[Davea8]

We have what I see as a problem of greed today. The top few most successful, most powerful, most wealthy people don't seem to be satisfied with what they are and have. It has been said that what they want is prestige first, power second, and security third. And wealth is the means by which they obtain and keep those three.

But their inability to be satisfied with what they have and what they have accomplished keeps them chasing after more and more. And ultimately this seems to lead to well-funded effort to manipulate government to assist them in fulfilling their goal of being "number one" at least in their own eyes. But this manipulation of government through the influence of their extreme wealth means a diminishing democracy for the rest of us, which, in realty, is just a diminishment of democracy itself.

Is their greed and seemingly irresistible drive, then, a serious form of sociopathy?

[RhetoricThug]

Here is a relevant thread I created, concerning this topic.

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=153988
I personally think extreme success and its maintenance tends to be closely linked to anti-social behavior. With little reasonable doubt, any social creature living inside a tribal society needs to be pro-social in order to be accepted. Contemporary society, primarily because of the phonetic alphabet, is rewarded like pavlov's dog for acting mechanical, fragmented, by dividing material matters to benefit a specialist task. Individuals today view themselves as the specialist and his task is being number one, going in alone, coming out on top, getting that pay raise, slitting throats need-be, in order to maintain the narcissistic ego. The lone wolf narrative is driven by Darwin's theory of evolution and our socioeconomic structure which deems all technological creations (good or bad) as progress. Most people are brainwashed into thinking "Only the strong survive." Social Darwinism explicitly rewards anti-social lone wolf behavior. The invisible hand pimp slaps the sheep while feeding the wolf its fiat meat.

Observations found in ecological systems shouldn't discount the fact that human beings are intellectually gifted animals. Meaning, the law(s) of our concrete jungle shall not determine our biological evolution. Humans can combat their environment by making tools/technologies(power of invention). Other animals struggle with spatial awareness. Yet, anti-humanist values exist and thrive inside our commercially driven detached hedonistic system of organization, I like to call, the military-corporate edifice.

[Torus34]

WOW! [Caps intentional.]

The implied assumption -- that success in life is measured by dollars -- is an uniquely American concept. I know of no other society in which success in life means the accumulation of wealth as opposed to, say, a life of service to others or a life devoted to the creation of an artistic vision or perhaps developing a deeper understanding of the fossil record or ... .

It's small wonder that 'Material Girl' was a big song hit in the United States of America.

[Godstud]

USA is a meritocracy, as is most o the West. This should come as no surprise. The first thing people ask you, when you meet them is, "What do you do?", which decides if they like you, are interested in knowing you, etc.

Extreme success is just a symptom of capitalist extremism. That's all.

[Stormsmith]

That's a lovely sentiment, Torus, and I have no doubt the majority of us die wishing we'd have spent more time doing good deeds and enjoying our families. But the reality is, as I see, the developed countries do use wealtlh as a measure of success. Financial success doesn't buy anyone's admiration. But most developed, and a lot of developing ones, had a built in class (or caste) system that didn't ensure great wealth, but if you lost the family fortune, you let the team down. On the other hand, those who became enrichened over one generation were either innovative or guys who ripped off his or her customers. New wealth was suspicious, but still the guage used to measure whether or not one 'had arrived'.

As so the OP's question, some might be but I know of one family who became billionaires. Mom was able to quit work to raise her two daughters and their adopted son. She became more involved with charities as the kids grew. When Dad retired, and sold the company, he joined his wife, went to Africa and helped distribute vaccines to (African) parents who, I'm told, would hold the children overhead whilst crossing rivers to gget their babies immunised. Dad called his son, who is a friend of mine, and urged him to accompany his parents on their next trip, describing it as a "life altering experience"

If this couple aren't an example of lives well lived, I don't know who's is, so no, sociopathy isn't a necessary condition for financial success.

[pugsville]

extreme success. Most extremely highly paid people are sociopathic.

Really they are locked into getting more toys without experiencing or valuing the life they are leading let alone other people's.

Once you have many millions why are you doing the job? Most people in the extreme end of finical salary/income are locked into getting more, the system selects for useless dysfunctional unreasoning greed at this level. Sure it's not all of them some are trying actually do something and the money is secondary but most of them no.

