Reaction of (self-proclaimed) psychopath to PP video

[ark]

Semantically, I dislike how psychopathy has been characterized as a disorder by some. Arguably, psychopathy is an advancement in the human brain, allowing for greater neocortical control over the limbic system. An ultimately advanced psychopath has absolute control as to whether or not the limbic system is on or off.

Then, go for it! Or, perhaps, you don't have to go too far, or even at all?

 

[webwizard09]

As to Laura's article in Cassiopedia, I was a little miffed about psychopaths being described as having a lower IQ than normal folk. Upon further thought though, 6% has gotten to be a little too large and we need to cleanse the herd of the mentally deficient. The respectable psychopaths are not impulsive and think things through so as to cause the best effect. The disgusting psychopaths are the ones you wind up getting to study.

Interesting. What makes you classify them as "disgusting"? Sounds a bit, err.. emotional... to be honest.

Errors in general are disgusting. Those that make errors screw things up, go too far, reveal themselves and elicit crackdowns. Emotions are not by nature a bad thing, just do not allow them to be an encumbrance. As soon as someone displays a heavy emotion, they are a wounded bird. I keep emotion on a very short leash.

I am going for it but I have quite the ways to go. Some are on switches, others come on intermittently, important ones are on constant power and then there's the occasional line with no power. I need to put every line that goes on or off on a switch.

 

[vinny]

errors in general are disgusting

this is how I interpret: whereas a normal human may view a psychopathic killer as disgusting because of what he does, another psychopath would view him as disgusting because of the mistakes in judgement that he made when he allowed himself to go too far and reveal his true nature to the 'normals', which might result in repercussions for other psychopaths.

so, this is the 'moral outrage' bit of psychopathy, when it is under threat of exposure or whatever, as per Lobaczewski. standard psychopathic psychology, I guess.

Like when all those politicials say "mistakes were made", on the understanding that normals will project their own values onto this and take it as an admission of guilt and repentance, when actually it means "mistakes were made, which meant we got caught". pretty obvious really, once you know. and any other psychopath would instantly recognise the second meaning, which would be perfectly acceptable to them.

 

[Keit]

Like when all those politicials say "mistakes were made", on the understanding that normals will project their own values onto this and take it as an admission of guilt and repentance, when actually it means "mistakes were made, which meant we got caught". pretty obvious really, once you know. and any other psychopath would instantly recognise the second meaning, which would be perfectly acceptable to them.

Yeah, it is reasonable to assume that if psychopaths feel contempt and have sense of superiority toward "normals", they will feel the same contempt/disgust toward "failed" fellow psychopaths.
"You are out of the game".
This is actually reflect hierarchical, predatory structure - if you are not strong enough/smart enough to grab the most juicy part, you are weak - so be out of the way and feed on leftovers.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Semantically, I dislike how psychopathy has been characterized as a disorder by some. Arguably, psychopathy is an advancement in the human brain, allowing for greater neocortical control over the limbic system.

Edit: Deleted a few extraneous... uh lines from a slightly longer post... :P

You could also say being smart is a crutch. That knowledge itself is bad. The stupider you are, the more freedom you have, because the more you know, the more you will be limiting your actions with respect to achieving greater and greater goals with better and better efficiency. So you'd not spend time doing what someone who knows less does, and so the ignorant person can say "see, you know more, so you're less free, and therefore I am more advanced due to my greater freedom!". And the absurdity of that argument is equivalent to yours. While empathy, like fear or eyesight does limit us to certain choices (like if you see an incoming car you'll feel fear and jump out of the way), and if we're blind and fearless we might just sit down and have a picnic instead, not all that is mechanical (like our heartbeat) is bad. Some is essential. And having the freedom to bang your head on a wall all day, or to stab people in the eye, or any number of things... well you get the picture, it's not "freedom", it's just ignorance, lack of perception that would otherwise prompt you to do something else. Similarly, empathy is like a sense, it does not control us but it guides us towards actions that exponentially benefit us and others in infinite ways, that you of course would not understand anymore than a blind person would understand eyesight and its benefits. Ah well.

