Thursday, March 31, 2011

About People & Objects.

About Seeing People as Objects & Things.

There's another funny little 'Thing'.

When you're a kid you're not always very bright in the sense that you tend to understand things very literally.

I was told many times that: "You treat People like Things, Zhawq! But People are NOT Things!"

It made me wonder about the difference between people and things. I soon discovered a fundamental difference:

"Zhawq! People are NOT Things!..."

People tend to seek you up voluntarily, whereas you have to seek up Objects yourself.

Then there's the Lingual part. People talk and will tell you things voluntarily, whereas you have to take the initiative to derive meaning from Objects.

These two things were obvious to me. And as soon as I had figured this out I would inwardly shake my head every time people told me that I couldn't tell the difference between People and Things because I treated them the same.

In my view I obviously treated them differently. I never attempted to manipulate my baseball bat into going over and beat the neighbor's son. The whole idea that I should be so stupid as to think people and things are the same only confirmed what I already thought: That others had no idea about how smart I was, and I would show them some day their error in talking down to me like I was a baby who didn't understand even the simplest facts. Mostly though I simply found them ridiculous and thought THEY were the ones who didn't understand.

And being a kid myself, finding that adults kept underestimating my intellect, it made me think I was perhaps smarter than I really was.

As an adult I can see it was me who misunderstood - or shall we say, it was me who didn't understand because they didn't explain things sensibly.

I've never thought I couldn't see the difference between People and Things, nor have I ever thought I treated Things and People the same. But that is because I have been looking at the wrong aspects of the meaning of 'Differences' and 'Treating'.

In a sense I do in fact see People and Things as basically a variation over a fundamentally single theme. And I do treat them the same in that I have the same approach but use different methods.
Just like we don't handle carefully kept garden flowers and the grass we walk upon the same, I do also not handle People and Things the same way because they have different qualities, and require different techniques of handling in order to arrive at the desired result.

So People and Objects are different. People speak, Objects do not.

But to me the Differences are Superficial. Everything 'talks' to you, but in different kinds of Languages.
Everything can be manipulated, but you have to understand the nature of what you're dealing with i order to contrive the Reaction you're looking for.

It is obviously easier to light a cigarette than it is to convince someone to go and buy cigarettes for you, because the lighter and the cigarette doesn't argue.

But it this actually true? In a certain sense there is always a conflict or battle going on between fundamental ideas of phenomena. Fire will cause water to evaporate, or water will extinguish fire. It all depends on circumstantial construct. A good Intellect will provide the means to deduce, predict, set up and control a line of events.

This is true for everything, People, Things, Thoughts and Ideas.

That, which I have described here, is not a new concept. I was delighted when I realized philosophers of all times had written about these very ideas which I myself had arrived at. I thought it confirmed once again that I was right, and everybody else would therefore have to be in error.

And yet, eventually, as time went by and I had my Victories - one after the other, even as I was made to pay (prison, heh) - another kind of curiosity began to form within me.

Why did people persist with this idea about Good and Bad, morals and the underlying human connection called Empathy, if it was Merely Self Delusion?

I took memberships in several High IQ Societies, wondering if perhaps others with a 'Gifted' intellectual status would perhaps see things more like me.

What I found was that indeed, it does seem that more highly intellectually gifted individuals tend to see things like I do. But EVEN here did I find people who adhered to notions such as Christian Morals, and the majority knew of Remorse and Empathy.

When after this finding - less than two years ago as I began to research the definition of my diagnosis - I read a few of the many books there are about Psychopathy (a few, because I am heavily dyslexic) and found AGAIN those words I had heard so often as a child and a teenager: "Psychopaths treat People like Things", that became the connecting factor which finally led me to understand why this notion is so prevalent and why we keep hearing it.

It is because that this is in fact what we do. It is what I have always done, and I have no idea about how else to do or understand things.

So let there be no doubt about it: We Psychopaths do See and Treat People and Objectss as fundamentally the same thing.

To Intellectualize or Not To... (Part 2)

So yes, we do Intellectualize. If you can't comprehend things on an emotional level - and I'll put forward that everybody have their emotional shortcomings in some ways and at some points or others! <-- Call that me 'intellectualizing' my behavior! - One must comprehend reality however, and that can only be done by using the abilities that we have at our disposal to achieve an understanding of ourselves and our surroundings. Emotional Comprehension is not more 'Right' or Correct than is intellectual Understanding.

Appeal to The Left Wing!...

Intellectualizing our behavior is a common human trait, it's not specific to Psychopaths, except maybe in that we rely a lot more on this technique than empathic people do, who can in fact tend to do the exact opposite.

And this is what In My Understanding often leads to Abuse like the Article here cited duly states as well.


Some scholars decry this diagnosis as a tool of social control which allows the establishment to label and confine troublemakers and society to stash away eccentrics, criminals, and deviants.

What are we to think this is if not a rationalization of a Basically Emotional Response towards Psychopaths?

Or is it perhaps a Practical Way of Getting Rid of a Group in Society that poses a Threat to Others who want the Power for themselves that we otherwise might get some of?
To a Psychopath this, the last, Possibility seems to be the more Obviously Logic, and yet I have chosen to mention this last, when I could have mentioned it first and left the rest out.

I'd like to make a Statement here on my Own Behalf: I am a Diagnosed Psychopath, and yet I am showing several times in this One, Short, Article my Ability to see things from a variety of perspectives AND treat different points in opposing standing on each their own terms.


I've heard several times over the last years that Measurements are being taken, research being done, for the purpose of "treating" us out of existence - either by altering our minds after we're grown old enough to have a Personality and thus show our traits, or while we're still a Foetus through means of genetic "therapy".

In Britain they're discussing at present a new law that will allow authorities to use coercive forceful measures on young Psychopaths BEFORE they have a chance to harm, abuse, cheat, etc..

Do we see where this is going?

When 'we' are gone, the next will be those who are shallow and callous enough to pose an occasional 'lie' in order to 'seduce' someone into hitting a one night stand with them. Where does it end?

You did away with The Devil, the Demons, and with your God. If you do away with us too, it will be not only our end but yours too.

We are, in a sense, you!

More on that note in another article...

Go to (Part 1)


Wednesday, March 30, 2011

To Intellectualize or Not To... (Part 1)

I came across a short Article the last passage of which begins:

Formerly known as "psychopathy", this is one of the most controversial mental health diagnoses. Does non-conformity, however antisocial and calamitous its consequences, amount to mental illness?

Intellectualizing or Accepting

And it finishes:

Are the lack of conscience or empathy the markers of a pathology? Some scholars decry this diagnosis as a tool of social control which allows the establishment to label and confine troublemakers and society to stash away eccentrics, criminals, and deviants.

The Article's main body tries to say too much in too few words, and therefore it only sums up the most well established, but also the most one-eyed, oversimplified "facts" about Psychopaths, wherefore it also comes out as somewhat "superstitious" in it's dire belief in our inherent evil.

That said, those final lines I cite above hold a lot of truth. I could list a variety of facts in this regard which I have either heard of or observed, and in some cases been subject to, myself.

However, that is not what I want to do here. I am not disputing that Psychopaths do sit with a good heavy load of misdeeds, yes, I know we're responsible for comparatively more 'shit' in a lot, if not all, regards than are the empathic normal people, but there's another line that brings up a question with me. It reads:

They (the Psychopaths) intellectualize their criminal behavior, view the world - and people in it - as "all good" or "all evil", project their own shortcomings unto others and force others to behave the way they expect them to ("projective identification").

