Friday, October 5, 2012

Cognitive diversity: the right to one's mind

This article discusses the ethical implications of treating those on the "diversity" side of neuro-diversity as if they have a sickness to be cured:
Our society has a rather poor track record when it comes to respecting the validity of certain "mind-types." We once tried to “cure” homosexuality with conversion therapy. Today there’s an effort to cure autism and Asperger’s syndrome—a development the autistic rights people have railed against. And in the future we may consider curing criminals of their anti-social or deviant behavior—a potentially thorny issue to be sure.

***

As this example shows, the process of altering a certain mind-type, whether it be homosexuality or autism, can be suppressive and harsh. But does the end justify the means? If we could “cure” autistics in a safe and ethical way and introduce them to the world of neurotypicality, should we do it? Many individuals in the autistic/Asperger’s camp would say no, but there’s clearly a large segment of the population who feel that these conditions are quite debilitating. Not an easy question to answer.

This is an issue of extreme complexity and sensitivity, particularly when considering other implications of neurological modification. Looking to the future, there will be opportunities to alter the minds of pedophiles and other criminals guilty of anti-social and harmful behaviors. Chemical castration may eventually make way to a nootropic or genetic procedure that removes tendencies deemed inappropriate or harmful by the state.

Is this an infringement of a person’s cognitive liberty?
This guy seems to be on the side of neurodiversity except (as always) for sociopaths:
So, if one applies a strict interpretation of cognitive liberty, a case can be made that a sociopath deserves the right to refuse a treatment that would for all intents-and-purposes replace their old self with a new one. On the other hand, a case can also be made that a sociopathic criminal has forgone their right to cognitive liberty (in essence the same argument that allows us to imprison criminals and strip them of their rights) and cannot refuse a treatment which is intended to be rehabilitative.

I am admittedly on the fence with this one. My instinct tells me that we should never alter a person’s mind against their will; my common sense tells me that removing sociopathic tendencies is a good thing and ultimately beneficial to that individual. I’m going to have to ruminate over this one a bit further…
He seems to be suggesting that pedophiles should be left alone, but sociopaths have given up the right to their mind by all being criminals at heart. Does that mean if I get caught shoplifting, I get my brain tweaked? What about if you just sort of "know" that since I am a sociopath I will eventually commit some horrific crime?

The author of this article "currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and Humanity." Please feel free to email him your thoughts at: george@sentientdevelopments.com. Maybe you can inform his "ruminations" on the subject of denying us the right to our minds.

269 comments:

  1. Frankly, I don't see why this is even a question. To me, it's like curing people of pessimism, or individuality. Society would be as it is in the Giver, and what would there be to like about humanity, having no real dislike. I hate to refer to such a dumb movie, but as they say in Watchmen, humanity and life in general is amazing and miraculous because we never know when such wonderful things can come out of the truly bad ones. Sociopaths could be this worlds saving grace, and that is beyond our comprehension as a mortal being. Besides, when empaths meet us, we're quite a lesson for them in humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Watchmen,really? You chose to comment on this by bringing up Watchmen? Next could you cite something from Lord of the Rings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey 10:41, how familiar are you with the theories and practices of autoprocreation?

      Delete
  3. What do you guys think about this?

    Ayn Rand apparently admired a sociopath.

    http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

    What a twisted bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Diversity will always persist, as the never ending need to qualify against the bell curve will always divide the best from the average from the lowly. A species cannot survive without extreme swings in it's composition, yet we seem to be determined to impose an ideal of unity. One thing is for certain, humanity must hate being human.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous:

    A. Has nothing to do with the article....AT ALL

    B. This reference you have is ridiculous. She never mentions his name at all, or any reference to him except some phrase that was widely used. The fact they both said a popular phrase doesn't mean she applauded someone who cut off a little girls legs. The article was so poorly written I had to read it twice to figure out what exactly was the connection.

    C. Next time send us a conspiracy theory about JFK or aliens instead of obscure ones from the early 20th century.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Daft's cage is rattled.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't see anything wrong with modifying a person's personality against their will if they're a drain on society. Consider an autistic man who refuses to be cured, yet accepts a wellfare check monthly to support himself. He no longer has the benefit of saying, "I can't work, and it's not my choice. Please live up to your obligations and take care of your own." The only tune left for him to sing goes a little something like this...

    "I'm a fuckup, a fuckup, can't work by my own admission.
    I can fix, can fix it, but I won't take my prescription.
    I shouldn't have to do anything I don't want to.
    And I sure don't wanna work so I'm kinda like you.
    But I refuse so you can all get screeewwwed!
    Please sign my petition."

    I don't want to work, but I have to in order to survive. I have to make enormous compromises on a daily basis to maintain my job, compared to the life I'd like to be living. I do this so I can have a roof over my head, food to eat, and to support the rebellious autistic asshole who refuses to get cured. That's part of being a responsible adult, which the autistic jerk singing in the streets about his personal liberties doesn't understand.

    If he wants me to compromise my freedom of choice to support both him and myself, fuck him.
    Drop him from wellfare and let his "neurodiversity" destroy him. Cure him against his will.
    Fucking shoot the asshole for all I care.

    If he's supporting himself, great. He can do whatever he wants. That's the luxury that working affords you.

    I feel the same way about sociopaths, or even career criminals for that matter.
    Can't keep yourself from breaking the law and/or draining society? Refuse to be cured? Fuck you.
    Let's throw you into a sociopath colony on some remote island and let you sustain yourselves.
    Or cure you against your will.
    Or shoot you against a wall.

    But if you're responsible, great. You can do whatever you want. That would be a luxury that you'd have earned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're an absolute hero for going to work at the same job every day. When they find a cure for cancer, I'll immediately think of you.

      Delete
  12. Also, giving you a conscience and empathy wouldn't change who you are. It would give you something more to cope with and adapt to. You'd still be the same ol' rotten person who'd have to learn how to contend with new emotions. So don't give me that shit.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Whatever you think of the author's arguments in the article, it seems clear that there is one point everyone can agree on: the bulk of humanity sees sociopaths as more of a burden on society than individuals with other neurodiversities.

    Many who have written here do not agree with the bulk of humanity.

    Here are some examples of things that contribute to the majority majority view of the effect of sociopaths on society.

    Sociopaths admit that their relationships with non-sociopaths generally consist of mind games that torture those they sometimes refer to as their friends. It requires a lot of effort for them to interact in any other way. They enjoy watching their companions' distress. They sometimes justify their actions by saying the torture is for the companions' own good.

    Those who claim to posess significant sociopathic or psychopathic traits often claim that they will take the opportunity, if they know they can avoid being punished for it, of stealing or conning people out of their money or possessions.

    If they describe love, they describe a consuming and destructive selfish obsessive passion that has little to do with what the majority of humans look for in a loving relationship.

    Many seem to express pride in the way their minds work, but also seem to be chronically sad or angry. Some aren't sure know the difference between sadness and anger. Few seem to have an idea what happy might be like.

    As a result, many non-sociopaths may fear that the benefit to society that "ethical", "honorable", or mostly-law-abiding sociopaths might provide by holding down jobs might be outweighed by the damage they do to the society by doing damage to a number of members of the society. In addition, non-sociopaths have to consider that many sociopaths, who consider themselves unbound by convention and law, may repeatedly take illegal action to deprive others of their money, possessions, freedom, health, or life. These criminal individuals are an even greater burden to their communities.

