Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Bonding and Consequence.

Can a Psychopath bond with other people, and if they can, what does 'bonding' entail for a psychopath? Does he feel love the same way that normal people do? Do I, myself a psychopath, feel love toward those whom I call 'my loved ones'? What DO I feel? And am I persistent? Can I be Trusted in a Relationship? I hope in the following to answer some of these questions.

From my understanding, you are an admitted Psychopath?
Yes, it wasn't easy and I fought it for quite a while (which shows in my earlier postings), but after studying what psychopathy is for the last 2-3 years since I started my website Psychopathic Writings I've had to admit that I do fit the psychiatric definition of a Psychopath. Before that time I didn't acknowledge having any connection to psychopathy.

If so, I find that interesting in itself and also interesting that you believe you only hurt people that threaten you or your loved ones. Can you honestly say that your statement is true?
Sometimes I really do believe it to be true, but when I look at it from a more objective point I guess I must admit it isn't true. Still, I'd argue it is true to the extent that I do never plan to hurt or harm just for the sake of hurting and harming. When it happens - when I hurt/harm someone - it happens for a reason though I must admit it isn't always obvious to the other person what that reason is. Unless I'm acting out in a state of furious rage, I'm always prepared to explain why I did what I did to the person, but at that point not all people care to hear about logical reasoning or causality. But as I see it, if you're not interested in learning about the reasons for someone else's behavior or in finding out about the truth behind an event that you've witnessed or become the center of, then you're missing out not only once, but twice - first because you got in the line of fire, intended or not, and secondly because you don't care to learn something new. Knowledge is power, it comes in all sizes and guises.

How is it that you determine if someone has enough value to you to be considered a loved one?
It differs a little from one time to another and depends somewhat upon the mood I'm in when I decide it, but it also differs depending on the person I'm interested in and what my values and goals are at the time, so it's a very difficult question to answer in a way that doesn't come out as contradictory or vague. I also place different values on various people, for instance, I appreciate a woman who likes to have sex with me but I wouldn't want that from even the best of pals. One thing I cannot stand is when people who consider themselves my friends lie to me because they're afraid I'll look down on them if they tell me the truth. They should know it isn't necessary to lie to me, I never put my friends down for not being as good at something as I am, I basically never put people down for being honest.

It is very common for psychopaths to be very understanding and forthcoming at the start of a friendship or relationship, and then when they know you better and have created a space for themselves in your life, they begin to show their abusive side, they become controlling, degrading, even sadistic. I used to be like this but never did it to everybody I got in touch with. I have always found it important to have a good base of friends that you can trust and who can always trust you, to treat everybody like shit seems to me like being at war with everybody. I don't need that.

I do sincerely try my very best to remain consistent when I've determined that someone is a 'loved one' to me, and I'm pretty good at it too, if I may say so myself - especially when we look at it in a perspective based on how psychopaths usually are with stability and treating those close to them well, and my way isn't completely heard of. There are even examples of psychopathic serial killers who have retained a marriage with kids and were seen as nothing but a loving husband and supportive dad.

Now the 'emotional connection' between me and those I call my 'loved ones' is more practical than emotional for me, not because I don't think they're worthy of deep feelings but because that is what I have to give, and I certainly can like someone very much and have no doubt that when the right woman comes along, I'll like her beyond anyone or anything I've ever liked, and I'll not be one to leave without notice or to stay out with other women, or the like. I would need my space, undoubtedly, but I would be just as prepared to give my woman space.

I see it this way: When you think about it you'll see that it is beneficial to all parties if we behave caring and friendly towards people in general and definitely towards our loved ones, rather than aggressively and hostile, right? On the opposite perspective I believe it's just as beneficial to all parties if we can take action when we're being wronged, it isn't good for society to disarm it's population because it breeds a nation of victims. When people have to rely on an outside authority to keep their loved ones safe you get a person who doesn't have an inner pillar of self esteem based on the knowledge that he can, will and may take action if a situation calls for it.

