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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

A New Kind of Psychopath Pt. 2


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


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….


The Mind Hacker…