The definition of the word 'Intellectualize' has more than one layer, one of which is that it takes basis in a drive towards avoiding inner confrontation with emotions that has strong unpleasant content. In this respect it may apply to people with AsPD (and probably does), and it most certainly applies to normal empathic people in general, for everybody intellectualizes their behavior!

But for Psychopaths it's different. We 'Intellectualize' not because we have an emotional understanding that we want to avoid for whichever reason, we do it because we lack the emotional application yet understand that to others emotion is the main part, and that Reasoning with basis in emotion will always be the part which eventually can bring them to force consequences upon us for deeds we did.

To someone like myself there is absolutely no sense in accepting an uncomfortable Consequence for something you did in the past if you can change or avoid it by turning things around to, or into, a different Perspective.

After all, perspective is what this is about. To normal people, Perspective based on emotion. To the Psychopath, Perspective is based on Sense with regard to it's possible ultimate outcome.

That is why Intellectualizing is not the same as Lying.


Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Tricking Oneself to Self Loath.

I was reading a post citing a mail from a Reader to the author of the website blog

In the mail the reader tells us about how he taught himself to mimic emotions and behavior, and that he thought everybody do the same, until - at a church, while still a kid - he was told that Masturbation is a sin.

Writing A Perfect Piece of Emotional Fiction.

After that point he seems to have been in constant Battle with Himself, Feeling Shame. A battle which - upon finding the SociopathWorld Blog - he realizes had all along also been him Mimicking Emotions that he didn't really have.
In a sense, he has been writing a piece of fiction so perfect that even he was taken in by it. He has convinced himself that the emotion he mimics is genuine to the extent where fiction and reality became one and he has been living his life in this strange land - not quite the Twilight Zone, and yet a country that seems to be located between two countries sharing the border.

The reader writes:

I made it my entire goal in life to control my urges as much as I can.

Another reader left a comment at the blog's comment board, asking other readers if any of us could relate to this.
My personal Answer is No.
I cannot relate to those words, as I made it my entire goal in life to see to it I got my urges satisfied!
The opposite of what this blog's reader have done. And I still do it to this day... seeing to it that my needs and urges are met! ...even with this blog.

To make it one's Goal to NOT fulfill one's urges seems a little backwards to me. But if I view those words from a fundamental Christian perspective I can see the ultimate goal being to achieve a position of being 'good'.
After all, the person who wrote those words also told us (or told the person he wrote it to) - in the same mail - that his local church, in his childhood, had set standards for him.

Indeed Standards which made him suffer years of Self Loathing, but the Moral Values were established then, so the wish to 'become good' can be a motivator that might make it possible for most people to control their urges.

Another possibility - the more obvious one in my view - would be the motivation springing from not wanting to go to prison. But whether or not that perspective is relevant depends on the nature of his urges and of how strong Antisocial traits he harbor.

To a Psychopath everything is about Control and Power, because those two things are direct keys to Gratification - whatever the individual kinds of gratification may consist of.

We are not Moral Beings, and we do not set our goals based on Ethical Long Term Goals of one day being acknowledged as a 'good' person. The very notion of Self Loathing is alien to someone like myself. But then, this reader wrote to the Owner of a Blog that also discusses Sociopathy and other Psychopathy Related Aspects.

The reader's last passage:

Thanks to this web site and what you have posted, I found the courage to openly admit to my family and friends what I was. I feel so much better. Not treating myself as an enemy has done wonders on so many other facets of my life.

Is he a Sociopath? Who knows...; but I do know he is not a Psychopath.
Sociopathy seems to encompass a lot of Gray Area facets. Learning about, and getting to know, yourself requires learning about, and getting to know, others. It shall be Interesting to learn more.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Lucifer, The Psychopath Light Bringer.

These days it's not uncommon to hear Analogies between Demons, or The Devil, and Psychopaths.

I can certainly see some equivalents. Here's an example with Lucifer, The Light Bearer or The Light Bringer.

Psychopaths are not all about Lies or Lying. Sometimes - often, even - we tell the Truths nobody wants to hear. We Shed Light unto those dark little corners of people's souls that they do not want us to illuminate. Sometimes we can have a terrible knack for telling the truth. Christ would only see Light. But not Our Light, for we enlighten both Truth and Lie. We do not deny one and not the other. We Love it all, in our own sometimes strange ways. And our Love can be demanding.

For such is the nature of The Light that The Psychopath brings You: It is All Consuming!

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Emotional Expressions in Psychopath Murderers. (Part III)

I... or we, Psychopaths... do not Feel Remorse, ever! We simply can never experience this feeling, for we do not have the ability to do so!

Yet it is not a Problem for me, as a Psychopath, to display the Facial Expressions associated with Remorse. And I am not trying to make anybody believe that Psychopaths are Remorseful in Relation to a Crime they have committed.
But I do have one final point I want to put forth in regard to Emotion and Facial Expressions in Criminal Psychopaths.
- I have already mentioned that I have spend time in prison myself. However, I didn't tell you that I have done so in connection with not one, but several Convictions.

I am telling you this now, because it matters in a way that I find important: It has given me a lot of experience with those people who are involved with all aspects of Crime Solving, as well as with the media. I know about the Police Investigators, about those who conduct Interviews with the Prisoner, as well as about how they deal with Crime Scene Reconstructions and the Criminal who committed the crime/s. I know about the Forensic Specialists, the Clinical Psychologists and Psychiatrists, The Prison Guards, and I know about the Prison Medics, etc., and I also know about the Journalists who seek up Convicts, who have committed violent crimes, in order to Interview them for one or more Articles for the TV Channel/News Paper they work for.

In this case I will focus on the Police and FBI Personnel who work specifically with Violent Crime, especially Murder. And the Question I want to bring forth is really quite simple...

Now, we all know - from TV and movies, if nothing else - that murder pertains to violence, to bloody sceneries and to wounded people/bodies. We have seen pictures of such scenes on occasion, maybe on TV, maybe in a magazine, but rarely do normal people seek up such graphic material in large quantities to sit and look at. In fact, most people experience a sense of nausea and discomfort when confronted with visual input of that nature.

And here is my question:

Why is it that we - the accused/perpetrators/i.e. - are expected to show extensive emotional expression, not only shortly after the crime, or when being confronted with evidence/proof in the form of pictures and items, but we're expected to display emotions in our mannerisms and facial expressions many, many years later, as well as every time the incident is brought up regardless of context... Why are such expectations attributed to us, whereas the many people who worked with us and who's job it was to solve these crimes... they're never being questioned for being unemotional or suspected of having flattened affect, even though they seem just as cold and unaffected as we seem?

Let me tell you right now: These people, they do not display any more emotion than the psychopaths I have met, in or outside of prison!

In my opinion, the fact that they're so cool, so detached in every way in how they behave and deal with both you (the prisoner) and your crime/s, is misleading in that since they do NOT seem to have emotions, from the viewpoint of someone being interrogated for their crimes it is very easy to conclude that this must be the normal way to behave. For remember, nobody in that situation has seen how others react or behave when dealing with these bloody details, except for maybe the victims, and in some cases also their apprentice or criminal partner/s.

So what I'm saying is that basically even those who are not psychopaths, but perhaps even very normal, will be inclined to - if not actually believe it is normal to not experience emotions such as Remorse and Regret, etc. - then at least it is understandable if they decide, under the circumstances when being aurrounded by unemotional people - that they too will not display emotional affect. - For a young person the former is actually more likely - to believe that possible remorse that they might feel is not common at all, because even the police act as if there's nothing to be emotional about.