 

[webwizard09]

Semantically, I dislike how psychopathy has been characterized as a disorder by some. Arguably, psychopathy is an advancement in the human brain, allowing for greater neocortical control over the limbic system.

Edit: Deleted a few extraneous... uh lines from a slightly longer post... :P

You could also say being smart is a crutch. That knowledge itself is bad. The stupider you are, the more freedom you have, because the more you know, the more you will be limiting your actions with respect to achieving greater and greater goals with better and better efficiency. So you'd not spend time doing what someone who knows less does, and so the ignorant person can say "see, you know more, so you're less free, and therefore I am more advanced due to my greater freedom!". And the absurdity of that argument is equivalent to yours. While empathy, like fear or eyesight does limit us to certain choices (like if you see an incoming car you'll feel fear and jump out of the way), and if we're blind and fearless we might just sit down and have a picnic instead, not all that is mechanical (like our heartbeat) is bad. Some is essential. And having the freedom to bang your head on a wall all day, or to stab people in the eye, or any number of things... well you get the picture, it's not "freedom", it's just ignorance, lack of perception that would otherwise prompt you to do something else. Similarly, empathy is like a sense, it does not control us but it guides us towards actions that exponentially benefit us and others in infinite ways, that you of course would not understand anymore than a blind person would understand eyesight and its benefits. Ah well.

Your posting of a false analogy is implicitly absurd.

Why would anyone be interested in benefitting others if it didn't clearly benefit oneself? It's backwards. Look at the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. Since they don't know if the other will defect or not and cannot be absolutely sure of the other prisoner, it is in the prisoner's best interest to defect and only take the 5 years if the other guy screws him over. Look at the material propagated by this site. I find that it is a form of Evolutionarily stable strategy. They want for a majority of the population to cooperate so that no other strategy can win. The only interest in propagating this idea can only be one's own interest, even if it may help others.

P.S. Does anyone know of that research on the genetic basis of altruism? I believe I saw it a few years back.

 

[anart]

Your posting of a false analogy is implicitly absurd.

Could you elaborate on this remark, since I see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

Why would anyone be interested in benefitting others if it didn't clearly benefit oneself? It's backwards.

Just becasue you cannot understand something does not mean that it cannot be understood. Your lack of ability to grasp the general concept reflects much more strongly on you than it does the concept itself. Can you understand that?

Look at the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. Since they don't know if the other will defect or not and cannot be absolutely sure of the other prisoner, it is in the prisoner's best interest to defect and only take the 5 years if the other guy screws him over.

Or look at game theory - it's along the same lines. Game theory was developed by a psychopath - a psychological deviant. Do you understand the implications of using such examples to make your point? Ah, wait, you were the one who disliked psychopathy being described as a deviancy, or disorder - righhtttttt.

Look at the material propagated by this site. I find that it is a form of Evolutionarily stable strategy.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by this?

They want for a majority of the population to cooperate so that no other strategy can win. The only interest in propagating this idea can only be one's own interest, even if it may help others.

This statement makes no sense in relationship to this, and the associated, web sites. What are you talking about? It appears that you are simply incapable of grasping certain concepts.

P.S. Does anyone know of that research on the genetic basis of altruism? I believe I saw it a few years back.

I know there was at least one article on such research on the sott site, so perhaps a web search might get you what you're looking for.

 

[Mark]

Why would anyone be interested in benefitting others if it didn't clearly benefit oneself? It's backwards.

STO serves self by serving others. STS serves others by serving self. It's really simple to understand (or maybe not?). Creativity, or entropy.

 

[webwizard09]

Your posting of a false analogy is implicitly absurd.

Could you elaborate on this remark, since I see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

Certainly. False analogies have no place in any argument. : )

No, seriously, his analogy doesn't make sense. Knowledge leads to achieving greater goals, not stupidity. 'Psychopathy' can also lead to achieving greater goals.

