There’s a stunning article that out-does the incredible stupidity of most of the hate pages that are directed against Psychopaths. Some call us reptiles. Some call us demons. Some call us predators and this page calls us parasites. I found this from Psychopathic Times. The article is entitled Pedophilia Is Not Psychopathy. Odd title since it consists of a video the gist of which is to imply that pedophilia is psychopathy.
Nothing worse than a psychopath. This screed starts off
Our society is under full-scale attack by psychopaths intent on destroying our minds, our spirits, and our lives. The goal of this war is to cull the herd and transform the survivors into obedient, soulless slaves.
Pretty damned ambitious for 1% of the population and I’m not talking about the 1% who have most of the money. Psychopaths can exist on all socio-economic levels of societies. I’m sure some of us are in the political-economic 1%. But we are also middle class as well as homeless vagrants.
Ironically, these people call themselves “warriors.” So do psychopaths. They keep talking about how important it is not to be “one of the herd.” Psychopaths are certainly not part of the “herd.” He calls members of the “herd” “idiots.” So do we! He blames psychopaths for pedophilia without explaining how we are responsible for such a widespread phenomena as he says exists when we are in such small numbers. He also decries laws naming “hate crimes” because they make a state of mind illegal. But isn’t that exactly what he is doing to psychopaths? Isn’t it our state of mind specifically that he is damning? And then he has a go at the Me Too Movement. I have problems with this movement too and have suggested it might be a Witch Hunt. Not only is this yet another example of this hater of psychopaths agreeing with a psychopath but he seems to be overstating the danger of this movement in which, according to himself, people accused by the Me Too folks get railroaded into prison. I don’t know of a single case.
He calls himself an “anarchist” but is very unspecific about his particular political viewpoint. Psychopaths exist all over the political spectrum although haters seem to see psychopaths in whichever part of the spectrum that is opposite to their own niche. has written a number of books, among which are The Way of the Warrior and Art of Urban Survival. He promotes his book on his website, China Strategies but his books are also available on Amazon.
God knows there is a lot wrong with our society. In fact, this is one of the things that makes me proud to be labeled Antisocial. But it’s outrageously absurd to blame all the problems of our civilization on psychopaths. Thomas Sheridan and Mark Passio agree with this assertion. We have plenty of outlandish conspiracy theories such as Pizzsagate and QAnon. But here on earth, we try to limit our flights of fancy to reality.
This is the purest statement of psychopathic thinking.
Here is a reblog from My Soapbox:
Everything is Permitted
In our pluralistic society, we have many ways of pursuing “truth.” There is religion, mysticism, tradition, philosophy… Choice is not only liberating. It is also terrifying. When everyone believed the same thing, life must have been simple. But Socrates is said to have uttered the most challenging and revolutionary statement possible when he admitted to knowing nothing. To seek the truth, one must first let go of the baggage consisting of our assumptions. Nothing is true, everything is possible.
One of the most powerful tools by which humanity has sought knowledge is science.
The term science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning “knowledge”. It can be defined as a systematic attempt to discover, by means of observation and reasoning, particular facts about the world, and to establish laws connecting facts with one another and, in some cases, to make it possible to predict future occurrences.
Science is the path to truth that is considered the purest, the freest of subjective emotional contamination. However, perhaps because science is looked to as the one truly objective path to truth, science has been one of the most interfered with areas of intellectual exploration. The more one looks, the more one finds fingerprints of politics on the body of what is presumed to be pristine.
Science is revered precisely because it is supposed to bypass what we want to believe and take us to what is. The image of a blindfolded person used in jurisprudence to represent lack of bias should be better used to represent what science ought to be.
Science and Religion.
It isn’t surprising that religion has often conflicted with and done battle with science. One of the most notorious battlegrounds of science versus religion is evolution. Darwin, himself, was horrified when his explorations led him to the conclusion that our origins were not exactly what the Bible said they are. But, in the spirit of true science, he reluctantly went where scientific method led him. Fundamentalist Christians opposed the Theory of Evolution perhaps more than any other scientific theory since it clashed with the literal biblical account of our origins. In the battleground of ideas, the Fundies appeared to be losing, especially since many Christians were able to accept the idea that the biblical account was symbolic. More recently, Fundies decided to move the battle right to science’s own turf. Now, they are using scientific arguments to sustain their belief in creationism. Another area in which Fundies used science to sustain their own, religiously inspired, view of reality is global warming. Many evangelicals homeschool their kids and use these religiously oriented scientifically argued books as texts. They also use whatever political clout they have to force schools in the states where they have power to teach Intelligent Design, the scientifically argued version of creationism.
Science and Political Correctness.
The victories of Christian fundamentalists over pure (without an agenda) science are spotty at best. Science has managed to hold its own. But in areas involving ideas cherished by progressives (left-wing), science has lost a lot more ground. Where psychology is concerned, science is already more subjective and many don’t even accept psychology as real science. The rapidity with which “experts” change opinions in psychology already undermines its credibility. Of course, all scientific areas are subject to revision. It’s part of the scientific method itself to allow, in fact, to insist on change. Science isn’t allowed to cling to dogma. It must, by its very nature, be flexible and open to new and better ideas. However, psychology takes the prize when it comes to flexibility.
