Okay, another option: - "He really is a sociopath"

The dividing line between sociopaths & psychopaths is minimal.

Okay, another option: - "He really is a sociopath"

The dividing line between sociopaths & psychopaths is minimal.

Thats because psychopathy and sociopathy are used interchangeably and from a clinical perspective mean the same thing. Therefor, if he is not a psychopath, he is also not a sociopath.

Okay, another option: - "He really is a sociopath"

The dividing line between sociopaths & psychopaths is minimal.

Thats because psychopathy and sociopathy are used interchangeably and from a clinical perspective mean the same thing. Therefor, if he is not a psychopath, he is also not a sociopath.

I beg to differ & so do many others more qualified than you or I.

Differences

"Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and "con artists" due to their calm and charismatic natures."

Right from the start of the current Greek Crisis, Schoebbels wanted Greece gone.

"Sometimes as the most successful people in society because they’re often ruthless, callous and superficially charming, while having little or no regard for the feelings or needs of others."

From the outset, Schoebbels has shown no regards or remorse for the Greek people. IS THAT what one wants in charge of a superstate's fiscal policies?

Whoa! Touchy, touchy!! Deep breaths Michiel, deep breaths!!! You're reading waaaaay too much into this :)

Your arguments are tripping up your logic.

You are forgetting about effect and cause :)

One can act like a jerk (if for no other reason than) BECAUSE he is a psychopath.
One will not wear a blue tie BECAUSE he is a psychopath.

Let me rewrite the True or False to help you out:
Can psychopaths sometimes act like idiots BECAUSE they are psychopaths?
-True
-False

Then you also tried to create a false dichotomy...

Not me, the IQ guys :)

It tries to force me into accepting your idea that Schäuble...

No you idiot, I'm not trying to corner you... I'm trying to teach a trick :) I'm trying to help you out a little bit. Anyone else here ever offer?

And when you've calmed down I'll explain WHY it's a good trick and why I think you'll find it useful.

Stop trying to guess my intentions and especially stop trying to tell me what "I really meant to say" because you are bad at both and it's annoying the hell out of me!:)

Okay, another option: - "He really is a sociopath"

The dividing line between sociopaths & psychopaths is minimal.

Thats because psychopathy and sociopathy are used interchangeably and from a clinical perspective mean the same thing. Therefor, if he is not a psychopath, he is also not a sociopath.

I beg to differ & so do many others more qualified than you or I.

Differences

"Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and "con artists" due to their calm and charismatic natures."

Literally the first thing in that article says "Many forensic psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists use the terms sociopathy and psychopathy interchangeably. Leading experts disagree on whether there are meaningful differences between the two conditions."

And in the second paragraph "The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, lists both sociopathy and psychopathy under the heading of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD)."

So basically the only person contending that they are not the same thing is the writer of that article. One author vs the majority of the psychiatric community. So the idea that 'many others' also beg to differ is patently untrue.


But for arguments sake, lets look at what he says about sociopaths and psychopaths.

Sociopaths:

Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long. It is difficult but not impossible for sociopaths to form attachments with others. Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society in general or its rules. In the eyes of others, sociopaths will appear to be very disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard, disorganized and spontaneous rather than planned.

Alright, based on what evidence? No mention of any evidence, any study or anything. Well, perhaps he writes it in his book, but as a source for your claim this article is pretty much worthless.

And in any case, does that appear to apply to Schäuble? Does he seem nervous or easily agitated, volatile and prone to emotional outbursts? And really, you think that someone who is unable to form bonds to other human beings will ever be a successful politician? Bonding with other human beings is a key component of their job.

Now on to psychopathy

Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.

When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and "con artists" due to their calm and charismatic natures.

Again, based on what evidence. The idea that psychopaths are well educated and hold steady jobs is highly contentious. Indeed, the examples of famous psychopaths he mentions did not exactly hold steady jobs or where particularly well educated. They were educated but little more. Even his claim that psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made is a bit shaky when you consider two out of three mentioned psychopaths had troubled abusive relatives that could have easily caused traumas.

And again, how does this apply to Schäuble? Can you prove that he doesn't care about people? Well that leads us to the next part of your post.