Why would anyone be interested in benefitting others if it didn't clearly benefit oneself? It's backwards.

Just becasue you cannot understand something does not mean that it cannot be understood. Your lack of ability to grasp the general concept reflects much more strongly on you than it does the concept itself. Can you understand that?

Could you just give me a clear explanation as to why someone would do something with absolutely no self-interest in the matter? ScioAgapeOmnis does not provide one. There is no clear purpose for an STS being to perform and STO action.

Look at the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. Since they don't know if the other will defect or not and cannot be absolutely sure of the other prisoner, it is in the prisoner's best interest to defect and only take the 5 years if the other guy screws him over.

Or look at game theory - it's along the same lines. Game theory was developed by a psychopath - a psychological deviant. Do you understand the implications of using such examples to make your point? Ah, wait, you were the one who disliked psychopathy being described as a deviancy, or disorder - righhtttttt.

Game theory works, does it not? What implications?

Look at the material propagated by this site. I find that it is a form of Evolutionarily stable strategy.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by this?

Pardon the source, but a la en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy is

In game theory and behavioural ecology, an evolutionarily stable strategy (or ESS; also evolutionary stable strategy) is a strategy which, if adopted by a population of players, cannot be invaded by any alternative strategy. An ESS is an equilibrium refinement to a Nash equilibrium. An ESS is a Nash equilibrium which is "evolutionarily" stable meaning that once it is fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent mutant strategies from successfully invading.

####

I mean that by advocating a knowledge of people having the capacity to lack emotion, this site would like for the general populace to prevent the use of natural advantages given to such people.

P.S. Does anyone know of that research on the genetic basis of altruism? I believe I saw it a few years back.

I know there was at least one article on such research on the sott site, so perhaps a web search might get you what you're looking for.

Thank you.

 

[Mark]

Could you just give me a clear explanation as to why someone would do something with absolutely no self-interest in the matter? ScioAgapeOmnis does not provide one. There is no clear purpose for an STS being to perform and STO action.

The age-old 'what's in for me?' issue.

Someone would do that because it's in them to do it, and they realized that there is a genuine request (e.g. no expectations or demands being made regardless of how subtle) and they're capable of not being attached to a particular outcome.

Maybe with some more effort you can think of a few simple scenarios where it is not only possible but does happen daily. And from there you might be able to think of a lot of other more complex scenarios where it's happening.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

False analogies have no place in any argument.

Why not? If the analogy is an analogy, then it is logically equivalent to the initial statement even if the details are different. The reason to use an analogy is that sometimes one set of details can help understand a dynamic better than another set, because in the end, the dynamic is what is important here. Unless you mean the analogy I used exhibits a different dynamic, and is therefore inapplicable? If so, can you elaborate?

Why would anyone be interested in benefitting others if it didn't clearly benefit oneself?

Ok let me ask you, why would anyone be interested in doing something that benefit self if it doesn't benefit others? This is an honest question, and the reason I ask is, you seem to assume that doing what benefits self is logical, but doing what does not benefit self is not. So why does anyone do what benefits self anyway? And whatever this force is that "drives" us towards doing what benefits us, can there be another force that equally could drive us to do what benefits others, even if it may not benefit ourselves? Empathy for example?

It's backwards.

It is if you're looking from the perspective of STS. But STS is backwards from the perspective of STO, is it not? But so what?

Since they don't know if the other will defect or not and cannot be absolutely sure of the other prisoner, it is in the prisoner's best interest to defect and only take the 5 years if the other guy screws him over.

But again you assume what is "best interest" - you're again looking only from perspective of STS. But in reality everyone decides their own "best interest" - and so it is only in his best interest if HE decides it is in his best interest, not if you decide for him. What if the prisoner decided that he will NOT "screw over" the other guy because he simply cannot screw someone over like that? So he'd rather take the chance and end up screwed himself than screw someone else. Is there something "wrong" with that scenario?

