Tagged: movies Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Tina (GeneticPsychosMom) 09:35 on May 11, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , movies, , pedophiles, , , , , , , , , ,   

    The prevalence of #psychopaths and their power over society 

    There are many people whose behaviour and perceptions of others places them squarely in the category of antisocial personality disorder but they go their entire life without being assessed in psychiatric units or put in prison. We may live close to them, work with them or see them in the media. Many of us will have a strong sense that their character is flawed, their actions are damaging or their attitude to other people makes them dangerous. However, for a variety of reasons, we may suppress our intuitions. One reason for doing so is, if we were to dwell on these perceptions, it could shatter our sense of security and comfort.

    Sheep Then and Now cartoon picWhen we live in societies where ruthlessness in business and politics is rewarded and prized, the problem of identifying and curtailing genuine psychopaths becomes more challenging. As our search for the psychopath strays from prisons and psychiatric units to banks, trading floors, media companies and political parties, we become aware that society’s ability to challenge and control them has been limited.

    In fact, we may tolerate psychopathic qualities in politicians, television and film stars, sportsmen and captains of industry more readily than we do in our neighbours. Glib charm and callousness can, unfortunately, appear attractive qualities in celebrities, politicians and tycoons. It may be amusing to watch them on the television, but it should be remembered that those people are real when they are off the screen and have real impacts on real people.

    It is not surprising that other institutions and society itself struggles to identify them and respond to them adequately. After something terrible comes to light, members of communities often find it hard to accept that someone they liked could have committed such an atrocity. Others will say they had suspicions all along.

    The above was illustrated by the case of the disc jockey and serial child abuser Jimmy Savile, who used his larger-­than-­life character to gain entry into the BBC. Savile was already a paedophile before joining the BBC but, once secure within the institution, he was able to amass so much influence over people that he abused children with little challenge. There is even the compelling and sickening suggestion that he managed to avoid incarceration because he procured children for members of the British Establishment.

    After hundreds of accusations of sexual abuse of children and hospital patients came to light in 2012, a year after his death, some people attempted to defend Savile’s reputation. Even at the start of 2013 there were still people on social media defending his ‘honour’ and saying that because he could not contest the accusations in court the matter should be dropped. Fortunately, however, we live in an era of transparency, where society and the media are happy to slay degraded ‘heroes’ – and where victims of abuse can find a stronger voice than they had previously.

    The Savile case and the resultant splitting of views across society is a vivid illustration of how devious psychopaths operate and how they manage to shield themselves by creating tension between other people. It also serves as a useful illustration of how the personality of the psychopath may be revealed more by their impact on others than what they say.

    A forensic examination of the life of a psychopath can be like examining the damage caused by a cluster bomb. In the case of child abusers, the primary harm is secretly done to vulnerable individuals – some of whom may have little ability at the time to articulate what happened. Other abusers are drawn in and become part of the paedophile’s web, while some victims may subsequently and tragically become abusers themselves.

    The Savile case also helps us examine one of the key concerns of this book, whether the world we live in has become more psychopathic – more ruthless, cold, exploitative and antisocially individualistic. If so, we have to consider what processes and institutions are allowing and encouraging this to happen – and how we may all be allowing it to happen. The case illustrates how various organisational cultures and society itself can be infected and corrupted by the psychopathy of an individual, or small number of individuals.

    It seems quite possible that Savile used charity work as a way of insulating or immunising himself against accusations of paedophilia. Perhaps a shared understanding that accusations against him could harm the income and credibility of charitable organisations gave him power over some of those who felt dependent on his ‘support’. If this is the case, Savile made probably well­-meaning people complicit in his activities.

    By definition ‘successful psychopaths’ are people who avoid being identified as such. A murderer or a rapist does not only become a murderer or rapist when they are convicted – and a psychopath does not only become a psychopath when formerly diagnosed. Pathology precedes diagnosis.

    When we come into contact with people with psychopathic qualities we are often overcome by a sense of confusion, deep mistrust and also worry about being led astray by fantasies infecting our minds. We may suspect we are being drawn into danger but we may not be sure. Questions like “Did they really do that?”, “Am I being conned?”, “Am I just imagining this?” and “Can they really be that bad?” and “Maybe I am just being paranoid?” tend to flood our minds.

