Opportunistic Obstructionism


When I was fleshing out SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION and EQUITY IN HUMAN RELATIONSHIP, it became obvious to me that psychopaths instead of being authentic and participating behave strategically in order to communicate to you a state.  I am superior to you, therefore when I storm towards you I expect you to throw yourself bodily out of my path, because that is how important I am.

I started observing and documenting psychopathic behaviors because the way my mind works I have obscene abilities of pattern recognition.  From my perspective every pattern, every interaction results in a psychopathic result or a sociopathic result (or neutral).  The behavior that I am going to discuss today is that of opportunistic obstructionism and it’s implications.

Psychopaths are opportunistic.  Just like a pedophile they attack you when you are weak.  They wait until they are in a position to attack you or you are in a position to not defend yourself.  In order for concern to not be valid it can’t create a disparate impact.  If concern is the order of the day then we should both be concernfull of one another, but if I am superior to you I am going to force you into a position where you have to be concernful of me while I am not being concernful of you.  Because I am more important than you.  So I will speed up to get in front of you on the freeway, and then slow down when I am in front.

There are even cultures that adopt opportunistic obstructionism as a passive aggressive tactic.  In the United States there was recently a series of events that communicated to a certain group that they were not as well liked as they thought they should be.  Universally this culture adopted a strategy to walk slower than everybody else and drive 5 miles under the speed limit.  This culture re-branded itself as the “culture of pleasantness” trying to make a societal implicature that their culture was superior because it was pleasant, (and Americans are rude).  They were trying to draw attention to themselves while at the same time not being concernful of other Americans and showing that through the auspices of self-appointed moral authority, they look down on us and at the same time don’t consider themselves Americans not equals but superior to us.

It is important to understand the difference between passive resistance and passive aggression.  Passive resistance is necessary when somebody is forcing you to do something that is wrong.  Passive aggression is a psychopathic tactic to release negative emotion in relationship for the sake of being abusive in a subtle way.


Telegraphing and Psychopathology


I am trying to teach you something about the nature of the psychopathic mind.  Due to feelings of innate superiority that were reified in them as children, psychopaths gravitate towards structures of authority and socially climb as high as they can get on those structures of authority.  They want to be in a position where they have control over others.  Once they get into that position of authority they do not execute the office faithfully, and I am going to explain why.

People that don’t feel like authority figures in their own lives have their need recognition stimulated to be an authority in someone else’s life.  This is because of over coddling from their parental authorities and the fact that they never fully individuated from their parents because their parents wanted to keep them dependent on themselves.

The psychopath has to let you know that they are there, and they have to draw attention to their power over you.  They want you to know that you have to go through them.  You have to recognize their authority over you.  At the same time they want to inform you that  the law does not apply to them, they are above the law and above scrutiny.

Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions subject to individual will, judgment or preference, based solely upon an individual’s opinion or discretion.[1][2]

Arbitrary comes from the Latin arbitrarius, the source of arbiter; someone who is tasked to judge some matter.[3] An arbitrary legal judgment is a decision made at the discretion of the judge, not one that is fixed by law.[4] In some countries, a prohibition of arbitrariness is enshrined into the constitution. Article 9 of the Swiss Federal Constitution theoretically overrides even democratic decisions in prohibiting arbitrary government action.[5] The US Supreme Court has overturned laws for having “no rational basis.” A recent study of the U.S. asylum system suggests that arbitrariness in decision-making might be the cause of large disparities in outcomes between different adjudicators, a phenomenon described asrefugee roulette.

Article 330 of the Russian penal code defines ‘Arbitrariness’ as a specific crime, but with a very broad definition encompassing any ‘actions contrary to the order presented by a law’.[6]   ~wikipedia


The English noun tyrant appears in Middle English use, via Old French, from the 1290s. The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning “illegitimate ruler”, and this in turn from theGreek τύραννος “monarch, ruler of a polis“. The final -t arises in Old French by association with the present participles in -ant.[4]

The psychopath, when everybody knows what action they should take doesn’t take that action because their is no ability to draw attention to their own ego and their own issues.  So they telegraph things.  Everybody knows who should get the promotion so they promote somebody else.  Everybody knows what action should be taken so they don’t do it, instead they do something that nobody could have predicted, something spiteful and hateful that creates confusion.  The psychopath wants to communicate to you that they are smarter than you and unpredictable by you, the funny thing is that psychopaths are predictable because you know they are going to do stupid, evil, shit.