    All in all, non-sociopaths see sociopaths as a greater burden on the type of society that is preferred by the majority than individuals of other neurodiverse types. And, since sociopaths are, by their own admission, not happy as they are, it seems logical to ponder whether changing the sociopath's mind just a bit might be a good thing.

    Those who see sociopaths as wolves and non-sociopaths as sheep might put sum this up as "Do you really expect the flock to love the wolf?"

    --lurker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As evidenced by your post, the flock fears the wolf. The wolf does not need the flock's love, just their meat. If you are too weak to protect your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and possessions then you deserve what you get. In all of nature, only the strongest and most cunning survive. The weak are food. You want your flock safe, but you want someone else to stop the wolf. When you stop being such a coward and learn to protect yourself you can be a man and quit waiting for Uncle Sam to save your lazy sorry ass :)

      Delete
  14. Lurker said, "Do you really expect the flock to love the wolf?"

    Of course not, and that’s the real point. Life is so often war. It’s one group against another, one individual against another, more times than a lot of of us care to admit. We call it many things, but no matter how we dress it up, philosophize about it or make it fancy, the bottom line is one person/group’s interests often conflict with another’s, and when that happens, war, of one kind or another, becomes necessary and even inevitable. When it comes to war, we all do what we think we must to win. Those of us who are a bit closer to the sociopathic range of the personality spectrum understand this and respond accordingly, while normals try to justify their actions with empty moralizing. But moral posturing is hollow. Actions are what matter, and when it comes to conflict, normals can act just as ruthless as any sociopath. The only real difference is the sociopath won't beat himself up about his tactics later or 'rationalize' his behavior. Of course normals find themselves threatened by sociopaths, so naturally they’ll attempt to deal with that threat by eradicating it. It makes sense. Sociopaths will respond in kind. And so it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Daniel, do me a favor and try to think outside your box for a minute. (Yes, you have one. Everyone does.)

    Consider the world like this:
    Empaths aren't at war with one another. They aren't at war with you, either. Generally speaking, they make an effort not to fuck you over, or to fuck each other over, but human nature sometimes prevails and they hurt one another, apologize, and then start trying to peacefully coexist again.

    Enter the sociopath. He is at war with everyone. Everywhere he looks, he sees war. The little old lady walking down the street? War target. His social worker? War target. Random pedestrian? War target. Everyone is his enemy, so he feels no remorse or regret, makes no attempt not to hurt anyone except to preserve his own well-being. He strikes with no provocation, merely for his own personal gain.

    He causes so much damage that he turns himself into a threat, and the empaths, who just want to get along, realize they need to deal with him, because he refuses to accept the peace. In short, they are provoked. But do they ruthlessly exterminate him? No, they try to reform him. When they realize this is impossible due to a defect in his brain, they search for a way to fix it. This is partially to get him to stop causing trouble, but if that's all they wanted they'd just lock him up or shoot him. No, they also want him to live a fulfilling life like the rest of them.

    Do they do this because he is "a sociopath?" Or because they're at "war" with "the sociopaths?" No, they do this because they DON'T see him as a war target, yet he, for some unexplainable reason, sees everybody as a hostile entity. They want him to calm the fuck down and realize there's no god damn war, that it's all in his head. He's invented this war he's fighting, and his only real enemy are his own perceptions. People are hostile because he makes them hostile by attacking. People try to "fix" him because he leaves them no choice.

    Also, Daniel, if anything in this message sounds offensive, please forgive me. I like dramatic words, and no disrespect or insult is intended toward you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again you rally everyone against something you jusr can't understand. Few sociopaths are at war with everyone. As soon as a path realizes their true nature, many if not most realize that they can not survive attacking everyone. If you are preyed upon it is because your wear weakness like a cheap perfume. Learn to fight with your mind and there will never be a need to get physical.

      Delete
  16. Holy shit, that was a good post, Peter Pan.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peter Pan:

    In a perfect world, how would I respond to your comments? Yes, your answer is germane to this ‘conversation’.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Is this an infringement of a person’s cognitive liberty?"

    If done preemptively, then absolutely YES!

    If done after criminal activity, such as sex crime and murder, even probably for continual "lesser" type crimes, then NO!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Beats the hell outta me, Danny boy. That's for you to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, wow! Think of the possibility?

    We could try this out on people on death row, right now! Or even people serving life sentences. Or child molestors.

    I think it should start as soon as possible!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Peter Pan said, "That's for you to decide."

    It's your 'perfect world' I'm asking about, not mine.

    How did you imagine I'd reply to your previous comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter Pan would have been perfect in the SS. Cold blooded Nazis who think they are wise.... Makes me wonder what the difference is between empaths and socios-

      Delete
  22. "I am admittedly on the fence with this one. My instinct tells me that we should never alter a person’s mind against their will; my common sense tells me that removing sociopathic tendencies is a good thing and ultimately beneficial to that individual. I’m going to have to ruminate over this one a bit further…"

    This part is really amazing. Even though the power is so consuming (like a drug), that one would still seriously consider giving it up

    Very interesting.

    I'd like to hear more from sociopaths (or, sociopathic tendencies) about what they percieve the "bad" aspects of sociopathy to be.

    What "bad" aspects of sociopathy would make you consider giving it up, if you could (through brain altering).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Otherwise, I'll just assume the above statement was said jokingly.

    Like, "I really should give up all the sex with amazingly hot people, complete life anarchy with little to no reprocussions, free flowing drugs, etc... But, then, really? What the hell else would I do? I'm not spiritual! HAHA."

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    If sociopaths could be forcibly given a conscience and concern for others, would it be justified in the case of white-collar criminal recidivism?

    -- lurker

    ReplyDelete
  25. Peter Pan--Empaths 'go to war' with each other constantly. We can be terribly irrational where our 'causes' are concerned. This is an empathetic trait. Think of all the atrosities commited in the name of God or Justice. The thing about empaths is that we are unpredictable. We often do things that are detrimental to ourselves for the sake of our beliefs. Is that really a good thing?

    Which is really more dangerous? An empath driven by irrational emotion or a sociopath driven by the need for power?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Alpha --
    From time to time, individuals in conflict choose *NOT* to go to war.

    -- lurker

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon--If we have the choice *not* to figuratively go to war with each other and STILL do so, even if it's on occasion, how is it that we're 'better' than sociopaths?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I was going to go the roundabout way with PP since I figured I’d find that more interesting, but what the hell? When I used the term war earlier, I wasn’t just referring to armed combat or even full scale screaming matches between 2 people only. I was referring to the ever present ‘drama’ that characterizes human relationships in general. More often than not, stupid human drama happens. And what is the essence of all good drama? Conflict. Inevitably, people fight, they argue, they manipulate, they cajole, they divorce, they lie, they run away from, they disappoint, etc ad nauseum, in their bid to get whatever it is they think they want. We can say that normals try not to “fuck each other over” in some blatant way, but that is only an example of what I meant when I said people try to dress it up and make it fancy. No matter how you describe it people hurt people, in all sorts of ways and they do it to get what they want. Normals may call this phenomena ‘reformation’ and ‘helping’ and what have you, but again, what you call it isn’t as important as the effects real actions taken in the name of ‘goodness’ have.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Alpha Belle said, “how is it that we're 'better' than sociopaths?”