And yet we keep expecting criminals to display emotions.

when you are being held for questioning in your first violent and bloody crime ever, and all you see are people who are perhaps even more devoid of emotional expression than how you yourself feel... What then are you supposed to think? How was I supposed to guess that that was not how people normally would react to a bloody scene such as the one I had left behind me, when I'd never in real life observed another person viewing or discussing such an actual scene before?

Just something to ponder!...

Go to:
'Emotional Expressions in Psychopath Murderers. (Part I)'
'Emotional Expressions in Psychopath Murderers. (Part II)'

Friday, March 25, 2011

Lack of Emotional Expressions in Psychopath Murderers. (Part II)

I have spend a good amount of time in prison myself during the first 2/3 parts of my life, and some of the time I've done was related to violent events in which I had involvement in one way or another(1*).
So I know the process.

Ted Bundy - an Example of a Psychopathic Murderer who Did Not Feel Remorse.

I know the hundreds of hours and dozens and dozens of interviews you go through, a lot of which are nothing more than endless repetitions of what you have already said, already told in every detail. Over and over again, until you think that surely by now they must've memorized it all and can do the interviews themselves with each other.

And the truth is they - the police/FBI/whomever - DO know every detail, they know everything just as intimately as you do, except from the actual experience itself while it took place, but repetition is a part of the procedure for various reasons which pertain to Crime Solving Techniques.

It would be a lie if I claimed here to have been truly emotionally touched or remorseful, empathy, grief, etc., I did never feel during these procedures. - But I do know enough about psychology to also know that repetitions in the manner that takes place during the solving of a crime will eventually 'flatten' a person's emotional connection with the event, even if he is an emotionally normal and capable human being.
Indeed it is not uncommon to see a gross flattening of emotional response in normal people as these endless goings through every detail proceed.
- And remember, much of the details you're required to talk to about does NOT connect with a normal person's emotional relationship with the event itself, which means a artificial distance is forcefully created between the aspects that have natural emotional value to the normal person, and those that are secondary or unimportant.

A normal person who is in deep remorse after having killed his wife and kids, do not feel deeply about a bed lamp having been scattered on the floor during the process. That is not what his feelings are about, but during the repetition of interviews he is being forced to link his emotional response to details like that, and this will eventually lead to a flattening response.

And there is more: Time.

Okay, I know that some normal people can keep feeling Grief for the rest of their lives - f.x. after loosing someone they loved. But we also know that most normal people's emotions will become less prominent with time, and this is reflected in many cultures in various ways such as f.x. the custom of wearing black clothing for one or two years after you spouse has died, and after that period you may marry again another person. 2 years is probably not a bad estimation for how long it generally takes for someone to at least become detached enough from their original emotions and until they will be capable of 'moving on', and no longer will fall into a grief stricken state whenever the event which caused their grief is mentioned or otherwise brought to their attention.

Constant talk about the event, and details associated with it, CAN cause someone to become stuck on the emotions that links to the event ... but not if it happens in the way that you experience in a police investigation! ... Of that I can assure you!

Another thing: The common experience for non-psychopathic people in prison is a bit of a shock in meeting with a reality where everybody around are not merely detached in their emotional relationship with you personally, in a sense they're more negative towards you than they're detached. And this is the case with your fellow inmates, with the prison staff, with the police investigators, and often even with people's own family members - who are forcing themselves to cut their emotional bonds with the one who committed a crime. And although this often is temporary, it still means that the prisoner will be experiencing an unusually harsh kind of loneliness, of being surrounded by hostility, and of having no one to turn to.

In high profile cases they will even be pursued by the media, and only the most intellectually underdeveloped normal individual will not realize very quickly that the apparent friendliness of the journalists have no genuine basis except for the wish to exploit the incarcerated criminal person.

And the result of all this is not hard to understand: People become withdrawn and tend to NOT show emotions!
This is the case with Antisocial people of all kinds, it is the case with normal people, and it is the case with Psychopaths, even if the latter do not have the emotionally forced approach to taking this position that the other groups do to various degrees.


Picture yourself in such a situation as I've described above - even if you're not a psychopath - do you still believe that 10 years later you would break down in front of a camera and an interviewer you don't know, while prison guards are standing out of camera sight, but not out of your sight, watching?... Do you honestly believe that after such a length of time, and after having gone through the process I have explained, that you would still show emotions, no matter whether or not you felt them?

In my personal experience the answer is No! People do not continually and persistently show deep emotional discomfort in front of strangers, and especially not in front of a camera.

Okay, to be totally fair: There are, as a matter of fact, some people who will do so, but I'll have to add that these people are usually psychopaths.

Such a paradox, huh?


(1*) - The reader will have to excuse me for not going into detail at this point. I only began keeping this blog a few months ago, it is still new to me to be open and tell publicly about myself and my emotional reactions, capacities and lacks, etc - not the emotions I have displayed through out my life. This blog is a work in progress, but the way I REALLY feel, or do not feel! I intend to tell you more as I continue, but it's is a work in progress. So please bear with me when I do not tell you about my personal crimes at this time. Thank you in advance.
Go to: Emotional Expression in Psychopath Murderers. (Part I)


Thursday, March 24, 2011

Lack of Emotional Expressions in Psychopath Murderers. (Part I)

Does Lack of Emotion in Violent Criminals during Interviews mean They're Psychopaths??
Some of my research led me to Youtube videos about many aspects of Psychopathy.

I have noticed some peculiar things in many videos about Criminal Psychopaths. I'm talking about the kind of videos where a specific individual is being interviewed, their crimes are being described, and sometimes visual details from the crime scene are being shown.
We are shown interviews with respectively the (now incarcerated) criminal/Psychopath, and one or more experts... often Forensic Psychologists, but also prison wardens, family members of either the victims or the Psychopath, or both, etc..

Most often the pattern is the same: The Interviewer introduces us to the name of the convicted Psychopath, and describes in short what crime/s he has been convicted of doing, as well as of what sentence he received/is now serving.
Then the criminal Psychopath tells us about his past life before the crime, often focusing on elements from his childhood which may or may not have played a role in him developing antisocial traits.

Usually we don't hear the Interviewer saying much, if anything at all, his/her questions are cut out as non-significant. I am mentioning this here, because obviously people don't start telling you about their childhood out of the blue when they're being interviewed about a specific episode that happened later, after they grew up. However, the questions to their childhood serve as a psychologically interesting element of the TV show.

The Interviewer now proceeds to introducing a professional expert - as stated, often a clinical or forensic psychologist - who apparently know this particular individual's case. This person will now tell the viewer about some fundamental details pertaining to psychopathy.

After this point the show switches between clips of the criminal psychopath telling about the crime - how it came about, what the motive was and how he felt before, during and after the event - and the psychologist who comments on the way the criminal behaves during the interview, how he speaks, his mannerisms etc., and his facial expressions - or lack thereof.

The final clip usually displays the psychologist saying some final words that apparently are meant to encapsulate the central issue about how in particular one can tell that this individual - the criminal psychopath - is indeed a psychopath.

Now let me say right away, that I - being myself a psychopath - can fairly easily spot another psychopath; it is not a special ability I have, other psychopaths can do the same thing as easily as I can. We don't have to talk to or learn a lot of details about each other. We just 'know'!
I mention it here, because in all fairness I must say that, yes: Most of the criminal psychopaths in these videos are psychopaths, and the following is not an attempt to dispute the fact! ...I just wanted to make this clear before I continue.

