Winning Against vs. Winning together


Winning against is a form of conquest in which a person will try to social climb in a group using strategies that are harmful to the group, that don’t create value for the group but only for themselves.  One step back from terrorism they risk the survival of the group by demanding more than they have contributed to the group, and more than can be sustainably afforded by the group.  They enter into relationship with the group with the expectation that they will come away increased in value without feeling that they need to contribute something equitable to the group.  They only engage in win/lose behaviors in the group, not win/win endeavors for the group.  This is essentially an act of theft since any act of theft in an economy decreases the value of all of the money in that economy proportionately.  This usually has to do with an attempt to increase one’s stature in the group without having earned that stature through hard work and sacrifice.  They didn’t take down the biggest game, but they wait until the big dog is weak and attack him opportunisticly.


Mindhacking Part 2: The Empty Mirror or Taking Yourself out of the Equation.


Psychopaths presuppose that you will stay in the relationship.  They try to manipulate your emotions while concealing their true intent, feelings, and thoughts.  Once I realize that I am dealing with a psychopath, someone who is communicating strategically, someone not predisposed to relationship who is trying to get something from me or to force me to participate with them in some way, I take myself out of the equation.  What does this mean?  I put them in relationship with themselves, or the consequences they are creating.  If someone is being passive aggressive or harassing I tell everyone at work and put them in relationship with their reputation.  If a customer is stealing and getting away with it and they have become arrogant about it I put them in relationship with the fact that everybody hates them by letting everybody know what they are doing.  So they can go around the store seeing the looks of contempt on everybody’s faces.

A rational person wants to express their frustration and anger to the irrational person, but the irrational person will just use every piece of information for their own benefit and against the person trying to have a relationship.  Which means that the sooner you leave the relationship with the psychopath, making yourself emotionally unavailable and letting everybody know what they are doing the better off you are.  Invite the scrutiny of the community on the individual before they piss you off and you retaliate or do something you regret.  People don’t know what is going on, don’t assume that they do, all they will see is your emotional explosion which might be warranted but the passive aggressive, emotionally hostile, closeted psychopath is trying to provoke you for this reason.  Smiling deviously to themselves as you try to relate to them as if they were an equal.

It requires a conscious switching from emotional reactions to analytical consciousness, and you have to become strategic.  The psychopath will try to coax you back and as soon as they succeed they will attack again.  Once a person has dealt with you in an underhanded sneaky way, do not give them the opportunity to do it again.  If you continue the relationship after person has become irrational you are participating with the frame that they are forcing, you are granting them equity as a rational person.  They want this.  That is why they are concealing their narrative.  Psychopaths are cowards, they never fight on a level playing field, they enter relationship expecting to get something from it and contribute nothing.  They have a closeted narrative,  they keep two sets of books, what they tell you they think and what they actually think, they never reveal their concealed and narcissistic narrative.  If a person never tells you anything that makes himself look bad, if he tries to appeal normal and good from the perspective of the general populace and doesn’t disagree with or contend with the normative bias ever, you are probably dealing with a psychopath or a moron.  The moron is easy to recognize but the psychopath is ambitious, driven.  They are going places, upward places, and they are getting there by pushing other people down.  Psychopaths are social climbers, over-coddled children that think they are better than everybody else so they try to get on top as quickly as possible.

You have to make your ego very small in order to put your emotions on the back burner.  You have to put your instincts aside, but rest assured, the psychopath has a plan to use all of your reactions against you and to make you look like an imbecile.  The sooner you realize that they are not rational the better for yourself.  Psychopaths consider themselves very clever because they have learned how to be unnatural.  When they realize they are beating up their own reflection they will stop attacking or attack in an even more closeted manner.  Psychopaths don’t reform, they just become more manipulative.



Thought Uncommon



I wanted to start doing pieces on psychopathic behaviors and strategies in the work place.  This will be my first addition.  Functional psychopaths always argue for and defend authority.  They argue in favor of authority and for the correctness of authority and the infallibility of authority.  They do this because they are social climbers and they wish to possess that authority.  They argue for the expansion of the authority.  

I know what you are thinking:

“Isn’t problems with authority on the psychopath checklist?”

Why yes it is but in my psychological system it is a sociopathic trait.  You have to understand how the categories were created there is an entire teleology of events and the definitions were not fleshed out correctly.  It is still very confusing even for professional psychologists.  

Authority is an up down relationship, a vertical relationship and not a horizontal relationship.  Psychopaths are natural…

View original post 54 more words

Deconstructing for Value

Thought Uncommon


My philosophy is about maximizing value and being efficient with value.  My psychology is about deconstructing for value based on my models.  Every event, everything said, every interaction creates value for someone.  What I do is deconstruct the event, narrative, action, or thought process to discover who it created value for and who it depreciated to see if it created a psychopathic, a sociopathic or a rational process.  It is most meaningful to do this with specific instances and those are the very instances that people project their issues onto and get the most offended at.  Which doesn’t make my models less correct, it actually makes them more correct.  What you have to remember is that everything that I post more or less is part of the same integrated model and comes from the same perspective and philosophy.


Above is an example of two narratives, that of my ex-gf and…

View original post 717 more words

THE COVER IS THE BOOK: How Women Predispose Themselves to Manipulation by Psychopaths

Thought Uncommon



For those of you that don’t know Toms gives shoes to poor kids through out the world for each pair of shoes you buy.  Now lets say that you are a woman and you want a sensitive man.  You see a man wearing these shoes and you think, “OHMIGOD, HE IS SO SWEET AND SENSITIVE!  I LOVE HIM!”  Well allow myself to inform you that I work in retail and TOMS shoes are the most stolen item, I swear for every pair sold another pair is stolen, and probably mostly by young men looking to impress girls with them.  If you don’t actually buy the shoes then that little starving kid in Africa doesn’t get any shoes.  So where did these scathingly brilliant female creatures go wrong in their decision making process?  Superficial aesthetic snap decisions.  


The book is not the cover!  There is no law anywhere that…

View original post 575 more words

The Old Gunslinger Paradox

Cowboys and Aliens

There is a strategy by young psychopaths in relationship with their legacy.  As the old gunslinger gets older the odds that he will eventually get taken out increase.  Young bloods adopt a strategy betting that they might be the one to take him out and inherit his fame.  This creates an environment where as the old gunslinger is getting older he is bombarded with conflict as he simply tries to stay alive in the face of unreasoning opposition.  The young bloods aren’t interested in whether they are fighting for something they are just trying to solidify their reputation and legacy.  So every gun toting pecker wood takes a pot shot at the old gunslinger.

Guilt by Awareness

Thought Technology



This is a tautology of the, “you smelt it you dealt it” argument.  It is basically that you by being aware of the problem are causing the problem, or your being aware of the problem is the problem.  This argument is only valid from the perspective of an ignoramus or a consciously strategic psychopath that is manipulating a situation for their own benefit and you have just thrown a wrench into the works.  

They will try to turn it around on you.  Why are you looking for problems?  Why are you looking for that person to be doing something wrong in the first place?  The behavior could be sanctioned and they could have protection and their could be more people aware of what is going on then you know.  

It could also be used by a lassez-faire leader that can’t attempt to fix a problem without incurring…

View original post 75 more words