Updates from April, 2015 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Tina (GeneticPsychosMom) 12:33 on April 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bribery, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    The World’s Largest Democracy is Under Threat 

    India’s 1951 Adult Suffrage Act, which granted the right to vote to all Indian citizens regardless of gender or religion, was the largest single act of freedom in human history. At a stroke, 350 million people became participants in their own future, with the right to decide how they would be governed. India’s democratic progress at that historic moment stands in stark contrast with its giant neighbour, where just two years earlier Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, doubling the number of people worldwide living under the tyranny of communism.

    India’s democracy is remarkable because of India’s diversity of religions, languages and ethnicities. India today is the third-largest Muslim country in the world, after Indonesia and Pakistan [1]. Given India’s religious diversity, its founders regarded a secular constitution as an essential precondition for the stability of the new nation. India can boast of having had a Muslim President, a Sikh Prime Minister and a Christian head of the ruling party, all sharing in the same governing coalition [2]. India’s secular constitution remains a model for the world.

    India also stands out because it is a democracy of the poor. In Western democracies, the more affluent a person is the more likely they are to vote in elections. In India, the opposite is the case: the lower the caste, income, and education of an Indian, the greater the likelihood that they will vote [3]. India demonstrates that, with sufficient safeguards, democracy can be made to work in poor countries.

    Over sixty years and sixteen general elections later, India’s democracy endures. Indian general elections today, with over 700 million voters [4] – larger than all the eligible voters in North America, Europe and Australia combined –constitute the largest political events in human history [5].

    A stream of recent international reports documents the extent of corruption in the country [8]. In 2014 India ranked 85 out of 175 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. World Bank surveys report that almost half of firms surveyed said that they had to pay bribes to public officials for everyday business activities.

    Citizens too routinely have to bribe public officials for services that are free by law – such as access to healthcare and education, obtaining telephone connections or driving licences. Surveys consistently identify the police as being the most corrupt public service in India. India’s poor more often find themselves victims of the law rather than enjoying the protection of it.

    Corruption is also corroding the impartiality of India’s judiciary. A former Director General of the National Investigation Agency, Radha Vinod Raju has spoken about how existing anti-corruption measures fail to deter wrongdoers – particularly those with money [9]. To begin with, few of the many allegations of corruption against the wealthy ever result in charges being filed because they can pay bribes to evade justice. In the rare cases which do make it to court, further bribes can prolong the period between initial charges and final conviction to a decade or more. Finally, low conviction rates and the failure of the state to pursue the assets of those found guilty, weaken the deterrent effect of India’s criminal justice system for wealthy and well connected criminals to vanishing point.

    Most worryingly of all, India’s Parliament too has been corrupted.

    The scale of criminal infiltration of India’s political system became clear for the first time in 2004 following an order from the Indian Supreme Court that all election candidates must disclose their criminal history. These disclosures revealed that of the 543 MPs elected to India’s Parliament in the 2004 elections, 128 faced criminal charges, including eighty-four counts of murder.[10],[11] One MP faced no less than seventeen separate murder charges, while a sitting Cabinet Minister was convicted of conspiracy to murder.

    The situation has become even more serious since then. Following the 2014 Parliamentary election, 185 MPs had criminal cases pending against them. Of these, 112 lawmakers faced charges related to murder, attempt to murder, communal disharmony, kidnapping, and crimes against women.[12].

    Despite the clear extent of criminal infiltration of Indian politics, the major parties – rather than acting decisively to remove the threat and protect India’s democracy – still refuse to bar those facing serious criminal convictions from standing as candidates in elections.

    The Future of Indian Democracy

    As the world’s largest democracy, India stands as an important symbol to the world. A strong democratic India has the potential to act as a voice for the poor in international fora, as a force for a more just world economic system, and as proof of the power of democracy to address the most pressing problems of the twenty-first century.

    However the potential of India’s democracy can only be realised if people of integrity hold positions of power.

    Allowing criminals without conscience to gain access to government is a recipe for disaster, and a failure of democracy to secure its primary purpose – that of protecting the nation from the rise of criminal elites.

