PepperFritz
The Cosmic Force
The whole premise behind testing and screening is that everyone involved will "play fair". And as we know, psychopaths don't do that.
Kevin Barrett On Psychopathy
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
I'd like to pitch in my two cents.
I agree with most on this thread that the "test" idea is most probably not a solution for the same reasons already mentioned; having "faith" in the execution, the results of the test and the people instituting the tests. Too many holes for co-opting.
I agree that dissemination of knowledge is the best solution so far and I too have been wracking my brain over a solution to bringing psychopathy "mainstream". One part of the problem is getting the information out there however, another part of the problem would be the people being "psychologically ready" to grok/assimilate the information about psychopathy.
Much like how the C's hint at the information is being constantly broadcast to us and we will only "get it" if we are "properly tuned" to receive the information.
For the everyday person, the reality of psychopathy, as laid out in a very scientific manner in Political Ponerology, would be so far removed from their "pedestrian reality" that they are so familiar with that their knee-jerk unconscious reaction to such information would be to scoff at it and dismiss it as nonsense.
I think it is kind of like the "Third Man" story (referencing http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1692)
I think I'm stuck in a "chicken-egg" scenario; the obvious solution to the world's problems is dissemination of information on recognizing psychopathy. However information on psychopathy could not be properly assimilated without the "belief" that psychopaths do exist.
And then the idea came upon me; that is the very same problem that psychopaths address: how to introduce ideas to the populace that are "alien" to the populace's "belief center". They (the psychopaths) have become so good at it that they probably already have it down to a science.
From what I've observed and read about on the forums and on the SOTT and Cassiopaea pages, they (i.e. the psychopaths) introduce ideas a little at a time; not unlike the "boiling the frog" analogy. Feeding the ideas a little at a time, introducing new "material" only when the previous material has been properly assimilated.
The only problem I see with implementing that type of solution is the effort, resources and time needed to execute such a campaign. And of the three, the latter (i.e. "time") seems to be the least we have of.
But I have some "faith" from what I'm observing; there seem to be many other people who grok the info about psychopathy and are involved in the "boiling the frog" method. But then I'm also open to the possibility that I may just be "wishfully thinking" and reading too much in what "mainstream media" I watch.
Even if it were the case that there are many people involved in "boiling the frog", we can still do our own little part in "prep-ing" the people immediately around us, a little at a time instead of shoving the Political Ponerology book in their faces. Grass-roots level of "boiling the frog".
I guess that for those of us who have already read the Ponerology book and understand the idea of psychopathy, I think we are prone to get a bit anxious and zealous in trying to spread the info and can be easily depressed that that information does not seem to be spreading as fast as we want or hope it would.
I agree with most on this thread that the "test" idea is most probably not a solution for the same reasons already mentioned; having "faith" in the execution, the results of the test and the people instituting the tests. Too many holes for co-opting.
I agree that dissemination of knowledge is the best solution so far and I too have been wracking my brain over a solution to bringing psychopathy "mainstream". One part of the problem is getting the information out there however, another part of the problem would be the people being "psychologically ready" to grok/assimilate the information about psychopathy.
Much like how the C's hint at the information is being constantly broadcast to us and we will only "get it" if we are "properly tuned" to receive the information.
For the everyday person, the reality of psychopathy, as laid out in a very scientific manner in Political Ponerology, would be so far removed from their "pedestrian reality" that they are so familiar with that their knee-jerk unconscious reaction to such information would be to scoff at it and dismiss it as nonsense.
I think it is kind of like the "Third Man" story (referencing http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1692)
Just as much as the person could not be "hypnotically convinced" (i.e. related to person's belief center) that another person could not become invisible, I think that if the idea of psychopathy is not part of a "pedestrian's reality", then they will not be able to spot a psychopath even if you try to describe in detail what a psychopath is/looks like.
I think I'm stuck in a "chicken-egg" scenario; the obvious solution to the world's problems is dissemination of information on recognizing psychopathy. However information on psychopathy could not be properly assimilated without the "belief" that psychopaths do exist.
