Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Context is everything

A little related to the last post, Mormon small children around the world were given this interesting pseudo ethical (but mostly practical) dilemma recently:

Ask the children to imagine that they are alone on a raft in the middle of the ocean. They discover that they must lighten their load because the raft is riding low in the water. They must throw overboard all but two items of their supplies. From the following list, ask them to choose the two items they will keep:

Life jacket

First aid kit

Chest filled with gold

Fishing pole, fishing tackle, and bait

Case of one dozen bottles of fresh water

Two-way radio

Box of emergency flares

Large can of shark repellent

At this point you may be wondering what the moral punchline is going to be. For me, I thought for sure it was going to be about getting rid of the chest filled with gold (by the way, the relative weights of a chest of gold and life jacket do not seem equivalent)? Or maybe something more of a stretch, like the importance of having a two way radio to God or something?

For some reason the answer was unexpected to me.

List the choices on the chalkboard, and ask the children to explain the reasons for their choices. The choices in this activity should pose a dilemma. Point out that choosing would be difficult because they would not know what would happen in the future: they might sink and need the life jacket, become thirsty and need the water to drink, become hungry and need the fishing pole, encounter sharks and need the repellent, need the radio to seek help, get hurt and need the first-aid kit, need the flares for a nighttime rescue, or get rescued in the next few hours and wish they had kept the treasure.

I thought it was an interesting illustration about how the value of things depends on context, and how I was sort of ignorant to assume that there would just be a set hierarchy of usefulness to nonusefulness based on the limited information given. Maybe you were like me and your brain raced to figure out what the "right" answer would be too, given what you think you know about survival. Like many of you likely prioritized water over food (fishing pole), because you can survive longer without food than water. But I've read Unbroken, so I know that there's actually a decent chance of getting fresh water from the rain, which would naturally collect in the bottom of a typical raft. And if the two way radio was in range of help, it makes most sense to keep that. Who cares if you get a little thirsty or hungry in the few hours that it might take to be rescued. Also, who cares if you're hungry or thirsty if sharks come right away, so in some ways shark repellant is most necessary. But if the whole idea is either to facilitate speedy rescue or to survive until rescue comes or you've drifted to safety, it's really not clear what would be more valuable without more context. But still my mind had an impulse to think that there was a "right" answer, or at least "righter". I was surprised that the punchline was -- it depends.

But I think I also can understand a little better now the perspective of people who think that there's really no use for sociopaths in the world, such that we can and should just eradicate them all. Those people must feel the same way about sociopaths as the way I almost instinctively felt about the chest of gold in the raft. Because the gold seems to me to be so obviously useless to that situation, I would have probably thrown out the gold without a second thought. But the lesson makes a good point -- what if you were rescued in a few hours. You'd wish you hadn't.

I think it's similar with sociopaths. Some people might see the world in a particular way that would make sociopaths seem an obvious detriment with no countervailing benefit and almost just automatically think it would be best to get rid of them. But sociopaths can be extremely useful in certain contexts, e.g. life or death situations where something dangerous or morally questionable needs to get done quickly and effectively -- war, espionage, natural or man made disaster, but even smaller things like car accidents, impending street violence, taking risks in business, having the mental fortitude to try something and not be afraid of failure. Sociopaths are like the gold, or maybe more like the flares, in the sense that they don't seem as immediately useful as we've been conditioned to see the other items, but sociopaths would truly be your tool of choice in certain situations.

And unlike this survival hypothetical, there's no reason to want to go around killing sociopaths (or even preventing them from being born through genetic screening or whatever). Because unlike the survival hypo, we can keep everyone in the boat. And you know the old saying, better to have something and not want it than to want something and not have it. 


  1. FIRST!!!



    1. M.E.-

      I hope you liked your song!!!

      I love Oasis and Liam & Noel Gallagher.:) I love Liam's glasses in that video-I have a few pairs of those.:) I love that song, and heard a cool acoustic version of it the other day, that I hadn't heard before...


    2. M.E.-

      I listened to that song a lot, on a Caribbean cruise, I went on.:)

      I was laying out on the aft of the ship by the pool, delicious drink in hand, listening to "Wonderwall", as I looked out onto the Caribbean Sea all around me...