    Zackley. Of course you aren’t. We all are what we all are. Perhaps the only real difference between any of us are our levels of denial.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is strange to me to talk about every-day human drama as war. Just because I have a disagreement with someone doesn't mean I am at war with that person. At the end of the day, I will neither conquer nor be conquered. We won't write treaties or go forward in a state of armed truce. We'll talk things out, come to an agreement, or agree to disagree.

    When you talk about people hurting other people to get what they want, then calling it reformation or helping, are you talking about the Spanish Inquisition?

    ReplyDelete
  31. On balance, I think I'd rather hang out with people who aren't oriented toward emotionally torturing me, just to enjoy watching me squirm. And then take my money. That doesn't sound like fun.

    But I wouldn't know, for sure. I don't know that I know any sociopaths.

    -- lurker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lurker- i think you are very down to earth and a clear thinker. Here's a question for the socios: if you were stuck on a desert island, would you rather have a couple other socios with you or a couple normals? Why?

      Delete
  32. "We'll talk things out, come to an agreement, or agree to disagree."

    We obviously live in two different worlds. Because the world I live in is littered with empaths who destroyed each other 'on principle.' Where I live, abortion clinics get bombed by people who care about the itty bitty embryos so much that they are willing to take the lives of doctors and nurses.

    I live in a world where children are abused by their stepdads because their mama 'loves' the asshole abusing their child too much to kill him or even leave him.

    That same world raises generations of women who care more about climbing the societial/corporate ladder than the men whose balls they are crushing with their spiked heels as they emasculate them in the name of political correctness. The same men allow it because it's what a 'good' person would do and because he just can't bear the thought that someone might think him a sexist. Heaven forbid.

    We empaths 'go to war' with each other every single day. We are just very good at rationalizing it. Only in a land of unicorns and lollipops do we sit down, talk it out and play nice all the time.

    And those who do squash down their emotions and hold it all in are the same people who end up shooting up a school because no one liked them or killing someone for cutting them off on the freeway.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous at 11:39:

    LOL. Fine, whatever. As I’ve repeatedly said, the real world results are the same whatever you want to call it. Maybe my use of the term is war is indeed hyperbolic, but my main points about the ubiquity of conflict and moral hypocrisy on all levels of human society, and especially this need to see all of this in a ‘softer’, more palatable light, still stand.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Damn Alpha Belle. You're saying the same thing I am, only you're saying it better and you're going into more detail than I've bothered to. Either way, we're seeing the same thing, only from different angles.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Daniel, I think truth is truth no matter the angle. However, most people would rather believe the lie. It makes them sleep better at night.

    I don't sleep anyway... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Alpha and Daniel,

    I live in a world where, if someone slips and falls on the sidewalk, passersby will stop to lend a hand. No unicorns, though of course the barber always gives out lollipops.

    That's in the same world where people are waging wars, crashing planes into buildings, bombing clinics, and stoning victims of assault.

    --lurker

    ReplyDelete
  37. True that Alpha. But just as a sign that I can see more than the negative, I’ll happily concede that there are many small and large acts of altruism and cooperation that happen every day between humans as well. After all, we couldn’t have civilization without some form of cooperation, could we? It’s just that altruism and cooperation are as selfishly motivated as the acts of ‘war’ are for one thing. The other thing is that for every ‘positive’ thing we can say about human nature, there are probably 2 more ‘negative’ things we can also say. And ultimately, traits aren’t ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ in and of themselves. We don’t find such values, we determine them.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I didn't notice your last comment Lurker until after I posted my comment to Alpha, but it unintentionally responds to what you just said.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "I live in a world where, if someone slips and falls on the sidewalk, passersby will stop to lend a hand."

    They are more likely to film it on their cell phone camera and put it on youtube. It's nice to *believe* most people would help someone back up to their feet--and personally, I would in most circumstances--but I've found out in the real world that is a shockingly small minority.

    For example, myself, my mom and my sister had a blow out on the freeway when I lived in California (which is supposedly the land of political correctness and 'peace love and understanding'). My six month old niece was in the car as well. It was over 100 degrees outside and there we were, three nice looking women with a baby...very non-threatening. We stood on the side of the road waiting for the tow truck for six hours. Not one single person stopped to ask if we needed help. I doubt all those thousands of cars were driven by sociopaths.

    Everyone has an agenda. We all have goals. We all have wants and needs and soul griping desire. And as much as we like to say we are out for the greater good, it's a lie. When all is said and done, we are out for ourselves and whatever it is we've deemed worthy of being our 'cause' that week. But we have to lie to ourselves because the truth is just too hard...the truth is we empaths are no different than sociopaths. *gasp*

    Why does a Christian do the good things he/she does? For the end result of heaven, right? That's not to say it's a bad reason, only that there always is one. Even if that reason is just that doing something nice makes you feel good inside.

    ReplyDelete
  40. HA! Looks like we're saying the same thing again, Daniel... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  41. I get what you are saying what percentage of incarcerated highly-dangerous criminals are diagnosed ASPD or labelled psychopaths or BPD? And the rest are?

    Does anyone have these stats?

    Which begs a question about efficacy.

    Still, to end where I began, I think many of the things those on the sociopathic end of the spectrum have been writing here and elsewhere are really, really bad PR. A good number of people, reading such things, would think "these people are unhappy and are compelled to do evil to others, so I think this kind of neurodiversity is actually destructive to society"

    Either that, or they are thinking "Did these people escape from a vampire novel?"

    -- lurker

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lurker,

    You said earlier that you don't know any sociopaths. I bet you probably do. A lot of what you read here is very likely posturing. Having known a sociopath or two, I will tell you that a lot of this stuff is just how they play with each other. Just as you likely have your rituals with people you consider your peers, sociopaths have that as well.

    It's like some Amish kid getting dropped off at boxing match in Vegas. The two in the ring look as if they despise each other because why else would they be beating the stuffing out of each other? And all those people cheering and jumping up and down watching, slapping hands and waving their fists...well, hell, they must be horrible people to take such pleasure in watching those men beat each other to bloody pulps. But we view that as entertainment. It's fun. It's perfectly acceptable to enjoy a good boxing match. But to someone on the outside without the proper filter through which to view it, it would be horrific.

    I assure you, not all sociopaths are evil the same as not all empaths are good. It's all a matter of perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Daniel, you're really proving my point for me. You see war everywhere, in everything... you and alpha both.

    I'm not at war with anyone. When I'm in a rough spot, people typically help me. When I see other people in dire straits, I do the same for them. Nobody I know has gone out of their way to take a stab at me except for a) a psychopath who makes a life of it or b) on very rare occasions, someone who is emotionally charged. Generally speaking, they come back later, apologize, and make amends. And because they're not sociopaths, I can usually rest at ease knowing they won't start the shit again. And they don't.