And then the idea came upon me; that is the very same problem that psychopaths address: how to introduce ideas to the populace that are "alien" to the populace's "belief center". They (the psychopaths) have become so good at it that they probably already have it down to a science.
From what I've observed and read about on the forums and on the SOTT and Cassiopaea pages, they (i.e. the psychopaths) introduce ideas a little at a time; not unlike the "boiling the frog" analogy. Feeding the ideas a little at a time, introducing new "material" only when the previous material has been properly assimilated.
The only problem I see with implementing that type of solution is the effort, resources and time needed to execute such a campaign. And of the three, the latter (i.e. "time") seems to be the least we have of.
But I have some "faith" from what I'm observing; there seem to be many other people who grok the info about psychopathy and are involved in the "boiling the frog" method. But then I'm also open to the possibility that I may just be "wishfully thinking" and reading too much in what "mainstream media" I watch.
Even if it were the case that there are many people involved in "boiling the frog", we can still do our own little part in "prep-ing" the people immediately around us, a little at a time instead of shoving the Political Ponerology book in their faces. Grass-roots level of "boiling the frog".
I guess that for those of us who have already read the Ponerology book and understand the idea of psychopathy, I think we are prone to get a bit anxious and zealous in trying to spread the info and can be easily depressed that that information does not seem to be spreading as fast as we want or hope it would.
I noticed that people tend to be receptive to the general concept of psychopaths, because they have already heard of this even if their understanding of just what a psychopath is may be skewed or severely lacking. And of course, the scope of their influence on all aspects of our society is also beyond what most people even begin to imagine.
Despite this I have made little or no headway in introducing the implications of this idea to people (I mean people I personally interact with outside of the internet), because this is where they lock up. They can handle psychopaths, they can accept the definition of it being someone devoid of empathy, but the specific implications of this, no matter how logical, is something people cannot accept because that interferes with their sacred cows. They would say sure psychopaths exist, they're just not my government or any people in my life, nor do they have any impact on me or my life.
A very effective formula I think is one already being done by SOTT - instead of just trying to convince people of the implications by using logical arguments alone, SOTT presents countless examples from real-world events, something that is more difficult to "argue with" because they are reported by mainstream media, they are facts. SOTT just puts them in perspective with respect to the rest of the data we already have about the global situation.
Another concept that people generally don't seem to have a problem with, is the number 6% or so of psychopaths in society. They will go "wow, that's disturbing" or something and move on with their day, again, without really getting just what that means. But that's ok. We gotta consider people's sacred cows and work around them if possible - introduce them to data that does not step on their sacred cows right away. Real verifiable data - and lots of it (assuming they are receptive and interested, but depending on how they are approached, we can increase or decrease the chances of them being receptive and interested, osit).
This way free will is respected - people can be interested in conversations that include psychopaths. They can even discuss and understand how psychopaths will naturally form hierarchies, how their existence depends on their ability to lie and hide their real nature from others, and how they manipulate everyone around them, etc. All this can be fascinating to a person, as long as you never say "of course that means our governments are psychopaths based on everything they say and do". That is a quick conversation killer as you just violently stepped on a sacred cow.
So if we just keep going around those sacred cows, we can get people to understand and actually be interested in the vital data, we just won't be drawing any "dangerous" conclusions from it, which enables us to continue talking to the person and keep them interested, and so we can provide more "general" (aka: safe) data for them to consider. I think once a person has an overwhelming amount of data, their sacred cows literally become surrounded on all sides by a different reality, a reality created by all the data that while contradicts the sacred cow, it doesn't actually directly step on the cow because the data does not mention this cow by name... yet.
We know that people are under a mass hypnosis, they are disassociated and able to have contradictory notions in their mind at the same time without them ever meeting each other. So once the sacred cow is sufficiently surrounded on all sides by data that opposes it, data that the person also accepts and understands, when the time does come that the person somehow manages to draw the inevitable connection between the data and the sacred cow, there is a better chance that the sacred cow won't be able to fight back and instantly win the battle.