Right from the start of the current Greek Crisis, Schoebbels wanted Greece gone.

"Sometimes as the most successful people in society because they’re often ruthless, callous and superficially charming, while having little or no regard for the feelings or needs of others."

From the outset, Schoebbels has shown no regards or remorse for the Greek people. IS THAT what one wants in charge of a superstate's fiscal policies?

So he is a psychopath because he doesn't care about the Greek people? Well if we follow that definition, then so is 70% of the German population, who support his actions and who rate him the second best German politician at the moment. It would also make every politician that voted in favor of the current policy towards Greece a psychopath, along with a good chunk of European citizens. Furthermore, you could argue that Schäuble took into account the need for others, not the needs of the Greeks, but the needs of the Germans. In a situation where a politician prioritizes the needs of his or her own citizens over the needs of the citizens of other countries, it can't serve as proof of that politician supposed psychopathy. Finally, you could argue that Schäuble genuinely believes that his 'tough love' approach is for the best of all Europeans in the long run. And Schäuble is known to be a very pro European politician, so this view can't just be discounted either.

So, the argument that Schäuble doesn't care about people in general because he seemingly doesn't care about the Greek people is very weak at best. And to take the argument beyond that, that this serves as proof that he is a psychopath is absurd. Besides, you need a lot more proof besides 'lacking empathy' before you can call someone a psychopath.

Let me rewrite the True or False to help you out:
Can psychopaths sometimes act like idiots BECAUSE they are psychopaths?
-True
-False

Another fallacy. Now you are already presuming that the person acting like an idiot is a psychopath. Essentially your question boils down to 'can a psychopath act like a psychopath because he is a psychopath.' Obviously, the answer is true if the argument is phrased like that. Again, if phrased like that one could state 'Can a psychopath wear a blue tie to work BECAUSE he is a psychopath' and the answer would also be true.

And again, you are trying to set the discussion by pretending that the condition psychopath is a given, a fixed element. You still try to side step having to prove that Schäuble is a psychopath.

Besides, you need a lot more proof besides 'lacking empathy' before you can call someone a psychopath.

So the fact that he wanted to humiliate a whole country & it's people is not proof enough for you that he lacks empathy?

Hasn't better qualified people than you stated that the Greek debt repayments be extended?

What makes you & Schoebbels better qualified than them?

Alex, in this case I have to agree with Мишель.

You could benefit in your rhetoric with a bit more polish on your logic-fu.

Мишель correctly points out some rather large... holes in your logical reasoning.

Besides, you need a lot more proof besides 'lacking empathy' before you can call someone a psychopath.

So the fact that he wanted to humiliate a whole country & it's people is not proof enough for you that he lacks empathy?

You are making assumptions about his motive for which you have no proof. You don't know if he wanted to humiliate the Greeks, we only know that this the outcome. That outcome could be unintended. Again, we know that he actually wanted them to temporarily step out of the Euro, and his negotiation tactic was to essentially ask such ridiculous things of the Greeks that he thought they would never accept them. They did accept them and that was something he hadn't expected them to do.

Hasn't better qualified people than you stated that the Greek debt repayments be extended?

What makes you & Schoebbels better qualified than them?

That just proves that a lot of experts think his ideas were wrong and mistaken. So if Schäuble was wrong, does that mean he was wrong on purpose or that he did this just to hurt Greece? Or was he wrong out of ignorance or because he is a human beings and human beings make mistakes?

Again, I will refer to Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

How did you two manage to get trolled by a simple question of logical reasoning?

Which of these statements do you consider to be true?
Alex is acting like an idiot. Therefor he is an idiot.
Alex is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be a psychopath.

OR

Which of these statements do you consider to be true?
Alex is acting like an idiot. Therefor he is an idiot.
Alex is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could have quit smoking.

BUT NOT

Which of these statements do you consider to be true?
Alex is acting like an idiot. Therefor he is an idiot.
Alex is acting like an idiot. Therefor he could be wearing a blue tie.

So if Schäuble was wrong, does that mean he was wrong on purpose or that he did this just to hurt Greece? Or was he wrong out of ignorance or because he is a human beings and human beings make mistakes?

Again, I will refer to Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Okay, thanks for pointing that out, so you won't mind me calling Schoebbels a stupid drunk.