I think that having taken such action myself is part of the reason why I'm generally more friendly and caring - when I get the chance to be so - than most so called normal people are, because I know first hand what the consequences might be if you overstep the boundaries of others and don't respect their personal space, and most of all, I think it's the right way to do things; you certainly have fewer dumb people wallowing around destroying the property of others just because it's 'fun', or who insults a stranger passing them by on some street knowing well that the stranger can't afford to do what every person should do when met with an insult from some numbnut, because the law in your state happens to say you aren't allowed to take matters (your matters) into your own hands - you must call the authorities and have them do it for you.

I hope this answers some of your questions. I will try to answer more questions of this nature in upcoming articles as I know a lot of my Readers have showed an interest in these. It also helps me in my own quest toward a better understanding of how I - and how normal people - function emotionally and psychologically.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Psychopathy & Machiavellianism.


People sometimes ask me if it is Possible for a Non-Psychopathic Adult Individual to Develop Psychopathy. I have chosen to Respond To this Question with an Introduction to Machiavellianism and how, if at all, this World View Corresponds with Psychopathy.

Let me start with the question as presented by a Reader:



Don't you think brain plasticity is still fairly high in adults? Short of a traumatic experience which severely damages the amygdala (causing lack of emotion), don't you think one can slowly develop psychopathy through a safer method of gradually conditioning?
If you don't have the genetic prerequisites for developing Psychopathy (this is determined before we are born) you will not become a Psychopath no matter what method you use to proactively try to stimulate or trigger the condition in yourself. You can adopt a certain world view, and to some extent behaviors, know to be prevalent among psychopaths. The world view I refer to is well known and even has a name, it is called Machiavellianism (ref. link above).

If you haven't already come across Machiavelli or what he represents, check out Machiavelli and Machiavellianism (Wikipedia links). You might also want to look up his most famous book 'The Prince' (link is to complete text in e-book format), which became the basis for the modern term 'Machiavellianism' - a book that shocked the public even in it's own time because of it's ruthless honesty and complete absence of aim to mask descriptions of reality in pleasing packaging as well as his open hearted references to the type of consequences that every man and woman must face when they refuse to acknowledge reality, along with it's clear exposure of the all too common hypocritical pretenses of morality and religiousness i.e. in all levels of society. 

As always, Niccolo Machiavelli, being the Messenger that he was destined to be, wasn't received well by his contemporaries even if he gave them a Key to gain Understanding that could've enabled them to create greater lives for themselves than otherwise possible. Alas, it is always easier to turn the blind eye and use the remaining one eye to indulge in religious practices that the practitioner rarely understands the meanings of - thereby becoming useless mumbo-jumbo of nonsense and a waste of time, or worse: A time consuming Cancer that eats away at your life in exchange for the promise of giving it to you if you only agree to not live it while you have it.


Machiavellianism represents the world view that all human activity is fundamentally selfish in nature and that ignoring the fact that power provides you with more freedom to pursue your interests and beliefs as well as do what you find pleasure in doing - including illegal activities; punishment for breaking the law only has reality for the powerless, the masses. Power provides you with better means and chances of survival, and not mere survival, but survival with freedom to live a satisfying life. 

The Machiavellian World View also see it as being an act of selfishness to allow oneself to indulge in illusions such as morality, letting mores dictate that you must be law abiding for the sake of doing what society (read: the seat of power) even if obeying this rule puts you and/or your family i.e. friends etc at risk. Yet the common choice is to be law abiding, and you're told that you will be rewarded for doing the Morally Right thing (a great and blatant lie, but oh, such a comforting lie to those who lack insight and braveness).


The reasoning is right in front of you: How can you justify putting good living or even survival of your family, your nearest and dearest, at risk all for the sake of following a Set of Morals? Don't forget that Morality, unlike Ethics, is the adherence to Right and Wrong as presented/dictated to you by an outside Authority, be it society's Authority, your family's Authority, religion, your school teacher, or your anybody's Authority who has a higher social status than yours.