What I find incredibly awkward about some of the statements from the psychologists that we so often hear in these videos, is that they usually focus on how much emotion you can see, or not see, in the psychopath's facial expression while he describes the crime and other events.

Some of the people we see in these interviews will claim various kinds of feelings such as Horror, Fear, Remorse, Sadness, Terror, or Grief, etc., and some do not. But that is not the point. Whether or not they claim to have such feelings, the psychologist always points to their Lack of Emotional Expression!
And every time it hits me as the wrong thing to say, because to me their emotional expressions seem perfectly normal!!

Now you may say that this is because I'm 'a psychopath myself, so I wouldn't know!'. But I think there's more to it than that!
And tomorrow I will tell you more about what that is!...

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

I Imagine Emotions - but Do I Feel? (Part I)

I'm in the process of reading a book written by Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare, named: 'Snakes in Suits'.
I have found several passages that I would like to take up here for various reasons which I will explain as I do so. This article is the first of two parts, but there's likely to be more since there're so many topics and issues I want to address.

'Snakes in Suits' is an interesting read - informative in many ways that are not unlike Robert Hare's first book: 'Without Conscience' - and even though it is written in an easy style that avoids psychiatric jargon, is mainly popular and thus kept in a language meant for a wide public, it does give you valid information - which I'll say is the trademark of Robert D. Hare. It fits his claimed intention which is to inform the public.

This book ('Snakes in Suits') addresses a more wide range of psychopathic practices - opposite Hare's 'Without Conscience' which were basically about the sub-group among us who are both highly criminal and highly violent and hence who also does a good deal of jail time, generally speaking.

It also uses the interesting style of switching between passages of regular information and passages that pertain to a story of fiction which progresses throughout the book, describing the kind of scenery that can typically take place in a firm who unknowingly hires a Psychopath. We follow this individual's actions and psychopathic impact upon the firm as a whole as well as upon individual people working in/for the firm.

Thus, the group of psychopaths this book focus on are often not clinically diagnosed, they fly under the radar, so to speak, and for various reasons they do so successfully... These reasons pertain more to the Psychopath's individual background than to anything else which is often the upper middle class or even the wealthy. - That said, there is obviously also an individual difference in temperament, personal tastes, likes and dislikes, and preferences in general which have an influence upon whether or not one is more like to become a White Collar Psychopath or right out chooses to go clearcut Criminal and Violent.

However, that is not what this article is about. I wanted to mention what the book mainly focuses on in terms of psychopathic groups in society, and it this group has been dubbed 'White Collar Psychopaths'. The association is obvious.

Today I was reading the beginning of Chapter 3.

It is about how Psychopaths manipulate, and most of us have heard these things before - and even if we haven't, we know them by heart, since we're using these techniques on a daily basis.
The new in this case is the way Babiak also explains why - in his understanding - we are capable of carrying through with these manipulative schemes, whereas normal people are not.

The one thing that runs through his explanation is the Psychopath's inability to feel Empathy. But it is also more than that, for he doesn't merely state that 'Psychopaths can't feel Empathy, period!'. He uses examples, and today I came upon such an example which had me react in two ways.

As an illustrative example of this he describes how Robert Hare once coached Nicole Kidman when she was preparing herself for her role in the movie 'Malice'...

Practice Makes Perfect

Hare consulted with Nicole Kidman on the movie Malice. She wanted to let thew audience know, early in the film, that she was not the sweet, warm person she appeared to be. He gave her the following scene: "You're walking down the street and come across an accident at the corner. A young child has been struck by a car and is lying in a pool of blood. You walk up to the accident site, look briefly at the child, and then focus at the grief-stricken mother. After a few minutes of careful scrutiny, you walk back to your apartment, go into the bathroom, stand in front of the mirror, and practice mimicking the facial expressions and body language of the mother."

When I read this my immediate reaction was:
"Yes! That's how it is! This is how I do it! This is what I've always done, and there're still so many emotions I haven't yet learned to express!"

The difference between how I feel - about the fact that this is how it is, that this is what I do and is what I've done since earliest childhood - and how Babiak sees it, is that in his understanding we all do this only out of malicious motivation.


Altought psychopaths do not feel the range and depth of emotions experienced by most people, they do understand that others have something called "emotions". Some may even take the time to learn to mimic emotions so they can better manipulate their victims.

When I did this as a 6 year old kid, I had no ulterior motives, I had no thoughts about how this could be used to make others believe I was feeling something I wasn't. There was no ulterior motive whatsoever, I was merely being curious and exercising my inherent drive to learn. - I believe it is normal for all children to want to learn - at least to some extent - and those who chooses to can keep learning also when they've become adults. I am one who chose to keep learning, and I am still practicing in front of the mirror on occasion!

Even now as an adult, when I do it, it is more of a way for me to try and somehow relate to those people as they feel these emotions.
And this brings me to the second passage that just hit right home, which follows in this article's part II.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Psychopathy an Attention Deficit?

I found a most interesting article that reviews some startling new theories about Psychopathy:

New research by Joseph P. Newman at the University of Wisconsin suggests that an attention deficit, rather than an inability to feel emotion, may be what makes people psychopaths.

Come again? Isn't that what we learn about ADD and ADHD?

A little further the article continues:

Of course, as Newman notes in a New Scientist news piece, one of the hallmark problems surrounding psychopathy, aside from clinical definition, is that it is ostensibly untreatable. The implication here appears to be that if the Newman hypothesis proved correct, psychopathy would be treatable in a manner similar to a “learning disability”. Given the use of language such as “distraction” and “attention-related deficit” throughout the news piece, it would appear these researchers are suggesting that some ADHD-like symptoms are present in psychopaths with respect to moral feelings. This definitional move would then presumably make the condition treatable by stimulants such as Adderal and Ritalin. It will be interesting to see whether this implied turn into the pharmaceutical magisterium will be continued by further studies, and whether these taken collectively will result in psychopathy’s inclusion as a psychiatrically legitimated, treatable mental disorder in the upcoming DSM-V.

Whereas there are valid points brought forth the author of this article, the hypothesis he refers to is absolutely stunning.

Guys, there is HOPE after all. What we need is a good daily supply of amphetamine!

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Maybe not so barren!

Are psychopaths really as emotionally barren as they say?... Am I, as a psychopath myself, really as emotionally barren as everybody seem to think?
A lot of psychopathic people seem to have fallen prey to the normal majority's definitions of what we are, of what it is that makes us different from them.

I am not barren!

I make the above statement right away, so there'll be no mistakes about how I view myself in this respect.
I often hear people with psychopathic personalities say things like:
"I understand I'm empty because I can't feel Empathy and Remorse, and I rarely feel fear!"...."I am an Empty Shell!"

Sometimes I hear these kinds of statements from people whom I find otherwise show uniqueness, intelligence, who have the ability to apply their intelligence and actually analyze and see through the facade which makes up the farce which is the normal majority's version of reality, and have the sprite to oppose their naïvete and their fallacies, and the drive to assert it in writing when you find someone who is worthy of hearing what you have to say.

That is not empty!

And it's a shame that so many see it that way.


Then again... Yes, it is empty. But only if we see ourselves from THEIR position, if we evaluate ourselves on the basis of THEIR emotional viewpoints!

But that is the greatest danger:
Whereas we have to take on their terms to some extent in order to communicate in their world - which is largely ours too - there is nothing that says we must take on their conclusions of what our differences from themselves mean.

So when they f.x. call me 'empty', I call it 'Clear Headed', 'non-deluded'... I even call it: 'Having Depth that goes beyond what their own shallow capacities enables them to comprehend'!

