Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
A few minutes ago ... I had an Archimedes' moment. I didn't have to run naked from the bathtub, but I almost ruined another keyboard with Maxwell House's second-tier brew. If they ever invent stable coffee cups, let me know ... I need seven, for each of the sailing seas.

It occurred to me that there are striking similarities between what Noam Chomsky does in the corporate media and what Chico does here on this burp of a forum.

They both point to an obvious aspect of an issue, and keep pointing to this aspect around the clock ... with announcements on the hour, and in Chico's case, every quarter hour (so that fame never runs out because it gets replenished every 15 minutes).

Palestine vs Israel. Chomsky has been elocuting about Palestine, and the grievances of Palestinians, for a long time - perhaps three generations - yet nothing has changed for the better in Palestine, and may have even gotten worse than when Chomsky first started shaping the righteous discourse on behalf of the Palestinian people. I guess if we had been paying attention, we would've seized the clues that are freely there for the taking. Harvard, MIT, New York Times ... the poundhammer, the anvil, and the bellows in the Zionist's blacksmith shop. (Btw, it was MIT's own esteemed professor and part-time short order cook, Thomas Eagar, that prepared the contrived fraudulent pancake theory on the collapse of the twin towers.)

Buys time for the bankster empire. Sells elixir to the sheeple. Profits for the empire and carrots for Chomsky as long as there is pondwater to bottle.

Fast forward to United Chico, and voila! Empathy vs Sociopathy. Another spinning carousel. All crimes against humanity now to be fully understood with one word: sociopathy. All crises now redirected to this one narrative in a glass bowl. All righteous energy to be diverted into a prolonged stare at the glass bowl. The plight of empaths pushed to the wall by plundering sociopaths ... to be never be forgotten again! No sir, not when we have Chico, champion of the empaths - in a charge for the ages - into the valley of death against insurmountable odds. Damn one and damn all trepid truthseekers who refuse to follow him! Chico will deliver the human species from evil even if he has to do it alone, or with only a handful of men ... or fingerful! (You may take a bow here, Mags).

But let us ask ourselves this ... in the annals of mankind, has anyone else dared to mount a charge into the valley of bones and the bonus vault into Valhalla? Okay, so it's been done before. But how frequently? Okay, so it has been done as many times as there have been humans on this planet with eyes, minds, and tongues. When did it first happen? Okay, so Cain slew Abel, his own brother ... sociopathy is not a new thing, then, indeed, is as old as fraternity.

So if mankind has been addressing sociopaths since the dawn of that first encounter; has addressed them through empires that have come and gone; keeps addressing them with the most current empire, the bankster behemoth that aspires to full spectrum sociopathic dominance ... and things only keep getting worse ... what can we surmise about the charge against the empire of sociopathy on a righteous Rocinante?

That's correct. It buys time for the bankster empire. It sells elixir to the sheeple. There are profits for the empire and carrots for Chico as long as there is pondwater to bottle.

Eureka!!

To wit, there are those out there who will redirect everything to the goldfish bowl. And while we enjoy the goldfish and get a measure of righteous feeling about things ... the larger room that contains the goldfish bowl is plundered further and we don't notice it.

Chico and Chomsky, two of a kind? Well, I can only prove Chomsky for now. Chico needs further study, but a pattern is starting to emerge from the overall weave of his posts.

Pax

ps: It's been my observation that New-Age types work to turn our focus into the navel (and away from the important evidence that exposes the banksters). And it's been my observation that Cass Sunstein's carrot-munchers do their work by turning our focus into a glass bowl of orange fishes. Sociopathy is one of the dazzling orange fishes swimming inside. Makes us feel righteous and empowered, however phony the feeling.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:16 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
Good theory, Zook, and certainly in keeping with my philosophy of questioning everything and dismissing nothing. But you are a victim of your usual flaws -- oversimplification, binary thinking, poor assumptions, compounding errors, short-sightedness, etc. Eureka moments mean nothing when you employ all of these techniques to get there.

First of all, your argument could easily be turned around onto you, with your unwavering focus on Zionist banksters. Zook and Chomsky, hmmm .... Seems like a good comparison, much better than Chico and Chomsky.

