Who is Mr. Putin?

[gdpetti]

Good points that fit with the fact that, if I remember correctly, it was an approved interview. Isn't the view in overt societies one in which the strength of the consort reflects the strength of the mate/leader? As in it takes a strong man to have such a strong wife of seeming independent point of view etc? The whole mating aspect in terms of accession to the throne through the female bloodlines seems to play into this profile of the leader in society somewhat, but not in covert democractic societies which the Russians have since Gorbachev tried to portray. Perhaps Putin is demonstrating his own strength of independent means/thought through showing such tendencies in his wife? If so, how does this play into the original issue of this thread on Putin's proposed psychopathic profile?
Perhaps it's just a sign of his ability to bend and not be broken as in the need to utilize the current structure of society to take control of it, for better or worse being a subjective viewpoint, as so few find themselves in positions as he finds himself on the world stage as the NWO, led by the USA, attempts its final push.

 

[bedower]

[quote author=gdpetti] Isn't the view in overt societies one in which the strength of the consort reflects the strength of the mate/leader? As in it takes a strong man to have such a strong wife of seeming independent point of view etc?

[/quote]

That certainly doesn't seem to be the case in the UK. The wives of British politicians are supposed to take a 'back seat', just in case they steal some of the lustre of the Main Man.

e.g. Cherie Blair made some sympathetic comment about the Palestinian cause and she was forced by Tony to apologise to the Israeli ambassador! So much for her having an independent viewpoint!

e.g. The late Princess Diana outshone her husband on every level; and was greatly disliked by the Windsor family for being the most popular member of that dysfunctional family, according to polls taken. According to newspaper reports, Charles complained bitterly about it!

I can't answer for the US perspective here.

 

[Hildegarda]

If Putin is such a 'difficult' man, would he have allowed his wife's rather searing and highly personal comments on their domestic life to be made public? He certainly seems to be unfazed by Ludmila's disclosures. Surely he would have read the transcripts first?

Blotsky states that he didn't. putin trusted the biohrapher , and the first book was a success. like i said those quotes are interspersed with positive and neutral content, so even if he did see them he may not have thought them significant.

I would also like to able to know who was the intended receiver of this interview when they released it in the press. That would tell a lot.

this wasn't an interview, it was a pro-Putin book for general reader of which ludmila's words were only a small part. but, the book, a second part in the series, was pulled off the shelves based on public reaction, and the continuation nixed.

 

[Hildegarda]

Just calling it how I see from what little bit of info we have to go on here, from a disgruntled wife aiming for a book deal no less.

she is not aiming for a book deal. the book was about Putin. she keeps a very low profile ad especially recently wasn't heard from at all. this stuff came out by an accident it seems.

 

[anart]

she keeps a very low profile ad especially recently wasn't heard from at all. this stuff came out by an accident it seems.

Well, remember what Franklin D. Roosevelt said about politics.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."

At that level of power, there are many people who review 'books written' - so you can bet it was planned that way. It is exceedingly easy to forget how truly control and scripted everything is at that level of power.

 

[gdpetti]

That certainly doesn't seem to be the case in the UK. The wives of British politicians are supposed to take a 'back seat', just in case they steal some of the lustre of the Main Man.

Yes, but Britain is a covert society like here in the States and that aspect usually only covered more Roman type empires. If the society is too closed, then that whole paranoia psychopathic thing would ring true, but if the overt control, such as Rome, was glorified, then women do play that part until the greed thing gets too out of hand and most of the fighting is internal.

...putin trusted the biographer , and the first book was a success. like i said, those quotes are interspersed with positive and neutral content, so even if he did see them he may not have thought them significant.

Good point, perhaps that whole 'wishful thinking' and only seeing what you want to see? :/ But that can be STS orientation or just lack of self-awareness, in which this experience helps wake him up. She seems to symbolize Putin's transformation as well as he comes into power and international position of public exposure, something most of us aren't used to, nor ready for.

 

[wakemenow]

None of this "evidence" comes across as conclusive proof or evenly strongly suggesting that Putin may be a sociopath.

The question actually isn't whether Putin is a sociopath, it is whether he is a psychopath - understanding the difference between the two is crucial.

