The Science of a New Species and the curious case of Apex Predator

angelburst29 said:
Quoted from: Daenerys
To reiterate, I stated that the resonance (hypnosis) is induced if one ignores one's internal warning system ( fight or flight response) and engages with them.
We are taught to ignore these types of responses in ourselves. Our " Be Nice" program or maybe a " All people are good" program kicks in and we shove it under the rug.


In what I have stated, in regards to the occasional experiences, I acted on survival instinct to remove myself from the immediate area, due to an overwhelming feeling of intense danger.

We have all interacted and dealt with Psychopath's, at one time or another. I'm not suggesting that some are not capable of some of the worst crimes, for they are all predatory in nature. But I have, as of yet, found myself in a position of being alerted to immense danger and immediately, know in which direction it's coming from. The intensity of the experience doesn't seem to fit within the stated guildline's of essential psychopathy but may be another trait. Or as JAFaura has suggested, "something else."

In what you have quoted above, how does that relate to the experiences I have described?


The way it relates IMHO is that we are talking about the same thing. Due to being exposed to much pathology in my life, I can usually pick up on it and know exactly where it is emanating from. Due to childhood programming, I most often would squash these perceptions. Perhaps people who are more healthy in that area can pick up on it and not ignore their own warning systems. Now that i have done a whole lot of work, I find I do not ignore this as often, but I still make mistakes even now, especially around core issues. Oftentimes, the mask is so good, that it takes a while to figure it out. Many people who grew up around extreme pathology are not in tune with these signals as people who did not, some are even more hyper sensitive. There is a lot of information on the forum in regards to all of this, and many topics mesh together to form a greater big picture view. The essential psychopaths and the cluster B's are in a very real sense " something else", and I am not sure at this point without more data and references from JAFaura that we are not speaking of the same thing. Of course, understanding what all is accumulated here already would go a really long way in bridging the gap between concepts and examples, as was mentioned earlier by Laura and Anart.
 
Actually if you read political ponerology JAFaura, you would see that there is a nice section devoted to the neurological roots of the characteropaths. Which is the "new species" you seem to be describing;
Being a more efficient predator is not garantee of fitness in an evolutionary context. Actually a predator with empathy is kinda like a "panda" in terms of evolution. Serving two masters so to speak. To human to be an efficient predator as a psychopath and having a true mask, too psychotic to fit in a small group of human survivors for instance.
 
I think the best way to answer most of the questions posed and to bring us closer to what the new science posits is for me to share with you an example that one of the researchers gave me. This is a professor of forensic psychiatry with particular emphasis in cognitive physiology. I was almost exactly where a lot of you seem to be: Why would you think it's another species, why would you not simply think it is a different form of psychopathy and that maybe the Hare scale just needs revision? His answer really helped me to understand where this had come from and how it had evolved.

For starters, he explained that as a physical scientist he was not departing from the behavioral or 'emotional' component of psychopathy. In other words, he explained that psychopathy had always been the purview of psychologists and psychiatrists who studied it and learned to diagnose it and when possible treat it, but theirs were observations based on behavior. His area operated with absolutely no precepts relative to psychopathy and its defining behaviors. The concept of 'evil' did not have any role in his work.

In the work I've read relative to ponerology, the idea of psychopathy is discussed in the context of human behavior. The concept of 'evil' as defined through moral and religious traditions is a critical piece in the precepts of ponerology, characteropathy, objective deviations, etc. This isn't surprising given the fact that when Gurdjieff, and Lobecszewsky et. al. engaged in their searches there simply wasn't the technology for them to correlate their views with specific physical and physiological differences, nor did they seek to correlate their perspectives with evolutionary and genetic benchmarks. Theirs was a spiritual, emotional and philosophical endeavor, they looked into the soul and worked their way out. These scientists worked from the outside and then have left it to others to interpret how we can correlate the changes and theories they posit with our understanding of the spiritual, emotional and philosophical elements of the mind.