But let's get to your primary stumbling block:

UncleZook wrote:
So if mankind has been addressing sociopaths since the dawn of that first encounter; has addressed them through empires that have come and gone; keeps addressing them with the most current empire, the bankster behemoth that aspires to full spectrum sociopathic dominance ... and things only keep getting worse ...

So if A, then B. However, if A is not true, your argument evaporates. And you definitely got A wrong due to the aforementioned flaws you like to sling around with wild abandon.

Mankind is new to the science of psychology. You could even argue that mankind is new to science. Sure, both science and psychology have existed to some degree throughout history, but the degree matters. Science is more advanced now that it was 200 years ago, and psychology is much more advanced. The Milgram experiment and the Asch experiment, among thousands of other inquiries, have recently revealed aspects to human behavior that few could imagine 200 years ago. Religion was the accepted explanation then, and sociopathy at that time was understood as the battle between good and evil, or God and the Devil. It was an understanding rooted in oversimplification and binary thinking.

My point is that humanity has never really "addressed" the problem of sociopaths. It's pretty clear now that the proper way for humanity to address sociopaths is to 1) identify them and 2) disqualify them from positions of power and control. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has never been done! How could it have been done, when 1) we didn't know what a sociopath even was, 2) we had no reliable way to identify a sociopath, and 3) we didn't have the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to do either of those first two steps!

As far as I can tell, given the propaganda (history) I've been exposed to, this is the first time in human history when we have the real possibility to solve the problem of sociopathic rule.

So you need to go back to the drawing board, Zook. And before you do, you need to correct all of those outrageous flaws that constantly lead you into the quicksand of subtle absurdity.

P.S. Was it necessary to create another thread for this? Why not just continue in your Sociopathy: the wild goose thread?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
Good theory, Zook, and certainly in keeping with my philosophy of questioning everything and dismissing nothing. But you are a victim of your usual flaws -- oversimplification, binary thinking, poor assumptions, compounding errors, short-sightedness, etc. Eureka moments mean nothing when you employ all of these techniques to get there.


Yes, Chico, throw the whole book at my argument hoping that one of those aspersions stick. If not, at least give it spinning energy which you can control, after all, you are the king of spinners.

Quote:
First of all, your argument could easily be turned around onto you, with your unwavering focus on Zionist banksters. Zook and Chomsky, hmmm .... Seems like a good comparison, much better than Chico and Chomsky.


Nice try. But not so easily ... you'll need about ten mules and a winch to lift the big elephant in the middle of the room.

For one thing, sociopathy has been with us since the advent of human relations; by contrast, the bankster empire - and its push for full spectrum dominance - is essentially confined to the past 200 years or thereabouts.

Sociopathy has been studied and remarked upon ever since that first gossip centered around the first bad apple
in the group, probably over food and territory, but perhaps over liberties taken by Og from Trog's woman. By contrast, the bankster empire has been documented only in the past 200 years or thereabouts.

There's no particular blueprint or handbook written for sociopaths, by sociopaths, to assist them in their ambitions for power and control over others; although Machiavaelli comes close with The Prince. Of course, any Stephen King novel also comes close to understanding the mind of a sociopath, and perhaps it takes a sociopath to put sadistic behavior into an entertainment form for crass monetary profit. KIng is a common Zionist name so we can assume with reasonable accuracy that he is part of the ideological subversion sought by the bankster empire alongside other luminaries in the entertainment field like Hugh Hefner (who made his coin by bringing sex and commerce out of the shadows). In this sidetrack, Las Vegas is a crucible for underground interests, indeed, sociopathy has the quintessence of the nocturne. As for understanding sociopaths, great literature is replete with antagonists, who are almost invariably sociopaths in some degree. As each sociopath tends to act for their own self-interest, they are often understood by the items they carry; or the records they keep; or in real time, their behavior. By contrast, the bankster empire is fundamentally understood by a quick reading of The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion. In one word, Organization. A syndicate of sorts. Indeed, the bankster empire does not exist without extensive organization; a pyramid hierarchy where the base is predominantly nonsociopathic and the capstone is predominantly sociopathic. So we have an individual-oriented study (sociopathy) versus a collective-oriented study (the bankster empire). Another key difference, Chico, between my fixation and yours.