    These questions are difficult and divisive enough for experienced psychiatric teams to contend with, let alone family members who need to believe that a person cares about them, colleagues or children in need of approval and safety. It is testament to the persuasiveness of psychopaths and the smokescreens they create that the vast majority of the British public were taken in by a patently creepy man who surrounded himself with vulnerable children.

    Whether or not Savile consciously did charity work as a way to shield himself from accusations, the status and work certainly gave him unrestricted access to children. It is well known that paedophiles seek out positions where they have access to vulnerable children, and it becoming clearer that non­paedophile psychopaths similarly seek power. Unfortunately, while psychopaths are imagined as the knifewielding killers of Hollywood, not enough attention is given to the possibility that many more psychopaths quietly secure positions within society where they can exert maximum control.

    Studies of prisoners have helped us understand the minds of psychopaths but they do not reveal the predominance of psychopathic traits within the wider population. Psychiatrists cannot simply turn up to banks, parliaments and media companies and demand that people undergo mental health assessments and brain scans. Nevertheless, in recent years good evidence has been emerging that psychopathic qualities are far from the exclusive domain of prisoners and patients in secure psychiatric units. Those qualities are also found among well paid people in positions of power and within key occupations that society depends upon.

    Only by understanding how psychopaths operate within various areas of society can we understand how they help to create and maintain what I term psychopathic cultures.

    Excerpt from the Introduction in “Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires” by Will Black

    photo courtesy of NakedPastor


    Psychopath TEST Politicians

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

    How should society deal with psychopaths? 

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

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

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

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

    What psychopathy is – and what it’s not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sociopath vs. psychopath

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

    Nature vs. nurture

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

    How should society deal with psychopaths?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How can you protect yourself?

    Meanwhile, what can you do as an individual?

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

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

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

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

    Psychopath TEST Politicians


  • James 20:28 on April 2, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , films, , , , movies, , , , , , , , ,   

    Your favourite character is a psychopath 

    Many thanks to Tina for her kind invitation to contribute to this unique blog. I hope to prove worthy of her trust and to share something valuable with the people here. If nothing else, y’all can use me as a lab rat. 

    Have you noticed how psychopaths are everywhere at the moment? Fictional psychopaths that is; on television, at the movies, and in webseries. Take a moment; I’m sure you’ll come up with a few examples. If there is something we can all agree on, it’s that screen psychopaths are always the villains, right? And they come in two flavours, those magnificent bastards we love to hate (think Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker, Sherlock’s Jim Moriarty, that relentless and merciless assassin from No Country for Old Men) and the monsters that haunt your nightmares (Hannibal Lecter, Norman Bates, any slasher movie antagonist). These are two character types with which we are all familiar, so familiar in fact that when we think of psychopaths, these are the people who pop into our heads. They are the seen as the authentic onscreen representation of psychopaths. End of story?

    Well, no. The truth is Lecter, Moriarty et al are not very realistic depictions (even the slightly more normal real life murderers the likes of Hannibal were inspired by are one in a million in their savagery), and in terms of the full list of screen psychopaths, they are just the tip of the iceberg. You don’t have to tune into the Horror Channel to get your psychopath fix anymore. Neither do you need to confine yourselves to big budget action blockbusters about daring heroes foiling a psychopath’s plot for world domination or Law and Order-type procedural dramas. If you know what to look for, you will find psychopathic characters in many different screen productions, and not just in villain roles. There are realistic psychopathic protagonists, in more shows than you might think.

    These days, a myriad of films and television programmes features psychopathic characters that are not necessarily the heroes, but are certainly not the stereotyped supervillain or super-creep. We might consider half the cast of American Horror Story and many of the True Blood vampires to fall into this bracket. Cartoons are particularly noted for such characters; Eric Cartman, Roger the Alien, Bender the robot and Mr Burns are all psychopathic for our entertainment and are hilarious in doing so. These cartoon characters are even less realistic than the traditional screen psychopaths, but since they inhabit animated universes, their antics are meant to be outrageous and unbelievable.