LOL, you're going to have a difficult time in proving that statement false!

...so you won't mind me calling Schoebbels a stupid drunk.

No that's Juncker! Our glorious unelected president ;)

...so you won't mind me calling Schoebbels a stupid drunk.

No that's Juncker! Our glorious unelected president ;)

Nein, müssen alle, die einen so großen Fehler, als dass dort, wo ein ganzes Land betroffen macht, dumm und betrunken zur gleichen Zeit sein.

I'm really beginning to like that number :-)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out, so you won't mind me calling Schoebbels a stupid drunk.

LOL, you're going to have a difficult time in proving that statement false!

Lol, you first have to prove that the statement was correct to begin with.

Have you understood the logical reasoning example?

If you have, I would like to (finally) go on to explain why I think it is important.

Have you understood the logical reasoning example?

If you have, I would like to (finally) go on to explain why I think it is important.

Again, I understand what you are trying to do, but its not logical. Its a nice rhetoric trick, a debating tactic but little else. But I don't think we will see eye to eye on this, so just go ahead an explain why you think its important.

Again, I understand what you are trying to do, but its not logical. Its a nice rhetoric trick, a debating tactic but little else.

Neither a rhetoric trick, nor a debating tactic (technically you could call it a tactic but strictly speaking, I wouldn't call logical reasoning a "tactic").

And you're gonna hate me for saying this (but I promise to bring it back round in a later post, just trust me instead of trying to bite my head off)...

It is quite logical.

The problem (I'm guessing) is that you are still looking at it like a argumentative fallacy, instead of looking at it like reasoning. And that's the whole point of this stupid little exercise which we have managed to blow way out of proportion.

If it was a straightforward reasoning sentence it would look like this:

Wiki's example
"When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it might have rained."

My example
"Alex is acting like an idiot. All psychopaths will act like an idiot because of their psychopathy. Therefor, Alex might be a psychopath."

(And if I wanted to corner you in the corner you THINK I'm trying to corner you, that's the example I would have used)

But you cannot say:
-ALL politicians will act like idiots because they are politicians.
-ALL idiots are ignorant about economics because they are idiots.

or worse:
-ALL psychopaths wear blue ties because they are psychopaths.

Please let me know if we see eye to eye so far.

Okay, thanks for pointing that out, so you won't mind me calling Schoebbels a stupid drunk.

LOL, you're going to have a difficult time in proving that statement false!

Lol, you first have to prove that the statement was correct to begin with.

That just proves that a lot of experts think his ideas were wrong and mistaken = stupid

Drunk = Intoxicated with the power he wields. One can be drunk without the use of alcohol.

@Alex, haven't you realised it yet?

Whenever valid points/issues are raised that stumps the opposition, they home in on a particular word/fact/statement & attempt to divert the discussion.

Now most of us do know that sociopath/psychopath might not be the best words to describe someone in authority such as Herr Scoebbels, but whenever "normal" people see issues such as the Greece & Cyprus debacles, one cannot help but think along the lines some have.

The problem with the political arena as well as academia is that they think they belong to an elite club & are more than happy to chinwag over a game of bridge with no empathy for the serfs.

After all, the serfs are there to serve them, right?

If it was a straightforward reasoning sentence it would look like this:

Wiki's example
"When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it might have rained."

Even from a point of logical reasoning its not very solid. The sentence is correct because its designed to be unfalsifiable. Even when the grass has gotten wet because someone turned on the sprinklers, that sentence still holds true. Because of that, the sentence holds no logical value, it does not convey any kind of meaningful information. Its as useless as 'The sun always rises in the East, unless it rises somewhere else.' That sentence is technically always correct, but because it is always correct it conveys no meaningful information about where the sun rises.

-ALL psychopaths wear blue ties because they are psychopaths.

I never said ALL psychopaths wear blue ties because they are psychopaths.

Drunk = Intoxicated with the power he wields. One can be drunk without the use of alcohol.

Hmm, I see your point. Though I don't see how his behavior suggests hes drunk on his own power. Usually that comes with self aggrandizement, raising statues in your own honor, building giant palaces to live in and telling everyone to go f themselves while they are it, etc.