As an aside, you won't find many empaths promoting sins and sociopathic pleasures (and pains). To this point, here's an interesting article about Las Vegas:
http://voices.yahoo.com/why-las-vegas-c ... 66559.html

In short, in the immediacy of full spectrum dominance, I want to focus heavily on the source of the threat, the bankster empire. By contrast, you want to focus heavily on an aspect of the threat, namely, sociopathic individuals within the organization; more the further, an aspect that has been with us ever since human relations first initiated. Mine is constructive opposition to the threat. Yours is spinning the wheels after reinventing them over and over again. Chomsky, too, spins wheels after reinventing them over and over again. Wheel spinners dazzle us with smoke and the smell of tires. They entertain us and keep us enchanted while the threat grows bigger and bigger.

Quote:
But let's get to your primary stumbling block:
UncleZook wrote:
So if mankind has been addressing sociopaths since the dawn of that first encounter; has addressed them through empires that have come and gone; keeps addressing them with the most current empire, the bankster behemoth that aspires to full spectrum sociopathic dominance ... and things only keep getting worse ...

So if A, then B. However, if A is not true, your argument evaporates. And you definitely got A wrong due to the aforementioned flaws you like to sling around with wild abandon.


Good logical construct. Bad application. If sociopaths have been scrutinized under the magnifying glass for millennia and if that scrutiny has done little to stop the corruptions (A) ... then scrutinizing sociopaths is a waste of time and resources (B).

Asserting that A is false by advancing subjective claims of binary thinking, oversimplification, compound errors, short-sightedness, etc. ... is making an uninformed opinion against the massive database of scrutiny. Sociopaths have been studied at length, depth, and width. The field of psychology dedicates multiple subdisciplines to the study of sociopathy and other aberrant/deviant behavior. Great literature abounds with description and vilification of sociopaths; as it does with the description and vindication of empaths (as counterexample). Virtually all of us have daily firsthand encounters with sociopaths, and we know them by their energy signature.

If that kind of extensive historical scrutiny still fails to inform about sociopaths, then I submit that further study is a waste of time, for the recipient of the information lacks the means to process the information.

Quote:
Mankind is new to the science of psychology. You could even argue that mankind is new to science. Sure, both science and psychology have existed to some degree throughout history, but the degree matters. Science is more advanced now that it was 200 years ago, and psychology is much more advanced. The Milgram experiment and the Asch experiment, among thousands of other inquiries, have recently revealed aspects to human behavior that few could imagine 200 years ago.


Poppycock. The Milgram and Asch experiments merely codified what had already been understood millennia ago.
Increasing the resolution of science does not significantly increase our understanding of the sociopath, especially if the earlier understanding had already surpassed the required threshold to identify sociopaths. An apple doesn't taste any different by understanding its molecular structure. Kapiche?

Quote:
Religion was the accepted explanation then, and sociopathy at that time was understood as the battle between good and evil, or God and the Devil. It was an understanding rooted in oversimplification and binary thinking.


The good and evil duality is an isomorph of the empath and sociopath duality. We have more resolution today, but again, an apple doesn't taste any different by studying its molecular structure.

Quote:
My point is that humanity has never really "addressed" the problem of sociopaths. It's pretty clear now that the proper way for humanity to address sociopaths is to 1) identify them and 2) disqualify them from positions of power and control. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has never been done! How could it have been done, when 1) we didn't know what a sociopath even was, 2) we had no reliable way to identify a sociopath, and 3) we didn't have the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to do either of those first two steps!


Humanity has always addressed the problem of the sociopath according to the needs of the time, and the available remedies. The term sociopath is just a fancy new coinage for those with little or no conscience. Humanity has known about sociopaths ever since it entertained the first discussion about conscience.

Quote:
As far as I can tell, given the propaganda (history) I've been exposed to, this is the first time in human history when we have the real possibility to solve the problem of sociopathic rule.


The first real opportunity to solve the problem of socioapthic rule arrived with the false flag attack on 9/11/2001 ... which happened in broad daylight, with many cameras watching it, and the aftermath processed through a ubiquitous internet research filter. It had nothing to do with the identification of sociopaths, specific or otherwise.
It had everything to do with the identification of the false flag and state terrorism. Gulf of Tonkin, by contrast, did not have the luxury of internet exposure in real time.