    Excerpt from  The World’s Largest Democracy is Under Threat by Ian Hughes, April 2015

    Psychopath TEST Politicians


    • James 14:49 on April 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      “of the 543 MPs elected to India’s Parliament in the 2004 elections, 128 faced criminal charges, including eighty-four counts of murder.”

      Lol, comparing this statistic with my own country, where a cabinet minister was removed from office and imprisoned over a relatively minor driving offence (although he did try to defraud the justice system to get out of what was originally nothing more than a fine).

      Liked by 1 person

  • Tina (GeneticPsychosMom) 14:37 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    How should society deal with psychopaths? 

    The most important thing to know is that they exist. Psychopaths are out there – ready, willing and able to take advantage of you without giving it a second thought, even if it were to ruin your life. Indeed, some psychopaths would consider it an added bonus if it did. Worse, you are unlikely to know what you are dealing with because you don’t know what to look out for.

    This is partly the fault of the media and the way psychopaths are represented in popular culture. The term “psychopath” likely evokes a vivid image of real or fictional characters like Charles Manson or Hannibal Lecter. When pressed for a definition, many people would consider someone who is a sadistic serial killer and criminal mastermind with a deranged and twisted mind who also takes pleasure in the suffering he inflicts as the prototype that defines the condition.

    One implication of this definition is that psychopaths must be exceedingly rare and not really something to worry about in everyday life. This is perhaps comforting, but just like real drowning looks nothing like drowning on the big screen, popular imagination harbors a lot of misconceptions when it comes to psychopaths. To make matters worse, psychopaths deliberately work on maintaining a “mask of sanity.” They know they have to conceal their nature in order to more effectively manipulate and exploit you, which is why most victims of psychopaths are blindsided by psychopathic behavior.

    Fortunately, science made a lot of progress in understanding and detecting psychopaths in the past century.

    What psychopathy is – and what it’s not

    The first thing to understand about psychopaths is that the condition is ironically named. The term literally translates to “suffering souls,” but while psychopathy objectively does tend to cause a lot of difficulties and strife in the lives of psychopaths, they are unlikely to be distressed by this. Instead, they are generally the ones who are dishing out the suffering, and are doing so without losing much sleep over it. Unlike most mental or neurological diseases, it is not really accurate to say that psychopaths are “suffering” from psychopathy. Generally, they are not actually suffering – rather they make others suffer for their sins. This is why psychopaths don’t typically seek treatment for their condition. Psychopaths are usually only diagnosed if and when their behavior is so far outside of the bounds of societal norms that they end up in prison, which about two-thirds of them eventually do. This makes it hard to estimate the prevalence of psychopathy, but experts estimate that between one in 100 to 200 males – the condition seems to be more rare in females – would qualify for a diagnosis of psychopathy if they were evaluated. This rate implies that they are common enough to worry about because you are likely to know a few of them personally, whether you recognize that they are psychopaths or not. Crucially, they cause far more than their fair share of suffering.

    So it is critical to understand what psychopathy is and is not. Importantly, while the terms sound similar – and screenwriters like to conflate the condition for dramatic effect – psychopathy has nothing to do with psychosis. Psychopaths generally do not suffer from hallucinations, are not acting in ways that are patently irrational, nor are they out of touch with physical reality.

    Traits of psychopaths – and what it’s like to be one

    What seems to be central to the condition is a dramatically muted emotional affect. While there is controversy in the field about how this manifests specifically, the signs of disordered affect are everywhere. For instance, some studies show that psychopaths do not exhibit normal physiological responses (e.g., increase in sweat or change in heart rate) when looking at disturbing images of atrocities. Some experts maintain that it is next to impossible to startle a psychopath or win a staring contest with one.

    The problem with this lack of normal emotional affect is that most of us use it to guide our social behavior. We need emotions like empathy or guilt in order to develop a moral compass, to distinguish what is right from wrong when it comes to treating others. Indeed, psychopaths don’t seem to be big on compassion or regret. Studies show that when asked to assess what feels more wrong – kicking a baby or kicking a sack of rice – psychopaths tend to treat either scenario with an equal degree of equanimity.

