The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis

[Nessus]

Are you two calling for employment discrimination based on mental illness?

[Aimless]

Are you two calling for employment discrimination based on mental illness?

"Calling for"? It already exists. There is at least one profession in which you can lose your right to practice on the basis of proven unsuitability due to eg. [unmanaged] mental illness. Attitudes towards ethical issues, regardless of the cause, are already taken into consideration during the selection process for eg. med-school. Of course, it's entirely possible that any sociopath worth his salt would just fake his way through any such selection process.

I have no idea whether or not this sort of thing can (or should) ever be implemented in the financial sector given that the problem doesn't seem to be mental illness so much as an environment and a culture that encourages a certain sort of crappy behaviour. Discrimination of businesses based on whether or not they behave well? I dunno, I might be able to get behind that.

[CitizenCain]

the problem doesn't seem to be mental illness so much as an environment and a culture that encourages a certain sort of crappy behaviour.

So, you're saying we should ban moral hazards? Or the profit motive? Or human nature in general?

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...

Nice to see you conceding the central tenant of [classic] conservative politics, but you might want to be careful who you let hear you say that in Scandinavistan.

[Aimless]

So, you're saying we should ban moral hazards? Or the profit motive? Or human nature in general?

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...

Nice to see you conceding the central tenant of [classic] conservative politics, but you might want to be careful who you let hear you say that in Scandinavistan.

Are you saying it's impossible to promote and establish good behaviour in groups and organisations?

[CitizenCain]

When anywhere near that level of money or power are involved, that's sure been the historical record, without exception.

[GGT]

Maybe he doesn't believe in the evolution of modern man as a moral actor....

[Aimless]

When anywhere near that level of money or power are involved, that's sure been the historical record, without exception.

Well then I guess we'll have to address the most relevant factors.

[CitizenCain]

Well then I guess we'll have to address the most relevant factors.

?

Which brings us back to ~"humans are evil, ban them!"

[Aimless]

I was thinking more like support, therapy, transparency, policing, damage-control and, if all else fails, electrodes

[GGT]

Which brings us back to ~"humans are evil, ban them!"

WTF? You went from 'banning human nature' to 'humans are evil', in just a couple of posts. Is that why you also said most people as voters are dumber than dog shit?

That might work for your particular brand of hating on people in general, and your loathing of anything related to teh evil gummint, but it doesn't quite work out that way in reality. People develop a conscience in multiple ways, from very early ages, and "morality" is largely a learned--and relative--behavior. That makes public education a crucial component, including what's taught in college/university. Behaviors aren't just learned, but reinforced.

Business schools have already begun to change curriculum, particularly in Finance. That includes the "Ivy League" schools placing more importance on Business Ethics and Socially Responsible management goals. Medical school specialties are beginning to "weed out" those who apply primarily for higher incomes in Dermatology, Orthopedics or Cardiology.

Motive matters.

[Loki]

Well then I guess we'll have to address the most relevant factors.

As punishment for businessmen being self-interested? I think the Marxists tried that.

[Aimless]

As punishment for businessmen being self-interested? I think the Marxists tried that.

It's almost as if we we can't enforce laws against eg. misleading your clients without being Marxists.

[Loki]

That's not the point of the article.

[CitizenCain]

It's almost as if we we can't enforce laws against eg. misleading your clients without being Marxists.

"The law is a lying contest."

Sad but true, and where the problem in enforcing all these laws that are solely based on intent come into play. It's got a lot more to do with the nature of ourselves and law/government than anything about sociopaths or business or j00s or GeeGee's going on about. And it's not a problem you magik away with a hand wave and things

like support, therapy, transparency, policing, damage-control and, if all else fails, electrodes

But you're getting closer to a solution with that last one... however, I'm thinking that zapping 7 billion people into brain damaged state is probably going to cause bigger problems than it fixes, FYI.

[GGT]

It's got a lot more to do with the nature of ourselves and law/government than anything about sociopaths or business or j00s or GeeGee's going on about. And it's not a problem you magik away with a hand wave and things

You're back to ~humans are evil, ban them~? The "nature" of humans, behaviorism and learned mores/values are part of psychology.

[CitizenCain]

I was never at "humans are bad, ban them." That's a succinct statement of Miny's viewpoint or proposed solution or whatever.

I'm still and always at: human nature is inherently "evil," because "evil" is an unavoidable consequence of competition, which is an unavoidable consequence of scarcity, which is baked into the very nature of our universe at its most fundamental levels. Accept it and move on rather than being so incomprehensibly foolish as to try legislate away the nature of the entire cosmos.

You progressives are the ones who seem to think you can alter the fundamental nature of the universe by putting words to paper and calling it a legal code - don't put it back on me that you can't magik away the nature of the universe with ridiculous words and moronic ideas.

[Aimless]

And we're back to lawless anarchy

[CitizenCain]

Works for the animals... who, incidentally, act smarter than the majority of humanity.

[GGT]

I was never at "humans are bad, ban them." That's a succinct statement of Miny's viewpoint or proposed solution or whatever.

I'm still and always at: human nature is inherently "evil," because "evil" is an unavoidable consequence of competition, which is an unavoidable consequence of scarcity, which is baked into the very nature of our universe at its most fundamental levels. Accept it and move on rather than being so incomprehensibly foolish as to try legislate away the nature of the entire cosmos.

Dude, you're taking "animal instincts" to its extreme and basest level. Or is that a religious-based analysis of humans as "inherently" evil, as a fallen species according to the Old Testament?

Competition in the 21st century isn't the same competition our knuckle-dragging ancestors faced. First world nations don't have to compete for food, water, shelter (or even sex) based on scarcity of resources.

You progressives are the ones who seem to think you can alter the fundamental nature of the universe by putting words to paper and calling it a legal code - don't put it back on me that you can't magik away the nature of the universe with ridiculous words and moronic ideas.

Fundamental Nature of the Universe? Spare me your drama, and don't lecture "progressives". If we'd stopped at earlier heresy, the world would still be flat, the sun would still be revolving around the earth, and "legal code" would be written by the Vatican, Church of England, or Royalty/Kingdoms in general.

[CitizenCain]

...and you continue to blaze new territories in the category "just not getting it."

But alrighty then, anyone who doesn't pretend that writing legislation will change the fundamental realities about our universe is a flat-Earth Vatican fundy or whatever. Thanks for helping us all see that.