Thomas Sheridans books and videos on youtube about Psychopaths

Cosmos

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
a few months ago I discovered the channel of a man called Thomas Sheridan on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasSheridanArts

he uploaded a vast number of videos about psychopathy:

one example:
Labyrinth of the Psychopath 18 - The Bigger Picture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0-DmXynOcY&list=PL40E394348A73E6FD&index=11

from what I can see so far, his research into psychopathy and his conlusions pretty much corresponds with ours.

he has wrote a book called "Puzzling People: The Labyrinth of the Psychopath" the description from Amazon is the following:

Product Description
As well-researched as a scholarly work, yet with the immediacy and accessibility of a layman, Puzzling People is a first-person account of the cheats, the charlatans, the liars, the neglectful parents, abusive teachers, two-faced politicians and their Psychopathic Control Grid, tyrannical bosses and colleagues from hell we have all encountered, including the lying lovers who use us then lose us in an instant. Puzzling People takes an in-depth look at how the minds of psychopaths work and why, and focusses on what you can do to survive and thrive and ultimately escape forever. Delivered in a voice that makes it clear that the author lives what he writes, Puzzling People is an invaluable field guide to spotting and avoiding entities so completely lacking in empathy or compassion they may as well be counted as a different species entirely to human beings.
Click to expand...

he is currently writing a follow up book wich will be publishead in the beginning of 2012 . the discription of the book from from his website:
Follow Up Book to Puzzling People: the Labyrinth of the Psychopath - EARLY 2012
At the moment I am currently working on the follow up book to Puzzling People: the Labyrinth of the Psychopath. I had no real intention to write a follow up - but with the success of PPLP which has become something of an underground sensation, my publishers Velluminous Press have requested me to write a follow up book. I have also received hundreds of emails and private messages from people looking for more of my insights into the subject of psychopathic abuse and recovery. I also want to take the next book were I initially wanted PPLP to go as more of a philosophical guide to understanding the full impact the experience has on victims and how to incorporate this "lesson learned" into a more enriching and fulfilling life.

The next book will, apart from dealing with topics not covered in depth in PPLP: child psychopaths, aging psychopaths, cult leader psychopaths as well as detailed behavioural profiles of the most common specific persona types utilised by psychopaths to gain trust and find enablers/victims. The latest scientific research into neuro-sceince and behavioural understanding, the increasingly, overtly proto-psychopathic social order and many other new aspects and information. Along with recovery tools for victims to incorporate into their own lives.

The time has now come to move beyond the age of psychopathic abuse and on towards a more holistic understanding of human psychology and what it really means to be a victim. If psychopaths are hard wired to be predators, then are by extrapolation, victims also hardwired to be victims too? If so, why and how to break the cycle.

Again, thank you all for making Puzzling People: the Labyrinth of the Psychopath continue to have such a major impact beyond my expectations and which has now become a book which people have come to value and incorporate into their own personal lives. You are the real heroes, not me. It is going to be a challenge to put it all this together into a single book and I hope to explode the lid off the subject by taking it to a more philosophical and transformative experience for abuse survivors and society as a whole.

During the course of 2012 non-English versions of Puzzling People will be translated with initial versions coming out in German, Spanish, Swedish, Portuguese, Slovak and Arabic.

All the Best,
Thomas
Click to expand...

his website: http://thomassheridanartist.blogspot.com/

did anyone read his book or watched his videos ?
and if so what do you think ?

Edit: spelling
 
I'll be having a look thanks to you finding it and bringing it up!
 
Hey Pashalis, I have viewed some of his videos and think his information is consistent with what has been discussed on here and in the recommended books on psychopathy. Although I own his book, I have yet to read it. Recently I have been reading research that has come out of Australia (John Clarke and Clive Boddy) and those guys are really focusing on corporate psychopaths.

Clarke separates psychopaths into four categories: the organizational psychopath, the corporate criminal psychopath, the violent criminal psychopath and the occupational psychopath (from Working with Monsters: How to identify and protect yourself from the workplace psychopath).

Violent criminal psychopaths are the physically abusive ones the mass media actually discuss.

Occupational psychopaths use their jobs to satisfy their "needs" and generally don't want to move up in companies. These could include army officers, security guards, etc, (Clarke, 76).

Organizational psychopaths use a number of strategies to manipulate their ways into their companies. They generally have two main goals. Their first goal is to get to the top of their profession, because of the financial rewards and positions of power it gives them (Clarke, 59). Their second goal is to be able to inflict suffering and misery on the people they work with, (Clarke, 60).