    3. M.E.-

      PS-You did a post about cruises awhile back, and I meant to tell you-I think you would like them.:)



    4. Song of the Day:



    5. 311


      take me away from the norm
      I got to tell you something
      this phenomenon
      I had to put it in a song
      and it goes like

      Whoa, amber is the color of your energy
      whoa, shades of gold displayed naturally
      you ought to know what brings me here
      you glide through my head blind to fear
      and I know why
      whoa, amber is the color of your energy
      whoa, shades of gold displayed naturally

      Whoa, amber is the color of your energy
      whoa, shades of gold displayed naturally

      You live too far away
      your voice rings like a bell anyway
      don't give up your independence
      unless it feels so right
      nothing good comes easily
      sometimes you gotta fight

      Whoa, amber is the color of your energy
      whoa, shades of gold displayed naturally
      launched a thousand ships in my heart, so easy
      still it's fine from afar, and you know that
      whoa, brainstorm take me away from the norm
      whoa, I got to tell you something


  2. How old are people on this blog. I'll be 64 next month.

    1. Are you looking for a date?

    2. Somewhere around the half century mark.

  3. It would be really interesting to hear the definition of sociopath in this blog. As i have never found one.

    The only definition i have found, is that this:


    "Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long."

    It pretty much defines sociopaths as irrational criminal types. Completely the opposite that this blog is trying to push.

    1. I don't think any sociopath, high impulsivity or not, is agitated and nervous. Maybe they could act that way to deceive someone, but the condition is characterized by a pervasive lack of concern for others so why would they be anxious?

      Personally I think Cleckley had the clearest idea on sociopathy, at least for a researcher. Go read The Mask of Sanity, it's a little dry but it's insightful.

    2. Scarlet-

      Thanks for your book recommendation-I value your opinion.:)

      I need to read M.E.'s book, then maybe "The Mask of Sanity", will be next...


    3. @Anon804:
      First off, the article makes an interesting distinction between sociopath and psychopath. Science largely doesn't. In my opinion, it's subjective preference whether and where you draw the line between the two - and heavily dependent on society to differentiate between neurotypicals and nons.

      Mostly I define the difference of psycho vs socio with (mostly) nature vs (mostly) nurture and loosly base the distinction against neurotypical on hare's checklist (tho you gotta find the manual online in which the traits are explained in detail to determine if a trait fits or not).

      On more general terms...

      The article's distinction *is* intriguing tho. At first I dismissed it as arbitrary fabrication from someone who needs to put unnecessary labels onto 'stuff' - until I looked closer at some recent experiences regarding fits of rage with a close friend whom I suspect to be a sociopath (I'm likely a psychopath).

      Situation One, psychopathic rage:
      A small fracture in a rib caused me to lay down on the ground as soon as the full pain hit me. Could barely breath, talking was close to impossible. He didn't see in how much pain I was and started nagging 'bout me giving back his mobilephone. I told him I'm in pain, he continued nagging. Told him to give me just ten minutes, which didn't deter him.
      Pain got lesser - and that's where I had a fit of rage. I jumped up, grabbed his neck and pushed him down to the ground, fixating stare to underline that I'm angry - shouted at him to shut the fuck up. (He did, for about 5 minutes. But that's no the point.)

      Now, you gotta think about this: I was in total control of myself, that fit of rage is quite typical for me. Purely calculated due to pain (tried to avoid unnecessary movements) and highly instrumentalised. I calmed down in less than a minute and gave back his phone so he would stop nagging. (Which was much more effective.)

      Situation Two, sociopathic rage:
      He lost his credit card somewhere in the mall and lost his temper. Started to scream around and shout curses, flinging stuff aroung etc. You know, that's something considered not acceptable in public. I found it strange at first, considering how calm he was shortly before the incident, but after a while it was quite funny. Especially the looks on the faces of passerbys.
      After a while I got thirsty so I had to calm him down or else we wouldn't be going anywhere any time soon. Took quite some effort to assure him that the world wouldn't end just because of a lost credit card. Took him fairly long to stop the emotional outburst and listen to logic. Situation was solved in less than 5 minutes after he finally followed my instructions... he had lost the card inside the bank building, just as I had suggested.

      His reaction was of an emotional nature, however he was in control of himself - at least enough not to attack me or strangers. Yet, he was volatile, disorganized and his rage was rather haphazard.

      See? It's both over-the-top reactive aggression, but with a different nature to it. From the outside it surely looks like the same, that's why there's little consensus over where the difference is...

    4. @Scarlet,
      I recall reading somewhere that sociopaths are prone to co-morbidity with generalized anxiety disorder.

      As far as I've come with my understanding, there are a lot of different types of *paths (nomenclature according to personal definition...). The ones who became the way they are through a botched up childhood were traumatized, so nervousness, anxiety, being easily agitated and generally volatile doesn't sound too far off for me.