    Yeah, they're motivated by selfishness--the desire not to feel bad. That's completely irrelevant, because a) as you mentioned, it's the consequences that matter and b) what's causing their pain is my harm. You obviously don't understand how personal the feeling of guilt is, and people don't work to rectify it just to "make it stop and move on," at least not in the same way you'd remove your hand from a fire to stop the burning. They do it because, on a personal level, they feel they have wronged someone, they are compelled to go out and fix it and somehow make amends. It's something I doubt you'll ever fully understand, and that's probably one of the reasons why you see everything as a selfish act or part of some grand chaotic conflict.

    You can't compare the things that sociopaths do to the crimes empaths commit against one another. When you looks at the prevalence of psychopathy in prisons compared to real-world populations, it's quite clear that psychopathic behavior is a good 5-20x worse depending on the statistics you're using, and that's just a base comparison. If you accounted for the sheer number of crimes a typical psychopath inmate has committed relative to a "normal" criminal, that number would skyrocket even further.

    Morality and empathy certainly aren't perfect, but they do a much, much, much better job of maintaining peace than cold, hard, selfish logic. The peace it brings certainly is no illusion, either, despite what you might think, because nobody denies that these conflicts exist. Instead, people recognize that they were momentary lapses of judgment and work towards a resolution in an effort to put the problem behind them and coexist peacefully.

    This doesn't require any fairies, unicorns, or oompa loompas... just the slightest glance at statistical data or the differences in the way empaths and sociopaths treat one another. Whether you're judging based on intention or consequence, the average psychopath will always come out looking like a warrior trying to fight his way through non-existent battles, while the average empath by comparison clearly prefers to "live and let live."

    Yes, there are nutcases out there who go to extreme lengths for whatever it is they believe in. They're the exception, not the rule. Not so for the sociopath. Also, empaths as a group are capable of doing terrible things if they're manipulated into believing false information about another group of people. Even still, this is nothing at all like the constant conflict-laden world you seem to live in.

    Alpha, if you're an empath, you sound like someone who is extremely jaded and may need to see a therapist or counselor. You may have a personality disorder yourself, or you might be depressed. No offense intended there, but you've got a pretty warped perception of the world, and it may do you some good.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Just a clarification on the way guilt is experienced:
    When someone you're empathizing with feels pain, it's as powerful as if that pain is happening to you. You almost feel as if you are that person, so when you act to fix it, you're doing so to make them feel happy--not to make yourself feel happy. The pain to you may be a motivator, but the sentiments behind it are rarely selfish. I still don't think you'll grasp that, or its significance, but at least I tried.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sorry, I got that last post a little mixed up. That was more about empathy than guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  46. A few points PP:

    First, motivation isn’t irrelevant because normals make such a huge deal out of it to begin with. They’re the ones who speak loud and long about people’s actions needing to be motivated, at least in part, by guilt and shame and remorse in order to be considered fully human. I’m arguing the opposite. Guilt, remorse, empathy and so on are all irrelevant in the face of real world consequences. For instance, does it really matter to the victim of murder that her killer feels wracked with guilt over it? Dead is dead is dead.

    Second, is it really true that empathy does a much better job of maintaining peace and order as opposed to logic and reason? Can you refer me to the experimental data that demonstrates what you’re saying?

    Third, what world are you describing? You’re describing a world that you’d like to live in rather than the one we all have to live in.

    Which leads to me my fourth point. I didn’t say conflict was constant, merely ubiquitous. There is a difference. I even explicitly stated that I understood that altruism and cooperation are hallmarks of human civilization in one of my previous comments. I’ll say it one more time. Of course humans can behave in ways that are considered altruistic and cooperative, in both small and large ways. What I am saying is that fear, selfishness, conflict and competition play a larger role in all of our lives than apparently you and most other people care to admit, which your comments indicate. You want to dress up the never ending stupidity you see around you (pettiness, silly game playing, marital discord, the reality of poverty you see all around you yet ignore, child abuse, and so on) and that’s fine. It’s certainly the popular way to think about these things. That doesn’t make it true though.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Peter Pan said, “You almost feel as if you are that person, so when you act to fix it, you're doing so to make them feel happy--not to make yourself feel happy.”

    I don’t think you really believe any of this judging by comments you’ve made here in previous months. I think you’re arguing just to argue at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Alpha, if you're an empath, you sound like someone who is extremely jaded and may need to see a therapist or counselor. You may have a personality disorder yourself, or you might be depressed."

    I'll take that under advisement, PP.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Daniel,
    Do you think I'm disagreeing with you about intention vs real-world consequences? I'm definitely not.

    There's a reason I brought up the huge gap between the harm psychopaths do and what empaths do to one another. Their intentions are irrelevant as a point of judgment, but as I've been trying to illustrate, those intentions have such a huge impact on consequence that there's no way to rationally dismiss them.

    1-4% of the population are psychopaths.
    20% of the prison population are psychopaths.
    Psychopaths have on average much much longer rap sheets.
    Psychopaths are typically in for much more heinous crimes.

    Those are the real-world consequences of their intentions. What point are you trying to make by drawing attention away from intention toward results? Is the relationship between intent and consequence really too abstract to be taken seriously?

    I actually can't think of anything with more impact on real-world results than someone's intentions, or a mechanism for peace more effective than a system that keeps them from becoming too callous.

    What are you getting hung up on? The fact that people are getting along because they're programmed to, and not because they've logically decided it's the best course of action? Who cares?

    I'm not blind to the stupidity in the world, I just recognize it for what it is. Stupid petty shit that usually gets resolved one way or another without lasting hostility. It's not worth worrying about. It's not worth living your life treating everyone with hostility because 1 in every 50 encounters you have might be a negative one. That's just not rational, when the alternative allows you and those around you to focus your energy on more constructive pursuits.

    Why do these petty things bother you so much? What real-world consequence does having 1 or 2 people cheat on you over the course of your lifetime have? Or having someone get pissed at you and call you a "fuckhead" only to apologize later? Seriously, what consequence does any of this petty shit have for you?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Do you really expect the flock to love the wolf?

    That's a red herring. Modification is always put forth under the title of what's good for the people, not what the people want.

    It's easy to say that one personality trait is not universally likable or part of an undesirable fringe, but if you want to show that removing the trait will benefit the species you have to first prove your own objectivity and then make a near-infallible argument for the irradiation and then an equally iron-clad methodology to do so. That cannot be done. Autism isn't small pox. There's not one pathology to trace back and isolate. Personality types/ disorders/characteristics are generalizations of many similarly manifesting pathologies. The diagnostic/identification methods behavior science uses focus on manifestation, not pathology and therefore are not designed for the kind of research that would even begin to identify an undesirable disorder that can be modified. It's a ridiculous fairy tale to even think such a thing is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "
    It's easy to say that one personality trait is not universally likable or part of an undesirable fringe, but if you want to show that removing the trait will benefit the species you have to first prove your own objectivity and then make a near-infallible argument for the irradiation and then an equally iron-clad methodology to do so. That cannot be done. Autism isn't small pox. There's not one pathology to trace back and isolate."

    As bizarre as it may seem, those two topics are actually related in the nature of their complexity. Was that intentional or accidental? Kudos if intentional. Quite interesting if that's just how your mind works.