It seems as if psychologists were sometimes influenced by accepted dogmas of our very culture and political activists, forcing them to change, actually freed them from political dogma. The bible of psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, listed homosexuality as a disorder for years. Gay activists caused them to change their minds, not by scientific debate but by protest. The cynicism with which supposed “experts” gave in to political pressure is summed up well here:
What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.
Although “homosexuality” is now officially normal, diehard Fundies still regard it as unnatural (contrary to God’s plan) and therefore a disease that needs to be cured. Curing Homosexuality represents their thinking.
Perhaps to look more scientific, the DSM refused to include the term psychopathy with the Cluster B personality disorders and, instead, used the term Anti-Social Personality Disorder which was based more on behavior and less on the inner experiences of those with the “disorder” such as lack of conscience.
But a recent and highly controversial “disorder” is called gender dysphoria disorder and it involves people who think they are not the sex they were born as but the other one. People with this “disorder” have formed an enormously powerful lobby which not only hijacks scientific thinking but which has spawned an enormous network of scientific technology. Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology? is a study of how this lobby got started and grew to power. The upsetting thing about this lobby is the way they have managed to impact so many people’s lives and how they have imposed pseudo science while silencing those who want to practice science that is science.
I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.
Concurrent with these rapid changes, I witnessed an overhaul in the English language with new pronouns and a near-tyrannical assault on those who did not use them. Laws mandating new speech were passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being instituted now. People who speak openly about these changes can find themselves, their families, and their livelihoods threatened.
Remember gay liberation? Lesbians didn’t want to be lumped in which gay men so the movement became gay and lesbian. But bisexuals also wanted to stand up and be counted so it became GLB but could trannies be far behind? Now it’s GLBT someones with Q and I tacked on. How did the T get added to a movement for liberation of people with different sexual orientations? Transgenderism isn’t a sexual orientation. A tranny can be gay, lesbian or bi. Well, these billionaires have made massive donations to the gay movement(s). They also donate to universities who then enforce their Orwellian rules about which gender pronoun one may use.
The most disturbing aspect of the takeover by the Transgender Lobby of science and society is the way they target children. It’s funny how the same society that condemns pedophilia allows children to be encouraged to enter a lifetime of dependency on high-tech medical intervention to support their fantasies. Pre-puberty kids are now being put on hormone blockers to keep them from entering puberty. Then they are given hormones of the desired sex and, finally, surgery. A book written for children called I Am Jazz, written by Jazz Jennings and Jessica Herthel, pushes a lot of factual falsehoods such as the notion that people can be born with girls’ brains in boys’ bodies.
I have written a couple of posts on the subject of transgenderism.
I have also blogged about another instance of politics and science in the field of vaccinations. Yes, science is supposed to be flexible and open to change as new ideas and new data present themselves. Therefore, it’s disturbing how intolerant medical practitioners to any idea that wants to take a square look at the dangers certain vaccines present to helpless children. My blog post, Medical Assault on Children, examines how this agenda has been pushed on people with children and anyone practicing medicine such as Andy Wakefield.
Well, we all know psychopaths are not well liked by most people. But some of our haters take an extra step. Not only are we bad news, we are not even human!
Mark Passio, who has made many videos about psychopaths, is one of those who call us “enemies.” Mr. Passio seems have more rage against what he calls New Age people who deny “the actual condition that lives in their midst.”
First, Passio analyzes the original meaning of the word psychopath. Psyche is the Greek word for mind or soul. In English, the word psyche is used in the same way. Path is related to pathology or “sickness.” So psychopathy means “sickness of the mind” or soul. Somehow, Passio goes from calling us mentally ill to calling us animals.
Let’s pause in listening to Passio and state some home truths. Human beings, otherwise known as homo sapiens, are a species. Wikipedia defines species as “the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank, as well as a unit of biodiversity, but it has proven difficult to find a satisfactory definition.” Every species breeds more of it’s kind with other members of the same species. While some experiments have succeeded in breeding an offspring from members of two different species, that offspring is infertile. It is incapable of breeding. Does this definition of a species fit the description of a psychopath? Hell, no!
Passio calls us “animals” as if animals are so inferior to human beings. Which species is destroying the earth? Is it dogs? Cats? Apes? Nah. Human beings are the only species destroying the planet. Furthermore, non-human animals are capable of empathy. Tests have demonstrated this. One study gave rats the chance to free other rats from cages and they jumped at that chance. As with humans, empathy is a natural quality of animal species. That can make us even more frightening. Even rats have empathy. But we do not. Woooooo!” SCARY!
Passio correctly explains that there are two kinds of psychopathy: primary and secondary. A primary psychopath is born with a specific kind of brain wired differently than that of a “normal” or “neural typical” person. Secondary psychopaths become psychopathic (or sociopathic) as a result of their experiences in their environment. The primary psychopath is born a psychopath (although professionals have agreed not to name someone a psychopath until he or she has attained majority). Does this mean the psychopath’s parents must be psychopaths? If psychopathy were really the name of a separate species, the parents would have to be psychopaths. Without that, psychopaths cannot be a species. It’s as simple as that. Yet Passio attacks anyone who would raise this common-sense denial of his opinion as a specific kind of fool which he labels “new age.” The New Age Movement is a philosophical, spiritual current of thought that really has nothing to do with the definition of psychopathy.