    5. I'm extremely volatile, and I'm not sure I understand why. I go from 0-60 and back down again within the span of 10 minutes, but during a spate of anger, I am prone to seeing red, hurting people, and therefore saying or doing things I know will be to my ultimate disadvantage.

      Logically, I understand this tendency, but I succumb to it anyway. I manifest a severe lack of impulse control, and I don't know how to change that.

    6. Pain got lesser - and that's where I had a fit of rage. I jumped up, grabbed his neck and pushed him down to the ground, fixating stare to underline that I'm angry - shouted at him to shut the fuck up. (He did, for about 5 minutes. But that's no the point.)

      Now, you gotta think about this: I was in total control of myself, that fit of rage is quite typical for me. Purely calculated due to pain (tried to avoid unnecessary movements) and highly instrumentalised"

      Yeah. Of course it worked. But you got pissed off. You acted brutally, on impulse, in a cold and calculated way, to a situation that provoked in you hot anger, aka. "sociopathic rage".

      You came back down again quickly. But in the thick of it, to what extent were you in control, really?

      You reacted (pushed, shouted) "harder" than you intended... and then you minimized it, didn't you?


    7. A, I was in approximately 85% of control due to the pain. I wasn't minimizing, tho I do generally tend to use a lot of euphemisms.

      It was a cold type of rage in this case, hence I used this situation as example. I did have hot rages just as well in my life, driven by medium to high levels of frustration, in which I minimized the unintentional damage done afterwards, mind you? ;p

    8. Hey NM-

      Are your rages turning from "hot" to "cold" in general, or just in that particular circumstance?


    9. One way or another, they never turn. It's always dependant on the circumstances - in most cases I have cold rages, I guess this is due to my core attitude of not giving a fuck xD (Which of course has its downsides too)

    10. Some of us know...we just don't play the same game. You only cover up the damage in your own mind.

    11. am I right in assuming that you tow are younger Nihilistic Mind and A? My rages have dissipated to very rare status the older I have gotten. Might happen to you too. Seems to be the norm according to research. A good way to deal with them is to recognize when you are triggering, keep a journal if you must. Then when you see/feel a trigger coming on step back from the situation, acknowledge it, control your breathing, try to break your focus. The focus break is important since we achieve that hyper focus state and when we reach that BAM in the zone. See if there are any physical triggers too. Low on nicotine or blood sugar drop, dealing with too many idiots in short period of time, frustration, and physical pain like you mentioned. I hit the trifecta day before yesterday and almost went off but I knew what was causing it and managed to clear my triggers before i did to much damage. On an amusing note I appear to have inadvertently trained the people I work with to spot my triggers and they will take a look at me and send me out to have cigs and food when I present symptoms. This benefits everyone. If you can train people around you to be spotters like this and let give you some detox moments then you can usually avoid the meltdown.

    12. There does seem to be many conflicting definitions of what a sociopath is. Knowing quite a few myself I think it is best defined by a set of behaviors. Manipulative, non empathic, lacking a true sense of self, when angered has the "sees red" phenomenon, hyper vigilante, ability to enter "superhuman mode" in emergency situations or high adrenaline situations, low emotional response or rewired emotional response (when you feel the "wrong" emotions in situations) megalomania or inflated ego, liar, poor impulse control, social chameleon adherence to a personal code as opposed to a societal one, dependent on logical not emotional reasoning. These seem to be the most common features. Otherwise we are all over the place dependent on nurturing, socio economic and cultural factors and life experience. Hope that helps

  4. In the old days folks did not see the sociopath as a super(anti)hero, they just thought of a bum. But their observations were primitive, they were focused on jail/drink antisocials. It seemed somehow that the description as a "higher level of humanity" were more or less forbidden. Bums and hopeless cases were searched for to study, and these were found. The rest: silence.

    1. "higher level of humanity", this is like from dem teen vampire movies?

      No one claiming this bullshit can be serious. Like read the symptoms list. "Inflated sense of self-worth." It's the first goddamn thing they list!

      Still wondering why every blog post here is about how important and great antisocials are.

    2. The psychopaths inflated opinion of himself is supposed to be some sort of psychological compensation for that very mysterious "lacking of self" most sociopaths have, an inner void..

    3. Not every blog post here is about how important and great antisocials are. That is qualitatively false. Bitter, much?

      Some blog posts are about the advantages of having a sociopathic personality type. It is a spectrum. Not all of us are afflicted to the point of dysfunction.