Let’s say that there is a court case.  Two people got in a physical altercation that was resolved by one of the person’s correctly using violence but not over reacting, they were well within their rights and they responded correctly.  The psychopath, being in relationship with their authority, will rule against the person who responded correctly because it marginalizes their authority if somebody else judges correctly.  So, even though everybody knows what the judge should do, the judge thwarts reason by punishing the righteous person and granting a complete pardon to the guilty party.  Thereby attracting attention to themselves and the power that they wield.


Obsession and Psychopathology


Dr. Stylianos Atechlys known as Daskalos (Teacher) once said that obsession is demonic possession.  Something I have always thought was interesting is how quickly people introduce you to their issues.  I believe that things end as they begin so I am always very interested in the first meeting I have with a person.  How they approach relationship.  The initial approach.  If relationship is an approaching where two people begin to understand each other, than how we approach relationship is how we approach approaching.  In the initial approach does the person approach authenticly and honestly or do they approach strategically?  Do they approach me as a superior talking to a subordinate?  Forcing a frame and trying to get me to participate?  or do they approach me looking pathetic and trying to elicit sympathy?  Do they approach me telling me how awesome they are and expecting me to agree?  In the case of Charles Manson the first thing you see is the swastika carved into the middle of his forehead.

People flaunt their issues and attract attention to their issues.  How many times do you start a conversation and the person ends it by saying, “god bless.” or “All I need to know is do you believe in Jesus?”  The fact of the matter is that I do believe in Jesus but not the Jesus you believe in.  I believe that Jesus in the quintessence, the fifth element, he was the incarnation of reason which is why they called him the Logoish, and I believe that god is the faculty of reason in man.  So should I say no or yes?

The fact of the matter is that people are either rational and in relationship with truth and reality (which is much, much, rarer than you think)  or they cling to morbid emotions and delusions and psychosis.  Some people are traumatized in certain areas, and rational in others.  When you stimulate a certain issue they enter a refractory state, but each individual has to be responsible for their own mental and emotional health and willing and desiring of being a whole person.


In relationship people will ask you in some form or another “are you a good person?” and this is stupid because psychopaths conceal their emotional morbidity and misrepresent themselves.  They are manipulative.  Psychopaths have to do the wrong things, they have to do things psychopathicly in order to work their will and attain their good.  So stop asking people if they are good people, figure it out for yourself, stop exposing yourself to being manipulated, learn to recognize the behavior and challenge people to be mentally and emotionally healthy.


One of these people always lies and one of them always tells the truth.  If I ask, “are you a good person?”  the psychopath is going to be the first to respond very convincingly in the positive and they will probably even have reasons why they are a good person.

People understand themselves and agree with themselves.  Contemplate that for a second.  The world view of the individual makes them correct in their behavior.  In order for them to be correct in doing certain things they have to perceive the world in a certain way.  This is their gestalt.  This is their philosophy, their soul.  The problem is that people don’t enter relationship to understand the other person in the relationship which is a necessity.  You have to understand how the other person in the relationship thinks.  You have to understand the human organism.  You have to understand yourself,  only in understanding yourself correctly can you understand other people correctly in relationship to yourself.  You have to understand the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases.  You have to know your issues, what stimulates your issues, what puts you in refractory states, when you are in a refractory state should you act and what actions should you take, and how do you get out of a refractory state and back into a positive mental and emotional state.  Do you act when you are in relationship with your morbid emotions?  When do you act?  Do you get good results, do you get the result that you desired?  Why not?  Why are you trying to get the result that you are trying to get?  Why do you desire that result?  Are your relationships based on shared diseases?  or on allying yourself with the better angels of others?

