Discussion on:

How to tell who's a psychopath

No mention was made of using the tool to analyze someone without their neccesarily knowing thus being able to alert oneself and others to the nature of "the beast" within that individual.

From: "The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry" by Jon Ronson

The very first thing to know about psychopaths, at least according to Jon Ronson is that:
??? ???they???re very charming.
??? They???re also usually smart,
??? Bored,
??? And ruthless power mongers
??? Who watch suffering with interest,
??? Have an inflated sense of self-worth,
??? Lie compulsively,
??? And rarely take blame for their mistakes.???

Might want to add have really bad hair to that list... LOL

I've met a couple light weights and though the damage is slight and annoying rather than serious and deeply hurtful, their personal attributes reflect most of what is listed by jerryroller. If one person I know ever got involved in felonious activities, someone would end up on Death Row, and if a jury believed her, it probably would be someone else.

So Jon Ronson is now being quoted as a source on psychopathic personalities? The very, very first thing to know about psychopaths is that someone could exhibit all of the behaviours and qualities and attitudes of "the very first thing to know...according to Jon Ronson" and not be psychopathic. The second of them is that there are not actually that many of them around (your boss might be a controlling, manipulative little ****, but he's unlikely to be a controlling, manipulative, psychopathic little ****). A 2009 British study found that in the prison population, where we would expect to see higher numbers of psychopaths than in the general population, only 7.7% of men, and 1.9% of women could be categorically diagnosed with psychopathy. Jon Ronson's book is about as useful in understanding and identifying psychopaths as a Cosmo 20 question personality test would be. Posted by an ex-psychiatric nurse.

Way to small and specific a population to generalize from (at least yet). But you have to watch out for assuming the converse is true. If we accept the proposition from the study:
if you are a psycopath ==> you behave this way
you still don't have any idea if the converse is true
if you behave this way ==> you are a psycopath
And until you can prove the later proposition, this is all just useless as a tool for anyone.

Wonder what would happen if we run politicians through this test?

Wrong approach. Test had to be developed using politicians as a subject, then it could be applied to criminals...

Politicians: Nothing for they do not fit the base criterion of being human.
Leaders: Does a person lead for the betterment of your followers or is it done to fill a vacuum of required ego boosters?

BTW, there is a BIG difference between a true leader and a politician. God help us if we elect another politician this November.

The ones not found to be narcissistic would be found to be suffering from megalomania.

Gosh, what is described above really seems to be the kinda typical description of Wall Street CEOs and similar megalomaniacs... You know, the ones who put millions of people out of work, nearly crash the global economy but think that taxes are something to be paid by the ordinary people so they lobby Congress to reduce taxes and they do things like buy companies with the sole purpose of selling their assets.

Be really neat to see this kind of computer analysis applied to interviews of some of these people who are so crassly killing off ordinary Americans by restricting access to health care or simply allowing banks to foreclose on so many millions of home owners...

I'm not saying that they are sociopathic, just wondering, you know? People that express their beliefs in average people but act in their own interests or run for political office and intentionally distort the truth for their own purposes and benefit.

"what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

While psychos get successfully you and likewise people project blame on each other, they will keep ruling the world.
"Those you demonize pay the lions share..." What a lot of BS!
I haven't seen major bank paying any significant TAX since 2008 crisis.
The banks paid their bailout money by using credits from government.
The recent example is 25 bln settlement where banks would have to pay 5 bln, the rest 20 bln will be given to them as credits by gov. That's why since 2008 US got 8 trln. of new debt. Someone gotta pay and it looks like it will be a tax payer.
The investment tax is 15% while regular man pays ~30%
Here's article about it.
"Here was one of the biggest investment banks in the world seeking psychopaths as recruits. " [bank: GS]
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/psychopaths-caused-the-financial-crisis-and-they-will-do-it-again-and-again-unless-they-are-removed-from-power.html

I'm not saying there are no good companies, who pays taxes and creates jobs. They do exist and many. What I meant is right now banks managing the show and the psychopaths who control those companies will destroy the economy if not stopped.

Are all your rants this whacky???

You are obviously not a Christian because you don't care about anyone other than yourself.

You obviously have no conscious and couldn't give a rats patooty about the elderly or disabled.

It's obvious that you are anti-democracy.

It's actually the middle class that pays the lions share of taxes as they don't have the crooked dishonest loopholes, shelters, and off shore accounts that the greedy morons you idolize have and abuse. Perhaps you should go back to listening to Rush on the radio and leave the real discussions to the adults.