    ReplyDelete
  53. First Peter, let’s remember how this got started. I was responding to Lurker’s statement about the sheep hating the wolf. I wanted to highlight the inherent aggression in her comments as a way of pointing out that when it comes down to the real world actions people take to achieve their ends, normals and sociopaths aren’t so different. Intentions don’t change that, as the citizens of Hiroshima discovered to their horror in 1945 for instance. Or rather, calling one intention “bad” and another “good” is both banal and in the end, irrelevant. Much of your response to these main points have amounted to little more than a wild goose chase down dead end paths.

    Second, you’ve created a false dichotomy by suggesting it’s either “See the world as full of goodness with just an itsy bitsy little bit of badness thrown in” or “see the world as all bad”, and you’re implying that I am irrationally arguing for the latter. I am not, as I have said repeatedly now, so I won’t say it again.

    Finally, your last questions are a bit of a straw man and they have nothing to do with the original point I was making and you know it. Throwing the “you need therapy” comment at Alpha Belle was the same kind of tactic. Am I to take this to mean that we’re done conversating on this particular topic because you’ve now transitioned to transparent attempts at psychological manipulation?

    And just as a disclaimer in the spirit of the kind you gave me earlier, no I’m not mad, furious, upset or even annoyed. Well I take that back. I was having computer problems just a minute ago which infuriated me, but otherwise, I’m golden.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The remark I made to Belle was unnecessary and in poor taste. I figured that out a few minutes after reading it, and I won't try to deny that.

    I am noticing a trend with you, though. You're not debating with reasoning or logic, just assertions. I've gone out of my way to speak with you sensibly, and you dismiss everything as nonsense without even trying to explain your point of view. Yet you wonder why I never try?

    As an exercise, let's see if I can get you to expand on some of your points. I usually don't like to argue petty points bit-by-bit, but I'll make an exception here, because I'm pretty curious as to whether or not you can back up anything you're saying.

    How does dismissing the good and devoting entire paragraphs to the bad translate into *not* arguing that the world is bad with an itsy little bit of goodness thrown in?

    I've gone out of my way to address your belief that I see the world as "full of goodness with just an itsy bitsy little bit of badness thrown in." That was never my assertion, and I went out of my way to make that clear. So where is the false dichotomy, Daniel?

    Are we both just dedicating inordinate amounts of effort and thought into disproving terribly exaggerated representations of one anothers' arguments?

    What psychological manipulation? What have I done other than present my opinions and facts to you, Daniel? Do you think I'm manipulating you because I know you're obsessed with rationality and I keep using it in my arguments? Maybe I really believe my arguments are rational. You could always prove me wrong with a little reasoning of your own, you know. That is what makes debate rewarding.

    Anyway, back to point #1, which is where I think the real meat of the argument is at this point. I think we can call an intention "bad" if it predicts trouble in the future, and "good" if it predicts a cooperative relationship. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

    I don't mean to insult your intelligence by "guiding" you through this, I'd just like you to take the discussion seriously, and I don't think you'll do that unless I show you I'm putting real thought into it. I've gone out of my way to address your usual concerns with our discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Peter, you know I am not going to ‘prove you wrong’. That isn’t what this is about. Words are a dime a dozen and no one reading this is likely to be persuaded to change their beliefs by anything either of us say. That’s why for me, none of our conversations have ever been debates. I don’t debate in my offline world either. I know there’s rarely any point to it. When I write things here I’m learning something, thinking through something or passing the time. That’s it.

    We’re also talking past each other. The meat of the argument, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t whether we can call intentions ‘bad’ or ‘good’; for me it comes down to how we view human nature. You’ve given me no reason to change my assumptions on human nature. Yes, I can restate my points and my reasons for said points, then you’ll restate that I’m wrong and why, then I’ll repeat myself and so on. So with that in mind, I’ve gone as far as I’m going to go with this tonight. At this point, you’ll probably leave a comment saying you’ve ‘won’ the ‘debate’ because I *fill in the blank*. Although it seems like a bit of a Pyrrhic victory to me, I say go for it. We take our fun where we can get it, no?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Daniel, Sarah, Peter Pan, and mr. insanity.

    So all those "I am the wolf and I eat sheep like air" comments are posturing? I should have trusted that feeling that some of the posts had escaped from a vampire movie?

    I apologize for the hostility of the wolf comment. I had taken that wolf/sheep stuff at far to close to face value, and won't do it again.

    So that's OK then. Now I can love the wolf. Especially if the wolf was just kidding about wanting to break the sheep's spirit and take his stuff.

    Thanks!

    As an aside, I think that, on top of all of us having different opinions, Peter and I are practically speaking a different language from that spoken by Sarah and Daniel (and maybe Daft). Makes communication dicey. I think that we are all fully aware of the statistics about the nature of the world and society around us, but have very different worldviews.

    Peter:
    Sarah and Daniel are not the only people with that worldview. Think Oliver Stone.

    -- lurker

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Daft,
    Sorry about the name. I read saw some of your old posts and your blog, and saw that both names were you.

    I chose "Lurker" because I've been lurking here for a short while, and only "delurked" for a bit to ask a couple of questions.

    I may just be passing through.

    --lurker

    ReplyDelete
  60. I won the debate because you bitch out. :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Sarah darling, I'd still like to know whether or not that was intentional. I thought it was amazing how you fluidly transitioned between two topics, bound by abstract similarities, as if they were one and the same.

    Do you frequently do that?

    I'm not trying to start an argument with you, or insult you. It's actually quite fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Peter, darling, love of my life, pie in my sky

    I don't know exactly what is fascinating about it. It was intentional, but I'm not sure how it could have been any other way? You've complained that I've been too abstract in the past, in a 'too smart by half' sort of way...why would you find it less tedious all of a sudden?

    ReplyDelete

  63. 1-4% of the population are psychopaths.
    20% of the prison population are psychopaths.
    Psychopaths have on average much much longer rap sheets.
    Psychopaths are typically in for much more heinous crimes.


    And Peter, just to keep you sharp, I have to call foul on this sloppy thinking.

    A. Psychopathy is defined by criminal behavior, so pointing to a prison population as evidence that they are criminally inclined is redundant and lacks a meaningful conclusion.

    B. 80% of the prison population by your stat is then not psychopathic....which would mean what?

    C. RE: Psychopaths have on average much much longer rap sheets.
    Psychopaths are typically in for much more heinous crimes...Than??? Who? Non-psychopathic is not a proper control group. It's still a prison population and going to have a mixed bag of mental disorders that even will include disorders that are defined by a lack of empathy. Basically this statistic says that psychopathic criminals are worse than other criminals. With the element being studied being criminals. Not psychopaths.

    Your mixing clinical and forensic psychology terms. They are not the same discipline and can have different vernaculars, as confusing as that is.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Really?

    I mean... really?

    You don't see the relevance within the context of my discussion with Daniel?

    And you really don't understand the significance of the statistics?

    I mean seriously, I don't even know how to respond to that. I'd feel like an idiot for believing that someone would need it broken down. No offense intended, just some blunt honesty for you.

    Point C requires some thought, but I'm a little busy right now. I'll probably come back on Monday and revisit it. Cheers 'til then.