    Of course, this is inconceivable to most of us. Generally speaking, most people expect others to feel and act more or less as they themselves would. However, in the case of psychopaths, this heuristic fails; non-psychopaths can hardly conceive ever doing anything remotely like the things that psychopaths do all the time without any qualms whatsoever.

    A metaphor that can help to grasp what it feels like to be a psychopath might be to consider how you would feel about spilling milk. It’s unfortunate, but nothing to cry over. And of course one has to break a couple of eggs to make an omelet – that is just how things are. Psychopaths treat people like you would treat objects – things to be manipulated for their personal gain with no conceivable ethical or moral dimension.

    As a consequence, the psychopath exhibits a profound indifference to the suffering his actions cause others.

    The implications of such a condition are predictably dramatic; freed from the ethical shackles imposed on behavior by conscience, the psychopath pursues his antisocial agenda of personal gain with abandon, uninhibited and untroubled.

    This, in turn, leads to a wide variety of behavioral tendencies that can be captured by the tests experts use to diagnose psychopathy in individuals. These sound a lot like blood tests (e.g., PCL-R, which stands for Psychopathy Checklist – Revised), but actually check behavioral traits such as lack of responsibility and remorse, pathological lying, manipulativeness and cunning, sexual promiscuity, impulsivity and irresponsibility, superficial affect and charm, criminal behavior and so on.

    While the behavioral manifestations of the psychopathic lifestyle can be bewilderingly diverse, they are all consistent with a disturbed emotional affect as the root cause. Neuroimaging studies suggest that this is indeed the case, as psychopaths show dramatic anatomical and functional differences – relative to controls – particularly in brain regions that together form the paralimbic system, which has been associated with and implicated in emotional processing.

    So while psychopathy is classically considered as a personality disorder, it really is a brain disorder, specifically a disorder of emotional circuitry that deals with interpersonal relations. As such, it fits with a number of other conditions that we now recognize as biological in nature, but are manifesting socially or behaviorally.

    Sociopath vs. psychopath

    This dual nature poses a challenge for society. It also clarifies a common confusion regarding the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. While some use these words interchangeably, “sociopath” is an ideological term that became fashionable in the 1970s, and which implies that this condition is mostly or even solely determined by dysfunctional social conditions. In light of the evidence that psychopathy involves clearly specified neural systems, which suggests that the condition is biological at its core, there really might be no such thing as a sociopath. Psychopathy appears increasingly less as a character flaw and more like a brain defect.

    Nature vs. nurture

    Of course, the question whether psychopaths are born or made is very much unresolved, as the etiology of the condition is still unclear. Most likely, it involves a combination of both genetic and social factors. On the one hand, it is increasingly apparent that signs of psychopathy – both behavioral and neural – can already be present very early in childhood, suggesting that there might be a strong genetic component to the condition. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that environmental factors also play a role. For instance, an uninvolved or absent father or physical neglect in childhood are strong predictors of psychopathic traits in adulthood. It is even hard to tease apart genetic and environmental components. For instance, in the example above, it is conceivable that uninvolved fathers are uninvolved because they are psychopaths as well. Obviously, it is ethically unthinkable to do experiments to resolve this question conclusively. As is usually true for complex neural-psycho-social conditions, it is likely the case that a combination of genetic predispositions and environmental triggers underlies the development of adult psychopathy.

    How should society deal with psychopaths?

    But regardless of cause, plenty of psychopaths exist right now and we have to deal with them, both as a society and individually.

    It is perhaps not surprising that the psychopathic lifestyle eventually leads most psychopaths to prison. However, societal notions of justice were conceived in a time before we understood anything about brain disorders, so they are still not well suited to address them. For instance, the criminal justice system does presume that people can tell right from wrong and are equal before the law. But what if psychopaths don’t – or can’t – care about what is right and wrong and what if the brains of psychopaths are demonstrably different from those of the rest of the population? The current default societal response to psychopathy – imprisonment – seems a bit naïve, as it does not suit the peculiarities of the condition. While going to prison is a deeply traumatic experience for most, all accounts suggest that psychopaths don’t seem to be particularly bothered by the occasion. Worse, it seems to have no curative effect – statistically, psychopaths have a probability to reoffend that approaches certainty. Given their mental makeup, this is not surprising. To summarize, prison seems to have no deterrent, punitive or curative effect on psychopaths, which is why it can be considered woefully inadequate as a treatment option. This is another irony of psychopathy – those who are most likely to end up in prison are least likely to be affected by it.

