Seriously, the homicidal ones are a relatively small percentage of the actual APD population. It is just a larger proportion of that population than murderers in general are in the general population. Most that want people to die seem to settle on provoking reckless or suicidal behavior in others, and frequently indirectly at that. Think of it as the ultimate troll. None of that messy legal stuff happens if someone blows their own brains out or hugs a tree at 100 mph. Heck, the general consensus on such matters is usually along the lines of "He/she should have just shut up and taken it."
When people are intelligent and actually interested in learning, learning things out of order is a common hazard. Frequently, more basic subjects are skirted through just enough to make it possible to understand the more advanced ones. And, then later one falls back to the basic subjects later on to improve comprehension, or at least bring it up to the standards other people set. Subjects are also frequently thoroughly studied well before the actual course is taken.
It is not just social skills. Trying to communicate outside of the most basic pre-cooked concepts to your average person is draining and frustrating for both. It eventually gets to the point where they treat you expressing yourself honestly as a personal attack and will act in kind. The most starkly intense instances of loneliness have all come at times I was socializing with people and realized that I could not act nor answer honestly without facing some kind of egomaniacal backlash. And, I am not even close to your level.
But, yeah, learning social skills can at least help you pass under the radar a little better. But, still, that's not the point is it? We are looking for people we can be close to, are we not?
I have been a regular on this site for over a decade now. And, I have no clue what you are talking about. As for the shyster alt-e stuff, the group consensus is usually along the lines of fails basic thermodynamics, smoke and mirrors, untested/unrevised claims, cost higher/efficiency lower than existing tech, etc...
Perhaps you have this site confused with another you frequent?
I frequently find that people that people that push for extremely limited sexual contact usually only take that advice seriously when it involves other people contributing other genes to the gene pool, their teenage daughter. (That changes BTW. Usually in the twenties and later, the heat is on for grandkids.)
It is simpler than that. Most people want leaders that act as a substitute for their own super-egos, which lead them personally. Leaders that take and do what they want, largely ignore the desires of those they lead, have petty spiteful fights with each other, smack them for back-talk, and generally treat their followers as being innately ignorant, immature, and inferior are exactly what they want....and, exactly what they get.
FYI: The super-ego is the part of your mind that criticizes you whenever you do something wrong, and is essentially a warped version of the most dominant parental influence from your childhood.
This reminds me of a couple of stereotypical situations that pop up fairly often: Women that demand that potential mates be their friends first, then wonder why their male friends keep "betraying" them by actually wanting to be mates. Or, for that matter, men that denigrate women that actually enjoy sexual relationships as being sluts and whores, even if they are monogamous and would not sell. Then, they wonder why they end up with virulently avoidant cold fish that clam up the second they get a ring or a kid.
Basically, be careful what you wish for: The human mind is very poor at sorting out conflicting fears and desires.
Oh that reminds me: The you and I are a lot alike pastime is another tactic frequently (but again, not exclusively by any measure) used by them. It dis-empowers their victims by making them doubt themselves and feeling shame, paradoxically something a genuine sociopath does not feel. And, it helps manipulate the people that would tend to want to empathize with the victim into ignoring the plight, instead.
All I can suggest is that you do some cursory research into the tendency to acquire pawns and patrons with sociopaths and the tendency for Narcissists and Histrionics to develop similar networks.
Disclaimer: Possible != True (or false) necessarily, though.
The reversible argument is just a common pastime that allows people to try to dump blame for something on others. It is not unique to sociopaths. What you are looking for is a systematic disregard for the rules and standards of society and violating the rights of others, especially including breaking those in such a way as they do not usually get punished for it. This can be either because of careful planning, manipulation of peers, making it a hassle for others to stop them, appealing to pity, political influence, etc...
To put it frankly, you are looking for a pervasive, but not necessarily omnipresent, pattern.
A few things to help you out though:
- They do not honor commitments unless it is specifically in their self interest to do so, such as to impress someone important.
- When they are confronted, they will almost never admit responsibility unless they themselves recognize it is advantageous to do so. They will usually either fly off into a rage to scare you away or others into stopping you or launch into a ridiculous appeal for pity, complete with all sorts of BS mind-games like the one you mentioned.
- They get board easy and are frequently impulsive. So, they like to find people to brag about their exploits to if they cannot find something or someone new to torment and destroy, bonus points if they can torment someone while bragging to them.
- They feel that being antisocial makes them smarter than everyone else, because having a conscience retards us and makes us easy to mess with.
- They like collecting tools to do their dirty work for them. But, will actively eliminate anyone deemed to be a competitive threat to them, often using the aforementioned.
- They can mimic complex emotional expressions, but the top half of their face frequently does not match the rest of the body.
