Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
- Thread starter purplehaze
- Start date
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I was, of course, being sarcastic. If anyone even googled her name they would see what she did to the last film producer....so not thinking she's gonna be gracing the silver screen anytime soon. Brieis, could you email me a way to contact you off of the forum? I have a couple of things I'd like to discuss. Thanks much!
I was, of course, being sarcastic. If anyone even googled her name they would see what she did to the last film producer....so not thinking she's gonna be gracing the silver screen anytime soon. Brieis, could you email me a way to contact you off of the forum? I have a couple of things I'd like to discuss. Thanks much!
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
All name changes (except minors) are reported to all five Credit Reporting agencies by law, which means the new name is listed in the pay-fer skip tracing dB's within 4-6 weeks. It's a no-brainer. Your shorts are safe ;D
Of course I don't actually believe her, but it would be nice if she changed her name without directly notifying her creditors since doing so is felony fraud.
Briseis said:
All name changes (except minors) are reported to all five Credit Reporting agencies by law, which means the new name is listed in the pay-fer skip tracing dB's within 4-6 weeks. It's a no-brainer. Your shorts are safe ;D
Of course I don't actually believe her, but it would be nice if she changed her name without directly notifying her creditors since doing so is felony fraud.
Buddy
The Living Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
The doing IS the being? You can't ask "why" in this case because "why" implies that an alternative is possible?
Would anyone say that all the above are equivalent expressions? I think so, but not sure at the moment.
sandrabrownma said:
The doing IS the being? You can't ask "why" in this case because "why" implies that an alternative is possible?
Would anyone say that all the above are equivalent expressions? I think so, but not sure at the moment.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Bud said:
I have tried to put that into words for years and could never get it below several paragraphs.
Folks in a close relationship with a 'path (garden variety on up) plague themselves by asking WHY. What you put in just a few words is a "truth" folks don't want to hear.
The normal person caught up in the 'path has unconsciously fashioned a "normal person" from the fragmented presentation of the 'path. Our brains automatically fill in the blanks. It's that construct we ask "why???" about. The reconstructed "normal person" our human brain automatically created, NEVER existed in the first place.
Bud said:
I have tried to put that into words for years and could never get it below several paragraphs.
Folks in a close relationship with a 'path (garden variety on up) plague themselves by asking WHY. What you put in just a few words is a "truth" folks don't want to hear.
The normal person caught up in the 'path has unconsciously fashioned a "normal person" from the fragmented presentation of the 'path. Our brains automatically fill in the blanks. It's that construct we ask "why???" about. The reconstructed "normal person" our human brain automatically created, NEVER existed in the first place.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I see two different questions here, so if I missed your point entirely, please let me know . . .
What I was talking about in my post you quoted is from below (my bolding). This is an automatic response the human brain makes, I'm pretty sure we aren't aware of this process.
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
The other "question" I perceive you to be asking is more about how our subjective, unconscious desires (ones we aren't readily aware of acting out) "fill in the blanks". This is, IMO, NOT a natural function of the human brain, like Cleckley's example above is. It's common enough, but it isn't built into the system.
When I met my garden variety psycho (ex husband), I was newly "alone" in a place without family. My close girlfriend had passed away from breast cancer nearly a year before, I was working evening shift and my adolescent children were running amok due to lack of mothering and supervision. My family was in Washington state and I was in So Cal. I'd also recently bought a home, and was clueless about home repairs, which were small things individually but there were several of them LOL.
I met my ex-H at work, and from the git-go I thought he was a big wierdo. I believe now my loneliness, my grief and loss, and my general "overwhelm" of single motherhood with adolescents discovering their friends and the World was much more fascinating than my attempts to protect them, led me to believe my life would be BETTER if I had a partner. I hadn't remarried since I left the kids' dad before my son was born.
So, not only did I "automatically" assign meaning to the missing pieces of my ex-H so that he made sense, I NEEDED and WANTED him, desperately, to be what I needed and wanted him to be. I relinquished my self-preservation and simple common sense, and saw only what I wanted to see, and re-interpreted the rest to suit what I wanted.