The Psychopath has to attack.  They can’t not attack.  They can’t keep themselves from attacking and they are looking for people to attack and reasons to attack.  They don’t have self discipline or self control.  They can’t stop looking for the thing that they hate so they can kill it.  Recent research suggests that feeling thwarted is the source of anger.  Based on my Shared State Theory of Communication, we communicate whatever state we are in.  So if we are in a state of feeling thwarted, we communicate thwartedness, and we want to thwart.  But antagonizing the problem is not necessarily moving towards the solution.  To use my terms something happened to the person that they never want to happen again, a state they want to avoid, but the psychopath is in relationship with desiring to kill the thing that they perceive as the cause of the state they want to avoid.  But in doing so they are constantly restimulating the refractory state reminding them of the state they want to avoid.  Which means they are keeping themselves in a permanent refractory state permanently, which Paul Eckman says is the same as being insane.  They are obsessed with the thing they are trying to get away from.  The only way the can rest is if that thing ceases to exist in reality.  So we have the form of the conquest.




Understanding, Building a Psychological Profile

Thought Uncommon


When I am trying to understand a person I see how far their personality deviates from the stigma that would be associated with them.  Some people can be perfectly happy fulfilling their stigma.  Some people go out of their way to fulfill their stigma. They feel it is some manner of duty to spout cliches and use shibboleth’s.

When a person deviates from their stigma it can be a sign that they are reasonable and they identify with reason but it might not be.  Lil Wayne and Dennis Rodman both deviate from their stigma in many ways, adopting behaviors that aren’t typically black and male, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that every deviation is towards reason.



In my system we observe over time how a person is in relationship with the world and with the phenomena in the world in order to create a 3-d picture of their soul.  I will…

View original post 601 more words

Pandora Complex

Thought Technology


Joxua Luxor named this disorder after observing that female behavior is often guided by impulses that can only be attributed to operating on neural myelination.  Millions of years of neural myelination have created the male and female brains and the female brain was created for dealing with children which creates the strategies by which she succeeds in relationship and in the world.  The strategies for dealing with the child are reversed and used on the man.  The woman wants to own and possess the male sexual energy (not unlike penis envy).  She wants the man to be manly but only in so far as he is sanctioned by her to do so.  She wants to put his penis in a box and put the box in her closet and only let him play with it when it suits her.  

Münchausen syndrome is related to Münchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP/MSP)…

View original post 528 more words

Disparate Impact and Psychopathology


Psychopaths don’t reason, they rationalize.  They make things sound reasonable.  They start with the desired conclusion, that creates value for themselves and they distort reality with their word magic to demonstrate why they deserve the thing they want when they haven’t earned it.  They do this by making arguments based on logical fallacies (especially appeals to emotion) and cognitive biases in the form of normative judgments.  

Disparate impact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate”adverse impact” on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1]

In my theories on relationship, (equity in human relationship theory) I bench mark rational patterns in business and other philosophies.  If it makes sense and it works I use it. In my relationships if it isn’t rational or towards the solution (meaning the solution that creates the most value for the most people)  you can’t say it or do it and you shouldn’t be wasting your time thinking about it.  This is the philosophy that I live, it seems very tedious to most people, there are no rewards for ego.  I often think that I would like to live in a monastery where I can quietly contemplate, and create.  I am a creature of habit, a deep thinker and I am only interested in relationships about growth.  America has gotten so bad at relationship.  Relationships are shallow and superficial.

Anyway, because of my philosophy, I am extremely sensitive to strategic behavior of psychopaths.  It amazes me how every single pattern that happens in the relationships I see ends in a psychopathic pattern and this pattern repeats.  We have created an environment for psychopaths where things can only happen psychopathicly and only psychopaths can move about freely.  This is not a meritocracy.  

Psychopaths don’t create value for others, they steal value from others because they don’t engage in win win interactions, they engage in win lose interactions.  They basically steal value.  Ask yourself why there is no money in the United States economy.  Psychopaths enter into relationship for their own benefit.  That is why I created the concept of the Wolf Pack.  Everybody in the group is skilled, and gets good results in the world.  They are aggressive towards the world for the benefit of the group.  Psychopaths can only recognize value when it has been tapped.  They cannot appreciate unrecognized potential.  Having their judgments externalized into society, they have to be told by society that something is good.  They are not willing to suffer for the relationship.  They are not willing to sacrifice for the relationship.  They are not willing to struggle or toil for the relationship.  When you are successful and everybody knows it the psychopath comes into the relationship and tries to take all the value.  My theories prevent this process from happening.  There are no suckers in the sucker free club.  Everybody has to pull their wait and nobody gets more than they earned.  It is a meritocracy of results in the world not intention.  


The processes by which Psychopaths create disparate impact in their favor is remarkable.  Imagine a person is trying to buy something from you and it costs $10 but they only have $5.  The psychopath will stand there and argue with you for 1 hour to make you understand that they deserve it and that they should have it even though they don’t have enough resources.  A win lose scenario.  It should be easy to say “no” and that should be the end right?  but no.  Now if you make $17 an hour than you have already lost more than you had to gain, but you also have not been selling things to other customers during this whole time.  Psychopaths get in the middle and then destroy everything for everybody if they can’t have all that they want exactly as they want it.  I call them “choosy beggars”.  



Imagine that you offer a homeless man some change and he says contemptuously, “Is that all you got?”  and then you offer him a dollar and he says, “I don’t like the way you handed that to me, pick it up and hand it to me again more pleasantly.”  This might seem impossible to you but this is how psychopaths think.  They are the self appointed moral authority because of their issues.  They are in relationship with their issues.  If they are histrionic psychopaths then they win because they are a victim and this gives them the right to defend themselves, champion themselves, judge other people, and levy fines against other people.  



I just got out of an emotionally abusive relationship with a histrionic psychopath.  She was amazing, she could get offended at ANYTHING at any time, everything was about her.  She was constantly making everything about how awesome she was in every way.  She fished for complements and she would spin this narrative about how sexy she was.  You would thing the sun rose and set in her pants and that everything in the universe revolved around her vagina.  Every event had something to do with her vagina.  It was the hidden cause of everything that happened and her vagina was either pleased by it or not pleased by it, but at the same time incapable of doing anything about it and not responsible for what happened because of it.  Also she was not engaged in behaviors to attract sexual attention, she was just naturally sexy.  Sexyness was a qualia that she possessed, it wasn’t an activity, it was an essence that she exuded and it was a real force because it made things happen.  It could actually influence reality.  

It was weird to see in her narrative how she popped and locked between different topics always trying to control how things were perceived.  She narrated everything, trying to control how it was interpreted and how I felt about it, constantly trying to control the narrative, correcting my narrative, getting offended at my narrative.  She wrote herself as the main character in everything.  This was her fairy tale and I was her subject and she was the queen.  It wouldn’t have bothered me if she could see the difference between fantasy and reality but she would say insane things and then insist that they were real.  She would fish for romantic complements and then she would hold them against me if I didn’t act as though they were real.  She would ignore reality and she would try to make the fairy tale she was telling herself real.  She would edit her consideration set so she didn’t detect her own errors, any information that showed her to be wrong was deleted.  And her communication would become hostile and nagging and whining and repetitive if I didn’t agree with her and then having agreed with her she would punish me with emotional abuse if I didn’t act on it.  It got to the point where all of the time, the only thing we were talking about was her issues.  1 hundred texts, an hour long conversation.  Constantly whining and henpecking a cacophony of misery and negative emotional data designed to punish me for not changing my narrative to hers and allowing her to control my narrative.  

It was amazing….


Organizational Skills and Psychopathology


In my opinion, based on the way I define Psychopaths and Sociopaths that psychopaths are externally organized, which is to say they appear organized on the outside.  While sociopaths are organized on the inside, internally, as in philosophically, mentally, they are prepared, like a militia or doomsday-prepers.  The reasoning comes from my theory on the female mind being psychopathic and the male mind being sociopathic.  The psychopath, in order to pass the threat filter of the normal individual make appeals to superficial, aesthetic, snap decistions.  (http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/superficial-aesthetic-snap-decisions/)  Image

Psychopaths appear to be something they are not, while sociopaths try to not attract any attention at all.  They do things to make themselves unappealing or uninteresting because they don’t want your attention.  Sociopaths are even rude and offputing, they want you to stay in your lane and mind your own business, they don’t want to be your friend.  They don’t want to know your stupid opinion.


