I suspect that Bill Clinton is at least somewhat psychopathic--perhaps more than just somewhat. Recall his straight-faced, finger-wagging claims that, "I never had sex with that women, Ms. Lewinsky, not a single time," and his recent ruthless attacks on Mr. Obama, including all kinds of nasty racial innuendo, although both Clintons always claim to be "on the side of black people." A psychopath does not have to sound violent and demented like Phillip. He or she might also be charming, attractive, and even charismatic. My suspicion of psychopathy in Clinton finds some evidence in his obvious intense drive to get what he wants, and his apparent lack of remorse, guilt, or shame for the rather nasty methods, such as racial innuendo, to which he will stoop to get it. Obviously, because they feel no guilt, many psychopaths are top-notch liars who can convince almost anyone of almost anything. Again, Clinton.
As for Clintons, I would never as a psychologist write on a website your views on strangers you have never met, "suspecting "them as sociopaths, and then act like this is not a form of judgment? i mean read over what you wrote! who is being inconsistent with their logic now?
I think you might be kidding yourself now with this holier than thou non -judgemental persona, because it certainly comes out when you get angry about a post you don't like.
Also you judged me by an email to be an angry fear based person,without realizing I am Greek and I am of a passionate personality, we tend to debate more in order to get to the bottom of things, a totally valid method.
I read it over and I could see how it could be construed as angry what i wrote, maybe i was somewhat frustrated by the confusion, because I deeply wanted to understand what you were getting at, but not angry.
It is also possible you will change my mind, as I do posess a very open mind, despite that you decided / judged/ I have poor logic. ( oh and fear and anger)and if those aren't moral judgements then maybe i am just too stupid to get this ...
furthermore these ideas are not new to me at all, i already believe 100 percent in the study which i read over a year ago that you cited- BUT i never read much about it, I had completely forgotten it until you brought it up, so I was glad for you bring it to my attention, as for the judging issues, well yes I have trouble with that.
BUT the part that was unclear, which i think you are clearing up is that we should just not judge as we implement the law? Just do it kind of like you train a dog. I know what you mean but to me this just sounds great in theory : this is why:
Take a judge in a courtroom- the judge has no personal motivation, YET he or she takes in not simply the criminal's behaviour, but also the motivation, and they call in character witnesses etc..
this implies to me that at present we do use judges to judge the behaviour as moral or immoral right?
judges have to judge the action as immoral ( stabbing you wife to steal her wallet) or moral ( you stabbed her in self defense)
motivations are a big part of it. and i don't know how we can avoid looking at and judging that !
So maybe I am still not "smart enough" to grasp your " logic" but next time do, you might want to use less adjectives while clearly judging me! I am no better than a dog after all! ps. i still respect your judgements on everything else you wrote.
i posted a message above somewhere in response...
also just to add to that: regarding someone going to jail, yes i do follow you that jail adds to the person's experience, but when you add something like that, a person can change due to that experience.
this makes sense, but we are still human beings and everyday we make choices and i do agree with trying not to be judgemental, but to think we can simply erase it does not seem possible or wise - I mean honestly if Dalai Lama or some other unjudgemental person had to judge a murder trial, I do not see how he he could not take into account whether the person intended to kill someone out of self -defense or out of malice. this is what i mean by moral judgement and I just cannot fathom how all the meditation in the world can change what is human nature.
Thanks for writing again with more information. I certainly was not accusing you of anything, and if you are not angry or upset, fine. So much the better.
I disagree with your idea that a psychologist should not discuss the psychology of public figures. This is done all the time. Once again, I did not ever say that Clinton is psychopathic. I said that I suspect him of it, and I gave reasons. Actually, many powerful people are psychopathic. Their psychopathy is responsible for their ability to get their way as easily as they do.
I think you should try to understand that laws may be based in part on morality, but that does not mean that an individual human being cannot be non-judgmental or even apply such laws without judging in terms of morality.
I don't know if the Lama is non-judgmental or not, but if he is, he could certainly apply laws without making moral judgments.
If my comments do not apply to you, or do not make sense, just forget them. I certainly can be mistaken. It happens often.
I get the feeling that either you do not understand anything about psychopathy or you intentionally wanted to misunderstand what the doc wrote about Clinton. Are you a major Bill Clinton fan? He could certainly be a total manipulator, and maybe you are one of his victims.
In reading this entire thread, I see that Brodyn has really misunderstood entirely the idea of "choice," and "decision." I think it would help if she read this ask doctor robert page called Is It OK To Wonder What People Look Like Naked?". Obviously, Doctor Robert is accustomed to looking deeply into human drives and compulsions, and having done so has come to understand that "choice"is largely fantasy. I know Brodyn hates this idea, and seems afraid of it, but that might change if she opens her mind a bit.