Have most world leaders throughout history been sociopaths?

Post Reply New Topic

I've been watching crime dramas lately about sociopaths on Investigation Discovery. From what I've gathered a sociopath is a person who has zero guilt or empathy, and they live at the expense of others through abuse and manipulation. Sociopaths are always finding ways to control and manipulate others and they have wonderful charisma that helps to make great first impressions. Also while not all sociopaths are serial killers like potrayed on TV, a sociopath could break the law and hurt somebody without feeling any shame or guilt at all. Now when I started thinking, I realized that sounds just like a lot of political leaders in every country in the world since the beginning of time itself.

So, is it possible that the greater majority of world leaders have been sociopaths? And that sociopaths just have a way of always getting into power? A poor man with little or no rights who's a sociopath probably wouldn't last long in the world and would eventually end up locked away in jail forever, but one who comes from a wealthy and privilaged family, particularly a political one, could get away with their total disregard for society's rules. Especially when they become the one who makes the rules. Plus that would explain how politicians are able to make false promises and gain a lot of love and support when they first gain power, and then use propoganda when they try to manipulate their country into supporting their actions even when it's something very horrible like genocide.

I dunno, maybe I'm making too much out of nothing. But that's something I came up with and I thought it would be interesting to talk about.

"One death is a tragedy a million is a statistic." - A quote sometimes attributed to Stalin, but of uncertain origin

Sociopaths are regarded as such because they can do such heinous things to people they know on a personal, concrete, face-to-face, long-term basis without pains of guilt. Most tyrannical or otherwise inconsiderate leaders wouldn't be regarded as sociopathic because they'd be dealing with distant people - not personal friends, but abstractions (Stalin, Hitler, and a few others may be regarded as sociopaths as they could and did murder people they personally know - in a concrete fashion - though).

Considering the actions of the leaders of most countries including those of the west I'd say that was a most generous view.

i have always thought most "leaders" dictators and politicians come of as simply narcissistic.
my impression.

s

Are you seriously suggesting that most Western leaders have concrete, face-to-face, personal relations with the people whose lives they influence? I think you're wrong as hell in that regard.

Of course. I merely find that your dismissal of the deaths of thousands of people for political purposes a rather peculiar exclusion from sociopathy. But of course, it might be a disagreement over definition.

And what of the socities they represent?

Why? Indifference to the deaths of thousands of people "impersonally known of" (not known on a personal basis) is a key facet of "normal" (statistically average) human psychology (due to the fact we evolved to live in groups of only a few dozen or less people). Were lack of global concern for humanity a precondition for sociopathy, almost everyone would be diagnosed as a sociopath.

Perhaps I have a more vivid imagination than most and perhaps almost everyone would be diagnosed as a sociopath. I witnessed through the media the death of the thousands in the World Trade Center and discovered I was not at all unaffected emotionally. Most certainly and vigorously I found myself immensely horrified. But then, of course, your reaction might have been quite different.

After 9/11 I was rip-sh*t.

However I am emotionally unmoved by, say, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My attitude was that the Japanese government started the war and we finished it most definitively. Those who sow the wind, will in due course reap the whirlwind. I thought the Dresden Raid was a thing of beauty. It was meticulously planned and executed and it achieved, the ruin of the city of Dresden and a message sent to the Russians -- we can do this to YOU also.

ruveyn

I can appreciate your idea about sociopaths becoming leaders. I always think of our leaders as the most power hungry amongst us. They absolutely must get into positions of power. Whether they are all sociopaths is unclear. I would reckon they would need to step on a lot of people they know to get where they are but that may be because they are just power hungry. I always thought of sociopaths as people who cannot help but manipulate others and cause problems for others. So in that sense it looks like it would be a very good qualification for any of our world leaders (especially the bit about causing problems for others).

The average Japanese citizen did not make the decision to go to war, and citizens' deaths are one of the more tragic aspects of war, why it is something to be avoided (as if soldiers' deaths aren't bad enough, especially if drafted).

This sentiment is revolting. War is not beautiful.

Frankly I regard ruveyn as severely demented in regard to the value of human life. I was a soldier in the US Army in WWII and recognize the dehumanizing propaganda ryveyn's mind has been corrupted by. The Japanese were buck toothed monkeys, Nips and Japs and were all totally corrupt and vicious. All Germans were genetic Jew hating Nazis and the Russians were (horrors!! !) anti capitalist murderers every one. I have since had very good friends from Japan, Germany and Russia and it greatly disturbs me I might have had to kill them if the circumstances had arisen. Ruveyn is beyond help in this matter.

Someone brought up narcissism, which I think is also plausible. Many world leaders also fit that category as they can be self-obsessed with their own image and not care about morals or ethics just as long as everyone supports them.

The sociopathic tendacies however, I think comes from their ability to easily manipulate their country to achieve power.

I grew up during WW2 and I did not swallow the racist demonization of Japan and the Japanese. The Japanese were human and their leaders were nasty and evil. They did terrible things in China and did them where ever they conquered. It was culture, not race that was at work. To defeat evil doers it is necessary to take a stand off attitude about collateral damage. Which is more important: defeating the evil doer or sparing the supposedly innocent population which is busy making planes, ships and guns for the evil doers? Clearly one must go for the jugular and not be over concerned about collateral damage.

That is not demented, that is understanding the needs of total war. This doctrine was originated and taught back in the Civil War by William T. Sherman. He realized that the most effective way of crushing the Confederate Treason was to wreck the Confederate civilian economy. The effectiveness of his march through Georgia prove how right he doctrine was.

I pay attention to facts and history. If you want to beat the Bad Guys kill them, wreck their property, starve them and god damn the collateral damage.

ruveyn

Would the soldiers who carry out the murdering also be classified as sociopaths?