Who's an InPHInet Sociopath?

Discussion in 'Φ v.2 Who is a SOCIOPATH?' started by Rose, Feb 8, 2016.


Who's an InPHInet Sociopath?

  1. Stephen aka Charles/Atticus/Houdini/Mr. Nicks/Ignoramus Little Son

    7 vote(s)
  2. Rhiannon aka Rhi/Ms. Lovely Vicious III

    6 vote(s)
  3. A Horse with No Name

    0 vote(s)
  4. Chicodoodoo

    4 vote(s)
  5. Damned Straight

    1 vote(s)
  6. LightestSon

    0 vote(s)
  7. Rose

    0 vote(s)
  8. Shezbeth

    4 vote(s)
  9. Thin Pine

    0 vote(s)
  10. UncleZook

    1 vote(s)
  11. Beans

    0 vote(s)
  12. Danielle

    0 vote(s)
  13. Iambic Pentacost

    0 vote(s)
  14. Monkeyman

    0 vote(s)
  15. NinjaPhill

    0 vote(s)
  16. Sam Hunter

    0 vote(s)
  17. David

    0 vote(s)
  18. Shadowself

    0 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    Last edited: Feb 9, 2016
  2. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    Also, I contest this meme. I dont claim that there arent socipaths who fit the bill, but #notallsocipaths
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    Ngl, theres a certain satisfaction in that - by consensus - Im viewed as equally socioathic to Mr. Doodoo (who I dont think is a sociopath, I think he's a narcissist), but onky AFTER i cast a singular vote for myself. ^_~
    • Puzzled Puzzled x 1
  4. david

    david Member

    Yes and one can be blind to those nuances, turn around and question the sanity of the one who acknowledges it. B.F. Skinner convinced himself that abusing his daughter would not be a problem because operant conditioning explained everything about a human being... She could be modified like little Alex in Clockwork Orange.
  5. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    I am really curious who it was who voted yes for Damned Straight?
    He doesn't post words much. Who could know him well enough?
    Would anyone determine sociopathy by musical taste alone?
    Last night, I was considering closing the poll to find out.
    So far, I only voted yes for Steve & Rhi.
  6. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    The problem is when people are fitted neatly into any classification with a laser straight ahead, at all costs, methodology not including adequate awareness and consideration of overriding nuances and peripheral information that should serve as essential modifiers.
  7. david

    david Member

    When good data comes in, it gives one a reference point to make good judgements. Being justified in one's condemnation of another, vis a vis,referring to another human being as a "sociopath" in this case, is never really pleasant, but can be justified when behavior justifies that conclusion. Just think for a moment historically if we had people who had known, Japanese psychological attitudes during the second world war...no they were not a bunch of crazy psychopaths! they just needed a way to save face! Or, if someone had stood up to McCarthy, a man who imo reminds me of Chico...and stopped his bullying campaign which cost people's lives.

    So this passage is Chico's retreat to United. His own forum where I am banned, which is fine by me... Lets look at it and we can see some real salient behaviors! Psychopaths are different depending on their pathology, but sociopaths can indeed become unglued. When they do, like most of us, their traits come out, they forget to hide them... Witness this passage from Chic:

    The best example of this I've run into recently is David at Inphinet. He pretends to be the great protector of normal people, the bully destroyer, the sociopath hunter, the knight in shining armor, yet he is in reality just the opposite. He cooperated with the schemes of Stephen at Atticus1 and Gypsy Woman at United People, but he never exposed them as sociopaths. Quite the opposite, he defended them as champions of righteousness! He has done the same now for Shadowself and Uncle Zook at Inphinet. He does this not because these people are righteous, but as a deliberate attack against me, precisely because I have pointed them out as sociopaths. Like all the other sociopaths, his goal is to discredit me. Like all the other sociopaths, he paints me as the sociopath, and the sociopaths as normal people

    Chick has to overstate his case right? actually wrong...to chick its quite possible that I am a sociopath hunter and my crime? is that I never exposed people as sociopaths. To Chic's twisted view people are {sociopaths or the opposite} Either socio hunters or sociopaths with no gray in between. And the motivation? why is David an enabler of sociopaths? is it to benefit a friend? or to get his bad guy hard on? No!!! Its because David, like all the rest of the sociopaths are after Chic. Chic says it "his goal is to discredit me." and this goal is "like the other sociopaths." What dumfounds chic? what bothers him? That I am confusing the normal people with the sociopaths. His neat and tidy division has been compromised here! One may see hints of neurotic behavior in this regard. Its easy when people fit neatly into classifications.