      Much of what you might label our "inflated sense of self-worth" is the result of the confidence engendered by successful risk-taking.

      We *ARE* great. Those of us who are "high functioning" have have learned to overcome adversity, and thrive.

      You wish you were- but you sabotage yourselves with self-loathing and doubt, because you have been socialized to seek attention and affirmation via self-denigration. As such, you are operating from a position of weakness.

      Our "lacking sense of self" is merely the expression of our ability to adapt comfortably and seamlessly to any environment. We can be anyone, because the many masks we wear are authentic expressions of a fractured self. It is not a void, so much as a permanent state of malleability.

      Break our egos or ruin our circumstances, and we will simply morph into someone different. We will not succumb to depression, anxiety, or fear. We don't feel guilt or shame the way you do, so there is no need to "compensate".

      We like ourselves exactly as we are. And we don't give a fuck what you think. :)

    4. Actually, the whole inability to feel compassion for others seems to make sociopaths rather less malleable. Wouldn't it help the ability to assume a roll if you could turn emotion for others off and on? At least you can fake it I guess.

      I am a bit new to the site, and seem to have a few different uses for certain words, which may contribute to my confusion. For instance, empathy I always assumed meant the ability to see from another's perspective. Whether sympathy is felt is irrelevant. Not sure how empaths come into the mix.

      I have some issues regarding emotion as well. In my case, I rarely show emotion without intending to. The emotion is there, but unless quite strong it doesn't surface unbidden. When people on this site talk of high emotional thresholds, do they refer to that unbidden response, or something else?

    5. Sincerely A,

      Most posts here are about how important antisocials are for the whole humanity. Like we somehow need them, as they have some sort of magical purpose.

      That kinda misses the whole point of being adaptation to circumstances that does not exists in the society. (cruel childhood of abuse etc.)

      Also, most people seem to read these posts dismissing the fact that you should read it in the context of the pathology.

      "And we don't give a fuck what you think." if you would think this, you would not reply and try to defend yourself and go all emotional on me. This kinda says one thing, you are one of these crazy wnb psychos that this blog is full.

    6. Roger that. Wnb she is. But really just a bully.

    7. Childish we are adaptable in many ways. A lack of empathy does not really hold high functioners back, We might not have empathy but we can fake it and other emotions often better than people who are actually experience them. I had to learn how to recognize other people's emotional states but I became extremely good at it. Body language and micro expressions are open books to me. I then learned how to react so as to manipulate the reaction of the other person or even crowd to me. I do this by mimicry (voice and body language) by vocal hypnotism ( modulating my voice ) by asking questions and flattery ( making the other person think you are fascinated and approving of them) collecting data about the other person ( so I can later ask questions about their interests which creates empathy in them towards me) my facial expressions are so ingrained that strangers automatically react pleasantly to me and 1000 other little manipulations that make norms think I am "one of them". So the lack of actual empathy is not really a detriment to me. I have learned behaviors to compensate for it.

      As to your other question about emotional threshold. I rarely have emotional response myself but I had more when I was younger. I often still don't have my true emotions show because I work with the public and staring murder at idiots would negatively impact my sales technique. I am getting better about dropping the mask around my social groups though. From long time spent on this site I think that different people on the spectrum react and have different emotional thresholds so that there is no single answer there as we are all different.

  5. M.E.-

    I loved this post.:)

    With the limited information given-I would keep the life jacket and water.:)

    I didn't know "shark repellent" existed. Has anyone here ever used it before???


    1. PS-

      "I thought it was an interesting illustration about how the value of things depends on context"...

      I agree.

      I liked your comparison, of sociopaths being like the gold and/or flares.:)

      "...we can keep everyone in the boat."

      I completely agree.:)

      "better to have something and not want it than to want something and not have it."


      I haven't read the book, but I have seen the movie "Unbroken". Angelina Jolie was the director.:) I later saw an interview with both her and Louis "Louie" Zamperini, whose life the story was based on. He was one cool dude.:)


  6. Actually, my first thought was to think of pros and cons for the listed items, assuming the logic of the game makes them all equivalent in weight (even tho this is clearly absurd) and I deemed the chest of gold useless even in the case of survival. I'd say it's hardly possible to use it later on, 'cause you can't just walk into the bank and tell them "Hey, I just found that chest of gold. Would you mind putting it on my bank account?". I bet they'd arrest you.

    The given answer surprised me nonetheless, in a positive way tho. I'm used to religious people as well as not religious people coming up with some absurd explanation of why one is better than the other.

