This idea that big tech CEOs have a greater chance of being psychopaths than others is absurd. The psychopath actually cares nothing about the issues--nor can they understand the moral implications--but instead is concerned only with how they will be perceived. Their primary concern is that people might be "on to them" for not caring abo…
This idea that big tech CEOs have a greater chance of being psychopaths than others is absurd. The psychopath actually cares nothing about the issues--nor can they understand the moral implications--but instead is concerned only with how they will be perceived. Their primary concern is that people might be "on to them" for not caring about anyone but themselves. But for the big tech CEO it's . . . well, I'm not exactly sure, but I know it's not because they're psychopaths.
Those perceived to hold the most power at the moment (even if its the mob) will be placated by the psychopath without hesitation in that their association with its moral codes will cover for their amorality while championing these goals will help elevate them amongst whoever is the toughest at the moment. They will do this because they have no way to connect to both the validity of anyone else's ideas other than their own nor to have empathy for the individual apart from themselves. The CEO, on the other hand . . . must have an excuse, even if it's not dawning on me at the moment.
The psychopath then proceeds to go overboard in virtue signaling--including having no problem dropping fundamental rights like free speech and individual rights to back a popular cause--and in doing so overcorrects without an innate sense of morality to temper them. It's like a mob outside a courtroom yelling to disbar a judge for a decision he just made they didn't like while the psychopath will hear this and choose to yell, "Hang the judge!" thinking he will then demonstrate he is the most virtuous of all. Meanwhile the big tech CEO will . . . . (Can someone help me out here, please?)
This idea that big tech CEOs have a greater chance of being psychopaths than others is absurd. The psychopath actually cares nothing about the issues--nor can they understand the moral implications--but instead is concerned only with how they will be perceived. Their primary concern is that people might be "on to them" for not caring about anyone but themselves. But for the big tech CEO it's . . . well, I'm not exactly sure, but I know it's not because they're psychopaths.
Those perceived to hold the most power at the moment (even if its the mob) will be placated by the psychopath without hesitation in that their association with its moral codes will cover for their amorality while championing these goals will help elevate them amongst whoever is the toughest at the moment. They will do this because they have no way to connect to both the validity of anyone else's ideas other than their own nor to have empathy for the individual apart from themselves. The CEO, on the other hand . . . must have an excuse, even if it's not dawning on me at the moment.
The psychopath then proceeds to go overboard in virtue signaling--including having no problem dropping fundamental rights like free speech and individual rights to back a popular cause--and in doing so overcorrects without an innate sense of morality to temper them. It's like a mob outside a courtroom yelling to disbar a judge for a decision he just made they didn't like while the psychopath will hear this and choose to yell, "Hang the judge!" thinking he will then demonstrate he is the most virtuous of all. Meanwhile the big tech CEO will . . . . (Can someone help me out here, please?)