    Sociopaths always always take things personally. Its always about them. It does not even occur to Chic, like virtually any sociopath, that maybe its not personal. That maybe its henious to accuse a person of being a sociopath because of a personal disagreement, or that Chic is crazy for deciding someone like Shadow, for example, is a sociopath because she got upset with him for his behavior. Chic just knows that it has to be a personal vendetta because he is exposing the sociopaths.

    Chic also can't stand the messyness of it...When people are bad because they are after him, its easy to know where you stand....It gets too messy for Chico when there are possibilities that he may have made an error, or that he is wrong...so what does he do? Anything he has to make sure the division stays put. That includes lying, hypocritical behavoir, etc. Does Chic know that I have never spoken enough to Stephen to make a plan with him? probably. Does he know he is a hypocrite to ban? probably. He will always justify the behavior because if he does not things get messy and he loses control.

    This passage comes from a retreat chico took to his site. His hair is down so he can really play loose with the facts, as usual. It presents a unique vantage point into his thinking. Particlarly in his insistance not to mix up the categories of sociopaths and sociopath destroyers! David makes things messy for Chico he is confusing the categories dammit!
  8. david

    david Member

    It just so happens that its easy to be cavaliar about this type of judgement. Make no mistake about it, there are people who can be real pieces of work....For example, as a New Yorker I can recognize Neurotic behavior that could make Jesus ask one to cut it out! but alas.... Neurosis and the compulsions which follow are much more refelexive than socially abhorrant. To give an example: Waiting for an elevator with a person who twitches, grimaces, makes noise, curses (perhaps) and constantly hits the button... is anti social behavior and disruptive, but its not really sociopathic.

    As a matter of fact many ergonomic designs, according to the conspiracy meter some of us have set...rather more senasatively ahhem.... are for Neurotic compulsions we all have... In fight club I believe the main protagonist made the point that Oxygen does little for people in a crash, but it helps is feel passified, it is something to reach for so we may imagine we control the plane.
  9. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    My vote here was placed in the "yes" column for Zook due to what seemed to be uncalled for trolling posts here, putting me and InPHInet down, calling my site nothing more than a Tupperware party. In retrospect, although I believe his posts were uncalled for, they did not reach the level of sociopathy.
  10. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    After conferencing: Three of us have changed our votes allowing Zook the benefit of the doubt in this poll.
    Also: I noticed your name was not included in the list, Brook. I have added it.
  11. david

    david Member

    Can one determine a sociopath in line? Well...Yes but one should be particularly careful because many of the things sociopaths do we experience immanently when making this judgement. One should not easily render this judgement. For example there are people I don't know much about on line...I really never had much to do with Steve and Rhi. or some of the other members who got votes.

    I do find it strange that Zook got votes! I have dealt with Zook and he has pissed me off at times, I never remember seeing sociopathic behavior from him though. I would be suprised if Zook was a sociopath frankly. I would also wonder how one could make that judgement from on line regarding Zook. Not saying he could not be an Ahole!

    I wasn't going to do this thread but when Chic once again started attacking me, I figured I might as well try to make this constructive and point to a situation where one could well make a determination about sociopathology in an on line setting. I do believe that Chic is a sociopath and I will describe why I believe this to be the case:
    Sociopaths have really bad social skills which comes through in social judgements. Anti social behavior is the very fulcrum of the pathology. A sociopath might well use the death of someone's family member as a means to score a point...they just do not have the empathy to understand why people do not do this.