Look at the material propagated by this site. I find that it is a form of Evolutionarily stable strategy. They want for a majority of the population to cooperate so that no other strategy can win. The only interest in propagating this idea can only be one's own interest, even if it may help others.

While you're right - "they" do love the truth, and as such "they" do have a selfish interest in learning and accumulating knowledge and getting themselves out of this rut, you're missing something vital. "Wanting the population to cooperate" is essentially serving self at the expense of others - in other words, this would mean that their strategy is more comfortable for them, and therefore they want others to also adapt it so that it can win. This is how STS works - get as many to cooperate so your strategy, that you have chosen for yourself, wins over what others have chosen. Again I must ask, why is that? Why do you perceive that serving self is ultimately the goal of everyone, and anything else is illogical? What if I proposed that serving self is ultimately illogical? What would be your argument? While I agree that STS has chosen their path because they do not perceive STO as desirable or even something that makes sense, you seem to not see that this is a subjective perspective, you neglect to consider why STO has chosen STO. Why?

Try this perspective. What about if "they" are interested in sharing this strategy with the world because "they" are only served WHEN they are able to serve others? In other words, while they have chosen a strategy that is "comfortable" for them, disregarding for the moment whether it is objectively the way "forward" in evolution of the mind/soul or just an arbitrarily chosen strategy that just happens to feel comfy to them (that you seem to perceive it as), their "comfort" depends on the usefulness of this strategy to everyone else. This strategy CANNOT benefit "them" if it does not benefit everyone else. Please keep in mind what I said earlier that, you do not decide on someone else's behalf what is "beneficial" for them, the person decides.

So going back to your prisoner example. What if the only options they consider is either both prisoners cooperate to escape, or you let the other one screw you - but you will NOT screw the other one, you do not even consider that option, because you can never be happy being "free" if you had to do it at someone else's expense, and you'd actually be happier being in jail but NOT having "screwed" the other person. If you could understand that, you might understand why this group does what it does, and why they are propagating their strategy. STO serves self THROUGH others - it cannot ever be content or happy until it is capable of serving ALL. It does not mean that it uses others to make itself happy. It means it SERVES others - and when this service results in objective progress of those being served and they are able to learn and grow as a result, THAT is what makes STO happy.

You should also understand that "they" don't depend on the rest of humanity to "evolve". Yes, it takes a group to make it out, but they do not try to turn people into their strategy to get this group - instead they find those already on this strategy as well, and gently propose it to others who ask for the benefit of those others, not for evolutionary success. Evolution is an individual thing, not a global phenomenon of a whole race. So "evolutionarily stable strategy" just does not fit - evolutionary stability is has no purpose in and of itself, just like a few atoms have no reason to make a cell, and a cell has no reason to evolve, and the "living creature" has no reason to fight to survive. Consciousness is the reason why any of this happens, not just purely physical genetic code. And if consciousness is driving evolution, you must ask, what is consciousness? What is it, beyond the physical, that makes order out of chaos? And ultimately, is one "pocket of consciousness" any more important than another pocket? Isn't it everywhere, so why would one being suddenly put itself above the rest and seek to further its strategy simply because it WANTS to - simply because it is "driven" to. Why is one "consciousness" driven to serve itself above other consciosnesses? Why not serve all, equally, with no illusion of one's "needs" being more important than anyone else's?

One person can sacrifice themselves so that another, whom they have never met, can live. Happens all the time. Perhaps you see this as insanity?

 

[nf3]

I mean that by advocating a knowledge of people having the capacity to lack emotion, this site would like for the general populace to prevent the use of natural advantages given to such people.

Exactly sir. Though I'm not sure I would call affective retardation an 'advantage.' See, emotion plays a vital role in learning, and a person born without it is nothing more than a clockwork automaton, continually performing the same tasks while expecting different results; totally incapable of realizing that their little game theory scenarios will lead to their own destruction as well as those 'other' people they so despise. Hence the current state of our world.

But, you think that game theory works and you think that lack of emotion is an advantage. All very interesting.