His hypothesis was based on his understanding of how psychopathy was established and then moved on to explore its physical manifestations and causes. Finally, once he had a clear and well-founded concept on how the psychological and psychiatric establishments defined psychopathy, he began to research subjects who fell outside of the established norms these disciplines had established and to try to identify physiological and biological differences that may account for the discrepancy, that's how it started. I was still not clear on exactly what he meant, I couldn't come up with a manifestation of what he was talking about. Below is a description of one of the subjects of his research. Hopefully it will clear at least some of the questions you've posed like it did with me:

A young man was referred to the study by a psychologist with agreement from a psychiatrist as well. The young man had served six tours in the Marine corps. four in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. He'd joined straight from high school. When he left the military he went to the VA, but quickly realized they wouldn't be able to help. He was not suffering from PTSD nor any other war-related emotional condition. He decided to pay for therapy on his own. He went to the psychologist and psychiatrist and explained to both that he was troubled by a 'condition' he'd had since he was a child. From the time he was young he'd felt a very strong inclination to prey on those around him. His chagrin at feeling this was the first indication to the therapists that this was not a typical case.

They'd both gone through his childhood and adolescence and established he'd never suffered any abuse nor had he ever gone through any trauma. He had normal sexual development and married a year after joining the marines. His family had never known him to be anything but a pleasant, if somewhat quiet, young man. He himself explained that since childhood he'd always been able to see things that seemed to escape others. Small and seemingly innocuous variations in behavior, twitches, patterns of action, fears, etc. allowed him to make observations of those around him. He had believed everyone could do it until he was twelve when he realized that was not the case.

When asked why he did what he did, try to read those around him, he said he did not know. He had thought that maybe he'd done it because he wanted to be 'safe', to know that if he had to 'protect' himself he'd know the threat's weaknesses. The psychologist asked him if he thought those around him were 'after' him or were trying to take advantage of him trying to establish whether there was an element of paranoia. He said he did not believe so, but that was the only explanation he could come up with for his constant 'awareness' of all of the minute shifts he'd mentioned. He had joined the marines in order to channel the strong inclinations he'd felt since he was a child. He volunteered for recon because he wanted to be in the heart of the action. Now that he was back home he'd gone back to feeling like there was something wrong with him, except that now the feeling was much stronger because he'd now experienced the feeling that 'eliminating' people brought. He stated he loved his family and wife and didn't feel 'safe' around them.

Over a period of time and through conversations with his family, his wife and his friends, both therapists had come to the conclusion that try as they may, they could not diagnose this man as a psychopath or a sociopath. He simply did not fit the established norms and the Hare scale. While both therapists tried to come up with a treatment plan the psychologist referred him to the study, a study on the physiology of predatory behavior. After a Pet scan, an active cognition scan, blood work and sensory testing the researcher came up with the following:

The parts of the brain that tend to light up in psychopaths, the parts that deal with imagination or story telling, did not light up in him. The area of the brain dealing with memory light up instead. He wasn't saying what he was saying in the hope of manipulating, he was sharing true memories. When he spoke of his family and his wife and the love he had for them the part of the brain that dealt with memories lit up again, along with the part of the brain that dealt with bonding, not the story telling part. When he said he loved, he was sharing a true feelings, not his idea of the feeling. His amygdala function was normal, he was aware of the consequences of his actions on other and on himself. His levels of the MAO-A gene were normal. His levels of testosterone were higher than normal. He tested well above average on IQ tests administered by the therapists and by the researcher.

His cognitive speed was also well above normal, he made connections between the environment around him and the actions of those within it much faster than the norm. His brain cavity was also much larger than the norm. His bone density was much higher than the norm, so the architecture of his bones was stronger than the norm. One of the most interesting things that the researcher found was that this guy made immediate connections between changes in the environment around him and fine motor skills. He was a sort of synesthete, but instead of smelling sounds or seeing shapes and colors when tasting something, he 'felt' changes around him physically. In other words, if he was at a party and someone there was in an angry argument, but they were keeping their voices low, he felt it physically. When we are scared we feel emotion physically, but it is our own emotion. He felt others' emotions and translated them into subconscious changes in his physiology. He got tense, his pupils dilated and his pulse rose.

