[ryanwaggoner]

Speaking of faith, I didn't see a single source or statistic to back up any of the claims you've made here.

I'd settle for a source for this, actually:

A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths

Particularly the "diagnosed" part.

[ryanmolden]

There is talk of this in Hare's book called Snakes in suits[1]. He alludes to actual research iirc, the basic gist says the percentage of diagnosable psycopathy in populations like prisons and upper echelons of corporations are significantly higher than in the general population and specifically higher than one would expect when controlling for other possible explanations.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060837721

[forensic]

Not a single source? Can you read? I cited an extensively researched book by an academic. I mentioned Dr. Martha Stout on multiple occasions. RTFA you tool.

[ryanwaggoner]

RTFA you tool.

Ah, name-calling. Excellent rhetorical technique.

You cited a source for a long anecdote (which is evidence of pretty much nothing), but no sources or even actual numbers for claims like:

research on sociopathy shows it is increasing in the West

Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth

More often than not, sociopaths use their lack of conscience as a business advantage and rise quickly in organizations through charm, blackmail, politics, and ruthlessness

A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths

I'm ignoring a lot of other claims that are just pure opinion and speculation, but these four should be able to be backed up by actual data. Unless they're pure bullshit. Which I'll assume they are unless you can cite some kind of source.

[forensic]

I read a book and a bunch of research on sociopaths and then to serve the HN community I spent my own free time to do a write up.

I cite an extensively researched high quality source, which actually addresses and supports every single statement I made.

And then you have the arrogance to tell me I didn't cite a single source?

Not only did I cite a source, I wrote a fucking essay based on real research, based on established high quality experts. Where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where is your support?

This is a discussion forum. Do you go around harassing everyone who says anything for sources? 99% of posts do not cite sources on Hacker News.

BUT I DID!

I'm just about done with this anti-intellectual community because of people like you. Inserting [citation needed] after every post you disagree does not contribute to the discussion. I'm a highly educated expert on this subject with exemplary sources that are entirely based on hard science and little know-nothing blogger peons like you follow me around saying [citation needed] EVEN WHEN I CITE GREAT SOURCES.

Time to check out of HN.

[ryanwaggoner]

I cite an extensively researched high quality source, which actually addresses and supports every single statement I made.

There's nothing abut your essay to indicate that the book you mentioned was a source for anything other than the anecdote about the sociopathic clinical psychologist, and the Inuit culture. Is that book the source of every claim you made? That's not even remotely clear to me from reading your post. Most of your claims are all extremely vague and you don't connect them to the book at all, so they sound like you just spouting your opinions.

Where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where is your support?

I don't need any evidence, research, or support, because I didn't make any claims. You made some extraordinary claims, so you need to provide the support.

I'm a highly educated expert on this subject

If you're a "highly educated expert on this subject", I'd expect a little more actual data. For example, you could say something like "37% of those who worked their way to wealth are sociopaths" instead of "Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth". If you're an expert you should probably at least roughly know that number, and without out, I don't know what "large proportion" means. Does that mean 40%? Or does it mean 1% and that's a large proportion because that's 20x the rate that sociopaths are found in society at large?

exemplary sources that are entirely based on hard science

Sorry, but none of this is based on "hard science", because psychology isn't a hard science. There's not even an accepted definition and difference for sociopath vs. psychopath and neither is a diagnosis in the DSM, which is part of why your post was confusing. Though some psychologists use the term differently, sociopaths are generally considered to be more fringe and abnormal, whereas psychopaths are more likely to appear charming and successful on the outside. Which seems like it would apply to most of your claims far more than the term sociopath. But perhaps Ms. Stout uses the term interchangeably.

...I'm just about done with this anti-intellectual community...

...little know-nothing blogger peons like you...

You might find a more receptive audience in this community for your extraordinary and unsupported claims if you took the time to give actual statistics, cited your sources, and refrained from name-calling. Just a thought.

[calibraxis]

That's a pity; it was an interesting writeup of a book I haven't read. And Hare's claim about the high number of corporate sociopaths has been mentioned here before.

(Of course, given the number of people here with 'capitalist' in their job title — venture capitalist — when you mention something unflattering about capitalism, you'll generally get demands to provide evidence beyond what's normal for this site. ;)

In a market economy, one's often punished for being concerned about the costs to others (so-called "externalities"), so even normal people are rewarded for acting sociopathically...