    ReplyDelete
  65. It's not about relevance or context. It's about the differences in causation, correlation and coincidence. Stats are hard to use in an argument because the math has to add up perfectly, so to speak. You can't start with specific data and controlled parameters and then make abstract qualifications/conclusions that break the rules. You might be correct, but you haven't proved anything by those numbers. Numbers are for proving, words are for persuasion - and if you don't have enough for 'proof' don't draw attention to it by giving incomplete data. It's complicated Peter. I'm not being condescending, but I don't expect you would understand it as a casual reader. Also, the stats you give pertain to forensic psychology, and can't be applied clinically. An analogy would be a medical exam to a forensic autopsy.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Well Sarah, this isn't a scientific blog, and just about everybody here happens to be a casual reader. These numbers, and my words, are the tools at my disposal, so that's what I'll use. My assertions may not be laid out like a PhD thesis, but they're sufficient for the task at hand.

    Even if they don't establish causation, they do show a clear relationship between the disorder and "undesirable" behavior, which is supported not only by the numbers, but also by common sense inference based on the nature of the disorder and even the comments left by "sociopathic" readers. Whether or not this is "redundant" or "lacks a meaningful conclusion" is irrelevant considering the nature of the discussion, but I do appreciate the abstract, and perhaps unintentional, agreement with my point. You're right--it *is* one of those "duh" things.

    If you find the numbers so useless, what exactly were you trying to prove with your remark about 80% of the prison population not being psychopaths?


    Sarah said...
    "A. Psychopathy is defined by criminal behavior, so pointing to a prison population as evidence that they are criminally inclined is redundant and lacks a meaningful conclusion."

    Sarah said...
    "Basically this statistic says that psychopathic criminals are worse than other criminals. With the element being studied being criminals. Not psychopaths."

    Really? Come on, Sarah.

    You're trying way too hard to find ways to disagree with me.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sarah, the way you're arguing with me makes me think of someone using a sword as a box cutter. Despite the superiority of your blade, using the wrong tool for the job is awkward, unsightly, and ultimately results in inferior performance. It also makes me think you don't really understand what that sword of yours is meant to be used for.

    (yes yes, mixed metaphors, etc etc. Sheathe the sword, and get out the box cutter, hon.)

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh man! This is why I even bother to read the comments on these posts is to see Peter Pan get his ass handed to him and then have him complain "No fair, everyone else on this site are losers who can't understand scientific based arguments so you should treat me the same." Do you really want to be treated the same as the rest of these asswipes Peter Pan? Maybe you should start trolling on lovefraud instead. I'm sure they would all be nodding their heads in unison, constantly humping your leg like dogs in heat just to show their appreciation of your witless regurgitation of "statistics." You could be king of the fools there.

    What I want to hear from you next are the statistics of how many of your particular type of crazy are in the criminal population. Or do most of your people get off on an insanity defense? Maybe we should be looking at criminal psych wards for those statistics instead.

    You're like a hyena that whines about how big and bad the lions are when all you really want is less competition yourself. Maybe you need to "sheathe the sword" and stop pulling out your dick to piss on everything as your instinctual "turn everything to shit" gut reaction.

    On topic: if I ever did agree with eradicating anyone or mind altering them, you'd be top on my list. Be careful what you enable. Once a program like that would be up in full force, you don't think that the sociopaths would find some way to infiltrate it and turn it against you and whoever else argued for it?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Buddy bear, all the insults in the world won't change the fact that it's moronic to come into a casual discussion forum and start trying to enforce the scientific method. It might impress some idiots, but anyone with more than a shred of common sense can see how haughty and impractical it is.

    On that note, I absolutely would love to keep it casual, and I know I can absolutely count on you to help with that. :)

    Love you!

    ReplyDelete
  70. I have to agree with the other anonymous on this one, Peter. Even if you don't like "science" based arguments, everyone can properly apply principles of logic. For instance, in your comment all of your arguments are ad hominem attacks (illogical). I'll asterisk them for you:

    "*Buddy bear*, all the insults in the world won't change the fact that it's *moronic* to come into a casual discussion forum and start trying to enforce the scientific method. It might impress some *idiots*, but *anyone with more than a shred of common sense* can see how *haughty* and impractical it is."

    Basically you are saying that you are right because only idiots would think that you are wrong, something that I would expect an NPD to say. The only arguably logical argument you bring up is that it is somehow "impractical" to use science based arguments, which I found amusing because you were the first to quote statistics regarding the prison population in this exchange. I find your ad hominem arguments particularly curious since you appear to be criticizing the other anonymous poster for merely "insulting" you. Was this done intentionally?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Oops! I almost forgot the smiley.

    Hold on.

    Tsk tsk. :)

    There, now you know I'm smiling.

    Toodles.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I was just talking to you, Peter. I thought this post was long dead. I wouldn't have been so tedious otherwise (or I would, but not intentionally).

    And I don't own a box cutter. Metaphorically or literally. I've got some manicure scissors, some arsenic and a shotgun.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You can borrow my flamethrower if you want, though I have to admit, I'd love to see your shotgun in action.

    ReplyDelete
  74. If you find the numbers so useless, what exactly were you trying to prove with your remark about 80% of the prison population not being psychopaths?

    You gave that stat. I can't find anything that would say that it is correct or not correct. I didn't know what you meant to prove with it or how it fit. I was honestly asking, what does that mean? I could tell you were trying to infer something, but it wasn't tangible enough for me - and even seemed to contradict what I thought you were saying.


    Even if they don't establish causation, they do show a clear relationship between the disorder and "undesirable" behavior, which is supported not only by the numbers, but also by common sense inference...
    They don't show a clear relationship. That's my point. And inference has no place in trying to prove a point that way. But your right, your opinions are wholly appropriate and reflective of this blog and the commentators. To use your analogy, it appeared that you sliced through the cardboard and then felt on a roll and decided to enter a sword fight. You may be able to slice with the same ease in a sword fight, but you're gonna have to pick up sword to do it. I insist.

    I refuse to end this with a smiley, but I was giving you a hard time just to tease you. If you want to fight with swords, you would have tagged me in, but you were talking to Daniel. I know that.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I'm far too lazy to fight with swords, but I was serious about the shotgun. Honestly, I'm not in the mood to argue, debate, talk, etc right now. I'm actually in the mood for a little seduction, but I'm not going to find that here.

    ReplyDelete
  76. It puts the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again...

    ReplyDelete
  77. It's actually a Nazi issue WWII shotgun that my grandfather picked off a dead soldier somewhere in Europe. It's by far the coolest thing I own. And my token socipathic advice: don't look for seduction. Seduce.

    ReplyDelete
  78. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Did I give you the impression I was looking to be seduced?

    As for the guns... I was under the impression we were still speaking metaphorically. I'm not quite strange enough to own a real flamethrower.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I know, Peter. I know.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I think we just had a moment, Sarah.

    Is this what love feels like?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Sarah?

    Sarah?!

    SAAARRRRAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Brilliant idea. Let's get rid of the sociopaths, and then everything will be better! Too bad the Nazis beat us to this idea.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Here's my limited cred:
    Trained as a biologist, never worked in my field.
    Now, here is my semi-professional, socio-biological theory on sociopathy and neurodiversity:
    Assume a population of social carnivores or omnivores, like humans. They would benefit from having a behavioral complex that did not allow cannibalism. However, in nature, things get broke and some few individuals would perform cannibalism anyway. usually they would be shunned, go rouge and die from exposure and predation.
    In times of extreme famine they would be the first to survive. This is the advantage to the species that having a cannibalistic or sociopathic minority conveys. While human society is much more complex than this example it is easy to see how the sociopath can add to the overall viability of a gene pool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Translation: An heirloom seed which at times matures into a body snatching pod.