Liberals? bureaucrats? Rue the day? Who talks like that?

They just mouth the words that they care about anyone else.

Having studied religion and spirituality for 50+ years, I've found there is a lot to be questioned about "Christianity" There was a man named Jesus and that's about all we can be sure of. Most "Christians" are followers, content to believe what is passed on to them by a self serving hierarchy.True spirituality has nothing to do with religion.

Do you know 'most' Christians, Hans? You've met them, I take it? 'Most,' did you say? How well do you know them? Intimately? How well do you know even the tiny minority you've actually met and how can you be sure they are really Christians? Because they said so? Because they were standing in a church? If they stood in a bank and claimed to millionaires would you believe them?

Let's look at this from another angle: You've got Germanic name - Hans Schmidt - and so just for grins, let's substitute 'Germanic Name' for 'Christian' in your scholarly post and tweak the historical context appropriately.

Now, along comes someone who verbally tosses you and everyone else having a Germanic Name into a bin labelled 'Most People Having Germanic Names Care Only About Genocide and World Conquest,' thanks to his experiences with a score or two Germans he's not even sure of and scarcely knows, and some knowledge of recent German history gleaned from 50+ years of scholarly study.

Did you find what you were looking for, Hans?

What many do not realize is that corporate taxes are part of the company's cost structure and as such, corporations may be viewed as not actually paying taxes. Instead, corporations attempt to pass their tax assessment to the consumer through higher retail prices. However, foreign companies with lower corporate tax rates and / or lower labor rates tend to have a competitive advantage in pricing that in some cases results in US companies being forced to absorb their inefficient cost structure.

So, what does this mean?

1. If the corporation is able to pass 100% of its tax into its retail prices, the end consumer is the one who actually pays the "corporate" tax. This pass-through has no bias among economic classes which results in the poor shouldering a disproportionate amount of the "corporate" tax (wealthier individuals have a much higher savings / spending ratio)

2. If the corporation is not able to have 100% of its tax included in its retails:

a) Other internal costs will be reduced (i.e. labor reductions through pay increase limitation / freezes, higher production standards, changing to an overseas-based operation) and/or

b) Earnings will be decreased resulting in lower stock values and a higher capitalization rate (higher costs) for public corporations. These higher costs result in greater inefficiency.

c) Of course lower stock values / returns also have a significant impact upon a company's (and state's) ability to fund pensions through investments, insurance rates (including health care cost), and an individual's ability to retire, and many other issues.

These are just a few issues related to corporate taxes. In reality, there is an extremely complicated relationship between individuals and corporate entities but there is no denying that this relationship does exist. The old saying "What is good for GM, is good for America" is very much as true today as it was during the time of its origin.

HorseShit!

Correct a corporation is a legal person who's best face is in fact ruthless and at worst psychopathic. Its always about the money. Consumers have one function to supply money. How that is got well its what works goes. Enron for instance, oil " noncartel " and so on. Rents are better than profits etc. Who needs free enterprise when you can dominate and eliminate that is really free enterprise like the hoist the black flag kind of enterprise. That kind of thing.

You're quite right about that. The same personality defects that are present in psychopathy do often make people successful businessmen although it is still only a small percentage. If you're interested in learning more about the relationship, I recommend "Snakes in Suits :When Psychopaths Go to Work" by Hare and Babiak. Robert Hare is probably the world's leading authority on psychopathy.

OK...so according to this: "Psychopaths used twice as many words relating to physical needs, such as food, sex or money, while non-psychopaths used more words about social needs, including family, religion and spirituality."

A single person who is an atheist with a low paying job in search of a soul-mate is a psychopath.....

"They were also more likely to use the past tense, suggesting a detachment from their crimes."

Who used to have a good life and most of the best memories are in the past are psychopaths.

"They tended to be less fluent in their speech, using more ???ums??? and ???uhs.???"

And have less sleep and lack of food prevents them from thinking coherently...

These things all make up a psychopath?

This is the problem here...false positives...if even *ONE* individual breaks the pattern, then it is not a reliable method to determine psychopathic tendencies....

I rather think that the study in question would not just use a symptom or two to determine psychopathy, it would be a combination of weighted symptoms.

They said when describing the crime psychos will use past tense while normal person will re-live the situation once again and describe it in present tense.