 

[webwizard09]

False analogies have no place in any argument.

Why not? If the analogy is an analogy, then it is logically equivalent to the initial statement even if the details are different. The reason to use an analogy is that sometimes one set of details can help understand a dynamic better than another set, because in the end, the dynamic is what is important here. Unless you mean the analogy I used exhibits a different dynamic, and is therefore inapplicable? If so, can you elaborate?

It exhibits a different dynamic. Your analogy - stupidity : advancement :: psychopathy : backwards. My analogy - knowledge : advancement :: psychopathy : advancement.

Why would anyone be interested in benefitting others if it didn't clearly benefit oneself?

Ok let me ask you, why would anyone be interested in doing something that benefit self if it doesn't benefit others? This is an honest question, and the reason I ask is, you seem to assume that doing what benefits self is logical, but doing what does not benefit self is not. So why does anyone do what benefits self anyway? And whatever this force is that "drives" us towards doing what benefits us, can there be another force that equally could drive us to do what benefits others, even if it may not benefit ourselves? Empathy for example?

People benefit self out of desire to do so. It is innate. Altruism is can also be innate, but it is not as universal as being self-serving. The basis for that was that it would benefit one's genes or those with similar genes. In today's society, helping the other guy is backwards once you have the tax write-off.

It's backwards.

It is if you're looking from the perspective of STS. But STS is backwards from the perspective of STO, is it not? But so what?

Yes and no. STO only works in a situation where everyone is STO. STS always works. Back to game theory again.

Since they don't know if the other will defect or not and cannot be absolutely sure of the other prisoner, it is in the prisoner's best interest to defect and only take the 5 years if the other guy screws him over.

But again you assume what is "best interest" - you're again looking only from perspective of STS. But in reality everyone decides their own "best interest" - and so it is only in his best interest if HE decides it is in his best interest, not if you decide for him. What if the prisoner decided that he will NOT "screw over" the other guy because he simply cannot screw someone over like that? So he'd rather take the chance and end up screwed himself than screw someone else. Is there something "wrong" with that scenario?

But neither party can be sure if the other will keep silent. There is nothing "wrong" with playing nice, it's just not realistic.

Look at the material propagated by this site. I find that it is a form of Evolutionarily stable strategy. They want for a majority of the population to cooperate so that no other strategy can win. The only interest in propagating this idea can only be one's own interest, even if it may help others.

While you're right - "they" do love the truth, and as such "they" do have a selfish interest in learning and accumulating knowledge and getting themselves out of this rut, you're missing something vital. "Wanting the population to cooperate" is essentially serving self at the expense of others - in other words, this would mean that their strategy is more comfortable for them, and therefore they want others to also adapt it so that it can win. This is how STS works - get as many to cooperate so your strategy, that you have chosen for yourself, wins over what others have chosen. Again I must ask, why is that? Why do you perceive that serving self is ultimately the goal of everyone, and anything else is illogical? What if I proposed that serving self is ultimately illogical? What would be your argument? While I agree that STS has chosen their path because they do not perceive STO as desirable or even something that makes sense, you seem to not see that this is a subjective perspective, you neglect to consider why STO has chosen STO. Why?

STS is innate. It is the natural order and can be found in so many things. Service to self is the best possible use of one's own time and resources microsocially. Serivce to others is only possible if others will serve you, otherwise the STO person will be quickly depleted. Serving self is illogical if and only if everyone is practicing service to others, and serivce to others is equally distributed. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. STO is a wonderful system, but it's not practical in a situation with any STS.

Try this perspective. What about if "they" are interested in sharing this strategy with the world because "they" are only served WHEN they are able to serve others? In other words, while they have chosen a strategy that is "comfortable" for them, disregarding for the moment whether it is objectively the way "forward" in evolution of the mind/soul or just an arbitrarily chosen strategy that just happens to feel comfy to them (that you seem to perceive it as), their "comfort" depends on the usefulness of this strategy to everyone else. This strategy CANNOT benefit "them" if it does not benefit everyone else. Please keep in mind what I said earlier that, you do not decide on someone else's behalf what is "beneficial" for them, the person decides.