So the idea is to give the person so much data that conflicts with the cow, it makes it very hard for the cow to win when the person does draw the connection. I think this is where the idea of being "wise as serpents but gentle as doves" come into play - how to respect people's free will and simultaneously provide them with the necessary data, but without triggering defense mechanisms by stepping on their sacred cows prematurely.
So as a quick example, we can't start a conversation by saying "your government are psychopaths", which a patriotic person will instantly reject, and with it, any argument you present afterwards because their mind is already in defending-the-cow mode, no longer able to think or consider anything. But, if we avoid making that statement, and give people enough data about psychopaths and how they work and why, and give them plenty of examples of FOREIGN governments acting psychopathically (most people can handle that), without mentioning that their own government is actually doing the same thing, and by definition, this also means they're psychopaths. And eventually when they have enough data and real examples, if you do say that "your government are psychopaths" the battle that happens as a result of that statement won't be just the sacred cow vs you, it will now also be sacred cow vs the other part of the person's mind that now stands in opposition to the cow as well, due to having understood the data and examples.
Similarly they might never be able to see their own friends or family in an objective light - right away. But if you talk about other people and their friends and families and things that happened to other people and explain how and why they happened, eventually the realization that this also applies to their own family may hit them, and it may not be so easily rejected now that their mind is armed with the knowledge to support this realization.
No matter what though, it's a battle that each person has to win against themselves as they face their own sacred cows and come to revealing realizations about them, nobody can do it for them. But we can function as "support" by arming people with the knowledge that can help them win this battle - but doing so only with the person's permission, that is, they must be Asking. But usually permission is granted when we avoid stepping on the sacred cow when providing this knowledge, which is sometimes impossible, but often doable. Like when posting flyers outside, instead of saying "Bush stole the election!" you can instead ask "Can Diebold voting machines be manipulated?" or something, so it's not a direct attack on the person's cow, which increases the chances that more people will look into it. And of course anybody who looks into it will inevitably come across information of just such a thing having already occurred, etc.
Despite this I have made little or no headway in introducing the implications of this idea to people (I mean people I personally interact with outside of the internet), because this is where they lock up. They can handle psychopaths, they can accept the definition of it being someone devoid of empathy, but the specific implications of this, no matter how logical, is something people cannot accept because that interferes with their sacred cows. They would say sure psychopaths exist, they're just not my government or any people in my life, nor do they have any impact on me or my life.
A very effective formula I think is one already being done by SOTT - instead of just trying to convince people of the implications by using logical arguments alone, SOTT presents countless examples from real-world events, something that is more difficult to "argue with" because they are reported by mainstream media, they are facts. SOTT just puts them in perspective with respect to the rest of the data we already have about the global situation.
Another concept that people generally don't seem to have a problem with, is the number 6% or so of psychopaths in society. They will go "wow, that's disturbing" or something and move on with their day, again, without really getting just what that means. But that's ok. We gotta consider people's sacred cows and work around them if possible - introduce them to data that does not step on their sacred cows right away. Real verifiable data - and lots of it (assuming they are receptive and interested, but depending on how they are approached, we can increase or decrease the chances of them being receptive and interested, osit).
This way free will is respected - people can be interested in conversations that include psychopaths. They can even discuss and understand how psychopaths will naturally form hierarchies, how their existence depends on their ability to lie and hide their real nature from others, and how they manipulate everyone around them, etc. All this can be fascinating to a person, as long as you never say "of course that means our governments are psychopaths based on everything they say and do". That is a quick conversation killer as you just violently stepped on a sacred cow.
So if we just keep going around those sacred cows, we can get people to understand and actually be interested in the vital data, we just won't be drawing any "dangerous" conclusions from it, which enables us to continue talking to the person and keep them interested, and so we can provide more "general" (aka: safe) data for them to consider. I think once a person has an overwhelming amount of data, their sacred cows literally become surrounded on all sides by a different reality, a reality created by all the data that while contradicts the sacred cow, it doesn't actually directly step on the cow because the data does not mention this cow by name... yet.
