Updates from November, 2015 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Tina (GeneticPsychosMom) 10:39 on November 21, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Extreme managers and workplaces [Capitalism and corporate psychopaths] 

    Albert Dunlap, ex-Sunbeam CEO, fraudster

    Albert Dunlap, ex-Sunbeam CEO, fraudster

    With their conscience-free approach to life and willingness to lie to present themselves in the best possible light, corporate psychopaths are to some extent products of modern business.

    Their characteristics of being ultra-rational, financially oriented managers with no emotional concern for or empathy with other employees, marks them as apparently useful to the style of capitalism that is merely profit oriented. This may be illustrated by a brief examination of one CEO who has been nominated as possessing some psychopathic traits, Albert Dunlap.

    Albert Dunlap was mentioned as a possible psychopath as well as being discussed by Hare as a possible corporate psychopath. Dunlap was the CEO of Scott Paper and then Sunbeam Corporation in the United States. Dunlap was at first lauded by analysts on Wall Street and known as ‘Chainsaw Al Dunlap’ because of his ruthless and bullying approach to cutting costs and callous indifference to firing employees. Callousness is a key trait of psychopaths and Dunlap has been described as being outrageously callous. Furthermore, the more people he fired, the more the share price increased.

    At Scott Paper, Dunlap started in 1994 and soon shed about US$2 billion of assets and laid-off a third of the global workforce. To many analysts, such a strategy suggested a move to make Scott Paper an attractive acquisition target, and indeed by the end of 1995, Dunlap had organized the sale of the corporation to its competitor, Kimberley Clark. This caused more layoffs at both companies, whereas Dunlap’s severance package was activated, and he left with a reported US$100m. Scott Paper’s headquarters was closed, and in total, about 11,000 people lost their jobs during Dunlap’s management.

    The superficial charm of the corporate psychopath, together with their willingness to lie and ability to present a false persona of competence and commitment, makes them appear to be ideal leaders. This is particularly the case with those above the corporate psychopaths who do not interact with them on a day-to-day basis and so do not know them well. This implies that there is a need to understand the effects of the presence of corporate psychopaths in organizations. The current research helps in furthering this understanding. First, there is a brief introduction to corporate psychopaths.

    Corporate psychopaths

    Psychopaths are people with a constellation of behavioural traits that marks them as uniquely ruthless in their parasitic, care-free, predatory approach to life. Psychologists have not reached a conclusion as to the causes of psychopathy. However, patterns of similar brain dysfunction have been associated with the personality, with particular impairment in the orbital-frontal cortex being evident. Causality is implied but not established, and, for example, physical damage to this area of the brain can result in the onset of psychopathic behaviour.

    Some psychopaths are prone to instrumental violence, which is violence with a further purpose, such as robbery, in order to get what they want, and these violent criminal psychopaths tend to end up in prison. More successful psychopaths have been less frequently studied. However, they may have better cognitive levels of executive functioning, for example, in the orbital-frontal cortex of the brain and may retain the ability to control their impulses, enabling them to seek corporate rather than criminal careers. Such psychopaths have been called ‘Industrial’, ‘Executive’, ‘Organizational’ or ‘Corporate’ psychopaths, to differentiate them from their more commonly known criminal peers. The term ‘corporate psychopath’ has been adopted as the usual term for such people.

    Corporate psychopaths may cross the line into criminal activity, and fraud is theoretically considered to be common among corporate psychopaths. However, as yet, there remains little empirical evidence concerning corporate psychopaths as white-collar criminals. Perri (2013) makes a persuasive argument that psychopathy is a risk factor for fraud. Furthermore, Perri states that several frauds have involved CEOs and chief financial officers (CFOs) with psychopathic traits.

    Research method

    A series of 1-hour interviews was conducted with four human resources (HR) directors and three other managers in the United Kingdom from April to September 2013. Academic researchers conducted the interviews, which were voice-recorded (with permission) and transcribed.

    Research participants were shown a 10-item psychopathy measure called the ‘Psychopathy Measure—Management Research Version 2’ (PM-MRV2) (see Appendix 1) and asked which items on the measure applied to the potentially psychopathic manager they were referring to. In this qualitative research, a score of at least 8 out of 10 was used to identify subjects as corporate psychopaths. This is an abbreviated and statistically untested measure of psychopathy. However, it corresponds with other measures of psychopathy in use.

    Psychopaths share some characteristics with narcissists and Machiavellians, and psychologists often research them as the so-called dark triad of personalities. Some psychologists suggest that the ‘dark triad’ consists of three overlapping but distinct personality variables: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Others suggest that Machiavellians and psychopaths are so similar that they are essentially the same.

    Narcissists can be exploitative and destructive leaders. However, research is arguably moving towards a consensus that narcissism is the ‘lightest’ of the triad and that while Machiavellianism and psychopathy are very similar, psychopaths are the ‘darkest’ of the three personalities. For a view of the characteristics of the three personalities, see the following articles for a description of the ‘dark triad’, ‘dirty dozen’ measure (Jonason and Webster, 2010) and of an abbreviated measure of the original ‘dark triad’ measure (Jones and Paulhus, 2013).


    The corporate psychopaths investigated in the current research reportedly created a variety of extreme and dysfunctional workplaces. For example, the HR director involved in managing the psychopathic manager identified in interview 2 described the workplace as being extreme; First, in terms of staff withdrawal behaviour. Departmental staff turnover at about 40% per year was twice the average for the industry sector involved, and the reasons given for leaving were marked by fear. One employee, in tears, reported,

    ‘it’s horrible, I cannot say how, but it’s all horrible’

    when giving in her resignation. In this case, the departmental head (the corporate psychopath) handled most resignations personally, without involving HR, and reported that a high turnover was because of the stress of working in such a highly efficient department:

    He (the corporate psychopath) …, would say, ‘oh they’ve lost their drive … (He’d say) I don’t  think ‘x’ is performing very well; I am going to persuade them to go’. Then of course his superiors would think; gosh he’s being proactive. He is really on top of his team. (HR director, interview 2)

    This was an explanation that was accepted by the highly educated and professionally qualified principals of the professional services company involved.

    Second, in the department headed by the corporate psychopath, the department’s level of cooperation with other departments, notably with finance and HR, was extremely low. Post- crisis examination (the presence of the corporate psychopath precipitated an organizational crisis) revealed that staff in the corporate psychopath’s department had been warned not to deal with HR and finance other than through their departmental head (the psychopathic manager). This was to minimize the possibility of his fraudulent scheme coming to light. However, this lack of communication was what first alerted the suspicions of the HR director:

    I had suspicions about the Head, from when I first joined, because of the way that he interacted with people – because of the way that he preferred to do things quietly on a one-to-one. How lots of people at a senior level in the firm sang his praises, but there seemed to be a slight atmosphere where people in his department were clearly quite intimidated and had been specifically told not to communicate with people in other departments. (HR director, interview 2)

    fear flickr ikrichter

    Third, the department was managed via a culture of fear, involving the bullying and intimidation of junior staff and the coerced resignations of those unwilling to unquestioningly obey the psychopathic manager.

    Another key manager was coerced, threatened with murder, and then, blackmailed by the psychopath into cooperation with his fraud – and because of this had a nervous breakdown. Perri and Brody warn that psychopathy is a risk factor for fraud and further, that if a psychopath’s fraud is thwarted, then violence and murder may result from this. Such links between psychopathy and white-collar criminal behaviour have been noted, and in the current research, a link between fraud and the threat of murder was evident:

    The man was vile but very clever, extremely good at managing upwards, so got promoted because everybody thought he was doing such a fantastic job and saving everybody so much money – and he was crooked to the core and ruthless. (HR director, interview 2)

    The manager embroiled by the corporate psychopath into the fraud believed that the lives of her family and herself were in danger if she disobeyed the psychopath. He had threatened to kill members of her family if she did not cooperate. That manager finally became a witness in the eventual prosecution and imprisonment of the psychopath. Other departmental members also reported that they had been in fear of their lives.

    Fourth, prior to exposure, the workplace was marked by high levels of top management support for the corporate psychopath who perpetrated the fraud. The top managers of the business regarded him as being an extremely able manager who was highly efficient at running his department and at saving money for the firm. This expertise at cost cutting was actually from another manager—the manager who had been coerced into the fraud. Such claiming of the good work of others is thought to be typical of corporate psychopaths:

    He managed the relationship in a charming fashion entirely, and pretty much everyone thought he was a star – until you hit that middle management layer… and they hated him. (HR director, interview 2)

    This good reputation among superiors was so positive that when the HR director first made the allegations, they were met with disbelief and denial by the main board members, and [also raised] accusations that the HR director was acting out of jealousy. Only when presented with specific evidence did the directors bring in fraud accountants.

    This latter experience is in line with the expectations raised in the literature on toxic leadership and corporate psychopaths. Corporate psychopaths are described as being people who flatter those above them – while manipulating their peers and abusing those under them.

    Staff withdrawal and turnover

    The HR director in interview 3 also mentioned that the presence of a psychopathic manager jeopardized the discretionary extra effort that employees can put into a business. Therefore, it is not just physical withdrawal that is influenced by the presence of corporate psychopaths but also emotional withdrawal:

    His selfish nature, his negativity around things that didn’t suit his own particular agenda, his whimsical way in which he made decisions and people had to live with the consequences, the uncertainties of it all. All of that militated against a constructive business. (HR director, interview 3)

    The research participant in interview 6 reported on the influence of a newly appointed  corporate psychopath CEO in a not-for-profit organization. With less than 50 employees, absenteeism was reported to have gone from a monthly occurrence to a daily one. Senior staff were reported to be absent for weeks due to stress, and junior employees were reported to take regular days off sick. In terms of turnover, 86% of the staff employed at the time of the CEO’s appointment had left, with the remaining staff planning to leave.

    Morale in this organization was described as being at an all-time low. The research participant was reportedly planning to leave as soon as his final attempt to warn the board of governors [about] the CEO was complete. Success in this endeavour was not anticipated by the interviewee as the psychopathic CEO had reportedly ingratiated himself with the head of the board of governors who had come to regard the psychopath as a friend.

    Reports of extreme work environments

    Regressive work practices such as whimsical decision making and abusive management were
    also reported when there was a corporate psychopath present. There was reportedly an emphasis in these environments on increasing short-term profits by cost cutting rather than by increasing longer
    term profits through investment in new production techniques and training.

    Single bad leaders can have a disproportionately negative effect on the whole organization. In this research, it was found that the extent of the bad influence of the corporate psychopath depended on his position. At main board director or CEO level, the malignant influence was organizational, whereas at departmental level, the influence was more specifically located but with wider repercussions.

    Welcome to the company

    The sense from the participants in this research was that the experience of working with a psychopath was a harrowing one, remembered long after the event and considered unique. One participant reported dreaming about it for 10 years afterward, and that his resignation from that company was the only fond memory of working there. Another participant found that they could not continue to talk about the experience at all because it was too painful:

    Actually I will be honest, for quite a few years afterwards … I would dream about being back there … which that would have been for a good ten years or more afterwards I think … It was really unpleasant working there … I’ve worked in quite a lot of different sectors. I’ve worked in construction which is a really hard-nosed industry … I never saw anybody like him (the corporate psychopath) before or after. (HR director, interview 4)

    Corporate psychopaths are reported to be excellent manipulators of people, good at organizational politics, and skilled at causing divisions in order to make people disunited and easier to control.

    Corporate psychopaths fail to provide training and information needs for employees working under them. The current research extended this finding to uncover that research participants thought that they were being undermined in their jobs, as part of, for example, organizational power plays by the psychopath involved.

    A characteristic of psychopaths is their ability to lie convincingly because they do not get emotionally flustered. This was evident in interview 1 where the psychopathic board director denied (to the other members of the UK board) that he had been advised of a business plan that was about to be implemented. This resulted in the plan being abandoned, after months of careful planning, on the day it was supposed to start, and this engendered organizational confusion and personal upset. This can best be understood in the words of the participant concerned in the incident:

    An awful amount of work went into this (business plan) involving lots of people. We … briefed this (psychopathic) guy on what was going to happen … He went through it in detail with us and he said, ‘yes, I am very happy’. … He was very supportive of it … So anyway (the day of implementation) came around and the Board sat down for a final meeting … He said ‘I know nothing about what you are talking about’
    … Other people … were saying, ‘… you talked to us about it’. He was just adamant that … he knew nothing about it and he said you have to stop the whole thing. … So huge trauma in the Board room … people in tears and all sorts … it really got very angry and feisty in this conversation with people saying ‘but you know!’. He was adamant he didn’t know anything. So they had to stop the whole thing …

    Straightaway you could see he … would just lie blatantly. (Advertising manager, interview 1)

    This interviewee also commented that the corporate psychopath was untrustworthy – in that he
    would undermine other people’s work, lie about his involvement or knowledge, and sit through
    presentations and criticize them, but then later represent the same presentations and ideas as his
    own work.

    Organizational destruction

    In the literature on corporate psychopaths, it has been theorized that their presence and influence will ultimately lead to organizational destruction and that an ethically bankrupt organization will become financially bankrupt. However, this theorized link between psychopathy and performance has not been established empirically.

    The research participant in interview 1 was an advertising manager in the company he was talking about, [referring] to a corporate psychopath who occupied a main board position. This psychopath reportedly had a devastating effect on the advertising department and advertising practices of the company, because with no real experience he took over advertising within the company.

    (Corporate psychopaths are theorized to be promoted beyond their true abilities because of their capacity to present themselves well, manipulate others, lie about their abilities, and claim the good work of other people as their own.)

    The work ethic, involvement, and commitment of the employees were reported to have been largely destroyed – with staff taking days off, undertaking large amounts of non-organizational related activities in the workplace, and lacking drive and purpose.


    Individual managers can influence the work environment around them towards an extreme environment – marked by poor practices and conflict. A stance is adopted here of being critical of how these unethical psychopathic leaders have been allowed to prosper.

    From the body of research into psychopaths at work, theories have arisen which attempt to
    explain how modern business has facilitated the emergence of the psychopathic manager – who has, in
    turn, influenced capitalism in an extreme direction.

    Counter to current findings, some psychology researchers claim psychopathic traits such as the ability to remain calm and unemotional in pressured circumstances may be factors of success in business. However, psychology researchers usually define success in individual terms (e.g. Do traits help the individual get promoted?). Broader measures of success could include whether psychopathic managers are good for other employees, society or corporate social responsibility, or, are likely to indulge in the illegal dumping of toxic waste.


