Is Steering Humanity A Good Idea? by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

Armin,

I certainly agree there are way too many moving pieces, enflamed emotions and unknowns to effectively do what I suggest in the context of what you describe. On a broader scale though, could we model what would be morality as a truly bottom up decision making process, developed over billions of years, rather than the top down set of rules we are handed by our few millennia of civilization?

As I see it, the source of consciousness is necessarily inherent in biology and thus is a bottom up dynamic element, rather than a top down ideal, so the premise of good and bad is not some cosmic duel between the forces of goodness and evil, but the biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken and there is no clear line where the chicken ends and the fox begins. In the vast feedback loops which create modern life on this planet, many of us are perpetuating the abuse of someone, or some environmental resource, just that we are well insulated from it. It is mostly when we are in proximity to the pain, it is on some massive scale, or otherwise manages to attract attention that our sense of outrage is more than just passing. Nature is a bitch. If we are to effectively start limiting those massive, or conveniently distant abuses, we need to develop much more local feedback loops and thus, at least in the short to medium term, a less global economy. Only when we have allowed those local structures to become sufficiently resilient can we then start to construct broader economic structures on top of them. Nature spent billions of years evolving the degree of biologically complex organisms we see today and reading her tea leaves, it's not entirely improbable there is some inherent tendency to be trying to evolve an essentially single global organism, possibly with human civilization as its central nervous system, but there necessarily will be a few false starts in such an endeavor, so we may not go beyond top predator in a collapsing ecosystem.

Regards,

John

Dear Armin,

My impression was that they felt the people trying to steer the future would be looking out for themselves, as you outline in your essay. I can't recall the specific quotes, but that seemed to be the gist of it.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Maestro Shirazi,

I thought your exceptionally well written essay was truly enlightening. I especially appreciated your contention that one should doubt everything at least a little.

With regards,

Joe Fisher

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

I think you gave very weak examples. Do you have other more definite support for your conclusion. It appears to me that your otherwise balanced appearing essay is an indictment of the government of the United States as a developed or nearly developed 'pathocracy'.

"For most people, 30 years and more is probably too long a period of time to materially notice the transmutation of a society into a pathocracy. Some of the things you can do to help counteract the these developments are: pledge to

vote for a party other than the two major ones; inform yourself more about these issues, educate others about them and support scientific research into them; inculcate your children with values that foster a prosperous society;

support the separation of corporation and state. The one thing you may not wish to support, however, is the "steering" of humanity by an elite few."

Presumably you believe that third party candidates will not be psychopathic. With regard to our children, my opinion, is that we have in the past and do now teach them values for a moral and free society. Prosperity is desired also. We want better for our children. But morals and freedom first. Your last point is clear enough and our government is designed to avoid that undesirable result.

I won't be rating your essay. It is doing very well with others who like it. I think you will finish high in the contest. So, good luck to you.

James Putnam

Hi Armin,

I read your essay last night. It is well written and easy to read and your strong feelings about the subject of psychopaths is clear. Like Lawrence, I did not see any physics, which is also true of a number of the other essays I have read. Not being an American and fully informed on Americas domestic affairs I felt a little uncomfortable reading such strong views.

Now that it is possible to see the brain structure differences of psychopaths by scanning wouldn't independent testing of all candidates for election be a way of selecting out individuals with those particular incurable personality disorders, ie. psychopaths/sociopaths? If a candidate does not agree to testing he will be excluded from possible nomination? The results could be kept confidential and candidates can just withdraw without giving a reason or using some other excuse.

With such scientific advances, which you could have discussed in some detail in your essay, it isn't inevitable that the future will be steered by psychopaths. There has to be recognition of the condition and the harm such individuals can do at all levels of society.Your essay may have helped in that, but I fear that the political view expressed might work against it.

Good luck, Georgina

Armin,

A well thought out essay. But you are needed more on the physics blogosphere where your intellectual contribution is missing. I still recall your last year's essay and the 'photon existence paradox' in one of your papers. The time you spent writing this would have produced a physics paper that would have been more useful for humanity.

Akinbo

Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your review. Yes, to me (and perhaps others, too), the topic did not lend itself so well to a an essay hat is both heavily concentrated on physics and which reflects an issue that is most immediately relevant at least in my mind.

I'd rather be penalized for this and raise some awareness of a what I believe is a very important issue than strictly stick to the guidelines and feel like I lost a valuable opportunity to do something that to me at east amounts to exercising my civic duty.

You said:I felt a little uncomfortable reading such strong views."

I find this a remarkable statement. I wonder whether you are attributing to me views I actually hold. I have the impression that you think I hold the view that what I outlined in my paper is definitively the true explanation behind contemporary (and historical) political events.