Yet, are we not supposed to do everything in our Power for our Nearest and Dearest, our Family and Loved Ones?

Then how is it that we're also expected to completely disregard their well being by refraining from some deed that might save their lives or their livelihood if the deed is considered illegal by law, and mind you this is not out of concern for us possibly receiving punishment, it is because abstaining from committing an illegal act is the morally correct thing to do, simply because it is illegal, not necessarily because it hurts anybody (which it might not, or it may rightfully hurt someone who has abused the law themselves).

The Machiavellian Interpretation: To Abide by the Law, even at the cost of your own or your family's safety, because it is the Moralistic and therefore Good and Right thing to do, cannot be given any credence, for you commit to a faceless All-Knowing Law, formally known as The Good for 'all Society', 'all People', 'all of Us' - whoever 'all of Us' are if not 'We, the Authority of everything Common and Mediocre', because it is in our interest to keep society at a mediocre state. Too many individuals knowing too much and reasoning too well, along with having too much capacity for acting on their reasoning and knowledge, is not a good thing for a society that largely builds on the resources of a large population (in later decades too large, if you ask me). The truth is there is no 'us' or 'we', and the Powerful is a faceless number who's interest first and foremost is to make sure that the power system remains intact, or at least manageable during change, so that the faceless number in power can comfortably remain powerful and the faceless masses comfortably remain unaware of their own crucial part in it all.

Of course this is preferably done peacefully since peace is by far more cost efficient, more reliable and more manageable, than war or war-like conditions. And this is all by the very same decree that Machiavellians adhere to: Keep in power and maintain the power structure at all costs, even by means of sacrificing civilian lives when and where need be.

It is not good, but it is also not all bad. Most of all it merely is.

Do not misunderstand me, or rather don't misunderstand Machiavellianism: There is no discrimination, no denouncing and no being against or for "the system" or those in power. Things are this way because it is in the human nature to arrange things in this manner, Machiavellians simply acknowledge the facts as they see them and take responsibility for what they do with their knowledge as well as how they do it.

But where the subject of Psychopathic Machiavellians and Neurotypical and not so neurotypical Machiavellians is concerned there are bound to be some differences in how a life view such as this, with it's deeply practical and even cynical fundamental aspects, will affect us and our actions - as Psychopaths individually and as non-Psychopaths individually. There will be differences in each group, but I'm pretty certain that the questions that invariably arise along the way as we're faced with decisions and choices that we must make, these will cause much more speculation, and emotional difficulties and pain - probably even some psychological trauma, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - for the neurotypical person, and cause him/her much more difficulty when decisions and certain choices are to be made, whereas the psychopath most likely will be fairly unscathed throughout his/her life time since we don't respond emotionally to events, acts and decisions, the same way that other people do.


So yes, you can be a psychopath and typically have a machiavellian outlook on life, but more likely you can be an intelligent and emotionally neurotypical person who has a Machiavellian outlook on life. The former is more often the case unless you grow up in a family who are Machiavellians, or you may be exposed to a good school teacher who has a machiavellian world view at a time when you happen to be receptive to give it the necessary open minded positive attention. If you see what you've heard - or alternatively read yourself - confirmed in what goes on around you, the rest comes naturally.

The difference between a Psychopathic Machiavellian and a Neurotypical Machiavellian is mostly the same as in other instances: The psychopath is more likely to act in accordance with what he thinks and believes whereas a non-psychopath will be more hesitant because he has a natural in-build neuro-psychological emotional response system that needs to process what he is/did experience before he can decide what action to take. Processing takes some time, if only minutes it will still regularly lead to the moment having passed, and with it the opportunity to act. The Psychopath don't have the neurological wiring required to respond emotionally and can do not make decisions based on the (to us - the Psychopaths) Largely Irrelevant Emotions - at least as they're normally defined - but on other aspects with relevance to a differently structured motivation, and there is no looking back with any painful sense of regret when sometimes the consequences of a poorly thought through choice becomes reality.

