the optimal political/social structure is one in which we encourage megalomaniacal sociopaths to do good, because they tend to be effective. This is the best part of capitalism.
I’m not so sure about that. The outcomes implied by an ASPD diagnosis (not quite identical to “sociopath”, but close enough for use here, I think) are better than some disorders, but still pretty rough—including in measures of occupational success.
We might object that these are self-selected as people whose lives have been damaged enough by their problem that they seek treatment, but personality disorder criteria are so vague that I can’t think offhand of a better way of grounding the word.
In general, any mental health diagnosis is usually conditioned on a significant disruption of the sufferer’s life—if you’re a sociopath, but it doesn’t effect you in any way, you’re typically not diagnosed. This is usually on the DSM checklist for a diagnosis and while I don’t know offhand if ASPD is the same, I’d bet that it is.
The comment you’re replying to is definitely questionable, though. It seems like a very prematurely-halted optimization process if the “optimal” structure is optimized towards encouraging less than one percent of humans to do good things.
In general, any mental health diagnosis is usually conditioned on a significant disruption of the sufferer’s life [...] This is usually on the DSM checklist for a diagnosis and while I don’t know offhand if ASPD is the same, I’d bet that it is.
It is, yes, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude “effective”—the diagnosis can be based on disruption of any part of the patient’s life. It’s entirely possible for the behavior associated with a disorder to improve outcomes in one domain (employment, say), while disrupting others (i.e. family life) enough for the label to stick. That’s what I was trying to get at with my qualification about occupational success.
obviously we want to encourage lots of humans to do good things but I think it’s extra important to encourage the 1 percent of humans that would otherwise do evil things to do good things.
Anyway part of my point is that this is already basically being accomplished through capitalism so we don’t need to focus on it. It’s a low hanging fruit that’s already being plucked by our system that gives money to people who are of benefit to lots f of people
To a large extent you’re right, but I think it’s not inaccurate to say that EG ceos of corporations are more likely to be examples of effective sociopaths. I can’t remember where I read that statistic but the rate of psychopathy among wealthy CEOS is higher than the average.
I’ve heard the same statistic, but there are a lot more ASPD diagnoses than there are CEOs. The former can be overrepresented among the latter (perhaps because it confers an advantage in business if you also have a bunch of other rare prerequisites) without the disorder being good news for its sufferers’ effectiveness on average.
the optimal political/social structure is one in which we encourage megalomaniacal sociopaths to do good, because they tend to be effective. This is the best part of capitalism.
I’m not so sure about that. The outcomes implied by an ASPD diagnosis (not quite identical to “sociopath”, but close enough for use here, I think) are better than some disorders, but still pretty rough—including in measures of occupational success.
We might object that these are self-selected as people whose lives have been damaged enough by their problem that they seek treatment, but personality disorder criteria are so vague that I can’t think offhand of a better way of grounding the word.
There’s a definite selection effect for ASPD.
In general, any mental health diagnosis is usually conditioned on a significant disruption of the sufferer’s life—if you’re a sociopath, but it doesn’t effect you in any way, you’re typically not diagnosed. This is usually on the DSM checklist for a diagnosis and while I don’t know offhand if ASPD is the same, I’d bet that it is.
The comment you’re replying to is definitely questionable, though. It seems like a very prematurely-halted optimization process if the “optimal” structure is optimized towards encouraging less than one percent of humans to do good things.
It is, yes, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude “effective”—the diagnosis can be based on disruption of any part of the patient’s life. It’s entirely possible for the behavior associated with a disorder to improve outcomes in one domain (employment, say), while disrupting others (i.e. family life) enough for the label to stick. That’s what I was trying to get at with my qualification about occupational success.
obviously we want to encourage lots of humans to do good things but I think it’s extra important to encourage the 1 percent of humans that would otherwise do evil things to do good things.
Less than one percent.
Do you think it’s optimally important? As in, the optimal social structures are weighted specifically towards this subgroup?
There’s far lower hanging fruit than that. Most people don’t even know about the Milgram experiments.
Don’t make the optimal the enemy of the good.
Anyway part of my point is that this is already basically being accomplished through capitalism so we don’t need to focus on it. It’s a low hanging fruit that’s already being plucked by our system that gives money to people who are of benefit to lots f of people
To a large extent you’re right, but I think it’s not inaccurate to say that EG ceos of corporations are more likely to be examples of effective sociopaths. I can’t remember where I read that statistic but the rate of psychopathy among wealthy CEOS is higher than the average.
I’ve heard the same statistic, but there are a lot more ASPD diagnoses than there are CEOs. The former can be overrepresented among the latter (perhaps because it confers an advantage in business if you also have a bunch of other rare prerequisites) without the disorder being good news for its sufferers’ effectiveness on average.