Another “thinker” who believes we are not human is Thomas Sheridan, author of Puzzling People: the labyrinth of the psychopath. His views are very similar to those of Mark Passio. However, although Passio seems to attribute all evil doing to the omni-present psychopath (who only represents about 1%), Sheridan acknowledges evil doings can be the work of people who are not psychopaths at all. He admonishes the reader, “To use thelabel psychopathis essentially to state that they are not a human being. Such a statement — no matter how much someone may have wronged you — must not be taken lightly.” But Sheridan also claimed that psychopaths wake from sleep in a pool of cold sweat. Weird. I never did nor has any other psychopath I know.
Passio goes so far as to refer to us as being “brain damaged” and “broken.” Strange, how we can be born a certain way but are “brain damaged.” Yet he insists we are in control of every level of society. Primary psychopaths give orders to secondary psychopaths. So I guess this makes us 10% strong. Pretty good for such a small number of people. Sheridan is more realistic. He realizes that psychopaths can live on many different levels depending on the individual. We can be slackers, happy to just have an easy life without having to work. We can be small-time operators. Or we can be very ambitious, seeking the greatest amount of power. If we are so divided into different types of people, how did we get so much control? If we’re really running things, why don’t we shut Passio and Sheridan up? Maybe because they are so amusing.
It’s easy to blame psychopaths for the ills of the world. Harder but more accurate to admit that normal human beings are capable of every evil. Robert Hare, known as the godfather of psychopathy, acknowledges the neural difference between psychopaths and NTs (neural typicals). Yet he has said, “Psychopaths are not disordered. They don’t suffer from a deficit. They’re simply different.”
About halfway through his video, Passio makes an extraordinary claim. The people who founded the United States of America were fighting psychopathy by coming to this continent and destroying the indigenous population so they could have their “just” society which included slavery. But the “psychopaths” in the story were not the genocidal settlers. They were the soldiers in the British armed forces. These bold enemies of psychopathy, the Americans, fought the “psychopaths” by shooting them. Really? If you have the patience to wade through enough of Passio’s nonsense to get that far, you can hear it for yourself! So shooting the indigenous people who just wanted to live on their own land wasn’t “psychopathic” but fighting the settlers to keep them subject to the British crown was? Passio just lost credibility as a person with any true moral understanding. He has no right to condemn psychopaths. He has proven himself to be, in Nietzsche’s words, “Human. All too human.” Don’t blame me for your own moral failings, human!
Many people, mostly liberals, would identify psychopathy with right-wing politics. I have always disagreed. A recent study supports me in my disagreement. US States with the most psychopaths. And there’s the fact that conservatives have a larger amygdala in the part that has to do with fear. Reading Newsmax supports the idea that righties are driven by fear. And psychopaths tend to be on the more fearless side of the spectrum. Sure, Dr. James Fallon, The Psychopath Inside, identifies as a Libertarian. who knows?
When I was a child, I liked to play with “gangs.” By gangs, I’m talking about something pretty innocent and innocuous. We were just children. We didn’t fight with serious weapons. We collected buds from trees and threw them at each other. In other words, calling ourselves “gangs” was just silly kid stuff. Here’s the thing. I belonged to two gangs. These gangs were enemies of each other. When I felt like playing with the other gang, I just told the one I was with that I was going to spy on our enemies. Then I went and played with them. They also thought I was spying on their enemies. The truth of the matter was that neither “gang” had any secrets a spy could have learned. So it was all just fun.
We, Americans once had a civil war. That war wasn’t kid stuff. It was a serious business where Americans shot other Americans with real guns, had real generals and fought for real stakes. As a northerner, I was taught the war was over slavery. Southerners tend to deny that. They said it was more about trade and power. They claim slavery would have naturally eroded without the necessity for war. And, yet, Jim Crow, a system of white supremacy enforced by means of terrorism, remained in the South long after the war was over and slavery was (officially) abolished. I understand many southerners are bitter to this day. They still call themselves “rebels” and deny in their hearts that the North ever really defeated them. The American government, officially representing the country as a whole enforced policies more popular in the north such as desegregation. Federal troops came into Little Rock to protect black children going to “white” schools for the first time.
The USA has become more divided in recent years. Obama’s presidency pushed a lot of racist buttons. Having an actual black man as president must have outraged them as much as the subsequent Trump presidency outrages the more liberal (which tends to coincide with the northern) side. After having witnessed eight years of bitter obstructionism from the GOP which by now represented the South (after having originally been the party of abolitionists), we have been shocked out of our socks by the victory of a man we never thought could win: Donald Trump. Liberals are just as horrified by Trump’s presidency as the conservative South was by Obama’s presidency. Liberal opponents of Trump call themselves The Resistance. Hillary Clinton won the majority of votes but, because of the electoral college, southern states got an unfair advantage. The electoral college was a sop given to the South as a consolation prize to make their defeat less bitter (not that it seems to have worked). If you ask me, the Union was far too soft on these defeated rebels. They never really submitted and have been a thorn in our sides for years.