The World economy is subject to the great influence of these sociopaths.

Capitalism does work at times within constraints. Unrestrained capitalism winds up with dysfunctional extremes. Money is merely the oil to help the wheels turn, making it the sole focus of one's efforts is to lose the point. Of course the poor are seriously warped by the financial pressures to get by. But the Rich are generally just warped in another way.

[mikema63]

I think the idea of sociopaths at the top has become our societies new boogyman.

By claiming they are sociopaths we distance ourselves from them. That way we don't have to face the ugly truth that human nature is not so humane after all.

[pugsville]

It's more the current economic corporate setup selects for and encourages sociopathic behaviour. "Well rounded" non greed heads just get weeded out. It's the culture/economic rewards setup that weeds out certain types and encourages and moulds other types. To a certain extent they are also victims of the system.

Mega Corporations and big wall st style finical manipulators are extremely well paid and just don't do anything useful other than manipulate the system. Regulations are needed to stop the behaviour being profitable.

[mikema63]

The difference between sociopaths and normal people is empathy, however empathy isn't something we just automatically have for everyone in all conditions.

Distance from the person being harmed reduces empathy, for instance our reaction to getting mail asking for money to feed starving children in Africa is far far different than our reaction when we stand in front of the child. People in the corporate hierarchy aren't sociopaths not feeling empathy, they are insulated from the people their harming by the corporate hierarchy and it's anonymity. Group behaviors also play a large role here, most people in the corporate landscape wouldn't act the way they do if they were the only ones doing it.

[RhetoricThug]

The difference between sociopaths and normal people is empathy, however empathy isn't something we just automatically have for everyone in all conditions.

Distance from the person being harmed reduces empathy, for instance our reaction to getting mail asking for money to feed starving children in Africa is far far different than our reaction when we stand in front of the child. People in the corporate hierarchy aren't sociopaths not feeling empathy, they are insulated from the people their harming by the corporate hierarchy and it's anonymity. Group behaviors also play a large role here, most people in the corporate landscape wouldn't act the way they do if they were the only ones doing it.

You're a Nazi sympathizer?

Hey guys, Goebbels here, just wanted to drop some pop psychology... You see, it's not the Reich, it's you.

for instance our reaction to getting mail asking for money to feed starving children in Africa is far far different than our reaction when we stand in front of the child.

Yet this technique is used against the consumer by the giant corporate hierarchy to make impulse release easier. Every commercial for a car makes the car seem so approachable, easy to handle, fun, sexy, stylish. Then when you take the car off the lot, you run into traffic, it has a gas line leak, and gas prices keep going up... Of course our reaction to the reality of each situation is drastically different from the initial brush of propaganda.

Hopefully, a full grown adult can use their head and take responsibility for their actions... before encountering and reacting to the immediate situation, educated humans should be able to calculate consequence.

Oh what's that mike? The invisible pimp hand slaps our moral authority around? The market of sensory magic has you goose-stepping on the face of humanity for a few fiat fiddlesticks so you can play your song of sorrow.

[mikema63]

Clearly I'm a nazi sympathizer because I'm skeptical of the idea that sociopaths are hiding under our beds.

[RhetoricThug]

Clearly I'm a nazi sympathizer because I'm skeptical of the idea that sociopaths are hiding under our beds.

Wait, so now I'm scared of a boogeyman? I'm paranoid and think sociopaths hide under metaphorical beds? What are you talking about...

This thread establishes psychopathology as a personality trait of the extremely successful. Of course, success is defined by the successful, so never mind that philosophic debate. You wish to excuse anti-social behavior by claiming it to be part of the human condition. Then you go on to say this

People in the corporate hierarchy aren't sociopaths not feeling empathy, they are insulated from the people their harming by the corporate hierarchy and it's anonymity.

This insulation perpetuates the corporation's tyranny. The Nazi party used nationalism (brand allegiance) to insulate the parties perpetrators from their actions. By your logic, you are indeed a Nazi sympathizer, twisting the human condition for your benefit.