This doesn't mean I don't recognize that there are emotions I really cannot experience, and perhaps it is true that many, or perhaps all, of the emotions they claim I can not feel... Things such as Empathy (at least in their sense of the word), Remorse (in any sense of the word), Sadness, Fear (beyond a certain "superficial" level), etc., I really can not and never will feel.

The point is that I can experience a lot of things that the neurotypical majority of people can't, and never will, be able to experience!

I will create two categories of examples:

I can sense and experience aesthetic pleasure from most forms of art (some from a purely intellectual level, but nevertheless, I experience it and find a form of pleasure in it.
I know about pleasure in the sight of a beautiful woman.
I can know the satisfaction on the end of a day where all of my efforts have bought fruit and turned out well, perhaps beyond my expectations.
I also know the satisfaction and relief when someone close to me, who has been worried or depressed for some reason and therefore made their company less joyful and relaxed, suddenly gives me that certain special smile that tells me I've succeeded in making them feel good. - It does not "bright up my whole day" like I've heard many normal people describing such an experience, but the experience itself, when it happens, is real.

So yes, I can experience - if not the exact same things, then at least varieties of the same things that normal people describe.

But! ...I can also experience the same aesthetic pleasure from some of the things they call horrible or even disgusting, such as f.x. a mutilated corpse in a pool of blood. I can see the aesthetic notion that drives a killer to leave their victim in a certain arranged position, even if I myself would never dream of killing someone because of an inspiration of this kind. I am not an artist, though I could picture myself doing something like that in the context of directing a movie.
I can also relate to the victim of year-long physical abuse who takes a horrible revenge on their abuser, just as I can relate to the abuser who has worked maybe for years on molding their victim into becoming Negative Still of negation to what they were when they meet the abuser. I can relate to that drive towards touching someone so deeply, and acquiring the ultimate power that enables them to force the other person to willingly become the instrument of their own destruction.

These things, in the B.) Passage, to the majority of people is merely horrific, distasteful and 'bad'. They will never be able to see the aesthetic aspects in both of the two categories I've listed above.

To me that means I have a wider range of emotional capacity in some respects than they do. But I also recognize that in other respects they have a wider range of emotional capacity than I do. That is why I say we're different, but both groups - the psychopaths and the normal majority - are human, and one no more so than the other.

The point is that we... or I, anyway... may in fact be not only not emotionally barren, but quite the opposite!

It's a question of the ability to see things from a variety of perspectives, and not always only from the viewpoint of your own ingrown viewpoint!


It is always a matter of perspective, and from my definitions of what I can feel or not feel I do not look so barren after all. In fact I'll say that:...

I am not Emotionally Barren! And it feels damn good to be me!!


Saturday, March 19, 2011

It's not TV I seek!

Thrill Seeking can be such a bitch!
...If thrill seeking is really what it is!?

I'll admit, it's not at all like watching TV, that, which I always seem driven to seek!

I have always had a very strong drive towards the extreme, that which truly can make an impact upon you, give you that kick or transmitter rush.
But the word 'thrill' somehow seems hollow, mean, and common.

Why do the experts say this is because we don't feel very much, that it is because our feelings are 'shallow'? - I've always thought of it as being more like the opposite: If you have the capacity to feel, won't that be what makes you want to pursue feelings? And if you don't feel very much, why would you be that much interested in seeking up new situations and experiences all the time - I mean, if they don't make you feel very much anyway?

Of course I do understand what they mean. It's just that I think it can be seen from a different perspective, which is what I'm trying to present here.

They also talk about 'Novelty Seeking' among us. It sounds so base, so inane, yes - so shallow! ...I don't think of myself as shallow at all, I never did, and I guess that was one of the reasons that I could never make it fit reality that I should be given the diagnosis of a Psychopath.

So these past 6 to 8 months have been eye-opening in the sense that I've finally gotten around to reading some of the books and texts about psychopathy, which has brought me to see things from the 'normal' person's perspective, or the researcher's perspective.

And I really must admit that I loath those days - or (horror!) weeks - where there's not much else I can do but turn on the TV and hope for the best, that it JUST may provide a small fractional reminiscense of what it is I really need. And yes, I use the word 'need', because this goes beyond wishing or wanting!

Friday, March 18, 2011

Psychopathy and AsPD.

There is so much confusion about the labels, Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and latest Sociopath, so I've decided it would be a good idea to address this issue.
After all, it is so much easier to understand what we say to each other if we know what we're saying, no?

I found a good little article that addresses the differences between Antisocial Personality Disorder and Psychopathy. I think it is well written, concise and to the point, and so I took the liberty to post it here - linking duly back to where I found it.

Here goes:

What do we know about Psychopathy?

Do certain psychological traits predispose people to criminal behavior?

Bernie Madoff asks “Am I a sociopath?” Psychologists are more likely to use the term psychopath than sociopath, reflecting our interest in the individual mind. What is a psychopath and what do we know about people who do fit this description?

Is there such thing as a criminal mind?

For quite a few decades, the mental health field has attempted to classify and study the personality traits of people most likely to engage in criminal behavior. In other words, they have tried to diagnose the criminal mind. In the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR, the official diagnostic system of the American mental health field, the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder describes people who habitually violate social norms and moral codes.

What is antisocial personality disorder?
People with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) are characterized by callous and exploitive behavior and by a lack of empathy or remorse. In DSM-IV, a person with this disorder demonstrates a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others as evidenced by at least three of the following criteria: repeatedly engaging in illegal behavior; frequently lying, using aliases or conning others for personal profit; impulsivity and lack of future planning; irritability and aggressiveness; reckless disregard for the safety of self and others; consistent irresponsibility, with repeated failures to sustain employment or fulfill financial obligations; lack of remorse as evident in indifference to or rationalization of hurting, mistreating or stealing from others. This definition has been criticized, however, for being too focused on behavior instead of personality traits and also for requiring evidence of conduct disorder (a childhood variant of ASPD) before the age of 15.

What is psychopathy?
The concept of psychopathy should be distinguished from the DSM-IV concept of antisocial personality disorder. While diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is heavily dependent on a record of criminal behavior, psychopathy is more geared to the actual personality traits associated with criminal behavior. Such traits include callousness, superficial and shallow emotion, lack of empathy, irresponsibility, lack of remorse or guilt about harming others, and the tendency to exploit, manipulate and engage in predatory behavior towards others. Psychopathic prisoners commit more serious and violent crimes than non-psychopathic prisoners. They are also more likely to recidivate (commit another crime) after they are released from prison. Moreover, psychopaths are more likely to commit premeditated rather than impulsive crimes. In Michael Woodworth and Stephen Porter’s 2002 study of 125 prisoners convicted of homicide, the 34 psychopathic prisoners were much more likely than the 91 non-psychopathic prisoners to have committed premeditated murders (93.3% vs. 48.4%).

How is psychopathy measured?
The foremost expert on psychopathy today is a psychologist named Robert Hare. He has developed an intensive interview to measure psychopathy named the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. His first version was published in 1980 and the revised version (PCL-R) in 1991. The PCL-R is a 20-item clinical rating scale that is scored based on information from a semi-structured interview and available legal files, medical records and collateral interviews with someone who knows the subject well. Although the maximum possible score is 40, the average scores in both male and female offender populations range from about 22 to 24. Hare uses a cut-off score of 30 to distinguish psychopaths from non-psychopaths. He believes that psychopathy is more of a category than a dimension. This means that someone either is or is not a psychopath. Notably, other researchers disagree and believe that psychopathic traits fall on a continuum.