Quote:
So you need to go back to the drawing board, Zook. And before you do, you need to correct all of those outrageous flaws that constantly lead you into the quicksand of subtle absurdity.
P.S. Was it necessary to create another thread for this? Why not just continue in your Sociopathy: the wild goose thread?


Your imagination of my argument flaws will have to remain your imagination of my argument flaws ... for I can contribute no more to the enlightenment of those that do not seek it.

As for why a new thread? The narrative is different. You've opened a few threads on sociopathy yourself. Why are you having a difficult time extending the same courtesy to me?

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:12 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
Your long-winded argument that sociopathy is old while banking is new does not merit much response, Zook. It's just too ridiculous.

And you think I am the king of the spinners. :face:

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
Your long-winded argument that sociopathy is old while banking is new does not merit much response, Zook. It's just too ridiculous.

And you think I am the king of the spinners. :face:


Yes. You provide us with even more evidence of your spinning in the above paragraph. My argument has been about the bankster empire pushing for full spectrum dominance. Your spinning of my argument is of banking, in the general sense. That's plain dishonest ... not even worthy of a response except to point out the obvious spinning in play.

As for sociopathy being old, that's not even debatable. Again, we may have greater resolution today in understanding those that have little to conscience ... but an apple still tastes the same whether we understand its molecular structure or not. And those with a dearth of conscience would still be just as recognizable whether we brand them with a new label (e.g. sociopath) or not. Those with little or no conscience have existed since the beginning of human relations; and recognizing them as such has not stopped the corruptions from getting worse. It will take more than recognizing sociopaths to remove them from their power perches; it will take critical awareness of their organization, their secrecy, and their fiat design of money and monetary policy.

As a thought experiment, supposing that 1% of the world's population are sociopaths. That means some 70 million people tally as sociopaths in the larger population pool. But how many of these are expected to tally as agent sociopaths in the bankster pyramid? Any guesses? I would hazard no more than a few million, perhaps 5 million, tops, are agent sociopaths of the bankster pyramid ... and if you throw in the agent nonsociopaths agents at a ratio of 20 to 1 (here, please refer to a previous post I made about square pyramid geometry and 10 levels of organization rendering a 21 to 1 ratio of agent nonsociopaths to agent sociopaths).

I say agent sociopaths and nonsociopaths to distinguish them from the rest of us who are not agents but are still indirectly working for the banksters by merely participating in their corrupt system and paying taxes.

So with 5 million sociopaths and 20 times that number (e.g. 100 million) nonsociopaths working for the bankster pyramid ... in an agent capacity ... the bankster pyramid tallies some 105 million agents. The actual tally of agents is almost certainly much lower than this, but I wanted to design the best case scenario for your argument of sociopathy as the lynchpin of the bankster empire, Chico ... versus my argument of secrecy, organization, and fiat money as the combined lynchpin. You'll see why in a minute.

Our original low estimate of 70 million sociopaths in the world, on 1% sociopathy, with 5 million bankster agent sociopaths ... means that the 65 million remaining sociopaths are of the nonagent variety.

Which means that 1 out of every 13 sociopaths is a bankster agent ... and 12 out of 13 are not bankster agents.

Which means that the overwhelming number of sociopaths on this planet are not here to plunge us into totalitarianism and full spectrum dominance.

Which means that something other than sociopathy is here to plunge us.

And indeed, that's exactly what I've been arguing all along, namely, that something other than sociopathy is responsible for the global corruptions, the wars, the genocides, and indeed, the preparations for a brave new world set to arrive on a maglev.

Organization. Secrecy. Fiat money.

In short, a Faustian compact so distasteful ... so devilish ... that 65 million sociopaths refused to sign it. As it were.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:58 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
UncleZook wrote:
As for sociopathy being old, that's not even debatable.

Same old "twist and shout", Zook. Sociopathy was virtually unknown until recently, just like neurosurgery. Oh sure, people have been cutting into other people's brains since the dawn of humanity, but it wasn't neurosurgery. Nor is contrasting good and evil the same thing as the study of the psychology behind sociopathy.

UncleZook wrote:
As a thought experiment, supposing that 1% of the world's population are sociopaths.

It's quite interesting to compare the results of your reasoning with mine. Your inappropriate pyramid model leads you to conclude that there are 70 million sociopaths out there opposing us, whereas my bell curve model suggests there are only 0.0142 million. With more than three orders of magnitude separating our respective answers, at least one of us is surely wrong.

