Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[feral chile]

Absolute nutter.

Obviously wasn't getting laid.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

'Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret'.

Psychopaths are often extremely successful. They can mimic emotional responses, can fly under the radar, and play by the rules when it fits their purpose. But because they're unable to relate to other people, they're extremely calculating and manipulative.

Thanks for this info. Very interesting. It describes my ex perfectly.

[feral chile]

'Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret'.

Psychopaths are often extremely successful. They can mimic emotional responses, can fly under the radar, and play by the rules when it fits their purpose. But because they're unable to relate to other people, they're extremely calculating and manipulative.

Thanks for this info. Very interesting. It describes my ex perfectly.

[eFestivals]

Ahem!!

Psychopaths are often extremely successful. They can mimic emotional responses, can fly under the radar, and play by the rules when it fits their purpose. But because they're unable to relate to other people, they're extremely calculating and manipulative.

and this is at odds with what I've said how exactly...?

[worm]

so all people of the right are sociopaths then, because they don't care about the impact of their money making on others.

Edited August 4, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Psychopaths are often extremely successful. They can mimic emotional responses, can fly under the radar, and play by the rules when it fits their purpose. But because they're unable to relate to other people, they're extremely calculating and manipulative.

[eFestivals]

As I said, one has to make a distinction and you've overlooked it.

I've overlooked nothing. It's you who constantly manage that.

It's got nothing to do with politics. It's got to do with psychology.

And I didn't say anything different to this.

I simply pointed out that those with particular political views fit very well - as good as anything can - the psychological view you outlined.

Now, you might choose to disagree with that, but any disagreement simply comes down to an individual's semantic interpretation of the words you used as a definition.

For example, "care" is a word that has little fixed and transferable meaning as the current fashion for the use of the word "fair". So you say "they just don't care", and it means nothing of any substance, at least not where anyone thinks the same thing.

No, they believe in a political cause. It doesn't stand to reason that they would feel nothing for their children should they be murdered.

where in the definition you gave does it say that to fit you have to have no feelings about anything, ever?

[worm]

I've overlooked nothing. It's you who constantly manage that.

[eFestivals]

The conclusion you made overlooked the distinction between actual, existential social bonds and politicised social bonds. I've given you the distinction twice now and will give you a third by the end of this post.

I hadn't realised that one is thoughts and the other is something entirely different, but also called 'thoughts'. My bad.

I used laymans terms that anyone can understand if they have the exact same semantic definitions as I use.

corrected for you.

Sociopaths are detached from social bonds. Not socio-political bonds. Social bonds. Familial bonds are the strongest example of social bonds hence the example I gave.

My bad again. I hadn't realised that there's no corresponding social aspect to any political thoughts, and I hadn't realised that "social bonds" excludes so much that is by definition social.

Now, where's that made up dictionary of yours? I need to refer to it so that I'm able to say just how right you are.

A sociopath cannot empathise or emote, even if they want to.

that's right, Never, ever, ever, ever. They can't have a normal relationship with anyone, they only have sociological destructive relationships, even with their cat.

If only someone was able to say what normal was, you might have something interesting and relevant and applicable to say.

It's an inability; an affliction. A right winger may be able to. The two things aren't synonymous. In fact, a typical sociopath wouldn't care less about politics.

Really? Then I need to refer to your perfect made-up dictionary yet again, which I'm sure will tell me that I'm weird for having independent thought and interpretation, cos from what you say no one else does.

So please do tell me .... how did someone come up with the concept on a sociopath in the first place? Might it possibly be because they had individual thought and interpretation, just perhaps?

And all this from someone who sooooo used to enjoy posting that there's no such thing as truth. It seems that there's no such thing as post modern either now. The world gets better.

Or, just perhaps .... someone still has his head rammed firmly up his arse. It must be me, I don't fit those definitions.

Edited August 4, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

...

Edited August 4, 2011 by worm

[worm]

And in relation to your point about 'truth', a sociopath is an idea based upon a reality. However, being sociopathic is a reality.

'First there is thinking (doing, acting, behaving, being), subsequently there is thought (a way of doing, a way of acting, a way of behaving, a type of person)'.

The concept of a sociopath was not plucked from thin air. It was brought about because a random group of people were found to be sociopathic; to lack the function of emoting with existentially significant others. And by existential, I mean those in which you can see emotional responses to your proximal actions. As in, you can see how you affect their emotional state of being, bringing about empathy and feelings of responsibility for that person.

Edited August 4, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I can't be arsed to explain to you what the concept of a sociopath is, what the difference between social and socio-political bonds is, what the difference between existential and politicised is, or what the difference between sociologically destructive relationships and sociopathic relationships is.

and you can't be arsed because....? Because while they all have lovely different names that give you what you think is power to exercise (while some of us laugh ), they all share one thing at their very heart.

They are all based in thoughts. And if a person is thinking 'wrongly' to fit one of those lovely-named things, there's a huge likelihood they think 'wrongly' to fit one of those other lovely-named things too.

And yet they all suffer from the same issue as to their worth as valid and reasonable ideas. And that is that no one is able to validly define the 'normal' that they are said to not fit. And without a valid idea to work from, they cease to be valid ideas within themselves.

Oh, I forgot. 'Normal' is you, and therefore you can define them. OK, fine - normal is you: which means that every other single person is abnormal. And so you still don't have a valid idea.

Suffice to say that what defines the condition of a sociopath is their inability to emote.

And yet there's never been one person who has an "inability to emote". There are only people who don't emote the same as you.

It's an emotional distinction.

It surely is. No different to the one I'm giving you right here.

