> Ted Winslow wrote:
>
> Most economists (along with many others) can't see why a paranoid
>> schizophrenic, i.e. someone given to psychotic delusions about motives, is
>> incapable of what's really required for truly "scientific" social theory,
>> namely, the capacity for insight into motives found in the best literature,
>> e.g. in Shakespeare and Balzac.
>>
>
> ===================
>
> Do you have a survey that backs up the claim? We've come to expect such
> rhetorical excess from Radio talk shows and the NY Times, but here?
>
> I'm still waiting on the Kleinian argument that Warren Buffett is a
> sociopath because he's really good at the numbers/wealth game. After reading
> snippets of his recent biography, I suspect I'll be waiting a long time:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04buffett.html
Sorry, I think its a question of ethics... If someone is willing to construct an argument around being hostile to everyone else I think its safe to call them asocial - in whatever terminology you'd like.
Still though sometimes these things directly overlap... see: what I was saying about "game theory" below.