I'm posting this here to remind me not to judge other's non-mustachian habits.
I do believe some here on this forum may benefit from a nice read as well.
No names named.
Of course, would they even read this essay?
JGS
https://aeon.co/essays/so-you-re-surrounded-by-idiots-guess-who-the-real-jerk-is
It's interesting how this walks along the line that separates the "territories" of philosophy and psychology. Psychology articles on this subject (narcissism, psychopathy,...) usually have a de-responsibilizing tone, whether they are academic articles or blog posts. It gets to the point where behavioural traits associated with immoral conduct are considered disorders to be treated, rather than flaws to be fixed. You'll see claims that it's not somebody's fault if they're a sociopath or a narcissist - since it's a mental disorder - and so one wonders whether there's any room left for responsibility.
This is also visible in the current mainstream discourse about mental illness/mood disorders; indeed, every "flaw in character" is increasingly treated as a "disorder", and those who persist in viewing these disorders as flaws are vilified. (To be sure, my point isn't that psychological interventions should be replaced altogether by moral blame... I'm not going to give any concrete examples because I think this could incite incendiary responses with which I don't want to deal. )
What's striking about this article is that while reading it, I'm not wondering whether I, unfortunately, have a certain personality type or disorder (NPD for instance), or whether somebody or other that I know fits the description. Instead, I'm finding useful applicable moral advice - "Am I doing X? Well, maybe I shouldn't because that makes me a jerk". This is a role that academic psychology cannot have, due to the judgmental aspect. And it's a role that contemporary academic philosophy rarely takes, to my knowledge, but I think an important one.
After all, this article reminds me of the game Psychopath Hunt on Apknite. Highly recommended!