    Whether psychopaths can be reformed at all is an open question. Apart from prison, traditional forms of therapy are neither sought by psychopaths, nor is there any evidence that they work. However, there are promising new intervention models that go beyond punishment; for instance, “decompression” that seek to re-form the kinds of psychosocial bonds that the psychopath never made in his childhood. The jury on whether these interventions work in the long term is still out, but we – as a society – need to start taking psychopathy and its underlying brain pathology seriously. Psychopaths can inflict quite a bit of suffering on their path to prison; the annual economic damage in the US alone is estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Also, there is the case of the “successful psychopath” that does not end up in prison. If a psychopath is skilled enough to avoid this fate, he can utilize his natural ruthlessness to single-mindedly go after and achieve his self-aggrandizing goals. While it is not true that – as the characteristically hyperbolic media narrative would have it – 10 percent of Wall Street executives qualify as psychopaths, there is no question that psychopaths are overrepresented in leading positions in many fields. Power and recklessness is a toxic mix, and the fallout from that combination makes for riveting narratives that sell newspapers on a daily basis.

    Society will have to come to terms with this one way or the other, as it is getting ever more vulnerable to psychopaths. In a way, it is a great time to be a psychopath, as society is ever more fractured which allows for reputation management and the emergence of a sharing economy (Craigslist, AirBnB, et al) critically relies on trust but provides ideal hunting grounds for psychopaths to exploit unsuspecting victims.

    Maybe part of the solution is more research; the science of psychopathy is only now coming into its own as the condition has been understudied for a long time. Perhaps this is not surprising, given that the disorder is inherently paradoxical in nature. Most cultures sharply distinguish the archetypes of victims – who are deserving of our sympathy and compassion – from perpetrators, who are only deserving of our scorn and punishment. But what if there is a condition – psychopathy – where unsuffering victims are remorseless perpetrators that cause a lot of suffering at the same time? Society might ultimately be unsympathetic, but needs a better understanding of psychopathy for sheer self-protection.

    As neuroscience progresses, society will increasingly have to come to grips with biological disorders that affect the brain and but manifest socially and behaviorally. In the case of psychopathy, it does so in an extremely detrimental and antisocial fashion. Our institutions and legal theory will have to catch up with our scientific understanding of these conditions and disorders.

    How can you protect yourself?

    Meanwhile, what can you do as an individual?

    Most importantly, awareness of the condition is helpful, as detection is critical. The psychopath next door is unlikely to be a chainsaw-wielding killer – given the psychopathic propensity to cloak their tendencies – but can do a lot of damage to your life all the same. If you consider a normal emotional response central to the human experience, it is critical to understand that there are extremely cold-blooded aliens in human form among us.

    There needs to be no value judgment attached to this – think of psychopathy as the moral equivalent of color blindness. While you might not be able to relate to psychopaths, you can still adapt your behavior. And as dealing with a psychopath can be life ruining, the only way to win might be not to play. Unless you happen to be the bigger psychopath.

    Excerpt from Psychopaths in our midst — what you should know By Pascal Wallisch, PhD, November 2014

    A NEW list: Spot a psychopath/sociopath early by habits, not personality: https://www.facebook.com/notes/psychopathy-genetics/how-to-spot-a-pro-social-psychopath/781795738538803

    Psychopath TEST Politicians


  • James 16:22 on April 23, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , altruism, , , , , , snark, Yahoo woohoo yippee ki yay   

    Is it safe to date a psychopath? 

    Not loving these ugly blobs of grey all over the page. It’s all because I’ve quoted an external source, but here they fuse with the border around my French graffiti picture to create something hideous. Dear readers, please know I did everything I could to tone the effect down, but failed miserably. We’ll just have to accept the grey is a part of all our lives now. 

