I think this form ends up a lot better. The explanation of what you, specifically, in this instance mean by “cynic” is still necessary and good, but since “cynic” doesn’t have the same valence as “sociopath”, it seems much less bait-and-switch.
The term sociopath is known, but sociopaths are people who have a lack of realistic long-term goals
and poor behavioral controls
. In many enviroments that’s not a good combination to achieve a position of power.
Using the term and meaning something different than the clinical definition can obfuscate the underlying issues.
Nobody in Yes, Minister is a sociopath.
Watering down the meaning of the term is bad. If you know whether or not a prisoner is a sociopath you know that certain interventions that decrease recidivism in non-sociopaths don’t work and rather increase recidivism.
I edited the post (before this comment) so I’m not sure what you are talking about now… I picked up the term Sociopath from this post and also this post.
The second of which was highly upvoted, so I assumed it was a known thing within this community. Cynic serves my purpose just as well.
Saying that for you “cynic” serves the purpose just as well doesn’t signal to me that you update in a way that you see that “sociopath” doesn’t fit.
The problem is not that it’s unknown. We talked previously about this Chapman post on LW and considered the phrasing to be harmful and it dilutes the academic concept of sociopathy and prevents us from speaking about real sociopathy when we lose the word to point ot it.
I’d hoped to that Sociopath would be a known thing and aid conversation. But apparently not. Edited
I think this form ends up a lot better. The explanation of what you, specifically, in this instance mean by “cynic” is still necessary and good, but since “cynic” doesn’t have the same valence as “sociopath”, it seems much less bait-and-switch.
The term sociopath is known, but sociopaths are people who have a lack of realistic long-term goals and poor behavioral controls . In many enviroments that’s not a good combination to achieve a position of power.
Using the term and meaning something different than the clinical definition can obfuscate the underlying issues.
Nobody in Yes, Minister is a sociopath.
Watering down the meaning of the term is bad. If you know whether or not a prisoner is a sociopath you know that certain interventions that decrease recidivism in non-sociopaths don’t work and rather increase recidivism.
I edited the post (before this comment) so I’m not sure what you are talking about now… I picked up the term Sociopath from this post and also this post.
The second of which was highly upvoted, so I assumed it was a known thing within this community. Cynic serves my purpose just as well.
Saying that for you “cynic” serves the purpose just as well doesn’t signal to me that you update in a way that you see that “sociopath” doesn’t fit.
The problem is not that it’s unknown. We talked previously about this Chapman post on LW and considered the phrasing to be harmful and it dilutes the academic concept of sociopathy and prevents us from speaking about real sociopathy when we lose the word to point ot it.
Sociopath wasn’t good. Cynic isn’t great.
I didn’t want to have to invent a new word, when one was used before in a community, with no replacement. What would expect the term to be?