While machiavellianism seems to be the prototypical outlook on life for a psychopath, it is also at least to some extent a trait of the time we live in. Dr. Robert D. Hare is right when he states that the company structure in modern business is not unlike the structure of the motivational behavior of a psychopath. This is so because in business it has been necessary to encourage the possibility of disregarding moral rules for as far as it can make the difference between getting a profitable deal home or losing it to someone who is more cynical and more willing to put aside 'decent human behavior' for the sake of profit and career. But this is material for another article, I just wanted to mention it here in order to make the connection visible to the Reader.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Managing Anger, Prison & Comedy.



Back, finally. After the last Psychopathy Research Series I meant to write some updates of what has been taking place since I published my last articles. But I didn't get that far. On the very same day that I had announced my next posting police came to my apartment and took me back first to jail and to the establishment where the research is usually taking place. But they did more than that, they also took my computer - promising I would get it back undamaged, but of course this didn't happen, I've had to buy a new computer once again along with all the programs and shit.

Anyway, one of the reasons they told me I was being withheld was that I hadn't been living up to my promise about providing written material (which I do here at this website) for the sake of further research for people and experts with interest in psychopathy around the world. But giving the fact that I do battle dyslexia and ADHD-like symptoms along with great difficulty dealing with feelings of under-stimulation while at the same time I am required and expected to keep coming up with something new to give them, I found their argument to be unfair to say the least.

There was also another thing: Everybody who knows anything about this website also knows that one of the major interests of my Readers is to hear more about the Psychopathy Research Program that I am participating in, but I have been hindered by legal issues that boils down to me having had t sign an agreement that I not speak or let out any details about what takes place in the experiments and test series.

Sure, a lot of it most of you can probably guess - brain scans and so on - but there's a lot of newer and more innovative things as well that I just don't understand why people shouldn't know about. Psychopaths who read my articles won't be able to use it to beat the system, legal, psychiatric or otherwise, so it can only have to do with private research companies being involved and not wanting others to learn what they find out. And that means it is no longer for the greater good, it is no longer about learning about psychopathy in order to help the population at large getting access to more knowledge about us (the psychopaths) and our ways, how we function i.e., and it can't be about seeking answers that may be helpful to those who are born with the genetical make-up and grow up under the circumstances that create psychopathy in a person.

When I signed the papers vowing to not tell anything about the Psychopathy Research Program, I did so under the pretence that it was an internationally based non-profit research program (though I was aware it involved states and governments), so when I was put in the situation I described above, being held incarcerated because I didn't write enough for them (and, I regret to say, for my Readers), I became angry and stubborn. I refused to write another word until I was allowed to tell at least something about the test series or experiments I've been subjected to.

It's cost me a month in prison, give or take, but I eventually have been given the go-ahead to reveal a little now. I will tell you more in my next article and end this one with a few words about the movie I've included in this article...

The name of the movie is Anger Management, directed by Peter Segal, starring Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. It's a comedy, but it's one of rather few comedies that I actually find entertaining.

It's about a very normal man played by Adam Sandler, who via a series of mistakes and injustices ends up being sentenced to a course in Anger management lead by a psychiatrist (or psychologist) with expertise in the field played by Jack Nicholson.

Jack Nicholson's character is a psychopath, which David (Adam Sandler) soon realizes, but what he only realizes in the end is that Doc Rydell - Jack Nicholson's character - isn't merely a psychopath, he is a good and a very clever guy indeed, who uses untraditional methods part of which involves a very strong tendency towards controlling everything and everybody around him (including his patients), who more or less completely lacks inhibition along with having the willingness to cut legal corners whenever it serves a purpose. Indeed, Rydell is the hero in this movie, and I can't help but love it for showing that psychopaths aren't always the bad guys.