Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

James_Miller comments on Will DNA Analysis Make Politics Less of a Mind-Killer? - Less Wrong

-6 Post author: James_Miller 18 August 2011 12:03AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (47)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: James_Miller 18 August 2011 01:38:13AM 0 points [-]

Would learning that your favorite presidential candidate had genes predisposing him to being a sociopath make you less likely to vote for that candidate?

Comment author: grouchymusicologist 18 August 2011 03:20:54AM 1 point [-]

It would, at least a bit. But I'd have to consider it alongside the other stuff I knew about the candidate. If some candidate had attained the office of, let's say, the governor of a large state while reliably carrying out my policy preferences and not getting embroiled in a major scandal of some kind, I doubt I'd give much credence to the hypothesis that they'd controlled their sociopathic urges, biding their time until they were elected US President and then unleashed terror upon the populace. Also note that there are enough veto points within the structure of the US government to prevent any one person from carrying out Stalin-level genocide or whatever; your point would maybe stand a bit better if we were electing a dictator, but then, dictators don't get elected.

Comment author: James_Miller 18 August 2011 06:23:21AM *  7 points [-]

dictators don't get elected

Sometimes they do!

Comment author: grouchymusicologist 18 August 2011 06:40:58AM 3 points [-]

I guess they very occasionally do, and in that case, I would be somewhat more wary about voting for someone with this fabled 70%-chance-of-being-a-sociopath DNA test even if they otherwise had given me no particular cause for alarm. We're not talking about a very common situation here, though.

Comment author: James_Miller 18 August 2011 08:44:38AM -2 points [-]

Don't the names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung and Pol Pot cause you to think that something about power attracts the wrong kind of people.

Comment author: satt 19 August 2011 07:25:04AM 4 points [-]

Selection bias alert! One can't become a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Pol Pot without power in the first place, so even if potential megakillers were actually much less common among powerful people we would still expect disproportionately more megakillers among the powerful.

Comment author: lessdazed 06 September 2011 09:20:09PM 1 point [-]

One can't become a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung or Pol Pot without power in the first place

I believe this is a matter of some dispute.

Comment author: grouchymusicologist 18 August 2011 03:08:29PM 0 points [-]

A whole, whole, whole lot of people have held political power other than those guys, and with very few exceptions have restrained themselves from committing mass murder.

Comment author: James_Miller 18 August 2011 11:10:55PM 0 points [-]

But the expect cost of a sociopath becoming the U.S. president is huge. Also, although I don't agree with this, lots of people think that George Bush was a mass murderer.

Comment author: jimrandomh 18 August 2011 03:13:00AM 1 point [-]

Would learning that your favorite presidential candidate had genes predisposing him to being a sociopath make you less likely to vote for that candidate?

Yes, definitely.

Comment author: Raemon 18 August 2011 02:44:53AM 0 points [-]

How less likely would you be to vote for Sarah Palin if she turned out to be 70% likely to be a sociopath?

Comment author: James_Miller 18 August 2011 02:57:00AM 0 points [-]

Much less.