YES, I believe it is 'normal' to fill in the missing "o" in the M_tel sign when it comes to how our human brain processes information.
NO, it is abnormal and a symptom of emotional disturbance to construct an "imaginary partner" when the facts of this person conflict with what you want or need. What I did was surrender my allegiance to consensual reality. It eventually caught up with me, when the consequences became painful enough!
go2 said:
I see two different questions here, so if I missed your point entirely, please let me know . . .
What I was talking about in my post you quoted is from below (my bolding). This is an automatic response the human brain makes, I'm pretty sure we aren't aware of this process.
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
The other "question" I perceive you to be asking is more about how our subjective, unconscious desires (ones we aren't readily aware of acting out) "fill in the blanks". This is, IMO, NOT a natural function of the human brain, like Cleckley's example above is. It's common enough, but it isn't built into the system.
When I met my garden variety psycho (ex husband), I was newly "alone" in a place without family. My close girlfriend had passed away from breast cancer nearly a year before, I was working evening shift and my adolescent children were running amok due to lack of mothering and supervision. My family was in Washington state and I was in So Cal. I'd also recently bought a home, and was clueless about home repairs, which were small things individually but there were several of them LOL.
I met my ex-H at work, and from the git-go I thought he was a big wierdo. I believe now my loneliness, my grief and loss, and my general "overwhelm" of single motherhood with adolescents discovering their friends and the World was much more fascinating than my attempts to protect them, led me to believe my life would be BETTER if I had a partner. I hadn't remarried since I left the kids' dad before my son was born.
So, not only did I "automatically" assign meaning to the missing pieces of my ex-H so that he made sense, I NEEDED and WANTED him, desperately, to be what I needed and wanted him to be. I relinquished my self-preservation and simple common sense, and saw only what I wanted to see, and re-interpreted the rest to suit what I wanted.
YES, I believe it is 'normal' to fill in the missing "o" in the M_tel sign when it comes to how our human brain processes information.
NO, it is abnormal and a symptom of emotional disturbance to construct an "imaginary partner" when the facts of this person conflict with what you want or need. What I did was surrender my allegiance to consensual reality. It eventually caught up with me, when the consequences became painful enough!
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I'm always saying that the most psychopathic thing about non-psychopathic people is their tendency to project their own inner landscape on everyone else.
But we are programmed by our culture to do that with all the memes about equality, democracy, "all people are created equal" and "all have sinned and come short of the glory of god" and so on.
Maybe it is true that every psychopath is pretty much like every other psychopath, but normal humans have wide variation in intelligence, emotionality, temperament, and so forth.
I'm always saying that the most psychopathic thing about non-psychopathic people is their tendency to project their own inner landscape on everyone else.
But we are programmed by our culture to do that with all the memes about equality, democracy, "all people are created equal" and "all have sinned and come short of the glory of god" and so on.
Maybe it is true that every psychopath is pretty much like every other psychopath, but normal humans have wide variation in intelligence, emotionality, temperament, and so forth.
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I also think that there are risk factors for some people--those with the highest levels of empathy, tolerance, etc. Those risk factors that make people them wonderful, warm, accepting people are also the risk factors (when in high enough attribution) that cause them to see others thru who they are instead of seeing them for what they really are: pathological. As Laura said, projecting who they are onto others.
As I have written about on the magazine, people tend to give the pathological their own motives and behaviors more normality than what is obviously there. When non-pathologicals view pathology, they tend to attribute what their motives would be, how they would think of something, what they would and would not be. They project a conscience, a morality, etc. on to the pathological. Pathologicals don't project positive attributions on others, they project negative attributions (accusing others of what they have done). Non-pathologicals often project positive attributions.
This is also why normal people are always at risk. In one of the recent rants from one of the pathologicals we all know and love, was that I 'missed' obvious signs of pathology in certain people. I'm in good company, Robert Hare tells on his constant missing of signs. This is nothing to be ashamed about. It is pathology being what it is, or as Hare says 'the disorder of social hiding' meaning they hide well for a while, or sometimes a long time. It is no wonder that websites, services, or agencies started by people who have hyper empathy, hyper tolerance, trust, etc. are those who go through conning by pathology.
