4 ms·

removed, apologies

• metaphorm 10y ago
  thats some serious mud-slinging. would you care to at least explain why you think that?
  • msane 10y ago
    I regret posting this and will delete it. it is not meant to be mud slinging. I care for him. I dont know him personally. Though i have interacted with him on lists and he is charming and knowledgeable and generous with his time. I just think he went a little bonkers at some point. Read the book and come to your own conclusion.
• PieterH 10y ago
  Hit a little close to home, did it? :)
  • msane 10y ago
    i think it does for everyone. life is messy and there are few innocents. we should strive to do the right thing, but branding everyone who disagrees or has done injury as a "psychopath" is not on that path. there were a lot of cool and honest insights which people dont usually speak about which i enjoyed, thank you. and there are many people who are dangerous who should be treated carefully. but i came away questioning the state of the author.
    • PieterH 10y ago
      Speaking as the author, there were certainly moments when I questioned my own state. That is part of the path, it seems. And indeed, most of us do harm at some point, yet are absolutely not psychopaths.
      • nostrademons 10y ago
        I thought one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath is that they don't question their own state. When a normal person does harm, they're like "Oh, shit, am I a psychopath?" When a psychopath does harm, they're like "They were a weak and useless person anyways. This is the way of things."
        • PieterH 10y ago
          Yes, this seems to be the case. The whole concept of social judgment is alien to a mind that sees society as a collection of meals.
          • Pica_soO 10y ago
            All of society is alien. Artists, who are basically half-aware,half conscious and build stuff with there subconscious. You never get a answer why that pencil stroke was done. Yet it is done. The behavior pattern to pressure sub-groups by sexuality into pseudo-judicative contract groups, to allow society to form against the howling wolves out there. The bred in drug addictions, that work as motivators and the deformations of different lives that defines the directions all those glider guns take. The machines that enhance us, allowing for society to watch itself and control itself. Its a wild world, a wonderful world. Building social machines that are tailored to what we are, not what we want to be, was one of the archievements. For all its understanding- i can not see enough psychopathy in the authors approach to using what is. The Founding fathers of modern democracy at least came farther. They made battling grounds for them called parliaments and markets, and courts to avoid escaping wolves. One should strive for Leviathancybernetics, to enhance the beast that is, not to fight it, as long one has not the tools to change the very nature.
          • strlen 10y ago
            I knew a medical professional who had to deal with a diagnosed, high-functioning (successful entrepreneur in a "respected" line of business) psychopath in a situation having nothing to do with psychopathy (routine physical ailment). Professionals at the institution were afraid of interacting with the psychopath, out of fear of being sued -- hence my obfuscation of the story. The psychopath very well knew that she/he was a psychopath, but saw nothing wrong with that. There were multiple (more than two) divorces, huge history of litigation (including "ambulance chasing", etc...) There's no question that non-psychopaths are capable of terrible and even predatory behavior (and certainly multiple divorces and frivolous litigation), the difference is shame, and personally recognizing that there's something wrong with the behavior. This is different from being aware that society sees their behavior as wrong or hurtful and then acting in a way as not minimize harms inflicted by society's punishments (e.g., something akin to what was espoused by the Thrasymachus character in Plato's Republic or -- even more ominously and dangerously -- doctrine of legal positivism). The latter leads to a very sad point that is relevant to those designing anti-abuse systems of various kinds: anti-abuse systems can also be misused as means of abuse by the sufficiently unscrupulous, Machiavellian, and especially psychopathic (and so can the reaction to this abuse...)
• fbonetti 10y ago
  I definitely got a Michael O. Church vibe from this article.
• fbonetti 10y ago
  I definitely got a Michael O. Church vibe from this article.