    So I recently came across this question on Yahoo! Answers:

    Is it safe to date a psychopath?

    Mille mots d’amour, version psychopathe. 

    I know that most of you will ask me, ‘Has this person been formally diagnosed?’
    And yes this person has been.
    Even if they hadn’t been, they show all the signs of being psychopathic.

    What (if there is any) way is the best way to date a psychopath without getting hurt too badly?
    [I get that there will be hurt somewhere along the line, but that happens all the time.]

    Frankly, I respected the cautiousness of the OP, but still I thought she (you can tell from the writing tone it’s a she) retained a certain misguided idealism that was ripe for popping. My answer:

    Oh yes, we make really considerate partners.

    We never manipulate or sweet-talk you into doing things for us. We don’t threaten or abuse our ‘loved ones’ and we don’t pressure you into doing illegal things with us. We definitely don’t choose the gullible and the easily dominated as partners and we would hate to hurt you physically or mentally. We promise to love you and be there for you forever, to remain faithful throughout the relationship and we swear there will never come a time when we get bored of you and chuck you away like last night’s takeaway.

    What’s more, we always tell the truth.


    I’ve made a habit of answering psychology-related questions on that website. I am helpful at least twice as many times as not, though I’ll admit sometimes I abuse the format and lack of proper admins to mess with people. This answer is a little bit of both, as although the message is clear enough, I was obviously in a sarcastic mood at the time. Obviously.

    I get just as much satisfaction from helping as harming, as whether one or the other, I am influencing somebody else’s life. It’s a power thing. What’s interesting is that I have noticed other psychopaths doing the same, for example the sidebar of my question links to this little gem https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414134339AAtEIwU

    So, contrary to popular belief, psychopaths can be wilfully helpful, despite apparently not possessing any altruistic tendencies.

    Are you surprised? Has your worldview just been radically altered? Do you have lots of opinions and a big mouth? Then leave a comment below!

    • A Psychopath and a Scholar 16:06 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Psychopaths can make great partners, the issue is just figuring out whether they actually care for you or not. I’m a psychopath and my two longest relationships were opposite. With one, I actually liked the person and I was honest, didn’t cheat, and did my best to be a good partner. With the other, I just needed a place to crash for awhile, and I never even liked her and lied constantly. However, they couldn’t tell the difference. If you’re paying the rent or the relationship is all about sex… you’re probably being used. Psychopaths can “care” for someone though, it’s just on a logical level rather than an emotional one.

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 18:13 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        So you didn’t make the one you disliked subconsciously miserable. Would you mind explaining, for the benefit of our readers, what you mean by logically caring for someone?


        • A Psychopath and a Scholar 18:58 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          Logically caring for someone is much like friendship. In this case, I liked who the girl was as a person. She had characteristics that I respected, and she was enjoyable to be around. Because I respected her, I treated her as well as I could. In the case of the other girl, I was obviously just using her. Both of them I broke up with, and both of them would take me back. I didn’t destroy their lives or make them miserable. I only made them sad when I left. Not all psychopaths are out of control. Just because I wouldn’t feel bad about hurting someone doesn’t mean that it makes me feel good or that I hurt everyone I can. I don’t feel bad or good outside of the physical sense. I just do what makes sense to me. I’ve never had a girl break up with me or even realize that I was a psychopath. In fact, people generally love me as long as I pretend to be normal. A psychopath dates people for one of two reasons: either 1) it benefits them, or 2) they enjoy being around the person. If a relationship isn’t benefiting me, than the only reason I’d be there is a genuine logical attraction, and that is stronger than the chemical attraction that goes away after 1-3 years. I still like that same girl from 7 years ago and I wouldn’t have left her if I didn’t have to move out of state.

          Liked by 1 person

          • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 19:32 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Physically makes me queasy. I wouldn’t live in an emotionless void like this for a billion dollars.


            • James 19:45 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              What is it about his answer that makes you feel queasy? There’s nothing unusual here. He didn’t mistreat the girls. He even liked one of them, without any additional benefits. What’s your problem?


              • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 20:14 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                Dating someone is an emotional investment. You depend on your chosen one to look out for your best interests. You depend on your partner to share truth. It is supposed to be mutual, not one-sided. It must be the off-balanced aspect that makes me queasy.


                • A Psychopath and a Scholar 22:08 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  Genetic psycho, you have to remember that being emotionless is not a choice that the psychopath made. It is simply our nature. You want us to attempt to fit into your emotion-driven society, but then we are the bad guy because we pretend to be nice? My nature, like most animals, is to kill anything that threatens me and to take what I need and want. The fact that some of us attempt to “fit in” is something you should be thankful for. Your emotion is based on what you were taught, not what is in your nature. Your nature is the same as mine, I just don’t feel guilty for not following unnatural norms.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 22:40 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    I am not trying to make you fit. I accept you the way you are. In addition, I was not taught emotion, I was raised in a family of backstabbing psychopaths.


                    • A Psychopath and a Scholar 22:52 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                      It seems that you are under the impression that all psychopaths are bad people – no doubt due to the fact that your family hurt you emotionally. Nature is only part of the story though. All people live based on what they believe to be “right”, and that comes from their own observation of the world. Some psychopaths want to burn the world, some want to save it. But there is no shortage of emotional people who have guiltlessly killed in the name of god or country. Everyone justifies their actions, psychopath or not. Hurting others may not make us feel bad, but it also doesn’t make us feel good. Like everyone else, we do what is right in our own eyes.

                      Liked by 1 person

                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 23:01 on April 24, 2015 Permalink

                        I would not use the word “bad.” I judge on behavior, not inherent neurology. The people who have done me wrong are on my shit list, but not all psychopaths in general. I love my family, from a distance. i don’t give them the opportunity to mess with me because I know what they do to each other. And as far as violence goes, that is not a psychopathic trait. I am probably more likely to be violent than you are, if I react badly. Society’s all about treating people right, so we can all have peace. Not about whatever thoughts are in your head. I don’t have pure thoughts, so what, I’m not going to go around hurting people. Psychopathy maybe puts the thoughts in your head, but you don’t have to act on them.


                      • A Psychopath and a Scholar 23:18 on April 24, 2015 Permalink

                        But alas, what behavior is unacceptable? Your desire for peace speaks of your fear/insecurity. Not that this is bad – most people feel the same way. However, nature provides us with no reason to believe in right and wrong. We are all designed to kill. To survive. In Vietnam, the slaughter of puppies for food is normal and good, whereas in the U.S.A., it is wrong. In some places, cannibalism is acceptable, and in others, it is horrifying. What is “right” and “wrong” is based on what you believe. Nature only commands us to survive and procreate. In today’s society, the weak have merely banded together to fight the strong and give themselves a better chance of survival. Psychopaths are stronger willed, and thus at a disadvantage in today’s society. Your idea of society is built on submission, but mine is built on freedom. Freedom and safety are opposites though, and one cannot have both.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 23:22 on April 24, 2015 Permalink

                        Fear and insecurity? Huh? Peace means leave me the hell alone and I won’t shoot you. That’s peace to me.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • A Psychopath and a Scholar 23:28 on April 24, 2015 Permalink

