Introduction to the psychopathic life

Post Reply New Topic

Introduction to the psychopathic life

It is estimated that 5% of us are psychopaths. But 95% of people completely misunderstand what a psychopath is. Psychopaths are the good guys. Psychopathy isn't a disease, it's a choice -- a choice to be free. We are fearless and we follow our own private agenda with absolute conviction and confidence. The cowering sheep are afraid, most of all of reponsibility, and they want everyone to be afraid. Modern society has lost any connection to reality: fascist and bureaucratic, in a word: evil; and that is why society framed psychopaths. The sheep are terrified at the idea of someone with a free-will, undetered by society's lies and corruption!

Diagnostic criteria deconstructed:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
AKA civil-disobedience, standing up for what's right against the system, or doing what you believe is right regardless of the consequences. I would do it even if it meant eternity in Hell! How many times was Gandhi arrested? 100 or more.

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
As though truth and lies were different... Lying is not illegal except in recorded contracts and court. If you don't have anything to hide, then why wear clothes?

3. Impassivity or failure to plan ahead;
Slaves are passive, that's how society wants you to be. Slaves do everything by the clock and on time. People who are alive just suddenly decide to do stuff, just on a whim; creative, fun.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
Who wouldn't get annoyed with the robots!? Frantz Fanon called real brutal violence the only possible way to unchain the inner mind. Though in reality very few psychopaths are violent. Evil people like Ted Bundy are not representative of all psychopaths.

5. Superficial charm
Slaves can't understand being treated pleasantly. They want every encounter to be insulting and a confrontation.

6. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
Sir Edmund Hillary, etc. Fearlessness and total confidence. Somethings are worth more than life itself; life is worth nothing after all.

7. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
'I'm just doing my job', (said the death-camp officer). They fear spontenaity. Slaves never 'just' do something.

8. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
Ashamed of breaking sheep-values? Who would feel remorse for doing the right thing even against tyranny!? Stolen like Robin Hood... or like bankers do?

9. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Great artists, Jesus, etc.

10. Narcissism, elevated self-appraisal or a sense of extreme entitlement
Slaves hate themselves and do not realize all that they can do.

11. Substance abuse
Obviously a sin, right?

12. Inability to tolerate boredom
Slaves actually prefer boredom. Psychopaths prefer life, adventure...

13. Children with a tendency to abuse animals.
Is there any child who did not do cruel things to animals, pull a puppy-dog's tail, pull of a fly's wings -- of children who had any animal contact?

Last edited by Vana on 21 Sep 2009, 11:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It sounds like your definition of psychopathy is of a person who ultimately keeps it real. This world is an incredibly diverse place however, there are those who are as lucky to have a benign enough nature where doing whatever they really want is largely harmless and slightly anarchistic at worst - the world is also filled with many people for whom that simply isn't the case.

Are you, perchance, a fan of Ayn Rand?

They are not true psychopaths, they are not free; they are slaves to sexual-sadism, power, money, etc.

Psalm 23 "I shall not want... Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil."

Sort of similar direction I have heard, but no. These days I'm reading Anti-Oedipus.

I will concede you are a psychopath and I find that rather unfortunate.

What are you're doing of peoples like Jesus, Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Free thinkers and rebels to their society? Psycopath? CERTAINLY NOT!! ! They counld'n had been because they were drive by compassion and they were caring about peoples. Which is not something that drive psycopath. Psycopath care little about peoples and don't rebel, and power drive them more that compassion. I think psycopath are more likely to serve the power that be, because that,s how peoples can generally serve they self interests. It's not because someone got feelings that he is a sheep. Quite contrary. The rebels to the society are quite often peoples who care deeply about those around them and to fight for offering them a better future. Maybe psycopaths are not sheeps, but they got sheep clothes.

Of course Jesus and Gandhi were psychopaths! Psychopaths love people, we are lions laying down with lambs; and all important leaders and revolutionaries are by definition psychopaths. Only the psychopath has the sort of disinterest that can make moral, self-less, choices.

The whole thing is rooted in psychosis. Joking. These are just words, made up lables to hurt and terrorize people. Niggaz and Psychos rock yo! Who is a psychopath? Who is a terrorist?

