I can see the insanity almost everywhere. The pervasive insanity can only be explained by sociopaths leading humanity. It's not just banksters, it's not just Zionists, it's not just Bilderbergers, or the Vatican, or any other specific organization. It's sociopaths.

This concept does the best I know in encompassing the threat we are under. What could be more important? Either we conceptualize this threat into reason or our species will inherently from the subconscious destroy the world around it. The sociopaths are all in to divide, create confusion, fractal the simplicity of common sense. Whats very effective is obfuscating philanthropy. As the altruism knocks down the defensive system of our species. Then evil is allowed to control the sentience through its empathy.

I would gladly accept another explanation for the woes of humanity if it could fit the facts better than the effects of sociopathy. But the more I study the situation, the better the explanation of sociopathy becomes. That usually only happens when you are "right on the money", as they say.

That is a gross distortion of reality ... maybe even a deliberate lie by the fifth column. Mags is starting to read like a spambot.

The sociopaths are not all in. Even Chico concedes that point. Those that are indeed in, e.g. those of the bankster pyramid, are a scant minority in the global pool of sociopaths. From Chico's own link, the argument has been advanced that 4% of the population are sociopaths, which means a global pool close to 300 million. By Mags distortion, the bankster pyramid should contain approx. 300 sociopathic million human units, e.g. if they're all in.

He must be smoking the good stuff.

Of course, Mags may only be referring to the sociopaths within the bankster pyramid ... and claiming that those are all in, in a qualitative sense. His propensity for vagueness is clearly doing him no favors. Perhaps he doesn't want clarity? There are those that troll truthseeking forums stocked with smokebombs on their turnip wagons. More smoke, means more time for the bankster pyramid.

In any event, a good argument can be made that the nonempaths (who are indifferent to human suffering) dominate the capstone of the colossal bankster pyramid, and precisely because they don't have the type of baggage that limits the scale of organization, as sociopaths do.

After all, sociopaths are reviled for their pathology.

Nonempaths are viewed with disappointment because they could show more care when things are destroyed but they don't.

Nonsociopaths are held in good stead, unlike the nonempaths, because they get really upset when things are destroyed.

Empaths are the cream of the human species and the modeling that good parents always choose for their kids.
Empaths praise the best in the human condition ... and denounce the worst. As it should be.

Recognize yourself in one of the four categories and be charmed.

Pax

I wish you would quit the "twist and shout". I am not a binary thinker prone to oversimplification, so I don't think I am likely to "concede" to your spin on anything.

Show me the link. The percentage of sociopaths in the population is only an estimate, since we don't have an accurate and on-going screening process in place, and never have. All your propaganda about sociopathy being understood for millennia is just pure deception and manipulation (and very sociopathic -- you expose yourself, just like Andy did). Estimates for the percentage of sociopaths in the human population that I have seen range from 0.5% to 5%. A more accurate number would also depend on the degree of deviancy required to qualify, which is not easily measured either. All of this is analog in nature, not binary, and highly complicated. Binary thinkers prone to oversimplification really don't have a prayer of comprehending any of this, especially if they insist on certainty. You have amply demonstrated that, Zook!

viewtopic.php?p=8838#p8838

beginExcerpt
Are there 12 million sociopaths in the United States alone? Is it true that sociopaths rise to the top into positions of power and control? Do sociopaths thrive in politics, law, and big business? What are the odds that the majority of Congress consists of sociopaths, given that there are only 535 members in Congress? Do we test any of them for psychological deviance? What do we know about the psychological makeup of the President? Isn't that important?
end

The 12 million sociopaths in America figure translates into 4% of the population. You picked it from the following blog: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/ ... paths.html

4% of the global population is approx. 300 million.



The modern establishment's classification of sociopath ... is a new label on an old observation: the observation of those with little or no conscience. If Chico is trying to forward the notion that sociopathy is something being newly studied ... then go ahead ... buy the Brooklyn Bridge from him.

Sociopathy and the study of it ... precedes any written history on the topic. The actual manipulation is contained in the coat of fresh paint on an old house and selling it at new house rates. I'm the polar opposite of Andy ... but hey ... when you have piss poor discernment as Chico does ... or even possibly a hidden agenda as Chico may have ... then War becomes Peace, Slavery becomes Freedom, Ignorance becomes Strength, and Andy becomes Zook.

There is an uncommissioned study of sociopathy going on right now, right here, before your eyes, good folks ... only the specimen at the core of study is not Zook.

It's not even Andy, that study had been completed almost two years ago with a decisive result. Andy is a sociopath, the kind that sends abusive emails, collects data on everybody, and snitches on friends and neighbors when the occasion demands it. You already saw it here within the past month with Andy exposing Chico's personal stuff when they had a falling out over Bitcoin.

It's Chico. I mean, when one mixes apples and oranges in the same bin and labels them all as oranges (or as apples) ... then one definitely has mental issues. Whether those issues are of poor discernment or of poor conscience remains to be determined. The latter would indicate sociopathy, a new label on a time-old affliction called lack of conscience.



Except for the last sentence, which is absurd to the power of infinity, I don't disagree.