Corporate criminal psychopaths commit crimes in their workplace or as a part of an organized ring devoted to corporate crimes. "This category includes bank employees who defraud their employers, stockbrokers involved in scams, builders who con clients..."(Clarke, 65-66). These psychopaths are usually superficial and brilliant at giving the "right" impressions to con their victims. If caught in a lie they rework the facts and confuse the listener, (Clarke, 67).

Clive Boddy has chosen to label occupational, organizational and corporate criminal psychopaths as "criminal psychopaths" and he has apparently developed a measurement tool for detecting them: Psychopathy Measure-Management Research Version (PM-MRV), but I have yet to finish his book, Corporate Psychopaths: Organizational Destroyers to read what the measurement consists of.

Anyway, I don't want to discount Sheridan's research, but would like to share that these Australian researchers have been doing a lot of research on "corporate" psychopaths as of late. I HIGHLY recommend Clarke's Working with Monsters book for those interested in the differences between "corporate" psychopaths specifically...hopefully this is not off topic.
 
I'm about 1/4 of the way through the book and I'm going to recommend this one highly. Even if there are a few nitpicky things that he could have more clarity on, (IMO), overall, it is so good and accurate that those things aren't worth quibbling over. It's kind of like "psychopathy for dummies" and he's done a darn good job.
 
I finished the book and really, the nitpicky things are small and the overall grasp of the topic outweighs them making this a must read book! It says all the things I would like to say myself (and have in various ways) but I don't think I would write it in as easy-to-read a format. I would probably get bogged down in citing studies and so forth. Sheridan doesn't do that. It's pretty straightforward. Yes, he repeats some things, but they bear repeating in the various contexts in which they occur and it flows well. Very easy to understand.

He talks about psychopathy from the personal level to the government/elite level, drawing the comparisons nicely. If you really want to get the topic across to people who haven't got a lot of time or inclination to read long or complicated books, who need something practical right now, this is the book.
 
I should add: he writes a bit about psychopaths always "getting theirs" eventually. I sort of think that maybe he wrote this so as to give the reader some hope, but in general, it isn't really true. Only the failures of the taxon "get theirs" and I'm not even sure that it can be described that way because, since they don't really care, is it really some sort of justice?

Another item was his claim that there are as many female psychopaths as male. Well, that's a thorny issue for sure, but what he says makes sense. I did read a study that suggested that borderline personality disorder in women was really just how many female psychopaths were diagnosed. But there are other types of female psychopaths - the defining feature being "without conscience" - that are not obviously disordered in the "borderline" way; just think of Madeline Albright and Condoleeza Rice and Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton.

Sheridan is obviously not trying to be academic about the topic, but that's really what is good about the book. It is engaging and pretty darn accurate and he draws obvious conclusions that academic types would not dare to do because the system would come down on their heads!
 
I am reading this book right now too and its confused me a bit about how he believes psychopathy is just as common in men as it is in women. I would think that testosterone levels would play a factor in it being more common in men. I also read from other researchers that it's ten times more common in men, which is a huge difference!

It was nice to see that he referenced Political Ponerology in the back of his book and also that he discusses how we are ponerized here and there throughout the book.
 
Scarlet said:
I am reading this book right now too and its confused me a bit about how he believes psychopathy is just as common in men as it is in women. I would think that testosterone levels would play a factor in it being more common in men. I also read from other researchers that it's ten times more common in men, which is a huge difference!
Click to expand...

See Laura's post just above yours. He could be right. It could be that female psychopaths just aren't diagnosed as such, e.g. borderline (also, see Barb Oakley's latest book Cold-blooded Kindness, which has an interesting view of what definitely looks like female psychopathy). Also, Lobaczewski hypothesized (probably incorrectly) that psychopathy was strictly an x-linked genetic disorder. In that case, women with only one psychopathic x-chromosome are more 'carriers' because the effects are mitigated by their healthy other x-chromosome. Perhaps it has a different effect, and they just present trickier symptoms?
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Also, Lobaczewski hypothesized (probably incorrectly) that psychopathy was strictly an x-linked genetic disorder. In that case, women with only one psychopathic x-chromosome are more 'carriers' because the effects are mitigated by their healthy other x-chromosome. Perhaps it has a different effect, and they just present trickier symptoms?
Click to expand...