    This research makes a contribution to the literature on extreme workplaces by demonstrating that ruthless managers (corporate psychopaths) have an influence in generating such workplaces. The research makes a contribution to corporate psychopathy theory because it shows that corresponding with expectations, employees seek to leave, or, emotionally withdraw from the organizations that are managed by corporate psychopaths. Turnover is higher in such organizations.

    As would be expected of the behaviour of corporate psychopaths: Employees are mistreated, loyal employees are fired or resign, resources are misallocated or stolen, business plans are capriciously rejected, management consultants are hired needlessly and internal intellectual resources are abused or unused. Employee well-being decreases, organizational confusion replaces a sense of direction, organizational ethics decline and corporate reputation suffers. Corporate psychopaths rely on the good work of others (claiming their ideas, presentations and plans as their own) or else rely on management consultants to do their work. Employees report that they hate to work in these environments and withdraw from these extreme workplaces via claiming high levels of sick leave and leave [the job] due to stress.

    Corresponding with theoretical expectations, the current research found that corporate psychopaths will engage in fraud and are unconcerned with the organizational destruction that they create.

    The commonalities in these reports concerning the behaviour of corporate psychopaths were notable, and they appear to have a modus operandi involving bullying, fear, control and manipulation. The current research supports earlier findings from quantitative studies because yelling, shouting and the undermining of employees via public humiliations were all evident. Insights gained go beyond what has been established quantitatively because reports of employees living in fear of their lives were recorded.

    The current research also supports the view that corporate psychopaths over-state their qualifications and abilities, claiming degrees from prestigious universities and management competencies that they do not possess. Furthermore, corporate psychopaths use divide-and-conquer tactics to maintain control of employees, unions and boards, while jeopardizing client service quality and organizational outcomes through their erratic and fickle management plans.

    The PM-MRV2

    (Excerpt of Psychopathy Measure—Management Research Version 2) Copyright: The Corporate Psychopaths Research Centre / Clive Boddy
    1. Superficial charm and apparent intelligence. The subject appears to be friendly and easy to talk to, agreeable, makes a positive first impression, and is apparently a genuine person who is socially at ease.
    2. Untruthful and insincere. The subject lies and is a convincing liar because of their apparent sincerity and honesty.

    3. A cheating personality. The subject cheats, fails to live up to promises, cons, seduces and deserts others. They are good at organizational politics, claim the good work of others as their own and would probably steal, forge, commit adultery or fraud if they could get away with it.

    4. Is totally egocentric. The subject is egocentric and self-centred, cannot love or care for others and can only discuss love in intellectual terms. They are totally indifferent to the emotions or fate of their colleagues.

    5. Has no remorse about how their actions harm other employees. The subject denies responsibility for their own poor behaviour and accuses others of responsibility for failures that they themselves cause. If they admit any fault, then they do so without any regret or humiliation. They put their career advancement above their colleagues.

    6. Emotionally shallow. The subject can readily demonstrate a show or display of emotion but without any true feeling. They cannot experience true sadness, woe, anger, grief, joy or despair and are indifferent to the troubles of others.

    7. Unresponsive to personal interactions. The subject does not respond to kindness or trust in the ordinary manner. They can display superficial reactions but do not have a consistent appreciation for what others have done for them. They are indifferent to the feelings of others and can openly make fun of other people.

    8. Refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. The subject initially appears to be reliable and dependable but can then act unreliably and with no sense of responsibility or regard for any obligations to others.

    9. Calm, poised and apparently rational. The subject does not display neurotic or irrational characteristics. They are always poised and not anxious or worried even in troubling or upsetting circumstances which would disturb or upset most other people.

    10. Lack of self-blame and self-insight about own behaviour. The subject blames their troubles on other people with elaborate and subtle rationalisations. They do not think of blaming themselves, even when discovered in bizarre, dishonest or immoral situations that would promote despair or shame in other employees.


    Excerpted; in-line accreditation has been removed, and paraphrasing done for ease of reading. Please see the original document for references: “Extreme managers, extreme workplaces: Capitalism, organizations and corporate psychopaths” by Clive Boddy, Derek Miles, Chandana Sanyal and Mary Hartog, Middlesex University, UK  2015

    Photos courtesy BusinessInsider.com, Ingrid Richter, someecards

    • Human 17:33 on November 21, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Jon Ronson, author of The Psychopath Test, met with and interviewed Al Dunlap. In the book, his account of the encounter, and of Dunlap’s grandiosity and ruthless “career,” is both insightful and entertaining.


  • James 11:13 on November 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: #FuckYeahImAwesome, #IAmSoEnglightened, #memememe, #PrayForParis, Alfred, arrogance, Bataclan, Bates, boasting, , , , , France, Hitchcock, , , , Je suis James, Jewish community, , la vie est lourde, , Norman, online media, , , , satire, , , , ,   

    Everyday narcissism 

    In which a psychopath laughs as some empathetic people show off their inner narc.

    And the award for most tactful photograph goes to…


    “We all go a little bit mad sometimes”, so said the totally non-psycho Psycho Norman Bates. I had managed to reach my 20th year without ever having the twist to Hitchcock’s horror classic spoiled, so was genuinely gobsmacked when ‘Mother’ finally showed up. If nothing else, Norm taught us that under every seemingly normal person’s façade, there could be some craziness hidden deep.

    Except sometimes it’s not very well hidden, and is not usually at the level of stabbing women in the bath, or similar depths of depravity. Most commonly, it shows itself as narcissistic dickishness.

    You know the type I mean, he takes delight in getting one over on you, and loves nothing better than a nice gloat, while cackling away like a horny witch. Or is that just me?

    The point is, we are living in an increasingly narcissistic society. We need to have the latest iPhone, the best clothes, the biggest, coolest / most environmentally-friendly car (depending on your clique); we take selfies, and our online worth is decided entirely on how many ‘likes’ we get. But there are still some instances of inflated ego that come from otherwise normal people, which can make even me stop and stare.

    Such as the people who take it upon themselves to talk badly about people they don’t know, judging others based on no evidence whatsoever except it feels good to tear them down. This can come in the form of cyberbullying (teenagers are actually killing themselves over comments from strangers online), street harassment (we’ve all seen the videos: ‘woman walks through NYC‘, ‘Jew walks through Paris‘), or even just a series of idiotic comments on social media (such as deciding to push a string of nonsensical, depraved and increasingly desperate arguments attempting to undermine the credibility of others, for two entire days, while allegedly being a busy young mother and student) that are all about one person putting another down in order to feel better about themselves.

    Or people who engage in ‘mine’s bigger than yours’ dick-swinging. At a recent dinner party, my father (not a narc or an ‘opath) made a bit of a fool of himself bragging about how much pension he is paid. He went on to say knowingly that for a good meal at a fancy restaurant, “we’re talking up to £40 per head”, which is about 57€ or US $61. Someone else chipped in that such an amount is “chicken feed” and that for his wife’s 60th birthday, he had forked out £150 (in total, so depending on the number of people the actual per head ratio might have been much smaller than 40 quid. Even £75 each for two of them, while on the expensive side, is not exactly going to get you the Ritz treatment). My dad, keen not to be outdone even though the guy was obviously just trying to mock him, spluttered “well the really good place near us, the hotel, I’ve taken Julie (my mum) and James there and I’ve often paid £300 for just one meal”, which is absurd and untrue.  How stupid and petty. But it is, nonetheless, a funny example of people trying to outdo one another over money.

    Sweet obliviousness

    Or the people who exploit worthy causes to make themselves look better. You know the type I mean. They share and re-share the same viral posts from ‘social justice warriors’ and hate on and shame those with differing opinions. Feminism, anti-racism, sexual and gender freedom… equality in general, these are good things, but they become tainted when they are hijacked by people who care not about the issues, but about showing how enlightened and superior they are.

    That is why some of these ‘progressives’ are so aggressive to anyone with differing opinions, because to argue with them causes narcissistic injury that must be dealt with. Would anybody who really cared about equality and diversity viciously attack people who see things differently to them? They’re the same idiots whose profile pictures are now overlayed with a transparent version of the French flag to show how much they ‘care’ about “Paris’ suffering” (not, you know, the suffering of people who were caught up in the attacks, but the imagined suffering of an inanimate city, the idealistic Gai Paris of schmaltzy stereotype), when in reality they only care about boosting their own image by claiming to empathise with the current in vogue ‘problem’. Want proof? Here’s two for the price of one:

    (1) Few or none of them said anything about what happened to the Russian passenger jet which was shot down over Egypt, and no-one turned their profile pic into a Russian flag. Think of any other recent tragedy, and repeat.

    (2) The Tricolore of solidarity is superimposed over these people’s own faces. They are saying not “Vive la France et à bas la tyrannie*”, but rather “look how sensitive and in-touch I am, and blue, white and red goes really well with my hair, I wonder how many likes this will earn me?”

    Are these people self-aware? Some probably are; they are the true narcissists of this world. The bulk, just ordinary people, are not. They genuinely believe their own shit smells sweeter, because they have never stopped to think about their actions.

    Even worse are those smug superior people who view themselves as above it all, specifically making fun of delusional types, for cheap ‘likes’, ‘shares’ and an ego boost of “At least I’m not like that. don’t take myself so seriously. have taste. I have standards. I am so much better than everyone else, and just to prove it I’m going to write a fine old diatribe, a rant if you will, against everyday narcissism. Then I’m going to put it on my blog about psychopaths, and show everyone how totally cool and non-hypocritical I am. I wonder how many of my little pawns will read it…”

    Chers lecteurs, chères lectrices, avant de laisser vos commentaires, veuillez vous détendre un peu avec Monsieur Joe Dassin, et penser à ceux qui ont souffert aux mains de mal :

    *”Long live France and down with tyranny”, in case you were snoozing in French class.

    NB: I have been to Auschwitz and never once thought of taking a selfie. Do I get to brag about that too?

    • nowve666 13:01 on November 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Good one, James.

      Liked by 1 person

      • alpheuswilliams 19:12 on November 18, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Mea Culpa. I’m one of those who posted my photo with the Tri-Colour diaphonized over it. Gees, never realised what a self-indulgent and narcissistic prick it made me. But then again, maybe I can use it against those I know who I think are genuinely nice people simply expressing their support for Paris because FB made it easy for them to do so and not so when the Russian plane was shot down. I guess there is some defence in the fact that the details about how the plane went down were not really revealed until a few days later. And wow…I am one of those who blogged about the psychopathy in corporate executives. Sorry James, I’m not having a good day…I’ll just walk out for a moment gaze in the mirror and swing my dick. That should make me feel better! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    • Marney Ogle 22:45 on November 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Yeah, I’m pretty schmaltzy and superficial by having the French flag on my idiot profile picture. I also happened to have majored in that language in college because I love languages and was fortunate enough to study in France, work there and marry a very nice Frenchman to whom I was a really lame wife. I had innumerable wonderful cultural and social opportunities replete with indescribably delicious educational and experiential delights which I recognize I am quite privileged to have lived. The French people I encountered and came to know and love, through work, through my in-laws and friends enriched my life, changed me for the better, expanded my view of things and have left me with unforgettable, amazing memories that I now treasure. But yeah, I’m probably just throwing that flag up there to make myself look cool and trendy. Yeah.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 23:27 on November 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Why does nobody care about the hundreds of drone bomb beheadings and innocent lives taken by the 8,296 airstrikes this year?

        Liked by 1 person

        • James 00:46 on November 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          My point. It’s all very well caring about Paris, but it means nothing when you don’t give a fuck about Beirut or Ankara or Gaza, or any other place having the shit bombed out of it.

          Liked by 1 person

          • NINA 07:08 on November 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            dear James,

            You claim that the people that put the french flag in their fb profil are narcissistic. How do you know this? you know their personal history , their soul and the emotions of each one ? i do not think that you are aware of their motivation.
            isn’t it an assumption this that you make? and in the same time a generalisation? personally i do not consider assumptions and generalisations neither fair nor intelligent.

            Also , about your argument that if someone puts the french flag it means nothing if he doesnt care about Beirut or Ancara or Gaza.
            Firstly, you do not know if anyone cares or doesnt care about other regions of the planet where atrocities happen just becouse he put only the French flag in his profil. He might very well care.

            But , even if he does care less where exactly it is the problem? maybe somebody identifies more with the Paris attack becouse he happen to be European or nevouse he has visited Paris or becouse he likes French culture or becouse he has friends there. Humans who have empathy happen to connect with each other in variable degrees according to the emotional connection they feel. It is normal i think and common in human race.
            i am more sad when my kid suffers than when a stranger. Some individuals who develop and evolve so much their souls may feel the same connection with everything alive!! this is marvellous but rare. This doesnt mean that the majority af the people are to be convicted as liars or narcissist becouse they have variable degrees of empathy.

            If so , what about you that you have no empathy at all and you do not really care about anybody as it is the definition of a psycopath that you claim that you are??
            we should convict or blame you? i do not think so.


            PS, Sorry for the possible errors in grammar and syntactic, i am not a native speaker for english.

            Liked by 1 person

            • James 12:40 on November 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              Hi Nina. Thanks for your comment. Of course it’s a generalisation, I know not every single person putting up a French flag is a hypocrite or a narcissist. I also have faith in my readers’ intelligence that they will not mistake a generalisation for a fact.

              My point was that the majority of people making a big noise about the Paris attacks have not done the same about previous attacks, recent or otherwise have taken place in less ‘important’ parts of the world, and will not do when the next big attack comes that is not on American or European soil.

              I am European. I love French culture; I used to live in France and I will move back when I get the chance. I have visited Paris. And I have friends there. But none of that makes what happened in Paris any more of a tragedy than what happened in Beirut, Ankara and Egypt.

              There is also a certain amount of satire in my article which perhaps you didn’t pick up on since English isn’t your native language. I have a hard time understanding humour in French, my second language, so I understand it can be difficult. I am not calling for these people to be convicted as anything, I’m just making fun of what I see as hypocrisy and as otherwise empathetic people showing their narcissistic side.

              P.S. your English is very good; I hardly noticed any mistakes at all.