How common is psychopathy?

Hare estimates that about 50 – 75% of the prison population meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder but only 15-25% exceed the cut-off point for psychopathy. Hare also estimates that psychopaths make up about 1% of the general population. Thus psychopathy appears to be a more severe disorder than antisocial personality disorder but fortunately a less common one.

I did consider making a post about Antisocial Personality Disorder to keep the definitions separate and easier to look up, but in this case I think it would ruin the article. It was written to be a small text, quickly summarizing the two conditions in one go, and that is how I've decided to keep it.

I will add more articles on each of the sub-groups, as well as more DSM-IV oriented descriptive texts, in the future.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

We Can't Be Tamed!

We can't be tamed, it's in our DNA. And we want to part of... something... I don't know!

I think the right phrase for the 'something' that we in certain ways can never understand would be: Everything.
We want to be part of Everything!...

And so far, I say, we're not doing badly.

I thought this tune was right for this website in several ways, one of which would be that it shows the aspect of that insatiable thirst in the general public to get a peak at the Strange Birds that they think we are.

And just like birds we come in many colors, shapes and sizes.
Some of us are colorful indeed, whereas others like to take the quieter approach - at least when it's not in connection with something that pertains to actually economic or other gain, which isn't hard to understand. Which approach you take and how you choose to portray yourself in a given setting depends on a lot of things, most of which are impossible to see as an observer - and not least on an Internet basis.

There're pros and cons in everything you do, and preferences vary in between individuals. This is no different for psychopaths. In many ways we're disappointingly human, just like the normal people who's empathy, remorse and quiet living we will never be able to truly understand - except maybe from an intellectual perspective....which is the reason that many psychopaths have a preference for exactly that!...Yeah, I know: Surprise indeed!

But I'm merely telling you the truth. That's what I made this blog to do, and that's what I'll continue doing, and you can take it or leave it, it's all the same to me. I am, after all, writing as much for my own pleasure as for the pleasure of bringing some knowledge to others and hopefully some debate as well between myself and my readers.

Nevertheless, we're a rare species, but unlike much of the wildlife variety all over the globe, we're nowhere near extinction - just like normal people. We're here to stay. What's more, we know how to fight, and we're not afraid of breaking the rules and cheat if that's what it takes. I mean, hey, we're known for doing that anyway, so what makes anyone think we'd do differently when it comes to our survival?

So many normal people think we're somehow primitive, that we're not capable of doing a lot of things many of which somehow pertains to thought process. They think that if we do or say things this or that way, then we can't possibly be psychopaths.

But even though it is comforting to know that this is how people think, since it means all we have to do is impress them in one way or another in order to not be considered psychopathic (apart from the fact that clinical psychologists don't follow that notion anymore than we do), which - on a different note - is how we've been doing things all along (or how we've been fooling you people, if you like that version better), it is still a mistake.

Somebody - a debate participant on another blog who was really very nice and meant well - wrote to me: "Zhawq, you're not a psychopath, because you have insight!". But there's no truth in it, it's a grave mistake to think that way.

When it comes to what psychopaths can or cannot do, I'll just say: You people have no idea!!

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

More Water for The Tsunami!

Nothing shows as much that you Really Care as when you Weep!
So here's more Water for The Tsunami:
It may not always be the right things you weep for - often it will be yourself, and that goes for the empaths too. Ouch! Empaths do have a tendency to care a lot about themselves, about keeping themselves unaccountable and about having somebody to blame for all their troubles and issues - the devil, or the psychopaths.

Actually, what I just wrote looks a lot like the things they say and write about us, the psychopaths. I wonder, perhaps we're not so different after all when it comes to doing the wrong thing and having flaws?

But then, they always have a way out: They suffer easily, and that gives them something to weep about - when they're not busy weeping about Tsunamis and people who live at the opposite side of the globe.


I can't help but finding the way most people approach the concept 'Caring' or 'To Care' highly peculiar!

Why is it, f.ex., that if something sad, bad, disastrous, devastating, etc., happens to somebody - it may be an individual, a group of people or a whole nation, and it may be someone you know or it may not be - either way, the moment you learn about it having happened, you're expected to 'care'. Some events demand more caring than others, and some events demand you to care more than others.

It's as if there's a formula for how much and how long you should care for each type of event. - But what happened to spontaneous personal feelings and being genuine and true to yourself and your own feelings?

I think this is where morals come in. You are SUPPOSED to care, not so much because it'll help anyone in any way - it won't! - but because that way you signal your loyalty to the status quo. So it's a type of formalism.
Whenever did formalism become integrated with feelings or emotions? And whenever did formalism become one with 'caring' for people in distress?

The way we're supposed to 'feel' and 'care' for people who live far away and whom we've never met, never will meet and know almost nothing about and, is assumed a naturally and universally 'good human trait'.
And this is while we don't care enough about the poor in our own society to even consider doing something in order to help one of them - because "I don't know them!"

The contradiction and hypocrisy is that the not knowing someone is a legal reason to not care for as long as that someone is so close that you could actually easily make a difference if you so choose. But the second you hear about people you can't reach you're expected to 'care', and perhaps even go out of your way by sending clothes and band aids, etc. to them - half way around the globe, while the poor guy at the corner 50 yards further down the street is 'Someone I don't know' and 'After all, I can't take care of everybody!'

Do my reader see the same discrepancy as your gentle host does?

But hey, maybe if we weep long and loud enough that Tsunami will have never happened when tomorrow comes! And if it doesn't work, then at least we've dutifully shown that we CARE!


When people need to moralize over Feelings and Emotions (the two are allegedly not the same thing) I know something is amiss, and that the Feelings and the Emotions are not what they're portrayed to be.
True Feelings and Emotions need no moralizing. They come naturally and easy, and you need not contemplate them in order to understand them.

When you weep because you've been given a good whipping and are in pain, then you have a natural reason to weep for yourself. And I for one see nothing wrong about that. I don't personally weep much, in fact I loath weeping and I don't think it helps for anything. It doesn't make me "feel better afterwards", it only makes my head ache and my face and eyes swollen and red. That's how I remember it, and I have a good memory, so though it happened last many years ago, I'll rely on my instinct and leave it to others who know how to get the best of it.

And I must say, some people are GREAT weepers!!

Today's music video is for all the Weeping in the world!... -
- And for my Readers!... *S*

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

But he's STILL a Psychopath!

I found this small - but ground breaking - news story from The Associated Press about a rapist with more than 90 child rapes behind him plus a rape of a grown couple at gun point.
He has been in jail since late 1979 and appeared before a parole board today, eligible for early release to a halfway house.


ST. PAUL, Minn. -- An expert hired by the state says a Minnesota sex offender seeking greater freedom isn't ready for it.

He isn't ready, because:

Forensic psychologist Harry Hoberman testified Friday that John Rydberg is still a psychopath.

He says he drew that conclusion from a review of records of Rydberg's treatment in prison, and he was even more convinced after hearing Rydberg's testimony last week.

Rydberg has disputed his diagnosis as a sexual sadist. He acknowledged his victims suffered, but said his motivation was his own pleasure not to inflict pain.

A special three-judge panel is considering whether Rydberg deserves a provisional release from the Minnesota Sex Offender program into a Twin Cities halfway house.

I don't know if I shall feel sorry for this guy or what. I mean, all those years and he's STILL a psychopath!

Maybe it's what he said. Maybe he would've been considered Cured of Psychopathy if he'd said that his motivation wasn't his own pleasure, but to inflict pain!?