    Chic used the death of Brook's son as a way bo justify his actions on a thread. This shows a lack of empathy and anti social behavoir.

    "I am not here to make friends" more or less a direct quote from Chic. Indeed...sociopaths engage in group activities to acquire power. A historical example would be Joe McCarthy the Wisconsin Senator who went on a "Communist" witch hunt and destroyed the life of many citizens in this country. Chic often uses the term sociopath to label people. He does so, much like McCarthy, to antagonize a foe, seldom presenting any proof of his contention. McCarthy did much the same, often relying on a person's enemy to state that the person was a communist. Yet, if one agrees with Chic strangely enough they are seldom, if ever called a sociopath.

    Sociopaths are not on forums like this one to make friends. They are here for personal power and to gain followers who agree with them as followers... Most of us are here to exchange ideas, maybe meet some like minded individuals and conduct social intercourse.


    One interesting characteristic of a sociopath is the use of the third person voice... For example, if I were to say "David thinks Chico is an idiot" when referring to myself. Chico occasionally refers to himself in the third person. What this tells one is that an individual is ego driven and has an exxagerated sense of self importance. Having worked as a mental health counciller we used to look for word choices such as this to give us a clue as to whether the person had antisocial personality disorders. Sociopaths also tend to view the world as though they are being persecuted....Sound familiar? To Chic the whole world is out to get him, everyone is a bad sociopath and he is fighting the good fight!

    Sociopaths can be very smart about what is called confirmation bias...fortunately Chic is not a very bright sociopath...but one can watch Chic struggle to use confirmation bias. For example he may say "David like most sociopaths you are twisting words, and meanings to control people when you accuse me of being a sociopath." The problem for Chic is that no confirmation exists. Yet he still attempts to use this effect hoping that people will not notice that inevitably words were not twisted, meaning were clear, and examples given! For example, as I am doing here. But sociopaths compulsively seem to want to use confirmation bias....even when no confirmation exists.


    I don't know how Chick behaves off the forum. I do know that he cannot stop himself from posting. I know this because on several occasions, especially this last time, there was absolutely no motivation for him to continue to say the same things again. It was not in his best interest, it did not present any information to speak of....yet he could not help himself. Sociopaths are compulsive liars, and often engage in hypocritical acts....compulsively. A great example of this is one of my favorite characters. Anthony Weiner the congrassman from New York who ran for mayor. Weiner was married to HUma
    abdin (sp?)... Say what you want about Huma, she is attractive! BUUUT Mr Weiner had a compulsion to show his weiner! So he would apparently text as "Carlos Danger."

    So here is this guy who has a gorgeous sociopathic wife, was popular and could have won that election! he was also an attractive guy (no reason to be inferior about looks or weiner haha) and he throws all this away to sext strangers! Weiner, who is funny and actually a very intelligent guy COULD NOT HELP HIMSELF. It was and is (he was caught again for like the fourth time) compulsive behavior. Chico cannot control himself. I have to remind myself of this fact at times....Sociopaths often do antisocial things because they were raised a certain way, believe they are entitled to do them.... which brings me to the next point:


    So Chic cannot help attacking me...and even when his confirmation bias lacks confirmation, and even as we shall see, when he is engaging in the very behavior he accuses others of doing: In Chico's mind, as with most sociopaths, THEY ARE SPECIAL. YOU MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THEM!!! Hillary Clinton style....the little people follow the rules, not her!! With Chico Bill Ryan, that evil doer, bans people for disagreeing him, for antagonizing him...But for Chico? This does not apply! Not only has Chico banned people in the past...as a matter of fact per capita Chico has probably banned more people than Ryan! lol! BUt...it took Chico precious little time to call for me to be banned.