      Delete
  86. IPlayTheFox:
    I am big on personal freedoms in a traditional American way. The problem with allowing some group to "clean up the place" like the NAZIs is that they then have the power and ability to "clean up" anyone else they don't like.
    But while empaths may be racist they will not murder the innocent just for being the wrong breed.
    While empaths may be arrogant or greedy they will not enslave or destroy other people without cause. Even with cause it hurts them to do so.
    In short: if all the sociopaths were gone there would be nothing but bad weather to worry about.
    My opinion? test everyone and remove all sociopaths from society. We don't have to kill them (empaths hate killing things) but isolate them so they have nothing worthy, nothing but each other to prey on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isolate them? That's a fantastic idea. Let's build some prisons.

      Delete
  87. Replies
    1. And by bitches I mean Alterego

      Delete
  88. Sort of reminds me of lobotomies used to "calm down" those particularly disruptive patients.

    Frankly, I think it would be great if the option was open, but forcing it is without a doubt infringing on the liberties of others. Now, if going through with such a procedure could lessen the sentencing and increase chance of parole, I have a feeling that many people would opt for it. Pedophiles are becoming more receptive to chemical castration, and I'm pretty sure if there was some sort of medical procedure or injected long-term medicine that could induce empathy, a fair amount of psychopaths and antisocials would take the opportunity to get out from behind the bars.

    As long as the society does not treat the issues as a sickness that needs to be eradicated, like Polio, I doubt it will ever be an issue.

    I hope it will never be an issue, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Better Version
    Original Theme Song for Monica

    ReplyDelete
  90. :) Good Morning Sociopathworld!!!!! (5 !'s)

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  91. We live in a world where the powers that be function sociopathically. They are the chess players and we are the chess pieces. Empaths are great chess pieces- tell them they are a pawn and they will obey the rules of pawndom. Tell them to kill, they kill. But a world of sociopaths would be a world of chess players and no chess pieces. Couldnt work. The only difference between a sociopath and an empath in society is that sociopaths know when they are lying. Empaths want to fix sociopaths so they can not realize they are chess pieces anymore and believe the lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am an empath and a sociopath may voice their opinion but I am the one that chooses what I am to believe.

      Furthermore, I know when I am lying

      I do not want to fix sociopaths. Why? I, only, work on myself.

      Delete
    2. ^ Also, I don't allow myself to be the chess piece."

      Delete
    3. I completely agree with you 9:47......

      Delete
    4. You proved my point- empaths dont realize they are pawns- you wouldnt know true freedom or free thinking if it Tea Bagged you in the eye

      Delete
    5. Anon 3:46
      And how did I prove your point? You don't know me and my freedom status. Your post is a lie.......

      Delete
  92. It should be a law that socio's mirandize potential mates, (minus "in a court of law") hehehe

    ReplyDelete
  93. I have a question to the "Anonymous"person who was asking me about names and addresses I may or may not know in Boca Raton.

    Are you still on here?

    I think I know one of the plaes you have mentioned and I think I may know who you are.

    Please get back to me if you read this.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell you what?

      Does your name start with an N? Or a K?

      Delete
    2. and if your name does start with an N or a K., which does it start with?

      Also, if your name dosent start with N or K are you a male or a female?

      Delete
    3. LMAO!!!!!!!

      :)


      PS- Are there any updated of SW Confidential today?

      Delete
    4. Fans of SW ConfidentialOctober 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM

      *taps foot*

      Delete
  94. Didn't we try to do this once before? Except then we called it: A lobotomy.

    Same thing, new and improved methods of irreversibly altering a human being because we as a society like to judge things, and then destroy things we don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
  95. This is silly. Even if they find a cure, they will have the right to reject something that alters their mind. And the fact that it causes a big change doesn't change the fact that there is still a reason to call it a problem. We should consider other things disorders, but shouldn't consider neurological disorders disorders because it hurts people's pride? Nothing wrong with a cure, as long as the person chooses it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I think we are asking the WRONG question. Considering how well suited psychopaths are for Corporate, Wall Street, military and other positions of power- dont you think we will be medically curing people of empathy rather than the reverse?

    ReplyDelete
  97. I loved the Forum Digested Reads, what happened to those???

    ReplyDelete
  98. Ahmed turned the cab around leaving Dick by a long dirt driveway leading off the road. The caddie had disappeared after turning in there a few minutes before they caught up, and all that could be seen from the highway was the back of a large house on the lake. Sometimes Ahmed hated this land of the brave and free, and yearned for the simplicity of life back in Falluja. He'd been a different man back then, a self -schooled expert in improvised explosives, but he still did whatever he had to do when it came to family. Even if that meant selling the Walters kid down the river. He pulled out his cell phone and dialed as the cab sped back towards the bright lights of the city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Walters flattened himself against a tree, heart pounding, as a light snapped on and the back door opened. He risked a peak just as a tiny handbag dog darted down the steps making a bee-line for him. Dick held his breath and prayed. Just at that moment a woman appeared in the doorway and called, "Hurry up, Muppet, I don't have all night." The little beast skidded to a halt at the sound of its mistress' voice not a foot from Dick's hiding place, squatted a moment, then darted back into the house. The door closed. The light went out, and Dick breathed a sigh of relief.

      Delete
    2. Your complimentary editorOctober 5, 2012 at 6:54 PM

      "He risked a PEAK"...? what, he risked an erection?

      Delete
    3. :) I love it!!!!!! We need to copyright a SW Confidential book! It would be a bestseller!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. Yeah, yeah. I make it up as I type it out. Peek shmeek. Sue me.

      Delete
    5. :) for real, writing that brilliant can excuse a couple of misspelling's here n there! BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    6. Fans of SW ConfidentialOctober 5, 2012 at 7:31 PM

      We have sheer genius, here, and someone wants to be a spell check ~

      Delete
  99. Fans of SW ConfidentialOctober 5, 2012 at 5:10 PM

    Thank you! It gets better and better, if that is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  100. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  101. One has to feel life from one's own belly button i.e. one's belly button must be attuned as one's antenna. That is the first goal in healing a PD: self reliance in one's perceptions.
    This was lost in the acquiring of the PD. Getting it back is crucial.

    ReplyDelete
  102. LMAO!!!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!! It just gets better and better!!!!! Sheer Brilliance ;)

    ReplyDelete
  103. 5 seconds into it I knew it was one of those old posts. So whiney and gradiose.

    ReplyDelete
  104. SociopathWorld Digested Digested ReadsOctober 5, 2012 at 9:16 PM

    SW Confidential – Walters P.D penny-dreadful. Walters bungles his way through yet another non-adventure. His perceived threats just products of his fucked-up feverish and feeble mind. About as hard-boiled as an Easter egg.

