I didn't imply that people who have different values are better or worse than each other. I said that, according to a source which is cited on the Wikipedia pag

I didn't imply that people who have different values are better or worse than each other. I said that, according to a source which is cited on the Wikipedia page for the topic of psychopathy, lack of empathy is often associated with the diagnosis of psychopathy. Lack of empathy doesn't translate directly into lack of dear friends, but my bet is that it's very deeply intertwined. I still never implied that my values are better. Psychopaths, for example, often believe that their values and views of life are fine, and that the rest of the world is wrong. I can never say whether it's the psychopaths or the non-psychopaths who get it right. (Without rigorous testing, I can actually not reliably claim I am not a psychopath. For one, my empathy scores are moderately lower than male average.) If most of the world agrees that psychopathy should be treated, and the psychopaths say that it shouldn't, then it still doesn't mean that it ultimately has to be treated. I know this sounds like a ridiculous point, but no values can ever be said to be "better" than other values, because "good" is simply so ill-defined in that context. I'm not saying that the OP of the comment is a psychopath, far from it. What I am saying is that our nature instructs us to be empathic and care for our friends and family, and it's not clear to me what I would have to believe and feel to conclude that I care about computers more than I do about my friends.