My issue is only using the half of the source that backs up the assessment (of sociopathy) and ignoring the other half that contradicts it. That is not fair, balanced or even good guessing, its just seeing what you want to see in the data by excluding what doesn't support your theory.
Are you responding to me, the original poster who was claiming sociopathy, or responding to the world in general?
All I was doing is pointing out that if person A claims person B is lying about their motivations and good deeds and actually causing harm because they are a sociopath, saying person A can’t claim that doesn’t make much sense.
I have no particularly strong opinion in if anyone is or is not a sociopath. I’m just pointing out that lying about your intentions and good deeds while causing harm is a pretty textbook element of ASPD. It’s certainly not unique to ASPD of course!
Do you have specific elements of sociopathy you think can’t apply?
Or more just pointing out all of this is bullshit speculation anyway because no one can diagnose someone off a couple of tweets in the middle of a scandal anyway?
hn_throwaway is the user that wants to use this as a source to prove SBF's sociopathy but then mocks another user for taking anything he says in the same source at face value. That's why I'm commenting, because that looks to me like a double-standard.