    Of course this call to Ban was compulsive and after he did it Chico tried to create a semantic distortion, but this brings me to the next point which is...Sociopaths are liars. They will lie even when the proof is right there, it is compulsive they cannot help it! hence, even though Chico was told he was mistaken about several things he said, and even though these things were in the threads, Chico could not help lying. The Lying and hypocracy are very good indicators of a sociopath. here is why:

    When a normal person tells a lie, they often feel bad, ashamed, afraid perhaps, sociopaths do not. The same mechanism that prevents empathy, makes a sociopath unable to feel how most people do when they tell a lie. You can see it with Clinton...even as the evidence is there, she has no compunction to stop. With Chico, even though he tells people that Brook wanted him gone from the forum before he muckied up her thread, and even though Rose corrected him and one can see on the thread when Brook got upset with him, Chico persists in his lie. Even though Chic says, out of no particular context, that he would be in favor of banning me, he lies and makes up some reason why this isn't what he meant.

    Make no mistake about this people: Chic believes this. To Chic, there are one set of rules for him and for others... You cannot disagree with Chic, as Rose found out, because if you do so, there is something wrong with you. This is the thinking of a sociopath. And Finally....


    Now this one may be contraversal. There might be legitimate views that are not sociopathic...My point here would be to take a view in the context of these other characteristics....Not that I would not fight for Chico's, or anyone else's right to express any view, no matter how repugnant.... But that does not change the fact that certain repugnant views can be traced to anti social behavior. Chic is not only an antisemite, one who does not even bother to distinguish Zionist views from other Jewish perspectives, but he claims that Hitler, a textbook sociopath if there ever was one, is not a sociopath. That is all I will say on this, my idea is not to debate this and as said, I would fight to the marrow of my bone to let Chic express this view so that we may all express our views in a free country.


    I don't feel comfortable just calling someone a sociopath without an explanation why. Chico will now be trying to make a case that I am distorting, or misrepresenting him out of a sense that he is being persecuted. Well...I have given examples and proof of every insinuation made folks! I worked as a mental health worker in a psych hospital with psychopaths and sociopaths every day...I was expected to help diagnose their behaviors. I also worked in a bad bar as a bouncer...lots of violent sociopaths to deal with...so I have some sense of what I am talking about.

    If Chic is ever going to get help with his antisocial behavior, he will have to have some way of getting feedback on this behavior. I don't hate Chic, but I do despise the behavior of a bullying sociopath like Chic. In this modern era we live in its no longer the guy in the Hell's Angel's jacket kicking a man's jaw open on an open curb. We can all relate to how violent that is can't we? Today with the internet we get people who use words and anonomous identities to often disasterously effect others.... There are sociopaths who have helped an individual along into suicide. Some of them have openly said, "hey its not my fault." These are people who bully with words and Chic is capable of similar behavior...any man who would say what he said to Brook shows that capability...so I take his behavior seriously.

    To those who do not...I could be wrong. But people who cannot behave socially and with good will deserve to be put in their place when they violate social etiquette. I would expect nothing less If I did something to insult someone.
  12. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    Polls Are Always Open...
  13. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    From Cockney Translater Post #143

    The eyes of a sociopath?
    • LOL LOL x 1
    Last edited: May 6, 2016
  14. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    Thank you, Chico. I agree.
    I usually give people I don't know the benefit of the doubt until it is proven to me
    This opinion poll may be amended by anyone, at any time , if their opinion changes.

    Note: If a vote is changed, previous selections zero out and all that person's votes must be re-entered.
    Last edited: May 9, 2016
  15. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    In my experience, it is unwise to believe such a thing. I would think that in your experience too, after years on forums run by sociopaths (Avalon, Atticus1), you would also be cautious about claiming this forum is sociopath-free.

    Forums have sociopaths like computers have viruses. Most computer users that I see in my job have no idea their computers are infected. It is very rare that I get a non-infected computer in for repair. It is also very rare that a forum is sociopath-free. I still can hardly believe the number of sociopaths that flocked to my own forum! And despite dealing with Bill Ryan at Avalon and Richard at Nexus, I didn't catch on to their presence for the longest time. Ask Zook how long it took me to discover that he was a sociopath. Actually, never mind, he'll just lie.

