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