We know that people are under a mass hypnosis, they are disassociated and able to have contradictory notions in their mind at the same time without them ever meeting each other. So once the sacred cow is sufficiently surrounded on all sides by data that opposes it, data that the person also accepts and understands, when the time does come that the person somehow manages to draw the inevitable connection between the data and the sacred cow, there is a better chance that the sacred cow won't be able to fight back and instantly win the battle.
So the idea is to give the person so much data that conflicts with the cow, it makes it very hard for the cow to win when the person does draw the connection. I think this is where the idea of being "wise as serpents but gentle as doves" come into play - how to respect people's free will and simultaneously provide them with the necessary data, but without triggering defense mechanisms by stepping on their sacred cows prematurely.
So as a quick example, we can't start a conversation by saying "your government are psychopaths", which a patriotic person will instantly reject, and with it, any argument you present afterwards because their mind is already in defending-the-cow mode, no longer able to think or consider anything. But, if we avoid making that statement, and give people enough data about psychopaths and how they work and why, and give them plenty of examples of FOREIGN governments acting psychopathically (most people can handle that), without mentioning that their own government is actually doing the same thing, and by definition, this also means they're psychopaths. And eventually when they have enough data and real examples, if you do say that "your government are psychopaths" the battle that happens as a result of that statement won't be just the sacred cow vs you, it will now also be sacred cow vs the other part of the person's mind that now stands in opposition to the cow as well, due to having understood the data and examples.
Similarly they might never be able to see their own friends or family in an objective light - right away. But if you talk about other people and their friends and families and things that happened to other people and explain how and why they happened, eventually the realization that this also applies to their own family may hit them, and it may not be so easily rejected now that their mind is armed with the knowledge to support this realization.
No matter what though, it's a battle that each person has to win against themselves as they face their own sacred cows and come to revealing realizations about them, nobody can do it for them. But we can function as "support" by arming people with the knowledge that can help them win this battle - but doing so only with the person's permission, that is, they must be Asking. But usually permission is granted when we avoid stepping on the sacred cow when providing this knowledge, which is sometimes impossible, but often doable. Like when posting flyers outside, instead of saying "Bush stole the election!" you can instead ask "Can Diebold voting machines be manipulated?" or something, so it's not a direct attack on the person's cow, which increases the chances that more people will look into it. And of course anybody who looks into it will inevitably come across information of just such a thing having already occurred, etc.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
I think you could have summed up your long post with that paragraph, SAO - ;)SAO said:
And - Henry's series is a great way to 'ease' people into the idea ..... http://www.sott.net/articles/show/138226-Insiders-and-Outsiders-in-Washington is the lead in article and they're all posted on the main SotT page.
The point, it seems, is to present the information in a way that rings true to what the general populace already knows - adjusting the delivery of information for the audience ( like a teacher adjusting her method for the student) - they have to be able to hear us and understand us for anything at all to ever get through - I think Henry's done a great job at attempting to bridge that gap.
Azur
The Living Force
Yes, he could have. And still, this short paragraph smacks of mental masturbation. This might not be your intent SOA. But it's hard to tell.anart said:
Henry has presented the subject with the aplomb of a cat in unknown territory. Every step is planted solidly, and it comes through as being so to those following in unknown or "insecure" areas.anart said:
I think SOA made a valid point, one that you seemed to miss. I agree that SOA could be more succinct, but I wonder if you're seeking 'shock value' more than assistance.Azur said:
You're right. I really let that one get away from me. College essays have a minimum word requirement, so I'd "stretch" a point to meet the requirement to get a good grade. Doing that too much conditioned my mind to think in that "wordy" way automatically whenever I'm writing anything. I'll be more diligent about condensing a post before submitting, which seems to be inversely proportional to sleep deprivation so I won't post if sleep deprived. Apologies for that.anart said:
Azur
The Living Force
I'm not sure which point it is you think I missed. SAO's post is an illustration of his experiences regarding trying to impart important information to those that may not be receptive (for a myriad of reasons). Getting the word out effectively is an art that wholly depends on one's communication skills, one aspect of which is being sensitive to how your audience is listening or can be interested to listen. Which is the point Anart was making.Shane said:
Yes, could be. Although, I did consider that SAO isn't new around these parts, AND people have asked before.Shane said:
There's too much stuff flying by on this forum and other places and it takes time to read it all. Reading a page long post that can be redacted to a paragraph basically becomes a deterrent with respect to time, even though SAO makes good points often.