It's okay to be everything,

"I am God I was not God I am a clown of God; I am Apis. I am an Egyptian. I am a Red Indian. I am a Negro. I am a Chinaman. I am a Japanese. I am a foreigner, a stranger. I am a sea bird. I am the tree of Tolstoy. I am the root of Tolstoy.... I am husband and wife in one. I love my wife. I love my husband."

- Nijinski

Last edited by Vana on 22 Sep 2009, 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

What a very LAX interpretation of those criteria.

No....maybe in Russia, civil disobedience fits the description to be able to be locked up in a mental ward rather than allow political dissidence on the streets, but in most of the first world they mean things like public defecation.



No...if I were to play off an introduce myself and hold myself as Brent G Underwood, CEO of Waste Harboring and Allocation Technologies (WHAT!) then maybe. The small white lies told daily do not fit this criteria and are not extreme enough to even begin to fit the definition given.



I take it you're not taking this from the DSM-IV. If such a thing were to be a criteria, it wouldn't be this vague and would have much more specific examples. Technically, the vast majority of people who use/abuse credit cards fall into this one. Again, a very loose interpretation...and a very suspect "criteria"



So...wait...you've gone from just stating that number 3 was bad to number 4 being good? You may wish to add a little more continuity to your piece. Which is it? Passivity or aggressiveness?



Again....not DSM-IV. "Superficial charm" means little to nothing in a psychological profile other than, normally, a defense mechanism.



Again...vagaries and mixing vastly different elements. The elements of a hero-type like you're trying to describe is a per-scenario matter and isn't a day-to-day mannerism.



......Milgram experiment. I'm not even going any further than that...."I was just doing my job" is a phenomena covered completely separate. Not to mention what your criteria is describing is more with normal day-to-day function...not CIA torture interrogators or SS concentration camp troops.



This is more anti-social behavior...which I've witnessed in person before. What you're describing is nothing NEAR what the criteria is actually aspiring to describe.



I think more what they have in mind is stuff like "anally violating every woman in the world before I turn 30". Great artists have (relatively) realistic goals in comparison to an actual psychopath.



Ever seen Silence of the Lambs? "Would you f*** me? I'd f*** me". Or for a more real example: essentially any president we've had in the last 20 years.



Obviously not a criteria, right? Substance abuse is an indicator of many things but a psychopath is definitely not one of them.



This one is a legit criteria for anti-social behavior/psychopathy...sometimes. And they don't mean the innocent type of a child...they mean more like cutting a dog's leg open, peeling the skin off, and laughing while doing it. However, this could also be an indicator of a person who feels like they've severely lost control in their lives and are, subconsciously, taking back that power by enforcing their extreme will on something less powerful than them. Same as pedophiles and some serial rapists.


An interesting piece and I get what you're aspiring at...but don't mutilate the field of psychology to achieve your means.

God bless you! I love your critical and defensive style of writing! It's amazing, as though everything were a No to you. I XXX-tra feel how you put in the jab at the pedophiles at the end, that's the LOLest LOL! I love you. I read somewhere that in the Greek language pedo-phile means child-lover?

Why so serious?

Ooooooooooookay, I give it to you, you are a psychopath. :p


A riddle for you, though:

When the world is against you, where's the safest place to hide?

Aaah! But she doesn't want to hide. She wants to become a glorious bug smashed against the windshield.

Nowhere is safe.

Nope



In sanity.

To the O.P. What you have described is a disinclination to accept conventional "morality". Friedrich Neitzche wrote a lot about this.

I find your approach unproductive. Mankind's success as a species is very much connect to his ability to form societies in which mutual defense and mutual trade are not only possibly but encouraged.

On Kantian grounds I could not advocate what you do. If we all did as we damned well pleased the world would become extremely dangerous (even more than it is now) and society would break down. Goodbye trade, goodbye production, goodbye prosperity, hello death and destruction.

No thank you.

ruveyn

While I think this is a fairly refreshing take on Psychopathy, the level of romanticization is a bit much. As said, it is not something to aspire to, not in it's entirity, but I do agree aspects should often be embraced and not shunned.

Objectivism is a pretty great way to think too.