Trump’s campaign made out that he was a populist. The sad truth is that the liberal politicians have been practicing an ideology called neoliberalism for years. This ideology claimed that an international economy was best. It was used as an excuse for corporations to outsource jobs to the Third World where they could use cheap labor and save money. “Liberal” presidents like Bill Clinton made trade deals which favored the corporations and hurt the workers. Parts of the country have become depressed areas where massive numbers of workers were chronically unemployed. Clinton also “reformed” Welfare by allowing recipients to only collect for two years in their entire lifetimes regardless of what their circumstances might have been. When Trump spoke out against the northern elite, his words reached many a receptive ear. He threatened to “kill the deep state” which he held responsible. The deep state was a concept that existed long before Trump. Also known as the shadow government, the deep state represented the fact that the richest people were really running the country regardless of who won the elections. These wealthy people had deep pockets from which they only had to dip in to pay for electioneering of whichever politician pleased them. The Supreme Court’s decision, Citizen’s United, made things even worse for democracy. Although the Democrats kept most of the New Deal legislation, which enabled many working class Americans to hold their heads above water, they supported neoliberalism which increased economic inequality every years. The Occupy Movement pointed out how most of us were being sold down the river by the 1% who owned most of the wealth.
Trump promised to give the 99% a fair deal when he became president. Instead, he has given the rich even more advantages than they already had and has been trying to complete the project Ronald Reagan started to demolish the New Deal. Since many Republicans are senior citizens who depend on Social Security and Medicare, it seems unlikely that he will really manage to complete his plan to pay for his obscene bonanza he has given the rich in tax breaks by privatizing those programs. But he uses distractions to keep his useful idiots in line while he picks their pockets clean. His nativism, blaming non-citizens for all of our hardships, his religiously based right-wing intolerance is using scapegoats as a buffer for his suckers’ frustrations have proven to be as successful as Hitler’s big lie technique was back in those days.
As you might have gathered, I don’t like Trump or right-wing politics in general. But I was once a Goldwater conservative. I got that way by reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in my late teens (or early twenties). The book was a shock. I read The Fountainhead with no idea that Rand was conservative. I only thought she is in favor of an individual having the courage of his convictions. But reading Atlas Shrugged, there was no missing the ideology. And it actually made sense to me when I read it. What could be wrong with keeping what one produces? Government only exists to protect our freedom to produce and enjoy the fruits of our productiveness. It is the mind that increases the value an hour’s worth of labor can create. Why should mere workers, just contributing their ability to do what they did in primitive times, get paid more than the value of that plain physical labor? It is the mind of the entrepreneur that enabled him to produce more due to machinery. Suddenly, I saw my government as horribly perverse. They gave subsidies to farmers for not producing! They tax the rich a higher percentage of their income which they had earned so they could give Welfare to those who hadn’t earned it. You get the idea. The usual argument for laissez-faire capitalism. It’s easy to believe in it as long as daddy’s paying the bills and you’re in a good college. You can read my rebuttal in The Social Darwinism of Ayn Rand. But at the time I am discussing, conservative ideology made perfect sense to me. So I got involved, joined Young Americans for Freedom and the Conservative Party of New York. I even ran for State Assembly while I was in college. I enjoyed the fact that I was a young college student in the 60’s but a conservative. Well, I got over that. I went back to my liberal roots after reading Richard Wagner, my favorite composer, who was a socialist.
Where am I now?
I am certainly one of the many people who consider Trump a horrendous president and identify with The Resistance. If he were to actually accomplish what he is trying to accomplish, I would be without an income (Social Security). But then it occurs to me, what if Trump really knows what he’s doing and the news I get is all “fake?” Just imagining it makes me feel better. The little kid who switched gangs and pretended to be a spy just for the sake of variety is nodding vigorously. It’s strange that I can have such strong convictions and then realize they are expendable. Self-interest is the only absolute which must be supported by any system I embrace. Trump’s presidency hasn’t changed my life materially in any way so far. I have the same inadequate income. The cost of living has skyrocketed but that was already happening before Trump. The “giant sucking sound” of all our money being sucked into the realm of the 1% has been going on all my life.
The thing I like about Republicans (what I have always liked about them) is that they are not to “nice” to win. They will do the unscrupulous thing, the outrageous thing and the weak kneed Democrats often let them get away with it. Recent example: Republicans blocked Obama’s completely legitimate effort to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. Now they are trying to appoint a far-rightist to the court. If only the Democrats could be as ruthless as the Republicans but for their own agenda.But I have to remind myself that both parties are supported by the same deep-pocketed one percent. Maybe the ultra radicals are right in disdaining both major parties because they both support capitalism. Of course there are no signs that The Revolution is coming in the foreseeable future. So their aloofness doesn’t seem to be likely to fulfill their dreams either.
Our government is a mess. I’m voting Democratic. I still think I have the best chance of living a semi-decent life with that party in charge. But, as a psychopath, I am hanging loose. I may have some loyalties to a few individuals but not to any of these political parties.