- One tell tail I have noticed is the wicked "I have won!" gleeful smile accompanied by hollow eyes when they are actively terrorizing someone or something and getting away with it.
That ended up being a lot longer than I thought it would...
I cannot say for Great Britain, but the estimated occurrence rate of people with Antisocial Personality Disorder is ~4%, about 1 in 25 people. Four times that would be about 1 in 6. Beyond that, it all ignores the broader issue of Cluster B personality disorders (IE: Antisocial, Narcissistic, Histrionic, Borderline) in general, which make up just under 10% of the US population. I am curious as to how many of those make it into the board rooms, executive suites, and public offices. If that factor is even close to 4x, sweet lord...
I would take that 4 times with a grain of salt unless it is backed up with some evidence or at least some sound reasoning, though.
If that where the case, I would like to see an argument to have all of Warner's commercials removed from video based media. After all, commercials are free!
Personally, if the $3 went to the court, I would not bother the clerks with pennies. But, if it went directly to the spammers, I would be sorely tempted to send 300 one cent USD international money orders in seperate envelopes with signature confirmation for the spammers to cash.
Sign here, please!...and here...and here...etc...
What? It's just a signature. You can't just write your signature? We all can. What's the big deal?
For what it's worth, some of us do realize that you are stuck in between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, you will get criticized for overbearing censorship. And on the other, when someone's precious little angel shows their true colors, they would rather blame you guys and imply that it is you that are not doing their jobs to protect their precious sainthood bound prodigy.
Basically, they shovel off the blame for their kids imperfections on you so they don't have to feel responsible for any of it: It's your fault they failed. It's your fault they will never make more than minimum wage. It's your fault they will be on welfare the rest of their lives. They deserve better and they did not get it not because of the choices they made, but yours. The mentality of selfish entitlement, victim-hood, and the near complete externalization of blame it engenders is all to common and extremely toxic.
In short, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
If you will divulge my jaunt into the bigger picture for a moment: My personal ideals prefer realistic, informed decision making over irrational fear of social rejection. But, that is because I prefer reason for making such decisions. Experience tells me that the majority of the population just wants to know if it will make them feel good in the short term, adult or child. Consequences tend not to show up until someone needs to rationalize the choice they have already made. I can kind of understand the idea of limiting the availability to reduce the temptation. Unfortunately, negative feedback is still feedback, and will remind people of it, thus making it a topic of note in their minds. And, it is also worth noting that strongly negative feedback tends to promote abnormal, maladaptive behavior in general, especially in regards to human development.
I wish I could help you out. But, I cannot think of any sane way to handle this. The general direction stinks of politics and marketing. I.E: Use the populations' tendency towards predictable, irrational decision making as a boon instead of a bane.
Oh, and be careful, you would not be the first guy to take it in the chops for someone higher up because you spoke out of line. Thank you for treating us like reasonable adults. That is... extremely rare.
For what it's worth, this is how it was explained to me in high-school physics in the USA. I am not saying you are wrong. I have run into enough absolute, unquestionable "facts" that ended up being false to understand this might be one of the more minor ones.
I am just one guy with a limited sample of experience to draw from. But, most of the creative professionals I know gave up and moved to the PC platform. The people I find using apple's creativity (IE: not including dedicated phones and mp3 players) oriented products nowadays are usually or similar too hipsters and nearly IT clueless house-moms that are thrilled to play solitaire on the go with a screen thats big enough to see the cards. In other words, the actual work gets done elsewhere.
In all seriousness, if you are willing to spend enough construct floating cities, why not just buy a small island nation who's population is fleeing anyway? You can keep the remaining population as I image most of them are fishermen. And, I would imagine keeping experienced food gatherers around would come in handy. As an added bonus, you would have actual land you could grow traditional crops on as well, feasible materials extraction, permanently connected infrastructure, etc...
As a minus, though, you are kind of stuck in place if any disasters show up (typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes, the hostile military of an authoritarian nation with tiny dicked leaders....)
An economic player choosing whom to and not to do business with of their own free will and voicing the reasoning (or at least rationalizations) behind that choice is anti-capitalist?
Someone needs to let Congress know that K-street is full of watermelons. *cough*
There is a difference between knowing what is right and what is wrong, and actually caring about what is right and what is wrong. You would think a would lead to b. But, for some people a is just a tool for telling people it's raining while they piss on them and b is for losers and stupid people. I cannot say this is the case in this case. But, it sure reminds me of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not both? ...and more?
Seriously, the homicidal ones are a relatively small percentage of the actual APD population. It is just a larger proportion of that population than murderers in general are in the general population. Most that want people to die seem to settle on provoking reckless or suicidal behavior in others, and frequently indirectly at that. Think of it as the ultimate troll. None of that messy legal stuff happens if someone blows their own brains out or hugs a tree at 100 mph. Heck, the general consensus on such matters is usually along the lines of "He/she should have just shut up and taken it."
