Comparing Apples and Psychopaths

[Grey beard]

[NonEntity]

(02-19-2012 07:40 PM)Grey beard Wrote:  If you don't enter the argument but instead say something like " I will let you ( the potential psychopath ) decide an even split and I will accept your choice, he will lose the ability to run the show. He knows taking more than 3 will expose his greed to others. If the other person is normal, he will split evenly without issue.

I have done the above ( it was wine ) and it left the psychopath trying to argue that I need to defend my rights here. he actually said " If I decide, you'll get screwed ". Try to imagine the looks on the faces of all around as he said that, and the look on his face. I will cherish that for all time.

Thanks. I get a clearer picture of your method. ;-)

- NonE

[Grey beard]

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-19-2012 04:34 PM)Grey beard Wrote:  I will say " them " following anytime the subject ( the them ) has been established, rather than type out " psychopath " everytime I reference " them " after establishing " they " are the subject in discussion. Must communication be more complicated than it already is?

The red team won against the blue team, the yellow team beat the green team for third place. They lost because they were idiots.

It's like this: "They" is a referent. Typically for something already entered into evidence, so to speak.

In the above paragraph, "IT" is a referent to something NOT in evidence- namely, the two sentences following the colon.

I've had arguments with people over referents when the thing being referred to is NOT in evidence, or in my first paragraph, multiple referents where there is no clue as to which item is the one being referred to.

So unfortunately yes, communication must be (you're going to love this) more complicated so that it is less complicated.

In my first paragraph, equivocation is just awaiting to be executed because if you assume one team, the person arguing with you changes it to a different team.

I have people in my life that can not get their minds beyond their "beliefs", (and I'm not referring to "statist" beliefs per se, though that thinking is a small part of the landscape).

Alas, I digress, and I don't want to derail this interesting discussion in progress.

[Grey beard]

(02-19-2012 08:50 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 04:34 PM)Grey beard Wrote:  I will say " them " following anytime the subject ( the them ) has been established, rather than type out " psychopath " everytime I reference " them " after establishing " they " are the subject in discussion. Must communication be more complicated than it already is?

The red team won against the blue team, the yellow team beat the green team for third place. They lost because they were idiots.

It's like this: "They" is a referent. Typically for something already entered into evidence, so to speak.

In the above paragraph, "IT" is a referent to something NOT in evidence- namely, the two sentences following the colon.

I've had arguments with people over referents when the thing being referred to is NOT in evidence, or in my first paragraph, multiple referents where there is no clue as to which item is the one being referred to.

So unfortunately yes, communication must be (you're going to love this) more complicated so that it is less complicated.

In my first paragraph, equivocation is just awaiting to be executed because if you assume one team, the person arguing with you changes it to a different team.

I have people in my life that can not get their minds beyond their "beliefs", (and I'm not referring to "statist" beliefs per se, though that thinking is a small part of the landscape).

Alas, I digress, and I don't want to derail this interesting discussion in progress.

Noted

[NonEntity]

(02-19-2012 04:57 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  There's no good reason why a psychopath can't have empathy...

Uh, does the fact that they are PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE count at all? I know you think 19 already dead Ayrabs with box cutters whittled Building 7 to the ground with no sound, no seismic foot print, and in free fall time, but isn't there ANYTHING where actual reality impinges upon your view of the world?

Okay. A bit snide and all. But, as Marc would say, if he were me, FACTUALLY... blah blah blah.

- NonE

[Grey beard]

(02-19-2012 09:01 PM)Grey beard Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 08:50 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 04:34 PM)Grey beard Wrote:  I will say " them " following anytime the subject ( the them ) has been established, rather than type out " psychopath " everytime I reference " them " after establishing " they " are the subject in discussion. Must communication be more complicated than it already is?

The red team won against the blue team, the yellow team beat the green team for third place. They lost because they were idiots.

It's like this: "They" is a referent. Typically for something already entered into evidence, so to speak.

In the above paragraph, "IT" is a referent to something NOT in evidence- namely, the two sentences following the colon.

I've had arguments with people over referents when the thing being referred to is NOT in evidence, or in my first paragraph, multiple referents where there is no clue as to which item is the one being referred to.

So unfortunately yes, communication must be (you're going to love this) more complicated so that it is less complicated.

In my first paragraph, equivocation is just awaiting to be executed because if you assume one team, the person arguing with you changes it to a different team.

I have people in my life that can not get their minds beyond their "beliefs", (and I'm not referring to "statist" beliefs per se, though that thinking is a small part of the landscape).

Alas, I digress, and I don't want to derail this interesting discussion in progress.