                        Peace isn’t realistic. Nature demands that we kill in order to survive. Everything that gives you calories was once alive. Even if humans don’t kill each other, they have to kill something. And realistically, we’re designed to fight each other over the best food and mates. I actually have a full article about this on my blog if you’re interested. You feel defensive because I said you were afraid, which seems to be an insult. It isn’t an insult though, just an observation. Almost everyone is afraid. This is why people worship gods they’ve never seen and are kind to people they don’t like. Everyone’s nature is violent, most just try to ignore it to feel safe. If there were no punishment, we’d all be killing each other.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 05:33 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        Peace is realistic. I am atheist.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • A Psychopath and a Scholar 11:27 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        I’m not sure how being an Atheist has anything to do with the probability of world peace, but think what you like.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 11:48 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        According to your statements, everybody is restraining themselves from killing, and only holding back from fear of punishment. BS. Your views are projections of yourself on others. Nobody is like you. Nobody is like me. During this conversation you are putting adjectives on me such as fearful, and insecure for no reason whatsoever. You made those up in your head. You are the one who brought religion into the conversation like that was proof of mass fear. Fear is not as big of a deal as you try to make it.
                        I was not insulted, I am just none of the things you are trying to ascribe to me, therefore, your attempts to converse don’t sound logical at all. The world is not a black and white place where there is all peace or no peace.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • A Psychopath and a Scholar 12:09 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        Analyzing people is what I do, so I tend to point out motivations like fear. And everybody IS restraining themselves from killing. Everything you eat was once alive. You’ve probably never killed, but only because you’ve never had to. Someone killed every plant and every animal that you eat. They were slaughtered, sometimes in “inhumane” ways, just so you could sustain your life a little longer. This is not a projection, but merely an observation. You are afraid and angry from being emotionally hurt, but you still have a lot to learn about the world. Death and hurt is the nature of this place. For one life form to survive, it must take the energy of another life form. It is a cycle. Ignorance to that only puts your emotions on a roller coaster.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 12:58 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        Again, you make statements about me that are off the wall. So what I eat meat, and so what I will kill. BIG DEAL. Your points are useless. Doesn’t make me hurt or angry or afraid. Why do you insist on assigning obscure “analysis” on me or anybody else? You don’t know how little sense you make?

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • James 12:59 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        You sound angry to me :/

                        Liked by 2 people

                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 13:02 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        I am laughing because dude is entertaining me.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 13:03 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        Pardon me, I need to leave and go out on my fear-induced killing spree now.

                        Liked by 2 people

                      • A Psychopath and a Scholar 13:27 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        I analyze everything. I have an IQ that is higher than Einstein’s. As for why I called you hurt, angry and afraid: You felt the need to tell me that you were “raised in a family of back-stabbing psychopaths.” If you only wanted to say that you were not taught emotion, than you would have simply said “psychopaths” without adding the adjective. You called them back-stabbers because they emotionally hurt you and you’re angry about it. (Side note, you still learned emotion from school, tv, the internet… somewhere someone taught you emotion.) You also said “Society’s all about treating people right, so we can all have peace.” You then claimed peace was realistic because you are an Atheist… your logic is horrible. You even made obscure claims like “I am probably more likely to be violent than you are.” You feel defensive because you pretend to be strong to hide your pain, and my calling it out is interpreted as a threat. The fact that your replies are poorly put together and constantly mention anger over being labeled as something suggest that you are emotional as you write them. The problem with people like you is that you are so afraid that you cling to your beliefs as truth. You don’t seem to care to possibly learn anything. Debates are meant to enlighten, to show people something that they might have overlooked. There are holes in your logic, and I am illuminating that for you. If you were logical, you’d analyze my statements and possibly use something I said to better understand yourself. The true thinker is glad to be wrong occasionally, because this means that they’ve now learned something that they didn’t know before. I’ll quit filling up this guy’s comment section with unrelated comments, but you really should think about the things I said. Might help your logic.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 23:01 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        All you are doing is assigning traits to me that don’t apply. It’s like me sitting here and telling you that you have big fangs and beady eyes and that’s why you are angry and hurt and afraid. Nothing you say makes sense since you are making it all up. I called my family backstabbers, not because they hurt me, they did not, I watched them do it to each other. I witnessed the actual stabbing of backs. Is that plain and logical enough for you. However, I don’t think you will understand, and you will continue to tell me how afraid and hurt I am. You have no idea. But at least you provide insights into the psychopathy disorder and how it colors your thoughts.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • A Psychopath and a Scholar 23:37 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        Tina Taylor… you seem to think you know so much about psychopaths due to being raised with them, and yet you say you were married to a psychopath. Didn’t see the signs? Yet you claim to be an expert on spotting psychopaths? Your sporadic job history and poor logic seem to hint that you have some issues of your own. Perhaps borderline personality disorder would fit? 5 months ago you were a luxury cruise consultant, and now you seem to fancy yourself to be a psychologist. You petition to use psychopath tests on politicians, and yet any research would reveal that psychopath tests are inaccurate, because we can fake emotion and our brains will light up like we feel it. It’s unfortunate that a woman of your age is still trying to figure out her life. But some advice – trying to make a living by attacking psychopaths is not a great career plan. Especially with your personal information so readily available online. I hear some of us are crazy 😉