Sociopathy is indeed an analog. But analogs can be made discrete by measuring appropriate intervals. At least 100 hundred analog intervals can be sectioned (using behavioral statistics) to approximate the degree of sociopathy, from 0 percent (empath) to 100 percent (sociopath). In this calibration, the 4 worst intervals would represent sociopathy, at least according to the link you quoted from.

Putting your grandstanding aside, Chico ... it remains that an apple does not need to be analyzed down to the molecular structure to know that it is indeed an apple. A simple bite will tell you that it's not a tomato ... or that it has a worm in it. I have pity for the paucity of thought that goes into your world understandings, so I've just given you two metaphors for the price of one).


In any event, Hardcore sociopaths are readily identified by their behavior. The softer varieties of sociopath require a little more study. If you're a sociopath, you're closer to a plum long-on-the-stem than a potato at harvest time.

Pax

Read the blog, you idiot! That was Martha Stout giving the 4% figure, not me. And that's her high-end estimate ("as many as"). And read the note at the end of the blog, too:


In other words, read it all and make the effort to comprehend what you've read! This is exactly how you cascade your way to erroneous conclusions with alarming regularity.


No, you dolt! Sociopathy is something being newly understood, not something being newly studied. People in the past could only study gross external behavior. Now we have electrical brain scans, brain chemistry analysis, and physiological monitoring. This difference is a game-changer.




Spoken like a true sociopath.


Such generosity, and such genuine pity! You can't possibly be a sociopath now. Mea culpa!

Proactive tamper via the ad hominem. This is classic Chico operation, good folks. He preaches message focus; and reserves the practice of attacking the messenger for himself. Nice fellow. If you haven't seen the operation yet, you can check the archives ... or better, simply tune in ... seldom does a day go by without Chico prioritizing the messenger over the message.

That said, Chico endorsed the Martha Stout's 12 million figure in his post (e.g. 4%). He didn't endorse any of the lesser figures (e.g. 1-3%). If he had, he would have started his own post with a range of 3-12 million ... but he only stated 12 million, the top number of the range. If he didn't want sensationalism, he surely begged for it. Anyways, I reserve the right for reactive temper. But I'll take a raincheck for now. After all, my main focus has always been the idea and not the genius or idiot carrying it.



I did comprehend EXACTLY what I had read. Martha's disclaimer has no bearing on what she endorses (e.g. a range with 12 million as the top number) ... or what you endorsed when you made the post with the 12 million figure (ending with a question mark). My conjecture with the 300 million figure assumes the top number of the range. The narrative is not exact number. The narrative is top number in the range. It appears that I'm the only one here who observes narrative, pick a topic, any topic.



I'm the one who keeps asserting that sociopathy has been observed for millennia ... yet you spin this to mean that I claim that the study is new?? That's Chico On The Carousel. (COTC). I also stated that the threshold resolution for identifying sociopaths is through their behavior ... that pursuing identification beyond this threshold level doesn't give us any more meaningful information other than to inform a Brave New World of eugenics (and scientific dictatorship, as Alex Jones often warns us about)... that an apple doesn't need to be identified to its molecular level to understand that it is an apple ... that pursuing beyond the threshold level of understanding sociopaths is a luxury that we cannot afford in the immediacy and imminency of FSD. But all these salient points are summarily dismissed by Chico who purportedly abides a personal maxim of uncertainty: study everything, dismiss nothing.

When they coined the word, hypocrite ... they stitched it together using hypo-, critical, and Queen's thread. It means below critical. Chico suffers from piss poor discernment and hypocritical thought.

The difference is not a game-changer. The game of empath versus sociopath has not changed for millennia ... even the prospect of scientific dictatorship can only take it to greater resolution, not to a new game.



Yes, yes ... Zook, the truculent avuncular wriggling on a mortal coil ... Caspar, the friendly gently wriggled off the coil ... and Hillary Clinton. All sociopaths, I'm sure, in Chico's World ... which makes no effort to distinguish facts from fictions; flutes from foghorns; feasance from malfeasance; sociopaths from empaths; etc. The broadbrush and tar were not invented for Chico ... but no one swipes the bristles as often as he does.



You wouldn't know a sociopath if you saw one beyond the reach of your mirror, Chico. Hate to be brutal about it.


Pax

It's exasperating dealing with you, Zook. You shed messages like water off a duck's back. You never even see the message, much less comprehend it.


I didn't endorse any of the figures. I asked if the 4% figure that Martha Stout presented could be true, because to me, it seems high. And you call that an endorsement. Idiots do indeed behave like that, Zook, so exasperation may only play a small role in my descriptive terms for you.


But of course.


Unbelievable. You really don't comprehend what you read.


It's changing now, dufus. For millennia, sociopaths have successfully fooled the masses and remained invisible. Now more and more non-sociopaths are learning how to spot the sociopaths, and it's happening because of wide-spread communication of the science of sociopathy, which has never been common knowledge among the masses.


I could make a list which would include Bill Ryan, Atticus, IceCold, GypsyWoman, andywight, and others. Among the others would be you, Uncle Zook. No mirror is necessary, nor would it change the names on the list.

Good catch. Andy did this quite extensively, but giving the impression he is tracking the message. He would then filler buster on other topics such as morality or science to obfuscate the original point. It's quite devious, it's similar to the memory hole our society is going through with disaster after disaster and no one can remember the original point.