My actual view is more nuanced. Specifically, in my view:

1) there is a distinct possibility that the mechanism outlined in my paper explains some of the current and historical political events

2) Many more people should be aware of this possibility

3) More research should be done to find out whether this possibility is correct or not

At the moment, research is very scant, and as James' Putnam's response shows, at least some of the indirect evidence is not persuasive to everybody. The best I can tell, (much) more research is needed on at least four fronts:

1) the pathophysiological aspects of the disease

2) the psychological/psychiatric aspects of the disease

3) the socioeconomic, sociocultural and sociopolitical aspects of the disease

4) the ethical aspects of the disease

At the moment, we are still very much at the beginning. Psychopathy is not even generally recognized as a disorder separate from antisocial personality disorder (as mentioned in my essay). Is that because there is evidence which shows that they should be considered the same, or is it because there is not enough evidence to differentiate between the two? I suspect it is the latter, but this is really a matter to be debated and examined by the mental health community. I do believe that if there were a lot more people aware of this, then that would provide additional impetus for that community to investigate this area more thoroughly.

You said:

"Now that it is possible to see the brain structure differences of psychopaths by scanning wouldn't independent testing of all candidates for election be a way of selecting out individuals with those particular incurable personality disorders, i.e. psychopaths/sociopaths? If a candidate does not agree to testing he will be excluded from possible nomination? The results could be kept confidential and candidates can just withdraw without giving a reason or using some other excuse."

I think your suggestion is ethically highly problematic. To mention just one of several problems, Colin brought to my attention the case of James Fallon, a psychiatrist who found that his brain scan resembled much more that of psychopaths than that of normal people. It seems that despite his genetic background he is a well-functioning, productive member of society who is not only not hurting anyone but actually (in his role as a physician) helping people. Under your suggestion, he would be barred from public office.

The truth is, at this time, beyond raising awareness and calling for more research and limiting influence via ethical and legal ways there is really not that much more one can ethically do in terms of a practical steps to target this problem specifically and selectively because we simply don't know enough about it. Any other measures one might want to take are potentially steps on ethical landmines.

Naively, there should be no ethical difficulties, because you would treat psychopaths exactly like any other human beings afflicted by an illness, namely with empathy. But I must honestly admit that I am not superhuman enough to have empathy for people who happily inflict suffering onto others. And if I can't do it, I can hardly ask anyone else to do it.

The central ethical conflict is that we have an obligation not to dehumanize other humans. The Nazis have demonstrated in the most gruesome way what happens at the end of the road of dehumanizing other human beings. But what do you do if an illness really does turn a person into a monster? Some people choose to deny that this could possibly happen. In my view this is, if not intellectually dishonest, incredibly naive (given human history), and potentially harmful for all of us. I'd rather have an open discussion about the problem and the ethical challenges it poses, and I think ethicists have an important role to play to clarify these matters.

You said: "There has to be recognition of the condition and the harm such individuals can do at all levels of society."

Well I completely agree, and I think more research is needed in this area as well. I focused on the macrosocial level because the essay topic was about humanity, but I agree that this can happen at all levels and research should investigate this issue at all levels.

You said:"Your essay may have helped in that, but I fear that the political view expressed might work against it."

Well, I took a chance and tried, instead of talking in the abstract, to make the issue immediately relevant. You are correct that by doing so, I will likely polarize at least some readers. But at least at this early stage, even that might be preferable to an ignorance on the subject matter.

I hope you noticed that the last few lines, which most concretely gave away my political convictions because they spelled out concrete actions, could be advocated by people who are dissatisfied with the status quo regardless of whether they thought that the hypothesis presented in my paper is true or not.

Thank you for your review and all the best,

Armin

Thanks Armin,

Bullyonline.org

Because psychopaths are highly manipulative and deceptive the fact that one appears friendly, well balanced and holds a good job should not make one think that s/he can not also be a highly unpleasant person who inflicts suffering on others with absolutely no insight into the wrongness of it. They can have Jekyll and Hyde type behaviour putting on a pleasant, likable, even charismatic mask in public but letting it fall when alone with their victims. They take care to avoid witnesses. Switching behaviour instantly should a potential witness appear. So yes I do think having the brain of a psychopath should be enough to prevent someone from gaining positions of political power or influence.

Being a psychopath is not an illness, they are not mentally ill. It is more akin to a learning disability. Their brains are structured and think differently.They are excellent mimics of normal human behaviour. We should not be expected to empathize with psychopaths, however recognizing that they do not understand the wrongness of their behaviour, and can not learn to understand because of their disability, and recognizing that they do not experience normal human emotions gives us room to feel some pity for their condition, and wish that it could one day be improved, rather than just hatred for their behaviour and attitude.

Okay. Good luck but take caution not to allow the math you use lead to bizarre physical consequences and paradoxes some of which physics is yet to recover from.

Akinbo

Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

"The public perception of the term "psychopath" is heavily distorted because both in movies and in the news the term appears frequently as a description of serial killers. However, it is not a desire to kill people that characterizes most psychopaths but the absence of a conscience, together with diminished ability to experience certain emotions, like love and fear and especially empathy, as well as impulsive behavior."

These are the traits you are going to demonstrate.