  7. NM-

    "Actually, my first thought was to think of pros and cons for the listed items, assuming the logic of the game makes them all equivalent in weight"...

    I did the same thing.:)

    "...I deemed the chest of gold useless even in the case of survival. I'd say it's hardly possible to use it later on, 'cause you can't just walk into the bank and tell them "Hey, I just found that chest of gold. Would you mind putting it on my bank account?". I bet they'd arrest you."

    You crack me up.:)


    1. Hi Vegas, how's life goin' for ya?

      Didn't intend to joke, but now that you mentioned it, it's funny indeed :p

      You were asking the other day whether psychopaths have difficulties recognizing fear, right? I can assure you I have.

      Within a situation in which I don't expect it I rarely realize someone is afraid, if they don't exaggerate their expression. Frankly, I suspect being unable to recognize my own fear in similar (unexpected) situations as well, provided there's a physiological fear reaction to begin with.

    2. I knew there was something off about the sentence in the last paragraph. I had to read it later to catch it. I've always heard its better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it. interesting subtle nuances

    3. That little Freudian slip is very telling.

    4. @ Anon 10:48

      What does it tell?

    5. That phrase to me implies it's better to have something you may not use-like a hammer. A tool for instance. To equate that need with want is interesting. Does anyone ever really want a hammer?

    6. Hey NM-

      Life is always good, when I hear from you.:)

      I got a new word from you, too!!! I was unfamiliar with the word "nomenclature", until now.:) I love cool words, that are new to me!!!

      Thanks for letting me know, that you can have difficulty, recognizing fear.

      It's always helpful to me, to know what your take is, on things.:)

      How are you??? How did you fracture your rib???


    7. Hey NM-

      PS-I wish I was in Vienna!!! We could go to a cool bar, drink, and you could give me the "predatory stare".:) You could see if you could "freak me out"-I bet you could.:)

      HA!!! LOL!!!


    8. Vegas, good to hear. :)

      Strange days, these days. I'd say I'm doin' fine, tho my therapist offered me medication for the first time last week.... which likely is a bad sign xD

      No clue how the rib thing happend, but I think it is related to alcohol and moshpits, somehow.

    9. Hey NM-

      Thanks-it is a good thing.:)

      I didn't realize, you are in therapy. Are you doing that voluntarily (like M.E.), or do you have to? What type of medication did your therapist want to give you, and did you take it?

      Just curious. As always, you don't need to answer, if you don't want to.:)

      PS-I hope your rib is feeling better, and that it heals quickly!!! Did you go to the doctor? If not, I think you should-you could probably get some Vicodin for that.:)

      Be careful in those moshpits!!! If I didn't have people to pluck me out of a few of those, I probably wouldn't be here...

      HA!!! LOL!!!

      Alcohol and moshpits sound good-RIGHT ABOUT NOW!!!


    10. I'm in therapy, yes... involuntarily voluntary, so to say. Bureaucracy demands it, or else I wouldn't have access to the medication I require in order to survive - more or less. I tried to go without it, but gave up after a year, it's just not worth it. And I can't afford the meds on my own xD

      I generally heavily dislike taking mind altering drugs, I don't even take aspirin or similar stuff.

      Alkohol, nicotin, coffein - that's where it ends. No need to change my perception of reality further.

      Regarding the rib, well, it hurts when I tap it - will take some weeks to heal I guess. Not the first time. No need to ask a doc, they wouldn't tell me anything new ;)

    11. Hey NM-

      I always appreciate your candor.:)

      I understand when people dislike taking mind altering drugs, but it sounds like the medication and therapy are helpful to you.

      My husband also dislikes even taking aspirin, etc.

      I'm totally with you on the alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine!!!

      My understanding, is that ribs do take some time to heal. Please take care of yourself!!! Will you take it easy, and get some rest??? It's a good excuse to lounge around with that cute dog of yours!!!

      PS-I've been meaning to tell you-you have beautiful hands.:) I don't have a lot of time right now to read your blog, but I have visited it, and I love the picture of your hand with the heart on it.:) You have awesome hands!!!

      All any of us can do, is take life one day at a time, and do the best we can...

      I am thinking about you.:)


  8. Whether we ought to kill sociopaths or prevent them from ever being born (assuming it's possible) is a moral question. The irony is if you treat the sociopath as he treats others, the obvious answer to this question is yes. Why should we care or empathize at all with those who don't or can't? Tough luck right? The same pretty much results if you're an atheist. In the end, WHY should society tolerate those who's NET input (yes, there may be circumstances where they're the best people to go to) is negative? The irony is that it would NOT be empaths who would kill sociopaths if they could. Most of the time it would be other sociopaths who would do it for a host of different reasons (to prove their own non-sociopathy like closet homosexuals who bash gays, or as a practical tool to get rid of threats etc. etc.)

