If we goes down the list of characteristics of a psychopath (a term that was later changed to sociopath); and we acknowledge that Chico has done his due diligence according to the standard of Chico, e.g. in classifying myself and Andy as sociopaths ...
Well, even on his worst day, Andy doesn't match the profile tailored for the four puppet presidents and agents of the Rothschild Talmudist banking empire. To complete the thought, neither Chico nor Mags match the profile either. All three have engaged in aberrant behavior, to be sure ... but the intensity, the frequency, or the nature of an individual's aberrant behavior must meet a threshold before it triggers a determination of sociopath ... and none of the aforementioned have crossed that threshold. I mean, if we started caging people in a box called sociopathy if they express any intensity, frequency, and/or nature of aberrant behavior, then we would be forced to cage Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his hunger.
I'll let Andy defend himself, but I would like to go down the list in Chico's pictorial, point by point, to illustrate the striking contradictions in Chico's standard of measuring sociopathy ... and in doing so, demonstrate the high degree of subjectivity - and a higher degree of wishful thinking - involved when Chico alleges that Zook is a sociopath.
I am aggressive when I see mischief. I can be callous to those making mischief. I am intelligent and very fair when I make my pronouncements ... but that is hardly cunning. Cunning implies deceit and I have an exceptionally low tolerance for deceit.
It is bizarre that Chico thinks that I have an absence of conscience and empathy. And he must think so, after all, it's one of the listed indices of the
hard science of sociopathy (sarcasm-squared).
I am indeed gifted with the skill-set of a top-end writer. No false modesty here. To the extent that all writers are shapers of opinion, there is no escaping that kind of manipulation. But there's a continent of difference between deceitful manipulation and literary insights into the way things are. FTR, my ability to deceive people is next to nonexistent.
Does that sound like Zook, good folks? Or is it the flushing sound of Chico's integrity as he attempts spurious association between myself and the four immoral, criminal Mr. Presidents?
Again, does that sound like Zook, good folks? FTR, I will attempt to hurt the evildoers and their stooges ... but only as a carriage of righteousness, not wrongedness.
My ability to deceive people is next to nonexistent, so that takes care of deceptive ability to be anything, let alone appear benevolent. If I appear benevolent, then that is probably due to Zook's natural radiation.
My ability to deceive people is next to nonexistent, so that takes care of deceptive ability to be anything, let alone
be superficially charming for motive (or not). If I charm people, then that is probably due to Zook's natural radiation. This radiation must be real because children are comfortable around me, and I don't even have a gingerbread house ... and animals are comfortable around me, even when I don't have any pet treats on my person.
My arguments intimidate, true enough ... I even get intimidated myself when I read them after the fact. That said, my arguments are passionate, not violent. As for the person himself, Zook's natural radiation is the opposite of intimidation. It makes people secure and emboldens them. Zook desires zero control of others ... and Zook, in fact, has zero control over others.
That's not the Zook I know ... or that my friends and family know ... or that all the friends and acquaintances I have accumulated over the years know ... or that even some of the quacks, contemptibles, and quixotics I've had the pleasure and displeasure of knowing, know. Where is this human rights abuser, scoundrel, mandragon, Zook!! Is he hanging out with the unicorn, the miniature hippo, and the winged horse on some elevated hidden jut off the mountain of misfits?! We must apprehend him in the duty of human rights!
Universals and absolutes make for unconvincing arguments. Sociopaths and nonsociopaths both have various degrees of guilt and remorse. That said, the lack of guilt (or remorse) often ascribed to sociopaths is only found in a very small percentage of the population, e.g. the true sociopaths. The four Mr. Presidents almost certainly meet this criterion, but Zook was born with a conscience that is bigger than either his heart or his brain. Indeed, if one is a genuine truthseeker, one must have an abundance of either the soul, the heart, or the brain ... and the gifted truthseekers have an abundance of all three. I'll let my track record as a truthseeker ... speak for itself.
Sociopaths and nonsociopaths both rationalize their immoral behavior ... the difference is that the sociopaths don't flinch when they do so.
Again, the difference is flinching. There have been all too many cases of nonsociopaths laying blame elsewhere (for their own conduct) due for a variety of reasons, e.g. fear of losing job, of losing relationships, of losing sanity, etc. To use this as a criterion to differentiate sociopaths from nonsociopaths ... is just soft science searching for legitimacy.
Only sociopaths?? Again, the only difference between sociopaths and nonsociopaths ... is flinching. Nonsociopaths flinch nervously when they attempt to deceive. If you catch a nonflincher, then you have a good chance of holding the scruff of a sociopath.
Of course, there are two classes of utter contemptuousness here ... the justified contempt towards those that hurt others in the practice of their feelings or desires (as is observed by nonsociopaths). And the unjustified contempt that a sociopath feels against the feelings and desires of others. So utter contempt depends on the specific case and narrative. Utter contempt for the feelings and desires of others ... is not a real criterion for anything. Just words strung together to sound important. I mean, one should have utter contempt for the feelings and desires of a pedophile, for example.
The four Mr. Presidents fit the bill, true enough. And as an example of it here on this forum, Chico and Mags have been caught time and again obstructing truths, truthseekers, and general pathological distortions of context to avoid the warranted conclusions. But that still doesn't make them sociopaths, IMO. Just cowards stooging for the hidden agenda of FSD. Cowardice is not the same thing as sociopathy. Here, it should be mentioned that Chico wasn't all that much concerned with the truth when he apparently masqueraded as Heebert on another forum, and when subsequently asked to verify one way or the other, refused to do so. His agenda was to bring disrepute to another forum just because he was not permitted to join it. Nay, I submit that those concerned with the truth have unmistakeable fingerprints. And those concerned with pathological lying and gameplaying also have unmistakable fingerprints. Know the difference and the truth will out sooner than later.
Sociopaths and nonsocioopaths both feign human emotions and empathy when situations present themselves. It's called micromanagement of human interactions. Is it any less dishonest when a nonsociopath feigns emotion and empathy? This criterion is not very helpful in determining who is a sociopath and who is not. Another pointer to the soft science.
I believe the English language already has a word for it: megalomania. Sociopathy and megalomania need not be mutually inclusive. Another pointer to the soft science.
Not unique to sociopaths, hence not a criterion. Vectors into soft science, again.
Most criminals commit crime because they think they can get away with it. Doesn't take a sociopath to commit crime.
Well, good folks ... the above analysis is a quick breakdown of the soft science nature of psychology and its subdiscipline, sociopathy.Getting back to the original sentence in Chico's post:
Chico wants to juxtapose my good name (and Andy can defend himself on his own name and how he feels about it) ... next to the four Mr. Presidents ... in the hope that visual gymnastics can substitute for the lack of evidence in his allegation and incessant reiteration of sociopath against me.
If you still think that Chico has any clue of what true sociopathy is ... or that his understanding of it is something more than a wild goose pursuit to bag goosefeathers for his already overstuffed somnolent pillow ... then have at it.
FTR, all four Mr. Presidents are psychopaths ... but for much more than the flimsy arguments made in the given pictorial. IMO.
Pax