When people are intelligent and actually interested in learning, learning things out of order is a common hazard. Frequently, more basic subjects are skirted through just enough to make it possible to understand the more advanced ones. And, then later one falls back to the basic subjects later on to improve comprehension, or at least bring it up to the standards other people set. Subjects are also frequently thoroughly studied well before the actual course is taken.
It is not just social skills. Trying to communicate outside of the most basic pre-cooked concepts to your average person is draining and frustrating for both. It eventually gets to the point where they treat you expressing yourself honestly as a personal attack and will act in kind. The most starkly intense instances of loneliness have all come at times I was socializing with people and realized that I could not act nor answer honestly without facing some kind of egomaniacal backlash. And, I am not even close to your level.
But, yeah, learning social skills can at least help you pass under the radar a little better. But, still, that's not the point is it? We are looking for people we can be close to, are we not?
I have been a regular on this site for over a decade now. And, I have no clue what you are talking about. As for the shyster alt-e stuff, the group consensus is usually along the lines of fails basic thermodynamics, smoke and mirrors, untested/unrevised claims, cost higher/efficiency lower than existing tech, etc...
Perhaps you have this site confused with another you frequent?
I frequently find that people that people that push for extremely limited sexual contact usually only take that advice seriously when it involves other people contributing other genes to the gene pool, their teenage daughter. (That changes BTW. Usually in the twenties and later, the heat is on for grandkids.)
It is simpler than that. Most people want leaders that act as a substitute for their own super-egos, which lead them personally. Leaders that take and do what they want, largely ignore the desires of those they lead, have petty spiteful fights with each other, smack them for back-talk, and generally treat their followers as being innately ignorant, immature, and inferior are exactly what they want. ...and, exactly what they get.
FYI: The super-ego is the part of your mind that criticizes you whenever you do something wrong, and is essentially a warped version of the most dominant parental influence from your childhood.
This reminds me of a couple of stereotypical situations that pop up fairly often: Women that demand that potential mates be their friends first, then wonder why their male friends keep "betraying" them by actually wanting to be mates. Or, for that matter, men that denigrate women that actually enjoy sexual relationships as being sluts and whores, even if they are monogamous and would not sell. Then, they wonder why they end up with virulently avoidant cold fish that clam up the second they get a ring or a kid.
Basically, be careful what you wish for: The human mind is very poor at sorting out conflicting fears and desires.
I wonder if the price goes up to $350 a month after a year on that plan?
Oh that reminds me: The you and I are a lot alike pastime is another tactic frequently (but again, not exclusively by any measure) used by them. It dis-empowers their victims by making them doubt themselves and feeling shame, paradoxically something a genuine sociopath does not feel. And, it helps manipulate the people that would tend to want to empathize with the victim into ignoring the plight, instead.
All I can suggest is that you do some cursory research into the tendency to acquire pawns and patrons with sociopaths and the tendency for Narcissists and Histrionics to develop similar networks.
Disclaimer: Possible != True (or false) necessarily, though.
The reversible argument is just a common pastime that allows people to try to dump blame for something on others. It is not unique to sociopaths. What you are looking for is a systematic disregard for the rules and standards of society and violating the rights of others, especially including breaking those in such a way as they do not usually get punished for it. This can be either because of careful planning, manipulation of peers, making it a hassle for others to stop them, appealing to pity, political influence, etc...
To put it frankly, you are looking for a pervasive, but not necessarily omnipresent, pattern.
A few things to help you out though:
- They do not honor commitments unless it is specifically in their self interest to do so, such as to impress someone important.
- When they are confronted, they will almost never admit responsibility unless they themselves recognize it is advantageous to do so. They will usually either fly off into a rage to scare you away or others into stopping you or launch into a ridiculous appeal for pity, complete with all sorts of BS mind-games like the one you mentioned.
- They get board easy and are frequently impulsive. So, they like to find people to brag about their exploits to if they cannot find something or someone new to torment and destroy, bonus points if they can torment someone while bragging to them.
- They feel that being antisocial makes them smarter than everyone else, because having a conscience retards us and makes us easy to mess with.
- They like collecting tools to do their dirty work for them. But, will actively eliminate anyone deemed to be a competitive threat to them, often using the aforementioned.
- They can mimic complex emotional expressions, but the top half of their face frequently does not match the rest of the body.
- One tell tail I have noticed is the wicked "I have won!" gleeful smile accompanied by hollow eyes when they are actively terrorizing someone or something and getting away with it.
That ended up being a lot longer than I thought it would...
