Deception

What if I told you my name is not Chicodoodoo, and that's not my picture next to this post? What would you think of me then?

Well, that is indeed my picture. I took it myself. And my name is Chicodoodoo, at least on the forums. That is NOT my birth name, hard as it may be to believe. My birth name was William, but that is not a name I chose. Chicodoodoo is. I chose it because of some humor I created about a Norwegian trying to speak Spanish with a thick Norwegian accent. It was a silly joke that privately amused me, and when I ran through the routine for others, they were amused too. I also identified with the Johnny Cash song "A Boy Named Sue", because I grew up with a different name that I was teased a lot about by my peers. Chicodoodoo is such a silly name that I knew people wouldn't take me seriously on the forums, which is what I wanted. I would have to work extra hard to overcome the prejudice my name would initially invoke, and I understood the value of that. Adversity builds character.

Most of you are not using your real names here either. It is accepted practice on the forums to use whatever name you want, and whatever image you want to represent you. In effect, those are just identifiers, as we understand we will become known for our opinions, ideas, arguments, and beliefs. So the fake names we use here are not a deception.

Or are they...

It can be argued that they are a deception. As humans, we often justify our deceptions. For example, every criminal can justify his crime. But are the justifications valid? Or are they just more deception? I just gave you a justification for why I chose to be known as Chicodoodoo on the forums. Am I telling the truth? Or am I deceiving you?

This forum has had a sociopath as a prominent and charismatic member for almost a year. As a result, the members of this forum have been subjected to a constant barrage of deception for a sustained period of time. What effect has all that deception had on the members? What effect do you think it has had on you?

 

Oh please, I'll do much better than that! ^_~

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the defense rests.

 

Plausible deniability? The only "interruptions" you have had of late came from me in your Metaphysics thread. Do you not remember dismissing me with:

If the Charles you are referring to is Charles/Atticus/Stephen/Houdini, he was removed from InPhiNet a number of weeks back and has not been able to interrupt you. If I am in error, please point out these interruptions to me.

Nothing but ad hominem attacks. This has been your approach to being exposed by me from the very beginning. The rest of your post is more of the same -- attacking the messenger while ignoring the message. This is the classic reaction of a sociopath when challenged. You turn the whole thing around so it becomes all about my character. Again, this is classic sociopathic behavior. Sociopaths accuse their opponents of their own malfeasance. Bill Clinton does this. Charles/Atticus/Stephen/Houdini does this. AndyWight does this. And, surprise surprise, Shezbeth does this. Constantly.

You are such a game-player (like a sociopath). Your ego is so reactive when challenged (like a sociopath). You think you are so clever, superior to everyone else (like a sociopath). You think that by discrediting me personally, my observations about you are discredited (like a sociopath).

The more you post, the more you confirm my assessment of you being a sociopath. You expose yourself. Your second strategy (after ad hominems) is to imply that I am the sociopath! This is the normal progression. Nearly every sociopath I have exposed has done this. Again, you are accusing your opponent of your own malfeasance. It is so telling as to who the real sociopath is.

And notice that I don't treat you to ad hominems. I also have no objections to you calling me a sociopath. I believe that if I were a sociopath, everyone should know. It would be in their best interests to know. Would you feel the same about having everyone know that you are a sociopath? Of course not, because you are one, and sociopaths have to keep that hidden to be effective at deceiving (lying, remember?) and manipulating others.

I pity you, I really do. If I could give you empathy and change your psychology, I would do it in a heartbeat. But the ugly reality is that we are stuck with sociopaths. They need to be managed, similarly to how we manage people who can't see well and want to drive a vehicle on public roads. If their vision can't be corrected, we don't allow them to drive! If sociopaths can't feel empathy, we don't allow them to have power and control over others! But throughout human history, we have yet to do this. We have the tools to do it today, but we are not allowed to use them. Who stops us? Sociopaths.

 

smmile2

Oh you,.... No, I was referring to Charles' interruptions, but your self-centeredness is quite telling. That I have any assistance at all is due to A. having a sense of decorum (you might look into that) and B. having a sense of propriety when operating in someone else's domain (again,...); oh and C. because you're behaving like a petulant child which seems apparent to everyone except you.