As I posted in another thread:

If you have not had the opportunity to read Political Ponerology by Lobaczewski, it would alleviate that misunderstanding. Other works that would help clarify the difference are :

Mask of Sanity - Hervey Cleckley
In Sheep's Clothing - George K. Simon
Sociopath Next Door - Martha Stout
Without Conscience - Robert Hare
Snakes in Suits - Robert Hare and Paul Babiak
Predators - Anna Salter


It would be beneficial for you to come to a deeper understanding simply to be able to discuss these issues without confusing sociopathy and psychopathy.

Anart, I seriously don't have time to read 5-6 more books right at this moment just to find out this forum's opinion on the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, which plenty regard as one and the same. If such a major difference exists that you feel the need to repeat the same exact post chastising me about this, why don't you just post or PM the definitions to me? This appears little more than an issue of semantics varying only slightly between the fields of Sociology and Psychology, with both terms commonly understood as meaning the same dang thing.

Really, if you'd like someone to understand a terminological distinction, you don't prescribe a lengthy reading list right off the bat. Why not simply explain? Instead you came across as quite arrogant to a newcomer who means no harm.

 

[Tigersoap]

I seriously don't have time to read 5-6 more books right at this moment just to find out this forum's opinion on the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, which plenty regard as one and the same.

Hello AM,

If you don't have the time to read the aformentionned books I am afraid there won't be much of an exchange because you will lack a firm base to discuss the subject of psychopathy/sociopathy.

[quote author=AM]Really, if you'd like someone to understand a terminological distinction, you don't prescribe a lengthy reading list right off the bat. Why not simply explain? Instead you came across as quite arrogant to a newcomer who means no harm.
[/quote]

There is nothing arrogant in Anart's answer.
Read the books and come discuss them afterwards if you please.

Have you checked the glossary ?

http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=616&lsel=P

Or simply use the search fonction with the word sociopathy ?

I hope I am not too arrogant to ask you to read this by yourself ? ;)

 

[Buddy]

I seriously don't have time to read 5-6 more books right at this moment just to find out this forum's opinion on the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, which plenty regard as one and the same.

Hi AM. If the opinion of the 'plenty' is fine for you, what are you looking for here?

As long as you've been a registered member, you're probably aware of our position on opinions.

In 1a, we see that an opinion is always subjective even if, by accident, it
MIGHT be objective. It is formed entirely within the mind of the person,
shaped and colored by that person's programming and reading instrument
distortions.

So here, "opinion" is a dangerous thing to have; and I mean dangerous for
the individual because it is an instrument of blindness.

This appears little more than an issue of semantics varying only slightly between the fields of Sociology and Psychology, with both terms commonly understood as meaning the same dang thing.

That appearance is understandable, but the only way to get beyond it is to do the recommended reading. What is 'commonly understood' is not necessarily useful objective data.

Really, if you'd like someone to understand a terminological distinction, you don't prescribe a lengthy reading list right off the bat.

AM, No one is playing doctor, here, and prescribing you anything. This is not some joke. The subject is important. The understanding is important and we're not interested in opinion or information that only lasts long enough for a temporary discussion. We seek objective data. Maybe you could at least consider that. Maybe you be a valuable participant once you get up to speed.

If you had a minimal understanding of narcissism from the basic psychology recommended reading, you might see the comment you made above as narcissistic expectations of others. It might be more beneficial for you to read the basic psychology books and then go to anart's recommended list, to build the framework from the ground up.

BTW, have you read Laura's Wave series? The ideas and concepts presented in that work form the basis for most discussions on this forum.

 

[anart]

Anart, I seriously don't have time to read 5-6 more books right at this moment just to find out this forum's opinion on the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, which plenty regard as one and the same.

A person is either interested in the truth, in gaining knowledge and understanding, especially about one of the most important topics facing mankind at the present time, or they are not. From your posts on this forum, it would appear that you are not. That's certainly your choice, but please don't expect this forum to make you more comfortable in your lack of understanding, or to allow statements to be made to blur the vital line of distinction between sociopathy and psychopathy.

 

[Joe]

Anart, I seriously don't have time to read 5-6 more books right at this moment just to find out this forum's opinion on the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, which plenty regard as one and the same.

