4 ms·

So, what would they say?

by X4 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago
They would explain it in terms of personality traits, past history, sociopathic behavior, reward systems and tons of other insights etc. There are lots of studies in power relations, and I've never seen the lack of empathy exhibited by some powerful people explained away as "they are busy".
- X4 13y ago
  That sir, is a generalization used to raise the importance of the article. I skip that. What you say is a relative explanation of the causes, but not showing evidence of a definitive neurological trigger, which they claim to have discovered as responsible. This is also one reason why many people I know, don't take psychology serious, because it lacks on the neurological background and tries to explain things that 'could, would, should' happen in cases like 'a,b or c' without giving a definitive answer. This leaves the asking person in a uncertain and unsatisfied state. definitely. There are other psychologists who explain things logically and simple, that convinces much more people and gives them more insight into the 'why's' rather than squishy explanations of the 'what's'.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >This is also one reason why many people I know, don't take psychology serious, because it lacks on the neurological background and tries to explain things that 'could, would, should' happen in cases like 'a,b or c' without giving a definitive answer. That's exactly the reason why I take it seriously. Because it considers many factors, and the multiple facets and interactions between a person and other persons and/or surroundings, and understands that human psychology does not work like some antiquated naive reductionist machinery. The "definitive answers" on this front ("it's gene X that makes you behave Y, it's that substance in the brain that makes you violent", etc), are for people who believe in silver bullets and one-size-fits-all answers. IMHO they reek of pseudo-science, mixing cause and effect, correlation and causation and working at the wrong level of abstraction.

So, what would they say?

by X4 13y ago

So, what would they say?

They would explain it in terms of personality traits, past history, sociopathic behavior, reward systems and tons of other insights etc. There are lots of studies in power relations, and I've never seen the lack of empathy exhibited by some powerful people explained away as "they are busy".

X4 13y ago
That sir, is a generalization used to raise the importance of the article. I skip that. What you say is a relative explanation of the causes, but not showing evidence of a definitive neurological trigger, which they claim to have discovered as responsible. This is also one reason why many people I know, don't take psychology serious, because it lacks on the neurological background and tries to explain things that 'could, would, should' happen in cases like 'a,b or c' without giving a definitive answer. This leaves the asking person in a uncertain and unsatisfied state. definitely. There are other psychologists who explain things logically and simple, that convinces much more people and gives them more insight into the 'why's' rather than squishy explanations of the 'what's'.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >This is also one reason why many people I know, don't take psychology serious, because it lacks on the neurological background and tries to explain things that 'could, would, should' happen in cases like 'a,b or c' without giving a definitive answer. That's exactly the reason why I take it seriously. Because it considers many factors, and the multiple facets and interactions between a person and other persons and/or surroundings, and understands that human psychology does not work like some antiquated naive reductionist machinery. The "definitive answers" on this front ("it's gene X that makes you behave Y, it's that substance in the brain that makes you violent", etc), are for people who believe in silver bullets and one-size-fits-all answers. IMHO they reek of pseudo-science, mixing cause and effect, correlation and causation and working at the wrong level of abstraction.