    The reality is, thank GOD, that these are matters beyond human control. God does exist and He has not given permission for people to kill other people purely based on labels that have been pinned on them or they've pinned on themselves. Only God can judge the deepest intentions of a person. Society can only punish you for what it can prove against you. Also, those of us who believe in God, know that while the neurology of a sociopath may never change (why should it? not everyone is supposed to be "NT" or "empath") their behavior most certainly can.

    I recently gave an example here about how my own sociopathic tendencies can sometimes cloud my judgment. I have to constantly struggle against them. Knowing everything I know now, I almost certainly could NOT do it BUT for my firm belief & trust in God. I don't always do the right thing just because it's the right thing. I don't always humble myself just because I want to (sometimes I want to do the opposite). I do it because 1) in reality I am actually completely, 100%, dependent on Someone else so it's kind of hypocritical, impractical and extremely foolish to think otherwise just because He won't point out my flaws right away, 2) I want to be on His good side - it's practical, it's ethical, and in the end it's the only good option we all have, 3) in submission to God the heart finds true peace & satisfaction.

    1. Well it's interesting that religious zealots always judge others by their standards, worldwide atheist societys treat religious people with respect, yet being an atheist is considered bad by your kind... Let's spin this up a little, should any human society allow people to follow blindly some text written thousand of years ago? Sounds stupid given the fact that there are hundreds of religions and everyone claims to have the right one. Problem with you Jonaid is that you will never understand an atheist, like the socio has problems understanding emotions

    2. I'm sorry I just realized my wording wasn't exactly right when I mentioned atheists. I wasn't judging atheists I meant to say that if you're an atheist, you have no solid ground for defending sociopaths. Only a belief in God can do that.

      With all due respect, I understand atheism better than most so called atheists these days. I was one - a genuine atheist (not an agnostic or using the word to appear intelligent) for 12 years - all my adult life minus this past year.

    3. Total BS, atheists are More capable of accepting different Characters, churches force people into norms, religions tell you how and why you have to do things

    4. Fanatical argumentation from both sides, you're equally ducked up in this sense xD

      If you want to accept or tolerate a group of people, you can do so independantly from your believe or lack thereof.

    5. It's not about what one CAN do or can't. It's about what WILL happen in the macro sense. Sure atheists tend to be moral, tolerant people but on what grounds? They claim it's "innate" morality. Well if its innate, how come it varies from time to time and culture to culture? Our ability to understand right & wrong, and empathize, may be innate but our choices are not. Those are learned. We - whether we are religious or not - have INHERITED our ethics from people who were very much religious & learned ethics from their respective traditions.

    6. If men invented religion, then men invented your ethics...

  9. Anyone read Steve Hodels books about the Dahlia case & Zodiac..?

  10. Sharp, open conversation, interesting insights and fresh blood: check it out ->

    "The Cirkle" is an invite-only community for "successful" sociopaths to meet other "successful" sociopaths, educate each other and discuss the alien world we were all born into and have to navigate like a chameleon.. a world which is dominantly occupied by creatures who outwardly look exactly like us, but internally operate on hardware which is wired completely different as compared to our hardware.

    "We Are, Thát's The Question." Send an email to cirk [at] protonmail [dot] com with a short motivation to request an invite.

  11. I was skimming this post quickly and missed the crucial word "alone" on the raft. So I assumed the logical object(s) to push off was whoever else was going to be depleting the limited food and water supplies. Also, we really need to reduce the weight on this boat with all that heavy gold on board.

    1. That was my first thought too Scarlet gold goes over the side. why would you chuck a good food source (the other people) over the side though :)

      I really don't see the whole "It matter how soon you will be rescued thing" You can't know that as they say so logically you have to assume the worst. That means keep the things that will help you survive both immediately and long range. Thus the water, even if it rains you need the bottles to refill and the fishing equipment. You can always eat sharks that show up, if you are ballsy enough and what are they gonna do anyway, leap into the raft? You can scare sharks away pretty easily so I am less worried about them. You will die in three days without water so the decision are really about being pragmatic. I have seen a lot of news stories about people surviving these situations so I for me I would assume the worst, that I would not be rescued and have to float my ass to safety.


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.