This assessment provided insight for the guy's therapists, but they did not know how to proceed with his treatment protocol. I should make clear that the researcher that conducted the study did not make ANY determinations that he was part of another species, that was not the purpose of the study. the purpose of the study was simply to identify and catalogue physiological differences in individuals who did not fit into the established norms for psychopathy. Another researcher took his findings and those of others doing similar research to posit the new species. Most of those that have posited or proposed a different species are evolutionary biologists. I have not found a single reference to 'evil' or to the moral aspects of psychopathy or other mental conditions in any of their work.

As I have come to understand all of this, the motivation for a psychopath is quite different than the motivation for those who might be something else. We all know what defines a psychopath and wel all know what that represent for humanity, but the example above presented another consideration. What the detectives and lawyers and prison counselors described confirmed for me that there is something else out there that does not fit psychopathy. All of these folks deal with psychopaths on an almost daily basis, much more often than I do anyway and I venture to say much more than most other people, and they believe that there are individuals that are something else. None of these people ever said anything about another species, but when presented with the possibility almost all of them agreed that it made a lot of sense.

Predatory behavior is predatory behavior and the fact that the motivation for it might be something other than what we understand to be psychopathy does not in any way make any predator less responsible. The fact that there may be another species doesn't mean that we should therefore simply bow and say 'here, take over', on the contrary the more we understand the more we can develop insights to counter them.

Frankly, for me, it was their thoughts on the matter that gave the whole thing credibility. I am not well versed enough on the science involved to say that it is a fact that another species exists, but having spoken to those that have seen more diagnosed psychopaths than I will ever see (hopefully) and hearing their thoughts on the matter, have convinced me of the possibility. Psychopaths are not an 'idea' or a 'theory' for them, they are a very real, flesh and blood reality they deal with as a part of their job, so yes, their opinion is always going to hold a lot of sway for me.

Of course we can all choose to simply believe that all predators are psychopaths and we can simply continue to revise the established norms for psychopathy in order to encompass anyone who does not fit, but I think that is simply burying our heads in the sand. Advances in technology and a much deeper understanding of the boundaries of the human mind will continue to bring up all sorts of interesting possibilities and I think those of us that have a better understanding of psychopathy, ponerology, characteropathy, the pathology, etc. can use these technological advances to bring a different perspective to the discussion.

It would have been fascinating to see how those who have written about ponerology, psychopathy, the pathology, etc. would correlate a better understanding of the physical, evolutionary and physiological elements of predatory behavior. Perhaps such technological advances and hypotheses would have opened a whole new path of understanding for them to map.
 
JAFaura said:
In the work I've read relative to ponerology, the idea of psychopathy is discussed in the context of human behavior. The concept of 'evil' as defined through moral and religious traditions is a critical piece in the precepts of ponerology, characteropathy, objective deviations, etc. This isn't surprising given the fact that when Gurdjieff, and Lobecszewsky et. al. engaged in their searches there simply wasn't the technology for them to correlate their views with specific physical and physiological differences, nor did they seek to correlate their perspectives with evolutionary and genetic benchmarks. Theirs was a spiritual, emotional and philosophical endeavor, they looked into the soul and worked their way out. These scientists worked from the outside and then have left it to others to interpret how we can correlate the changes and theories they posit with our understanding of the spiritual, emotional and philosophical elements of the mind.

How can you compare ponerology with other works "relative to ponerology" when you have no clear understanding of what ponerology is, because you haven't read the book itself yet? It seems to me that you are basing your "understanding" of ponerology on a very shaky ground, thanks to not have read the book wich actually defines what it is, in great detail. And then you go on talking about it, as if you have grasped what it is. Such an approach is not very productive if you want to understand something. Do you actually want to understand ponerology in order to be more qualified to give assessment of the same? Or, are you more interested in the way you have made up your mind about it beforhand, without even reading/understanding the book first?

"This isn't surprising given the fact that when Gurdjieff, and Lobecszewsky et. al. engaged in their searches there simply wasn't the technology for them to correlate their views with specific physical and physiological differences, nor did they seek to correlate their perspectives with evolutionary and genetic benchmarks. Theirs was a spiritual, emotional and philosophical endeavor, they looked into the soul and worked their way out."