UncleZook wrote:
And indeed, that's exactly what I've been arguing all along, namely, that something other than sociopathy is responsible for the global corruptions, the wars, the genocides, and indeed, the preparations for a brave new world set to arrive on a maglev.

I know what you've been arguing, and it's borderline idiotic.

UncleZook wrote:
Organization. Secrecy. Fiat money.

Sociopaths organize naturally around bribery and blackmail. Sociopaths are secretive by necessity, in order to survive in a world of moral people. Fiat money is the primary tool sociopaths have developed to manage the masses. Sociopaths control the creation of the money.

All three spring from sociopathy. How can you be so blind?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:10 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
UncleZook wrote:
As for sociopathy being old, that's not even debatable.

Same old "twist and shout", Zook. Sociopathy was virtually unknown until recently, just like neurosurgery. Oh sure, people have been cutting into other people's brains since the dawn of humanity, but it wasn't neurosurgery. Nor is contrasting good and evil the same thing as the study of the psychology behind sociopathy.


No. Your assumption is flat ass wrong. Sociopathy was coined by some white coat in a hypermodern psychometric lab on the garden path to genometrics ... but the behavioral tendencies of sociopaths were known for millennia and were used to identify sociopaths well before the hypermodern coinage. Indeed, the modern coinage is just a fancy nancy label for a low to nonexistent degree of conscience.

How many times do I have to say it before that thick grey stone inside your skull warms up to the fact that apples were identified and eaten long before their molecular structure or genetic code was identified?

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
As a thought experiment, supposing that 1% of the world's population are sociopaths.

It's quite interesting to compare the results of your reasoning with mine. Your inappropriate pyramid model leads you to conclude that there are 70 million sociopaths out there opposing us, whereas my bell curve model suggests there are only 0.0142 million. With more than three orders of magnitude separating our respective answers, at least one of us is surely wrong.


I loaded the number deliberately in the thought experiment to benefit your argument of sociopathy being responsible for the state of global corruptions. I figured that if sociopathy was truly responsible (as you claim) then the numbers would have to be enormous. An unduly small number necessarily implies that the sociopaths are using something other than their own twisted nature to overrun the nonsociopaths. There is no basis for assuming that sociopaths are smarter than nonsociopaths. There is no basis for assuming that sociopaths are better at obtaining food, shelter, material goods than nonsociopaths. There is no basis for assuming that sociopaths are physically or mentally stronger than nonsociopaths. So what exactly gives sociopaths an advantage over nonsociopaths in gaining power and control given their small number? Enter secrecy, organization, fiat money. Not sociopathy.

Even when we increase their numbers enormously to a global population of 70 million, we still find that the overwhelming number of sociopaths (12 out of 13??) are not agents of the bankster power pyramid, but saps and impotent fools just like their nonsociopathic counterparts. Indeed, in the given model, 12 out of 13 sociopaths are nonagent and have brotherhood with nonagent nonsociopaths.

So if agent sociopaths are responsible for the global corruptions ... and we can immediately conclude that they are because it takes a sociopathic mind to push for full spectrum dominance and a disproportionate share of the global resources ... then the only credible explanation is that these agent sociopaths are using organization, secrecy, and fiat money to achieve their goals. Sociopathy alone cannot erect a power pyramid on the scale of the bankster pyramid. Nor can nonsociopathy alone protect us from the construction of power pyramids on the scale of the bankster pyramid.

Nonsociopaths need to initiate and force transparency, force planar organization, and force the defeat of fiat money and monetary policy. That's where truthseekers and critical awareness comes in. We can't force change by studying sociopaths. That study has been conducted and repeated a zillion times without any great fruit. In the same interval, things have gone from regional totalitarianism to ambitions of global totalitarianism.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
And indeed, that's exactly what I've been arguing all along, namely, that something other than sociopathy is responsible for the global corruptions, the wars, the genocides, and indeed, the preparations for a brave new world set to arrive on a maglev.

I know what you've been arguing, and it's borderline idiotic.

UncleZook wrote:
Organization. Secrecy. Fiat money.

Sociopaths organize naturally around bribery and blackmail. Sociopaths are secretive by necessity, in order to survive in a world of moral people. Fiat money is the primary tool sociopaths have developed to manage the masses. Sociopaths control the creation of the money.