Pathology invisibility is part of the disorder, and our risk factors are part of what veils our reactions and projects goodness where only evil exists.
I also think that there are risk factors for some people--those with the highest levels of empathy, tolerance, etc. Those risk factors that make people them wonderful, warm, accepting people are also the risk factors (when in high enough attribution) that cause them to see others thru who they are instead of seeing them for what they really are: pathological. As Laura said, projecting who they are onto others.
As I have written about on the magazine, people tend to give the pathological their own motives and behaviors more normality than what is obviously there. When non-pathologicals view pathology, they tend to attribute what their motives would be, how they would think of something, what they would and would not be. They project a conscience, a morality, etc. on to the pathological. Pathologicals don't project positive attributions on others, they project negative attributions (accusing others of what they have done). Non-pathologicals often project positive attributions.
This is also why normal people are always at risk. In one of the recent rants from one of the pathologicals we all know and love, was that I 'missed' obvious signs of pathology in certain people. I'm in good company, Robert Hare tells on his constant missing of signs. This is nothing to be ashamed about. It is pathology being what it is, or as Hare says 'the disorder of social hiding' meaning they hide well for a while, or sometimes a long time. It is no wonder that websites, services, or agencies started by people who have hyper empathy, hyper tolerance, trust, etc. are those who go through conning by pathology.
Pathology invisibility is part of the disorder, and our risk factors are part of what veils our reactions and projects goodness where only evil exists.
sandrabrownma
Padawan Learner
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
Sorry for the language mistakes on previous post. I've been writing all day and getting tongue tied. I don't see a place where I can correct those for clarity so hope everyone can limp along and understand. Thanks.
Sorry for the language mistakes on previous post. I've been writing all day and getting tongue tied. I don't see a place where I can correct those for clarity so hope everyone can limp along and understand. Thanks.
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I admit I had FALSE empathy for the psychopath/characteropath folks I've gotten embroiled with. My "empathy" for them was almost pure projection, at first. Assuming they were "normal", and missing the obvious signs of pathology resulted in projection. "Normal" folks respond to other (apparent) human beings based upon assumptions, and most of the time, we are correct. If the other person is pathological, for me, it was discovered later, after my assumptions were rendered illogical.
You and I are involved in the same community, the survivors and victims of psychopaths. One of my assumptions has been that a person who declares themselves a victim IS a victim, why else would a person admit such an embarrassing, humiliating thing?
Obviously, a pathological person would. What better "feast" than a community of self-identified victims?
That NEVER occurred to me. It was hard enough for me to admit I'd been so easily fooled. Pathologicals have no "real" shame, as evidenced by the pathological we all know and love, in her ravings. Any "normal" person would have too much self-preservation to be caught dead as an the author of obvious ranting. That's where this poor person is as blind as a bat. She lacks a connection with other people, thus lacks conventional perspective. She knows she is isolated, but does not know that WE know it. She MUST believe that we do not know how isolated and utterly miserable and alone she is. She is willing to insist upon (and create) her "host of others" and continue to do so in spite of the PITY we have for her.
It is a death sentence for her to consider that she is transparent to average "normals". Or that in some ways, we will gladly welcome her return.
What a tragedy, to believe that death is better than to join the human race? I feel pathological people like Mary McGrannahan are tragic figures. She dooms herself to repeat herself. Her real victimhood is not by you or me . . . but by a more malevolent and talented psychopath than herself. She's only barely aware of this, and it would be too much for her to accept she's still carrying out the marching orders of Barbara Camwell Ness. She must believe she has some ownership and responsibility in whom she battles against. Only we see she doesn't, and feel more pity for her than ever.
sandrabrownma said:
I admit I had FALSE empathy for the psychopath/characteropath folks I've gotten embroiled with. My "empathy" for them was almost pure projection, at first. Assuming they were "normal", and missing the obvious signs of pathology resulted in projection. "Normal" folks respond to other (apparent) human beings based upon assumptions, and most of the time, we are correct. If the other person is pathological, for me, it was discovered later, after my assumptions were rendered illogical.