Those who have been following my blog (and my Soapbox blog as well) know that I have spent a lot of time fulminating against consensus which I often call dogmatism. Isn’t scientific consensus an oxymoron? Let’s list some of the issues in which I have found consensus problematic:
Diabetes. The medical consensus would have it that diabetes is an incurable condition. Once you’ve got it, you’ve got it forever. It’s a fact that doctors are grossly under-educated about nutrition. Of course, given the state of the field of “nutrition,” perhaps it’s a good thing that doctors aren’t taught too much since, in my (not so) humble opinion, nutritionists are fonts of ignorance. They are taught to promote the Standard American Diet (SAD) which is responsible for a population ridden with cancer and other diseases that are preventable. Cut to the chase: I had diabetes. I cured myself with diet. My diet was a simple vegan diet. The “guru” who guided me in my quest was Dr. Neal Barnard who wrote Reverse Diabetes Now. I am a firm believer in a raw, vegan diet. It worked for me. As it says in The Book of the Law, “Let success be thy proof.”
Raw Food. While I didn’t resort to a raw diet to heal my diabetes, I once did eat a raw, vegan diet for six years. During that time, I kept the effects of Hepatitis C at bay. My doctors had been on the verge of putting me on Interferon, a medication that kills the Hep C virus but causes a lot of nasty side effects. I figured if I have to go through this cure, I will be too sick to enjoy eating my favorite foods anyway so I had nothing to lose by embracing this austere diet. The doctors scheduled a liver biopsy for me in three months. After three months on that diet, the biopsy showed I no longer needed to take Interferon. Recently, I took new newly discovered drug (Harvoni) and got rid of the virus entirely.
I already believed in the raw, vegan diet ever since I read Become Younger by Norman A. Walker. I had just recovered from pneumonia and I determined I would never go through that again. That time, I was true to my diet for two years. During that time, I weighed about 100 pounds and had perfect health. I didn’t stick it out because I missed other food.
Vaccination. Although I get regular flu shots, I was born before the “miracle” of the MMR (mumps, measles and rubella) vaccine. I got measles and, despite current propaganda, did not die of the disease. Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield spoke out about the dangers of the MMR vaccine. For his trouble, he was exiled from Britain and stripped of his medical credentials. I won’t get into the debate here. I have already discussed it elsewhere. I will only mention that I have encountered an unbelievable wall of fanaticism on the part of those who believe in that vaccine and vaccination in general.
Legalization of all Drugs. What is considered the harm caused by unregulated use of certain demonized substances is really, again, in my not-so-humble opinion, is caused by the regulations themselves, and the attempts to enforce said regulations, in other words, the “war on drugs.” I have believed this for years and years. I have a blog, Drug Heresies, where I make my case.
The way most people seem to feel about it is a lot like the way they feel about the importance, nay, the necessity of conscience. The thinking is that people can only be good if they have a conscience. Interesting how, back in the days of theocracy, most people believed it was necessary to believe in God to be a good person. As great a mind as that of Dostoevsky held this belief. The root idea is that people will only be good if they are forced. The corollary is that bad behavior is much more alluring and rewarding. Only fear of punishment can keep us from doing wrong.
Transgenderism.We can want to be either gender. We can take hormones and undergo surgery to look more like the gender we want to be. That don’t make it so. People who support the Tranny Movement are as fanatical and intolerant as those who support vaccination. It’s scary how powerful and far-reaching this movement has become. I have spoken out against that opinion if only because of the tremendous pressure exerted to force everyone to support it.
As anyone can see, I’m very opinionated. I have argued in favor of my opinions as rationally as I know how. I have also deplored the absolutism of the scientific consensus that surrounds those views with which I disagree. I have not included my opinions are religion or morality which I consider too subjective to be worthy of rational debate. There’s the notion that all religion deserves equal respect. I prefer to give it equal disrespect. But that’s another discussion.
While I have eloquently attacked consensus in science, there is another side that deserves to be looked at. Of course, forced consensus is, by it’s very nature, unscientific. The hallmark of science is untrammeled freedom of thought. One of my favorite professors in college, Dr. Sidney Hook, used to say, “Don’t agree with me unless you just can’t help yourselves.” I find it troublesome that there is so much conformity among people who consider themselves scientists.
On the other hand, what would science be without consensus? If there were no consensus about anything, what authority would science have? Christian fundamentalists are trying to destroy consensus in areas of science that conflict with their biblical fundamentalism. For example, people are arguing scientifically against the theory of evolution. Global warming is another area of science which is hotly contested What do the words psychopathy and sociopathy mean? There is no consensus although many thinkers say the former is an inborn, neurological condition while the latter is caused by the environment. Nature vs. nurture is a longstanding debate. Science has a history of changing positions every 20 years or so.
I consider consensus a very important resting place for attempts to define objective truth. We need to stay on our feet intellectually. We need to question whatever is currently our consensus, not only in science, but it everything. But we also need consensus in building an edifice of truth. We can knock down that edifice but, without an edifice to begin with, we have nothing but chaos.
The quest for truth can be likened to mountain climbing. We manage to scramble up to a ledge or plateau. From there, we can aspire to greater heights. We can also abandon that plateau if we find it is a dead end. But we need to have the plateau as a structure to work with. Without bones, are arms would be unable to function. We don’t want to let the bones calcify which would make our arms too rigid to function. But we do need some kind of form with which to work. Politicalcorrectness, now demonized these days, comes from people with similar political opinions seeking to find a consensus among themselves. I have known people who struggled in marathon meetings, going on all night at times, seeking a consensus that might be overthrown sometime in the future.
There will always be a tension between structure and fluidity. Both have a place in commitment to finding Truth.