    So far, we have mainly looked at characters that, despite being famous psychopaths in their own right, are little more than caricatures of what is a complex condition. Now, we are going to turn our attention to a different type of screen psychopath that couldn’t be more popular with the viewing public at the moment.
    Let’s look at some of the recent television phenomena that have been hailed as the big players of TV’s new ‘golden age’ against the backdrop of a fragmentation of traditional viewing habits and a creatively stagnating Hollywood. It is said to have all started with The Wire (a gritty crime show about the continued struggle between psychopathic criminals and psychopathic police officers) and Mad Men (a period drama whose protagonist is Don Draper, a psychopath). Then came Walter White psychopath-gets-cancer-and-becomes-a-meth-baron, in the smash hit Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones (where almost every character of importance exhibits strong psychopathic traits and the philosophy espoused by the show is one of cutthroat Machiavellianism) and most recently House of Cards, a thriller that is not only Game of Thrones for the real world but focusses on the exploits of the very sort of politician this blog campaigns against.

    What’s interesting about the psychopaths in these shows is they are:

    1. the protagonists with whom the viewer is supposed to identify and support;
    2. humanised in their personalities and realistic in their goals and behaviour;
    3. not acknowledged as psychopaths, either in-universe or by the shows’ creators.

    I won’t pretend this kind of character is new. JR Ewing, Tony Soprano and even James Bond (a character with whom I share more than just a first name and nationality, or so it would seem) were psychopathic protagonists long before it was ‘cool’. But they were outliers. The whole point is this type of character is everywhere now, and not only more popular than ever, but more popular than the myriad of non-psychopath characters. So there you have it, the main characters on the most watched television shows of our era are psychopaths, and you didn’t even know it.

    This fact begs the question… why? Psychopaths are clearly not popular in the real world. Among the most hated and feared groups of our society, perhaps only paedophiles and Nazis have a poorer reputation. Yet stick a psychopath on the screen, don’t tell anybody he’s a psychopath and watch the viewing figures soar. The suspiciously-minded among us (and anyone with some degree of intelligence should be suspicious; you should always question assumptions) may chalk the psychopath’s media ubiquity down to a deliberate attempt to normalise psychopathic behaviour; to push the psychopath agenda, if you like. It is certainly possible that all this TV exposure may have a slight normalising effect on public perception of psychopathy, but there are three good reasons to discount a conspiracy. Firstly, psychopaths are so inherently self-interested that the collaborative effort required by hundred or thousands of them to orchestrate such a conspiracy is unrealistic. Secondly, while the shows may not draw attention to the fact that they are populated by psychopaths, they certainly don’t treat the characters’ behaviour with moral indifference. These are meant to be controversial, amoral, exciting characters but there is no suggestion that viewers ought to emulate or idealise them or their behaviour. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, the simplest explanation for something is 9 times out of 10 the most likely. Therefore most likely explanation for the psychopath phenomenon is, I would posit, there is viewer demand for such characters. These characters are on our television screens, online and in the cinema because we enjoy them, not the other way around.

    This conclusion raises further questions, which I will not go into here but would be keen to tackle in a future post, if the admin would be so kind as to allow me back: just why are so many viewers entertained, thrilled, humoured by fictional psychopaths, and what is it about these characters with which people identify?

    For now, let’s wrap this mini-essay up with a prediction. That the ubiquity of psychopathic characters is a recent phenomenon suggests that there will be a point when they will fall out of favour. After all, a few years ago it was all about vampires, macho cops had had their day by the early 80s and near-future sci-fi utopias belong firmly in the 1960s. Nowadays it’s psychopaths that are in vogue. And zombies of course, thanks to AMC. So it seems reasonable to suggest that sooner or later the next big thing will come along and the psychopaths will crawl back to their traditional haunts of horror films and endless reruns of CSI.

    • James 01:45 on April 3, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Comments are welcomed and indeed encourage. I promise not to be a dick.

      Liked by 1 person

    • idodoyouride 11:59 on April 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Lol good


    • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 19:41 on April 24, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      The favorite characters in my real life are psychopaths as well. (And I watch lots of cartoons.) Actually, one psychopath I dated acted like Peter from Family Guy, only more obnoxious. I found that shit funny as hell. In fact, he had no redeeming qualities except that he made me laugh hysterically. Psychopaths make great entertainment.


