Japanese workers turn to resignation agencies

There are documents that your former employer often needs to provide you for stuff like health insurance. And now suddenly it's some direct confrontation to get a document, while your future employer (Who could still just let you go!) is asking you for a document to move forward. So you're facing a bunch of time pressure in gnarly cases, without many people around to help you out.

There are procedures to get around this stuff but since it's not the common case, when it does happen suddenly you get to learn about labor law.

I think anywhere in the world, when there is active antagonism causing bureaucracy to not be able to move forward, most people freeze up like a deer caught in headlights. Turns out that being a sociopath can be quite helpful for exploiting workers!

Sometimes I wonder what a society would look like if they could very reliably identify sociopathy at an early age, and then either euthanize those people or at least blacklist them so they can never have any job higher than a janitor. Would such a society work better than current societies? Or would it be like that episode of Star Trek where Kirk gets split into good and bad versions, and the good version was too ineffectual to be a decent captain without his bad side?

More like "It's a Good Life" from the Twilight zone. Have unhappy or bad thoughts? Off to the "corn field". Disagree with the decision makers? Want to do things differently? Want to just be different? Off to the corn field!

Sociopathy is no more a single thing than cancer or the common cold are single things. Even less so, because it is only defined by subjective interpretation of outward symptoms.

I'll have to go rewatch that episode; it doesn't sound familiar.

However, I thought sociopathy was pretty well-defined as having a complete lack of empathy.

At least three of the four things you listed are things we can already detect. This doesn't make much sense as a reply to "what if we could detect sociopathy". And that's on top of it being a bad analogy to swap different traits and actions arbitrarily.

In the episode, the main character is the sociopath. My use of it is to say that giving people the power to execute or blacklist sociopaths will inevitable create more, only they'll be the ones in power.

"Lack of empathy" can easily be interpreted in many ways. What you are upset about are the actions of those you accuse of not having empathy. You think that killing anyone without empathy is the solution. You clearly have no empathy for those without empathy.

You are the monster you fought against.

Suggesting we murder ("euthanize") people who are predisposed to a lack of empathy is probably the least empathetic reaction I could think of. The proposed answer to sociopathy is itself sociopathic.

This inherent contradiction is evidence enough that no sufficiently objective metric may distinguish "sociopath" from "not-sociopath". The power offered is great enough that it would be immediately abused.

One person suggesting an overboard response means that it's impossible to do an objective test in the first place? That argument makes no sense to me.

I can't believe no one seems to even understand my post, because they keep focusing on the euthanization bit. The post was a thought experiment, and was simply asking whether, hypothetically, society would be actually better off without sociopaths or not. Many people seem to assume it would, but perhaps it wouldn't, which is why I brought up the Star Trek reference. I don't know either way.

> giving people the power to execute or blacklist sociopaths will inevitable create more

I don't see why that's inevitable? You're not explaining the reasoning that got you there.

> those you accuse of not having empathy

"If we had a reliable list of people without empathy, anyone on that list would not have empathy." is not an accusation, it's a truism.

> You clearly have no empathy [...] You are the monster you fought against.

This might be the worst internet diagnosis I've ever seen.