<p>Premise from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intelligence" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>More recently, popular science writer and Psychologist Daniel Goleman has drawn on
  social neuroscience research to propose that social intelligence is
  made up of social awareness (including empathy, attunement, empathic
  accuracy, and social cognition) and social facility (including
  synchrony, self-presentation, influence, and concern).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The thesis behind the book is that the neurological structure of human being suggest the importance of the empathy. He also states that scientific researches shows three types of individual lacking of empathy: narcissistic, Machiavellian, and psychopathic.</p>

<p><strong>The hypothesis of Goleman accomunating these 3 kind of people to the lack of empathy are shared by the cognitive sciences?</strong> </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T02:00:06.493Z
Wouldn't autism spectrum disorders serve as a good example for your question? Here are some articles that try to explain empathy or lack thereof using the mirror neuron hypothesis: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-13260-000, http://apa.sagepub.com/content/55/1/131.short, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926641005000224
Daniel W.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T10:24:37.660Z
The "Dark Triad" are not personality types, but trait dimensions. I don't think it's correct to say that Machiavellianism necessarily entails a lack of empathy; that's more a marker of the other two traits, but all three correlate. As @Daniel suggested, the claim you attribute (without proper, direct citation) to Goleman is not an exhaustive list of potential problems with normative empathy. Testosterone alone can inhibit empathy in men, as I've said elsewhere here.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-18T11:15:58.943Z
@NickStauner: it's a bit hard for me to understand completely what you are stating.. I will try to google for the difference between personality trait and trait dimension
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T07:16:09.910Z
**type** $\ne$ **trait**. If you understand dichotomies, you can understand more than two categories. The MBTI, which we've discussed previously, posits 16 personality types. This is probably not a good way to understand essential traits, because people's traits (e.g., extraversion) vary across `low`, `moderate`, `high`, and all points between. People are not simply extraverted or introverted. Same principle applies to the Dark Triad (or Tetrad for that matter). It's possible (maybe even likely) to have a moderate score on a proper measure of narcissism. That doesn't make a person a narcissist
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T09:31:51.167Z
@NickStauner: yes, now I understand it. I've a mathematical background. I'd say that trait are like axis in a multi dimensional space and type are cluster/sets of similar points (vectors) in this space.
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T09:53:26.243Z
Yes, *very* similar points. Theoretically pure types would only differ within categories due to external influences or error. Maybe you can see from this why typologies are somewhat hard to support empirically: it's hard to argue that, for example, differences in narcissism between two people who are both relatively narcissistic are just error or externally influenced. There might be some categorical difference between people for whom narcissism is "switched on" or "off", but unless narcissism is at least distributed bimodally, this is hard to pick up even with latent class analysis.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T10:01:26.313Z
@NickStauner: I wonder also about another question.. all the axis defined by the various personality trait define a multi dimensional vectorial space. The axis used by MMPI defines another multi dimensional vectorial space. Is there any correlation between that two spaces? (do you think I can open a question on that or it'is not clear)?
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-19T10:10:28.743Z
Definitely not clear enough. All axes defined by traits would include the MMPI axes, as these measure traits themselves. You should probably try to research ideas like these before asking them in case you can further develop your questions in the process, or maybe answer them by yourself. In the latter case, it may still be welcome to ask the question and post your own answer, but this is somewhat unconventional, so I'd put special effort into it if I were going to answer my own question just to make sure I was contributing something of value to others.
Nick Stauner
<social-psychology>
Can a strong lack of empathy be considered a disorder?
Revious
# Can a strong lack of empathy be considered a disorder?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-16)

Premise from [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intelligence):

> More recently, popular science writer and Psychologist Daniel Goleman has drawn on
> social neuroscience research to propose that social intelligence is
> made up of social awareness (including empathy, attunement, empathic
> accuracy, and social cognition) and social facility (including
> synchrony, self-presentation, influence, and concern).

The thesis behind the book is that the neurological structure of human being suggest the importance of the empathy. He also states that scientific researches shows three types of individual lacking of empathy: narcissistic, Machiavellian, and psychopathic.

**The hypothesis of Goleman accomunating these 3 kind of people to the lack of empathy are shared by the cognitive sciences?**

**Tags:** social-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Wouldn't autism spectrum disorders serve as a good example for your question? Here are some articles that try to explain empathy or lack thereof using the mirror neuron hypothesis: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-13260-000, http://apa.sagepub.com/content/55/1/131.short, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926641005000224  
> **username_2**: The "Dark Triad" are not personality types, but trait dimensions. I don't think it's correct to say that Machiavellianism necessarily entails a lack of empathy; that's more a marker of the other two traits, but all three correlate. As @Daniel suggested, the claim you attribute (without proper, direct citation) to Goleman is not an exhaustive list of potential problems with normative empathy. Testosterone alone can inhibit empathy in men, as I've said elsewhere here.  
> **username_0**: @NickStauner: it's a bit hard for me to understand completely what you are stating.. I will try to google for the difference between personality trait and trait dimension  
> **username_2**: **type** $\ne$ **trait**. If you understand dichotomies, you can understand more than two categories. The MBTI, which we've discussed previously, posits 16 personality types. This is probably not a good way to understand essential traits, because people's traits (e.g., extraversion) vary across `low`, `moderate`, `high`, and all points between. People are not simply extraverted or introverted. Same principle applies to the Dark Triad (or Tetrad for that matter). It's possible (maybe even likely) to have a moderate score on a proper measure of narcissism. That doesn't make a person a narcissist  
> **username_0**: @NickStauner: yes, now I understand it. I've a mathematical background. I'd say that trait are like axis in a multi dimensional space and type are cluster/sets of similar points (vectors) in this space.  
> **username_2**: Yes, *very* similar points. Theoretically pure types would only differ within categories due to external influences or error. Maybe you can see from this why typologies are somewhat hard to support empirically: it's hard to argue that, for example, differences in narcissism between two people who are both relatively narcissistic are just error or externally influenced. There might be some categorical difference between people for whom narcissism is "switched on" or "off", but unless narcissism is at least distributed bimodally, this is hard to pick up even with latent class analysis.  
> **username_0**: @NickStauner: I wonder also about another question.. all the axis defined by the various personality trait define a multi dimensional vectorial space. The axis used by MMPI defines another multi dimensional vectorial space. Is there any correlation between that two spaces? (do you think I can open a question on that or it'is not clear)?  
> **username_2**: Definitely not clear enough. All axes defined by traits would include the MMPI axes, as these measure traits themselves. You should probably try to research ideas like these before asking them in case you can further develop your questions in the process, or maybe answer them by yourself. In the latter case, it may still be welcome to ask the question and post your own answer, but this is somewhat unconventional, so I'd put special effort into it if I were going to answer my own question just to make sure I was contributing something of value to others.  

---

## 0 answers