I cannot say for Great Britain, but the estimated occurrence rate of people with Antisocial Personality Disorder is ~4%, about 1 in 25 people. Four times that would be about 1 in 6. Beyond that, it all ignores the broader issue of Cluster B personality disorders (IE: Antisocial, Narcissistic, Histrionic, Borderline) in general, which make up just under 10% of the US population. I am curious as to how many of those make it into the board rooms, executive suites, and public offices. If that factor is even close to 4x, sweet lord...
I would take that 4 times with a grain of salt unless it is backed up with some evidence or at least some sound reasoning, though.
If that where the case, I would like to see an argument to have all of Warner's commercials removed from video based media. After all, commercials are free!
Personally, if the $3 went to the court, I would not bother the clerks with pennies. But, if it went directly to the spammers, I would be sorely tempted to send 300 one cent USD international money orders in seperate envelopes with signature confirmation for the spammers to cash.
Sign here, please! ...and here...and here...etc...
What? It's just a signature. You can't just write your signature? We all can. What's the big deal?
For what it's worth, some of us do realize that you are stuck in between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, you will get criticized for overbearing censorship. And on the other, when someone's precious little angel shows their true colors, they would rather blame you guys and imply that it is you that are not doing their jobs to protect their precious sainthood bound prodigy.
Basically, they shovel off the blame for their kids imperfections on you so they don't have to feel responsible for any of it: It's your fault they failed. It's your fault they will never make more than minimum wage. It's your fault they will be on welfare the rest of their lives. They deserve better and they did not get it not because of the choices they made, but yours. The mentality of selfish entitlement, victim-hood, and the near complete externalization of blame it engenders is all to common and extremely toxic.
In short, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
If you will divulge my jaunt into the bigger picture for a moment: My personal ideals prefer realistic, informed decision making over irrational fear of social rejection. But, that is because I prefer reason for making such decisions. Experience tells me that the majority of the population just wants to know if it will make them feel good in the short term, adult or child. Consequences tend not to show up until someone needs to rationalize the choice they have already made. I can kind of understand the idea of limiting the availability to reduce the temptation. Unfortunately, negative feedback is still feedback, and will remind people of it, thus making it a topic of note in their minds. And, it is also worth noting that strongly negative feedback tends to promote abnormal, maladaptive behavior in general, especially in regards to human development.
I wish I could help you out. But, I cannot think of any sane way to handle this. The general direction stinks of politics and marketing. I.E: Use the populations' tendency towards predictable, irrational decision making as a boon instead of a bane.
Oh, and be careful, you would not be the first guy to take it in the chops for someone higher up because you spoke out of line. Thank you for treating us like reasonable adults. That is ... extremely rare.
For what it's worth, this is how it was explained to me in high-school physics in the USA. I am not saying you are wrong. I have run into enough absolute, unquestionable "facts" that ended up being false to understand this might be one of the more minor ones.
Near the back door, obviously.
I am not aware of any government facilities nearby. But, there are some old gold and pyrite mines SSW of Mineral, hence the name.
With Norfolk (naw-FUCK), Suffolk (suh-FUCK), Assawoman (Ass-o-woman), and several others, I would not bet on that.
I am just one guy with a limited sample of experience to draw from. But, most of the creative professionals I know gave up and moved to the PC platform. The people I find using apple's creativity (IE: not including dedicated phones and mp3 players) oriented products nowadays are usually or similar too hipsters and nearly IT clueless house-moms that are thrilled to play solitaire on the go with a screen thats big enough to see the cards. In other words, the actual work gets done elsewhere.
In all seriousness, if you are willing to spend enough construct floating cities, why not just buy a small island nation who's population is fleeing anyway? You can keep the remaining population as I image most of them are fishermen. And, I would imagine keeping experienced food gatherers around would come in handy. As an added bonus, you would have actual land you could grow traditional crops on as well, feasible materials extraction, permanently connected infrastructure, etc...
As a minus, though, you are kind of stuck in place if any disasters show up (typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes, the hostile military of an authoritarian nation with tiny dicked leaders....)
An economic player choosing whom to and not to do business with of their own free will and voicing the reasoning (or at least rationalizations) behind that choice is anti-capitalist?
Someone needs to let Congress know that K-street is full of watermelons. *cough*
"You are free to do as you are told," eh?
Seriously, I was starting to wonder when I would read a line like "Oh, and smoking does not increase the risk of lung cancer."
There is a difference between knowing what is right and what is wrong, and actually caring about what is right and what is wrong. You would think a would lead to b. But, for some people a is just a tool for telling people it's raining while they piss on them and b is for losers and stupid people. I cannot say this is the case in this case. But, it sure reminds me of it.
How many people smoke pot, smoke tobacco and drink under age, and drive tipsy again?