When you used rather course comments to refer to (and which contrasted with) Sao’s point in utilizing gentleness to get a point across, that led me to think you may have missed what he was saying.Azur said:
j0da
Jedi Council Member
Actually, I am gratefull for SAO's verbally generous posts. Often these long elaborations let me understand the subject much better than short message which I simply might not "grok" for it's directed to much more knowledgable person. In other cases SAO's long posts combined with someone's short comments work like miracle, better than each one could work separately.
I'd say that "sniper-shot" one liners, medium lenght "content bomb" comments and long "explanatory rainfalls" have their place here and all are valid, provided they are helpful. I may be dense, but I'm happy SAO wrote all those paragraphs instead of one.
I'd say that "sniper-shot" one liners, medium lenght "content bomb" comments and long "explanatory rainfalls" have their place here and all are valid, provided they are helpful. I may be dense, but I'm happy SAO wrote all those paragraphs instead of one.
tendrini
Padawan Learner
I've been pondering this article at the same time I've been gnashing my teeth (mentally) at the inability of my friends and family to allow themselves to even suspect that there is any deception going on in the news they consume. So many nice, well-meaing people who are concerned with the state of the world in a hand-wringing worried way, but have no interest in exploring ideas outside the few that have been provided by the PTB.
So I had this thought: What if the problem is not the Psychopaths? What if they are just the symptom, not the disease? What if Psychopaths in our world are just like a roaches overrunning a kitchen because the residents cannot see them and don't know to clean up? Or like botulism bacteria making someone sick because they don't understand how to preserve their food. Perhaps society is infested with them the way the body is infested with the AIDS virus - there is no way for the immune system to detect them.
Looking back through history, the same situation occurs over and over - the Psychopathic minority always maniplulates the normal majority, and they never get caught. Every case is seen in isolation - an evil dictator, a cruel or mad tyrant, on and on and on.
But why don't we ever wise up? It's as if most of us have a block of some sort, a filter that prevents the obvious from showing up. There is a huge blind spot. We always buy the stories, the religious dogma, the absurd explanations.
So IMHO, maybe we don't need a way to "spot" Psychopaths - we need a way to "spot" a contagion - be it a person, a news story, a scriptural "truth". If we could only detect lies and and manipulation, the source would be
obvious.
In the event that this perspective has already been discussed, I'll beg forgiveness with the excuse that too much "family togetherness" during the holidays makes me rant and rave!
So I had this thought: What if the problem is not the Psychopaths? What if they are just the symptom, not the disease? What if Psychopaths in our world are just like a roaches overrunning a kitchen because the residents cannot see them and don't know to clean up? Or like botulism bacteria making someone sick because they don't understand how to preserve their food. Perhaps society is infested with them the way the body is infested with the AIDS virus - there is no way for the immune system to detect them.
Looking back through history, the same situation occurs over and over - the Psychopathic minority always maniplulates the normal majority, and they never get caught. Every case is seen in isolation - an evil dictator, a cruel or mad tyrant, on and on and on.
But why don't we ever wise up? It's as if most of us have a block of some sort, a filter that prevents the obvious from showing up. There is a huge blind spot. We always buy the stories, the religious dogma, the absurd explanations.