A Study by Focus Autism Foundation Finds: CDC Whistleblower Reveals Widewspread Manipulation of Scientific Data and Top-Down Pressure on CDC Scientists to Support the Fraudulent Application of Government Policies on Vaccine Safety.
Root of Science Denial. This article in Alternet claims opposition to certain ideas that have a so-called consensus among scientists is a symptom of mental illness. I would love to have a serious discussion of how ideas can be supported or disputed but I didn’t see anything in this article that refutes the arguments against forced vaccination.
Somebody asked on Quora, “Why are there so many fake psychopaths on Quora?”
Anyone who publicly declares hirself a psychopath or even a sociopath can practically be guaranteed that s/he will be called a fake at some point along the line. It’s funny. I’ve never heard of anyone being called a fake borderline or a fake histrionic. As for narcissists, people are more likely to be called a narcissist or a narc especially if they identity as a path.
It’s as if calling oneself a path is a form of bragging. We have always occupied a dual role of monster and glamorous celebrity. It’s really about the confusion between loving and hating the forbidden. Sin, forbidden fruit, breaking society’s rules has always had an allure for people. As I said in my first post, “People with Cluster B ‘personality disorders’ are often considered evil, incurable and generally bad news. But some of the most interesting people in the world are in that Cluster. You shun the Psychopath and yet are so fascinated, you keep flocking to movies about us. Face it. We lift you up from your mundane lives and provide some excitement.”
Because of the glamor associated with psychopathy, people like to challenge any claim to the condition. It is our grandiosity that is really being challenged.
Dan Baxter, answering the above question on Quora, made an interesting comment on the subject:
There are no fake psychopaths, anyone faking being a psychopath is actually a real psychopath but the individual probably doesn’t know that he or she is actually a psychopath but wants to be a psychopath so they pretend to be a psychopath going by whatever traits people say are psychopathic.
The only way you could “fake” being a psychopath is if your actually one but don’t realise it and you try to copy whatever behaviour or style that psychopaths are doing. Basically psychopaths can act and believe what ever they want to. This is why it is very important for psychopaths to gain self awareness emotionally so they don’t have to “fake it”.
If anyone here who wants to be a psychopath or thinks they are one you probably already are, just keep reading all the psychopath users on quora and eventually it will sink in emotionally. I recommend reading these users who are psychopaths themselves if you want to know more about psychopathy.
I would disagree with the absolute nature of that statement. There can be fake psychopaths. There can be fake anything. I usually take peoples’ word for it unless there is clear reason to doubt it. The funny thing is that despite the voluminous discussions on whether a self-proclaimed psychopath or sociopath is “fake” or not, none of us is really qualified to express an expert opinion. Only professionals have the “right” to give a diagnosis. And those professionals can only legitimately make a diagnosis after studying the individual in person. That hasn’t stopped masses of professionals from declaring Trump to be either a psychopath or a narcissist. Much as I don’t like Trump, I object to this misuse of psychology. (Or, perhaps, I just don’t like being part of a group to which he belongs.) Thanks to the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM, psychopathy has been partially relegated to the realm of mythology. I couldn’t even get any professional to measure me on the PCL-R. Instead, I got a dx of ASPD, like many other have received as well. Whether that’s “really” psychopathy or not is left in the air. Then there’s the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. The former is born that way and has a differently wired brain. To know whether I’m really a psychopath or a sociopath, I would have to get a brain scan. Nobody seems interested enough in the answer to subject me to such a test. I certainly can’t afford one. I dare say, many of us are in the same boat.
So maybe we’re all “full of shit,” starting with those who point a finger and yell “fake.” Anyone can become an authority on Quora. It’s up to the questioner to decide whether that person knows what s/he’s talking about. There are some really credible people giving answers about psychopathy on Quora. Each and every one of those people has been called a “fake” at one time or another. Who gives a shit?
In Richard Wagner’s music drama (opera to the uninitiated), Die Meistersinger, Wagner appears in two characters, the wise older man, Hans Sachs, a shoemaker and master singer, and Walther von Stolzing, the revolutionary brilliant but impetuous genius. Of course, the former represented the mature Wagner while the latter represented his younger self. The heroine is complaining about the shoes Hans Sachs made for her but she’s really complaining about how Sachs has interfered in her life by preventing her from eloping prematurely with Walther. In the course of their conversation, Eva lashes out, “Ah! Master! Should you know better than I where the shoe pinches? (Ach, Meister! Wüßtet Ihr beser als ich, wo der Shuh mich drückt?)”
Karl Marx is one of the most influential thinkers of the past century. In his name, the social/political/economic system known as Communism was installed. Marx taught that class was the…
Everyday, nonviolent psychopaths say they’re nothing like the psychopath we see on our movie screens
Not so long ago, a woman was sitting on a plane, minding her own business, when the man next to her made several attempts at conversation. Jane, let’s call her, assumed the man was drunk, so she didn’t bother being friendly or making any effort with him. But her unfiltered behavior didn’t go unnoticed, and at the end of the flight, the man politely suggested she might be a psychopath.
That comment resonated enough with Jane that she looked up the term “psychopathy” when she got home. She recognized herself in the descriptions and tried to talk to her sister about it, but her sister seemed hurt and offended. So Jane took it back and said she wasn’t a psychopath and that she didn’t mean it.