Noted

My " day job " is turning chunks of steel into gimicks used by the auto industry. I am new to equivocating on this or any other forum.

[Dionysus]

(02-19-2012 09:02 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Uh, does the fact that they are PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE count at all?

Is that based on facts currently within your knowledge? Are you defining "psychopath" based strictly on capacity to have empathy? If so, that seems like a pretty limited definition. What about my example of Hillary Clinton? She seems to be capable of some kind of empathy, but she's also a criminal psychopath of the highest order. How do you square that circle?

(02-19-2012 09:02 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  I know you think 19 already dead Ayrabs with box cutters whittled Building 7 to the ground with no sound, no seismic foot print, and in free fall time, but isn't there ANYTHING where actual reality impinges upon your view of the world?

LOL! Oh, Margaret! You KNOW I think that???! Who do you think you're talking to??! I was in the 9/11 "truth movement" before you ever even knew what it was I'll wager. A Zionist criminal network blew those buildings to kingdom come as a false flag. I regularly corresponded with researcher Christopher Bollyn here in Chicago until the Zionists kidnapped him and his family.

ETA: Maybe I'm splitting hairs here (if so, you can tell me), but you've been saying that psychopaths have no ability to have empathy, while it would be more correct to say they have a limited/crippled ability to have empathy, and have twisted/distorted what little empathy they have. Do you understand where I'm coming from now?

[Grey beard]

(02-19-2012 07:44 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-19-2012 07:40 PM)Grey beard Wrote:  If you don't enter the argument but instead say something like " I will let you ( the potential psychopath ) decide an even split and I will accept your choice, he will lose the ability to run the show. He knows taking more than 3 will expose his greed to others. If the other person is normal, he will split evenly without issue.

I have done the above ( it was wine ) and it left the psychopath trying to argue that I need to defend my rights here. he actually said " If I decide, you'll get screwed ". Try to imagine the looks on the faces of all around as he said that, and the look on his face. I will cherish that for all time.

Thanks. I get a clearer picture of your method. ;-)

- NonE

Welcome and glad

Oh, just remembered dealing with an employer too. I watched countless people play the same old " I deserve a raise " game. It usually goes with the boss putting the burden of proof on the employee. By the end, the employee convinces himself ( with a little guidance from the boss ) that he does not deserve a raise.

The alternate I came up with is " I deserve a raise unless you can tell me why I don't deserve one". Shifting that burden worked well. He talked for 45 minutes on what an asset I was, and tried to shift into running me down ( In the example above they win because you beat yourself ) a few times, but backed away from that.

[boyntonstu]

Quote: A Zionist criminal network blew those buildings to kingdom come as a false flag. I regularly corresponded with researcher Christopher Bollyn here in Chicago until the Zionists kidnapped him and his family.

What facts do you have in your possession to make these statements?

[eye2i2hear]

An article on Psychopathy by Robert Hare.

This Charming Psychopath: How to Spot Social Predators Before They Attack
24 February 2011
by Robert D. Hare, Ph.D.
(Reproduced with permission. © 2007 Psychology Today All Rights Reserved.)
http://aftermath-surviving-psychopathy.o...ey-attack/

excerpt:

Quote:Key Symptoms of Psychopathy
Interpersonal Emotional ............. Social Deviance
Glib and superficial ....................... Impulsive
Egocentric and grandiose .............. Poor behavior controls
Lack of remorse or guilt ................ Need for excitement
Lack of empathy ......................... Lack of responsibility
Deceitful and manipulative ............ Early behavior problems
Shallow emotions ........................ Adult antisocial behavior

And a couple of specifics, that hopefully will be evident as to why post 'em here:

Quote:Unfortunately, even the most careful precautions are no guarantee that you will be safe from a determined psychopath. In such cases, all you can do is try to exert some sort of damage control.

This is not easy but some suggestions may be of help:
1. Obtain professional advice. Make sure the clinician you consult is familiar with the literature on psychopathy and has had experience in dealing with psychopaths.

2. Don’t blame yourself. Whatever the reasons for being involved with a psychopath, it is important that you not accept blame for his or her attitudes and behavior. Psychopaths play by the same rules-their rules-with everyone.

3. Be aware of who the victim is. Psychopaths often give the impression that it is they who are suffering and that the victims are to blame for their misery. Don’t waste your sympathy on them.

4. Recognize that you are not alone. Most psychopaths have lots of victims. It is certain that a psychopath who is causing you grief is also causing grief to others. Be careful about power struggles. Keep in mind that psychopaths have a strong need for psychological and physical control over others. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t stand up for your rights, but it will probably be difficult to do so without risking serious emotional or physical trauma.

