The Two Faces of Psychopathy (A New Kind of Psychopath Pt. 3)

audrey-hepburn-style-1

Psychopaths conceal their true nature and the nature that they reveal is false, it is a facade, a manipulation.  One of the things that has long bothered me is how in my relationships with women I can observe every process, instinct, and narrative that psychopaths have, because women act like psychopaths in relationship.  Women are innate social climbers, if there are only two people in a relationship they will still try to socially climb.  The processes that I have created for my relationships exist to protect myself from irrational, psychopathic people and relationships.

Women are enabled by society to be psychopathic in relationship because of the normative bias of society.  So women show one face to society (investing in and protecting their public reputations) while at the same time destroying or slowly sabotaging the reputation of their men.  Women are submissive to society and aggressive in relationship.   Also they show to their men a different side of their personality.  Men try to be pleasant in the relationship, not because they feel pleasant but because they want to enjoy themselves in life.  Women however, shit all over relationship and show all of their ugliness and aggression in the relationship.  They also intend, should the need arise, to leverage themselves in the relationship by allowing the judgments of people outside the relationship to take their own side.

Image

I have been burned so many times by so many people that I no longer permanently make up my mind about people or completely trust them.  There were many curious things about LLL when I first met her.  She collected these relationships with semi-famous people.  I remember how she told me about her obviously stalking this MMA star who had invited her on a date or something and then he didn’t show up or something and she proudly told me about how she kept on showing up and yelling at him and making scenes.  It seemed to me that she sought out relationships with famous people because she felt a deep concealed lack of importance and she was trying to compensate for her feelings of unimportance by collecting these relationships.  I should have been more concerned about her stalkyness, but I was going through deep depression because of my recent epiphany that relationship wasn’t really possible, at least not for me.  I couldn’t be understood because I was too complicated, and so I couldn’t be properly evaluated.  It didn’t matter that I was a genius, I was weird, people didn’t like quirkyness, unless it was hipster douchebaggery.  I was like an idiot savant.  I was on the edge, like Ludwig Wittgenstein or Nietzsche and that wasn’t cool anymore.

I let LLL into my life because I was bored with the understanding that I would teach her my theories on relationship.  I communicated that ahead of time which is congruent with my theories for rational procedure.  We didn’t jump into bed and I didn’t intend necessarily for the relationship to be sexual, she demanded it.  Literally the next day she was describing the event as me burrowing into her to find her, I immediately disagreed with the description it sounded like she was trying to frame it as me chasing her, seducing her.  That suggested that I wanted something from her and I had pursued her.  It changes the nature of the relationship.  One of the things that always bothered me about relationships is the inability of women to stay in relationship the same way without trying to change the nature of the relationship or their function in it.  I disagreed with her rendition emphatically.  She laughed her annoying Fran Drescher fake laugh.  Which disturbed me because I was in no way joking.

Image

I asked L once how many men she had slept with because I wanted to pick up her tells so I would know when she was lying and every woman lies when asked that question.  She told me that she had 3 former husbands so she guessed that she had been with 3 men.  When L was about to lie she would pause to long and then she would say, “Umm, Wull”.  I started keeping track of her lies at that point.  There had been an incident earlier in her life where she had gone to a psychologist to get her kids back (which had been taken from her by the government).  The psychologist had said that she wasn’t evil but she had disassociation.  Towards the end of the relationship I knew that L had manipulated the psychologist as she manipulated everybody else.  It took me a while to understand but L could lie to herself and believe it.  The emotions that she communicated were sincere, she was very good at eliciting sympathy from people.  What she actually was is a Histrionic Psychopath, and she was importing her genuine emotions from the abandonment of her mother and all of the sadness she had as a little girl.  L felt like a victim all of her life.  She was in a constant state of feeling like a victim, and as Paul Eckman says, being in a permanent refractory state is synonymous with being insane.

Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή “psyche”, for mind/soul, and -ωσις “-osis”, for abnormal condition or derangement) refers to an abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a “loss of contact withreality“. People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic. ~wikipedia

L wasn’t in relationship with me, she wasn’t in relationship with reality, she was in relationship with the source of her power her feelings of victimization.  That was what helped her make such extraordinarily believable tacit appeals to sympathy.

An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam or the Galileo argument)[1][2] is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

L was interested in me because I had a little bit of internet notoriety.  It was interesting watching her interact online, she was so careful and deliberate with what she said.  I am sure that was how she behaved with her menagerie of semi-famous associates.  It was at that time that I started playing with this concept of how the female mind is created to deal with children.  Mothers have to manipulate the child’s mind.  They inceive in it notions and make the child think that they came up with the idea themselves.  Since Fritz Perls said  “when a person wants to win they use whatever strategy they believe is dominant” it made sense that a woman would use her skills at manipulating children on people, like a Jedi mind trick.

