3 ms·

Yes because people tend to apply it to people they don't like instead of people that objectively are potentially dangerous. This justifies a lot of bad things i

by mjfl 11y ago

Yes because people tend to apply it to people they don't like instead of people that objectively are potentially dangerous. This justifies a lot of bad things including and not limited to restricting ones empathy towards that person because "they have no feelings". Your boss fires you without any emotion, from his side of the story it is because you annoyed him for a very long time and it was finally the last straw. To you he is a psychopath who doesn't consider any of your feelings having to do with being fired. You go to his house, armed, because people like that deserve to be "put down". You do something stupid and get put in jail, "but it's all his fault, he's the psychopath!"

nickpsecurity 11y ago
So applying a label is more harmful to you than causing harm with or without a label. Let me test it: your view is short-sighted. If I was right, you roll your eyes or get irritated. If you were right, then you seeing it led to a feeling of being violated, potentially shortness of breath, lost sleep, and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder. Is this how you feel? Your other point makes sense. I think it's what your getting at. How people categorize other people can lead to them harming them and often does. This is part of human nature I'm afraid: shows up everywhere with every kind of people with very few exceptions. Your boss vs employee example is decent until you take it to the extreme to support your agenda. An extreme that's rare. Now, let's try a different take with an actual person in my categorization. He's a nice-looking, sharply-dressed, young manager from a fairly typical family with typical good and bad per people that grew up with him. He picks fights with underlings who are good workers but don't play politics (image worse than him). He wittily cuts them, sets them up for problems, and has enjoyment in his eyes. He regularly deceives both new hires and existing staff in games that benefit him at their other expense. Far from remorse, the more agony and rage people break out into the more there's a glimmer in his eyes. His calm, confident, and apparently caring demeanor around most employees and other management ensure his victim's rage fit appears to be their own personal problems. He cunningly tells a believable story that pushes all the right buttons. They quit. If anything, he's good at getting troubling workers out of the place the others think with some on the fence and a few seeing his game but quiet. I call him a psychopath, born or learned, because he acts like one. His victims used the same word although it's certainly a pop psych term & that's expected. How would you describe this person to a third party, especially a layperson, that captured these traits adequately? Note: He eventually did leave the place... in handcuffs... for allegedly fondling his hot gf's... daughter. The look on his face in the mugshot wasn't shame or guilt. It was a look I've seen 100+ times on kids & teens: "Shit I got caught."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by mjfl 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago

So applying a label is more harmful to you than causing harm with or without a label. Let me test it: your view is short-sighted. If I was right, you roll your eyes or get irritated. If you were right, then you seeing it led to a feeling of being violated, potentially shortness of breath, lost sleep, and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder. Is this how you feel? Your other point makes sense. I think it's what your getting at. How people categorize other people can lead to them harming them and often does. This is part of human nature I'm afraid: shows up everywhere with every kind of people with very few exceptions. Your boss vs employee example is decent until you take it to the extreme to support your agenda. An extreme that's rare. Now, let's try a different take with an actual person in my categorization. He's a nice-looking, sharply-dressed, young manager from a fairly typical family with typical good and bad per people that grew up with him. He picks fights with underlings who are good workers but don't play politics (image worse than him). He wittily cuts them, sets them up for problems, and has enjoyment in his eyes. He regularly deceives both new hires and existing staff in games that benefit him at their other expense. Far from remorse, the more agony and rage people break out into the more there's a glimmer in his eyes. His calm, confident, and apparently caring demeanor around most employees and other management ensure his victim's rage fit appears to be their own personal problems. He cunningly tells a believable story that pushes all the right buttons. They quit. If anything, he's good at getting troubling workers out of the place the others think with some on the fence and a few seeing his game but quiet. I call him a psychopath, born or learned, because he acts like one. His victims used the same word although it's certainly a pop psych term & that's expected. How would you describe this person to a third party, especially a layperson, that captured these traits adequately? Note: He eventually did leave the place... in handcuffs... for allegedly fondling his hot gf's... daughter. The look on his face in the mugshot wasn't shame or guilt. It was a look I've seen 100+ times on kids & teens: "Shit I got caught."

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]