5. Set firm ground rules. Although power struggles with a psychopath are risky you may be able to set up some clear rules-both for yourself and for the psychopath-to make your life easier and begin the difficult transition from victim to a person looking out for yourself.

6. Don’t expect dramatic changes. To a large extent, the personality of psychopaths is “carved in stone.” There is little likelihood that anything you do will produce fundamental, sustained changes in how they see themselves or others.

7. Cut your losses. Most victims of psychopaths end up feeling confused and hopeless, and convinced that they are largely to blame for the problem. The more you give in the more you will be taken advantage of by the psychopath’s insatiable appetite for power and control.

---

See also: Neurobiological Basis Of Psychopathy
R. James R. Blair, PhD
Revision May 15, 2002

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/182/1/5.full

and on the science side, looks like a nice reading list here:
Aftermath: Surviving Psychopathy Foundation.org / Recent Research

http://aftermath-surviving-psychopathy.org/index.php/2011/02/25/new-january-march-2011/

[Grey beard]

Consider that the psychopath has no real capacity for creativity or feeling. About the only thing we see them create are divisions in an effort to create control in an effort to create feeling.

[Dionysus]

I found this video interesting:

[eye2i2hear]

[possibly for no other reason than it was the first search hit on the significant word, posting it here --instead of the ever optional Quote Of The [whatever]]

per a amazon.com review of the book The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry by Jon Ronson:

TChris Wrote:I think it's telling that when Ronson asked to interview Bob Hare, whose psychopathy checklist (the PCL-R) is widely used to "identify" psychopaths, Hare told him he could have an interview if he paid £600 to attend his seminar. The link between money and "the madness industry" (to quote the book's subtitle) is one of Ronson's stronger points.

It's ironic that Hare's initial research into psychopathy involved giving painful electric shocks to test subjects and that Hare feels he did nothing wrong (notably, a lack of empathy and lack of remorse are two of the criteria the PCL-R uses to label individuals as psychopaths). Hare also thinks that his research results are "a really big story" that could "forever change the way people see the world" (a grandiose sense of self-worth is another of the criteria). Interestingly, Hare would score himself only a 4 or 5 of 40 on the PCL-R while one of his critics would score him 29 or 30. Admittedly, both of the scorers are biased (the critic was a Scientologist) but that's the point: scores depend largely upon the subjective impressions of the scorers rather than scientifically measurable facts, rendering the PCL-R (like many rating instruments) of dubious value.

Seduced by the illusory clarity of the PCL-R, Ronson begins to pin the psychopath label on people he meets after momentary interactions. To be fair, Hare does the same. Hare tells Ronson that a hotel concierge who objected to Ronson's uninvited use of his telephone was a psychopath when it seems to me the concierge had a right to be upset.

The most important sentence in Ronson's book, I think, is this: "I now felt that the checklist was a powerful and intoxicating weapon that was capable of inflicting terrible damage if placed in the wrong hands." True enough, although I wonder whether anyone has the right hands. Hare does have the good grace to acknowledge that the PCL-R can be misused, pointing to the role it plays in the United States as a justification for labeling individuals as sexually violent persons. (It's actually the least important rating instrument used for that purpose; the others, supposedly more specific to sexual violence, are flawed and none have any predictive value in determining who will and who won't commit sex offenses in the future). Of course, Hare's stated concern about the misuse of the PCL-R to label individuals as sexual predators doesn't stop him from coming to the United States to make money teaching psychologists how to use it for that very purpose.

(standard caveats/acknowledgements: IAI / FYC / FYI / MMV / OALA /etc)

sidebar: anyone read Ronson's book per chance?

[NonEntity]

(08-28-2012 02:23 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  sidebar: anyone read Ronson's book per chance?

Good quotes, Eye2. Yes, I read it. But it's been a while and I don't remember much. It was interesting, but I can't remember specifically why.

I found Hare's position somewhat troubling myself. Especially since he seems to have done all of his research in prisons, which tend to select for a certain subset of society. But some of his tests (I think they were his tests...) seemed to be pretty hard to refute. I am thinking specifically of the test where the person is informed that at the end of the countdown he is going to receive some very painful something-or-other and the normal person starts to sweat as the numbers near zero while the psychopath has no reaction whatsoever. It appears to be a proof of sorts that he can't relate to pain or ... well, I was going to say to predict the future, but then it is well known that psychopaths are very good at scheming ways of manipulating people, so obviously they CAN plan. But my experience is that they don't have the ability to plan ahead in the same way that "normal" people do.

Did I have a point? Hmm.

- the Very Good NonE