    Sociopaths are very skilled at remaining invisible. They are here, you just don't see them.
  16. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    hmmm. I am not sure about Monkey, Horse...

    He did have a tendency to throw his friends under the bus to advance his position. And, it does seem that getting close to Ignoramus is all that mattered to him. Near the end of Atticus1, Monkey ratted on everyone who had privately been calling Ugly a bitch even though he had participated himself.

    During InPHInet V.1 Ignoramus and Ugly claimed he was a mole and a spy who probably worked for an agency. Then, decided it wasn't true, but they still didn't like him. Apparently he was always bugging Ignoramus with business schemes. I stood up for Billy the entire time he was being accused. Still, he jumped to their side of the fence and removed me from Skype after the InPHInet Divide.

    I am leaning Yes.

    What do you think, Mark?

    Or, anyone with an opinion based upon the facts I stated.

    I, too, believe no current participating InPHInet members are sociopaths.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2016
  17. zorro

    zorro Member

    Dedicated to Monkeyman
  18. zorro

    zorro Member

  19. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    Even your signature is hypocrisy.

    There's no limit to the lies you can tell, the truths you can spin, or the BS you can throw, and you just keep delivering. Excuse me if I don't bother to expose your glaring errors again. The preponderance of evidence is more than sufficient concerning your sociopathy.
  20. beans

    beans Member

    Ninja's farts are sociopathic. They have absolutely no regard for my nose. hidee
    • LOL LOL x 2
  21. UncleZook

    UncleZook Member

    Yes. And in decades and centuries gone by, village consensus essentially declared the bad seeds based on negative popularity and the good seeds based on positive popularity. Popularity, consensus, poll results <-------- these are essentially the same thing in different forms. Consensus, as a rule, is that which societies have marched forward with ... we wouldn't even have this much civilization (in a manner of speaking) without the memes of righteousness (e.g. the consensus mores of society) overwhelming the raw instincts and might imperatives.

    To be sure, the good seed was misdiagnosed as a bad seed (and vice versa) on to the occasional errant consensus. But to subtly suggest that the norm of consensus - in decades and centuries gone by - lacked functional accuracy, is to re-frame history to fit the modern agenda of social engineering. I reiterate, consensus moved the memes of man past the raw instincts of the alpha-male animal jungle. Without consensus, we would still be mired in primitive forms of human organization. Even the worst of tyrants was forced to abide consensus or risk losing the throne. Mind you, the worst of tyrants resort to deceptive practices to gain that consensus (e.g. Saddam and his rigged elections; Diebold machines and stolen votes in US presidential elections; etc.) ... which means that the appearance of consensus is just as valuable as consensus itself. But make no mistake, consensus is a big player in all human dynamics; certainly, in those that endeavor and have ever endeavored advanced human society.

    Here on Inphinet forums, there's always a concern of members stuffing the ballot with personal prejudices informing their vote ... but as the sampling size gets bigger, this concern should get smaller. In the end, we just have to trust that members will be honest with their voting. The alternative is to mistrust each other, then slide down into mistrusting each other on first resort ... and when that happens, we won't have a forum worth keeping. I've seen that play out in the four or five forums that I've spent any time on in the past nine years.

    Character assassination is your forte, Chico. You are incapable of discussing an idea purely for the sake of the idea, who really knows why. Perhaps you are intellectually challenged in that regard, having no original thoughts yourself after having become dependent on book knowledge for the longest time (and here, the social engineers are eager to provide all the books your heart desires because they know that by occupying your brain with stuffing, popcorn, and cotton candy, that that will leave less room for original thought). You are a perfect pawn for their programming, which you radiate with the pride of an idiot.

    My posts here (and every other forum) have been largely about ideas, original and semi-original ideas ... and minorly about punching the noisemakers when they get out of hand. You have the opposite orientation, namely, your posts are largely about the messenger with the occasional idea thrown in here and there. The archives hold it in legion at United People. The archives here are accumulating it with every post you and I make. I'm content with that.