All three spring from sociopathy. How can you be so blind?


Except for one thing you conveniently omit. Most sociopaths are not agents of the bankster pyramid. In the modeling above, 12 out of 13 sociopaths do not converted their given sociopathy to any greater material profit than what the average nonsociopath is able to achieve. So sociopathy is not a free ticket to power and money. Something other than sociopathy must purchase that ticket. Indeed, most tickets are available only for the selected ones. And these selected ones comprise both of agent sociopaths and agent nonsociopaths.

Selection to the agency, alas, implies orchestration and organization, not sociopathy.

Pointing at sociopathy, then, is little more than a Chomskian tactic ... to buy time for the empire as it advances to full spectrum dominance. Nothing more.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:07 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
UncleZook wrote:
Sociopathy was coined by some white coat in a hypermodern psychometric lab on the garden path to genometrics ... but the behavioral tendencies of sociopaths were known for millennia and were used to identify sociopaths well before the hypermodern coinage.

You're focused on a word, and on gross behaviors, when I am talking about a specific knowledge base, a focused study, and a science. And I'm not alone here. Andrew Lobaczewski and his fellow psychologists didn't devote their lives to studying a subject that had been understood for millennia. Your suggestion that they were just spinning their wheels is ludicrous.

UncleZook wrote:
How many times do I have to say it before that thick grey stone inside your skull warms up to the fact that apples were identified and eaten long before their molecular structure or genetic code was identified?

How many times must you repeat propaganda before the brainwashing takes effect?

I really can't believe how dense you are. No matter how many times you push your propaganda, it still remains "spin". Your analogy is, as usual, inappropriate. Next you'll be telling me that genetic sequencing has been known for millennia, and every parent has been doing it in their sleep. :lol: :lol:

UncleZook wrote:
I figured that if sociopathy was truly responsible (as you claim) then the numbers would have to be enormous.

See what a bad (and flawed) assumption that is? You shouldn't make assumptions like this. Look at the variety that can result from a simple fractal equation. Sociopaths are a minor variation in human psychology that results in a profound reorganization of human society. You don't need "numbers". Your whole argument is bogus.

UncleZook wrote:
Except for one thing you conveniently omit. Most sociopaths are not agents of the bankster pyramid.

No, I didn't omit it. It was a primary part of my model. You just don't pay attention.

I assumed that only 1 out of 100 sociopaths would be sufficiently evil to create massive damage. I further assumed that only 1 out of 100 of the truly evil sociopaths would have the requisite skills to climb to the top of the hierarchical ladder where they could steer society. So you're completely off-base again.

UncleZook wrote:
Pointing at sociopathy, then, is little more than a Chomskian tactic ... to buy time for the empire as it advances to full spectrum dominance. Nothing more.

"A Chomskian tactic." You simply don't know what you're talking about, Zook. It's truly pathetic. Again, I wonder why I waste my time with you. I think it's only because I'm afraid someone out there might actually buy into your delusions. One Zook is enough.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
UncleZook wrote:
Sociopathy was coined by some white coat in a hypermodern psychometric lab on the garden path to genometrics ... but the behavioral tendencies of sociopaths were known for millennia and were used to identify sociopaths well before the hypermodern coinage.

You're focused on a word, and on gross behaviors, when I am talking about a specific knowledge base, a focused study, and a science. And I'm not alone here. Andrew Lobaczewski and his fellow psychologists didn't devote their lives to studying a subject that had been understood for millennia. Your suggestion that they were just spinning their wheels is ludicrous.


You're assuming that a specific knowledgebase will deliver us from sociopaths. Two fundamental flaws with that reasoning. One, sociopaths can be identified by their behavior and have been identified by their behavior since the dawn of time. The specific knowledgebase you seek is well beyond the threshold of identification, so it cannot help us at the point of identification, e.g. the threshold point of behavior. Two, the specific knowledgebase you seek requires a kind of scientific dictatorship that aspires to creating classes of humans: so-called superior humans and so-called inferior humans. That, of course, goes against the grain of thought advanced by the Magna Charta; the Bill of Rights; Rights of Man; and Pogo (by Walt Kelly).

