Hacker News Reader

Comment by gavanwoolery | Hacker News Reader

I hate to say it, but quite a few US presidents have a psychological profile that closely, if not entirely, fits that of a socio/psychopath -- in fact, these traits are invaluable when you are running for president (having this condition, as pop culture likes to hint, does not make you a murderer necessarily). A sociopath is risk-adverse, does not take responsibility or feel guilty, and often is outwardly charming. These days more than ever, a president is required to "look the other way" or remain "blissfully ignorant" when the biggest lobbyists secure major contracts, enact laws that benefit them, or sidestep laws that don't. As a side note, both of my parents are psychiatrists who have dealt with every variety (including the criminally insane) - this does not in the least make me an expert, but they did teach me a lot (for my own safety) about spotting these types of disorders.

View on HN

Those characteristics apply to narcissists. All sociopath are narcissists but not all narcissists are sociopaths. Sociopaths cannot feel empathy or guilt. Those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder feel guilt and are driven by a deep sense of insecurity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disord...

Yep - that is entirely true. But wouldn't you feel guilty if you humiliated a girl like JFK did at the pool with Powers? It seemed that JFK had no remorse about any of his actions -- but again, this is just working off the material I am reading here (which matches some other accounts of his behavior).

He did apologize to her. He didn't have to.

Actually, the article mentions that JFK apologized to both of them afterwards.

Apologizing is different from feeling guilt (or doing it in the first place) - that said this is still very much the realm of hypothesis for me so I would gladly be wrong. Sociopaths are able to blend in fairly well exactly because of things like this - they can even put on the mask of caring or feeling guilty without being either. I used to work with a sociopath (99 percent certain of this) - he would do completely reckless things with company money, then when I would call him out on it he would apologize. Later he would repeat the same offenses. Similarly, I don't think this was Kennedy's last questionable action.

then when I would call him out on it he would apologize. Later he would repeat the same offenses.

Yes, that fits the profile of a sociopath - he manipulated you in order to get you off his back. The question wrt JFK is whether apologizing to her and his staffer was done out of a sense of guilt or was it just manipulation for his own gain. Unfortunately the article does not give us enough details to decide one way or the other.

He apologized after Powers called him out; the circumstance demanded an apology.

It could have been an insincere apology, but there's no way to know from the article. Whether he was sorry or not, what he did to his interns would correctly be considered rape by today's standards.

Personally, I detest JFK and people like him, but I'm not sure if he was a sociopath. There's definitely enough evidence to make us wonder if he was, but probably not enough to get a definitive answer.

JFK sex affairs would be typical cases of sexual narcissism to overcompensate for low self-esteem and an inability to experience true intimacy.

Or they are simply a reflection of the male reproductive strategy.

The low self esteem typical of those born to millions, decorated for their military service, and from a young age continually elected to public office?

Low self esteem is build in youth. He came from very weird family. Jack was ignored and his father favored Joe who was groomed to become the president.

please keep your pseudoscience in your pants. your silly book has been disbarred, and now proper mocked http://boingboing.net/2013/10/20/dsmv-reviewed-as-a-work-of-...

What on earth are you on about?

DSM-5 has been disbarred? Not that a book can be disbarred.

Mocked? Oh, wow. An online website of cultural criticism published an opinion piece on a medical classification and diagnostic tool. I guess we better throw it in the trash.

sociopaths are a subset of narcissists. sociopaths are narcissists.

narcassists feel guilt. sociopaths cannot feel guilt.

something you wrote is wrong - you are contradicting yourself.

No, what oseibonsu was saying is that we're starting with humans in general (who are capable of feeling guilt), to narcissists (still capable), to sociopaths (incapable).

then why make sociopaths a subset of narcissists? it adds absolutely nothing to what he was saying. they could be completely separate sets and it wouldn't change the argument.

the wikipedia page on narcissists has no mention of sociopaths - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disord... - while the page on sociopaths only mentions narcissists as a possible subtype or coexistence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

in short, when someone on the internet says contradictory things it's much more likely they are half-remembering something they read in a magazine five years ago than that they are a subject expert.

I was only objecting to the way you presented your criticism: that one category couldn't be a subset of another because the subset seems to lack a feature that the superset has. Criticize for the right reasons, etc.