How can you say that? Did you read Gurdjieff's or Lobecszewsky's work? It really doesn't sound like you did. I'm telling you again, that you base your assessment on a very shaky ground. If that is the way you research things, than it surely doesn't reflect all that good on your research. What if you are wrong about your assessment about Gurdjieff's or Lobecszewsky's work? What if you are basing a lot of your understandings on "how you believe things out to be" rather then on "knowing things through researching them in depth"? It looks like you base a whole lot of stuff on assumptions and then state those as facts. Your assumption about the work of those two people is most likely not what it objectively is.

I also would like to know why you now come across, as if you know Gurdieff's work, even though you gave the impression at the beginning that you don't?

It seems to me that you really need to get up to speed as Laura suggested, on quite a number of things, if you want your work and research to be more objective.
 
JAFaura, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
 
JAFaura said:
As I have come to understand all of this, the motivation for a psychopath is quite different than the motivation for those who might be something else. We all know what defines a psychopath and wel all know what that represent for humanity, but the example above presented another consideration. What the detectives and lawyers and prison counselors described confirmed for me that there is something else out there that does not fit psychopathy. All of these folks deal with psychopaths on an almost daily basis, much more often than I do anyway and I venture to say much more than most other people, and they believe that there are individuals that are something else. None of these people ever said anything about another species, but when presented with the possibility almost all of them agreed that it made a lot of sense.

Now that I understand better what you are conveying, I may know an example individual - a best friend for many years. After becoming good friends in the first year of college (circa 1974), we had a long quite talk about how he felt about himself in relation to most people. This stuck with me all these years because I was deeply affected by what he said. He said that he was different than most people and he felt things differently. Its been too many years for me to recall exact words, but he was upset about this clear difference that he perceived and was searching for some explanation (that I was no help with).

Although generally preferring to be alone, some folks were attracted to him - my interpretation is that they sensed he knew more about them than they knew of themselves.

He and I graduated and proceeded to work together (on and off) over the next 30 years at different companies. He married, had 2 kids, and we continued to get together regularly up until about 8 years ago.

His creative capacities are high and he does very well in engineering - in an area where creativity is a must.

I have seen genuine strong displays of emotion - both sorrow and elation.

So, since studying psychopathy, I have been very puzzled about that conversation in college so many years ago - what you present might be part of the answer.

As far as outright predatory behavior - I haven't seen serious examples, but I sense the capability. He is capable of devastating some people with very few words. His father displayed the capability to drive family members (and even visitors) to tears in short quiet conversation.

I'm not sure that this is a fit with what you present, but I thought I'd mention it because it has been a bit of a mystery to me.
 
lqb said:
Although generally preferring to be alone, some folks were attracted to him - my interpretation is that they sensed he knew more about them than they knew of themselves.He and I graduated and proceeded to work together (on and off) over the next 30 years at different companies. He married, had 2 kids, and we continued to get together regularly up until about 8 years ago.His creative capacities are high and he does very well in engineering - in an area where creativity is a must.I have seen genuine strong displays of emotion - both sorrow and elation.So, since studying psychopathy, I have been very puzzled about that conversation in college so many years ago - what you present might be part of the answer.As far as outright predatory behavior - I haven't seen serious examples, but I sense the capability. He is capable of devastating some people with very few words. His father displayed the capability to drive family members (and even visitors) to tears in short quiet conversation.I'm not sure that this is a fit with what you present, but I thought I'd mention it because it has been a bit of a mystery to me.



Of course I could be wrong but this is my take on this, fwiw. What I think this may be is an extremely ponerized "normie". I say this because when I was younger it could very well have applied to me. Based on what is said about his father, it is certain he grew up emmeshed in some type of pathology.


When one is raised in a VERY volitile environment, one learns skills that others do not necessarily. For example, one learns to pick up on slightest difference in facial expression, tone, body posture, etc. One pays attention to not only what is said, but what is not said and the length of silence or gaps. This becomes second nature Throw in some ponerization and aquired pathological traits and then you end up with what you are talking about. The empathy and creativity really are there, but so is some of that
" special psychological knowledge" OSIT.