              • James 12:43 on November 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                Speaking of mistakes:

                “My point was that the majority of people making a big noise about the Paris attacks DID NOT DO the same OVER previous attacks, recent or otherwise, THAT have taken place in less ‘important’ parts of the world, and will not do AGAIN when the next big attack not on American or European soil STRIKES.”


      • James 00:44 on November 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Me and you both, Marney (though I didn’t find a French hubbie, more’s the pity). I wonder why you take this article so personally, when I’m quite sure we’ve never met. Surely you recognise that I am not talking in absolutes here?


    • ameliasleepallday 01:10 on March 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Est-ce que tu parles français ou c’est juste Google Translate? But anyways as an African, you grow accustomized to people not giving a shit about you mostly. Africa was exploited for centuries and then left into shadows for the world to forget. I’m not here to whine about it, the strong will always survive no matter what situation they are confronted with they will find a way out, but those kind of attacks are almost daily stuff now in my home country Nigeria. Women and girls are kidnapped then forced to become wives or sex slaves by Boko Haram, an Islamic group from the north who wants to take over Nigeria for its oil. Universities, Malls, primary schools exploded with hundred of deaths but we had our moment of ”glory” only for a few announcements on the TV when an American tourist was involved. People don’t really care about others they mostly care about what is thrown upon them to care about. They are so easy to manipulate, I wonder if they even have a spine to stand for themselves. #prayforparis #LetMeTakeASelfie #LoveMyself……Les gens suivent, ils suivent n’importe quoi qui leur semble être en vogue pour le moment mais le pire dans tous ça, c’est qu’il croivent que c’est leur ‘personnalité, ‘leur propre choix, leur propre fashion et qu’ils sont tellement unique et originale. I’m not here to insult people but i’m mostly dissapointed to see what evolution has brought us to.


      • James 16:35 on March 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Bah oui, je parle français; j’ai vécu en France pendant une année.

        Je n’ai jamais suivi la mode, et ceux qui en font me dégoûtent… ben, un petit peu… Tout le monde se croit unique, bien qu’ils soient tous les mêmes.

        Et toi, tu n’es pas tentée d’accepter la vie selon les Boko Harams ? Ca pourrait changer des choses, non ?

        #PrayForBrussels, hahahahaha!


        • Francesleepallday 16:45 on April 2, 2017 Permalink | Reply

          Encule-toi avec tes Boko Harams


          • James 14:08 on April 4, 2017 Permalink | Reply

            Putain de merde, il a de grosses couilles, ce connard ! Sois plus gentil, ou dégage-toi.


  • James 17:45 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: authoritah, , , , , , Eric Cartman, , guilt, , I made you eat your parents!, I started listening to Christmas songs today, Kenny McCormick, Kyle Broflovski, learning from experience, , , , , , , , Stan Marsh, , , yet more South Park nonsense   

    Conscience, what conscience? 

    When I was a little boy, I thought everyone was like me. Now I’m a big boy (am too! you’re a mean fartypants), I know differently.

    Actually, when I say “I thought everyone was like me”, it was really more of an assumption. I actually hadn’t given it any thought at all. You know how kids think they’re ‘normal’ and everyone else is, or at least should be, like them? Well, that was me.

    I didn’t seriously challenge that assumption until my teens, but there were a few occasions before then that stuck out to me in a “huh, people are weird” kind of way. These were all different occasions which all followed a similar pattern. Namely, that friends and I would do something we shouldn’t, and most or all of them would later feel guilty and tell someone what we did. I was incredulous at their idiocy: “if you don’t tell anyone, you won’t get in trouble!” You understand where I was coming from right? Even if you would have been one of the goody two-shoes, please say you can see it from my perspective?

    Today, I was watching South Park and a certain scene came up that almost exactly paralleled the sort of conversations I used to have with friends. It made me chuckle over just how similar it was, and over how ridiculous the Cartman character looks for having zero pangs of conscience. For those that don’t know, Cartman is the show’s resident psychopath, despite being only 8 years old.

    Cartman: You see guys, it all worked itself out. Tadow, tadow, how you like me now? Feel a little silly now, Kyle? Tadow, how you like me now?
    Kyle: I still feel bad, Cartman
    Cartman: What? Hu- How can you feel bad? Somebody else is gonna pay for our crime.
    Kyle: Yeah. That makes it even worse.
    Cartman: Bu… …eh… Kyle, you don’t seem to understand. We’re we’re not gonna get punished for this. Ever.
    Kyle: I know.
    Cartman: So… so then, how can you feel bad?
    Stan: He feels guilty for doing it and for letting someone else pay for it.
    Cartman: …But he’s not gonna get in trouble.
    Stan: It doesn’t matter if you get in trouble of not, you can still feel bad. [to Kyle] I think you’re right, Kyle. Maybe we should confess.
    Kenny (muffled): Yeah, maybe we should.
    Cartman: What?? Eh… [tries to be upbeat] hey you guys! There’s nothing to feel bad about! We’re, we’re off scot-free!
    Kyle: We feel bad for other people.
    Cartman: [looks at the other boys in disbelief] For oth-er… [winces] Uh. Oww. …Ih …Ih, ih, is it that …you think you might get in trouble later?
    Stan: Tomorrow in school we’ll all tell the teacher it was us, and let her decide what to do. [points an accusing finger at Cartman] And Cartman, if you had any thread of a conscience at all, you’ll do the same! [He, Kyle, and Kenny leave]
    Cartman: Eh buh… eh… eh… Freakin’ weirdos, man!

    In the end, in true manipulative style, Cartman goes and confesses before the boys get a chance to, thus earning him a lesser punishment than his slower friends. As part of the manipulation, he claims to have learned the error of his way, on which Kyle calls bullshit “You haven’t learned anything Cartman. You don’t have a conscience, fatass”

    And it’s true. I haven’t really learned either. I have learned all about conscience and why people seem compelled to act in ways against their nature. I have learned all sort of moral principles and have formed my own complex views on morality and ethics. But I have never learnt to have a conscience. I have, on some very few isolated occasions, experienced something akin to remorse, but I do not have the intuitive sense of what constitutes ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that I imagine a conscience is. And I still would never own up to any crime, unless doing so would benefit me over staying silent.

    Why not listen to your conscience and leave a comment? (if my good friend Tina “Psycho Bitch” Taylor does her job properly and enables comments, that is)

    South Park S7E3 ‘Toilet Paper’ script nicked from the internet somewhere and reproduced here without permission. No rights reserved. 

    • Joyce M. Short 18:20 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      This South Park dialogue is right on the money. And you reinforced how difficult it is for a sociopath to feel empathy when you point out that you understand why a person would confess, but would never do so yourself.

      So here’s my attempt at helping you comprehend what a conscience feels like……

      When you are seeing someone else suffer, having emotional empathy makes you feel like you’re suffering along with them. And if you caused their suffering, you want them to stop feeling that way, even if it means you will suffer in their place. Since you caused the harm, it’s up to you to shoulder it, not watch someone else do so in your stead.

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 18:52 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Yeah, I already knew all that. Thank you for attempting to help me, but I don’t think there is anything more I could learn about conscience other than experiencing it for myself.


      • nowve666 13:40 on November 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        But that doesn’t make sense. If I am already suffering through empathy, what’s the point of confessing so the other person won’t suffer but I will still suffer only, this time, directly. Either way, I am suffering. Better not to have that conscience and empathy in the first place.


        • Joyce M. Short 14:58 on November 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          It’s called “taking responsibility for your actions.”

          The example was one that demonstrates altruism and conscience. If you harmed someone and have emotional empathy, you’d feel guilt and be responsive to that guilt. The fact that you don’t grasp it is a pretty good indication that you don’t feel guilt when you harm someone.

          People who don’t feel guilt live their lives on “me first” and often, “me only” terms. All you’re able to see in that example is “what’s in it for me?” They never experience the depth of love and caring toward their fellow man that emotional empathy provides. Being a person who is solely concerned about what’s best for you, can make you a pretty lonely person.

          Because a person who has emotional empathy knows they will suffer if they harm another person, they are less likely to do so. And that’s what psychopaths count on. They pick on people with emotional empathy because they know that person will be unlikely to retaliate, and they would be more trusting, even in the face of harm.


          • nowve666 17:24 on November 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply

            I am responsible for my actions. But I don’t feel guilty for them. Why do these two things have to go together?

            So you are saying I have to feel other people’s pain not to be lonely? And to really be emotionally gratified, I need to also suffer guilt? But what if I would rather have fun with happy people who are not suffering? Misery may love company but I don’t love misery. You know the saying, “Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you cry alone?” I guess whoever said that lacks empathy.

            But I infer that you are also trying to convey the message that one must have empathy and guilt to be a good person. Well, we psychopaths are used to being judged. Enjoy your rich emotional life and self-vindication.


            • Joyce M. Short 23:14 on November 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply

              We’re talking about feeling guilty when you’ve hurt a person. People with empathy don’t go around being miserable. Their conscience prevents them from being cruel to others. As long as they don’t hurt anyone, they don’t feel guilty, so they try not to hurt people.

              Psychopaths are missing the brain elements that make a person caring. Without that brain element, they function like less evolved animals in the phylum.

              And yes, if you lack the brain chemistry and infrastructure that would make you feel guilt, you also lack the brain chemistry and infrastructure that makes you feel love. You can want and need. But you can’t feel a deep abiding love for someone. What a shallow, pathetic existence!

              BTW- It’s not a choice that people make. It’s simply who they are.


              • nowve666 10:29 on November 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                But as I understand it, empaths don’t only suffer when they have hurt another person. They suffer whenever they see someone else suffering even when they haven’t caused the pain. And the presence of empathy and conscience does NOT prevent people from hurting each other. Empaths are forever harming each other and then feeling guilty for it. Look at the history of the world.

                Seems your kind is doomed to suffer whether you obey your conscience or not. But there are compensations. You get to tell yourself you are superior to psychopaths who “function like less evolved animals in the phylum.” Nothing against other species, but evidence shows that even the “lowest” creatures are capable to showing empathy to others of their own kind. For example, rats have been known to open the doors of cages to liberate other rats when they have the chance. Despite your human supremacist fancies, empathy is not the sole property of the human species. We are called “homosapiens,” not “homoempaths.” Our reasoning ability is what sets us apart.

                We do love. You may not acknowledge it is “true” love by whatever criteria you may apply. But you can’t prove it is lesser than what you experience.


                • Joyce M. Short 12:40 on November 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                  Said like a true psychopath.

                  Conscience does deter people from doing wrong. That doesn’t mean they never do wrong. That means that the wrong they do is largely motivated by circumstance, not greed or excitement. By circumstance I mean stealing because you can’t feed your kids, or pulling the plug on your dying husband to end his suffering.

                  Other animals in the phylum have OXT and OXT receptors, but to a significantly lesser degree than mankind. In fact, species that mate for life have far more bonding infrastructure than other similar animals in their genus. Prairie voles, for instance, have more than rats, even though they’re part of the same species.

                  Sympathy and empathy are two different things. Someone can have sympathy even if they don’t have empathy. Having empathy or not having it is not something you can control.Having and showing sympathy is something you can control. Since you’re without empathy it’s difficult to process the difference. One is a feeling. The other a condition. And there’s virtually nothing one can do to improve their empathy.


                  • nowve666 20:28 on November 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                    LOL! You think these are the only wrong things empaths do? Those aren’t even wrong. Stealing to feed a hungry child and pulling a plug to stop suffering. Those are acts of love. Think about the people who worked in the Nazi concentration camps or the soldiers in Mai Lai. They couldn’t all be psychopaths. There just aren’t that many of us. And how about the prison population? Only a small percentage of them is psychopathic. They have consciences.


                    • Joyce M. Short 21:38 on November 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                      People do misdeeds for many reasons. But a person with emotional empathy will experience guilt for having done them. What’s your point?


                      • nowve666 10:12 on November 14, 2016 Permalink

                        You said conscience keeps people from doing bad things. I am refuting that claim. A psychopath can be “nicer” than an NT with a conscience. Just because I’m free to do anything I want doesn’t mean I will want to do such terrible things. The point is that conscience doesn’t make people better than those without one.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Joyce M. Short 21:27 on November 14, 2016 Permalink

                        Rephrased—- Lack of motive keeps psychopaths from doing bad things. Lack of motive and conscience keeps neurotypicals from doing bad things. And do not misinterpret this to mean that neurotypicals never do bad things, or that psychopaths always do bad things.


                      • nowve666 22:11 on November 14, 2016 Permalink

                        “Lack of motive and conscience keeps neurotypicals from doing bad things. And do not misinterpret this to mean that neurotypicals never do bad things,”

                        So you concede neurotypicals sometimes do bad things? Did you read James’ reply? He provided a pretty impressive list of the many things they do wrong. The point is that conscience doesn’t seem to be a very effective deterrent to misdeeds. Yet those who have one seem to think it makes them better than those who don’t. You all seem to have a need to think of yourselves as “good.” And many of you seem to need to try to make psychopaths feel badly about ourselves. I wonder why. Maybe that’s all a conscience really is. The need to think you are a good person. We have been called “moral imbeciles” and other not-so-nice names. But the term I like most for psychopathy is “super sanity.”


                      • James 18:24 on November 14, 2016 Permalink

                        Hi Joyce, it’s been a while.

                        The ISIS guys who are currently lopping people’s heads off by the hundreds, stoning women for disobedience and forcing children to blow themselves up aren’t psychopaths. OK, some of them might be (probably the commanders), but the bulk of the wahhabi koranic fascist nutjob club membership is made up of empaths, because the bulk of humanity is made up of empaths.

                        The bulk of the idiots who voted to bring in a new age of far right in America are empaths. The bulk of any large gullible group duped into supporting people and ideas that are actively harmful to the well-being of humanity (turkeys voting for Christmas) are empaths. The bulk of cheaters, rapists, murderers, violent criminals and thieves are empaths. The bulk of people who think their personal beliefs get to crush other people’s freedoms (anti-gays, racists, religious zealots, social justice thought police; moralising busybodies who want the whole world to conform to them) are empaths. The bulk of selfish fuckers who support low taxation and no foreign aid because they hate the idea of poor people or, even worse, poor foreigners having access to regular meals, healthcare, a decent standard of living, a university education, ARE EMPATHS.

