THE BOX

[d0zer]

Anyway, I don't mean to rag on you man. I'm just kind of shocked you'd say something like that. I've heard of contempt for the rich before but to refer to them as being mostly sociopaths is... well, damn. I have always thought that most very rich people got to where they are in no small part due to their likeability and outgoing personalities. So strange that you'd sort of claim the opposite as the truth, sort of en passant as if there were nothing to be argued about there.

While I don't believe that a majority of the wealthy are sociopaths, being likeable and outgoing and having a complete lack of empathy aren't mutually exclusive. Some people without empathy learn to fake it well enough to achieve their ends. I imagine that having no empathy and being likeable would be very beneficial in making money.

[Penneywize]

I don't disagree dozer, but I think if you consider the population of people with winning-type personalities, you'd find only a very small joint distribution of people who also lack empathy. It'd certainly be the exception and not the rule. As for whether lacking empathy and being kind and outgoing would be good traits for making money, this is a judgment call and our arguing about it wouldn't yield anything constructive; but it still seems unlikely that if we were to accept it as true, we could then conclude that the wealthy tend to be sociopaths.

@eug, I think it's pretty easy to hate these finance types, especially after what we've collectively been through the past 5 years or so. I also think however that we've been sort of indoctrinated culturally against these types of people; I don't need to point out the examples of fictionalized billionaire badguys to you.

But more importantly, I think people want to believe that wealthy people are in some way inherently bad. We are unable to relate to the very wealthy. They must be different from us. We hear news stories about Enron and Goldman Sachs and subconsciously generalize from there. It's a bit of a romantic thing to think that the only way to become wealthy is through greed and sociopathic tendencies. In some way, it justifies our own lack of wealth. Hey, we didn't get to be rich, but at least we weren't dicks to everyone.

It's just human nature man. But I consider myself an empiricist, I'm not going to blindly accept stereotypes, especially when shown evidence to the contrary.

[Penneywize]

Bill Gates is a good guy, on the other hand, from what I can see.

See this is sort of an example of what I'm talking about. You cite Bill Gates as being a good guy, though qualify it by saying "from what I can see", implying it may not be true.

Of course, there isn't anything wrong with saying that. But I highly doubt that if you had a comparable amount of (positive) information about another individual, say some scientist or musician or what have you, that in talking about their personality you would go out of your way to say "from what I can see". Essentially implying that they might be a sociopath, you just haven't seen anything to prove that yet.

[eugmac]

See this is sort of an example of what I'm talking about. You cite Bill Gates as being a good guy, though qualify it by saying "from what I can see", implying it may not be true.

Of course, there isn't anything wrong with saying that. But I highly doubt that if you had a comparable amount of (positive) information about another individual, say some scientist or musician or what have you, that in talking about their personality you would go out of your way to say "from what I can see". Essentially implying that they might be a sociopath, you just haven't seen anything to pro yet.

... ? What a bizarre picking of nits...

I do think Bill Gates not only through his foundation but through the technological achievements of Microsoft, that his contributions to society are positive-sum for sure. I would find it very hard to argue that somebody is a sociopath and is donating piles of money into initiatives to fight world hunger and so on, not out of genuine altruism, but as a front to hide his evil monster, or something seemingly absurd like that.

I add words like "as far as I can see" or "to the best of my knowledge" whenever I can't with a good conscience be an authority on any subject, be it judgment of human character, the best betting line in poker, how best to prepare a lasagne... I guess I shy away from making strong assertions - I question just about every damn thing I ever do or say. It can be a nuisance, but people close to me tell me that - perhaps as a result of this trait - I'm penetratingly thorough with anything I do.

[Pascal]

I'm penetratingly thorough with anything I do.

Spoiler: Show

Sorry!

[MadMojoMonkey]

... ? What a bizarre picking of nits...

+1 (for phrase, not context... I find this discussion quite interesting)

It is not enough to make "safe" investments to become rich. To become rich, one must be an undaunted risk taker. To become rich, one must do many things well, and find the one thing he/she can do stupendously well, and take the risk to do it. One must disregard all the nay-sayers and invest in others who serve to build his/her vision.

These qualities can easily be confused for sociopathic tendencies, and it's easy to point a finger someone who you acknowledge as "different" than yourself (they're rich, you're not; etc.).

The diagnosis of a sociopath is a daunting task, even for psychiatrists who specialize in sociopathy. Every one of us exhibits some sociopathic traits, from time to time. No one exhibits all sociopathic traits all the time.