    • Jay Jones 03:25 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Hi James. My name is Jay, I am also a psychopath and author on the subject, as you may be aware. I see you guys have quoted my blog, facebook group and quora writings. Also my friend Zhawq. Reading your articles was that familiar reflection we tend to get when reading the first hand account of another psychopath.

      My main reason for contacting you, is I am wondering why you are writing here? from what I can see, this site is set up against psychopaths. Anyway, if you are interested in working with a growing international network of psychopaths, spreading awareness and working together formutual benefit, drop me a line. Jay

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 03:58 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks Jay, for the ‘initiation’. I will check you guys out, at some point.

        Yes, this site is very much against psychopaths. I’m here to balance things out a bit. There’s nothing quite like preaching to a hostile crowd.

        Liked by 1 person

      • nowve666 13:37 on November 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Hi, Jay. I have been part of The Psychopathy Network for a few months. I like your picture and introductory remarks at the top of this section (of Facebook). I wish you were more present in the group. A lot of folks miss you but don’t want to say where you are. I have links to your blog from my blog https://kiasherosjourney.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/hello-world/ and my web site http://www.kiasherosjourney.com.


    • Amaterasu Solar 08:53 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Perhaps the reason for psychopaths is that Their behavior choices are so good for creating controversy in a story line. Take out the psychopaths and the story becomes quite dull. EveryOne agreeing, cooperating, caring. Nice to watch, for non-psychopaths perhaps, for a few moments, but not going anywhere really. About the only thing that can create controversy other than a psychopath (Human, robot, ET, spirit, whatever) is a natural catastrophe, and even then, add a psychopath and the situation turns more interesting.

      Personally, I don’t fear psychopaths, feeling a great deal of sadness that They are denied the experience of love. I wouldn’t believe I can change a One of Them, though My heart would truly want to try. The best I can hope for is mutual… Not respect, because I don’t expect that from Them. Mutual wariness, perhaps. [smile]

      Interesting that in the article You state that conspiracy is out of the question with psychopaths, and yet… Here We see one psychopath offering You an invite to… A network of psychopaths working together.

      Hmmmm. What can We take away from that?

      And truly, James, I am not hostile at all. I am interested in Your perspective in hopes of finding a way to sell psychopaths on the abundance paradigm. Because if I can, I’m likely to go further faster with My work. In fact, would You look at the opening post here and let Me know if there is anything You like about it?


      I thank You for considering accommodating My request. [smile]

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 09:09 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, of course I will. Not right now though. If I haven’t commented in a few days, feel free to give me a nudge 🙂

        As far as I can see, anyone is free to join Jay’s group, not just psychopaths, so if there is any conspiracy, it is on public display. Why don’t you go and see for yourself?

        On the contrary, I can and do respect some others. Perhaps not in the same way as you respect people, but I would certainly call it respect. I am not at all wary of you, in case you were wondering 😉

        Finally, to your comment on my article (I appear to be working backwards here!), very good remarks, though I think you’ve missed one crucial point. Psychopaths are not the only people capable of creating drama. Neurotypicals can lie, steal, cheat, murder, rape etc… with the best of them, just perhaps not as much as psychopaths. Don’t pretend that all you guys do all day is sit around agreeing and loving! And normal people suffer moral crises, remorse, worries and all that jazz, which add an extra dimension to the drama than just remorseless ‘evil’.

        I’m not sure when I’m going to return to this topic and write part 2, but it will happen at some point.


        • Amaterasu Solar 09:18 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          No rush.

          I may join, but My time is a bit thin. I’m active on many sites already, but this may pique My motivation enough. [smile]

          I never said You could not feel respect. I said I don’t expect that ability from a psychopath.

          I never suggested that non-psychopaths never created controversy. But psychopaths do create the most interesting controversy, and in a story, the more interesting the more sales, n’est pas? Ergo the inclusion in high quantities of psychopaths in Our entertainment media.

          Hope to see You soon. [smile]

          Liked by 1 person

          • James 10:03 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            “I never said You could not feel respect. I said I don’t expect that ability from a psychopath.” Very true. I appreciate pedantry, as you will see in a moment.