One can then wonder how on earth he would manage to be satisfied if he wasn't receiving sexual pleasure during the rape. On the other hand, maybe the point is that IF he'd managed to do that he'd have been deemed masochistic, and Psychopaths can't be masochists?, or masochistic Psychopaths can be cured? ...I mean that's got to be something of an achievement, to NOT becoming aroused and all the while still completing the act of rape AND keep focus on whether the victims were in pain or not.

Whew!... The mere thought...!

What a mess! ...That's what I say.

If he'd been smart and a little bit foreseeing he'd have spend all those years thinking up the right story, but he probably spend them daydreaming about sex.

I can see though why thinking up the right thing to say might have proven problematic, since no matter what a person says it can be taken as a sign of psychopathy. Yeah, we've all been there, right? Thought so!


The article ends thus:

Nobody has been permanently released from the program since it began in 1995, and critics question its costs and constitutionality.

Now it just may be that I have the secret solution to that. - Shall I risk a guess?... - Okay, here goes then:

Maybe Nobody has been permanently released from that program ever since it began because Psychopathy can't be permanently cured!!

Poor, poor child rapist!

...Or not!

He should've stuck with Psychopathy!


If you want to view the few minute long video footage, click here!

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Self Control - A Story From My Youth.

A reader wrote in a comment to the article about humor the following:

If it is something I need to do, I will even park myself somewhere discreet and have my laughing fit.

That made me think of several occasions over the years where I've been in situations like that....especially during my teens I would have laughing fits about things that only I could see were funny, and thinking a bit further I thought "Why not make a short article about some of those occasions, now, that I'm fairly incapacitated when it comes to the more seriously research demanding stuff?". And so I decided to do just that. I'll tell the story about one situation that I can recall, where I had a serious laughing fit under circumstances and in a situation where not keeping your cool could've led to a very unfortunate ending for myself, and possibly for others as well - even though the latter is somewhat unlikely. Still, an unhappy outcome for me personally, whether or not others are having the same ill fate, has always been my without comparison Absolutely Worst Scenario, and that in itself makes it an issue of The Utmost Importance. I also have a feeling that this may not be all that unfamiliar to other people, but is in fact probably rather common. Here goes... :

I once witnessed a drug dealer - whom I knew pretty well from my excursions on the street - selling drugs that was too potent and in fact lethal. Within the first hour of his dealing this particular package, I saw one customer die about 15 yards from where he'd bought it, as he'd gone directly to a doorway immediately afterward to shoot up.

Not very long after this, somebody came and told the dealer that another customer apparently had died an hour or so before after having bought and injected the same drug.

Later on the same day I myself found a prey for what I at the time often used to earn some good cash: A non-local who needed supply and who wasn't sure who they could trust, and who also weren't very smart or experienced. I had him buy from this dealer, because it was the most stable dealer I knew of and who always gave me the best profit, and after the deal I took my prey to a cafeteria where he was to shoot up.

The agreement was that I would leave and come back 2 hours later where upon he'd take me to his hotel so we could talk over prospect future business deals. I had lots of ideas. - It was not only in this guy's case, I always had lots of ideas.

I saw him go for the mens room in the cafeteria as I went for the exit.

I never came back, for the police arrested me as I was having lunch with a tourist in a neighboring part of town about an hour later - in a 4 star restaurant, no less.
They informed me I was under arrest and suspected for playing an active role in dealing drugs with lethal potential and I was taken to the police station where it soon became apparent that I had been seen leaving the cafeteria after first arriving together with my prey who less than 20 min later was found sprawled on the bathroom floor lying in a pool of puke and piss, dead from an overdose. He was nb. 5 victim.

They pushed me, they pressured me, they even suppressed themselves when they began to feel pity with me as it became more and more 'apparent' that I had been naive and had unknowingly played a role in distribution of lethal drugs - something I obviously was deeply remorseful and shaken about now, that they police has explained to me the repercussions and consequences my gullibility had help lead to.
- At least two of them were convinced I was just a homeless teen who'd had a rough deal from life and who hoped to earn some respect and thus some protection if I could show that I was tough and loyal to the community and that I could keep my mouth shut.

Then they spoke about taking me to the central street corner where the drug-dealing and trafficking took place, hoping I would either recognize the drug dealer in question or get some information from some of the others hanging around there. When I heard them say that, I jumped in and said: "Oh, but I actually heard him say to the customer at the cafeteria that he actually WOULD come there later on, since he hoped to sell more of the drug!" (I'd heard no such thing, of course).

That did it. They rushed me to a car and took me to the place.

Yet, this was a very serious case, and my problem with remembering how this drug dealer looked made it imperative they did their utmost to get my memory to come up with SOMETHING to help them solve this crime and fast before more died. So they had to be tough, and tough they were, and even tougher they became! And the tougher they became the more 'remorseful' I was.
But you can only get so remorseful. And at some point one of the policemen felt I didn't keep up fast enough, and he became suspicious about my honesty. He said to one of the other cops: "I think we're wasting our time. He'll not help us!...". He cast a glance back at me - at this point I didn't show remorse or much else, but perhaps even a little pleasure, though I did try and make it look as an attempt on my part to ease the tension. But this one decided he didn't buy it, so he continued: "I think he's having us on. He doesn't care about the victims, he's going to lead us on a wild goose chase!".

Of course I knew that now I had to react and show them what they needed to see in order to believe my sincerity - the triggering words being first of all "the victims who died and who may die because of him!" ('him' being me, Zhawq, of course). The other trigger was the hint that I was secretly helping the dealer, so I myself was perhaps also guilty.

So I put on the even more "very remorseful, worried and unhappy face". - Yet, this still wasn't enough for this cop. He kept at me, on and on, that way keeping me trapped with that 'unhappy remorseful role' and I began feeling annoyed, but there was nothing I could do.

A while later as my patience and inspiration was wearing thin (he kept on with the same things, there was no new 'emotions' to show), and just as his "harassment" was nearing a peak, we arrived at the street corner where the dealers and traffickers gathered.
And the instant we stepped out of the car and onto the pavement, I saw the dealer standing at the corner, exactly where he'd been standing earlier.

That suddenly made it all seem so funny, so hilarious, and I was overwhelmed with an urge to laugh.

Yet the situation was too serious, my freedom was at jeopardy so I couldn't afford to as much as give a weak smile, and here I was at the brink of laughing out loud.

The way I saved myself was to cover my face with my hands - the way many people do when they're ashamed or about to cry - when turning myself slightly away from the policemen. To my luck the harassing one took that as another cue he was getting to me, so he kept on even harder, and that gave me the reason I needed to make myself seem like I was weeping.
And so, as my body began to slightly shake from laughter, I hit my face and made it sound - as much as I could - like I was weeping.

The policeman clearly had some sadistic tendency, because it just made him add more slander, like "He's just a no-good little piece of shit, he'll be in jail before you know it!" and so on, on and on.
So as my laughter became more uncontrollable, I in the end actually made it sound as if I was crying, ...really crying!!

In the end, when I finally managed to get a grip on myself and the cops thought I'd seized crying, I went over tho the corner, talked to a few and then alerted the dealer without the police having any way of knowing it was the dealer I was talking to, nor of understanding the messages we exchanged.

The guy was never caught ... at least not for this crime.

Somehow it seems to me that those cops can't have been all that observant after all. If it had been me, I'd have noticed the lack of red and puffed eyes, or at least something that didn't fit the picture I was giving of myself. But then, I guess it's also to some degree a matter of seeing what you except to see, and of overlooking what you do not expect to see.