Well there is a distinction. Sociopathy is generally used by those who believe that the problem in question is more a result of socialisation or upbringing etc. Psychopathy is used more by those who tend to think it is more genetic. There is also a subtle semantic difference in the two words. A sociopath is assumed to have problems with social norms and fitting in, they are "anti-social". As I said, these ideas suggest that the problem is nurture (family, society etc) rather than nature. The word "psychopath" is much more suggestive of the problem being first and foremost with the person rather than the problem being a result of their relationship with society or social norms.

 

[NormaRegula]

It appears AM never cared to expend the energy to understand the aims of this forum, let alone bother to read the forum guidelines. AM's insulted overreaction to a forum member's recommendation begs the question: Why did this person come here in the first place?

This excerpt was posted today on AM's blog:

Weird ass bunch of people. I joined a site called SOTT.net (stands for Signs of the Times) a good while back and very rarely have time to visit it and sort through it’s plethora of theories, assertions, and recommended reading material, but I did give it a go and read what I could. Today I visited their site again and replied to responses posted way back when that I thought were rather rude. Then they banned me.

It truly was an innocent exchange where I managed two comments, both asking what their forum sees as a distinction between the terms “sociopath” and “psychopath” since they made a big deal about it, and they banned me outright — even as they replied on the board, disallowing me to respond at all. When I checked their forum’s help section to find out how to contact the administrators, no contact information could be found.

Not sure if you can read their little forum without signing up to become a member, but the threads in question are: Is Putin a Psychpath?...

If AM had expended a modicum of energy, he/she would know that anyone can read the forum threads without signing up to comment, as well as how to contact the administrators.

And then this:

Half this blog, my entire chosen undergraduate fields of study (sociology and criminal justice), PLUS my future graduate study plans, all demonstrate my curiosity and desire to better understand what’s really going on in society. But whatever. They apparently don’t have the answers or they wouldn’t behave in such a bullying manner.

Well, if AM is going to study sociology and criminology, he/she might find it advantageous to become familiar with the differences between a sociopath and psychopath...along with finding answers to some pretty interesting questions by reading books by experts in the field like Checkly, Stout, Simon, Hare, Babiak, and Salter.

More of AM's observations of SOTT are at a wordpress blog entitled "Wake Me Now": _http://wakemenow.wordpress.com/

 

[Buddy]

Well, if AM is going to study sociology and criminology, he/she might find it advantageous to become familiar with the differences between a sociopath and psychopath...along with finding answers to some pretty interesting questions by reading books by experts in the field like Checkly, Stout, Simon, Hare, Babiak, and Salter.

Yep, he could have found the information easily by following the recommendations. SOTT has no title or exclusive rights to the work of Checkly, Stout, Simon, Hare, Babiak, and Salter that I know of. He didn't even have to be a member here to get access to this information.


[quote author=AM's blog]
It truly was an innocent exchange where I managed two comments, both asking what their forum sees as a distinction between the terms “sociopath” and “psychopath” since they made a big deal about it, and they banned me outright — even as they replied on the board, disallowing me to respond at all.[/quote]

But this is not his house. By signing up he agreed to the forum guidelines and then proceeded to ignore the sincerity and objectivity and interactions aspects we promote here. It was a year ago (September 12, 2008) that he was pointed in the right direction. A year later he complains. What has he been reading in the meantime? And what will he read now? His opportunity is still there. All he needs do is go to the sources. OSIT

 

[anart]

He/she is obviously young and not very interested in reading material that hasn't been laid out in his/her coursework in order to learn the truth about psychopathy. This in and of itself is not a big issue. The issue is when he/she comes here and basically acts like a jerk without even having taken the time - over the past year - to read what little material was suggested in the first place. In fact, he/she was not banned out right or they would not be able to read the forum at all. Their posting ability was blocked, to limit further aggressive input, while allowing this person the opportunity to continue to learn and read if they so choose. It's usually a best case scenario that way when someone has shown through their actions to be less than sincere about actually learning and participating. Considering their response to this, it seems to have been the correct thing to do, for now.

Hopefully those reading his/her blog will follow the link to the forum and actually learn more about psychopathy!

 

[Bo]

Some people are just lazy, If he truly had desire and curiosity, he would have responded differently to Anart's post.