> mild sociopathy would probably be beneficial, but that's somewhat of a tautology Correct. Then why are people acting in contradiction to a tautology? Are the

> mild sociopathy would probably be beneficial, but that's somewhat of a tautology Correct. Then why are people acting in contradiction to a tautology? Are they blind? Plagued by cognitive dissonance? Brainwashed? What gives? > It's definitely better for society as a whole And this would be relevant if humans were, say, communally telepathic, such that anyone and everyone actually experienced the point-of-view of "society as a whole". But, since this is the real world, and we are humans not ants? That point-of-view is little more than an artifice or a shorthand; and the only eyes we see through, the only footsteps we make, the only muscles we command, the only pain we feel ... are all eachwise our own. So helping "society as a whole" doesn't matter except to the extent that it helps oneself. (That said, I do sometimes find it entertaining to consider, elsewhere, for discussion's sake, this artificial point-of-view.) > It would be like calling a charitable donation self-sabotaging since you end up with less money for yourself. True, but misses the point. True indeed, and I see no other point to miss. Not even our government's "tax deductions" (which should really be called "deductions from taxable income") are enough to sway this assessment. > an argument for that label besides the assertion that sociopathy is deemed beneficial to a sociopath "Sociopathy is beneficial to a sociopath, therefore it is in any- and every-one's interest to be a sociopath, at any cost less than the benefit provided by sociopathy." is the elementary reasoning that basic mathematical intuition sends into my head.