                        How do I know this? How can I say these things with such confidence, without citing a single source? Because there are just too many shit things in the world going on right now for it all to be psychopaths’ fault. There are only 70 million of us, Joyce, a little less than 1 % of all humans! And who cares if most of those people are going to feel guilty (which I doubt), since apparently that doesn’t stop them fucking things up regardless.

                        By the way, since we’re on the subject of who’s to blame for all the problems of the world, I personally haven’t done anything to harm anybody for a long old time. We’re talking a year since I last made someone cry, four or five years since I physically harmed anyone. I don’t kill, I don’t rape, I’ve never hurt someone enough to send them to hospital (okay, there was this one time…). I give to the homeless of my city and spend time chatting to them on a regular basis. The people I use for things really like having me around, to the extent that one of them cheers when I enter the room – sounds farfetched, but it’s no word of a lie; if she wasn’t on the autism spectrum, I’d think it was sarcasm. I fail to see that I cause any more harm than the average person, in fact I’d go as far to say I do more good than harm. I am a net-giver of positivity to the world, or at least to my little corner of it. There are plenty of empaths who can say that (I hope you’re one of them), but many simply cannot, without doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves they’re good people.

                        You might say that I’m self-delusional, and you are welcome to say and think so, but just you remember that I know myself roughly 100% better than you do. We’ve talked before (always a pleasure), but you and I, we’re still strangers, baby!

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Joyce M. Short 22:14 on November 14, 2016 Permalink

                        James- always a pleasure to hear from you…

                        Since you’ve taken self-delusional off the table, I guess I really have to come up with an explanation. … How’s this???

                        Psychopaths don’t go around hurting people all the time. They only do so when they’re motivated to do so. Obviously, nothing’s motivated you to do so for a while.

                        DSM pins the percentage of Cluster Bs at about 13%, not 1%, of the world’s population.

                        In terms of your reference about all the bad things that go on in the world….. don’t get me wrong, neurotypicals can also do bad things…. but….. A. they’ll battle their conscience about it and B. they’ll probably feel they have no alternative.

                        For example, look at Nazi Germany. I don’t think anyone would argue that Hitler was a psychopath. Many of the people around him felt forced to do his bidding for fear of falling out of his graces. They weren’t all psychopaths. And it wouldn’t surprise me if many of the people involved in ISIS weren’t experiencing a similar motivation… kill or be killed. When you dwell in the midst of terrorists, you’re either a participant or you become a target.

                        Was everyone passing out the Kool Aid at Jim Jones’s retreat a psychopath? They were likely to be somewhere in the Cluster B spectrum, but not necessarily to the level to masterminding such a terrible tragedy.

                        Psychopaths are great at getting along when they want to. They have an affinity for cognitive empathy which enables them to get a good read on others and charm them. They could be the most charming people on earth.

                        Not all Cluster Bs are ghouls. They don’t all savagely rape and plunder. They each have a code of conduct that results from the combination of nature and nurture. If they were violently tortured as children, there would be more likelihood that they’d be violent as adults. If they grew up in a structured, nurturing environment, they could still be cruel, but not to the degree of ghoulish violence.


                      • nowve666 22:27 on November 14, 2016 Permalink

                        “look at Nazi Germany. I don’t think anyone would argue that Hitler was a psychopath. Many of the people around him felt forced to do his bidding for fear of falling out of his graces.” Sure, many NTs conformed to Hitler’s rules out of cowardice which doesn’t speak highly of the efficacy of the conscience. But the example I provided was of Germans who went beyond the necessary complicity and chose to work in the concentration camps where they could give free-reign to their sadism. Some of these were probably psychopaths but they couldn’t all have been. There were too many for that. NTs are motivated by more than necessity. Many were moved by passion, the passion for racial superiority, for example. At war time, countless numbers of otherwise peaceful people become possessed with war lust. They seem truly crazed at these times. As a child, I often felt I was surrounded by crazy people. But they were just empaths.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Joyce M. Short 09:32 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        I’m not excusing bad behavior toward you, but children often don’t distinguish between cause and effect. If the child’s misbehavior drives their NT Mommy to get angry, they perceive her as wrong and/or mean. The child is simply blind to their impacts because they lack the emotional empathy that would enable them to understand how harmful their behavior was. It could be because that’s the appropriate stage of moral development for them, or because they have a “conduct disorder,” the term used for the makings of “character disorder” in a child. As the child ages, they should become more and more aware. If they do, their “conduct disorder” fades. But for children who do not become more aware, character disorder becomes their personality.

                        You seem to under estimate the amount and impacts of Cluster Bs in society. We’re loaded with them! Only a very small percentage are ghouls.

                        People who are sadistic are Cluster Bs. Sadists find joy in harming others. NTs don’t.


                      • nowve666 10:32 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        “I’m not excusing bad behavior toward you, but children often don’t distinguish between cause and effect.” I don’t know what you’re talking about. What bad behavior toward me? Are you referring to my statement that I often felt myself surrounded by lunatics? Because that wasn’t because people were treating me badly. It was because they seemed so irrational.

                        I notice you have gone from attributing harmful behavior to psychopaths to attributing it to all Cluster Bs in general. As James has pointed out, Cluster B is a much wider category of people. And the other three “disorders” do not necessarily involve lack of conscience. Some people argue that “malignant narcissists” are pretty much devoid of conscience but that’s a disputed claim. I thought the subject was whether a conscience makes someone better than he/she would be without one. If that’s still what we’re discussing, I don’t think you can bring the whole of Cluster B in to prove your point.

                        Finally, I disagree with your statement that sadism is part of Cluster B. Someone can be a sadist with or without that particular cluster of personality “disorders.” The word “sadism” is most often applied to the sexual paraphilia, in other words, the fetish that enables the sadist to “get off” sexually. I, myself, am into what they like to call “BDSM.” But my particular “fetish” is masochism rather than sadism. I have played both roles but the dominant role doesn’t really do it for me. I enjoy the creativity of it when I play that role. I am also bisexual. I find a lot of psychopaths are ambi–sexual, in other words, open to a lot of different kinds of sexual behavior. I attribute it to our looseness of identity, we are free to be more than one thing and we’re not tied to some morality that limits our sexual expression. This does not mean we can’t be ethical in our sexual dealings. The people I have played with (except for the first who acted without my consent) are always scrupulous about limiting ourselves to consensual relationships. There is a lot of room for expression within the paradigm of consensual role playing.

                        Some serial killers and rapists inflict non-consensual pain. They are well known in the annuls of crime. One should really make a distinction between the two kinds of sadomasochists. I have a small website about my paraphilia, should you be interested: http://www.kiasherosjourney.com/pain. Excuse the pun, but it “pains” me to hear sadism confused with psychopathy. One can have both, of course. And someone so inclined would probably be more likely to inflict unconsensual pain on someone if he is a psychopath and not burdened by conscience. But I had a lover who was a sadist and (probably) a psychopath. And our dealings were always consensual. Here is an article about the truly predatory, serial killers among us which makes it more understandable: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psychotic-affective-disorders/hidden-suffering-psychopath/page/0/1

                        BTW, I don’t know if I ever shared my blog. It is specifically about Cluster B. https://kiasherosjourney.wordpress.com

                        I hope you see from all of the above what a diverse group we really are. Just as Empaths are a diverse group as well.


                      • Joyce M. Short 17:19 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        You referred to sexual acts of sadism. That was not my intent at all. Also, I was using the general and ambiguous “you” not meaning you directly.


                      • James 09:22 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        You don’t have to provide any sort of account; you’re not on trial for being an empath, and are not bound to explain everything they do, nor indeed to explain psychopathy. But you have attempted to do so, with humility and rationality. Unlike so many arguments I’ve seen recently, this one appears to be going somewhere, and that is strong motivation to continue 😀

                        Your assessment of motivation is on the right path, but if I could tweak it slightly there is, in my case, not only a lack of motivation to do harm, but a motivation to not cause harm. Call it utilitarianism if you will, there is also the case that I am sick of drama and also of sabotaging my own long term well-being for short term hollow thrill of playing a game. Not to bang on too much in a holier than thou / born again kind of sanctimony, but I have grown a lot as a person in the last year. I don’t wish to be trapped in the cycle of charm, manipulate, self-destruct every 18 months or so. Some people love that kind of life, they revel in it, but it was making me miserable. So I opt for change. I do this without a conscience, without a regret for the pain I have caused in the past, but rather for a self-directed hope at a better, more fulfilling future and the excitement to push the boundaries of my so-called label, to see what unlikely things I can accomplish.

                        Enough about me. You don’t want to go confusing psychopaths with Cluster B, which is a much broader label that also covers narcissists, borderlines and histrionics. I’d be interested to know where you get the 13% figure, as it’s not something I have been able to confirm with the briefest research.

                        You’ll find there is plenty of debate about the psychopathology (mental illness) of Hitler, with many viewing him as paranoid or schizoid / schizotypal (i.e. cold and aloof – not schizophrenic). You will find few historians who actively label him as a psychopath, apart from in the context of an insult. So yes, you are right: the “most evil man in history” doesn’t even belong in the cluster B camp, let alone psychopathy.

                        Can I just say that “A. they’ll battle their conscience about it and B. they’ll probably feel they have no alternative.” And “kill or be killed” sound like excuses, rather than an explanation. If there was no great desire to ‘punish the apostates and destroy the enemies of Muhammad’ in the first place, groups like ISIS wouldn’t exist. You can’t argue the majority of its soldiers feel pressured into conforming to the crazed orders of a few hardcore fanatics, because the sheer mathematics of that don’t add up. And Germans might have been afraid of Hitler and the regime, but he wouldn’t have got into such a position of absolute authority in the first place, if many millions of Germans didn’t think his philosophy was ultimately a worthy one.

                        You also seem to be saying that when put under any sort of pressure or threat, most ‘good’ people will abandon their morals for the sake of survival, through the desperate need to conform. I agree with this assessment, but it doesn’t paint a very flattering picture of conscience and human morality in general. In France, ‘la résistance’ put up a brave fight throughout the Nazi occupation from more or less the first weeks after surrender, but it didn’t really become a mass movement until it was clear the Germans were losing. Up to 1943 / 44, they were a small army of idealists constantly under threat of annihilation from superior German numbers, the French state, and the apathy / fear of the general populace. Broadly speaking, they didn’t even enjoy the tacit support of the people they were fighting for. Then suddenly, Rommel fucks up big time in Africa, Hitler’s army is freezing to death in Russia, America has entered the war on the other side and millions of Allied soldiers are massing on the English coast; seems like now would be a good time to dust off the old tricolore and stick one to the “Bosch”! Those who stick with their ideals, who know who they are and what they believe in – no matter what the risk to themselves – are the outliers, the lauded heroes, the exception to the rule.

                        So what are we aiming for here? In short, a denial of any sort of assertion of empathic superiority, in moral terms or otherwise. You’re not superior. Your lives aren’t worth more. You are entitled to feel pity or sympathy for our ‘plight’ or empty existence, but your feelings aren’t fact.

                        By the way, there was a time when I believed in psychopathic supremacy, or at least that we were inherently superior. I think Fran still believes that, and she is welcome to it if it makes her happy. I don’t think that anymore, and the reassessment of this belief has greatly affected the way I relate to, and deal with, other people. I am selfish, always have been, always will be. But I am no longer so selfish that my immediate whims automatically take precedence over everything and everyone else. As long as I am doing alright, and moving forward, I am good. Seeing everyone as a rival only serves to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Progress becomes a lot easier when you’re not trying to outmanoeuvre and screw over other people, and help and support from said people come quicker when you’re willing to give something in return. You know all this already (haha), but for me this is revolutionary stuff, it’s all new! And I still get a kick out of fooling people; they’re good to me because they like / love me, and believe those feelings are returned. I’m good to them because it helps me, in all the ways outlined above, their company is tolerable, and I like having an audience.

                        This has become a fucking thesis (I’m a final year philosophy / languages student, so writing essays is literally all I do at the moment), and it’s time to stop.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Joyce M. Short 10:44 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        You’re right…. it was a thesis! But a very worthwhile one.

                        You seem to think that NTs color people as bad or good by their “character.” Instead, NTs recognize good or bad by behavior. If the person does something bad to them, they will see them as bad. People we call “psychopaths” have continuously done recognizably bad things and demonstrated a lack of conscience or emotional empathy.

                        Neither “psychopath” nor “sociopath” are medical terms. They are lay terms. DSM does not recognize either. They recognize Cluster Bs so when I get into a discussion of the problems presented from lack of empathy, I reference Cluster Bs because that’s the only umbrella term that we can apply with any degree of correctness.

                        Emotional empathy is a condition, not a feeling. For example, sympathy and concern are feelings. Emotional empathy is not something that a person can will or intellectualize into existence. It’s either there or it’s not, like being color-blind. You could train yourself to recognize what others perceive as red even though you actually would not experience “red.”

                        Modern mental health practitioners, like Dr.Liane Leedom, believe we can intervene to cause greater emotional empathy in developing children. And I’m hoping that modern science can develop medication, probably through the use of oxytocin, that can boost one’s ability to empathize.

                        Parents whose children demonstrate “conduct disorder” are clearly aware they have a problem. Raising a conduct disordered child is like living in a nightmare.There’s no waking up in the morning and finding out it was just a bad dream.

                        The conduct disordered child that becomes the character disordered adult is a problem for that parent forever. One never loses ones love for a child regardless of what they do or who they become. They are your baby, forever. And when the problem is so bad that your safety is at risk by including them in your life, separating yourself from them is intensely painful anguish that never ends. There is no simple solution. It hurts to be with them, and it hurts to be without them. I am a parent who lives in this nightmare and that’s what’s hurled me down the path you see me taking. .

                        I pray that through recognition of the existence and signs of psychopathy, and the miracle of modern science, people can recognize and intervene to help children develop emotionally intact. It is obvious that you feel you suffered along the way. Your relationships and attachments to people don’t seem to create fulfillment for you. Your experiences have taught you how to adjust and become less dangerous to society. And I hope you’re proud of that accomplishment. Pride in who you are and how others see you can be a good alternative to deterring bad behavior, similar to emotional empathy.

                        Years ago, society had no clue what an attention deficit disorder looked like (which by the way could be an early sign of pending character disorder.) Today, we have Ritalin and other medications to deal with those issues. And while some will decry their efficacy, (the merits would take too long to discuss and get me way off on an unnecessary tangent for this discussion,) it enables both children and adults to live more fulfilling lives. If we are able to develop a similar protocol for empathy-less children, we could not only help them live more fulfilled lives, but save society from the potential damages of interacting with empathy-less people and understand the need for medical interventions.