Image

L would tell me things that were only true in so far as the reaction they were designed to elicit from me.  It was an enriched environment in which to observe psychopathic communication strategies and behaviors. At least I have that.  Similarly with such feminine behaviors as whining and nagging these came from the mother/child relationship.  I call it “jingling the keys” the woman attracts your attention to something, in this case she does so by repeating a topic over and over again.  Then she communicates emotional data to you.  Women talk about being objectified by men but when you manipulate a man you are essentially objectifying him.  The other thing about the psychopath is that the psychopath can’t feel loved because they feel like they are manipulating everything so they are the cause of everything, even you love.  The plan is to get you to do something that they want and think that it was your idea.  ( http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2013/04/passive-cause-vs-active-cause-by-joxua.html)

L had two narratives, the one that she used to manipulate me, and the closeted, concealed, narcissistic narrative that informed her actions, thoughts, and communication errors.  It was amazing to me as I started using my theories that I had created, (shared state theory of communication and equity in human relationship theory) I was through the looking glass, I was detecting her lies in real time.  She was totally transparent to me but she thought she had me fooled.  I called her out so many times and she would tell me to my face she wasn’t doing exactly what she was doing.  It was insane.

Advertisements

A New Kind of Psychopath Pt. 2

psychopathy

I can’t win, If you see a pretty woman with an ugly guy you assume she might be in charge, if she is smarter she is probably in charge, if she has more money she is in charge, if he is chasing her she is in charge, now reverse all of those things and turn them around to my relationship with LLL and I was STILL not the boss.  What do I have to do to be the main character in my own life?  To take the lead in my own relationships?

if you see a man and a woman in relationship you assume that he is chasing after her, that he is pursuing her, that is a normative bias?. You think to yourself, “women have vaginas, that woman obviously has a vagina, that man wants her vagina.”  It frames a certain flow in the relationship but what if that is not the case?  I don’t chase women.  I expect the women to have good taste and know what she wants.  I expect the woman to take responsibility for her desires instead of blaming me.

LLL was no spring chicken, she was 27 but she had 4 kids from 3 different fathers taken away from her by the government.  I was better looking, smarter, I am gainfully employed, she works under the table and is on food stamps.  It seems obvious to me that if she leads in the relationship we will only be able to get her results.  That is not acceptable to me, and that is what kept happening, she wasn’t capable of getting any other result.  I created the phrase “Equality Under Reason” as a way of summing up the relationship that I teach.  Which means that you are equal in the relationship, but you do things the way that creates the most value for the most people in your relationship.  Win Win interactions.  These are the key to success.

I was constantly amazed in all of my past relationships how the irrational, stupid person in the relationship was always able to thwart all of the good done by the rational and smart person in the relationship.  That is exactly what I am trying to avoid.  The irrational person on some level plans to undo all that the other person did, and that is what started happening.  There are so many illegitimate strategies that cause failure in relationship.  We do it your way this time, and then next time we do it my way.  No, we do it the right way, and then we evaluate how things turned out and we improve and grow.

I think I am going to deconstruct certain patterns and behaviors that I observed in the relationship, that are congruent with my theories.  I am going to chunk it because i get so pissed off that these patterns keep repeating, and they repeat because of psychopaths, and psychopaths don’t reform they just become more manipulative.  As long as we are letting the psychopaths be psychopaths and not forcing them to change they will continue fucking everything up for everybody.

Psychopath Envy

Image

I have noticed this trend recently.  I call it Psychopath Envy.  Using my models on organic computers I know that we are going through a psychopath explosion.  Due to the acquisitively mimetic nature of human beings and the mirror neuron people copy behaviors that are being rewarded or behaviors that they see succeeding.  We are living in a psychopathic environment where only psychopathic patterns are being allowed to succeed.  I have seen many blogs and posts talking about how people wish they were the cold, calculating, manipulative psychopaths that seem to succeed and always get their way.  Shit doesn’t stick to them and they climb to the top unchecked and unscathed.  Every day the world gets less rational and more psychopathic….

Image

Shared State Theory of Communication

Image

“Only rational relationship is relationship.”  ~Shivastus Solomonicus

When I was meditating on my definition of what a rational relationship was I realized that a lot of people try to define the rational person living in a vacuum, but human beings don’t live in a vacuum.  Humans are political animals that seek out relationships and groups, so a rational person can only be defined in a relationship, specifically a rational relationship in a rational environment and then if the person remains consistently rational without deviation consistently they are rational.  But we don’t find a lot of other rational people and almost no rational environments (environments and people that are not strategic), which makes it difficult to define, describe, recognize, and be a rational person.  

Some people tell me that everything is rational and they are referring to an ability to rationalize everything to make it look rational, I do not subscribe to this narrative.  Using my system we can break down specific behaviors, strategies, and events to determine if they are rational or not.  

If I ask people if they are rational the vast majority will say that they are, and they are thinking of the times when they are rational and not the times that they behave irrationally, but what we find is that the instances when you are irrational define you much more as being rational or irrational than the times when you are rational.  You have to remain consistently rational.  It isn’t the 37 years of rational life that define you as rational it is that 24 hours when you climbed into the clock tower and started picking people off with a sniper rifle.  You can’t define rationality without examining the relationship and the environment.  

I came up with the value system of relationship. Which is to say that value is maximized for the people in relationship, one doesn’t create value for people outside the relationship from the relationship, this is a subtle act of theft.  I call it the wolf pack mentality you go into the world (irrational environment)  make your kill and drag it back to the wolf pack (rational environment).  Aequalitatus sub ratio or equality under reason, means that the relationship is a meritocracy of reason, you move about freely based on merit of superior reason.  You always comport yourself in such a way as you maximize value for the relationship and you are constantly looking for a way to increase your means of increasing value.  The people that argue this point are bad at relationship and I wouldn’t want them in my wolf pack, but they would still gravitate towards it to offer their unwanted opinions, to steal from the surplus of the wolf pack, and to sabotage the wolf pack if they couldn’t have their way.  Pleasant, douchebaggy, moral authorities a.k.a. douchebags or functional psychopaths, or self appointed moral authorities.  

The curious thing about value is that it is created for someone else, and value is negotiated from two different perspectives.  If I create value for myself from relationship that is an act of theft.  The negotiation needs to be arrived at through communication and it needs to create value for both parties, a win win.

The only opinions that matter are those of the people in the relationship, the opinions of the people outside the relationship don’t matter.  If you can’t reach an agreement inside the relationship you leave the relationship.  Incorporating the opinions and judgments of people outside the relationship in order to leverage yourself in the relationship is a violation of relationship and an overt act of theft. It is a desecration of the sacred nature of relationship.

I realized that what I was describing was the philosophical relationship between two philosopher kings.  I was describing the relationship of everything.  The wisest person who gets the best result leads and everybody follows and tries to keep up.  This relationship is a business relationship, a religious relationship, a scientific relationship, a political relationship, and a philosophical relationship.  What we find is that people in this relationship have to communicate in a specific (not vague) way towards a solution (clarity, cogiency, profundity, brevity).  Furthermore, if it is necessary for a person to learn something or to modify their behavior for the benefit of themselves and the group it is irrational if they don’t do it.  Which means that sustainability or the success of the relationship or mutual endeavor is a prerequisite for the definition of the rationality of the relationship.  This also means that a person not doing something that is necessary for the success of the endeavor is an irrational action, argument from ignorance is not an acceptable excuse, for the loss of value or the failure of the endeavor.  So not acting can be considered an act of evil or an act of depreciation. 

Image

I realized that what I was describing was a relationship in which people only related to one another positively and rationally which means constantly increasing each others qualities, reputation, and resources.  This was a relationship of mutual appreciation which is the opposite of the relationship which I always try to avoid and want to have nothing to do with which is the relationship of mutual propertization or mutual slavery.  But back to describing the form of the good.  If it wasn’t true, useful, pleasant or solution oriented you couldn’t say it, do it, and you shouldn’t be thinking it.  This relationship, over time, would turn both people into philosopher kings, famous individuals, rich individuals, business tycoons, moral authorities, martial arts experts, etc.  They would essentially become godlike.  They would become like Adam and Eve or Isis and Osiris, I realized that what I was talking about was the alchemical marriage of the medieval chemists or the tao of taoism, the third eye or 6th chakra in yoga.  The problem is that people are lazy, weak-minded, and horrible at relationship now.  

Image

If you think about Bodhidharma he taught kung fu to strengthen the body and the mind for meditation.  Also in ancient Greece people were encultured into society through the Gymnasium where they taught philosophy, ethics, acceptable conduct, pankration, pugilism, and greco-roman wrestling.  

