bad"? Upon second reading, yes. Although I think you could have been clearer on the subject and took efforts to make a clear dividing line between the study and your critique of capitalism. Maybe linked the work up front too. The argument that the business world is designed to favor remorseless assholes isn’t a hard sell. And by extension, great society finds the making of money to be meritorious.
I wish people would just more carefully read what they arguing against or stay quiet, or at minimum not come storming in as if they were the voice of reason without comprehending the argument they are opposing.
That said, I agree putting the link would have helped, I just presumed people were familiar because I'm pretty sure I've seen the studies linked here before.
|
On April 26 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I tried, I don't think I can help you understand my argument further than I have at this point and think continuing would be the type of engagement I'm trying to avoid.
To which I can only say that you didn't try at all. Afterall, it has been explored a 1000 ways; I'm sure there must be some sort of logical underpinning to yourOn April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
This whole thing has been explored a 1000 ways with the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. but it appears that you have no idea how to articulate that logical underpinning in a way that doesn't contradict itself.
1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths.
2) Then when I point out that by your own description of psychopaths, they would have no inclination whatsoever to act in the way you proscribed initially;
3) You then proclaim that not all of the greatly wealthy are psychopaths;
4) To which it is point out that you haven't explained how this relates to your explanation;
1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths.
|
On April 26 2019 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:43 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:22 Wombat_NI wrote:
Eat the rich Or cake, I hear cake is a popular alternative. On April 26 2019 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes. The armchair psychology (besides the stuff aimed at me that no one called out before today) isn't being performed by me. I'm just sharing popular professional opinions combined with a critique of capitalism. As to the necessity, clearly there is one imo otherwise people can't understand why they aren't paying their fair share already. On April 26 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences. I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups" Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up. to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term. Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior. The bold is my argument, not that "money makes people bad"? Upon second reading, yes. Although I think you could have been clearer on the subject and took efforts to make a clear dividing line between the study and your critique of capitalism. Maybe linked the work up front too. The argument that the business world is designed to favor remorseless assholes isn’t a hard sell. And by extension, great society finds the making of money to be meritorious. I wish people would just more carefully read what they arguing against or stay quiet, or at minimum not come storming in as if they were the voice of reason without comprehending the argument they are opposing. That said, I agree putting the link would have helped, I just presumed people were familiar because I'm pretty sure I've seen the studies linked here before.
I write a lot of emails at my job and constantly have to say “As per my previous email,” so I too, wish people would read more carefully. But that isn’t how people work when it comes reading things on a screen, so it is best to just double down and be overwhelmly clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