    Linus had his security blanket that kept him insulated. Your security blanket (and insulation) is the charge of "Sociopath!" ... which then protects you from having to do real work in processing ideas and/or understand the various psychologies that are presented to you on these sundry forums. So be it.

    • agree agree x 1
  22. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    I found the option to add more poll choices.
    Additional members have been listed.
    Criteria for inclusion in the poll list is:
    More than 10 posts or participation in Sociopath discussion.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    If you want to have a reasonable chance of spotting sociopaths, you had better have an idea of what to look for.
    • Superficial charm and good intelligence
    • Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
    • Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations
    • Unreliability
    • Untruthfulness and insincerity
    • Lack of remorse and shame
    • Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
    • Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
    • Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
    • General poverty in major affective reactions
    • Specific loss of insight
    • Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations
    • Fantastic and uninviting behavior with alcohol and sometimes without
    • Suicide threats rarely carried out
    • Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated
    • Failure to follow any life plan
    See also: Confessions of a Sociopath

    -- source
  24. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    This is more outrageous, over-the-top BS, Zook. Polls about people are primarily popularity contests. They do not "determine good seeds and bad seeds ... with functional accuracy." Only a conniving sociopath would make a claim like that! Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and many others led the polls and became President of the United States. Henry Kissinger was voted Time Magazine's Man of the Year. All are very bad seeds, war criminals and con-artists, i.e. sociopaths. Sociopaths are usually quite charming and have plenty of ardent supporters. Truth-tellers are usually reviled and slandered, often by the conniving lead of those charming sociopaths. Sound familiar? You fill those shoes nicely. And why wouldn't you, if you are, as I claim, a sociopath. And you continue to expose yourself as one with every post. Like I said, you do not disappoint.
  25. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator


    Mark, do you know where to find the place to adjust the default number of Poll choices now set at ten?
    I wanted to include all participating members in the list, but ran out of slots.
    I couldn't imagine anyone would think Beans and Ninjaphil were sociopaths, but I wanted to include them, too. :)
  26. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    Given that sociopaths are highly adaptable chameleons, masters of false appearances, and can fool even highly trained professional psychologists, your assessment of Hitler "based solely on expression alone" is completely worthless. Really, Zook? "Based solely on expression alone"? Have you no shame? No, of course you don't.

    Then we have "hardwired that way at or shortly after birth". Are you for real? Like you know anything about brain development! Humans know almost nothing about how brains work, but you can somehow determine the moment and method of brain organization in a newborn for a person you only know about from wartime propaganda!

    Finally, we are treated to Dr. Zook's comparative psycho-babble of sociopathic types, like "normal conditioned" sociopaths versus "above-threshold" sociopaths versus "genetic" sociopaths. What a crock of BS! You are just doing exactly what sociopaths do, Zook, deceiving and manipulating others with your slick-sounding schtick!

    And you continuously rail to the high heavens that you are not a sociopath, to boot. facepalm
  27. UncleZook

    UncleZook Member

    Babies with missing parts that house and nurture conscience can perhaps be made empathic (e.g. by Pavlov conditioning) ... just as babies with full parts can be made sociopathic. So in the end, it is the expression of potential that is important ... and not the potential itself.

    Having said that, I cannot say with confidence that any of the above are sociopaths ... except perhaps Charles (just from what I've heard about him, never having interacted with him myself) ... and perhaps Chico who exhibits more sociopathic tendencies than empathic tendenciies on balance, and is probably a conditioned sociopath.

    Based solely on expression alone, Hitler appears to be a sociopath, IMO. Likely hardwired that way at or shortly after birth. His sociopathic tendencies are disproportionate to what we would expect in normal conditioned sociopaths, so I would consider him an above-threshold or genetic sociopath (in my own terminology). Chico expresses both sociopathic and empathic tendencies (with the former in surfeit), so he is almost certainly a conditioned sociopath. I don't know too much about anybody else on the above list, so I will only cast a vote against Charles and Chico. Don't know Rhiannon from shinola.