I pity those poor individuals and I wish them good luck, because they will never make it unless society is redone.

So going back to your prisoner example. What if the only options they consider is either both prisoners cooperate to escape, or you let the other one screw you - but you will NOT screw the other one, you do not even consider that option, because you can never be happy being "free" if you had to do it at someone else's expense, and you'd actually be happier being in jail but NOT having "screwed" the other person. If you could understand that, you might understand why this group does what it does, and why they are propagating their strategy. STO serves self THROUGH others - it cannot ever be content or happy until it is capable of serving ALL. It does not mean that it uses others to make itself happy. It means it SERVES others - and when this service results in objective progress of those being served and they are able to learn and grow as a result, THAT is what makes STO happy.

I really pity those poor people with that sort of moral concern. Even the moderate moral fool would bust the other guy out after getting out first. Do these people suffer chronic depression?

You should also understand that "they" don't depend on the rest of humanity to "evolve". Yes, it takes a group to make it out, but they do not try to turn people into their strategy to get this group - instead they find those already on this strategy as well, and gently propose it to others who ask for the benefit of those others, not for evolutionary success. Evolution is an individual thing, not a global phenomenon of a whole race. So "evolutionarily stable strategy" just does not fit - evolutionary stability is has no purpose in and of itself, just like a few atoms have no reason to make a cell, and a cell has no reason to evolve, and the "living creature" has no reason to fight to survive. Consciousness is the reason why any of this happens, not just purely physical genetic code. And if consciousness is driving evolution, you must ask, what is consciousness? What is it, beyond the physical, that makes order out of chaos? And ultimately, is one "pocket of consciousness" any more important than another pocket? Isn't it everywhere, so why would one being suddenly put itself above the rest and seek to further its strategy simply because it WANTS to - simply because it is "driven" to. Why is one "consciousness" driven to serve itself above other consciosnesses? Why not serve all, equally, with no illusion of one's "needs" being more important than anyone else's?

Let's stay off away from philosophy. As for consciousness, I'm going to plagiarize Descartes.

One person can sacrifice themselves so that another, whom they have never met, can live. Happens all the time. Perhaps you see this as insanity?

It is sane only if it helps to accomplish one's goals.

I think I understand your STS thing, but it's really quite insane.

 

[anart]

But, you think that game theory works and you think that lack of emotion is an advantage. All very interesting.

I don't find it interesting at all -it's actually high school debate 101. This webwizard person would like to present the idea that he is a psychopath and thus 'superior'. While this is an STS realm and fashioned to be inherently entropic, volumes of information and research have been presented on these web sites and many others which prove categorically that psychopathology is a dead end - it leads to destruction always and forever - even in this STS world. It is simply maladaptive; there is no creativity and no growth - it is inherently entropic and as such can go nowhere but down. Time and time again this has been shown to be true and it can be no other way - that is the nature of entropy.

Chances are, however, that webwizard won't realize this until seconds before his life expires - and even then, it is unlikely he will realize it. Ultimately, of course, it does come down to what one considers 'success' to be - creativity or entropy. If one longs sincerely to their core for death, for sleep, for the ultimate contraction, then psychopathy approaches the ultimate manifestation, though it is still so severely maladaptive that it requires 'normals' to survive.

Methinks poor webwizard would not be here at all if he/she weren't quite bothered by the dissemination of data that proves beyond the smallest shadow of a doubt that psychopathy is death - figuratively and literally. Unfortunately, he/she has underestimated the audience here, as this is not a forum for entropy.

 

[Mark]

One person can sacrifice themselves so that another, whom they have never met, can live. Happens all the time. Perhaps you see this as insanity?

It is sane only if it helps to accomplish one's goals.

I think I understand your STS thing, but it's really quite insane.

So since everything you do has a 'what's in it for me?' basis what is your goal here at this forum? Go on, admit it.