                        My efforts to identify the issue of psychopathy is not to brand or demonize, even though many are truly demons, but to point out the problem in the hopes that medical science can create interventions. If you look at my blog, you’ll see information about that possibility.

                        Until we have treatments that can intervene in the development of psychopathy, and yes, I’ll succumb to the need to classify by the lay term, we have to rely on our outrageously flawed and hamstrung justice system to protect society from people who perform bad acts. But that’s like putting a band aid on someone who’s hemorrhaging.


                      • nowve666 12:18 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        “People we call “psychopaths” have continuously done recognizably bad things and demonstrated a lack of conscience or emotional empathy.” That’s the problem. Psychopathy is about a lot more than behavior. “Neither “psychopath” nor “sociopath” are medical terms. They are lay terms. DSM does not recognize either.” But Robert Hare has defined “psychopath” by inner attitudes which are correlated to brain activity which can be seen in an MRI brain scan. That makes it a neurological condition which exists in conjunction with a certain kind of consciousness. Psychopaths see the world differently than NTs. It’s not all about behavior although the behaviorist-ridden field of psychiatry tries to make it so. Robert Hare has struggled with members of the APA. The fact that his view hasn’t prevailed at this time doesn’t really make them right. “They recognize Cluster Bs so when I get into a discussion of the problems presented from lack of empathy, I reference Cluster Bs because that’s the only umbrella term that we can apply with any degree of correctness.” Actually, the people called “psychopaths” and “sociopaths” are identified by the APA as having ASPD, antisocial personality disorder. The entirety of Cluster B is not identical to psychopathy even in the simplistic minds of the APA. There is a lot wrong with the concept of ASPD as a stand-in for psychopathy. It is often used as a synonym for criminality. Some psychopaths lead socially exemplary lives. See Psychopath Night on the UKs Channel 4. They introduce a professional soccer player who is a psychopath but not a criminal. They also feature Dr. James Fallon, a neurologist who is also psychopathic but not “antisocial.” The other three “disorders” in Cluster B are histrionic, borderline and narcissistic. People with these “disorders” are capable of empathy and conscience.

                        “Emotional empathy is a condition, not a feeling.” I find that statement odd. There is “cold empathy” where you understand the other person’s emotions without feeling them. “Emotional empathy” is the kind of empathy that you do feel. It means the empathic person actually feels what the other person is feeling (or thinks he does).

                        I am sorry to learn that you are having such a hard time with your child.


                      • Joyce M. Short 12:24 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        Nowve666- Of course it’s a neurological condition. I never said anything to refute that.

                        You’re twisting my words and my meaning, so I don’t see anything to gain by furthering this discussion with you. You’ll simply distort what I say to mold it to your purposes.Once shame on you. Twice, shame on me. Bye bye!


                      • nowve666 13:03 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        Somebody is twisting somebody’s words. Thanks for the empathy, in this case, sprinkled with a heavy dose of paranoia.


                      • Joyce M. Short 17:12 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        You fail to see the discomfort you make others feel. Instead of owning your responsibility for it, you call them names like “paranoia.” I’m sure I’m not the only person you called “paranoid,” or some other name, for not wanting to speak to you.


                      • nowve666 18:18 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        “You fail to see the discomfort you make others feel. Instead of owning your responsibility for it, you call them names like “paranoia.” I’m sure I’m not the only person you called “paranoid,” or some other name, for not wanting to speak to you.” Oh. I thought you were through speaking to me. Need to get the last word? Actually, people don’t usually tell me out of the blue they are done speaking to me, especially after I have poured out my heart, sharing so many details about my life. If you really believe I’m deliberately twisting your words, then you are paranoid. If I misunderstood something you said, it was inadvertent, not deliberate. I think the thing to do in such a case is to explain whatever I may have misunderstood. BTW, what is my “premise on Character Disorder?” I didn’t know I had one. I actually don’t know what a “character disorder” is. Cluster B is a group of personality disorders, not character disorders. Calling my character “disordered” somehow seems judgemental. Like I have a bad character. Are “character disorders” in the DSM? Just asking. Don’t mean to twist your words, only understand them. Please don’t be so Short with me.


                      • James 13:15 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        Joyce, I am sympathetic to your story, I can see how you’re hurting, and understand how that motivates your life and your blog. I’m not a parent, but I can imagine how hard it is to be estranged from somebody you love more than yourself.

                        “People we call “psychopaths” have continuously done recognizably bad things and demonstrated a lack of conscience or emotional empathy.” Yeah, of course. But it’s the criminal acts that have drawn attention to the lack of conscience. Those law abiding psychopaths who never get pinged onto the system might as well be empaths, as far as anyone knows. Without the ‘bad things’, you wouldn’t know who had a conscience and who didn’t. Imagine a world where God forbade every intentional act of harm. In every other sense, the world is the same, so there are still people without consciences and some of those have the desire to harm others, but because of the nature of the world, they are unable to. So the point is, the concept of ‘bad things’ doesn’t in any way inform your understanding of psychopathy. In this thought experiment, psychologists can still study people who don’t seem to empathise with others, who exhibit flat affect, fearlessness, and a lack of concern for anything beyond themselves. The act of doing ‘bad things’ is not an inherent element of psychopathy, in other words not a necessary state of affairs for someone to be a psychopath. Nor is it a sufficient state of affairs, since we know many non-psychopaths (indeed everyone in the world) does bad things at one time or another, and some of those non-psychopaths follow a pattern of repeated bad behaviour.

                        I was going to explain how I thought we were talking cross-purposes vis-à-vis cluster B, psychopathy, ASPD and all the rest of it, but Fran (who is Nowve666) has explained the distinctions well enough already. But I did just get my first ever opportunity to use vis-à-vis in a sentence, so it’s all good.

                        I am proud, thank you. I don’t think the majority of psychopaths ever become self-aware enough to attempt to change their behaviour meaningfully. They just keep playing the game until the day they die. If I succeed in the long term, I will owe a lot of the credit to readers and commenters of this blog, to yourself, to Fran and to Tina, for their time, their ears and their opinions.

                        “My efforts to identify the issue of psychopathy is not to brand or demonize” I take you on your word for that. You can’t demonise your own son. But can you see that labelling some psychopaths (even if just a minority) as “demons” can’t and won’t help your cause? When you label somebody as a demon, you can’t possibly begin to feel compassion for them or want to help them. You also won’t ever succeed in winning them over (and surely it’s the harmful people who need to be persuaded, rather than relatively benign folk like me?), and may even push them in the opposite direction, completely alienating them from society.

                        Furthermore in dismissing somebody’s behaviour or character as demonic, you are effectively giving up on trying to understand the behaviour. That doesn’t mean you can’t believe in your heart that there are demonic behaviours (because realistically, it’s your decades of life experience that have formed your beliefs, and a paragraph written on the internet isn’t going to change those beliefs at their core, even if it might stimulate you to question them), just that maybe you shouldn’t voice those feelings if you ever want the situation to be different. Does that make any sense?

                        Ladies, I see your discussion has broken down into disagreement. That’s unfortunate, but I hope we can continue our conversation, Joyce?


                      • Joyce M. Short 17:02 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        James- I don’t think I can change a psychopath’s behavior or mindset. It’s not like “if you play nice, they’ll stop.” So I’m not motivated by your call not to define them. I do so to help the victims, not harm the offenders.

                        Your statements on criminal acts was a bit fuzzy for me. I don’t think all psychopaths are criminals. Some are more cunning and don’t get caught. But whether they get caught or not, they harm people and they are far from empathetic. If they’re upset by reading people’s opinions of them, they could either stop reading, or change. Their choice.

                        BTW, I disagree with Fran’s premise on Character Disorder. But I simply won’t waste my time by feeding her more explanations to twist.


                      • James 18:26 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        Maybe not you personally, but presumably for your goals (of treatment for adults and kids) to work, something about psychopaths will need to change. You can’t reasonably expect this to happen without the consent of the people involved, so it would be better to engage them in some kind of dialogue. It’s not a question of avoiding upsetting them, as you can imagine that’s quite difficult to do (you probably don’t need telling that if a psychopath tells you (s)he’s upset, chances are it’s a manipulation; when I’m upset, I don’t show other people) Again, not suggesting you personally need to start contacting psychopaths in an outreach programme, as I’m sure you have better things to do, but someone should, if they want anything to change.

                        I think we’re probably done here, unless you have anything to add. Thank you for your time, Joyce, see you around 🙂


                      • Joyce M. Short 20:56 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        A character disordered person who actually recognizes they have a problem is a rarity. It’s more likely that intervention will help children whose families recognize they have a problem.


                      • James 21:12 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                      • Joyce M. Short 10:30 on November 16, 2016 Permalink

                        Splitting hairs…. Admits, nor “recognizes.” And this includes admitting even to themselves. However, my point was that it’s unlikely for adult psychopaths to avail themselves of medication to fix their behavior. It’s more likely use would be to intervene when children are small and their parents and medical professionals recognize they need help.


                      • nowve666 10:38 on November 16, 2016 Permalink

                        Once someone tried an experiment giving psychopaths LSD. You know what happened? The psychopaths got stoned. They didn’t stop being psychopaths. I, myself, have done Ecstasy which is known as MDMA or the “love drug.” It was great. It didn’t make me any less psychopathic.


                      • James 12:55 on November 16, 2016 Permalink

                        Fundamentally, we’re not going to agree, are we? It doesn’t matter 🙂

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • nowve666 10:50 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        “You’ll find there is plenty of debate about the psychopathology (mental illness) of Hitler, with many viewing him as paranoid or schizoid / schizotypal (i.e. cold and aloof – not schizophrenic).” Sam Vaknin calls him a narcissist. He was certainly grandiose. His grandiosity is probably what did him in. Fighting a war on two fronts at once? You have to be extremely grandiose to think you can pull that one off.

                        “By the way, there was a time when I believed in psychopathic supremacy, or at least that we were inherently superior. I think Fran still believes that, and she is welcome to it if it makes her happy.” My grandiosity makes me happy although it is not delusional like Hitler’s. I do like to believe my psychopathy makes me superior but it’s more of an indulgence than an actual belief. There are advantages and disadvantages to both kinds of personality (psychopathic and empathic). I am aware of the price I pay for my personality. It’s not all rainbows. Nothing is. In some ways, we really are superior. In other ways, not. The fact that a world that consisted entirely of psychopaths would probably not work well is a powerful argument against our evolutionary superiority.


                      • James 11:10 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        Sam Vaknin doesn’t know shit. He’s not a historian or a psychologist, and his supposed philosophy PhD is probably fake. So his opinion on Hitler’s mental states is practically worthless.

                        Hitler was certainly optimistic, I’ll give him that. Not sure about the grandiosity though, since he believed in the superiority of the German race, it would be inconceivable that their collective efforts against inferior enemies could ever be defeated. I suppose that’s a kind of meta-grandiosity (of his whole nation, rather than merely himself)

                        “My grandiosity makes me happy although it is not delusional like Hitler’s.” Hitler probably thought that too, but about Goebbels or some other sad shit in his social circle.

                        I’m not clear, what do you mean by “more of an indulgence than an actual belief” I may have an idea, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • nowve666 11:51 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        What did I mean? I guess that “superiority” is a subjective concept. We can measure people by single, objective traits, like who is taller or who is better at math. But one’s “value” or “worth” is so personal to each individual, it is objectively meaningless. To the individual, the concept can be highly meaningful as we each have our own system of values. I enjoy and relish my own unique qualities which I do find make me special. I don’t know or care if others see that specialness. It’s just mine to cherish. I hope this makes sense.


                      • James 13:04 on November 15, 2016 Permalink

                        That’s logical, thanks for the explanation.

                        Liked by 1 person

    • Joyce M. Short 19:07 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      With all the research currently being conducted on oxytocin, perhaps that may not be as unrealistic as you think.


      • James 19:09 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Perhaps not. I wouldn’t voluntarily undergo treatment though.


    • Rita 20:07 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Humans are only as strong as the weakest link in a team that makes up civilization. Anyone for themselves and not the team is a detriment to the rest and should be forced into diagnostic proceedings in order to separate the parasite from the host.

      Psychopaths are at best insane reptiles. They are useful for entertainment purposes. Manipulate one into a narcisstic rage and then sit back refusing to acknowledge their pain. It’s funny as hell to see the hypocritical fury which they try to hide. The more cluster B traits they possess the more idiot savant their schemes and the higher their amusement level. I think it would be a great idea to lock them up and then let people rent them the way we used to rent videos for an evening.

      Liked by 2 people

      • James 20:13 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        You sound psychopathic yourself. Would you be willing to share cages?

        Liked by 1 person

        • nowve666 17:07 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          Like James said, you do sound psychopathic. But I have one question. If we are insane reptiles at best, what are we at worst?


          • Rita 19:27 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Sorry about that. Sometimes I have my husband in mind when typing. I can’t and should not speak for individuals who all are different.

            I think he is at worst when he cannot accept responsibility for the damage he’s caused me, yet can’t handle any little real or perceived slight to himself.

            Well, yes he has done worse, but it’s embarrassing to talk about.


    • Rita 20:48 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      No dear, I am actually an empath who has been married to a psychopath for 26 years. In order to survive the horseshit one must accept the condition and test their capability for violence before toying with them.
      Trying to divorce was pointless due to his proclivity to manipulate the lawyers and the court. In turn I have busted his ego until he wants to get away from me. I am now making him earn his way out by the point system. When he earns enough points I will allow him a divorce. Of course he is in training and routinely enters punishment mode, but due to his inability to stop himself from hiding assets I am withdrawing funds from his private bank accounts and doing quite well. He is the only one I know well enough to do these things with, but as I told him and will tell those of you who hold others in so much contempt: Pride goeth before a fall. If he is so smart why is he so blind to the manipulation so easily bestowed on himself by the inferiors?

      Ouch. Another narcissistic injury.