I'll admit though, you have slightly better manners (but ONLY slightly).

It was rather funny to me how you pointed out how 'sociopaths tend to out themselves', because isn't that precisely what you did when you began here? Something about 'according to some' that you are a sociopath?

Strange, I would think one who vehemently denies being a sociopath would have a bit more etiquette when bandying around such terms,... but apparently you have far more lessons to learn than I initially anticipated.

Make no mistake, I don't think you're a sociopath. For one, sociopaths tend to be effective; for two, sociopaths are far more concerned with the potential gains and/or losses, which you seem quite oblivious to. If anything your behavior is far more consistent with NPD than sociopathy,... but if I'm anywhere near the mark I can rightly assume that you'll neither listen to reason nor relent even when the evidence presented is overwhelming.

And, I'm not convicted in the perception of disorderly narcissism, just that that seems the most probable scenario (self-destructive behavior, overblown sense of entitlement/authority). If you (or anyone) are interested in the laundry list, I'll be happy to furnish.

The irony is that the one accusing me of acting like Charles is in fact, acting like Charles; psychological transference is also classic amongst narcissists.

"Caught me lying"? Jesus, this guy's beyond the pale!

 

Yes, I've been warned (again). I understood the threat the first time. Stephen used to do the same things. He wanted people to be afraid of him.

I saw in "The Watchtower" on the forum today that you are going to be sanitizing your Metaphysics thread where I caught you lying without any shame, because you don't like 'interruptions'. Very ninja of you to erase any evidence of your sneaky attempts at manipulation. You certainly don't disappoint, do you, Shezbeth. I'm really surprised that you are getting any cooperation with this. You are better at manipulation than I thought. Nice work.

 

And yet, I see no admission on your part that while you detest my methods (which you're well entitled to), there is the underlying fact that by openly promoting and asserting these methods (publicizing), legitimate sociopaths stand to lose.

I don't know about you, but I've subjected myself to several psychological tests and know precisely where I stand (from a clinical standpoint) on the spectrum. So, no matter how you (or others, who - of course - have no bias or hidden agendas/motivators ) may rail against me, I know both subjectively AND objectively where I stand. I reiterate the point of my PM; I'm not your opponent, but I WILL be if you maintain your opposition.

To that end, I wonder what it is that makes this issue such an issue that you would deliberately engage in a self-destructive practice. I could speculate, as you are not the only one who has read/watched/sourced numerous works by a variety of psychologists, but I'll reserve those for later (or not at all, should you decide to choose your battles).

Also realize who in this scenario is rattling sabres and presenting themselves as the 'hero', and who is going through great pains to try and maintain a civil discourse (not to mention maintain the current flow of the forum).

Your move.

P.S. Also note that a sociopath in the truest sense of the word would neither investigate whether they were a sociopath, nor would submit honestly to any questionnaire if otherwise coerced. Simply put: stop deliberately engaging in friendly fire,... unless of course there's something you're trying to hide by your idealistic stance,....

 

Thank you, Shezbeth, for refreshing my memory (in your private message). I went back and read the Avalon thread where you said we had tangled before, and even with those posts in front of me, I didn't remember you. It was quite interesting reading the thread, however. The first thing I noticed is how so many of the participants in that thread were "deactivated/unsubscribed/retired/etc." from Avalon. The second thing I noticed is how members of Avalon that I respected at the time (there weren't many, but I do remember them) quickly picked up on your sociopathic tendencies, just from your posts! Pretty fascinating stuff. At that time, I still wasn't quite aware of how sociopaths always reveal themselves, if you know what to look for. Now that I am aware of it, it was useful to see it confirmed in this old thread using my new eyes.

 

<cracks his knuckles>

Since you are so want to foist the blame for,... whatever it is you are clearly still bent about, and neglect to recognize the manner in which you - perhaps nesciently (I doubt it) - participate in games, disingenuity, and falseness, I'll take the liberty of spelling it out for you.

First of all, the whole 'pick the person's position apart piece by piece and interrogate them with it, often out of context' method is a most useful tactic which I have used at length on many occasions,... such as the Avalon thread from which you first took a disliking to me. It IS a rather juvenile tactic however, and I hope you grow out of it, as it tends to exhaust one's audience rather than one's opponent. Still, you're welcome to continue if you prefer.

