• [deleted]

  • Post #21

Dear Tom,

You said: "Thanks for clarifying the distinction. I appreciate your viewpoint. At the same time, I'm afraid I am as firm in my starting assumption that evil is not inherent in human beings, as you are in yours."

I think you have misunderstood my point of view. But then, looking back, I think it is easy to come away with your impression, so I'm glad you brought it up so that I can set things straight.

I believe that:

1) The overwhelming majority of (but not all) people are NOT inherently evil.

2) The overwhelming majority of (but not all) people are, under the right circumstances and external pressures, capable of doing horribly evil things

3) There is no contradiction between beliefs 1) and 2)

How is this possible? Social psychologists distinguish between situational attribution and dispositional attribution. The former explains how an individual can carry out actions or behave in highly uncharacteristic ways due to external circumstances, whereas the former explains behaviors and actions that are characteristic of an individual. So if belief 2) is assigned a situational attribution, then there is in fact no conflict between it and belief 1). This is just psychological jargon for something you said yourself:

"So I think it's the structure of social systems -- external coercion -- that leads individuals and groups to evil, not innate characteristics."

So, you see, our perspectives on this point are not as far apart as you might have thought. The points on which I disagree with you are as follows:

1) Not all coercion is external. If it was true that all coercion was external, then someone who is coerced into committing a certain evil action repeatedly would have to be coerced with the same force into doing that action each time. This disagrees with the available evidence. For instance, there are records of Nazi soldiers assigned to exterminate civilians who were initially highly reluctant to do so. However, after they had already killed a few, their reluctance faded. Most likely, there was an internal rationalization mechanism along the lines that since they had already crossed the line, it did not matter to resist any longer. In my view, rationalizations, willful ignorance of evidence in contradiction of one's convictions, biases, internal justifications by means of fallacies, delusions and other forms by which the mind leads one to behave uncharacteristically are internal forms of coercion.

Moreover, there is a certain subset of the population who are NOT inherently evil but are unfortunately more prone to performing these kinds of mental maneuvers on themselves and as a result are more easily potential cases that illustrate the "banality of evil". You may want to take a look at the first few chapters of Altemyer's book.

2) Not all people are inherently good. If you really believe that no one is inherently evil, then your belief is again in contradiction to the available evidence. If nothing else, the stereotypical serial killers who kill purely for the joy of it present stark counterexamples to that belief.

3) Each of us should openly admit to ourselves that we are, under the right external pressures, capable of committing horribly evil deeds. I believe that if I am willing to honestly admit that to myself, then, should I ever find myself in a real-life Milgram-experiment type situation, I will be much more likely "catch myself" doing something evil before I actually carry it out. If, instead I desperately hang onto the notion that I am inherently good, I may be much more prone to activate the rationalization, self-deception etc. mechanisms in my own mind which make it more likely that I will actually carry out the evil deeds.

In fact, this underlies something you said yourself:

"I think people do evil things because they believe they are doing good."

I think this holds for almost all followers of evil and almost none of its leaders. Again, it is important not to confuse the two types of situations.

A major point of my essay was the "social structures" giving rise to "external coercion" which lead people to "do evil things because they think they are doing good" may not come about randomly or at least inadvertently, but rather are built up intentionally and gradually by people who understand very well that what they are doing is not because it is good but because it satisfies some of their wants and desires.

At this point, let me pull out in the open what I think is your real objection and confront it head-on.

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.

Let me emphasize that I completely agree with you! If we associate a certain group of people with "evil" we are taking the first step towards dehumanizing them, and thereby, we are taking the first step towards dehumanizing ourselves. In other words, acknowledging that this might be true suddenly causes one to be immediately confronted with a profound and very difficult ethical and moral dilemma. I understand this, had to grapple with it and acknowledged it and my inability to come up with a good answer (at least at the moment)in my essay. On the other hand, if this is really true and I deny it because its consequences make me feel uncomfortable, I have failed in my search for truth. We all like to think of ourselves as reasonably objective and rational, but the true test is when we are presented with evidence that contradicts our most cherished convictions. Moreover, if this is true and I deny it, I may make myself more vulnerable to the consequences of my denial.