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
How many times do I have to say it before that thick grey stone inside your skull warms up to the fact that apples were identified and eaten long before their molecular structure or genetic code was identified?

How many times must you repeat propaganda before the brainwashing takes effect?


A statement of fact is never propaganda.

Quote:
I really can't believe how dense you are. No matter how many times you push your propaganda, it still remains "spin". Your analogy is, as usual, inappropriate. Next you'll be telling me that genetic sequencing has been known for millennia, and every parent has been doing it in their sleep. :lol: :lol:


Only a committed spinner would interpret my metaphor (which is a statement of fact) to mean that the apple's genetic sequence has been known for millennia.

Keep yammering, Chico ... you must've had significant talent with tops when you were a kid. Not so much with the marbles, for you seem to have lost those pretty early on.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
I figured that if sociopathy was truly responsible (as you claim) then the numbers would have to be enormous.

See what a bad (and flawed) assumption that is? You shouldn't make assumptions like this. Look at the variety that can result from a simple fractal equation. Sociopaths are a minor variation in human psychology that results in a profound reorganization of human society. You don't need "numbers". Your whole argument is bogus.


You do, indeed, need numbers in the narrative of your argument of sociopathy. By contrast, numbers are not required in my argument of the banskter empire. For there is no intrinsic quality in the individual sociopath that gives them an advantage over the nonscoiopath (in climbing the ladder of influence). If anything, sociopaths are held in such great disdain by the vastly larger number of nonsociopaths, that that should - in normal situations - make it hard for sociopaths to climb. So how did the sociopaths climb the ladder in the absence of numbers? Secrecy. Organization. Fiat money (which represents value stolen from others). You know, the same template employed by roving bands of thieves and cutthroats. If you wear a parrot, they'll call you a pirate; if you wear a suit, they'll call you a man of influence. But they ain't gonna call squat if you don't follow the template.

The template erected the bankster pyramid, not sociopathy.

Most sociopaths belong outside the template, and outside liability. Those that use the template on a small scale, create small empires for themselves. Progressive scale brings progressively larger empires: neighborhood empires, municipal empires, statewide empires, national empires, etc. The biggest scale of the template informs the international bankster empire.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Except for one thing you conveniently omit. Most sociopaths are not agents of the bankster pyramid.

No, I didn't omit it. It was a primary part of my model. You just don't pay attention.

I assumed that only 1 out of 100 sociopaths would be sufficiently evil to create massive damage. I further assumed that only 1 out of 100 of the truly evil sociopaths would have the requisite skills to climb to the top of the hierarchical ladder where they could steer society. So you're completely off-base again.


So ... let's see ... you're essentially arguing my argument of secrecy, organization, and fiat money as being responsible for creating the bankster empire. After all, if only 1 out of 100 of the most evil sociopaths have sufficient skills to climb the ladder to steer society (i.e. to employ secrecy, organization, and fiat money) ... while 99 out of 100 lack such skills ... then it can't be about sociopathy. I mean 99% of the most evil sociopaths cannot manage it, so it seems quite asinine to blame sociopathy (let alone the most evil degree of sociopathy).
Knowing this, you still insist on advancing your argument of sociopathy to explain the global corruptions, Chico? Even when you're using my argument to fund it? I heard of theft in broad daylight, but this is the first time of theft in broadband internet.
:jest:

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Pointing at sociopathy, then, is little more than a Chomskian tactic ... to buy time for the empire as it advances to full spectrum dominance. Nothing more.

"A Chomskian tactic." You simply don't know what you're talking about, Zook. It's truly pathetic. Again, I wonder why I waste my time with you. I think it's only because I'm afraid someone out there might actually buy into your delusions. One Zook is enough.


Perhaps people are actually buying my "delusions" because they're organic ... not artificial like your prevarications.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:59 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9503
Reply with quote
Post Re: Sociopathy: the goldfish bowl
UncleZook wrote:
... not artificial like your prevarications.

You are beyond belief, Zook. I never expected you to resort to such levels of deception and manipulation. It does, however, match the behavior of a cornered sociopath.

Let's assume that everything I say is completely wrong, and everything you say is completely right. That should appeal to your sense of oversimplification and binary thinking. So you have identified three problems that must be solved: organization, secrecy, and fiat money. How are you going to solve these three problems?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:16 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.