But then, I don't expect it to take,... it certainly didn't last time you rallied the torches and pitchforks to up-end the heinous evil that I represent,... but do try, try again. I hope you've improved your game since last we crossed swords, because you weren't much of a challenge then,....

ppppiiirrraaatttee

 

<hands Chico a cape and a crusader's shield>

Here, you seem to need these.

 

You're a little late admitting Stephen was a sociopath. I would bet you knew earlier than most. Kind of like being a little late admitting to being a "duplicitous" liar, but knowing earlier than most.

And now you want to argue that we should not "fixate" on Stephen. It's a "disservice" to ourselves to "fixate" on him. In other words, there's no need to learn any lessons from this episode, from this liar and manipulator. There's nothing to see here folks. Move along...

No need to mill about the crime scene. No need to examine the evidence. No need to figure out what happened. No need to castigate the perpetrator. No need to pursue justice. Move along now...

Good idea. Let's just dismiss it. It was just "tomfoolery". Kind of like "It's just lying. No big deal. Everyone lies."

No, please don't spare us. I would really like to hear your methods for combating sociopaths. I consider such information to be quite important.

Give me a break! When was Stephen EVER at a loss of having something to rant about?

We can't forget how important it is to sweep this under the rug and "move on".

You can't help that. That's reality. Best to share it in all its detail to help others from falling into the same mess, no?

Obviously not. But I can see why you would want it that way.

 

Oh WOW Chico, you're just as right as you've ALWAYS been! smmile2

Moving on,....

 

We are in very close agreement then, at least up until your very last assertion. It is not irrelevant. It is key.

Your logic is consistent with your conclusion: "whether others are liars as I claim - or not - is irrelevant." But that is because it is not really a conclusion, but a pre-chosen premise to justify your beliefs. You have simply worked backwards to "prove" your premise, which is clearly faulty.

You see, whether others are liars, as you claim, or not, lies at the root of both moral judgment and critiquing. I think you know this, but you don't like it, which is why you make the "Everyone lies" argument. Morality is actually based on the bell curve of empathy within a population. Morality will be defined by the empathy levels of the bulk of the population, meaning those within about one standard deviation of the mean on the bell curve. Those outside that range will not agree with that definition of morality, and they will make clever but flawed arguments to justify their positions.

And you saw this coming! You anticipated the entire chess game, based only on the first couple of moves, played it through in your head, imagined your 'win', and then 'threw' the game. Exactly as you described. I am duly impressed. Good game.

Not only did you impress me, but I also impressed myself. I picked the right opponent. Interesting... that was quicker than the others.

 

Good point, Rose. Everyone has the choice to steer their attention where they wish. I like that. Freedom of choice. That's a good restart for the forum.

Some people minimize lying and maximize speaking truth. Others do the opposite. Many more are either unaware or mistaken about whether they are lying or speaking the truth with any given utterance.

The above is more useful information than "Everyone lies."

And the above quote is a lie, especially if it's true.

I have a second "friend" who is a sociopath. He often makes this same argument. "If something is only 99.9% true, then it's a lie. Truth is always 100% true." Now why would he think this way? Is it to justify his affinity for deception, by essentially implying that we are all liars?

WIIW (What Is It Worth?) Fortunately, in this case, it will be clearly revealed.

First the bad news: It was a wanton lie, made with no shame.
Now the good news: The perpetrator at least takes latent responsibility for the lie.

This is a very suspicious statement. I have played enough games of chess to know without a doubt that the game is not 'won' until a checkmate occurs. Winning is not in the player's imagination; it is on the board. I can recall memorable games, as both the winner and the loser, that turned around so unexpectedly that both players were simply astounded. As well, no serious chess player "throws" games. This is the equivalent of lying shamelessly like a sociopath. It is dishonest, reprehensible, and repulsive, at least to the majority of chess players I have ever encountered, because it is a deception. And if you don't care whether your opponent knows you've 'won' when you've simply imagined you've won, then your arrogance is strong while your empathy is weak.

Now, I suspect at this point many are jumping to heated conclusions and are ready to lynch me. The reason I bring this real-life example up is in answer to my previous question about how long-term exposure to a constantly lying sociopath, like Stephen, affects others. Would they become more distrusting? Would they be more prone to lie? Would they be less likely to feel ashamed about lying? Would they feel their lies were justified? Would they be ethically confused? Would they imitate the sociopath's usual demeanor, displaying much arrogance and little empathy?

I think the answer to these questions could very well be "Yes", and I have just provided some evidence for that.

 

Now that its private, I don't mind piping in.

Charles is a sociopath, there is no doubt about it. Having said, I find that fixating on him and his behavior does a disservice to the site. For one, it presents the idea that participants haven't moved on, which I find to be contrary to the evidence. I don't mind poking fun at him and otherwise being dismissive of his tomfoolery, but is it possible that there is a line?

I'm not opposed to discussing sociopaths in general, nor the methods to combat them (I think my position on that is readily apparent, so I'll spare that), but there's a phrase: "No such thing as bad publicity", especially where he is concerned. Should visitors come here and see lengthy dissertations, that might unintentionally cause the following:

1. It gives HIM something to rant about - and therefore promote (in a manner of speaking) - himself, as well as the opportunity (and a potentially increased audience) to engage in all manner of slander, obfuscation, and self-promotion. We all know he likes to spin things, and let's face it; his Cockney Translator thread was UNQUESTIONABLY the most popular on the site as far as views and such.
2. It gives the impression that participants haven't moved on from the situation, which I find is contrary to the reality. (Edit: I realize this is redundant from the thesis, but whatever)
3. It maintains the 'In the aftermath of Charles' perception which I assume (perhaps errantly) that some in the 'audience' might have of this site.

There are more, but those are the three big ones.

In short, the horse is dead IMO.

 

As do I, because that's not what I'm saying. The constant barrage of deception was coming from Stephen. He is the source. You even provide more examples of this in your reply: ("Don't you own the domain?" He said, Yes I do. I said, No you don't.) I did not mean to imply that this forum, or its threads, or its posts, are all or mostly deception. I am not condemning the forum or its information, most of which I haven't read. I do profess a revulsion to reading "prose" written by Stephen, but that is a function of my own personal taste as well as past exposure to Stephen's diseased thinking and over-the-top antics.

With this thread, I am really just starting a closer examination of the human practice of deception. My OP was just a lead-in inspired by the subject matter that I meant to start with but have elected to delay for better development. As you know, deception is an integral and pervasive part of sociopathic behavior, but it is also an integral and frequent part of normal behavior. However, there is a significant difference of degree and quality. I started off by using myself as an example. How much deception did I bring to this forum just by joining? If you ask me, I would not hesitate to say "None." You might say "Not much." Uncle Zook would say "Quite a bit." Ask Stephen how much deception I bring to this forum, and be prepared for a non-stop tirade! Obviously, we can't all be right.

Ah, now that is an eye-opener that I was not aware of. As you might guess, discussion is precisely what threads and forums are for, in my opinion. Once again, we see Stephen's intention to limit free discussion. Sociopaths are all wannabe dictators, which is a natural consequence of their pursuit of power and control over others.

Yes, Heaven forbid that we be separated from our holy man. That has Stephen's signature all over it.

Ah. Might there be any hypocrisy in that agreement? Most forums are deception, but not this one? That sounds like Avalon speaking.

That's a highly subjective criterium easily corrupted for purposes of control. Again we see Stephen's signature all over that one, or at least I do.

Amazing. The examples of Stephen pursuing power and control over others just don't stop coming.

And everyone knew they were being manipulated and just tolerated it for the educational experience? Hmm...

Rose, your historical narrative of what went on here is an incredible gold mine of examples illustrating Stephen's sociopathic behavior. As a result, I'm really enjoying being here. However, it occurs to me just now that talking openly about this, as I am prone to do, could easily make some members here very uncomfortable with my presence. That in turn could come back to bite you in the hindquarters. Unlike me, you are familiar with your members, and you may wish to do a private, informal survey to determine if I might be a distasteful tonic. I am so used to talking frankly about taboo subjects that I may have lost my value to the rank and file member. As I mentioned to you, I want to see your forum succeed, but will I facilitate that, or hinder it? A little reflection might be in order here, by everyone.