That reaction isn’t surprising, says M.E. Thomas, author of Confessions of a Sociopath. “What are the implications of someone you know being a sociopath? Maybe that they don’t love you after all, at least not in the way that you thought they did,” Thomas says. “Maybe that they’ve had bad thoughts about you. Maybe that they’ve manipulated you or hurt you in ways that you weren’t even aware of at the time. Maybe you go back through your interactions with them and doubt their intentions or their feelings for you.”
In recent years, the violent, manipulative psychopath has become so pervasive in popular culture that it’s hard to find a Netflix series about anything else. After watching 400 movies made between 1915 and 2010 to identify “realistically” portrayed psychopaths, Belgian psychiatry professor Samuel Leistedt concluded, “It appears that psychopathy in the cinema, despite a real clinical evolution, remains fictional…Most of the psychopathic villains in popular fiction resemble international and universal bogeyman, almost as ‘villain archetypes.’”
Away from our screens, however, psychopathy is not a monolithic disorder with clearly defined behaviors. It’s nuanced and widely misunderstood, according to James Fallon, a neuroscientist who incidentally discovered his own psychopathic traits when examining his PET scan as part of an unrelated research project.
“The only thing really accepted is antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is a subpart of psychopathy,” Fallon says. The latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines ASPD as a “pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” Psychopaths are considered to have a severe form of ASPD.
“I don’t like the assumption that because these four letters exist next to my name in my medical notes — ASPD — I should be treated with a great deal of suspicion.”
Scientists estimate that the prevalence of psychopathy in society varies between around 0.2 and 2 percent, and research suggests that those with psychopathic traits are more violent than those without. But experts, also acknowledge that not everyone with a diagnosis is violent, including Fallon.
“I’d never hurt the people I know. I’ve put people in dangerous situations, but I’ll do it with them. I like the thrill, so for me it’s just fun, but most people can’t go there. They still hang around with me but just won’t fall for any traps,” Fallon says. “They’re looking for me to pull a prank on them, but I’ve never manipulated a stranger. They’re very safe around me. I have a rich life with lots of friends, so why lie and put people in true danger?”
Thomas, an attorney and law professor whose book details her life as a self-described nonviolent sociopath, says there is truth to the questions people might ask themselves in Jane’s family’s position, but it doesn’t have to be that way. In the process of being open with people about her own diagnosis, Thomas lost one friend and many professional opportunities, but most of her friends eventually came around.
It would be much easier if people didn’t have misconceptions around psychopathy, she says. In her book, Thomas writes that he calls herself a “sociopath” instead of “psychopath” because of the negative connotations of “psycho” in popular culture — even though psychosis is not a characteristic of psychopathy. For those with an ASPD diagnosis, these popular misconceptions can have serious consequences.
Scout Bolton calls herself a nonviolent, high-functioning sociopath. She was diagnosed with ASPD nine years ago at the age of 20, while under the care of a mental health team for bipolar disorder. Bolton had been getting into fights, dealing amphetamines, and had even been arrested. But today she has a stable life with good friends, a supportive fiancée, and her first child on the way. She blogs about how to turn antisocial traits into positives.
“They’re very safe around me. I have a rich life with lots of friends, so why lie and put people in true danger?”
Because of her diagnosis, Bolton explains, people interpret her positive traits negatively, assuming her confidence is narcissism and her social skills are manipulation — medical professionals included. “Doctors will write you off and believe everything you say is a manipulation,” she says. “I don’t like the assumption that because these four letters exist next to my name in my medical notes — ASPD — I should be treated with a great deal of suspicion.”
Bolton is so affected by the public perception of psychopaths that she often stays indoors to avoid interacting with people. “My life is colored by how hidden I feel, and sometimes it makes me quite contemptuous, to a point where I don’t want to leave the house,” she says. “It’s not aggression or depression. I’m not worried anything bad is going to happen, but I just don’t want to interact with anyone, because I know I’ll go into an overdrive of resentment and a feeling of injustice, so I stay home, lay low, and stay isolated.”
This judgement toward people with ASPD is particularly unfair, Fallon argues, because they’re not responsible for thinking the way they do. “People with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) get obsessions and rituals, but they know they’re irrational,” he says. “Someone with a personality disorder has similar thoughts as someone with OCD, but they think their behaviors are good and true.”
Another unfortunate consequence of pop-culture psychopathy is the fetishization of its dangerous side, which, Bolton says, is a particular problem for women. “We’re here to bring exquisite fire and fury into the lives of the terminally bored, whether we made that decision or not,” she says. “But when people get in relationships with us, they quickly find that all the things they found irresistible about us were a fantasy, and when we fail to live up to that masturbatory illusion, we’re demonized.”
Sexual fantasies aside, the growing public fascination with psychopaths interferes with the lives of nonviolent psychopaths in strange ways. This is something 38-year-old Becky, who also has ASPD, found when she signed up for Facebook to talk to others about her diagnosis. The popularization of psychopathy, she says, has roused people — usually young men who haven’t been diagnosed with a personality disorder — to request membership to the Facebook group she runs for psychopaths. She says people often open with the question, “Have you killed anyone?”