"The above model can only be considered an initial attempt at a rough description that may be refined, extended into a quantitative model, or falsified with more information and data. The central problem in testing it is that psychopathological disorders must be diagnosed by competent professionals, and people in positions of power are highly unlikely to submit themselves to psychological testing for this purpose. We may therefore never be certain that it describes reality at least in some approximation, but we can also never completely rule it out. Thus, there is always a danger that whatever "steering" is initiated will actually be a ploy to benefit the few at the expense of the many, especially since "steering" implies to some extent abdication of responsibility for change at an individual level. The danger is increased in light of evidence that a society is, or is in the process of becoming, a pathocracy."

You are suggesting that one group of leaders who presumably will not be required to undergo testing should be entrusted with labeling others. We are to trust that?

"Apart from the fact that conditions imposed on persons seeking financial and political power in the US seem to select for people with psychopathological traits (e.g. they favor those with the ability to express with utter conviction what is expedient at the moment), there is indirect evidence that such a process is in fact happening now: ..."

Here I read your words as expressing your opinion with utter conviction. It is in writing so it is not possible to know if you wrote it expediently. However, we can look at your examples to see your evidence for psychopathic behaviors. I understand that you hedged your evidence with the words "...there is indirect evidence...". All the more reason to make a careful, well supported presentation.

"George W. Bush's administration led an unprovoked attack against Iraq under the pretense that Saddam harbored weapons of mass destruction. The ensuing conflict has up to now cost thousands of American lives and led to the deaths of over a hundred thousand Iraqis. The reason given by that administration to justify this war turned out to be false, but none of its members, with the exception of Colin Powell (Weisman, 2005), has ever publicly expressed regret over this."

The attack was led... "...under the pretense..." Show that the claim that "...Saddam harbored weapons of mass destruction." was known by the administration and those who voted to support it knew before and at the time of the attack that the claim was false. Support your claim that they acted under pretense. Also, you did not mention who started the pretense. In other words, who made the case for claiming that Saddam harbored weapons of mass destruction. Who was that and were they in your opinion psychopathic?

"Barack Obama rose to the top because he convinced many voters that he was an agent of change. As his second term nears completion, it is evident that many of the policies that he had vowed to change are still in place and sometimes even expanded (Kuhnhenn, 2013). More disturbingly, during his administration the nationwide spying on Americans by the National Security Agency reached unprecedented levels, as was unveiled in a leak by Edwards Snowden shortly after NSA director James Clapper assured Congress under oath that it was "not wittingly" spying on Millions or hundreds of millions of Americans Greenberg, 2013). Obama quickly expressed "full confidence" in Clapper, while Snowden is sought for espionage (Dozier, 2013)."

A Senator ran for an office he never held. That office is nothing like being a Senator. He became the President of the United States. One's ideology doesn't count as much for a President as it does for a Senator. The Senator gets to verbally attack those who's votes obstruct his personal belief system. The buck stops with the president even though each President learns on the job that they cannot do all they wish and often learn that they should not do all that they naively promised to do. Anyway, it is up to you to show that Barack Obama freely chose to not follow through on some of his promises for psychopathic reasons.

You picked out your choice of targets for the Supreme Court rulings. They weren't the one's who's votes counted most. What about the swing voters? Are they psychopathic?

I will wait to see if you are interested in this dialog continuing? I say this because, my impression of your conclusions was that they represented your political persuasion and your attitude more than those of the person's mentioned. If I were to ask you one question to learn about your political agenda, I would ask if you want the United States to be a socialist state? I am not saying you would, but, your response either yes or no or in-between might help to clarify some parts of your essay. Do you want the united States to become a socialist state? Perhaps a more pertinent question is: Would you undergo testing? In other words, should those who would seek to judge and qualify leaders be the first to scientifically establish their own state of mind? If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. I invite clarity.

James Putnam

Armin, you have obviously thought so much longer and deeper on this subject than I.

I defer to your analysis -- thank you. And I do appreciate what we share at a fundamental level:

"I think that you find the notion that a minority of the population is singled out as, at least in some sense, 'evil' highly disturbing and uncomfortable, and you would rather believe that this was not true."

Here's to setting belief aside, and helping truth along.

All best,

Tom

Thanks Armin, You make a strong impression. It's more this I have to share, and a number of questions, than any critique. First your essay strikes me (please don't take offence) as a hortatory sermon, almost as though you were a prophet speaking of Heaven (section III), Hell (IV) and the circles of Hell (V). Did you intend this? Or does my impression surprise you? - Mike

Dear Armin, good to see meet you agin in this FORUM. I agree fully with your universal values:

."Treat others as you would like to be treated.

• Doubt everything at least a little.

• Own your share of responsibility for everything that happens to you.

• Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

• If an authority strikes you as genuinely unjust, consider disobedience"

I believe we are in Leibniz's world, the best of all possible worlds. I do believe that we must have not only somewhat ground rules or universal values but also diversified values and thought. Chinese Doctrine of the Mean promotes "harmonious unity in diversity" that is similar to Indonesian national philosophy "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" or "Unity in Diversity,". Yes we already acquired the wisdom of harmonious unity all over the world for common prosperity.

Thanks for caring, humanity united in diversity we shall have no fear of the future. I rated this caring essay a ten (10).

Good Luck,

Leo KoGuan