-modified font size
 
Daenerys said:
lqb said:
Although generally preferring to be alone, some folks were attracted to him - my interpretation is that they sensed he knew more about them than they knew of themselves.He and I graduated and proceeded to work together (on and off) over the next 30 years at different companies. He married, had 2 kids, and we continued to get together regularly up until about 8 years ago.His creative capacities are high and he does very well in engineering - in an area where creativity is a must.I have seen genuine strong displays of emotion - both sorrow and elation.So, since studying psychopathy, I have been very puzzled about that conversation in college so many years ago - what you present might be part of the answer.As far as outright predatory behavior - I haven't seen serious examples, but I sense the capability. He is capable of devastating some people with very few words. His father displayed the capability to drive family members (and even visitors) to tears in short quiet conversation.I'm not sure that this is a fit with what you present, but I thought I'd mention it because it has been a bit of a mystery to me.



Of course I could be wrong but this is my take on this, fwiw. What I think this may be is an extremely ponerized "normie". I say this because when I was younger it could very well have applied to me. Based on what is said about his father, it is certain he grew up emmeshed in some type of pathology.


When one is raised in a VERY volitile environment, one learns skills that others do not necessarily. For example, one learns to pick up on slightest difference in facial expression, tone, body posture, etc. One pays attention to not only what is said, but what is not said and the length of silence or gaps. This becomes second nature Throw in some ponerization and aquired pathological traits and then you end up with what you are talking about. The empathy and creativity really are there, but so is some of that
" special psychological knowledge" OSIT.


-modified font size

If I thought that this case might possibly be one of the ponerization pressures that we have all been subjected to, I would not have mentioned it. I really only offered it up as a possible data point for JAF. And to go into more detail here, I think, would be inappropriate.
 
Scientists appear to lack a coherent universally accepted criteria to define species (species problem). We have problems classifying different plants and animals in an unambiguous way. So it can be said we do not know enough at this stage to apply the species definition in the human sphere from the current scientific perspective.

Coming to other sources,

[quote author=C's in Session 10 July 1999]

A: While you have physicality, some part of you will maintain the connection to its roots.

Q: (L) Are you saying that all these people who say that human beings have reptilian genetics, are telling the truth? Do we have reptilian genetics?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do we also have bird genetics?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And that is our physical connection or basis?

A: Yes, as third density bioengineered beings, you lead the smorgasbord parade of that which surrounds you in the physical realm.
[/quote]


Gurdjieff, while discussing hydrogens

[quote author=ISOTM]

"Partly in connection with what I have just said it is imperative that you should understand the principles of the classification and the definition of living beings from the cosmic point of view, from the point of view of their cosmic existence. In ordinary science classification is made according to external traits—bones, teeth, functions; mammals, vertebrates, rodents, and so on; in exact knowledge classification is made according to cosmic traits. As a matter of fact there are exact traits, identical for everything living, which allows us to establish the class and the species of a given creature with the utmost exactitude, both in relation to other creatures as well as to its own place in the universe.
"These traits are the traits of being. The cosmic level of being of every living creature is determined:
"First of all by what this creature eats,
"Secondly by what he breathes, and
"Thirdly by the medium in which it lives.
"These are the three cosmic traits of being.
.........................................

"There is still another system of classification,"' he said, "which you also ought to understand. This is a classification in an altogether different ratio of octaves. The first classification by 'food,' 'air,' and medium definitely refers to 'living beings' as we know them, including plants, that is to say, to individuals. The other classification of which I shall now speak leads us far beyond the limits of what we call 'living beings' both upwards, higher than living beings, as well as downwards, lower than living beings, and it deals not with individuals but with classes in a very wide sense. Above all this classification shows that there are no jumps whatever in nature. In nature everything is connected and everything is alive. The diagram of this classification is called the 'Diagram of Everything Living.'