[lucky]

This thread establishes psychopathology as a personality trait of the extremely successful. Of course, success is defined by the successful, so never mind that philosophic debate. You wish to excuse anti-social behavior by claiming it to be part of the human condition.

It is one thing to discuss somebody's psychology, quite another to discuss their impact on society.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

[One Degree]

Monetary success results in a feeling of superiority which reduces empathy for your 'inferiors'.

The greater the financial success, the more inferiors you perceive.

The biggest aberration in our society is the rich believe their wealth is due to intelligence, when it actually is only due to a desire for wealth.

[RhetoricThug]

Yo, RT, what the heck man, like duuuuuude, check out this quote from the 18th century bro!
You're totally wrong, Adam smith says...
Oh dear

It is one thing to discuss somebody's psychology, quite another to discuss their impact on society.

How so, if I collocate individual psychology and its functioning within an economic group, you may see the pyramidal importance of each individual. Adam Smith, the literate man's finest socioeconomic theorist/sage, may use his trained articulation to persuade many men to become lab rats in his grand economic theory. Clearly, any system of organization built upon benevolence can never be profitable for the managerial class, or the corporate aristocracy (who benefit from Smith's method), which emerged after the mechanical revolution. The Victorian age of mechanical thinking had been prompted by the homogenization of print culture, (typography) uniformed and c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d schemes of motion form fixed perspectives and make specialists out of human beings. Human beings who master a trade and operate according to linear lines of hierarchy create a metropolis, managed by bureaucratic resource (information or raw materials) holders . Of course, Adam Smith, along with his theory, is outdated and out of place by today's technological standard.

Alas, to discuss somebody's personal psychology today, is to discuss a whole culture's fallacy. We are so involved with the dynamic electronic market, that services and encapsulates the entire globe, we can not continue looking back at Locke or Smith, to find the answers for tomorrow's collective problem. Today's newspaper column allows you to bridge the old compartmentalized subjects which arose from print based culture. For the first time in the history of communications technology, the noosphere (realm of human-thought) can be studied like nature's ecosystem. Denying external causation is a mechanical myth fostered by the operational methods of yesteryear. Please remember, Newtonian mechanization had not one inkling of our time & space's relativity.

[lucky]

The biggest aberration in our society is the rich believe their wealth is due to intelligence, when it actually is only due to a desire for wealth.

If somebody's confidence in their own intelligence really is our biggest problem, we are in excellent shape.

It is one thing to discuss somebody's psychology, quite another to discuss their impact on society.

How so

Simple: personal goals ≠ consequences of your actions. For several reasons:

• Lack of skills, power, resources to implement your goals.
• Side effects. Your actions may have positive or negative side effects on others that were not part of your goals.
• Unintended consequences. Well intentioned people have done horrible things, and vice-versa, many people do good things for the world without fully realizing their impact.

Life would be much simpler if results achieved depended only on your wishes.

[RhetoricThug]

Psychology drives impact. I don't know how you can compress or deny its causality. Everything we are comes from external artificial/natural environments, everything we do impacts external artificial/natural environments. The vanishing point is the beyond the vacuum of your five-senses. Personal or internal realities cannot impact external realities, however social interactions will always pass through internal realities before the inner plays (interplay).

Mind over matter, yes? But first we must master the mind before we allow it to manipulate matter. Psychology-impact- in-out-out-in

[Davea8]

If this couple aren't an example of lives well lived, I don't know who's is, so no, sociopathy isn't a necessary condition for financial success.

I didn't say sociopathy is a necessary condition for financial success. You have resorted to the so common trick of pretending what was said was extreme so as to make it easy for you to discredit it.

And yes, of course nothing is 100%. There are many wealthy folks who give greatly to society. But that doesn't negate the sociopathic greedy ones and the negative influence they exert on the rest of us.

[One Degree]

Self deleted. Decided I don't care about the psychological problems of the wealthy. I am not sure there is such a thing as a 'sane human'.

[Davea8]

Self deleted. Decided I don't care about the psychological problems of the wealthy. I am not sure there is such a thing as a 'sane human'.

Then don't we need to guard and protect ourselves from those who harm the rest with their insanity?