Some psychopathic traits can be attributed to being abused as a child, research has found. Bolton was diagnosed with conduct disorder as a child, which is defined as the display of aggressive and antisocial behavior in children to the extent that it interferes with them leading a normal life, according to the UK’s Royal College of Psychiatrists. Conduct disorder often leads to a diagnosis of ASPD later in life.
Bolton argues that the link between ASPD and childhood trauma makes it even harder to justify the judgements against people with the diagnosis. “If you’re a child going through a hard time at home and you’re reacting with impulsive, tearaway behaviors, you’re written off,” she says. “You’ve become the problem. But what child decides to become a sociopath, just for a laugh?”
Fallon, who attributes his nonviolent nature to his happy upbringing, says he has a series of genes called “warrior genes,” which are thought to be a risk for aggression, violence, and low empathy, but only in those raised in an abusive environment. Being raised in a positive environment can offset some of the genes’ negative effects. “I grew up really good-looking, really athletic, and I got everything I wanted all the time. I don’t know what I’d do if life was bad, because it’s never been bad,” Fallon says.
While the damaging stereotype of the psychopath has far-reaching consequences, Fallon, who helps writers in Hollywood gain a realistic idea of psychopathy, says things are improving. “We’re no longer seeing much of this idea of the psycho, somebody out of their minds, growling and sneering like a mad dog,” he says. “This doesn’t describe a lot of people with psychopathy.”
While Bolton feels unfairly judged because of how psychopaths have been portrayed, she doesn’t want to see the disorder completely censored. “I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to portray real psychopathy,” she says, citing Netflix’s Mindhunter as “a really good portrayal of psychopathy.”
“I like how what seems like benign, and even positive ASPD, seems reflected back in the show’s protagonist,” she says. “I’d like to see more of that.”
Boredom is the psychopath’s nemesis. I often fight it by writing in my blog. So I’m bored now. What do I write about? Boredom, I suppose. But it’s so BORING! A lot has been written about our boredom. What can I say that’s new and conducive to expanding our understanding of this phenomena?
Twice in my life, I had the experience of being on the edge of an infinite void. Once, when I was a child. I just felt I could fall into something so empty and strange I could lose myself. The second time I experienced this was on my first acid trip. It was accompanied by a feeling of tiredness. So tired! I could just slide into chaos.
WIKIPEDIA says something interesting about emptiness:
While Christianity and Western sociologists and psychologists view a state of emptiness as a negative, unwanted condition, in some Eastern philosophies such as Buddhist philosophy and Taoism, emptiness (Śūnyatā) represents seeing through the illusion of independent self-nature.
Loneliness will fall on you Emptiness will see you through
Well, it’s a human condition. So I’m not a total freak. And it encompasses boredom, social alienation and apathy, all experiences I am well familiar with. But “emptiness” is frowned upon in Western culture. My friend, Lucky Otter says, of psychopaths, “there’s nothing inside them except an vast and endless black void of nothingness….Behind the twinkle, the eyes are still reptilian and dead.” Is this the same void I had experienced? (Well, not “experienced” because I didn’t go over the edge. I was only threatened by the void.) She’s not the only person who has said this about us. The “victim’s” blog, Psychopaths and Love, lists similar descriptions of our eyes:
I have noticed that sometimes his eyes looked completely without expression, like glass
I couldn’t even look him in his eyes because I felt a shiver running through me. I thought it was because I was in love.
My nickname for him was Devil Eyes
As the relationship progressed I saw his eyes change to evil, soulless tools and it was frightening and perplexing.
I saw that serpent look in the eyes
I saw a picture of me and him the first day we hung out. It was like staring at the eyes of the devil
Once you look into those cold, dead eyes, you aren’t the same.
I have one very eerie photo taken on a holiday where he is looking directly at me through the lens. His eyes appear to be flashing with hatred and contempt.
My two year anniversary is Sunday and I looked at our wedding pictures, just to see if his eyes were as dead then as they are now. I was horrified. They were.
“Pod Person,” that’s what I call him. The lifelessness, lack of light or soul behind his eyes is chilling. His eyeballs appear as if they are made of stones.
It’s eerie indeed, as I recall my psychopath’s lifeless expressions, lizard eyes…
I have not a doubt that I was hypnotized by him and I believe I know when. And it was when he told me to “look into my eyes” which I did and his response was, “I love when you look into my eyes.” By the next day, I woke up and thought about him immediately and couldn’t stop…
My psychopath had a lined face but the eyes were bright and he tended to act as if he was in his twenties (going on 60 in physical terms!). It can be a very sexy combination.
Sometimes during sex, mine would stare directly into my eyes for up to twenty minutes at a time. His eyes would not waver…
I remember thinking how his eyes were like that of a lizard, alive but somehow dead, at odds with the rest of his face.
Of course, it’s easy for these people to dehumanize us. And a lot of it is laughable. But I wonder if there’s something to it and whether this has something to do with our boredom. If so, perhaps the mistake is embracing the Western/Christian view of nothingness over the Eastern/Buddhist view of the Void as the ultimate consciousness. Doesn’t it seem as if there’s something our eyes see that terrifies the rest of the (western) world? I already know the value of being present, in the moment. Maybe meditation can by my next antidote to boredom.
Something or nothing. A toggle switch. Being or non-being. To be or not to be. Somehow there has to be something larger that encompasses these two apparent opposites.