Saturday, March 12, 2011

Temporarily Powerless.

I may not be at The Opera, nor in The Opera, but I do feel like a Phantom, waiting in my 'Sickbed' Cellar until my Grand Performances can once again begin. Hopeful the 'God of Pneumonia' will realize the importance of letting me revive undisrupted by such petty human weaknesses as a lung infection. I do by far prefer the intricacies of a beautiful Opera, viewed by me from a balcony with a Powerless Beauty by my side.

Ah, such feverish dreams!...

Thursday, March 10, 2011

The Nature of Chaos and Political Order.

The photo at the left shows Professor Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama, who is a Philosopher, Political Economist, and an author.

An article at SociopathWorld that featured an article quoting Fukuyama inspired a reply from me.

I think it's a topic that deserves it's place here at my blog as well, not least because I have something extra to add to blog author M.E.'s words on the subject. So I am shamelessly going to quote and copy a few lines, but as stated, I do so with the purpose of getting said what I think is a valid addition to M.E.'s words.

M.E. quotes a New York Times review of Fukuyama's newly published book 'The Origins of Political Order'.

Here is some of the quoted text:

Without taking human behavior into account, “you misunderstand the nature of political institutions,” Dr. Fukuyama said in the interview at Johns Hopkins. Such behaviors, particularly the faculty for creating rules, are the basis for social institutions, even though the content of institutions is supplied by culture. Dr. Fukuyama sees the situation as similar to that of language, in which the genes generate the neural machinery for learning language but culture supplies the content.

Institutions, though cultural, can be very hard to change. The reason is that, once they are created, people start to invest them with intrinsic value, often religious. This process “probably had an evolutionary significance in stabilizing human societies,” Dr. Fukuyama said, since with an accepted set of rules a society didn’t have to fight everything out again every few years. The inertia of institutions explains why societies are usually so slow to change. Societies are not trapped by their past, but nor are they free in any given generation to remake themselves.

Quite a good topic you've chosen today, M.E., and I agree with your conclusion though I think there's more to say about the issue:

Fukuyama-san is obviously an intelligent man. And it's all true of course, though the inertia grows proportionally with the size of the society in question aka how numerous the species has become.

We're at a state where inertia almost has become a force in and on itself, which we can see not only by the way mainstream keeps cutting off branches of individuality, of variety (first it was royalty and aristocracy, then it was religion, gods and all other entities - except for the occasional dead granma; by now we have only roughly three social levels, the merchants, the slaves and the beggars/criminals/i.e...

What used to be seen under some circumstances as a good and healthy rebellion is now merely Sociopathic. The fact that it's not only the Psychopaths, but the whole bunch of Antisocial sub-groups that are in for scrutiny with the purpose of eradicating ANY form of stirring a wave in an otherwise motionless ocean shows clearly that even such natural phenomena as what Fukuyama describes when he says:

"the content of institutions is supplied by culture",

"the situation is similar to that of language, in which the genes generate the neural machinery for learning language but culture supplies the content"


"The inertia of institutions explains why societies are usually so slow to change."

May be the rule, but the exception speaks differently.

"Societies are not trapped by their past, but nor are they free in any given generation to remake themselves."

Right, but now that we're talking scientific basics to back up natural occurrences, we ought to keep in mind that what we've come to view as 'rules' and 'dominant tendencies of nature' (or however we choose to phrase it) is actually really itself an accidental diversion from the rule...

...The one real rule, if it is even sensible to speak about such a thing, would be that Chaos is the norm.

If you think that's an outrageous statement, then take a look at how it is with fertilization.

It isn't the rule for the egg to be incubated, that happens accidentally, and to this day man must still use trial and error and hope for the best - even the lab conceived life cannot be fully predicted and controlled.

Life has found a way of creating some form of stability, or Order, from chaos, but that is what we're doing always: Creating some form of stability from the ever present chaos, and we have to work continually at maintaining and keeping it functional or chaos will take over again.

Order is not the rule or the natural state of things, though that seems to be the contemporary ideal that is sought achieved with such fanaticism.

The more we learn about empirical science, and the more we manage to create stability to an extent that allows us to overwhelm what might have been a fruitful chaos with a destructive status quo, the more frightened we become of every little sign that something isn't stable.

In my personal opinion what we're seeing and have been seeing for a very long time, is a form of psychosis that has taken over the Western Industrialized countries and societies. And the rest of the world is following rapidly.

Contradict yourself - just don't be a Psychopath!

The photo to left shows Dr Joseph M Carver, PhD, the author of the article I am bringing up in today's entry.
The Stockholm Syndrome - Are we really that bad?

I came upon a text apparently meant to be about The Stockholm Syndrome and the problematic love involved on this victims' part. It is written for the victims, not for the abusers, but I think both sides can have benefit from looking into the aspects at work in these situations. However, it is not - as one might think by seeing the title - about hijackers or terrorists.

The author, Dr Joseph M. Carver, of the article 'Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser (Part 1)', writes:

Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a “soft side”. During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past — how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a “victim”. Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with “I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he’s troubled. He had a rough childhood!” Losers and abusers may admit they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it’s almost always after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating too much junk food — now known as the “Twinkie Defense”. While it may be true that the abuser/controller had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While “sad stories” are always included in their apologies — after the abusive/controlling event — their behavior never changes! Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the “sad stories”, they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I’m beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!"

Now the 'Small Kindness' is about giving your victim little signs of consideration at the right times.

However, I find some problems with his description of the 'Soft Side' issue.
Just something like mentioning that abusers will often tell the victim about how they've been wronged, abused, etc., various hardships like poor and abusive upbringings, he ends the whole passage by saying:

I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I’m beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me".

Oh is that right? Why then you've just contradicted the whole chapter which is about how this is exactly what abusers do: Tell their victims they're disordered because their parents - their mom, their caretaker, - beat them up or otherwise mistreated them and basically were very hateful in their ways towards the abuser.

So which is it?

What hits me about something like this glitch is that for as long as it is someone professional, someone who has never been linked to 'bad' conduct or having been diagnosed a psychopath or antisocial themselves, they can get away with almost anything, just as long as some of it fits what people already have found to be true in most cases.

And 'most cases' may be key here, since if you ARE a psychopath (in their understanding), there's no way you can not have acted like this clinical psychologist describes. You must've acted thus, or your victim/s would not have developed what they define as 'Stockholm Syndrome', and that is because NO ONE can possible love a psychopath! No, not REALLY love, it MUST be manipulation.

As a representative of the side that carries the label Psychopath I can't help but finding this problematic. It tends towards superstition when you can't imagine a psychopath really being loved and not because of abusive manipulation, whereas on the other side a professional who writes about your manipulative methods can't be wrong, even when he contradicts himself!

And while we're at it, where is the respect for the victims in all these writings that portrays them as unthinking marionette dolls that any psychopathic person who happens to come by can manipulate into doing and feeling the exact opposite things of what is viewed moral, sane, logical, good, etc.?

As I see it there's a lot of disdain and hidden contempt for these 'normal' people who so willingly become our victims.It is not only in the Stockholm Syndrome I see this ... you can say that in this case it is understandable that a victim will try to please their abuser, since their lives may be at stake.
But once we draw a connection between airplane hijackers and common psychopaths it really begins to look suspicious.

And in this piece of text - contradictions aside - the line-drawing is unmistakable. If anyone thinks otherwise, all you need to do is pay his website a visit. It is ABOUT psychopathic abusers.

Good reading.

...Or not as the case may be!