      • James 21:23 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Like I said, you seem psychopathic. The way you relish in somebody else’s suffering says more about you than him. I think we would get on well. Unfortunately you seem to live in North America and I am in Europe, but I’d happily come help you cause misery to your husband. I bet you’re having fun >:)


        • Rita 21:59 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          I can “be” psychopathic if I so choose. So can anyone else. Yes, I’m having fun, but as my therapist and I see it war is inevitable and it’s wise to have a battle plan. I’ve been examined closely by the psychiatric profession, and I have absolutely no fear of examination. Every empath can play any part they like, or engage others with genuine compassion. I don’t mind taking antibiotics to kill the bacteria invading my body. Why would I mind using a psychopath’s tactics against him or her in order to save my sanity? I believe the difference is that I can stop and he can’t. I tend to think of it as being psychopathic when necessary without the arrogance of believing I’m in any way special.

          Yes, I am in North America and I have read your posts many times. I find the material you post to be interesting as well as the replies. I especially like the ones which seem to have you figured out in 5 minutes. I wouldn’t dream of such a thing.

          I will compliment you and others who openly speak so that those who find themselves in situations like mine can get a grasp on what they are dealing with. Six months ago I didn’t know what a psychopath was.

          I appreciate that you find me interesting although I doubt it’s because you believe I’m a psychopath. Be that as it may are you open to private conversation? If nothing else I believe you’ll find a codependent with a mean streak to be somewhat enjoyable.

          Liked by 1 person

          • James 22:18 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            “I wouldn’t dream of such a thing.” I doubt that very much 😉

            You can email me if you want. My address is available for anyone to use through my profile, but in case you can’t see that it’s obutler2609@outlook.com

            My first impressions of you are that you are engaging in an unnecessary war out of bitterness and the shock of discovering the truth about your marriage. You could, in all truthfulness, just sign the divorce papers and be done with it. But instead of closure you seem to be looking to perpetuate the game, which over time will always play into the hands of your husband. He has had 26 years of manipulating and oblivious you; your success in the last few months means little in the face of things. This is a game you can’t win, your only two options are (1) lose or (2) refuse to play.

            I’m saying this in public for anyone else who might read this, because you are the latest in a long line of people (mainly women) I have encountered in a similar position and with similar attitudes.

            To misquote Nietzsche (a psychopathic favourite): She who fights monsters should see to it that she herself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

            Liked by 1 person

            • James 22:22 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              *an oblivious you. It kind of undermines one’s point when they can’t spell.


            • Rita 23:28 on November 12, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              Actually I wouldn’t dream of such a thing as figuring you or anyone else out via Internet conversation. Indeed you are intelligent which is respected or I wouldn’t be communicating. That’s the only thing I pick up on at face value. I also see blunt honesty which should always be appreciated.

              I have filed for divorce. That means the entire ballgame is in my control. He would not sign or cooperate until he found out that I can and will hurt him we he decides to be cruel. At times I am bitter but mostly sad as I am entering my 4th month of PTSD where physical pain accompanies the emotional pain. Violent fantasies have erupted and my therapist will not answer me when I question her as to length of time I have to endure these symptoms.

              The point I think that many are missing is that there is no winning or losing for anyone. The only place any of us are going is six feet under or burnt to a crisp.

              As it is I have given him the opportunity to do whatever he can to help me get well to expedite his release from the marriage. He’s not going to walk unscathed and steal all of the property and leave me in this condition. There are some things about psychopaths that I can and will cease in reference to myself. Smear campaigns are ignored as the silliness it is, and gang harassment leaves them all open to litigation due to the fact that I am suffering from a diagnosed psychiatric injury.
              Left to his own devices my husband will do himself in. I am not worried about a whlole lot, and under less extreme circumstances I would follow your advice without question. As it is I think it would be wise for my husband to understand that he is responsible for his future.

              I don’t know what you think aboutt karma, but that and and his underestimation of my tenacity is certainly working against him.

              Your responses are appreciated

              Liked by 1 person

            • Rita 00:37 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              Dear James,

              The doctor’s are seeing to it that I do not become a monster and disembowel the fellow. The abuses almost swallowed me whole and would have if I had not stumbled upon the truth before he was ready for discard. I will not do some things however much someone might do them to me. Just a tap of narcissistic injury goes a long way. Watching his reaction is comical as he frantically weaves his way into one mess after the other. Twenty six years ago he would have never have slipped up and let me see enough to investigate his behavior. As time goes by our mental sharpness deteriorates and I imagine it’s difficult to maintain the illusion of sanity at a certain age.

              Of course I can’t win. Nobody wins with the illusion of power. Just like love dependent on outside forces, it can be gone in an instant. The increasing number of pissed off women you see is probably due to the availability of internet information. One only has to do a little research to find out what’s been done to them.

              I have no plans to cause serious hurt. He has already had a heart attack because I wouldn’t swallow the love con the second time.

              I pay no attention to spelling errors having left myself hoist on my own petard too many times by pointing them out.

              Liked by 1 person

              • James 00:58 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                I have nothing much to add to that, except that I believe everything you just wrote in both comments (your other one is still pending, it’ll be published soon enough) to be valuable information to anyone reading this. And to me of course 😉

                Thank you ever so much for sharing your experience.

                The offer for a private chat is still on the table.


                • Rita 01:15 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  Yes, I will indeed be contacting you later. Thank you for your time.

                  Liked by 1 person

          • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 05:49 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Yep, I know firsthand that my empathy shuts off regarding the people who have harmed me. It’s human. Psychopathic traits are just human traits that are out of control.


            • Rita 09:34 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              My empathy never shuts off. I completely understand the cons and share them with him. All other empathy is utilized by the psychopath to his or her advantage. At that point empathy is not shut down, it just isn’t there. Neither is forgiveness if it is abused. I give support when he helps himself and he has chosen so far to play it and look for emotional responses when he doesn’t do anything to improve his condition. Right now Xanax would at least calm him enough to keep from planning my punishments night and day. If I want to act out I do. I just make sure to never show up when he arranges a scene in order for me to get upset and act crazy. It’s easy to tell when it’s coming too. He has no idea that I understand the sneer. If he makes an arrangement for me to show up at a planned meeting I send someone else in my place. At that point hilarity is the order of the day.


    • nowve666 18:10 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I feel so sorry for those saddled with a conscience. Imagine taking orders from a Cricket.


      • Rita 20:07 on November 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        I’ve taken orders from less than a cricket. I don’t take orders from a conscience either. I decide what is appropriate and I often do not make the right choice.

        I don’t know how much conscience plays into it or experience. When one gets a taste of pain and horror one can determine the often unnesserary damage done by the ignorance of others.Taking comfort when needed seems to me all the education anyone would need in order to give it to others. It builds character to see more than one’s own self. Two strong people working together do more than one.
        I know of nothing stronger than authentic love. It is stronger than addiction and power and control.

        Shared love can be so sweet, too. Knowing there is a person in the world who stays through sickness and health is no small thing. The love of my cat brings a smile on bad days.


    • Lucy 05:17 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t think you’re a psychopath at all. I think you enjoy the idea that people believe you are one. You mentioned having “bad” or violent thoughts, well so do many people, but you also mentioned exercising constraint, which is the opposite of what psychopaths do. They have impulse control issues, and they respond with aggression and anger almost to any situation that does not go the way they tried to manipulate it to unfold. I think you like to openly acknowledge being a “psychopath”, as you believe, in order to enable yourself to behave in perhaps a more unacceptable way in society,. and say “well, I’m psychopath”. But true psychopaths would not even contemplate being one, and they would respond very aggressively and defensively if they were ever accused of such a thing, but you’ve created a whole blog around your “identity” as a ” psychopath”‘. You are intellectual enough to discuss the topic and mimic the arrogant attitude of a psychopath, but you don’t show any of the inherent traits that are present in all psychopaths. You may very well see mental health professionals and behaviour in a way, or talk in a way that “demonstrates” you “psychopathic” nature, but that doesn’t make you psychopathic, it makes you manipulative. You seem to idolize what a psychopath is, and true psychopaths would never do that, they reject the very notion of being anything like a described psychopath, let alone willing seek professional assistance to discuss such a possibility. The blog is entertaining enough and you have made some accurate statements about psychopaths, but you aren’t one.


      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 05:42 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Psychopaths are narcissistic, but that is not their defining trait. Do you know the difference between someone with NPD and someone with Psychopathy? How many psychopaths do you know?


        • Lucy 05:53 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          I didn’t say their defining trait was narcissism. I do know the difference, yes, and I tend not to keep any psychopaths or sociopaths in close proximity to me, socially, work-wise or otherwise. But that’s not to say I haven’t observed them up close, and learned to understand their behaviour.


          • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 05:59 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            You described a lot of narcissistic behavior in your assessment of what “true” psychopaths do or don’t do. Have you read any other psychopath blogs such as “A Psychopath and a Scholar | Memoirs of a Misfit”, “MURDER CROW EAT CROW”, “Psychopathic Writings”, and a number of others found on the LINKS on the right side of this blog? Psychopaths don’t deny being such when they are anonymous. There are exceptions. My father (73 yo) admitted to me that he is a psychopath. It explained a lot. Some of them will talk about it, if you ask in a genuinely interested way, not in an aggressive attack mode.


            • Lucy 06:14 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              If you have developed awareness and a “conscience” in relation to reflecting on your behaviour, then you aren’t a psychopath, you are someone with perhaps violent tendencies ( I wouldn’t know), or a narcissistic attitude, but one of the actual defining traits of a sociopath AND a psychopath, is that they are never “aware” of being one, and deflect the accusation, or respond aggressively to it. Psychologically-speaking, they don’t have well developed “super-egos”, if at all, because they were not taught to exercise what we call our conscience. They don’t make decisions based on any moral guidelines, or even contemplate consequences, they simply respond to their immediate needs, and behave in whatever way they need to, to address and serve that need. They certainly don’t develop an awareness as an adult, because at that point in life their neural pathways are pretty permanently mapped, and they don’t seek to change their behaviour, or empathize with anyone they may have caused harm because of their behaviour. You have an awareness, thus you aren’t a psychopath. The only way to curb the development of a psychopath behaviour-wise or cognitive-wise, is to aggressively (meaning thoroughly and regularly) “retrain” them when they are children, and they have the mental capacity and openness to relearn behaviours, and replace destructive behaviour with productive and respectful behaviour.


              • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 06:29 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                You are wrong on so many levels. I don’t know how you got all this bad information, and I have no idea where to point you so that you can unlearn those falsehoods. I have a psychopath daughter (it’s genetic you know) and psychopaths are all most certainly aware of their lack of conscience. There are degrees of antisocial behavior associated with having no conscience, but for the most part, psychopaths do in fact show “productive and respectful behaviour.” Being 4 percent of population (over 12 million in the US), they are mostly well hidden because they do constrain themselves.


                • Lucy 06:35 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  No it’s not genetic, Psychopaths aren’t born, they’re raised. Some people have genetic tendencies for certain behaviours, but how they are raised when they are children is directly responsible for whether or not they develop to become a fully-functioning Psychopath or not. You can argue all you want until you go blue in the face, but you’ve demonstrated your clear ignorance about the subject, and contradicted your claim whilst doing so. I’ve made my point, and anything further is pure desperation on your part to convince readers otherwise.


                  • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 06:36 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    My family tree is over 50% psychopath. My 3 brothers and sister were raised just like me and I am not a psychopath like them. And I’m not arguing.


                    • Lucy 06:40 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                      The people who are legitimate Psychopaths in your family tree and openly acknowledge to be, are not, nor have they ever been, because they wouldn’t have that awareness, and for those who are, you may want to reflect on how you, or your parents were raised, because it’s how you were raised that influenced the development of the Psychopathic personalities, not that it seems you have one.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 06:41 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        “legitimate” means what exactly?


                      • Lucy 06:48 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Means to exhibit the behaviour and personality traits of a Psychopath as defined by mental health professionals, which is outlined in dictionaries. But you should know what that means, being more educated about the subject than me. Right?


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 20:22 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Start your real world education here: http://omegazadvisors.com/series/psychopaths-in-workplace/


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 06:45 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Psychopaths give birth to psychopaths. Psychopaths also make bad parents. There is a combination of these factors that plays into the child development.


                      • Lucy 06:50 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Wrong. psychopaths don’t “give birth to psychopaths”. Psychopaths can give birth and the child, if otherwise raised by people who aren’t psychopathic in nature, will not become psychopaths themselves.It is definitely environment that creates psychopaths, not DNA alone.alone.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 20:20 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        You are completely wrong. If you go around looking for those signs, you are going to miss the majority of psychopaths that pass for normal. Your looking things up in the dictionary does not count against my over 40 years experience.


                      • James 20:21 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        She’s beaten me. She’s so clever.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 20:23 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        She wins because she has the bully attitude she so insists that is psychopathic.


                      • James 20:24 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, no. She is actually really smart. She knows everything.

                        Liked by 1 person

                  • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 06:38 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    Have you not read Dr. Hare’s “Without Conscience” where he declares that psychopathy is genetic? Your ignorance is clear.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Lucy 06:41 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                      And aren’t you claiming to be a Psychopath? That’s certainly what is expressed in your blog? But now you aren’t one? Confusing.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 06:42 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        My name is Tina. I am not a psychopath. James, the psychopath, is the author of this article.

                        Liked by 2 people

                      • James 12:04 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Are you quite sure you’re not my sockpuppet? 😀

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • nowve666 21:11 on February 2, 2016 Permalink

                        Lucy, you say psychopaths are not “self-aware.” So if someone is self-aware and say s/he is a psychopath, s/he is proving hirself NOT self-aware as s/he is wrong. But if s/he is wrong, and NOT self-aware, s/he CAN be a psychopath. A bit catch-22ish.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Lucy 21:20 on February 2, 2016 Permalink

                        That’s why you have to identify other traits when trying to identify a Psychopath. Obviously people who aren’t Psychopaths will say they aren’t, as well as actual psychopaths, so it’s the combination of traits and behaviours that help identify them.


                      • nowve666 09:45 on February 3, 2016 Permalink

                        So can a psychopath be self-aware or not?


                      • James 11:38 on February 3, 2016 Permalink

                        She doesn’t know. She’s making it up as she goes along. I remember you, Lucy. You were fun to play with.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • nowve666 12:00 on February 3, 2016 Permalink

                        I know she doesn’t know. She just contradicted herself.


                      • Lucy 17:51 on February 3, 2016 Permalink

                        Of course they can be self-aware, most are highly intelligent, but they won’t ever admit to being one. They despise the label, and would never admit to anything that puts them in a compromising position or would arouse suspicion in their everyday life.