So IMHO, maybe we don't need a way to "spot" Psychopaths - we need a way to "spot" a contagion - be it a person, a news story, a scriptural "truth". If we could only detect lies and and manipulation, the source would be
obvious.
In the event that this perspective has already been discussed, I'll beg forgiveness with the excuse that too much "family togetherness" during the holidays makes me rant and rave!
Hi Tendrini, your post seems to have a break in logic here, although I may not be understanding you. You're suggesting that psychopathy may not be the cause of evil, but that the lack of detection is. The question 'detection of what?' creates circular logic when the answer is 'lack of detection'.tendrini said:
Thanks j0da, but although it is a pretty creative one, I do think that is a euphemism. "Generous" means "willing to give and share". But as we know, it is STS to give what is not asked for. So the question is, am I giving what is asked for? I can only go by the purpose of this forum - research forum with a high signal to noise ratio. So any verbal generosity would need to be saturated in signal, osit. And honestly, I do think I have a problem expressing myself succinctly and leaving "extraneous/unnecessary" stuff out of what I say (this forum is not the only place where it has been pointed out to me). Re-reading my first draft once or twice is usually all that needs to be done. Reading and writing seem to be using different parts of our brains. Both important actions, since some things I just don't SEE until I try to write about them - and vice versa, I often won't see the noise in my own writing until I read it over. And networking is an opportunity to do both :)j0da said:
Well not all long posts are created equal too. Sometimes I make long posts after I've made all the reduction I can make. But other times they are long only because I was too tired or lazy to proof-read, and could easily be reduced. Nobody complains that Political Ponerology is 330 pages long - but if it was written like some of my posts, it could easily be 5000 pages long with the same amount of information. Similarly, I think that's why some "long posts" don't create the same sort of reaction - if the length is justifiable by the content, osit. And that's true for everybody here - sometimes a long post is clearly a "stream of consciousness" and that is instantly pointed out to the writer, and sometimes it is something useful.j0da said:
Well I'm glad you found benefit, but with all due respect, I must take the forum at large into consideration and adjust as necessary so that it is also something others find useful and not a burden or a waste of time to read. Then again (and I don't mean you or anyone in particular), some people can read entire books of new-age word salad and find it "useful" and be very happy with it. So I must clarify that when I say "others" I mean a very particular group - those who are looking for data, for signal, for clarity, objective meaning, and importance of the information presented. That takes a lot of effort - but that's why we're here too, to learn to communicate. :)j0da said:
I think that's because psychopaths use and exploit a weakness that already exists in us as a result of our STS nature. We have a natural predisposition for wishful thinking, for subjectivity, for being lazy and wanting a free lunch. We like to give responsibility for our lives to others, and also have a serious problem conceiving of someone that can be fundamentally different from us - like a psychopath that has no empathy at all. All these things make us the perfect candidate for exploitation, manipulation, and control - so the psychopath take advantage of our own mechanicalness and use it against us to a much greater degree than we could do to ourselves without their involvement.tendrini said:
The good news is, the amount of pain and suffering psychopaths create makes for a good catalyst to push people to wake up and learn faster than they would've without psychopaths.
Well the C's mentioned that nobody can deceive us if we don't allow it. I think that since humanity chose the STS path, we became exploitable and willingly become deceived. So psychopaths act like energy-extractors on behalf of 4d STS - they create the necessary suffering and chaos to provide 4d STS their food.tendrini said:
I think understanding how psychopaths function is a way to understand ourselves and why we allowed ourselves to be manipulated in the first place. So we kill 2 birds with one stone - we understand the nature of evil, and at the same time understand our own nature - and why evil was ever able to control us. We can't "stop them" if we don't understand how they work. But we can't really understand how they work without also understanding WHY those methods work on us - which means we develop an understanding of ourselves in the process.tendrini said:
I agree though, ultimately *we* are responsible for our situation, but since psychopaths are the best at exploiting us and cause most of the suffering in the world as a result - they are a perfect starting point to begin to understand how the world works, and what part we play in this and why.