            “I never suggested that non-psychopaths never created controversy.” I think you did: “Take out the psychopaths and the story becomes quite dull. EveryOne agreeing, cooperating, caring.” Ergo there is no drama without psychopaths. It’s okay to change your mind, but don’t pretend that’s what you were saying all along. That’s the kind of trick I use…

            “N’est-ce pas ?” Don’t talk to me in French if you don’t know your demonstrative pronouns! D’accord ? 😀

            Liked by 1 person

            • Amaterasu Solar 10:47 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              Fair enough. I agree I was not clear on what I was trying to say and it did seem to imply no drama.

              As for the French… I’ll speak it – well or poorly – as I see fit. [grin] I like “foreign” languages and wish I retained what I learned of all the ones I studied way back when.

              Liked by 1 person

              • James 11:10 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                Donc, tu parles quelles autres langues, alors ? Moi aussi, j’aime bien les langues comme toi; je m’intéresse en turc, gallois, italien, russe, allemand, latin… mais la seule autre que je sais parler est l’espagnol.

                There’s always Google if you don’t understand everything 😀

                Liked by 1 person

      • James 18:22 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Of course I like the idea of being completely free, though I wouldn’t like to be constrained by those ethics 🙂

        I’m not clear on the mechanics of the abundance paradigm. How does it work?

        Would it be untrue of me to call you a Marxist?


        • Amaterasu Solar 18:39 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          Basically, We stop accounting for energy. That is all money is: an accounting device for Our energy added. We build robots, open-source, for all necessary work no One wants to do. If there are enough People, no robots needed. Most of today’s jobs are non-productive and serve only to keep the bulk of the wealth on this planet flowing to very few. They are all unneeded jobs. Cashiers, sales, accounting, marketing, advertising, insurance, Wall Street, actuarial, and, of course, all of banking.

          We only need about 10% of Us doing the work of ensuring supply meets demand.

          I am an Abudancist. A Marxist will expect energy input from all able bodies – which makes sense in an energy-scarce society. With free energy and robots, We won’t have to force, coerce, or bribe (“pay”) People to do work that needs to be done.

          Also, so far, in applied Marxism, there has been a top-down control mechanism – a central body making choices for the rest. This “inner party” has the privileges of “elite,” while the rest bead the brunt.

          In Abundancism, there is no controlmind, with bottom-up stigmergic governance via the web, solving problems within Ethics, not passing “laws.”

          As far as Ethics goes, there is little motive to break the three Laws in The Abundance Paradigm (TAP), even for a psychopath, unless the psychopath is just thrilled to be a dick. In which case, They lose social currency.

          For more, the foundational writings are here:



          • James 18:48 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Interesting. So let’s take one example. How do I feed myself? (i.e. where does the food come from, how do I ensure it gets it get to my plate?)


            • Amaterasu Solar 19:12 on May 9, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              Starting with the presumption that We have built the robots and the system is up and running, You go to the web and type in, say, lettuces. Up comes a list of all the lettuces available, both from robotic and Human operated farms. You make Your selection and it is delivered either by robot, or less likely, a Human whose life ambition is to deliver things.

              Or You could have a robot keep You stocked with staples, and You ask it to order You what You want above and beyond those, if You love to do the cooking Yourself.

              Or… You could choose to farm Your own, if You’re so inclined.

              Or pick up what a local farmer’s cornucopia offers, where Us Humans who love to farm can show off proudly what We have coaxed from the soils of Our planet, and give it to Humans who appreciate Our labors of love. Will guess few psychopaths will be pursuing farming, but… Who knows?

              Or You could create menus and leave it up to the robots to do the shopping and cooking. And serving at Your banquet table, if that’s Your style.

              Or You could go out to eat at the many places, where People who LOVE to cook for Others, where They offer Their gourmet fare. You may need reservations if They are particularly popular.

              Or possible approaches I can’t think of. What won’t happen is things like living off 1-2 meals a day because One has no transportation and must rely on busy friends, and so gets to the store once a month with $194 in food stamps.

              Unless One is fond of living like that, in which case, One can knock Oneself out. For Me, personally, it’s seriously outside My comfort zone.

              Did I answer Your question? Anything I can clarify?


    • Jay Jones 04:50 on May 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Good to see you out there fighting for our cause. Be good to see you link up with us, together we can do great things. Our time is coming. Cheers mate


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: