Gunslinger Metaphor Used to Explain Psychopathy and Sociopathy

Shane-Palance

I am going to use the metaphor of the gunslinger to explain again the difference between the psychopath and the sociopath.  In this metaphor the gunslinger with the white hat = the sociopath and the gunslinger with the black hat = the psychopath.  The sociopath being a philosopher, critical of himself, educated and experienced does what he does out of a sense of morality, taking it upon himself to draw a line in the sand and prevent the further decay of the form of the good.

The psychopath is opportunistic and younger, thinking only of getting another notch on his gun and increasing his reputation. He knows that for the old gunslinger as he gets older the chances of his losing increase.  So he is betting that he can take him out.

The old gunslinger is famous or rather infamous and hated.  Somebody is always looking to catch him off guard, so he has to be hyper-vigilante, on his toes all of the time, and correct all of the time. The psychopath on the other hand only has to be right once, and he is not the only psychopath looking to bag the sociopath.

The sociopath, having a moral code will not strike first, that would be irrational.  He has to be skilled enough and fast enough to start pulling after his antagonist starts pulling steel and skilled enough to defeat him.  The psychopath on the other hand, needs the conflict, needs to escalate the conflict, and needs to cheat.  He will strike first knowing this gives him an advantage and he will try to misrepresent the fact that he is attacking.  The psychopath can not behave rationally, he has to behave psychopathicly in order to do his will, because he has an agenda and he is upwardly mobile.

the_last_samurai__2003__tom_cruise__ken_watanabe

Advertisements

Incentives and Psychopathology.

Image

 

In a further attempt explain my psychological models and the difference between psychopathic and sociopathic brains.  Psychopaths are externally incentivized, which means that their is something outside of themselves that they need or want.  Sociopaths incentive themselves from inside.  They do what they do out of a sense of morality, and responsibility or obligation or a desire to understand.  Not all sociopaths are good sociopaths.   Religion was created to control the bad sociopaths.  Sociopaths are philosophical in nature, it is just that some sociopaths are not good philosophers, so authority had to be extracted from them in order so that they would not act on their worser demons.

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Hebrews recognized a religious “right of asylum,” protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent.[2][3] This principle was later adopted by the established Christian church, and various rules developed to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.[4]

According to the Council of Orleans in 511, in the presence of Clovis I, asylum was granted to anyone who took refuge in a church, in its dependences or in the house of a bishop. This protection was given to murderersthieves or people accused ofadultery. It also concerned fugitive slaves, who would however be handed back to their owners when their owners swore on the Bible not to be evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_asylum

Religion was created as a moral science and as one progressed up the ladder, more authority, more god, was put back in them so that they had more freedom.   I am not stating this arbitrarily, yoga is also a moral science, and Freemasonry in it’s true form is western yoga, I am willing to defend that position, I have copious amounts of evidence.

The Secret Societies were the religions back in the day.  Pythagorean cults were the origins of western religion.  Much wisdom and intelligence has been lost in the evolution.

Image

The external incentivization of psychopaths is also obvious in their narrative and their behavior.  Psychopaths are social climbers, which presupposes their attraction to a herd in which they can social climb.  Sociopaths are more democratic and they like horizontal relationship not vertical relationship.  Psychopaths conceal their real intentions from scrutiny and reveal themselves falsely.   They hide from your threat filter by blending in.  They don’t attract negative attention to themselves.  If you ask a psychopath a question they will respond with whatever the most common answer is, blending into society, waiting for an opportunity to strike.

Psychopaths want something they shouldn’t have and don’t deserve that belongs to someone else, like power over them or to trespass your boundaries (rape) or use your resources to do their will.  For this reason they conceal their intention and opportunistically bide their time.  Psychopaths manipulate your emotions.  The truth about what a psychopath says is based on the reaction they hope to elicit from you.

Ponder how much good has been done by monks and nuns for little or no money, only for the internal incentive of feeling good about themselves.  For being able to serve others, teaching them, helping them, etc. Image

The Problem with Occam’s Razor.

Thought Uncommon

 

 

ImageImageImage

The way in which Occam’s Razor edit’s it’s applicability set is in receiving and collecting knowledge.  It is NOT good for teaching.  

The mind is an association making machine.  It associates things with one another.  Words are like throwing a lasso around a bunch of random objects and connecting them with a narrative.  This is based on my Shared State Theory of Communication.  What do a cat, a man’s head, ice cream, and a red wall have in common?  Nothing, until you have experienced the state in which they are all related.  When teaching or persuading you have to know how to inceive the data.  

Image

In order to do this you have to wrap your mind around that of the person that you are trying to persuade or teach.  It is the art of how minds meet.  I have to know how the person will receive…

View original post 718 more words

Sex Equality in America

Image

First of all we have to examine how we got into this predicament in the first place.  We assumed that there was no difference between men and women, first unproven presupposition.  Secondly, when we saw evidence that this wasn’t the case we concealed it, ignored it, and lied about it.  When we saw that men excelled in certain fields like maths and sciences, we assumed that their was prejudice and discrimination and that men were to blame.  We assumed some nefarious manipulation by men in order to make that the case.  We assumed it was wrong and bad and needed to be changed.  We assumed it was unnatural.  

When women were allowed in the maths and sciences nothing much changed as far as proportions of male to female scientists and the grades also did not change.  (http://www.livescience.com/1927-men-dominate-math-science-fields.html)  So what we did is we discouraged men from going into fields they were naturally inclined to go into, and encouraged women to go into fields that were not inclined to go into.  Also in the work place we promoted women for no other reason that they were women in order to protect against prima fascia law suits, by vexatious litigators (lawyers) who were trying to make money in a failing economy.  All they needed to do to bring charges was to show that the amount of women verses men in any level of employment did not mirror in proportions, the population of the area.  If there were 50% women and %50 men in the surrounding population then 50% of the leaders should be women.  If this wasn’t the case then a disparate impact was being created in favor of men, and this was grounds to sue. 

Burden of proof[edit]

Main article: Legal burden of proof

In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie#Burden_of_proof

Now nothing in the Western world is working.  No value is being created.  In order to have value you need to have a society that is efficient with value.  This would be a meritocracy of value.  A person would earn a position by being able to create more value for more people in that position than anybody else.  

Image

MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL

Men and women are not equal because they are not the same.  To quote Martin Luther King, “Separate is not equal.”  to take that philosophic calculus a bit further, Different is not equal, only same is equal.  Men and women do not think the same, they don’t talk the same, they don’t behave the same, they are not interested in the same things, they don’t judge things the same way or interpret things the same way.  They don’t even have the same desires.  

When you ignore the differences between men and women and cement a false forced equality between them you turn a blind eye to potentially devastating emergent properties in society.  Who has the right and authority to make these decisions for everybody else without any evidence or any debate?  

We went from being the most successful country in the wolf in which American men were the most attractive and sought after with a booming economy, we could fly to the moon, cure any disease, and we looked forward to a bright future with technological miracles and an increased quality of life for all and now look at us.  Where is my hover scateboard?  Where are my Nike’s that lace themselves?    Where is my light saber and my lazer gun? 

I was raised in a manhating Jehovah’s Witness family.  I was exposed to casual misandry all throughout my educational career.  During 5 years on and off the street due to the economy in Seattle, I observed how for every 1 program there was for getting women off the street there were 20 for women, and they got paid even if they didn’t have any women joining the programs.  Throughout my work career I have been lied to, lied about, harassed, and denied promotions, not because of my ability or results but in spite of them.  People weren’t afraid that I would fail they were afraid that I would succeed, I literally didn’t get promotions because people didn’t want to compete with me on equal footing with equal rank, because of how they would look in comparison to me.  

Ignored, neglected, and harassed by school teachers, I was taught to be concernful of my sister and ignore my own feelings and desires.  While she was free to bully, and torment me without any consequences from my parents.  She once stabbed me in the leg with a pencil and cut me from him to knee, dragging it slowly down my leg.  There was no end to her talking bad about me to people, teachers, and her friends.  

It was the same in my personal relationships.  My girlfriends felt it was their right or responsibility to lie to me, lie about me, judge me, punish me, correct me, ignore me, and provoke me.  Demanding my participation with their ignorant emotional whim and refusing to participate with my reasoned solution that created value for her, myself, and others.  They literally wouldn’t participate because they wanted to control who value was created for.  Like cats.

We blame men for everything that is wrong with this country and we expect them to fix it with their resources, for everybody else, with no self interest on their part.  And people say chivalry is dead.  Men are not allowed to have an opinion, their opinion is preemptively wrong because they are a man, and society has already decided that their argument is incorrect.  If you criticize or dislike women, in general, you are considered a horrible person.  Our society demands the prejudice that women are a priorly good.  You can’t tell a woman what you dislike about women or what you dislike about her without her claiming to have been a victim of an attack and 5 pussy starved gomers jumping into the conversation to white knight for her.  If women are the equals of men then why can’t they defend themselves in a conversation?  Why do they have to throw a histrionic fit in the first place?  

Not only do women not understand themselves, and the negative impact of what they do, say, and think, they do not have a socially created incentive to criticize themselves, control themselves, or discipline themselves.  Raised on fairy tails to believe that they are little princesses incapable of doing anything wrong or ever being the cause of the bad, they live in a pretend fantasy where they think relationship exists for their benefit, and they are the sole judge of the state of the relationship based entirely on how they FEEL based on their emotional thinking.  Emotion dominating their reasoning, not emotions following reasoning.  This is what happens when you raise one sex to be incensitive towards it’s own feelings and another sex to think only about it’s feelings and to discount the feelings of everybody else.  You turn men into drones. 

It is a tautology of the communist mantra: “from those with greater ability to those with greater need.”  What it does is reifies a pattern in society, where people win by failing and losing.  It counter-incentivizes success, and it incentivizes failure, people get rewarded for failing.  Their failure is superior to the success of another.  If you want to know where American Wealth went, their is a little hole in the bottom of the bucket.  


THE SOLUTION

Image

If you seriously want equality between the sexes this is what you do.  Give men and woment he same education and opportunities and then evaluate them by the same standard.  Test them by the same physical standard and moral standard, evaluate them correctly and honestly not evaluating girls emotionally and boys unsympathetically.  Measure their physical strength, and agility scientifically, don’t conceal this information because it doesn’t confirm your bias.  

After high school, mandatorily, everybody, male and female has to sere 2 years in the military, if they are not able this should be noted on their permanent record and they should be barred from certain offices.  There are many reasons why this has to be done and if you  ask me I will explain them to you, the reason we are not already doing this is because of the feminine part of the mind in both women and men which sees something, has an emotional reaction, and reacts incorrectly without thinking or understanding.  I call it “Superficial Aesthetic Snap Decisions.” (http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/superficial-aesthetic-snap-decisions/)

Image

In order to unleash the Highest Common Good, everybody needs to be Highly and Equally educated.  This is based on my Shared State Theory of Communication, we communicate, participate, agree, and understand through shared states, even those 4 things are shared states. 

In political philosophy, the general will (volonté générale) is the will of the people as a whole. The term was made famous by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will

This obscure reference was something that has mystified Western philosophers and for the very reasons that I mentioned, the lack of the high and equal education.  It is the positive version of the early Christian concept of the vexing of the spirit.  

Diderot on the General Will [emphasis added]:

EVERYTHING you conceive, everything you contemplate, will be good, great, elevated, sublime, if it accords with the general and common interest. There is no quality essential to your species apart from that which you demand from all your fellow men to ensure your happiness and theirs . . . . [D]o not ever lose sight of it, or else you will find that your comprehension of the notions of goodness, justice, humanity and virtue grow dim. Say to yourself often, “I am a man, and I have no other truly inalienable natural rights except those of humanity.”

 

But, you will ask, in what does this general will reside? Where can I consult it? . . . [The answer is:] In the principles of prescribed law of all civilized nations, in the social practices of savage and barbarous peoples; in the tacit agreements obtaining amongst the enemies of mankind; and even in those two emotions — indignation and resentment — which nature has extended as far as animals to compensate for social laws and public retributions. –Denis Diderot, “Droit Naturel” article in the Encyclopédie.[11]

The reason we don’t share the same education is because some people avoid exposure to certain things.  Having not had that experience they proffer an opinion on it to others based on their not having experienced it, and they are very confident in their judgments that everybody should feel about it the way they do and relate to it the same way.  People should not be allowed to speak with authority on subjects they don’t understand or be allowed to confuse the subject or conceal the subject from others.  Anything that scrutinizes and criticizes must be exposed to scrutiny and criticism, you can’t have two standards.  You can’t have one privileged class, that doesn’t play by the same rules.  


Politics without Principle
Wealth Without Work
Pleasure Without Conscience
Knowledge without Character
Commerce without Morality
Science without Humanity
Worship without Sacrifice   – Young India, 22-10-1925

Rights Without Responsibility  – This is the 8th sin by Arun Gandhi.   

http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/main/q7.htm


 

Don’t take the picture the wrong way, I love Chelsea and the Clintons.  Equality must be demonstrated and earned, not entitled and granted…

Image

 

 

Framing the cause of the bad.

Atheist Logic Fail

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage


COMMENTARY

For those of you that are familiar with my psycholinguistic models, any unprovoked deviation from reasoned behavior or Socratic dialogue creates an implicature which I exploit to determine the psyche or gestalt of the person speaking.  Based on how the narrative deviates form reasonable Socratic narrative, I deduce why it has become tangential to reasoned narrative.  You can see based on the conversation the frequency and intensity with which he argues against reason and truth insisting that Religion in the form of the Pope is the cause of the bad (a term from my psychological models) (http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/cause-of-the-bad/).
The psychopath, who is in relationship with their issues and not with reality has to confirm their gestalt or world view.  They try to reify their issues, making them real to themselves and to other people.  They edit their consideration sets to exclude data that proves them wrong.  From his perspective religion…

View original post 52 more words

The Mind Hacker…