So what we come away with is that the rational man must have the ability of introspection, he must be self aware, he must be self-controlled, and self-disciplined.  He must be able to scrutinize, criticize, discipline, himself and know himself correctly.  This is not easy, this requires the philosophical death, this requires the killing off in oneself of all delusion, this requires the systematic slaying of one’s ego.  This is also not normal since the vast majority of the population has a cognitive bias known as “bias confirmation”:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explainattitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Image

The rational person instead of being natural must make himself unnatural doing things that do not come naturally to human animals.  Trying to prove himself wrong instead of prove himself correct.  Communicating in such a way as he can be falsified if he is wrong.  Wanting to know that he is wrong if he is wrong, loving truth more than he loves his world view.  But the problem that we run into is that people project their sense of self (plasticity of the sense of self) onto their world view, and falsifying it has negative survival data for them, it feels like a piece of them is dying.

Once we get over this hump, the ego, we can start moving towards super ego.  Until we kill the ego it will continue to encumber us and slow us down.  Ego lives off charity, it begs for mercy, it negotiates for its continued existence, for the delay of it’s execution (understanding), it refuses to participate with reason, and it won’t change until it is forced to change.   Nirvana or Ataraxia is the death of the false self, the death of the ego.

Image

SHARED STATES

I created the shared states as a way for a person to become aware of themselves and their internal world including their emotional states and the things that they are in relationship with.  Anytime we change states we act differently, think differently, we edit our consideration state differently, we are essentially a different person.  It is important in the rational relationship, in order to be consistent, that we are predictable or known to ourselves and to those people we are in a rational relationship with.  Which means that we communicate ahead of time and that our communication is predictive of our behavior.  We can be relied upon, to participate when the time has arrived.

If you just almost got into a crash you are in relationship with that and that warps your emotional state.  Whatever state you are in you communicate that state.  If you are in a state of fear you act fearful, you communicate fear, or you conceal fear.  Likewise with all emotional states.  Each state is a personality.  One needs to observe one self like a scientist, one needs to know when one is in a state, one needs to communicate that one is in a state.  If we act from certain states we get bad results.  In some states certain actions yield good results and other actions yield bad results.  We need to know what these are, we need to be able to predict and control our own states.  We also need to be able to control our actions and influence our own emotions, we need to know when to act and what actions to take, and which states are the best for certain actions.

Image

The problem that we run into with the averseness of the mind is that the mind it 10x more interested in avoiding things it doesn’t want than it is in moving towards the solution.  Paul Ekman calls this an “auto appraiser”, when we have had an experience we never want to repeat our mind creates an emotional scar and starts scanning our environment for evidence of the thing we want to avoid.  This causes problems in relationship as the male and female mind have different and antagonistic refractory states.  A refractory state is a term coined by Paul Eckman and I used the concept in my models.  For him a refractory state is a negative emotional state, a state of emotional morbidity, being in a permanent refractory state is synonymous with being crazy, from his perspective and I agree.  We see this with histrionic psychopaths that use their damage or emotional morbidity as a source of power.

Now the problem that we run into with men and women is that women will agree with what I am saying because it sounds good and rational, but in the application of it they fail.  The reason is that in their hearing of it the tacitly judge and interpret it from a feminine perspective and the female mind works differently from the male mind ( the female mind operates from moral authority and the male mind from sapiential authority, the female mind is sentimental, it thinks emotionally and in America men and women think like women.)  Furthermore people have the cognitive bias that tells them that their experience of the world and judgments of the world are correct and that everybody thinks like them and if they don’t they are wrong.  So when the guy in the relationship expressing himself naturally says that he is attracted to other women or he wants to look at porn the female either ignores him, or judges him, or decides to punish him or in some other way sabotage him.  She completely ignores his desires, and holds her opinion and desires narcissisticly as morally superior to his own.  We find that the feminine narrative/mind while being very sympathetic and supportive of itself wanting the things that women want, babies, affection, etc. is at the same time hostile and unsympathetic to the male mind while demanding his happy participation and agreement.  Which means that he is in relationship with her for her benefit while not being allowed to express himself or be himself, which is again not a relationship.

Nowhere is this problem more apparent than in the United States.  If you look at other relationships throughout history and in other countries you find a completely different approach that allows a compromise for human desires, sexual desires, masculine desires, and men have more rights in other countries than they do in the United States.  As a matter of fact every other country in the world is more sympathetic to men and masculine desires and thoughts than the United States.  It wasn’t always that way though.  The founding fathers got to roger all the slaves they wanted, just as ancient kings had gyneciums, harems, and concubines.  We are the most female minded country in the world.  Science doesn’t know why their is a generational decline in testosterone because their is no viable reason for it.  But I do 🙂 .  It is because of the forcing of female values and female communication rituals.  The demonization of masculinity in the united states, the undeclared war on men.  When you aren’t allowed to hold masculine opinions, or have masculine values, or act like a man, or use masculine communication rituals without being thought poorly of and being punished and humiliated as a society it creates a counter incentive to being a man.  This country is turning men into women.  In relationship after relationship i have observed how women judge me, manipulate me, control me, punish me, all in an attempt to turn me into the man that is perfect for them.  Who the fuck are you  that you deserve a ken doll designed perfectly for you to be a supporting character in the fairy tale that you are telling yourself to yourself while he is providing it for you in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile to men and sympathetic to women???  Everything in this economy, body politic, educational system is being scaled down for women and to meet feminine judgments so that women not only have more support but  men are being counter incentivized and sabotaged.  But women bravely pick up the banner from the battle field from a war that was won long ago and never declared and they courageously start kicking that dead horse all over again.

GENERATIONAL DECLINE IN TESTOSTERONE UNEXPLAINED.

ww

 331069

A New Kind of Psychopath (Part 1)

Bellatrix-OOTP-bellatrix-lestrange-8901478-1400-2100

When I first met LLL I was very depressed, I was perhaps the most depressed I had been in my life up to that point.  I was frustrated with everything, I had just come to the conclusion that relationship was an illusion, at least for me.  I had finished fleshing out my theories on Relationship and Psychology, Shared state theory of communication and Equity in human relationship theory.  I had created the models studying troll behavior for years in online social media groups with some ultra-prolific posters on the internet known as “Trolls”.  If only rational relationship was relationship then relationship wasn’t possible for me, because nobody could remain rational in relationship with me.  This pattern had repeated itself over and over all through my life.  I behaved rationally towards other people and then they always screwed me over in some way shape or form.  This was at the point when I had hacked the human mind, when I realized that human beings were essentially organic computers and their behavior could be predicted, I saw the course of my future life, lonely, misunderstood, blamed for everything, people constantly being afraid of me and mistrusting me and then in their fear lashing out at me and society recriminating me for being some kind of Frankenstein like genius freak.  I felt more alone than I ever had in my life.  If I couldn’t be understood, I couldn’t be loved, because what was being loved wasn’t me in my suchness, it was something else, someone else.  In order to be understood somebody would have to be almost as smart as I was, they would have to have the same language of experience as I do (philosophy/psychology), and they would have to be interested in me and all my theories.

I hated the fact that people were only hooking up on computers and with twitter and dating sites and speed dating.  What happened to having good taste?  Why did people edit their consideration sets so that they only look for a mate or a partner at a night club?  Why couldn’t I meet a girl at the neighborhood coffee shop? (not Starbucks…)  And then I met her.  An Asian homeless guy that would try to have conversations with me and then always turn them around to his idol Warren Buffet or something, it was so predictable it was like having a conversation with a recording, after the 5th time it happened I learned my lesson.  Anyway he introduced me to LLL, she was loud, one of those people that spoke so that everybody could hear her.

LLL and I developed a relationship she was reading this book called Soulmates or something by Thomas Moore.  I told her that I had spent years studying relationship and that there was a type of relationship that I had pieced together from over 10 years of study and meditation.  It was a philosophical relationship a philoish.  It was the rational relationship of everything.  I had perfected it and I was ready to teach it.  She liked the idea and said she wanted to learn it and we would also teach it.  We started a philosophy group for it and a facebook page, We called the group Soulmates-Lovers of Wisdom-Perfecting the soul.  The relationship that I wanted to teach was about soul growth, Aristotle and Plato had this relationship, Rumi and Shams had this relationship, and Jesus had this relationship with some if not all of his disciples.  It was like a guru-chela relationship.

I had developed the theory of the relationship through my investigations and studying success and failure in relationship, I had found that there were recurring patterns in the way I was treated by people and events in my relationship, the only way I could succeed and be happy was in a rational relationship which seemed impossible in a world that was becoming increasingly irrational or psychopathic.  I had my doubts that the endeavor would succeed but I was willing to give it a try.

Real/not real dichotomy fetish

Real/not real dichotomy fetish

Troll keeps on using tautologies of real and not real “synthetic” showing he has strong ideas on the dichotomy between what is real and not real, an “ontological fetish”. Fascinating, I am suspecting that this guy is a fact worshiper. Guys like this think that facts tell us what to do. They have no idea what science is, but they feel very strongly that they do. They can’t tell the difference between the way they think the world works and the actual world, they think the world that they imagine is the world and they are not open to being falsified. Eventually they use a tautology of the “You can’t prove it to me.” argument.