Yeah, perhaps it is not necessarily mitigated, but there is more "garden variety".

I remember reading information that supported Lobaczewski's theories. He said:

Daltonists, men with an impaired ability to distinguish red and green colors from grey, are now barred from professions in which this could cause a catastro-phe. We also know that this anomaly is often accompanied by a decrease in esthetic experience, emotions, and the feeling of linkage to people who can see colors normally. Industrial psychologists are thus cautious whether such a person should be entrusted with work requiring dependence upon an autonomic sense of responsibility, as workers safety is contingent upon this sense.

It was discovered long ago that these two above-mentioned anomalies – hemophilia and color blindness – are inherited by means of a gene located in the X chromosome, and tracking their transmission through many generations is not difficult. Geneticists have similarly studied the inheritance of many other features of human organisms, but they have paid scant attention to the anomalies interesting us here. Many features of human character have a hereditary bases in genes located in the same X chromosome; although it is not a rule. Something similar could apply to the majority of the psychological anomalies to be discussed below.
Click to expand...

Here is what I remember reviewing:

Genes on the X-chromosome not only influence general intelligence, but also have relatively specific effects on social–cognition and emotional regulation. Differences in cognitive and social abilities between the sexes could be directly linked to the influence of X-chromosome genes. [David H. Skuse. X-linked genes and mental functioning. Human Molecular Genetics, 2005, Vol.14, Review Issue 1]

The X chromosome carries a couple thousand genes, but few, if any, of these have anything to do directly with sex determination. Early in embryonic development in females, one of the two X chromosomes is randomly and permanently inactivated in nearly all somatic cells (cells other than egg and sperm cells). This phenomenon is called X-inactivation and it ensures that females, like males, have one functional copy of the X chromosome in each body cell. [X Chromosome, Wikipedia, _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome] It was previously assumed that only one copy is actively used. However, recent research have revealed that X-inactivation is not always complete such that as many as least 25% of the genes on the inactive X are either fully or partially active, with the percentage varying from one woman to another. [Carrel, L., & Willard, H. (2005). X-inactivation profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females. Nature, 434,400−404.] Perhaps this may be the reason why expression of pathology varies.

I was also reading today how during a very brief period of time, a fertilized ovule has 3n of DNA, since it has 2n from the mother and n from the father. That is, for a brief period of time in a fertilized ovule, there are 3 sets of 23 chromosomes, two coming from the mother [the 23(X) ones)] and one from the father [either 23(X) or 23(Y)]. I wonder if it increases the chance of recombination and "garden variety".

http://www.chs.helena.k12.mt.us/faculty/hbosch/biologytopics_files/webnotes/ch14/ch%2014%20notes.htm

2 of the chromosomes are called sex Chromosomes: ♀=XX ♂=XY
44 chromosomes are called autosomes. ♀=46 (XX) ♂=46 (XY)
Egg cells are haploid so they have 23 chromosomes 23(X)
Sperm cells are haploid so they have 23 chromosomes either 23(X) or 23(Y).

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Diploid_vs_Haploid

Gametes or germ cells are haploid cells (example: sperm and ova) containing only one set (or n) number of chromosomes and autosomal or somatic cells are diploid cells containing 2n number of chromosomes. The number of chromosomes (n) differs in different organisms. In humans a complete set (2n) comprises of 46 chromosomes.

Celula_diploide_haploide_image002.jpg


mitosis007.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Scarlet said:
I am reading this book right now too and its confused me a bit about how he believes psychopathy is just as common in men as it is in women. I would think that testosterone levels would play a factor in it being more common in men. I also read from other researchers that it's ten times more common in men, which is a huge difference!
Click to expand...

See Laura's post just above yours. He could be right. It could be that female psychopaths just aren't diagnosed as such, e.g. borderline (also, see Barb Oakley's latest book Cold-blooded Kindness, which has an interesting view of what definitely looks like female psychopathy). Also, Lobaczewski hypothesized (probably incorrectly) that psychopathy was strictly an x-linked genetic disorder. In that case, women with only one psychopathic x-chromosome are more 'carriers' because the effects are mitigated by their healthy other x-chromosome. Perhaps it has a different effect, and they just present trickier symptoms?
Click to expand...

that's what Lobaczewski had to say about it in the interview with SOTT.net:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/159686-In-Memoriam-Andrzej-M-obaczewski

Q (SOTT): And in this case, what do you think, how one should behave towards such psychopaths? Should one fight psychopathy in general, or should one strive to avoid it in their own life, simply staying as far away from a person like this as possible?

