UK General Election 2017

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Boris was probably a bad example as he is similar to what I described. Liam Fox on the otherhand seems to not fit that mold.

Johnson received scholarships to Eton and Balliol - he read Classics not PPE and whilst his family were well to do he had a significant career as a Journalist before actually entering politics. Indeed, I first encountered him as editor of the Spectator when I was in college. Whilst he might not have been as well known had he not entered Parliament he would still be a significant public figure as a Journalist, Satirist and Classicist.

So, no, he's not really similar to what you described - he fits the bill of "experience outside politics".

In terms of value base, the person with a degree in Nursing probably more likely to have empathy and cares about other people than those with more sociopathic tendencies which PPE course attracts.

I'm sorry, what?

First off, empathy is not desirable as a dominant trait in a Politician, especially a government minister or Prime Minister. Politicians have to make hard choices, such as the choice to go to war, or the choice to allocate funds so that the least number of people lose their jobs - when that least is still measured in thousands.

Second off, only 1% of people are actually psychopaths and I don't believe that people who study PPE are significantly skewed towards psychopathy. Even if they were Psychopaths do not make successful politicians precisely because they have no empathy.

I think you're just prejudiced against the upper echelons of the political establishment. This is exactly like you saying my family enjoy seeing foxes suffer because we support hunting, because obviously we must enjoy seeing foxes suffer, there could be no other reason to support hunting.

Which does make them more appealing in my opinion, since it is the civil servants who actually doing the running of government.

Politicians make the hard decisions, as I said. You've played Total War - you presumably asked yourself questions like "should I attack this faction? Should I loot this city?". Those are extreme examples in a modern, Western, World with no real wars but questions such as this confronted British Politicians on a regular basis until about three-quarters of a century ago.

[Pannonian]

Has anyone else noted the circle of connections these people have, without any qualifications other than personal connections? The shadow chancellor (Labour's no.2) employs Corbyn's son as his chief of staff. Corbyn's biggest union ally promises to use his union's funds to pay for Corbyn's personal support group, Momentum. Corbyn employs said union ally's chief of staff as the head of his general election campaign. How much public money are they hiving off? Are Corbyn's supporters ok with all this?

[Beskar]

Second off, only 1% of people are actually psychopaths and I don't believe that people who study PPE are significantly skewed towards psychopathy. Even if they were Psychopaths do not make successful politicians precisely because they have no empathy.

I didn't call people psychopaths (and diagnosis of psychopathy no longer exists). There was a difference between sociopath and psychopathy.

If you read what I said currently, I said "sociopathic traits" which means similar aspects.
For clarification, some of these traits are: Egocentricity, Lying for Personal Gain, Manipulative Behaviour, Lacking in Remorse. - ie: Your typical politician!

Before you don your red-coat and call the hounds, these are the same characteristics reproduced in TV drama and comedy, from Yes Minister, The New Statesman (Alan B'Stard), House of Cards, Black Adder, and so on. So it is not particularly unique, incredulous or 'mean spirited'.

As you liked to point out "it is less than 1% of population" , I am sure you are aware that for CEO's, the figure is approximately 20% for psychopathy ? It is because people with these traits thrive in hostile high-pressure environments, typically able to successfully stab you in the back (metaphorically) with a smile on your face.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Has anyone else noted the circle of connections these people have, without any qualifications other than personal connections? The shadow chancellor (Labour's no.2) employs Corbyn's son as his chief of staff. Corbyn's biggest union ally promises to use his union's funds to pay for Corbyn's personal support group, Momentum. Corbyn employs said union ally's chief of staff as the head of his general election campaign. How much public money are they hiving off? Are Corbyn's supporters ok with all this?

Yes - but I think it's just Nepotism, not graft.

I didn't call people psychopaths (and diagnosis of psychopathy no longer exists). There was a difference between sociopath and psychopathy.

The diagnosis of Sociopath never existed, if you want to split hairs. Generally speaking, however, Sociopaths are usually conceived of as Psychopaths with a conscience.

If you read what I said currently, I said "sociopathic traits" which means similar aspects.
For clarification, some of these traits are: Egocentricity, Lying for Personal Gain, Manipulative Behaviour, Lacking in Remorse. - ie: Your typical politician!

Really - your typical politician?

No, I don't think so - most "big-name" Politicians have shown remorse. Cameron showed remorse when he lost the referendum. IDS has repeatedly showed remorse for the harm his cuts to benefits have caused, despite maintaining they were necessary. Blair is the only modern politician I can think of completely immune to remorse, or who has at least never shown it.

As far "Lying for Personal Gain", most politicians lie to avoid a media circus (see Tim Farron admitting to being a Christian and being hounded for two years about his views on Homosexuality) or to advance their political agenda. They do not consider this "personal gain". So that just leaves manipulation, which is again usually the result of the media circus, post politicians do actually keep their word - as they trade on it. You just have to listen to what they actually say. Egocentricity - maybe.

Having said that, you need egocentricity to believe YOU can run the country - it's one of the character flaws Corbyn definitely possesses.

Before you don your red-coat and call the hounds, these are the same characteristics reproduced in TV drama and comedy, from Yes Minister, The New Statesman (Alan B'Stard), House of Cards, Black Adder, and so on. So it is not particularly unique, incredulous or 'mean spirited'.

Are you actually, really, suggesting that I would hunt you down with dogs and have them tear you apart for holding what I consider an objectionable opinion?

As you liked to point out "it is less than 1% of population" , I am sure you are aware that for CEO's, the figure is approximately 20% for psychopathy ? It is because people with these traits thrive in hostile high-pressure environments, typically able to successfully stab you in the back (metaphorically) with a smile on your face.