    It Only Takes a Smile – Forum fodder that would otherwise be unremarkable if it were not for SociopathWorld’s newest member – Blades. Complete with physical description, recent ‘Take the Test’ results and even what could be construed as an infatuation for SociopathWorld’s Yosemite Sam of bunny-boilers. We know already of her obligatory Jewish fantasy of men in doctors’ uniform but is she also of the Asian persuasion? Could this be another window-licker secret admirer cum real SociopathWorld romance in the making? Let’s find out. Go make Blades feel welcome before he wakes up smelling of Saki vomit.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Yay October! My favorite time of the year because it basically means that there's a month of non stop horror movies and Halloween preparation!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are some of your more liked horror movies Haven? *squeak*

      Delete
  106. Sociopath Reuters News DripFeedOctober 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM

    Reports of employee dissatisfaction within SociopathWorld HQ bring production to an unexpected halt.

    Stay tuned for updates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CEO - Hold firm. Don’t give into their socialist demands. In fact, sack all their sorry non-sociopathic asses.

      Delete
    2. :) LOL!

      Good Morning Sociopathworld!!!!

      Delete
    3. CEO is the right man for the job. Thank Goodness.

      Delete
    4. CEO doesn't tolerate fools. I wouldn't want to mess with CEO.

      Delete
  107. Still no new post.
    could this be the end;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont know but I hope not......

      That one "Behind the scenes" guy seemed really pissed off the other day when he came and posted, he said the phone was ringing off the hook and M.E. is on his ass, he called us all whack-jobs (I agree with that lol)........

      Delete
    2. I remember that. Do you think it could somehow be related to that incident?

      Delete
    3. In which case it'd be Monica's fault (again;)

      Delete
    4. Anon @ 5:20, it may be, that is the last post I have seen from him and he seemed pretty pissed........

      Delete
  108. Replies
    1. :D

      What's in store for our hapless PD? Stay tuned for the next blog post and find out. M.E my pen is dripping with frustration here.

      Delete
  109. Should we take bets as to what the next post will be? Here's my guess:

    "Why Sociopaths are Notoriously Tardy"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When SociopathWorld Workers Go Postal"

      Delete
  110. Sociopath Reuters News DripFeedOctober 6, 2012 at 5:54 AM

    Rumors of a hostage crisis at SociopathWorld Head Office concern SociopathWorld site members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You 'journalists' are all the fuck’n same. Looking for the sensationalist story. There hasn't been any rumors of the sort. You just completely made that up. FU paparazzi muthafuckas!!!!!

      Delete
    2. LOL Anon 6:40! You're soooo right!!! M.E is probably just suffering from a hangover LOL!!!

      Delete
  111. LMAO Has anybody seen the clip of the Hulk Hogan sex tape? I Laughed my ass off! Here it is.......

    http://gawker.com/5948770/even-for-a-minute-watching-hulk-hogan-have-sex-in-a-canopy-bed-is-not-safe-for-work-but-watch-it-anyway

    ReplyDelete
  112. Sociopath Reuters News DripFeedOctober 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM

    SociopathWorld members await worst-case scenario news of SociopathWorld founder’s suspected drug overdose after unconfirmed sightings in sexual tryst with former wrestler Hulk Hogan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sociopath Reuters News DripFeed = Bullshit.

      You make Fox News look like Woodward and Bernstein.

      Delete
    2. Sociopath Reuters News DripFeedOctober 6, 2012 at 7:29 AM

      Survey reveals that majority of SociopathWorld members are gay #SRNDF®NewsMorphine

      Delete
    3. Where there's smoke there's fire.

      Delete
  113. Why?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!October 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM

    First? :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. C'mon SociopathWorld, get your shit together - even the terminally perky 'Firsters' don't know what to do with themselves.

      Delete
  114. Florida – Shit! Morning. Sunlight seeps through the office blinds replacing the neon light from the night before. The light illuminates the dense smoke lingering from the home-made bong sat like an unwanted ornamental paperweight Christmas gift on my cluttered desk. A metaphorical smoking gun to the many hazy hours lost sitting on my unemployable ass instead of solving cases.

    When debt collectors, loan sharks, and assorted money lending goons come around asking who I am - I tell them I’m just another unpaid creditor asshole waiting for my check from that wannabe detective über-loser Dick Walters P.D.

    To everyone else I am Dick Walters P.D – Psychopath Detective.

    Admittedly I've bounced a few checks in my life. Mostly reality checks.

    However, this morning everywhere I looked all I saw was yet another bill. It felt like I was the lead role in ‘March of the Penguins’.

    All I needed now was Morgan Freeman narrating my life-story. In the state that I was in I’d imagine it’d sound something like, “Dick Walters. What an asshole. What a stupid, lazy, good for nothing, junkie asshole”.

    I was being played for the toothless four dollar whore of a sucker I was. Cheryl Mondat was hiring me to look for Monica who was hiring me to look for Eden. And yet there was somebody impersonating me out on the ‘Top Gun’ of wild goose chases.

    If Monica was to be believed this had all the inky fingerprints of Eden’s evil-doing all over it. I was not only drinking doubles – I was seeing them wherever I looked. Although in my intoxicated state I was now seeing quadruples.

    And to make matters worse – I didn’t even know what day of the week it was.

    [To be continued]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LMAO!!!!! Another brilliant post! I love this!!!! Great job on the writing!

      Delete
    2. Walters PD Fan ClubOctober 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM

      More, more, more.

      Delete
  115. Hey Walters - here's a clue for you. Try getting clean & sober - get up off your gormless ass and actually try do something constructive for a change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LMAO y'know Rich, for an uber empath you'd give alot of these psycho loony tunes a run for their money when it come to supreme indifference and fuck offishness.

      Keep up the excellent no work.

      Delete
    2. :) Thanks alot buddy! I dont mess with people or go looking for trouble, but I dont take shit either ;)

      Iam thinking I may be a bit more sociopathic than I originally thought..... When that one guy told me to "Embrace my sociopathic side" I kinda thought "Why not?". You know?

      What have I got to lose?

      Thank you for your praises :)

      Delete
    3. "Keep up the excellent no work" I almost pissed my pants I was laughing so hard when I read that!!!!!!

      Delete
  116. Maybe ME got hit by a bus!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe she got hit by a bus because she was parking her car in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Pity, I'll miss her but she can't say she wasn't warned.

      Delete
    2. I heard one of the "real" psychos from this site finally got to ME.

      RIP ME.

      Delete
    3. Sociopath Reuters News DripFeedOctober 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM

      SociopathWorld members mourn the passing away of Sociopathword’s well-respected & popular founder whilst simultaneously wondering who was it amongst them that was responsible for the killing.

      Delete
    4. This sounds like a job for Walters P.D. LOL!!!!!

      Delete
    5. IT WAS UKAN!!!!!

      case solved

      Delete
    6. @ 12:05 Hahaha Walters P.D couldn't crack open a nut let alone a suspected murder case.

      Delete
  117. Replies
    1. i was hungry after sex so I ate here

      Delete
    2. leg or breast?

      Delete
    3. this way we can be as one for ever

      Delete
    4. or untill i take a crap

      Delete
    5. she had no children so i'll be taking all here worldly possesion

      Delete
    6. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

      Delete
  118. Question: do socio's have short attention spans?

    ReplyDelete
  119. My ex (of course its always an ex) couldn't read fictional novels. He said he couldn't imagine the charachters as described. Is that typical?

    ReplyDelete

Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.