You and I are involved in the same community, the survivors and victims of psychopaths. One of my assumptions has been that a person who declares themselves a victim IS a victim, why else would a person admit such an embarrassing, humiliating thing?
Obviously, a pathological person would. What better "feast" than a community of self-identified victims?
That NEVER occurred to me. It was hard enough for me to admit I'd been so easily fooled. Pathologicals have no "real" shame, as evidenced by the pathological we all know and love, in her ravings. Any "normal" person would have too much self-preservation to be caught dead as an the author of obvious ranting. That's where this poor person is as blind as a bat. She lacks a connection with other people, thus lacks conventional perspective. She knows she is isolated, but does not know that WE know it. She MUST believe that we do not know how isolated and utterly miserable and alone she is. She is willing to insist upon (and create) her "host of others" and continue to do so in spite of the PITY we have for her.
It is a death sentence for her to consider that she is transparent to average "normals". Or that in some ways, we will gladly welcome her return.
What a tragedy, to believe that death is better than to join the human race? I feel pathological people like Mary McGrannahan are tragic figures. She dooms herself to repeat herself. Her real victimhood is not by you or me . . . but by a more malevolent and talented psychopath than herself. She's only barely aware of this, and it would be too much for her to accept she's still carrying out the marching orders of Barbara Camwell Ness. She must believe she has some ownership and responsibility in whom she battles against. Only we see she doesn't, and feel more pity for her than ever.
Gimpy
The Living Force
Re: Exposing Online Predators & Cyberpaths
I've never interacted with any of them, in this case, but I will say that I don't feel even a thimble's worth of pity for psychopaths and the various flavors thereof anymore....because
it was feeling any emotion at all for them that consistently gets me in trouble. These days my attitude is 'cautiously optimistic, with a stick at my side.' ;D
Since High School there has always a part of me that is constantly observing everything I do, don't do, say and leave unsaid...and I've learned how to cast that same scrutiny outward to those people who appear to want my company, on-line and off. Now more than ever in my life, I'm not willing to squander energy or time on people who begin to fit the bill for pathology. Meditation's made a kind of 'rootedness' possible, and for whatever reason, pathological people don't like it. I wish I could describe it better than that....
There is not a thing wrong with withholding who you are in reserve for those people who genuinely appreciate and care for you. I used to think that was selfish and cold. Acceptance of other people and helping out is so much a part of me it can basically ring like a dinner bell to those who would take everything from you and beat you down for more. Its tough finding a healthy equilibrium, but not impossible.
Educating people in healthy social boundaries is a worthy goal, and one I think needs to go along with how to spot a pathological being.....without something positive, all the educating on pathology can wear a 'feeling person' out, osit.
I've never interacted with any of them, in this case, but I will say that I don't feel even a thimble's worth of pity for psychopaths and the various flavors thereof anymore....because
it was feeling any emotion at all for them that consistently gets me in trouble. These days my attitude is 'cautiously optimistic, with a stick at my side.' ;D
Since High School there has always a part of me that is constantly observing everything I do, don't do, say and leave unsaid...and I've learned how to cast that same scrutiny outward to those people who appear to want my company, on-line and off. Now more than ever in my life, I'm not willing to squander energy or time on people who begin to fit the bill for pathology. Meditation's made a kind of 'rootedness' possible, and for whatever reason, pathological people don't like it. I wish I could describe it better than that....
There is not a thing wrong with withholding who you are in reserve for those people who genuinely appreciate and care for you. I used to think that was selfish and cold. Acceptance of other people and helping out is so much a part of me it can basically ring like a dinner bell to those who would take everything from you and beat you down for more. Its tough finding a healthy equilibrium, but not impossible.
Educating people in healthy social boundaries is a worthy goal, and one I think needs to go along with how to spot a pathological being.....without something positive, all the educating on pathology can wear a 'feeling person' out, osit.