You realise most of those CEO's fail at being CEO's, and unlike politicians all they have to do is backstab to clime the greasy pole, they don't have to build consensus among peers orwin elections. CEO's and Politicians are not the same kinds of people.

[Pannonian]

Yes - but I think it's just Nepotism, not graft.



The diagnosis of Sociopath never existed, if you want to split hairs. Generally speaking, however, Sociopaths are usually conceived of as Psychopaths with a conscience.



Really - your typical politician?

No, I don't think so - most "big-name" Politicians have shown remorse. Cameron showed remorse when he lost the referendum. IDS has repeatedly showed remorse for the harm his cuts to benefits have caused, despite maintaining they were necessary. Blair is the only modern politician I can think of completely immune to remorse, or who has at least never shown it.

There's nothing for him to show remorse about. He genuinely believes in the neocon argument of spreading liberal democracy. In the same vein as your arguments for intervention in Syria (and Libya). If you think that intervening to topple dictatorships in Libya and Syria is the right thing to do, then the same applies to Iraq. Only if you think intervention is bad in and of itself, as I've always done, can you argue that you think Blair is in the wrong over Iraq. If you think that interventionism is a good thing, then Blair did as good a job as you could expect.

In any case, Blair has expressed some regrets over his time in power. You probably wouldn't agree with him on those, but he has expressed regrets.

[Idaho]

IDS remorse? Is this the same IDS who suppressed the report that documented the deaths directly related to his policies?

[Beskar]

The diagnosis of Sociopath never existed, if you want to split hairs. Generally speaking, however, Sociopaths are usually conceived of as Psychopaths with a conscience.

It is actually that psychopaths are unable to, via genes or birth defect (underdeveloped brain regions). With Sociopaths, it is a consequence of trauma/abuse causing stunted development. For example, the TV series Dexter, he is a sociopath and it started from a very traumatic memory of being trapped in a container with his dead mother, covered in her blood. tl;dr - Nature versus Nuture.

Never the less, it comes under the bracket of antisocial personality disorder.

Are you actually, really, suggesting that I would hunt you down with dogs and have them tear you apart for holding what I consider an objectionable opinion?0

I do have a sense of humour. It was in response to your mentioning of fox hunting.
(Which they do for fun, hence enjoy their suffering. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it. Like how I don't enjoy coffee, so I don't drink it, or repeatedly punch myself in the face.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

IDS remorse? Is this the same IDS who suppressed the report that documented the deaths directly related to his policies?

Yes, that one, after he left office.

Minister vs private person.

It is actually that psychopaths are unable to, via genes or birth defect (underdeveloped brain regions). With Sociopaths, it is a consequence of trauma/abuse causing stunted development. For example, the TV series Dexter, he is a sociopath and it started from a very traumatic memory of being trapped in a container with his dead mother, covered in her blood. tl;dr - Nature versus Nuture.

Never the less, it comes under the bracket of antisocial personality disorder.

Is this the "warrior gene" thing again?

There was a researcher who looked into this, in the course of his research he discovered he had the gene, but he also had a very happy childhood and loving family. So he doesn't register as a Psychopath, although he's not as empathetic

Lawrence Fishburne's character in CSI is partially based on him.

I do have a sense of humour. It was in response to your mentioning of fox hunting.

Ah, well, you see - I have no empathy.

(Which they do for fun, hence enjoy their suffering. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it. Like how I don't enjoy coffee, so I don't drink it, or repeatedly punch myself in the face.)

*Shrug*

I see you also lack empathy.

Most people who go hunting are simply not concerned with the suffering of the fox, it is not considered germane to the exercise. Enjoying hunting does not mean you enjoy the killing.

If we were discussing pigsticking then I might agree with you that the thrill is in the kill, but with field sports the thrill is in the chase.

How many huntsmen do you know, Beskar?

I've probably known at least a dozen and they all said more or less the same thing, viz. they enjoyed the chase and if the fox got away jolly good for him.

[Beskar]

I see you also lack empathy.

Unfortunately it is the opposite in this case. It is why I care for the fox so much. But the fact the 'chase' is actively causing suffering, and the fox isn't a scoundrel for escaping.. it is a creature scared out of its wits fleeing for its very life.

If the hunters as you said don't care if it lives or dies, than you just thwarted your own argument of being a rural necessarily to keep numbers in check.

I don't particular want to know any huntsmen and they won't want to know me either as I would frankly tell them what I think about their 'thrill of the chase'. (I.e.: empathetic understanding they won't like it.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unfortunately it is the opposite in this case. It is why I care for the fox so much. But the fact the 'chase' is actively causing suffering, and the fox isn't a scoundrel for escaping.. it is a creature scared out of its wits fleeing for its very life.

You're projecting, not empathising. I get soppy over sheep, but I still eat lamb. I've also seen them killed, quickly and humanely, outside of an abattoir (which is neither) and it was still a tremendously sad thing to watch.

Aside from that, the point is that chasing the fox is not about causing him suffering. You might suggest huntsmen are callous for this, but it does not make them cruel. You need to try to empathise with the hunt supporters, because they are human beings.

If the hunters as you said don't care if it lives or dies, than you just thwarted your own argument of being a rural necessarily to keep numbers in check.

I did not say they don't care - I said that if the fox escapes it does not reduce the enjoyment of the chase.

I don't particular want to know any huntsmen and they won't want to know me either as I would frankly tell them what I think about their 'thrill of the chase'. (I.e.: empathetic understanding they won't like it.)

At least you admit your ignorance of the culture. Given that you are ignorant, however, you cannot reasonably claim to know how huntsmen feel about hunting, can you? So you are not qualified to say that they hate foxes, or enjoy their suffering.