I am sympathetic to sociopaths (probably because I am one I would guess) and I see them as a force of good.  Sociopathic processes are cathartic.  People have been trained to look for the sociopath, but they don’t realize that they are blind to the psychopath.  That is why I say…


Psychopaths, being female minded, respect the normative judgments of the herd.  They do their social climbing in groups of people.  They presuppose relationship for the purpose of social climbing.  Psychopaths don’t use their own resources, they use everybody else’s resources first.

Tragedy of the commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 The “tragedy of the commons” is one way of accounting for overexploitation.

The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, according to which the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest, act contrary to the group’s long-term best interests by depleting the common resource. The concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. “Commons” can include the atmosphereoceans, rivers, fish stocksnational parksadvertising, and even parking meters. The tragedy of the commons has particular relevance in analyzing behavior in the fields of economicsevolutionary psychologyanthropologygame theorypoliticstaxation, and sociology. Some also see the “tragedy” as an example of emergent behavior, the outcome of individual interactions in a complex system.


Likewise their is a tragedy of the commons in regards to availing oneself of strategic behavior.  The sociopath is self sustaining because they don’t want to have to depend on other people, while the psychopath is confident in their ability to manipulate other people and climb to the top.  They “earn” what they get by being shitty human beings.  Psychopaths don’t really create value because they don’t really have problem solving skills.  They don’t choose options that create the most value for the most people.  They figure out some reason why they are correct or why someone else is wrong and they figure out a way to fine them or to steal their surplus and get away with it.  Psychopaths only create win lose scenarios, they are not concerned if they should be doing it they are concerned with whether they can get away with it.


You have to ask yourself, what kind of person would jump through all the hoops of normative public judgments to appear that squeaky clean?  and why?  People make stupid judgments, stupidly.  Malcolm Gladwell called this visual bias the Warren Harding error.  He was probably the worst president in history and he was a puppet for a wealthy business tycoon, but he looked soooo presidential.  Image

So why does this happen, Joxua?  Because of Neural Myelination and cellular memory and the differences between the strategies of the female mind and the male mind for survival.  The female mind is attracted by pretty, shiny, normal looking things that appear happy and harmless.  Pretty things have positive survival data for women because their will be a surplus that they can squander on their children.  Whereas ugly, tough and rugged things have survival data for men because it means that you will be well protected as you go into the world and battle for survival and a surplus to provide for a wife and your children so that your genes will be passed on.



Above is a picture of a bower bird making a nest to attract a mate.  He decorates the nest with blue colored items which are attractive to this type of bird.  Again we see the use of superficial, aesthetic, snap decisions to manipulate the (shallow) female mind.


The psychopath is the mother’s favorite.   The psychopath is the pretty one that mommy likes.  They get the most attention from mommy and mommy protects them from consequences, showers affection on them, gives them money and resources, and even allows the cute baby to manipulate and lie to mommy and get away with it.  not being suspicious of the child that appears to have everything in order she doesn’t scrutinize the child and she doesn’t confront the child’s antisocial behavior or their mental issues and diseases.   She also protects the child’s delusions of grandeur and instills in it an innate sense of goodness.  The child feels that she is good.  She feels that everything she does is good.  She even feels that she is good when she is doing things that are wrong.  When tormenting and harassing her sister she also feels good.

As they repeat this behavior they reify it in themselves, this is why psychopaths can’t reform.  They have never had to and they don’t believe they should have to.  They are incapable of self scrutiny, self honesty, self discipline, or self control.  They feel that their interpretations and judgments of reality are true and good.  They can’t tell the difference between their world and the world.  Psychopaths are introverted into their emotions.   While sociopaths, having to use their own resources, are in relationship with the world and reality.  The life experience of a sociopath tells them the one thing about themselves while the experiences the psychopath has tells them something different about themselves.   It is normal for the psychopath to get peoples help as they manipulate them to their injury and not feel any remorse for it or take any responsibility.

Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea.

Well, I think that is all for today, I hope I sufficiently melted your face off with my brilliance.   Stay tuned for more investigations into psychopathology with the use of my theories and philosopy, good day.


A New Kind of Psychopath Pt. 4


Come with me as we take a journey through the mind of a complete, forking, psychopath.  Notice the cat by your leg, it is actually a tiger.  I stab you with a knife but I call the knife a hot dog so its ok.  Rain falls up here, and the cause is the effect.  Time moves backwards, and sideways and if you are lucky sometimes it twerks. 

This is from an actual conversation I had with LLL:

“Are you trying to tell me you think I hate your dog? I PUT UP WITH BEING CALLED A DOG HATER FOR A YEAR!”

Now I will show you how I “deconstruct the narrative” to find out who is speaking and how what they are saying has value and as we do so let us return to the conversation.  At this time I have gotten so consistent at using my theories that I am basically using them all of the time.

“Wow, I can’t believe what i just learned about the psychopathic mind just now.  I don’t know if I should thank you for showing me how the psychopathic mind works or hate you for trying to be a psychopath in the relationship.  It’s so weird because I am understanding what people are doing it real time as they do it.  You are concealing the fact that you changed the way you were in relationship with monkey.  I am “calling the game”, Lynn. “Did you just conceal the fact that you changed the way you were in relationship with monkey?”   (http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/calling-the-game/)

LLL: “I don’t want to answer that.”

Now in my system that I taught L, part of the praxis of the relationship I teach is that a rational relationship has to be transparent.  If you don’t communicate rationally, you don’t think correctly and you won’t act correctly.  What was so creepy was that L had obviously spent time crafting this argument.  What is so interesting about the psychopathic mind is that it will spend time and energy creating ways of doing the wrong thing instead of spending that same time and energy just improving oneself.  Of further interest is that she was trying at the same time to both absolve herself for hating monkey and create a reason for me to “owe” her for the suffering I had caused her by referring to her as a dog hater for a year.

I called L a dog hater because of her body language and demeanor towards Monkey.  L is very territorial and very possessive of her territory.  I had explained to L that my dog and my room mate were my family, the only family that I had in the world.  They were part of a small group of people that had never screwed me over.  Monkey was a way also in which I heal myself from my emotionally abusive childhood.  Since they were my family I expected L, if she wanted to be part of my life to treat my family well.  Monkey LOVED L and it was really because of Monkey and not because of L that she changed the way she was in relationship with Monkey.

What is so interesting to me is what this reveals about the psychopathic mind.  L was trying very hard not to tell an overt lie, but when I pressed her on the issue she broke down and actually lied.  This refusal of the psychopath to be falsified and to be honest with itself about itself.

I asked L once why she wasn’t using my techniques for self scrutiny, why she wasn’t using them for self transformation.  My rational praxisism is really like an American version of Yoga.  (and I ought to know because I am a yogi)  I had created the theories and the processes to not only protect me from other people but to also keep me sane.  There are no rewards for the ego.  Observing the Praxis of the Rational is the reward.  I had defined in great detail what a rational relationship was and I had communicated openly that it was the only kind of relationship I was open to.  The interesting thing with L is that her ego couldn’t take it.  She had to get away with something to feel that the rules didn’t apply to her.  Her ego wouldn’t hold still and die.

I asked her why she wasn’t using my philosophy and psychology to apply to herself for soul growth, and why she was incapable of scrutinizing and disciplining herself.  Her response was:

 “With the whole world against me, why should I be against myself!”   

Notice the comparison set.  L is not comparing herself to anything inside the relationship, and I am not on her side.  From this narrative we aren’t even in a relationship.  I and the world are persecuting her which validates her strategic behavior and her defending herself in her error.  On top of that it is a reason for her not to be mentally and emotionally healthy.  It is a reason for her not to grow functionally in relationship.  She is arguing against soul growth, and soul health.  She is arguing for staying in relationship with her issues and defending her issues and her mental and emotional diseases.

This is so fascinating because the psychopathic mind clings to error, it identifies with error.  When you show it that it was wrong, instead apologizing and correcting itself it defends itself and even attacks.  It protects its disease.