A (Lobaczewski): Well, one should rather keep away from him as far as possible, because psychopathy... the first thing that is claimed, the American sources claim that it occurs three times more rarely among women than among men. In my opinion this is not so. It is inherited equally often. However, there is the second allele, the second chromosome X, which hides the condition to a great degree.

Q (SOTT): In other words, it is more difficult to diagnose?

A (Lobaczewski) : Yes, it is so that the condition does not manifest itself so much. As a result the woman is more normal, although these psychopathic qualities can be noticed and sensed. So, what is going on here? One may... psychopaths have this dream that they would like to govern. "We want to be the government," they think, and this dream is realized from time to time in the human history and this is a gruesome time. Yes?
Click to expand...
 
Defeated Demons - New Book by Thomas Sheridan (Spring 2012) Promo Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhguEKAN42I&feature=feedu
 
I just watched Sheridan's YouTube video "UFOs Psychology and LSD". I am disappointed that he minimises UFOs because to me he then minimises the possibility of hyperdimensional interaction. For me, psychopathy makes more sense when looked at from a hyperdimensional interaction scenario/context. It makes me wonder about him when he seems so knowledgeable about the world, occult and spirituality yet downplays this aspect. I suppose he needs to read more SOTT.
 
Laura said:
I should add: he writes a bit about psychopaths always "getting theirs" eventually. I sort of think that maybe he wrote this so as to give the reader some hope, but in general, it isn't really true. Only the failures of the taxon "get theirs" and I'm not even sure that it can be described that way because, since they don't really care, is it really some sort of justice?

Another item was his claim that there are as many female psychopaths as male. Well, that's a thorny issue for sure, but what he says makes sense. I did read a study that suggested that borderline personality disorder in women was really just how many female psychopaths were diagnosed. But there are other types of female psychopaths - the defining feature being "without conscience" - that are not obviously disordered in the "borderline" way; just think of Madeline Albright and Condoleeza Rice and Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton.

Sheridan is obviously not trying to be academic about the topic, but that's really what is good about the book. It is engaging and pretty darn accurate and he draws obvious conclusions that academic types would not dare to do because the system would come down on their heads!
Click to expand...


Most borderlines hurt themselves. Usually, they cut. Many have eating disorders. One of the biggest driving factors is abandonment issues.
I had several traits of this show up in my teens. I could be projecting, but I wonder how much of that is not due to what that person has to do to protect themselves? How much of that is brought out by the family dynamic? They do feel, and they do feel to a very deep degree. I wonder if that is not the ultimate result of the devastation of the feminine by the dark masculine?


This is a pretty good video of what it feels like:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKIyZfIgUsI&feature=related
 
EmeraldHope said:
Most borderlines hurt themselves. Usually, they cut. Many have eating disorders. One of the biggest driving factors is abandonment issues.
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is your understanding of 'borderline' - that diagnosis doesn't really mean anything. It's a catch-all used for people they can't quite categorize and, very often, used to define a female psychopath. What you consider 'borderline' could be anything from non-responsive major depressive disorder to bi-polar to DID to an high level anxiety disorder - not to mention a hundred other things. It's my understanding that they started using 'borderline' because the people didn't really fit into an clear diagnosis - so you're basically projecting yourself onto the discussion when that isn't really accurate.

I think that if you work on trying to stop projecting yourself onto such discussions, it will help.
 
anart said:
EmeraldHope said:
Most borderlines hurt themselves. Usually, they cut. Many have eating disorders. One of the biggest driving factors is abandonment issues.
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is your understanding of 'borderline' - that diagnosis doesn't really mean anything. It's a catch-all used for people they can't quite categorize and, very often, used to define a female psychopath. What you consider 'borderline' could be anything from non-responsive major depressive disorder to bi-polar to DID to an high level anxiety disorder - not to mention a hundred other things. It's my understanding that they started using 'borderline' because the people didn't really fit into an clear diagnosis - so you're basically projecting yourself onto the discussion when that isn't really accurate.

I think that if you work on trying to stop projecting yourself onto such discussions, it will help.
Click to expand...


Well thank you,Anart. I did not really know that it didn't mean anything. I guess I was just trying to interject so that people would not get the impression that all " borderlines" are psychopaths, although some of them may be. So, I am glad that I posted, as your explanation helps a lot. The projecting is something that I will work on for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom