5 ms·
I hate to logic-chop a civilian (i.e. someone who didn't waste their youth in an analytic philosophy department studying ethics) but here we go. If your positi
by undoware 13y ago
I hate to logic-chop a civilian (i.e. someone who didn't waste their youth in an analytic philosophy department studying ethics) but here we go.
If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference.
Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!
Generalizing, there's always a reason why someone's supposed perfidy makes them an untrustworthy speaker, and that's a problem.
One floor down, what's going on is 'begging the question' -- not in the colloquial motivates-the-question sense, but in the sense that you are assuming what you set out to prove (circular reasoning).
Watch:
CLAIM = C is a psychopath; therefore, don't trust him when he says C is good.
CLAIM' = X is a Y; therefore, don't believe X's claim that Z.
But there's still an implicit claim hiding! In fact, it's the value of Z. Let's suss it out:
CLAIM'' = X is a Y; Ys are untrustworthy; therefore, don't believe X when X says that Ys are trustworthy.
There you have it: a textbook case of circular reasoning. That's the sort of thing C is talking about: people get so emotional when they think about psychopaths, they fail to hold themselves up to the same standards for rational discourse at which a psychopath ironically excels.
- DanBC 13y ago> If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference. Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles! Your logic chop fails because one of the elements of psychopathy is being a convincing liar.
- undoware 13y agoSo is being any sort of successful criminal. A pedophile, for example.
- vanderZwan 13y agoI'm not sure if I would lump in "successful criminal" - which implies doing something criminal - with a mental sickness (sexual attraction to children) that may or may not actually be acted upon.
- undoware 13y agovanderzwan: I'm intentionally dealing with public-paranoia stereotypes: The pedophile on the hunt; the crack dealer at the schoolyard; etc. etc. I meant 'pedophile', and used this charged word, specifically to pick out how our reactions often blind us; but in doing so, I myself equivocated between illness and criminality. Ew. Thanks for catching that.
- Arnor 13y agoI still have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't have an abundance of trust for psychopaths, pedophiles, or crack dealers. I've worked very closely with psychopaths (one was also a pedophile) in an institutional setting in the past. I had to assume that every interaction was a manipulation. Even being extremely careful, it was easy to get caught from time to time particularly when I was understaffed (i.e. 1 staff to 3 clients). Reading the top parent of this thread was very interesting because he was thinking in exactly the way I had been conditioned to think at that time in my life. When a person in your life lies to you or manipulates you, you will certainly begin to question the value of other interactions from that person. Once you have confirmed that the person has a personality type that makes them particularly likely to lie or manipulate (compulsive liars, psychopaths, criminals, what have you), you must be careful about your interpretation of any communication. But here's the real difficulty: If a psychopath is trying to manipulate you and knows that you are conscious of it, the manipulations morph. They adapt to your particular defense. In the institutional setting, they're in it for the long haul so they don't mind missing a couple times. In fact, getting caught is often part of the manipulation. I wandered off my initial topic here so I better wrap it up.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y agoGuess which paradox applies here.
- alan_cx 13y agoHmmm, no. One of the elements of being a successful human being is being a convincing liar. "Does my bum look big in this"? "Hi, wow you look great...." And so on. Humans lie. If they didn't, they'd be in constant conflict.
- smsm42 13y agoWhat you just described is not a lie. It would be a lie if you were a martian having no understanding in how humans operate. The question "Does my bum look big in this?" may be a factual inquiry about the qualities of the chosen garment or may be a solicitation of a social interaction expressing support and admiration, due to the feelings of insecurity or needing external validation. Yes, I know it sounds the same, humans are complex. But calling such social interaction "a lie" just because it is not a factual exchange is IMO misunderstanding the whole process and devaluing the term "lie".
- DanBC 13y agoBut these lies are exactly why psychopaths lie. They start by telling the truth, and realising it doesn't work. They learn to lie. They discover that does work. They then use this technique and apply it to everything. Lies become more than the social oil that everyone uses to avoid offence, lies become a tool of manipulation.
- scott_s 13y agoNot just a convincing liar, but one with a propensity for manipulation and a lack of empathy. Because of that, I think tomstoke's analysis is unique to sociopaths/psychopaths, and you cannot simply insert any bogeyman.
- MarkPNeyer 13y ago> If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopath He made no such generalization. He simply talked about this one self account.
- undoware 13y agoGood point, thanks Mark. :) See, I positioned myself for not getting it quite right -- I can say, "this means I'm probably less psychopathic than you." Monster! :D
- MarkPNeyer 13y agoraaaarrrr
- Guvante 13y agoTo be fair, he is specifically pointing out bits of information that are designed to lead you a certain way, he is not just saying don't believe him. Thus you can't debunk him just by saying "Don't believe him because he is a psychopath is insufficient". If you want to pin all of his logic on that baseline theory (which would be stretching it), then your replacement no longer works, as crack dealers aren't known for being persuasive and manipulative in words in that way. Similar for most other distrusted groups.
- MarkPNeyer 13y agoadditionally crack dealers and pedophiles are probably more likely to be sociopaths. i'd guess most groups gain 'distrusted' status because of the influence of sociopaths within them.
- Guvante 13y agoOrthogonal to my point, and I would guess that your assumption is incorrect. Well known cases are probably sociopaths, due to the combination making them more interesting. But we are both just conjecturing :).
- undoware 13y agoOf course crack dealers are manipulative and good at lying. The ones that aren't are caught. It's selected for.
- g8oz 13y agoI don't think you know much about crack dealing.
- sciguy77 13y agoThis is why I love HN. I learned something new from your comment, thank you.
- southpawgirl 13y agoUndoware, all very well explained; I couldn't agree more.
- barrkel 13y agoActually, the comment you're referring to just suggests people take a step back from the material of the letter, and look at its overall effect: one of self-aggrandizement. Once you see that, the material of the letter takes on a different aspect. Even if it weren't from a psychopath, it would be enlightening. (I have other issues with your use of naive logic based on non-probabilistic propositions, but you may be doing that to dumb it down for the audience.)