                      • nowve666 22:53 on February 3, 2016 Permalink

                        So why did you say James couldn’t be a psychopath since he is self-aware? And how can you say all psychopaths “despise the label?” You speak for all of us?


                      • Lucy 01:27 on February 4, 2016 Permalink

                        Because he is bragging about it like it’s an honour. No true Psychopath would do that, they don’t think the label is amusing, they despise it. He thinks it makes him sound superior and gives him something entertaining to write about. It doesn’t give him any credibility to say “Oh yeah, I’m a psychopath, so here’s some knowledge straight from the source”, he’s just being juvenile.


                      • James 03:52 on February 4, 2016 Permalink

                        Why are you always so wrong about everything? Did your mum drop you on the head as an infant?


                      • Lucy 21:00 on February 4, 2016 Permalink

                        I got bored with you ages ago. Carry on little boy.


                      • James 03:27 on February 5, 2016 Permalink

                        The fact that you’ve replied (yet again) suggests otherwise, big fat girl.


                      • Lucy 18:28 on February 5, 2016 Permalink

                        I was having a conversation with someone that you obviously knew about, and I responded assuming they would see it. But yeah, showing again just how juvenile you are with petty insults.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 19:29 on February 5, 2016 Permalink

                        Lucy, I don’t get how you can completely identify his psychopathic traits, yet blind yourself to the fact that James is indeed a psychopath. What is wrong with your brain?


                      • Lucy 01:22 on February 6, 2016 Permalink

                        Have your opinion, I really don’t care.


                      • James 07:22 on February 6, 2016 Permalink

                        What’s your opinion on banoffee pie?


                      • nowve666 14:55 on February 6, 2016 Permalink

                        That’s deep.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 22:59 on February 9, 2016 Permalink

                        Ahhh, but you do care. That’s what makes us empaths. If you really didn’t care, you would not have been wasting your time trying to tell a psychopath that he isn’t a psychopath. It’s very entertaining, but it’s bewildering how obtuse you (and everybody else) are to spotting an actual psychopath. (Which is good for all the millions of psychopaths in this world.)

                        Liked by 2 people

                      • James 03:31 on February 11, 2016 Permalink

                        Wasting your time, Tina. Lucy has already made it quite clear she’s not our friend anymore and has gone off to play elsewhere.


                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 11:06 on February 11, 2016 Permalink

                        It’s not a waste of time if it’s educational for those others who care to read the comments on blogs.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • James 19:35 on February 11, 2016 Permalink

                        OK, I agree with that.


                      • James 07:21 on February 6, 2016 Permalink

                        Too much fat on the cerebral cortex, clogging up the rational part of the brain.


                      • James 07:20 on February 6, 2016 Permalink

                        Talking about me, so it’s only natural I’d join in. You’d never manage a petty insult, because you wouldn’t fit.

                        Liked by 1 person

              • Rita 19:20 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                They are very aware that they are psychopaths. They will never admit it openly in a real-life situation where they can be seen for what they are. I stated that at best they are insane reptiles and that is entirely subjective. From my point of view insanity is best because insanity itself is a lack of awareness of reality vis a via one’s actions. From the perspective of the psychopath it is not best. Everyone around a psychopath has to believe a narcissistic false self or be eliminated. Fear of exposure makes them dangerous as all hell. If you ever find yourself in a real-life situation do not assume to understand them. You will need a much better education than the one you have to survive.

                I have my own way around a psychopath I have been close to for 26 years. The things i do only apply to my psychopath. They exist on a spectrum of behaviors and they usually Don’t respond with anger. It is usually possible to elicit a response of anger, but it is strongly advised to get it done inside a courtroom.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Lucy 21:09 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  Because I’m younger I don’t have experience? Or I can’t have learned to observe and understand? Or I couldn’t possibility have identified any? I do understand their traits and behaviours, and simply because I don’t have 30 years more experience on me, doesn’t mean that what I have learned is inaccurate at all.


                  • James 21:13 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    Except that everybody is telling you you’re wrong, so you’re outvoted. Because you’re young, you (like me) won’t accept that other people may have something to teach you, and that on this one occasion you are wrong.

                    I mean, you have already said that I am how I describe myself, just that in your view I have mistakenly used the word psychopath instead of sociopath. Can we find a common ground on this, or are we going to be forever arguing the toss?


                    • Lucy 21:17 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                      But I’m not like that at all, in fact my blog it specifically about challenging my own beliefs and views and being open to learning, and I’ve changed by views many times when I’ve discovered more accurate information (do your research for a change). I believe that based on your individual experience you want to believe that you are what you say you are, and you use snippets of information to support that belief so that you seem more credible on the subject. What you have mentioned (your words) in your blog, directly conflicts with the true nature and behavior of Psychopaths, defined by mental health professionals the world over, so if you want to believe it for your own comfort, you do so.


                      • James 21:22 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        How am I supposed to research your past?

                        I don’t need to seem credible, I’m just an idiot who writes stuff. I don’t get paid for this.

                        You’re not a mental health professional, but if you want to believe it for your own comfort, you do so.


                      • nowve666 21:18 on February 2, 2016 Permalink

                        He’s a psychopath. Believe it!


                • nowve666 21:38 on February 2, 2016 Permalink | Reply


      • James 06:15 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        That’s an entertaining enough suggestion, but not a correct one. Your definition of a “true psychopath” is a bit wonky. Also, if you’re under the impression that being a psychopath provides some sort of excuse then you are mistaken. Convicted criminals who are known to be psychopathic actually receive longer sentences. If you accused me of psychopathic behaviour in public, I would feign confusion and maybe joke about being a murderer. If they persisted, I would deny it as firmly as necessary. And I have to wonder why you think you know me better than myself when we have never met.


    • Lucy 06:21 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      You have an awareness, you acknowledge that, and that’s what your whole blog is about, so you aren’t a true psychopath, as defined by mental health professionals, which I have just explained. I don’t need to meet you or observe you, you demonstrate through your blog that you don’t have the personality of a psychopath. You even explained (in your previous comment) that you would deny being a psychopath should anyone accuse you, but that directly contradicts with what you are writing on this blog. You have already acknowledge supposedly being one, in fact you strive to convince us readers that you are, but now you want to stress that no, you definitely are not a psychopath, and you would deny that. If anything, this blog serves as entertainment, and not as a authentic view from psychopaths perspective.


      • James 12:02 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        There is a difference between writing a blog anonymously, and blurting out to people in real life every little detail about myself. There is no contradiction.

        You can believe what you like, and I don’t care enough to try to change your mind.

        It’s quite clear that all of your dogma comes from a position of absolute ignorance. None of your supposed facts are supported by what the experts who research psychopathy say, your critical thinking skills seem low to non-existent (e.g. 1 failure to understand the difference between internet and real life, that what is appropriate or tactful to do or say in one context is not necessarily good for another, completely different context; e.g. 2 you are labouring under the delusion that you know other people’s inner mental states and their own families better than they do) and you’re so dim-witted that you didn’t even realise you were speaking to two different people! How’s that for perceptive?!

        In short, it is you that is the entertainment 😀 but if you get some enjoyment out of my blog posts, please do keep reading, and share with some of your least irritating friends, they might appreciate it too.


        • Lucy 18:54 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          I was quite aware who wrote the post, and whom I was speaking to, but I had read several posts, not just the one. If you choose to advertise being a Psychopath for entertainment value, then by all means continue, but there’s no authenticity to it.


          • James 19:02 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Your comment history says otherwise, and I shall continue to provide others insight into psychopathy from the mind of a psychopath, whether or not you believe me. Being a newly-qualified counsellor doesn’t make you an expert on shit, and I can certainly see that you must be shit at your job, since you don’t listen, are arrogant, presumptuous, argumentative and, above all, stupid.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Lucy 19:17 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              I may have recently become qualified, but I’ve been studying more than counselling for years (and spoken with a fair share of people who work in the area). How I have described a Psychopath is accurate to the the definition and traits of psychopathy as defined by mental health professionals. As originally pointed out, I think you very much enjoy marketing yourself as a Psychopath, and you speak and behave in a way that you believe correlates with your desire to be one. If you feel you need to define yourself as something to find acceptance, then no one can stop you, but there is too much contradiction with the information you’ve provided, and clear attempts to use information you can find, out of context, to support your belief of having the mind of a Psychopath, but you just seem to have a passion for a subject, and thought it might make a good credible foundation to write a blog about. You’re reflecting on your behaviour, you care about how others are viewing you (which is being demonstrated in your responses to me), and you have an awareness of what it means to be a Psychopath, and because of that awareness you are able to figure-out how you think you should portray yourself to seem most like a Psychopath, but it’s because you do this and that you exercise constraint, that is a direct contradiction to the true nature of psychopaths. But continue to play the role to your hearts content, it makes no difference to me.


              • James 19:29 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                Find acceptance? People on this blog hate me, for the most part. In real life, where people are oblivious to everything but the charm, I am very popular.

                Your study means nothing when you have been studying the wrong things.

                You do realise that, due to your insistence that I shouldn’t care about your claims, that I am forced to choose between not defending myself from libel, and proving your point by replying.

                I am replying to you, because I would like to reach though my computer screen to Oz, rip your heart out with my bare hands and eat it in front of you while you die. I cannot do that, and so my next best option is to show everyone how full of shit you are.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Lucy 19:34 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  But you don’t do that to anyone else do you? NO, you exercise constraint in your life, wherever you are, thus, you aren’t a Psychopath. They do act on those impulses, and hide it very well, they certainly don’t broadcast their intentions or give anyone a reason to suspect them of such things. But I see you’re still trying to portray a Psychopath, you’re just going about it the wrong way.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • James 19:41 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    So do you think the psychopaths on Wall Street have ever eaten anyone’s hearts? No, because they have restraint, and see more value in achieving power through financial dominance than by messing up their lives.

                    And I am not good at marketing anything, hardly anybody reads this shit. Less than 70 people have seen this, last time I checked.


                    • Lucy 19:52 on November 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                      Okay, I think you’re thinking of Sociopaths, which are not the same thing as Psychopaths. They have been referred to as being the same thing, but only for convenience, and although they are similar in mentality, they are significantly different in behaviour. The Sociopaths on wall street don’t get what they want by killing people, not to say they wouldn’t rat out anyone who did, because they don’t have a “moral conscience”, as discussed previously, but Psychopaths do act on “bad” thoughts, and find pleasure in carrying-out horrific acts, instead of just thinking about them, and they are so skilled at blending with society, and mimicking “normal” behaviours, that most aren’t caught. The cocky ones get caught not because they broadcast their Psychopath status, but because they enjoy the attention they get from taking responsibility for the CRIMES they commit, and so they eventually want (what they believe to be) credit for what they have achieved, and they do view their acts as achievements, because they enjoy it, and feel stimulated by it, but as far as what you’ve described, you exercise your imagination, and display sociopathic traits, yes, but nothing like a Psychopath.


                      • James 19:53 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        We’re done. Goodbye.

                        Liked by 2 people

                      • Lucy 19:55 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Yeah, thought so.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 20:45 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Sociopath is not correct scientific terminology. Psychopathy is the proper term for researchers. Whatever school you went to is giving out old, outdated, and seriously bad information.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Lucy 21:07 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Nope. They are two different personality disorders.


                      • James 21:09 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Where did you do your degree?


                      • Lucy 21:13 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        And you think I’m narrow-minded? ha. You can study and learn accurate information without learning it via an institute. Seriously. If you want to adjust your own definition of Psychopath and Sociopath to support your views on the subject, thus enabling you to preach that you are the authority on the subject as opposed to anyone who hasn’t finished a qualification via a college or university, you go ahead and do that.


                      • James 21:18 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Come on, I’m trying to be polite here.


                      • Lucy 21:19 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No you’re not, you’re thinking that if I identify my sources of knowledge, you can undermine my opinion by ridiculing my education.


                      • James 21:22 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well, yes. That’s right.


                      • James 21:20 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        In my view, without any education in your chosen field, you will never be as good as somebody who has a degree. You could be the most gifted and intelligent person, the most empathic natural counseller there is, but you lack the knowledge.


                      • Lucy 21:21 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Based on your assumption that I have no education from an institute you, yourself deem to be teaching what you agree to be accurate information.


                      • James 21:24 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Sorry, what? I am not teaching anybody here. I have taught classes before, but they were for young kids learning English. I wouldn’t dream of calling myself an expert on psychology.


                      • Lucy 21:27 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, I was talking about the institutes teaching students information that you deem to be accurate. You’re trying to argue that if I’ve had an education (anywhere) the institute I studied through (whatever it may be) MUST be teaching me inaccurate information, because you think that means my opinion is less credible.


                      • James 21:30 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well not just anywhere, no.

                        But all this is immaterial, as you don’t have an education at all, let alone a poor one.


                      • Lucy 21:29 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Except you don’t know where I’ve gained by knowledge from. And you’re clinging desperately to the identity you’ve assumed to build this blog around, but the information you have shared, from your “personal” experience, demonstrates that you don’t have the traits that define a Psychopath.


                      • James 21:31 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Let me guess, you pulled it out of a magic hat?

                        You’re on the attack again, fine.


                      • James 21:29 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I am an expert on languages and philosophy, because I have a good degree from a great university. This blog is one of my hobbies, I don’t charge people for my knowledge based on the assumption that I am a qualified psychiatrist or lawyer. Just yesterday, I received an email from a reader asking legal advice, I didn’t give it because my legal advice is worthless. But I gave the reader my lawyer friend’s details.


                      • Lucy 21:30 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I’m not even talking about you charging people money or anything to do with that, I don’t know how that came into the conversation.


                      • James 21:32 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, I was talking about you. You charge people for counselling when your counselling is worth nothing. You’re not a counsellor, you’re just a fraud.


                      • Lucy 21:33 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        When did I ever say I did that? Lol.


                      • James 21:34 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        You didn’t. But if you are a counsellor, “recently qualified” as you put it, that means you are offering a service. I can’t imagine said service is free, you’ve got a family to provide for.


                      • Lucy 21:35 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        You can assume whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean you’re accurate.


                      • James 21:40 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well exactly, I’ve been arguing the same all day. Your assumptions of me are fine to make, but they’re wrong.