                      • James 23:48 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        Alright, Hannibal.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • A Psychopath and a Scholar 23:52 on April 25, 2015 Permalink

                        Lol. I have to admit, I have been compared to Dr. Lecter before. It’s really just logic though, I enjoy enlightening those who care to learn, and mocking those who are ignorant. I’ll attempt to quit filling up your comment section, it’s just… laughable and disgusting at the same time. It’s interesting to taunt people who are ignorant of their ignorance.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 00:53 on April 26, 2015 Permalink

                        Boo hoo my feelings are hurt. You win. I am a crazy person who doesn’t have a clue. You are such a great teacher and I have a spotty work history and live in a box on the street. I am a bum, begging for scraps, and you are the mighty knower of all things. Oh, the pain in my heart. Oh, the pain, Now I see.

                        Liked by 1 person

          • James 19:40 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            I fail to see the difference between “logically caring for someone” (as you see it) and any other type of “emotional” friendship. If you like someone, you like them; that is emotion not logic. When you apply logic to a relationship, you treat your partner in a manner that pertains to achieving your goals. There is no caring involved.


            • A Psychopath and a Scholar 22:00 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              I think the difference is that I have to work to treat someone well. My nature is to do what is best for me. I have to make an effort not to lie or manipulate. Emotional people will feel bad if they hurt someone, but I do not. If my best friend suddenly hated me, I’d simply move on. There is no connection that makes me need them. So for me to be honest and treat someone well, it has to be because I really want to. Not because I feel attached or feel guilty, but because I logically want to treat them well.


              • James 22:11 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                Of course I understand the logic of “I like you so I want you to stick around, therefore I need to treat you well”, I apply the same logic with people I like, no need to explain. But the fact that I / you like someone at all is emotion, not logic. It’s okay to admit it. Psychopaths are not robots.

                Liked by 1 person

                • A Psychopath and a Scholar 22:15 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  I guess it depends on what you consider to be emotion. I often am “angry” which is an emotion, but I never raise my voice or get excited. It’s a different type of emotion. I don’t feel anything, I think it. If I’m angry, it’s because I analyzed a situation and felt that someone was disrespectful. It’s very emotion-like, but some people would argue that it isn’t real emotion. But I agree, psychopaths are not robots. We just aren’t emotionally weak.


                  • James 22:28 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    Yes, that’s more like the way I think about it. There are many ’emotions’ which I consider to be more states of mind or thoughts, that perhaps to others are real feelings. ‘Surprise’ is a good example. For me, being surprised* is just recognising something unexpected has happened, and deciding how to react, there’s no feeling that I associate with “being surprised”.

                    *startled / shocked / whatever else

                    Liked by 1 person

    • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 19:36 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I would never again date a psychopath. Way too much work.

      Liked by 1 person

    • littlebitcold 08:42 on April 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for such a great article. People can use the label ‘psychopath’ who are just users and you are a number to them something they can mock for their entertainment and they have no good intentions at all. If you can’t respect someone then you should be by yourself rather than even consider dating.

      Liked by 1 person

    • nowve666 12:35 on December 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      A Psychopath and a Scholar: Do you really believe emotions are taught? Did I get that right? I think emotions are inherent. Even babies show emotion. Perhaps empathy is taught. People don’t show that until they are old enough to have been “educated” a bit.

      I agree that most people kill to live. But not fruitarians. You can eat fruit without killing the plant. Of course very few can live that way.

      James: I would reply to the question if it’s safe to date a psychopath by saying dating isn’t supposed to be safe. Every time one connects to people, even just to go out with them, one is taking a chance. One is also opening hir life to new possibilities. I think a completely safe date would be boring.

      One of the great things about dating psychopaths is the danger. Even Robert Hare said an encounter with a psychopath could be thrilling. Coming from him, that’s a big admission.


Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
%d bloggers like this: