Sociopaths / Psychopaths

When the media uses imaginary Hollywood characters like Sherlock Holmes to illustrate the differences, big red flags should go up. I don't buy this distinction at all. I think it is just sociopaths trying to re-brand their disease once again to make them look like Hollywood hero Sherlock.

Clever bastards, I'll give them that.

 

You are a master of slander, Zook, as you clearly demonstrate. And as always, no evidence. Just slander. Just twisted stories and your holier-than-thou BS opinion.

This is a side of you we don't get to see very often, as you keep it well hidden. We know what kind of psychology is behind this. It's the same psychology you project onto your opponents (me in this case) as you behave in the characteristic manner of the sociopath -- accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance.

Like I often point out (without slander), you expose yourself with every post. You can't help it.

 

Quite sane, actually. And observant.

Your demands as per forum management (e.g. moving posts and threads around to clean up the joint, as it were) ... are irrational. If an administrator of a forum (pick a forum, any forum) decides to clean up their forum, you're ready to inject all kinds of innuendo against that administrator or against that forum. Innuendo about censorship, tyranny; secrecy, etc. Your track record is legendary in this regard. You broadbrush every communication space with the same black tar, no clear varnish. You are antisocial (e.g. probably a function of your conditioned sociopathy). You're confrontational beyond repair. You make false allegiances (United People is rife with your many hitches and unhitches of friendship as suits purpose). You prevaricate, obfuscate, confuse, seek uncertainty, provoke bad behaviors in others, etc. And you project your conditioned sociopathic behaviors onto others.

The metaphor of the dining room with the implied ridiculousness of having toilets replace the dining chairs ... matches your posturing against the janitorial functions of Inphinet forums ... which seeks to keep eating and wasting functions separate. If you had your druthers, Chico, you would remove all walls between the diningroom and the kitchen ... and, too, the dining room and the bathroom ... because you have decided that all walls are weapons of secrecy and sinister intent.

From the Great Wall of China ... to the electronic walls in forums ... to the psychological walls of silence .... walls ... walls ... walls. A curiosity cat like yourself cannot live happily while there exist compartments of privacy, however, innocuous. In your birdbrain philosophy of openness to the nth degree, you have lost the meaning of container. Things exist to be contained. And Chico exists to break containers. You were born with misaligned purpose, Chico. Breaking those containers that give sanctuary to the oppressors is laudable. Breaking containers for the purpose of breaking containers is laughable ... a fool's okkupation, an irrational pre-okkupation, and an insight into the minds of peeping toms.

You are the very troll that David Sweeney and his 25 observations of said trolls (that you linked to in another thread) warns us about. We need not wonder why you linked to Sweeney's observations; for you are a congenital projectionist. You pretend to expose trolls because you yourself are a fifth column troll, and projecting your behavior unto others is not unlike wearing sheepskin over lupine ambitions. And you pretend to expose sociopaths because you yourself are a conditioned sociopath, and projecting your sociopathic tendencies unto others is sheepskin covering wolfskin deja vu once more all over again in a second helping of can't help yourself.


Pax

 

Are you insane?

 

Chico argues like he wouldn't mind knocking down the dividing wall between the dining room and the dumping room. If he had his druthers, five gets you ten that he replaces the seats at the dining table with toilets. More efficient that way. Food processing using a fixed organic grinder (as opposed to the portable one to be carried from room to room). Pile it in, put it out, have a smoke while waiting patiently for the process to terminate ... share a few laughs with friends in various states of digestion themselves. Perhaps a fondue in the middle and marshmallows to dip. That sorta thing.
campfyre

Pax

 

Yes, I watched it again, it is a good one.

I generally frown upon moving posts and believe they should keep their original positions, unless they are cases of deliberate mischief. There's also not much I consider off-topic. Moving posts and enforcing a topic are old-school control mechanisms used by sociopaths like Bill Ryan to manage the herd. Zook approves of such methods.

 

I am often pointing out how Zook paints himself into a corner of hypocrisy due to his deception and manipulation. This is a common occurrence with sociopaths, but most people don't notice it, because they don't know to look for it.

Here's an example of the U.S. president doing the same thing, painting "himself into a corner of hypocrisy due to his deception and manipulation", just like Zook. Could they both be sociopaths? Duh!

 

Information useful for identifying sociopaths can come from many sources, including how sociopaths present themselves to the public.

Chico is the one with the most experience dealing with you in the forums (five years), and is the one who documented the evidence for your sociopathy over a long period of time, and is the one who has dedicated much time and investigation to understanding sociopathy. Who else is better qualified to expose your duplicity? I would like to meet him.

They do this far less often than sociopaths. It's only natural to exhibit less hypocrisy and self-contradiction when operating from a position of truth and honesty, as opposed to sociopaths, who operate from a position of lies and deception.

All theories are judged by their predictive powers. Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed numerous times by this very method, and no one accused Einstein of a pathological mindset or character assassination.

Holy trickster, Zook, that's a devious misdirect. My criteria for sociopathy is found in the Sociopaths - who knew? thread, not the Banning for dollars thread. But yes, people are invited to read both in their entirety. "Banning for dollars" is where you tried to defend your duplicity at Nexus for defending Celine and Richard's corrupt forum management. When I was invited by them to be a moderator, I had a front row seat to much of the crooked dealings going on behind the scenes, including your complicity. I eventually resigned in protest and disgust, but not before I witnessed your impressive manipulation of Celine (Rule of Power # 24 and # 43) and your disgusting suck-up behavior towards Richard (Rule of Power # 1).

 

No doubt your criteria for identifying sociopaths includes the study of avatars and divining intent. Alas, the criteria for sociopaths, in Chico's psychoverse, is practically anything that moves or thinks beyond his own capacity to think. smmile2

In any event, it is not mutually exclusive that I can be nothing like Chico and still also share more in agreement than in disagreement. Indeed. Chico himself has stated in the past that the two of us agree on many things. Here, I merely said "more things than not" in my earlier post, which is less an endorsement of agreement than what Chico himself had stated.

But leave it to Chico to find a sociopath's duplicity in anything I write.

Not that I've shown hypocrisy or contradicted myself (in my many exchanges with Chico notwthstanding the occasional time as per normal human error rate) ... but are we to believe that empaths do not exhibit hypocrisy or self-contradict quite often themselves? This is enlightening to me, for if I were to identify sociopaths on their frequency of hypocrisy and/or self-contradiction, then I'm afraid there won't be many humans left on this good earth to be considered as empaths.

Indeed. Chico goes the extra step by preparing the notion that his targeted implied sociopaths will resort to plausible deniability ... so that when they do attempt self-defense against his innuendo, he can effortlessly say, "See ... I told you so!". Such are the lengths that a pathological mindset intent on character assassination, will travel.

Pax

ps: If anyone really wants to evaluate my possible sociopathy/empathy, then here's an entire thread at your disposal. Chico oftens cites the following thread as an example of my gameplaying and sociopathy. I, too, often cite this same thread as an example of my empathy and genuine commitment to the truths. So if anyone really wants to gauge Chico's criteria for sociopathy, or my alleged sociopathy, then please read this thread in its entirety. You'll then have a full understanding of the pathological mindset and the ambushed mindset ... and an opportunity to verify or refute Chico's claim (about my alleged sociopathy).

Without further ado, here's the introductory post in that thread, Banning For Dollars.
http://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=166

 

The horror of the consequences of sociopathic rule often go unrecognized. Crystal Clark is here to talk about them, and we should pay close attention. Click here to listen to her interview on FreemanTV entitled "Homegrown Terrorists".

Crystal Clark has a very good understanding of the sociopath problem, and I have highlighted her work here and here.

Zook is determined to demonstrate that I know nothing about sociopathy, so that he might escape the charge I have made that he is a sociopath. He had best add Crystal Clark to his hit list as well, as she is pretty much on the same page as me when it comes to identifying a sociopath. He might also want to add Dr. Robert Hare, M.E. Thomas, Thomas Sheridan, Martha Stout, James Fallon, and a boat-load of others. I dare say Zook has his work cut out for him. But Chico is the most important target, as Chico has named names, and Zook is one of those names.

Of course, the irony is that by actively defending his "good name", Zook will be exposing his sociopathic behaviors, much as Shezbeth did. What a pickle.

 

The first part of this interview is a discussion about sociopaths / psychopaths.


Jeff Rense with Jay Weidner March 9, 2012 - Psychopathic Evil Is Everywhere

 

Sounds two-faced to me, like your avatar picture. Which one is it, Zook? You are nothing like Chico, or you are more like Chico than not?

The deception of a sociopath is subtle and clever. This is a typical example of the hypocrisy sociopaths will demonstrate. When much of what sociopaths say is propaganda, they are bound to contradict themselves quite often. Look for it, it's hidden in plain sight, right in front of our eyes.

Also watch for the plausible deniability that follows when you point out the hypocrisy. Sociopaths do not take responsibility for their lies.

 

Has it ever occurred to Chico that we may agree on many things even if I am an implied sociopath (in his neck of the woods) and he is an implied empath (in the same neck of the woods where unicorns gallop around moonshine stills).

No. Of course not. Everything must come back to the devious plans of the devious Zook

FWIW, I am nothing at all like Chico.

I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone. Mental illness is a sad thing to hold ... and just as sad to behold.

Still, we do agree on more things than not.


Pax

 

I already figured out that this was your new strategy, Zook. Did you miss it? Here it is for your review:

You really are a devious schemer, Zook, just so you can claim "I'm like Chico, see everybody? So I can't be a sociopath!" Can you not see how sociopathic this 180-degree reversal is for you? Do you really believe people are going to fall for this blatant deception and manipulation? Especially when I already pointed it out?

You are beyond belief, Zook. Alien, like a sociopath. Exposing yourself, like a sociopath. Deceiving and manipulating, like a sociopath.

 

Yes, Shezbeth and Zook. Implied sociopaths. Nice intro from the implied empath (Chico). With Chico taking care of public relations, we can all rest at ease.

FWIW, Shezbeth has been the only one here genuinely willing to discuss ideas. And he is no longer posting. Hmmm?

Shezbeth's perspective on Greene's 48 laws differs greatly from mine (indeed, my perspective of Greene's hypotheses come laws ... is actually pretty much in sync with Chico's) ... so it's refreshing to know that not all implied sociopaths are alike, that some may even share the implied empath's view of things. smmile2


Pax

 

Shezbeth and Zook can teach us a lot, but there are much bigger fish to fry. We can look to our national leaders for more instruction regarding the morally insane, which is what sociopaths/psychopaths were originally called in the mid-1800s. Sociopaths congregate at the top of the hierarchy, so probably every U.S. president in the last 60 years is a sociopath. Clinton is one, Bush is one, and Obama is one. So to know the real Obama, you have to get past the extensive mask he wears. And here's one person who knew him when he was just a drugged-up gay "trick", lying every time his mouth formed a sentence. I was going to say every time his lips moved, but some of that action was non-verbal. But the key point is that he is a narcissistic sociopath.



Mia Marie Pope Strikes Again

 

The most successful con-artists (sociopaths) always pack up and disappear whenever their con is exposed. It really is your only solution, Shezbeth. You essentially "throw" the game and declare victory in your own mind (remember that?). But look at the bright side. You will find new, unsuspecting people to fool. Unlike Zook, you are clever enough to know when you are beat. And from this experience, you will most likely learn to be a better sociopath.

I'll miss you, but I'm grateful for our short time together. At least I still have Zook, so don't worry about me. I'll be all right.

 

And what am I supposed to do? Dignify your paranoid conclusions with a response? Hardly. Your conclusions are laughable, and have no basis in reality. I've never 'been caught in a lie', I openly declared my lies willingly. In your own words, the Golden Rule: Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.

If you think you haven't been an insufferable prick, well I'll just add that to the list of things you just aren't going to get.

Has it occurred to you that you've displayed FAR more sociopathic behaviors than I have- including most of the ones you are want to condemn me for - with almost abandon? No of course not, 'this is just me trying to shift the focus' or whatever. Has it occurred to you that the same behaviors by which you become 'increasingly convinced' about, are likewise evident in your presentation? No of course not, more of me trying to shift blame or whatever.

For the last time, I'm not a sociopath. Individuals with far more authority (read: experience, where-with-all, reputations, and creative propensity) have done their due diligence and - in spite of your insistence - have absolved me of the claim, years before you showed up on scene.

Get it now? You're nothing. Hows the viewership on your forum? Not too good eh? Maybe its 'cuz you are an insufferable prick and no one wants to be around you. Oh wait, here comes the "I'm not here to make friends" rationale,....

Meanwhile, my gauges are reporting that I've absorbed all of your,... <ahem> 'material' that I can handle for the moment.

Simply, I'm not want to suffer your insolence any longer.

Its funny, when I left Inphinet during Charles' stay Rose had the nerve to tell me that I should apologize to Charles, and then I could participate again. That's right, I should apologize to him. Charles may be gone, but the personality defects that led to his tenure are a long way from being addressed.

Readers! Pay attention. It is regrettable, but in the dynamic of Victor/Victim (abuser/enabler) there are going to occur circumstances where the only correct course of action is to bow out with dignity and grace; you can be assured that your detractors will talk shit to their hearts content.

As effective as one may be at developing themselves and their skill sets, the beneficiary/subject is the self and not others.

Simply put, I can't make this asshole stop being an asshole, but I can make him stop doing so in my environment.

 

My experience with you, Shezbeth, follows the same pattern as my experience with the other recent sociopaths I've exposed, namely Zook and AndyWight. When they had no leg left to stand on, they retreated to the standard defensive ploy of the sociopath -- attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. And here you are doing the same thing, ignoring my message (Shezbeth behaves like a sociopath) and attacking the messenger (Chico's forum is sad, Chico is impervious to reason, Chico debates like a creationist, etc.). Even Stephen/Houdini did this exact same thing to me at Atticus1. Since your behavior is what I've come to expect from sociopaths, and you meet or exceed my expectations continually and without exception, how can I not peg you as a sociopath? Anyone familiar with sociopathic behavior would be obliged to come to the same conclusion. Your only defense is the one Zook has adopted, which is to convince others that I have no valid understanding of sociopathy. This is a difficult task, as I have publicly documented my studies of sociopathy, with extensive references, since 2006 in my blogs and forum posts. They are available for your perusal and criticism, as they have been for Zook and AndyWight, both of whom failed to convince anyone that I am unfamiliar with how sociopaths think and behave. Actually, to his credit, AndyWight knew better than to even try, unlike Zook.

Once again you are clueless concerning the Golden Rule, as I have already noted twice before. I have been respectful to you "since day one". From your perspective, I am an "insufferable prick" only because I caught you lying to me and "playing" me, which tipped me off to your sociopathic tendencies. Further study confirmed it, and you continue to confirm it with every post! So I simply speak the truth I have uncovered, I present my evidence for everyone to examine, and I expose you for what you are. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that being exposed is the last thing sociopaths want, because they cannot effectively deceive and manipulate others with impunity when others know what they are. And from your perspective as a sociopath, that makes me an "insufferable prick".

For your information, you are not an "insufferable prick" to me at all. You are a sociopath, and that is precisely what helps me further my study of sociopathy. Encountering you in this forum was a windfall for me, from my perspective. So your third attempt at understanding the Golden Rule is completely off-base again, exactly as I would expect from anyone with low to no empathy. The confirmations of your sociopathy just keep on coming. That makes me a happy camper.

 

[1] Morality is available to babies, Rose, after they arrive here. Whether they already possess elements of morality before they arrive is anybody's guess. Certainly, empathy is the expression of morality; but until the baby expresses its potential for morality, we really can't declare with any confidence that the baby is an empath. Ditto for sociopathy, e.g. as an expression of either amorality or immorality. The expression can be studied, and has been studied for millennia. The great writers in human history were the world's first professional psychologists. They observed the behaviors of good seeds and bad seeds, alike, and wrote about it with much more honesty than found in the junk schools erected by the social engineers of the tribal-occupied modern centuries (the junk scholars having been bought and paid for by the bankster empire as part in parcel of subverting the masses into confused, hopeless, organic robots executing algorithms for the pyramid).

[2] Morality must be carried by a material being before it can be expressed (as empathy/sociopathy) ... or even studied by other material beings. If the baby does not exist, then morality is carried by the environment in the collective of material beings that do exist. Put in another way, the putative original baby on the good Earth began the process of establishing the moral environment. Subsequent babies have since added to the development of this moral environment. Human lifespans are 80 years or so. By contrast, the local and global moral environments have been in development since the dawn of human time. The moral environment exists with or without the baby. I think you misunderstood what I was saying earlier. I did not say that morality does no exist without the baby; I said that empathy does not exist without the baby, for empathy is the expression of morality ... and expression (the object) requires a subject, e.g. the baby.

[3] Almost what I was saying. Empathy is an expression. Morality is a potential for expression. Empathy cannot exist without a material being to express it. That is my belief, Rose.


Pax

 

You know what the sad thing about reading your forum is? Seeing that every comment, suggestion, indication, etc. that I could come up with (admittedly, I would've been more eloquent Xp) having already been exhaustively iterated.

Credit where credit is due, I acknowledge your impervious nature against reason; debating you is like debating a creationist, in that both parties will make vague inferences and loose/laughable associations with no conclusive backing and claim it as 'evidence/proof'.

If someone accused another of being a rapist, and the other is not a rapist (nor can comprehend why they're being alleged to be), what is their most likely response? A denial right? They might even avoid dignifying the allegations with a response because from their perspective, the allegations are ludicrous. They might downplay the allegations (because, knowing the truth they would know that they're ludicrous), and would probably not take the matter seriously at first. They might troll/clown the accuser, or otherwise disregard the allegations because - to one who is in the know - they ARE ludicrous.