"According to this diagram every kind of creature, every degree of being, is defined by what serves as food for this kind of creature or being of a given level and for what they themselves serve as food, because in the cosmic order each class of creature feeds on a definite class of lower creature and is food for a definite class of higher creatures."
[/quote]

Both the C's and G's material (not fully quoted above) indicate that "man" has animal genetics which get expressed in varying proportions in different individuals - so both predator and prey parts are included in humans. It is logical to expect that there would be certain physiological differences associated with respective expressions of the more predator-like and more prey-like genetics in the continuum. It can perhaps be thought of in fuzzy logic terms of degrees of membership in the predator/prey classifications instead of a binary true or false either predator or prey classification. I think the classification of essential psychopaths as an "inter intra-species predator" with the maximum degree of membership in the fuzzy set of predators is consistent in this framework without requiring us to necessarily define a new species. Also other genetically based "disorders" can find their respective places in such a classification system. This could go to some extent in explaining the more authentic cases of the feeling of being different from the norm. Essential psychopaths and some other classes (like Cluster B disorders) are fixed in their positions in the system while others have a certain degree of flexibility of moving within the system through their own efforts. Though only predator/prey was used as example criteria for classification since it was relevant in the context of the discussion, it need not be limited to these two. One could conceivably not have any significant degree of membership in either inter intra-species predator or prey class.

Edit: Changed inter to intra
 
I also have a problem of fully grasping the idea of a new specie and the difference between a psychpath and the new predatory race. To me they seem one and the same.

I do not remember now if Lobaczewski mentioned it in his book, but I remember surely that during a few of our conversations he referred to psychopaths as para-Homo Sapiens. I think (I am even sure) he believed that due to their DNA deficiency they never became fully human, thus representing a sub-specie or even another specie from evolutionary point of view.

So, in my opinion he did introduce the idea of another specie, even if informally. Yet he clearly meant essential psychopathy, not other disorders.
 
Lobaczewski also mentioned several other psychopathies, i.e. deformities of genetic origin. E.g. schizoidal psychopathy, asthenic psychopathy.

If some of these are the result of several mutations, there might perhaps be people who only carry part of this heritage and so present some but not all attributes of these other types. In addition, and possibly more significantly, these other types are not studied by modern psychiatry within the context that the Eastern European psychiatry did before its destruction; i.e., there are nowadays only the more vague notions of personality disorders. The concept of several genetic psychopathies is pretty much gone.

Perhaps this understanding is what is missing - what makes some cases not "fit" - because the more modern psychiatry has focused only on essential psychopathy.
 
Psalehesost said:
Lobaczewski also mentioned several other psychopathies, i.e. deformities of genetic origin. E.g. schizoidal psychopathy, asthenic psychopathy.

If some of these are the result of several mutations, there might perhaps be people who only carry part of this heritage and so present some but not all attributes of these other types. In addition, and possibly more significantly, these other types are not studied by modern psychiatry within the context that the Eastern European psychiatry did before its destruction; i.e., there are nowadays only the more vague notions of personality disorders. The concept of several genetic psychopathies is pretty much gone.

Perhaps this understanding is what is missing - what makes some cases not "fit" - because the more modern psychiatry has focused only on essential psychopathy.

Also, Laura has discussed the possibility that the genetic connection to psychopathy may originate from interbreeding with Neanderthal. If this is the case, then other genetic variants might also be expected.
 
Obi said:
I do not remember now if Lobaczewski mentioned it in his book, but I remember surely that during a few of our conversations he referred to psychopaths as para-Homo Sapiens. I think (I am even sure) he believed that due to their DNA deficiency they never became fully human, thus representing a sub-specie or even another specie from evolutionary point of view.

So, in my opinion he did introduce the idea of another specie, even if informally. Yet he clearly meant essential psychopathy, not other disorders.

Some excerpts from Political Ponerology

[quote author=PP]
[Western] civilization developed formulations in the area of law, whether national, civil, or finally canon, which were conceived for invented and simplified beings . These formulations gave short shrift to the total contents of the human personality and the great psychological differences between individual members of the species Homo sapiens.
............................
It is a universal law of nature that the higher a given species' psychological organization, the greater the psychological differences among individual units. Man is the most highly organized species; hence these variations are the greatest.
..............................
[/quote]

Regarding psychopaths, Lobaczewski wrote

[quote author=PP]
In spite of their deficiencies in normal psychological and moral knowledge, they develop and have at their disposal a knowledge of their own, something lacked by people with a natural world view. They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them. They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, like a para-specific variety.
[/quote]

So the para-specific variety quote was with reference to the psychopaths' view of normal humanity.
 
Back
Top Bottom