The way I have tried to deal with this is not to let the ethical conflict stop me from investigating this possibility mentioned in my essay, but at the same time openly acknowledge that an ethical conflict exists and that it needs a solution. Some of the things one could do, and I am attempting to do for now, are

1) Minimize the emphasis on the moral and ethical concept of evil and maximize the emphasis on medical and scientific concepts disease and selection

2) Refrain, in the absence of a medical diagnosis, from calling specific people psychopaths unless there is clear and generally agreed upon evidence that the person in question most likely did not have a conscience (e.g. Hitler, Stalin). In my essay I did name some specific persons at the end, but if you read carefully you will see that I only described their actions and did not label them.

3) Refrain from a description of the situation in anything but the most objective language possible.

This got to be a very long response, but I hope that now things are really clarified.

Armin

Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your extensive reply. I will comment on specific passages:

"I make a few distinctions and I have a couple of other observations. The first is that the sociopath is often equated with the psychopath. Both are often defined too heavily according to behavior that is erratic and violent. Yet the sociopath, or what might be called the "good psychopath," is one who has some control over such behaviors.These are most often people who are successful in the world of political, financial, military and religious power."

These are exactly the people the second half of my essay is about.

"These four are what I call statecraft, tradecraft, warcraft and priestcraft, which have largely defined the sorts of control structures through most of our history."

I like this distinction and I think it will be useful for a comparative study of their influence in their respective fields, but at the moment I think the subject area is still too young and the subject matter too undifferentiated. Hopefully more data will become available as more people become aware that this is something that can be studied scientifically.

The nonsociopathic individual is one who is prevented from within from demolishing other people, usually such demolitions in our age are professionally or by crushing out the livelihoods of others, by their sense of connection to others. Call it an emotionally healthy theory of the mind. The sociopath has a limited sense of their commonality with other people, and narcissistically sees little beyond their own gain.

This is in complete agreement with what I have read in the literature.

I am in an employment situation where my boss's boss is a sociopath. I have been in this job for less than a year and it became clear at the end of last year there was a problem. This is a situation that I am going to have to navigate carefully. A number of people have recently either left the organization or just announced they will do so, and I am intending to stay only one more year so my work history does not look spotty. I have unfortunately also come under this man's gaze in a negative light as well. This is the second time I have found myself in this situation.

I am sorry to hear this. The usual advice given to people in this kind of a situation is to first realize and acknowledge that it exists (you have already done so) and then to remove oneself from the situation as soon as possible. So based on that, my suggestion would be to consider the one year as an upper bound. If your concern is primarily about how it will look on your CV, as opposed to the prospect of a period of time with no income, then you could consider leaving sooner and treating the time period to the next job situation as a "sabbatical". Is there a book that you always wanted to write, or other time-consuming project for which you never had time? On the other hand, if the absence of income during that time is also a factor, then you could see if some of your former colleagues can perhaps help you find a new situation. (NB. The husband of the editor of Lobaczewski's book is a physicist who has been publicly critical of the person you refer to, so he may well know about it)

"I think there is a range of other mental disorders at work as well."

Indeed, Lobaczewski outlines several psychopathological disorders of which "essential psychopathy" is the most dangerous. I just did not have enough space in my essay to go into this.

"I think there is a range of other mental disorders at work as well. The GW Bush administration, what really was the Cheney administration, was a case of this. The sociopath was Dick Cheney, and he was the brains behind it all. GW Shrub has delusional personality disorder, schizotypal mental disorders, or maybe for that matter post alcoholic brain damage. He was the tool, and people like him are a necessary ingredient in the mix. In order for the sociopathic conman to pull their con they need to have a population of neurotics, delusional, and personality disordered types. These often form the "satellite crowd," such as Sarah Palin who fill in a celebrity role. Obama is a bit of both in a way, and he is an "operator." He has been quite disappointing."

I agree that all of these people should be considered as candidates for the hypothesis given in my essay, but as I mentioned in my response to Tom, labeling them directly in the absence of a medical diagnosis opens the potential for a huge ethical problem. So I think despite shared frustrations we should try to express them as objectively as possible.

"The cyclic rise of sociopaths is dangerous, and it can ramp up into very insane situations, such as the rise of Nazi Germany or the evolution of Soviet Russia to the utter insanity of Stalinism. In these situations the sociopath in their charismatic power can transfer that behavior onto large number of people, and more and more of their lieutenants include violent "bad psychopaths." We are in an age marked by the rise of people with these behaviors, and while it is disturbingly the case in the United States, it is elsewhere in the world. The current game that Putin is playing to dismantle Ukraine is evidence of this."

I completely agree.

"Meanwhile our planetary life support system is disintegrating and in danger of collapse. My essay connects physics and cosmology with what I see as the prospect for any intelligent life reaching extreme levels of advanced technology."

I will read and comment on your essay soon, responding to the comments in my own post is taking longer than I anticipated.

I gave your essay a 9, even though that pulls you way ahead of me and everyone else. I removed one point because there is no connection with physics or hard science. However, your point is straight on.

I wished you had not told me this. Your criticism about the connection with physics is fair. I had thought of some connections, but they would have made my essay more stilted and less impactful, so I decided to stay true to it.

Thanks again for your extensive comments,

Armin

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your comments, I am not entirely clear what the two people's objection to the essay contest was and would appreciate it if you could clarify it further for me.

I will read and comment on your essay soon.

All the best,

Armin

Dear John,

As it is not common for the same differential equation to model many different unrelated systems I suppose it would be possible to do what you suggest, but I do not see the use of it. If anything, I believe, it would detract from the impact of the message. Do you really think that people are going to be more interested if the same model is expressed in terms of a physical system? I seriously doubt this. Besides, I don't think that there is enough data yet to carry out such a detailed modeling. The area is still young and filled with treacherous ethical as well as socioeconomic land mines (I'm sure if the hypothesis is true, at least some of those at the top would not be too pleased with this kind research), and I think we may still have a little further to go (i.e. obtain more data) before we can construct quantitative models.

All the best,

Armin

Hello Michael,

I reviewed you policy and find your approach very interesting. You may know that over the past several contests I have been one of the most vociferous and outspoken critics of the author voting system, precisely because it introduces a conflict of interest. Perhaps aspects of your approach applied to the entire contest might mitigate some of those problems.

As to your question, the answer is yes, I welcome criticism.

All the best,

Armin

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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #32

      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

          Thank you Joe,

          Yes, if every person really took that to heart I believe the world would be a much better place.

          All the best,

          Armin

          Dear James,

          Thank you for your criticism. Unfortunately you did not mention why you think the examples are weak, and as a result I have no idea what your criteria are for a strong example.

          I really would like to understand your point of view, so let me ask you specifically about the first example, which would at least from my point of view by most criteria not be "very weak".

          How is the instance of one country attacking another country (and causing all the associated consequences) under a proven and already admitted false pretense a weak example to illustrate the possibility that those leading the attack may well literally lack a conscience?

          I think it would be a great contribution if you could explain this to me.

          Also, you said this: "Presumably you believe that third party candidates will not be psychopathic."

          No, I don't believe this at all. But I do believe that when you have more than two parties negotiating for some political outcome, it will be less likely that each side will come out having buttered its own side at the expense of the rest of the country.

          As for the question of teaching children values for a moral and free society, I'd like to agree that to some extent it is certainly true, and the proof is in the fact that, some exceptions aside, this is still a peaceful country, it is still a dream for many to come here, and the rule of law is largely obeyed. The issue I meant to raise was whether we are doing enough, and whether the values are really incorporated into each of our daily lives as much as they could be, and this is a much more complicated issue which would require for any sensible discussion the establishment of some kind of baseline.

          Thank you for your comments, and I look forward especially to your explanation.

          All the best,

          Armin

          • [deleted]

          • Post #36

          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

          Dear Akinbo,

          Thank you for your comments. I am actually currently working on a paper which sets up the mathematical foundations from which I can then rigorously derive my theory. It turns out that the distinctions introduced in the foundations lead to other interesting mathematical consequences which I wish to explore at least to some extent. This broadens the scope of my paper and delays its completion. However, I hope it will take no longer than a few more months.

          Thank you again for your comments and for your encouragement on my work in physics.

          Armin

          PS: I understand now the resolution to the "photon existence paradox" in more rigorous terms. Entities associated with the speed of light in space belong to a different equivalence class than the equivalence class of spacetime observers (the detailed explanation will have to wait until my paper comes out).

          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