>I hate to say it, but quite a few US presidents have a psychological profile that closely, if not entirely, fits that of a socio/psychopath

The behaviour described in the article is fairly normal behaviour, so no idea where this fits in?

Are we somehow surprised Presidents are just normal people and as such must be psychopaths?

Loving his kids so much he names rubber ducks after them(While taking a bath with someone he cares about) Truly believing a better red than dead future for them at the height of the cold war?

Calling his mistress the see how she is and admitting he's almost crying when she left?

Their world is different but that doesn't mean they are.

Did you read the whole article? If not, go ahead and read the part about pressuring the intern into giving his assistant oral sex while he (Kennedy) watched. That is absolutely not "normal behavior".

This is standard stuff for people in power, don't you read the news?

This includes sports players and it's not psychopathy that would helps sport players, it's about driven people if anything.

Or are you confusing normal with 21st century, western moral?

I'm honestly a bit scared if you view this as normal. I would really consider seeing a professional, if I were you, just to get those assumptions of yours checked.

They might agree with you, in which case I'm wrong

There's a big difference between thinking something is normal and thinking it is right. Normal != right.

Think about the ego required to run for President, not to mention actually continue functioning as President. Actually believing that you are the best choice to be the most powerful person on the planet.

> Actually believing that you are the best choice to be the most powerful person on the planet.

Even excluding the immoral or amoral considerations that could supporting run for or functioning as President, that's not required: you only need to think that you are a better choice than anyone likely to get the position if you don't.

That's a fair semantic point, but in terms of ego required, I don't think it makes a difference.

I think it makes a pretty big difference; while it requires some ego, it doesn't require nearly as much as the "best choice" presentation makes it seem if you have a justifiably narrow view of the objective indicia of potential electability ; seeing yourself as the best qualified of maybe a few dozen people well-situated to compete for the Presidency given the realities of the way such campaigns run -- a condition which is mostly do to selection for traits which, while they may be related to running for President, are arguably only loosely correlated with effectively performing as President -- takes a lot less ego than seeing yourself as the best qualified person for the most powerful position on the planet from either the pool of legally qualified options or, even moreso, the pool of everyone on the planet ignoring legal qualifications.

I don't know if this qualifies as sociopathy at all. On the contrary, he seemed like someone desperate for an emotional connection.

You could be quite right - there is no true way to tell without looking over a long, accurate history of their behavior. However, this would be my "best guess" if I were placing a bet. Something in your head has to be a little bit differently wired to have an affair when you hold the most esteemed political position and the entire world is watching your every move (or trying to).

"Something in your head has to be a little bit differently wired to have an affair when you hold the most esteemed political position and the entire world is watching your every move (or trying to)."

Or maybe the reason some males seek an "esteemed political position" is so that they can have access to more sexual partners...

I hate to say it...

having this condition does not make you a murderer necessarily

If it doesn't mean a person is a murdering nutso, why do you hate to say it? Why does it matter? Not that it doesn't, but you go to all this trouble to convince us they were sociopaths and then you completely neglect to tell us why it matters. Don't leave us hanging!

A sociopath is risk-adverse

P.S. it's risk-averse

Thanks for the correction :) - just a figure of speech. A lot of people would take offense to being called a sociopath (even though its not always a harmful condition). I guess I would "hate to say it" because its potentially shameful that we elect people like this to lead our nation (or maybe we need people like this, I don't know)? Again, I cannot make any definitive judgments without a full, undeniably accurate account of their behavior. Even if not being murderers, it can be dangerous to have a sociopath in the President's seat because (among other things) a full-blown sociopath would not hesitate to enrich or empower themselves at the expense of others (i.e. the nation), by making poor decisions based off of lobbied cash.

it can be dangerous to have a sociopath in the President's seat

On the other hand, it seems to me like certain sociopathic behaviors would be ideal for someone in the position of the President. Boldness, ruthlessness, and a lack of empathy would all be helpful getting things done, even if they are unseemly or unpleasant.

Yes - all good qualities to have, it is a two-sided coin (sometimes). Sociopaths are also said to make good businessmen.

A sociopath is risk-adverse

The behavior described doesn't sound too risk-averse to me!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com