    Polling is what people used centuries ago to determine good seeds and bad seeds. As a rule, polling has located the good seeds and the bad seeds ... and the in-betweens ... with functional accuracy.

    So why Chico thinks professional psychologists (purchased by a corrupted system in the larger duty of social engineering) are needed to locate the sociopaths ... is a bit of an enigma to me. Humanity - as a whole - has gone through various enlightenments without the input of professional psychologists. I think we can go through many more enlightenments yet without the need for professional psychologists. But hey, whatever floats your boat ... and we all have different boats to float, to be sure.


    ps: One of the major enlightenments to be had in 2016 ... with little attached cost ... is the understanding of both the discipline and the industry of psychology as first and foremost a social engineering paradigm. IMO.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2016
  28. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    I remember how cruel they were. I was thinking what idiots they were too, because the important thing was not how you looked, but the crucial information that you were reporting! And that, they were all just completely discounting.

    Is that the "woo woo" thing raising its head again?

    That I don't remember, but it sounds very cool to me. Too bad Nexus is kaput, or I would go back and find that post just to refresh my memory.
  29. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    You know what happened in my frame of reference today, Chico?
    Your mention of GypsyWoman in Forum Warriors had me thinking of days gone by.
    I will not post it again. But remember...
    I went through my files today and viewed it again.
    I entered Nexus very briefly to link to my video expose's of Atticus1? blushy
    The one's where A1 members thought I looked retarded?
    (Thank you Billy)
    Christine would win academy awards compared to my attempts.
    But. in this one, totally distraught from my mistreatments, I reported amnesty had been declared at Atticus1.
    I looked like a cat had just drug me in from a rainstorm.
    But the story was:
    You, me, AndyWright and (I can't remember his name now but his avatar was a child playing with a wall electirical socket)
    wait! His name was "chump", had just received amnesty and...
    We would no longer be held "Thrown Under the Bridge" by Icecold at AI.
    I was an outcast there at the same as you were.
    Vaguely I remember posting at Nexus something about DiAnconia from Atlas Shrugged
    and you replying "It might work."
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  30. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    I'm on record for having exposed both Shezbeth and UncleZook as sociopaths. I exposed Stephen too, but that occurred at Atticus1.org, and I didn't get any support from that crowd of "Charles" syncophants. How could I, as Atticus made it clear he would disavow them just like he disavowed me (he banned me, twice)! No matter, I think my judgement regarding Stephen's psychology has been well vindicated.

    I'm also on record for stating that running a public poll to determine if someone is a sociopath is not a valid method of psychological assessment. UncleZook thinks it is, or perhaps he was just trying to trick me into endorsing such a method so that he could discredit my methods of psychological assessment, which have nothing to do with polling. Zook is a clever one.

    As a result, I won't be contributing to this poll. There are times when a poll is useful, but not when there's a sociopath behind it, like Zook with his poll seeking to determine if Hitler is a sociopath. I am not saying Rose is a sociopath, as I don't have any reason to believe that. In fact, her long-time manipulation by Stephen argues that she is not a sociopath. But I am saying this whole idea of polling to determine if a person is a sociopath is derived from UncleZook. He has an agenda, which is to overturn in the court of public opinion my assessment of him being a sociopath. His stated purpose in following me over here is to discredit my knowledge of sociopathy, and thus discredit my assessment of his sociopathy.

    Here is his warning / threat:

    Yes, Zook is suggesting that I guard my reputation with my life, just as Law of Power #5 suggests! He also implies that my reputation lies in his hands, and that he has power and control over it! Suspiciously sociopathic, no?

    And here is the follow-through:

    Zook has failed repeatedly to overturn any of my evidence showing he behaves like a sociopath, despite a couple of years of trying, so he has decided the best way to defend his reputation of being a guru intellectual know-it-all is to somehow prove that Chicodoodoo's ideas about sociopathy are without merit.

    Needless to say, I am finding all this fascinating, and I hope you are all learning from it as well.