Now if everyone who accused others of rape went around 'shouting' at the accused saying "That's just what a rapist would say! You're only revealing yourself to everyone," and all the other nonsense you have spouted, surely you can see that nothing constructive will come of it, even if you were 100% correct (which you're not, in case I haven't bothered to specifically state).

Oh wait, that's right, you can't see. <sigh>

By the way (since you didn't get it the first time,... deliberately I'd wager), the reason I mentioned the Golden Rule is because if I were to interpret your expression of it, I would say that you WANT me to be an insufferable prick to you, because that's how you've behaved toward me since day one.

"Be a prick to FA as you would have FA be a prick to you," seems to be your MO, and you (claim to) know how I do it,....

Truth? Oh, you're the MASTER of subjective truth,... but objective truth seems beyond your comprehension. Until that blessed day,....

 

Once again, you show a sociopath's complete misunderstanding of the Golden Rule, due to your selfish focus and lack of empathy. And your reactionary escalation of poor etiquette is indeed endemic, also a result of your psychology. Zook did exactly the same thing, and made very similar excuses, in his own style of course ("reactive temper versus proactive tamper").

Just like you have done in this post, Zook also eventually reverted to the same strategy of copying my observations and arguments. He too accused me of "blaming others for your own malfeasance", the tell-tale marker I found so useful in identifying sociopaths. But it didn't work for him as it worked for me because of one important detail -- truth. There was no truth behind Zook's turning of my methods against me. It just sunk his boat even faster, because he had nothing to back it up like I did.

Also, you needn't think that I can't listen without "shutting up". I read every word you post with rapt attention. It's incredibly fascinating to see you repeat the same patterns other sociopaths have demonstrated. One of the first things I noticed about your posts attacking me personally was how much they reminded me of AndyWight. You call on the same derision, the same snarkiness, the same kinds of deception, and the same outrage at being exposed as Andy did.

And it's not about "combatting sociopaths". It's only about identifying them. I don't "condemn" you or give you any special "vitriol". I just point out how your behavior matches the list of traits that mark a sociopath. In other words, I just point out the truth. Surely that is somewhere in your 48 Laws of Power, right? Oh, it's not? How odd. There is no greater power than the truth.

 

I do unto others as they do unto me; any dispensing of ettiquette is responsive and not endemic.

Besides, aren't YOU the one touting the 'golden rule'? Where's THAT then, amidst all your vitriol and condemnations? I see/admit to my OWN duplicity, hypocrisy, etc., but you fault me for having the clarity to see it equally in myself as others and call a spade a spade?

I don't care what others (and ESPECIALLY you) think/believe; you've readily evidenced (exhaustively, in your forum) that you're unwilling to entertain any degree of perception other than what suits your agenda.

I'm not the one trying to change others to suit their perception/agenda. I'm trying to show people my perception/agenda. If you or others want to trick yourself into seeing me as a socio/psychopath (to avoid that self-reflection that would reveal that we all are to some degree), be my guest.

Simply: If you think I am one, shut the fuck up and listen, and you'll be better prepared to combat sociopaths. If you think I'm not one, shut the fuck up and listen and you'll still be better prepared to combat sociopaths.

Or, if you want to keep blaming others for your own malfeasance,... as I say, good luck with that.

 

Zook is not being genuine here. He doesn't care about the subject he his arguing about, nor the truth of his arguments. He says whatever he thinks will allow him to win "the game". I've seen this so many times across years of de-constructing Zook's arguments that it is blatantly obvious to me. But I realize other people not so familiar with Zook will not see it. I didn't see it for a long time either. Zook had me fooled in the beginning.

This is the biggest problem in dealing with sociopaths. We naturally assume they are being genuine, that they are like us, with similar values, emotions, and motivations. That assumption makes us blind to the reality of what they are doing. I had to do the same thing you are trying to do, asking questions to get clarification from Zook to try to understand his perspective. Eventually, in that tedious and frustrating process, Zook trips up. It is the same story with Stephen/Houdini, Bill Ryan, Gypsy Woman, Ice Cold, AndyWight, and all the other sociopaths I've come across.

Of course, you cannot take my word for it, and you shouldn't. You have to run the experiment yourself. If you have as much experience as you claim with sociopaths, then that is surely what you are doing, and I apologize for interrupting and giving Zook a heads-up.