It has nothing to do with their actions whatsoever, though actions can be In other words, if someone can emote then they are no longer being a sociopath.

and so in your own words you admit that sociopaths don't exist.

Still, it gives you and others lots of worthless work. It's all good.

[eFestivals]

And in relation to your point about 'truth', a sociopath is an idea based upon a reality. However, being sociopathic is a reality.

so please do show me someone who is proven beyond all doubt to have zero ability to be emotive about anything, and then we can wrap this up and you can walk away to loud cheers.

The concept of a sociopath was not plucked from thin air.

I'm not so stupid as to think it was.

Like the vast majority of what falls under psychology, it was made up out of little (and certainly nothing indisputable) by people who wanted a power over others. These people better fit the whole idea of a sociopath than anyone they'd apply the idea to themselves.

to lack the function of emoting with existentially significant others.

and there's the proof of what I say above. The fake psychologists and what they say are significant, and those they label are not apart from as the basis of their power.

I mean those in which you can see emotional responses to your proximal actions.

and yet again!

Who is to say that an emotional response that I think worthless does have worth? Why is their feeling about others' responses more valid than my own?

And so we're back to it being an idea based in the idea of 'normal', but 'normal' remains an idea that's impossible to define.

Worthless!!!

[worm]

And yet there's never been one person who has an "inability to emote". There are only people who don't emote the same as you.

[worm]

so please do show me someone who is proven beyond all doubt to have zero ability to be emotive about anything, and then we can wrap this up and you can walk away to loud cheers.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

You know, I think you might have discovered how to bring about world peace.

[worm]

Who is to say that an emotional response that I think worthless does have worth?

[eFestivals]

What on earth are you talking about - rhetorical question.

If you have no emotion at all for a person who is emotionally engaged in your proximal environment then you are being sociopathic.

What part of this do you not understand?

The part I don't undersdtand is the part where you moved the goal posts. I understand the 'why' of that, tho - it's to keep your fake and laughable (non) power. You can fool some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people ever.

It's not confused me, but it's clearly confusing you by your own words.

[eFestivals]

To be sociopathic, as I've already said, is to be without any emotional engagement in an emotional environment; to have zero emotional response to a social situation.

But firstly someone has to decide *IF* someone should be emotional or empathise with another's emotion - an idea that comes out of the idea of 'normal', a worthless idea in itself.

Some people cry over spilt milk. Some people realise that there's no point crying over spilt milk. Neither of them is really a sociopath, yet the idea of sociopath says that one is.

As I said. Worthless.

Edited August 4, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It's not about what kind of emotional response you have, it's about lacking one. If your mother is shot dead before your eyes and you feel nothing then you are exhibitting sociopathic tendancies.

Bullshit.

Whether a person feels something about their mother being shot dead is dependent on what they felt for their mother before she was shot.

And while it's 'normal' for people to have some sort of feeling about their mother, there's an infinite number of 'normal' reasons why they might not.

The whole idea of sociopath is derived from an idea of what is normal - and yet there is no such thing as normal. One person's response does not have to mirror another's, and it does not make them 'mentally-less' if they don't.

Without first being able to define 'normal' - which you can't - then all ideas which derive from that 'normal' are weaker and less definable than the 'normal' that's the basis of the derived idea.

Hello Emperor Worm. Here's your new clothes.

This and psychpathic are the two terms I took as a measure of the 'nutter' label you used.

Worthless presumption like that is where you so often go so HUGELY wrong.

For a course of action determined by emotional responses, which are non-socio/psychopathic by nature, I tend to think that the murderer was not a nutter. He would have been acting on behalf of painful and fully engaged emotional experiences, which is a quite rational outcome. Though in this case he'd obviously been deeply disturbed due to the extremity of the outcome.

PMSL.

While what you say could be it, the truth could just as easily be the exact opposite - that he's the rational one (and not 'us') because he's correctly identified the threat and his actions are for the greater good no less than any solider.

[feral chile]

and this is at odds with what I've said how exactly...?

[feral chile]

Bullshit.

Whether a person feels something about their mother being shot dead is dependent on what they felt for their mother before she was shot.

And while it's 'normal' for people to have some sort of feeling about their mother, there's an infinite number of 'normal' reasons why they might not.

The whole idea of sociopath is derived from an idea of what is normal - and yet there is no such thing as normal. One person's response does not have to mirror another's, and it does not make them 'mentally-less' if they don't.

Without first being able to define 'normal' - which you can't - then all ideas which derive from that 'normal' are weaker and less definable than the 'normal' that's the basis of the derived idea.

Hello Emperor Worm. Here's your new clothes.

Worthless presumption like that is where you so often go so HUGELY wrong.

PMSL.

While what you say could be it, the truth could just as easily be the exact opposite - that he's the rational one (and not 'us') because he's correctly identified the threat and his actions are for the greater good no less than any solider.

Edited August 4, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

But firstly someone has to decide *IF* someone should be emotional or empathise with another's emotion - an idea that comes out of the idea of 'normal', a worthless idea in itself.

Some people cry over spilt milk. Some people realise that there's no point crying over spilt milk. Neither of them is really a sociopath, yet the idea of sociopath says that one is.

As I said. Worthless.

Edited August 4, 2011 by feral chile

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Or didn't feel. You'd usually feel something though, so you'd have an emotional reaction to her death, even if it was a positive one.

Psychopaths are devoid of feelings, so from their point of view, all their relationships are superficial. And without empathy, where's your moral compass?

[feral chile]

That can be said of SOME soldiers.

I have avoided saying "empathy" as some people 'diagnosed' as some Psychopaths try to feel what the person is feeling. They try but6 they can't put themselves in that situation. But surely the attempt is still empathy??

Edited August 4, 2011 by feral chile