Law #5 - SO MUCH DEPENDS ON REPUTATION - Sociopathic, or not?

Wrong again. I have an earned understanding of what makes sociopaths tick. It didn't come naturally at all. I was once completely blind to sociopaths, because their way of thinking was completely alien to me. It was only through many bad experiences with them, and a natural curiosity about things I didn't understand (like those bad experiences), that led me to research and study sociopaths. I currently have about 10 years of constant research into sociopaths, all well documented on the Internet in my blogs and forum posts. It is a passion of mine now, and rightfully so, as I have come to realize that nearly all the evil in the human world comes from sociopaths. And I see that there is, for the first time in history, a way to correct that, which I find pretty exciting.

You are very mistaken here, Zook. Law of Sociopaths #5, which we are discussing in this thread, argues against your bogus claim. Your life's mission appears to be overturning my assessment of you as a sociopath. You have spent a couple of years doing this. You are literally defending your constructed reputation with your life.

Poor Zook. You just can't see it, so you rationalize it to your benefit. You followed me over here. You would never have come here otherwise.

Do you remember that AndyWight, after I exposed him as a sociopath, did this very same thing?! He followed me over to the Quark forum and became a prolific poster there, and nearly all of his posts were directed at slandering me! I posted about this at UP, remember? The archives hold it, dear Zook, but I bet you remember it. And now you are following in Andy's sociopathic footsteps by repeating the same behaviors for the same reasons. Coincidence? Not in my estimation. It's how sociopaths behave.

 

Suffice to say, the reputation of empaths and sociopaths are both earned. I earned mine. You are earning yours.

Of course, you view the world predominantly through sociopathic filters, which is why you are comfortable lecturing about the maintenance of reputations by sociopaths. You have a natural understanding of the things that makes you tick, and you want to tell the adults all about it. Good boy, Johnny ... now here's a quarter, go get yourself a haircut and an ice cream.


Pax

ps: I came to Rose's forum to protect my reputation against your unsolicited opinions against it - as any empath would. Reputations are even more important to empaths than they are to sociopaths, the latter using and discarding reputations like counterfeit identity cards.

ps2: Rose gave invitation on United People to anyone interested in discussing the topic, a second reason for my coming here. There is no third reason; your paranoia doesn't count as a reason.

 

Are you insane?

As a sociopath, one of the morally insane, it's clear why you are trying to protect your reputation. The reputation of a sociopath is constructed through an endless series of deceptions and manipulations. It is a false front, a mask, a charade, an illusion to best serve the sociopath's pursuit of power and control over others. Without that reputation, the sociopath stands naked, exposed, unmasked, readily visible as the deceiver and manipulator that he truly is. This happened to you over at United People, Zook, where you were thoroughly exposed over and over again, and I think you will find it will happen again here, if it hasn't already happened. I don't think you're fooling anyone, Zook, try as you might. I could be wrong, of course, but this forum is fresh from shaking off another accomplished sociopath by the name of Charles/Atticus/Stephen/Houdini, and I don't think they are going to let you fill the void Houdini left behind. In fact, I don't think they need that void filled ever again.

You only came over here in a desperate attempt to recover your tattered reputation by slandering me. Everyone here is aware of your motivations, Zook. You're doing the same thing here that you did at UP, but you are expecting a different result. What was it that Einstein supposedly said?

 

One must still protect one's reputation from those who would rumor it into the ground. The noise of the mob is decibels louder than the voice of reason. It is unwise to ignore the state of the environment that the self finds itself in at any given time. Alone in the arctic, one must heed the call of the wild or be bitten by it. Alone in the bedroom, one must still be ready to meet extreme weather conditions outside that may exact a price, e.g. electrical outages and/or worse.

The proverbs of the beached ostrich, the boiling frog, and the three monkeys (of nada sight, nein sound, and zilch speech) ... are wisdoms gained from time immemorial.

Reputation is earned over a lifetime of years ... and can be destroyed with dire consequences in days, weeks, and short months. There's a movie with Audrey Hepburn, James Garner, and Shirley MacClaine ... about two schoolteachers rumored to be lesbians. If anyone still thinks that reputation should be abandoned to the mob, then perhaps they should watch it. Here's a trailer for The Children's Hour:



Pax

ps: It is prudent to attack the attackers of one's reputation. One can counterattack by radiating in positive example (to positive rumors) and in counterexample (to negative rumors).

ps2: Sometimes, radiation is not enough, in which case one must be willing to confront the negative rumors (and too, the positive rumors) when either rumor is false. Accepting unmerited/false praise is sociopathic, IMO, and accepting unmerited/false detraction is cowardly. That said, ignoring attacks on one's character is a form of acknowledgment of the casus belli. IMO.

ps3: Chico's recommendation of living by example is a major part of the solution, but not the complete solution.

ps4: The moment a porqueepine abandons its quills ... is the moment the cougar receives a new item on its menu. As it were.

 

Law of Truth # 5 -- Don't waste time and energy trying to build a reputation.

Your reputation is a natural consequence of your actions, just like your shadow is a natural consequence of your form. You don't worry about what your shadow looks like, do you? Instead, you concentrate on your form. Likewise, you shouldn't worry about your reputation. Concentrate on your actions, on doing the right thing. Your reputation will take care of itself without any effort on your part.

 

Not at the top levels of human hierarchy. That is the domain of the organized sociopaths, the private club "for sociopaths only", and the secret society. That's where these laws are coming from, Zook, not from your "freelance" sociopath at the bottom of the totem pole.

No, this is not true. The context is critical and has to be understood. It's not about "Greene's power agenda". It's about where these laws come from, whose laws they are, and why they work for the people who use them.

No, they lose their meaning when the context is removed. It is precisely when you isolate them from their context that it becomes silly to have a poll on each law.

Then why do you follow me from forum to forum? Why do you keep coming back to UP despite suspension after suspension?

How can there be "justice" when you claim you have no nemesis? You contradict yourself, as usual. Or rather, you expose yourself, as usual.

 

Most sociopaths exist without congregation. Most sociopaths are freelancers. GreeneLaw#5 is sociopathic only because the narrative of the 48 laws are sociopathic. Isolated from this context, GreeneLaw#5 can be either empathic or sociopathic, depending on additional variables. So if we both agree that the overall narrative is sociopathic, your phony opinion of my analysis is irrelevant. Analysis of each of the 48 laws, as Rose correctly points out, is only meaningful if we study each of the laws by themselves, e.g. isolated from Greene's power agenda. It is silly to have a poll on the possible sociopathy of each of the 48 individual laws if we don't first isolate them from the overall narrative of sociopathy. If we don't isolate, then all 48 laws are burdened by the larger narrative and are necessarily sociopathic. Are you up to speed yet?

I have no nemesis, Chico. Nemesis implies that you are capable of staying within the bounds of honest and rational debate. As you've consistently shown an inability in this regard, I view you not as a nemesis, but with pity and contempt.

You are being disassembled over your own statements and arguments. I call that poetic justice.

Pax

 

Your bogus analysis conveniently overlooks the fact that the 48 laws were distilled from studying the behaviors of leaders near the top of the human hierarchy. This is precisely where sociopaths congregate. It's not a question of who the laws are targeted to. It's a question of where they are derived from. That is the context behind all 48 laws, and that context is sociopathic.

Your argument, as always, is deceptive and manipulative. It is pursued with the intent of gaining power and control over your nemesis, Chicodoodoo, and any who would listen to him. Can you not see that you are behaving like a sociopath? Every post you make reveals your sociopathy. You can't help but expose yourself, when we know what to look for. In a word, you are a sociopath.

 

If one limits the target audience that Greene is trying to reach, to sociopaths alone, then yes, the above law sociopathic. And perhaps Greene is only limiting his target audience. But if he is also trying to reach the middle natures between sociopathy and empathy, then the law is also meant to appeal to average-natured empaths (on the sociopath-empath continuum axis). If above-average empaths are excluded from Greene's target audience ... then we still have all of the sociopathic side of the normal distribution of psychological natures plus one standard deviation on the empathic side as the target audience. And that's about 84% of the population.




In short, the law is meant to appeal to 34.1% of the empathic populations in addition to all the sociopathic populations. This 34% will not necessarily view GreeneLaw#5 as sociopathic because their own natures *also* see reputation as being sacrosanct for their integrity.

In the end, only the above-average sociopaths will have an implicit understanding that GreeneLaw#5 is sociopathic because their natures will perceive the marketing/manipulating aspects of reputation; the average sociopaths will perceive both the marketing/manipulating aspects as well as the lead by example aspects of reputation; ditto for the average empaths; finally, the above average empaths will perceive the lead by example aspects of reputation and in doing so, will not consider GreeneLaw#5 to be sociopathic.

Interesting that you would perceive the law to be sociopathic, Chico, as opposed to being both sociopathic and empathic (as the middle natures perceive it) ... or being exclusively empathic as the above-average empaths perceive it. Your understanding of GreeneLaw#5 matches best with the understanding of the above-average sociopath, who recognizes the advantage of marketing/manipulation as opposed to the goodness of leading by example.

That is not to say that you're a sociopath, necessarily, Chico ... you could be thinking like a sociopath merely for the benefit of discussion ... you know, playing Beelzebub's advocate, that sorta thing. Indeed, 68% of the population are average and consider GreeneLaw#5 with both sociopathic and empathic filters. Perhaps you just haven't chimed in with your empathic fllter (e.g. reputation earned while leading by example) because you recognize that the 48 GreeneLaws combined were stitched together with sociopathic intent in mind?

That said, you have called me a sociopath time and again for your own marketing/manipulating advantage ... but I have not called you a sociopath (except perhaps once or twice out of reactive anger to your mischief). But I make no scientific claim of finding sociopathy in you. IOW, I'm resisting advantage (gained by calling you a sociopath) because I cannot prove that you are a bad seed ... who knows, maybe you're just one of the confused middling natures that has empathic potential and can be habilitated towards empathy? Maybe not? I do not know or claim to know.

By contrast, you claim to have science (almost to the level of doctoral dissertation) behind your determination that Zook is a sociopath. It is then my duty to expose you as a charlatan for malpractice. A malpracticing doctor of psychology (certified by the matchbook college called Google) ... is a menace to society, you will agree?

Pax

 

Because the reputation of a sociopath is a false representation of the sociopath's true nature, it is critical that it be maintained, otherwise the sociopath is exposed. An exposed sociopath cannot deceive and manipulate effectively and therefore loses all power and control. The pursuit of power and control over others is the foundation of a sociopath's existence. This means the sociopath must guard his reputation with his life, because his life as a trickster depends on it!

The non-sociopath has no such need. He can be himself, and his reputation will take care of itself.

 

While the fifth law is not sociopathic - and I feel funny calling these things laws - the intent and the larger narrative of seeking power through deception is indeed sociopathic.

The fifth might just be a carrot throne to the rabbits to keep them munching on the topic .... so that they do not summarily dismiss the rest of the book and disrupt book sales. IMO.

We need more honesty in this world ... whereas Greene prescribes more cunning in the 48 Laws. Just because a law here and there is written that appeals to empaths (e.g. the importance of reputation) does not mitigate teh sociopathic nature of Greene's intent.

Indeed, while the empath views the fifth as common sense (e.g. reputation earned by setting a good example for society) ... a sociopath would view the fifth as image over substance (e.g. Andre Agassi-style self-promotion for filty lucre).

So all in all, it is the larger narrative that is more important than any of the elements in it. IMO.


Pax