                      • Lucy 21:46 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        But they aren’t assumptions, I’ve read your own words, and you created this blog yourself, with no influence from me, and the purpose of your blog is to share your experiences and opinions as a Psychopath yourself? Yes? Except you don’t display the traits that are common (and necessary to be identified as) a Psychopath. You have said yourself that you exercise constraint, well again I say, it is as part of the information taught about the personality disorder, that psychopaths have impulse control issues and don’t exercise constraint, because they don’t feel any need to, because they don’t have a moral code to abide by, or a conscience to argue with, they just do what they feel, which is usually something violent. And that’s only one contradiction.


                      • James 21:50 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        And yet it’s the only (incorrect) contradiction you have been able to come up with. That and some bullshit about psychopaths not being self-aware. Now we have established your total lack of education on the subject you imagine yourself an expert in, I really am just being courteous even responding to you.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Lucy 21:52 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, it’s not, I mentioned others in previous comments, and you just argued back.


                      • James 21:54 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Please refresh my memory.


                      • Lucy 21:56 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Yeah, I’m not repeating this whole conversation, my points been made and you grounds for retaliation aren’t based on any accurate information about me, in fact you’re pulling completely fabricated information our of nowhere, as if I’ve actually stated it, which I haven’t. So argue with yourself.


                      • James 21:59 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        There’s nothing to repeat. The only two arguments you made were the two I mentioned. The rest has been ad hominem insults, which I have gladly reciprocated.


                      • James 21:42 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Look! Our comments have disappeared off the page. This website really is crap.


                      • James 21:33 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        If I charged people to read my crap, it would be outrageous! Perhaps when I’m famous, I can get away with it…


                      • Lucy 21:35 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I don’t know why you’re talking about charging people anything, or why you think I’m charging people something. You’ve gone way off topic, probably because I made my point in reference to why I actually commented in the first. Continue on your tangent solo.


                      • James 21:39 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Because if you’re not really a counsellor, then you’re in the same situation as me. I can accuse you of pretending to be something you’re not. And I can re-iterate that without any counselling cred, your attempts to psychoanalyse me are laughable.


                      • Lucy 21:54 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I have never claimed to be a counsellor, I said I have a qualification as a counsellor, can’t you differentiate the difference? You are claiming to be a Psychopath and telling people that because you are, you’re information about the “inner-working of a Psychopaths mind” is accurate, except you aren’t one, so therefore it isn’t.


                      • James 21:58 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Your profile, which you have just deleted, said something like “Australian, 25, student, mother, counsellor”. That is a claim to be a counsellor.

                        I am a psychopath, it’s just you are probably a troll wasting my time (the deleted profile? I expect it’ll be back in a few days, except it’ll say “Californian. Single guy loves to party. I blog about chakra” or something equally non-sequitur.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Lucy 22:01 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, I just put the information on my blog, instead of on my gravatar, and “counsellor” (if you knew anything about the industry) can be anyone with counselling skills who has acted as a counsellor to anyone, it isn’t a job title, nor do I use it as such in the context is it written. Okey dokey “Psychopath” have fun with your little fantasy role-playing here. I’m out.


                      • James 22:05 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        But you have no counselling skills. Except how to calm baby down after a fall.


                      • Lucy 22:07 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Ha. That’s another one of your assumptions based on nothing. Which is again, inaccurate.


                      • James 22:07 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        You have no education, you’re not a counsellor.


                      • Lucy 22:09 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Except I do.


                      • James 22:11 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        In English and Maths, perhaps, to high school level. Not in anything relevant to your claims of expertise.


                      • Lucy 22:13 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, I have a college education in the filed of counselling. I don’t know why you assumed you knew otherwise, since this is the first time I’ve said I do.


                      • James 22:16 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Um, because you told me yourself not 1 hour ago that you haven’t been to any college or university “institution”, as you called it.


                      • Lucy 22:17 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No I didn’t say I hadn’t had an education in the field. I didn’t
                        say I had or I hadn’t.


                      • James 22:20 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        So far, i have been nothing but honest and upfront with everything. You have been misleading, evasive, deceptive, dishonest and manipulative. Wonder what that makes you?


                      • Lucy 22:21 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, I’ve argued my specific point, which is why I made the original comment. That’s all I’ve done.


                      • James 22:25 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        But you have no argument. Neither of your supporting points are true, or agreed on by anyone who is worth their salt. I am not an expert psychiatrist, but I am an expert philosopher. And I know a bad argument when I see one.


                      • Lucy 22:20 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I said “you can learn accurate information without learning it via an institute”, where in that sentence to I say I haven’t had an education at an institute?


                      • James 22:23 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        In that sentence, it says nothing. In another sentence – several other sentences, which I no longer have access to, but believe exist (and if I’m wrong, so what, you’re still not qualified to talk about psychopathy) you said you had attended no formal education in counselling. Then you said you weren’t qualified. Then you said you were qualified but not practising. Your story doesn’t add up from comment to comment, my story hasn’t changed since the beginning.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Lucy 22:25 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I haven’t actually said any of those things. I haven’t confirmed a single one of those statements one way or the other. You are choosing to believe what you want, to try to undermine my opinion.


                      • James 22:26 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well, perhaps. But like I said, it’s your word versus mine on what you actually said, so why wouldn’t I believe myself over you?


                      • Lucy 22:34 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well Perhaps? So, yes, I never said any of those things, you’re just pulling bullshit from your arse about what I’ve supposedly said. And I’m the one with no credibility? Yes, you can believe what you want to, and I expressed an opinion about having a different belief that is different to yours, and quite effectively argued my point by referencing accurate information, which you deliberately remain ignorant to.


                      • James 22:08 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        You lose, biatch


                      • James 22:09 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        One has to wonder why you spent so long today arguing something you had no hope of winning. Are you a narcissist? Do you really take yourself as seriously as you seem to? Because I don’t. It’s just a game, all of it.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Lucy 22:11 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I literally have no idea what you responding to, it’s like you’re having a converation with yourself, and telling yourself pretend facts about me. I do have an education in counselling and other areas. I don’t know what comment you think determined you “win”, whatever that’s about. And now I just have no idea why you seem delighted, as if I’ve admitted fraud or something.


                      • James 22:14 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        When you said you were done and gave up, that was where I won.

                        You said a few comments ago that you didn’t attend any college or university, ergo whatever “education” you have is self-taught (unreliable) or comes out of a diploma mill.


                      • Lucy 22:16 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        No, (read properly) I said IF I had gone (not confirming if I had or hadn’t) to a institute, you wouldn’t deem my education “accurate” or “good” just to argue your point.


                      • James 22:19 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well, I guess we’ll never know now, as the comments have disappeared. Seriously, look at the blog page.They’re gone. I think that you are lying now, but even if I am mistaken having an education in the “filed” of counselling doesn’t qualify you as a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a neuroscientist, or anyone who can diagnose someone – over the internet – as not a psychopath.


                      • Lucy 22:21 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I haven’t diagnosed anyone lol I gave an opinion, duh. And that’s all I’ve expressed it as, seriously.


                      • James 22:24 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Not really, you have claimed that your opinion is that of an experts and that everyone who disagreed with you is wrong. That is more of a statement of (false) fact, than opinion. My opinion remains that less shit comes out your arse.


                      • Lucy 22:26 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        AGAIN, I have not said that even once in any comment. I don’t know what you can’t comprehend grammar, or perspective.


                      • James 22:28 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well, maybe it was all in your condescending attitude toward everyone who disagreed. I don’t know. Maybe I’m just winding you up for my amusement and pleasure because you’re too gullible and stupid to tell when you’re being played.


                      • Lucy 22:30 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I’m neither. Clearly, because I haven’t been sucked into your little play of “I’m a Psychopath”. Continue on with your spreading of inaccurate information, based on the inaccurate belief that you’re a psychopath. If you gain something from it, as I said previously, carry on, no one can stop you, and it doesn’t effect me one way or the other.


                      • James 22:36 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Well you seem to care very much. You have been banging on about it for 18 hours or so. So either, you really, really do care, or I have indeed sucked you in. Prove that I haven’t and leave, I dare you.


                      • Lucy 22:38 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I am passionate about the subject matter, and I enjoy stimulating conversation. I don’t know why this has become about “care” or “not care”, but there’s nothing more for em to add. You enjoy your delusion, and you have selective ignorance, you’re not providing anything further of value.


                      • James 22:41 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Also, your blog no longer exists, not just your Gravatar.


                      • James 22:42 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Whereas you are 100% ignorant.


                      • James 22:43 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        And if you really did just go away, you obeyed a psychopath’s order. I’ll see tomorrow if you’ve complied, or if you continue to be unable to leave my company. For now, it’s 3:45 AM and I need to go to bed.


                      • Lucy 22:48 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        If you want to put a little feather in your hat because I’ve made my point and find it superfluous to continue to respond to what are clear attempts to provoke a response, just so you can pat yourself on the back and enable your belief that you are “still” a “Psychopath””, ha, then you do that. You’ll find a way no matter what to continue to believe in your delusion, because without being able to identify as a Psychopath, who would you be? Do you even know? And who really cares.


                      • James 12:18 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        I wish I had a hat, feathered just like that. Alas I am a rat, I do not have a hat.


                      • Rita 13:28 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        T S Eliot?

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • James 13:56 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        I made it up on the spot, hence why it sucks.


                      • Lucy 22:51 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        P.S you followed my blog, not the other way around, if you want to assign us dominant/submissive roles.


                      • James 12:15 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        Huh? I have never read your blog. I can’t even access it, since it has been deleted.


                      • Lucy 16:23 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        It never was deleted, it’s up an running now, and I’ve had visitors since it’s been up for a year.


                      • James 16:41 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        OK, well whether or not it is still there, I am unable to access it. https://resurgenow.wordpress.com/ “The authors have deleted the site”.


                      • Lucy 16:24 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        And you clicked the follow button, which is how I found your site, because I was looking at all the sites of all my followers. But hey, deny all you want, you’re delusional anyway


                      • James 16:40 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        I did no such thing. What might have happened is Genetic Psycho (Tina) – who is this blog’s admin – clicked follow.


                      • James 22:16 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        “Telling yourself pretend facts about me” How ironic. Your facts are from the land of fairies too, and you started it.


                      • James 22:06 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        And I figured you might be, once I flushed out the truth.


                      • James 22:07 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, I win, I win, I win. LOSER! LOSER! LOOOOOZRRRRR!!!

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • Lucy 22:08 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        I don’t know how your inaccurate assumptions based on fabricated information somehow makes you a “winner”, but okay, have your little party. Sounds more like you’re a 12 year old than a Psychopath.


                      • James 22:10 on November 15, 2015 Permalink

                        Ooooohhhhh. The 12 year old insult. How very original. Actually, I am the same age as you. Except I know how to have fun.

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 07:16 on November 16, 2015 Permalink

                        Well, this site is about psychopaths

                        Liked by 1 person

                  • nowve666 21:30 on February 2, 2016 Permalink | Reply


                • nowve666 21:47 on February 2, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                  “I am replying to you, because I would like to reach though my computer screen to Oz, rip your heart out with my bare hands and eat it in front of you while you die. I cannot do that, and so my next best option is to show everyone how full of shit you are.”

                  Love it! Didn’t Dick Fold say that? Such an exciting visual place to go to. I can imagine having my last consciousness being the sight of a hottie eating my heart in front of me. Too bad Lucy isn’t self-aware enough to appreciate it.


    • jul 01:13 on November 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Alright, I have to add my 2 cents here after reading this whole train. Lucy, please bear with me a sec and actually read this qithout rationalizing anything. You say a psychopath has all these bad things, and you have a long rigmarole of complaints about him. You are obviously pushing for a divorce, and are already making it hard for him. I point out the fact that we only have your side of the story. You have not mentioned anything showing you dealt with him and you were the adult and he’s the one who failed to shape up. We don’t know how your emotional state is in general and you do not provide that pertinent info.
      Look, all studies on psychopaths are one-sided. They are against psychopaths. Not because of their crimes necessarily(although the worst crimes have been done by them), but based on complaints about their behavior.
      only a stupid one would own up to being a psychopath. They are indeed not good people at all. Without a lot of internal effort, they can wreak havoc. One of these can make a terrible parent or a life patner. But there is a caveat….if you mishandle them. And Lucy, thats how you messed up. You did not know the creature you married.
      You can deal with these beasts, but it requires finesse. Don’t give them a reason to fight because they figh until the bitter bitter end, yours or his.
      To be honest, I don’t think there is such a thing as a psychopath. But there are people you should not have as enemies. You should relax your emotional rollercoaster stuff and deal with your husband as a human being instead of acting like a 5 year old. Stop trying to get on his case and you might actually have a chance of normalizing your life after divorce.
      I don’t understand just how you can expect to fix anything through a blame game. This empathy stuff is the biggest joke under the sun. So what if you got feelings? What makes yours so damn important? Amd while we are about that what makes you so more important that we shoupd listen to you? Your feelings? Give me a break. You have to do better than that.
      Don’t expect any sympathy from me. I have no sympathy, even for myself. Work out the best thing to do, and do it. And do it within the context of the law, and follow through. This emotional dross is the reason NTss are a real drag. Almost any person who thinks like me would say there is something wrong with an NT. They are programmed to almost always do the wrong or the worst thing. Hitler, btw, was no psychopath. He was an empth, that’s why he did what he did.
      Good luck Lucy, you have to do the work if you want to make the money. I really fo wish you the best, but, at the end of the day, you only get what you deserve

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 09:41 on November 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        You might have checked out the date of that conversation before you wasted your time, Jul. If Lucy is still unpicking her divorce 12 months later, she has no hope.

        Liked by 1 person

      • nowve666 16:52 on November 28, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Jul, loved a portion of your reply so much, I would like to quote it if that’s OK with you. I would credit it to you under any name you choose. “Jul” or something more complete. This is the part I would like to repeat:

        “This empathy stuff is the biggest joke under the sun. So what if you got feelings? What makes yours so damn important? Amd while we are about that what makes you so more important that we shoupd listen to you? Your feelings? Give me a break. You have to do better than that.

        “Don’t expect any sympathy from me. I have no sympathy, even for myself. Work out the best thing to do, and do it. And do it within the context of the law, and follow through. This emotional dross is the reason NTss are a real drag.”

        I have never seen these sentiments expressed so eloquently before.


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: