The Pity Play - Tipoff Play of Sociopath

[Lermanet_com]

So what is the purpose of talking about these people in a thread on ESMB?

Alanzo

The full answer is quite long, and is why I recommended you read Political Ponerology



This is the BEST book on $cientology that I have read.
There are many books about the bad stuff $cientology does...
but THIS is a book about groups, organizations, and governements that are pathocracies, groups, clans, or families governed, led or administered by sociopaths.

It is rather dense reading at first, as the author gives the reader his lifetime insights in psychology.
The author detests Freud, as I already did, noting that Freud gained prominence because his supposed insights were useful for controlling minds. Edward Bernay - The father of public relations.., his uncle was Sigmond Frued. It was Sigmond Frued, who popularized the use of cocaine as therapy, and then propagated the concept that sexual repression was a basis of psychosis, which is complete bullshit.

Those researchers in psychology, who were opposed to Freud's dogmas, were actively repressed, their works suppressed, They were de-populatized, their reputations ruined, denied tenure at universities, demonized, and in extreme cases sent to gulags or prison, or assassinated(Note), their books were stripped from libraries,by the governments at that time as THREATS to their continued pathocratic control of the masses.


Sound familiar?

Anyone who has ever tried cocaine, knows it's #1 side effect... It makes you horny as hell but you have difficulty getting it up if you do too much.....

Seeing this connection, I lost all respect for Freud, and consider him a charlatan, no more than a drug crazed nutball. There is evidence that excessive use of cocaine causes the type of brain changes (damage to front and occipetal lobes (i think)) that is associated with psychopathy, thus they are creating sociopaths.

Understand well that sociopaths need to recruit MORE sociopaths - those without conscience, as they need people willing to view their fellow human human beings without compassion, to view them as cattle, so they have someone to do their dirty deeds..

Sociopaths band together naturally, seeing each other as those that really 'get' it... (and act for mutual survival out of necessity being normally a small minority) as long as there are sufficient normal people to exploit.

The incidence of psychopathy is less than 1% that is genetic, or pathological (structural). There is an additional 6 percent due to learned conditioning, as a survival response, to having to deal with proximity to a psychopathic leader, boss, president, etc.. The latter respond to therapy, the former must be incarcerated.

----

From the "Best place to hide something is right in front of you department at Lermanet.com:

As true sociopaths have no stress response to causing harm to another, as others are no more than cattle, opportunities to be exploited, - I now believe that any organization, be it the CIA, governments, OR $cientology, that makes use of supposed lie-detectors -or- E-meter's for security purposes, are actually using these devices in order to ensure that psychopaths get promoted to the highest ranks.

----

Arnie Lerma

(note) Stalin had Vladimir Bechterev assassinated while using the research of his peer, Pavlov. Bechterev is a source for Salter's book "Conditioned Reflex Therapy" which in turn describes methods used by Hubbard to turn you in a true believing $cientologist.

Bechterev who coined the term "invasion of the psyche" in the field of hypnosis, was a teacher for the officers of the NKVD (KGB).[1]

End note, I love Wiki... just noted this, due the effort of trying to reply to this post properly..."Throughout his career, Bekhterev conducted a large amount of research which greatly contributed to the current understanding of the brain. This research was described in works such as The Conduction Paths in the Brain and Spinal Cord, written in 1882" - which relates directly to my theory about the use of the E-meter

 

[Caroline]

You haven't needed one.

[Edit: I take that back. You just fell into my default label: neurotypical. I have enough life experience to understand that covers a wide array of behavior, much of it situational. But there are some one this board, who, whether or not they still believe in the tech, show an alarming tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. It's that kind of outlying behavior that earns a label in my book.]

Well, certainly there are conspiracies, and certainly conspirators would benefit by hiding behind their denials of same. But Scientology is a criminal conspiracy, as repeatedly demonstrated and acknowledged in the courts. A recent example is the ruling against the organization in France. The organization was also convicted in Canada in the 90's of Breach of Public Trust. So the presence of conspiracy theories or theorizing can not be unhealthy on its face. Scientologists acting in concert on Department 20 programs and targets, do act in conspiracy against rights of people not even in Scientology. I don't know what outlying behavior you are talking about, or to whom you are referring. But since you say it's on this board, can you please identify as many of these instances that show alarming tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories.

Labeling is written into basic Scientology. For example: the Be-Do-Have scale from Fundamentals of Thought. Scientologists learn to determine what is to be gotten, attained, etc., and work back from that "havingness" to identify what they have to do, and then work back from the "doingness" to identify who they have to be, their "beingness." The beingness is a label. Every post is a label. Every clay demo requires labels. The point is that recovering Scientologists may be particularly sensitive to labeling, due to this underlying infantile and damaging programming.

 

[Udarnik]

Well, certainly there are conspiracies, and certainly conspirators would benefit by hiding behind their denials of same. But Scientology is a criminal conspiracy, as repeatedly demonstrated and acknowledged in the courts. A recent example is the ruling against the organization in France. The organization was also convicted in Canada in the 90's of Breach of Public Trust. So the presence of conspiracy theories or theorizing can not be unhealthy on its face. Scientologists acting in concert on Department 20 programs and targets, do act in conspiracy against rights of people not even in Scientology. I don't know what outlying behavior you are talking about, or to whom you are referring. But since you say it's on this board, can you please identify as many of these instances that show alarming tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories.

Labeling is written into basic Scientology. For example: the Be-Do-Have scale from Fundamentals of Thought. Scientologists learn to determine what is to be gotten, attained, etc., and work back from that "havingness" to identify what they have to do, and then work back from the "doingness" to identify who they have to be, their "beingness." The beingness is a label. Every post is a label. Every clay demo requires labels. The point is that recovering Scientologists may be particularly sensitive to labeling, due to this underlying infantile and damaging programming.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Illuminati or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion type of conspiracy theories. Serious belief in something such as "Chariots of the Gods".

I've had interactions with members of both the Russian and Chinese mafia, I KNOW there are actual conspirators out there. It's just that they are usually more prosaic and petty than the conspiracy theorists make them out to be.

 

[Lermanet_com]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Illuminati or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion type of conspiracy theories. Serious belief in something such as "Chariots of the Gods".

I've had interactions with members of both the Russian and Chinese mafia, I KNOW there are actual conspirators out there. It's just that they are usually more prosaic and petty than the conspiracy theorists make them out to be.

Remind me to start a new thread about my dinner with one of the ten richest men in America at the time...

 

[TG1]

This was great, TG1.

I see what you are saying now.

And no, I have never run into anyone like this, except for L Ron Hubbard in his more florid moments.

So do you believe that this person is a person with poisonous, manipulative behaviors towards others that they are presently and habitually acting out?

Or do you think this person's brain and other organs are actually different from other human beings', and that if only the right test can be administered, we will see the alien physical nature of their "true" biology?

Alanzo

Alanzo, I'm glad to hear you finally see what I was saying. I continue to be amazed that you've never run into anyone like this.

Your either/or question doesn't seem like an either/or question to me, but two different questions, both of which might be true.

Yes, I think my personal assistant had manipulative behaviors toward me. I don't know how poisonous they were. I think she didn't care enough about me to regard me "poisonously," but instead thought of me as a mark she needed to play. I would bet big money she's treating her current colleagues and acquaintances the same way she treated me, her in-laws, her immediate prior employer, and probably (giving her the "innocent until proven guilty" benefit of the doubt) her California employer.

With regard to your question about whether our genetic makeup categorically determines our social behaviors, I don't know. We're just starting to learn about the human genome and its many variances. Nature (inherited attributes and instincts) and nurture (gestational, early childhood, teen, and adult experiences and models) both have an impact on us. However, I'm starting to give more weight to the Nature aspects of humans than I once did.

We have thrown these "nature" and "nurture" concepts around for eons, even though we keep changing their definitions. For thousands of years humans have built practical philosophies that manifest themselves in aphorisms and social policies about marriage, mating, and child-bearing:

The Bible: "Bring up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." (Nurture)

Taboos: Incest is heavily forbidden and punished in most societies. (Nature)

Eugenics has been attempted and practiced by multiple societies that have tried to "improve humanity." For instance, Plato and Aristotle debate eugenics social policies would curl most people's hair. (Nature)

tl;dr Yes, she acted sociopathically and had for a long time and broadly with many people, so I'm comfortable classifying her as a sociopath. I don't know what relative contributions her nature and her nurture contributed her sociopathic condition.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Remind me to start a new thread about my dinner with one of the ten richest men in America at the time...

Hey Arnie,

Just reminding you to start a new thread about your dinner with one of the ten richest men in America at the time.

 

[BardoThodol]

The use of denial and distancing oneself from the abuse are forms of what is called cognitive dissonance. In abusive relationships this means that what is happening to the victim is so horrible, so far removed from their thoughts and expectations of the world, that it is “dissonant” or “out of tune” or “at odds” with their pre-existing expectations and reality. Since the victim feels powerless to change the situation, they rely on emotional strategies to try to make it less dissonant, to try to somehow make it fit. To cope with the contradicting behaviors of the abuser, and to survive the abuse, the person literally has to change how they perceive reality. Studies also show a person is more loyal and committed to a person or situation that is difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating, and the more the victim has invested in the relationship, the more they need to justify their position. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful “self-preservation” mechanism which can completely distort and override the truth, with the victim developing a tolerance for the abuse and “normalizing” the abusers behavior, despite evidence to the contrary.

[/QUOTE]

This has probably been commented on before, but it's interesting how Scientology emphasizes the benefit of "being exterior."

Interesting that Hubbard cultivated a dissociative state in his followers.

It's not that I don't believe there is a difference between the spiritual and material being, but to actually cultivate a feeling that what is happening really has nothing to do with you...

I mean, you're supposed to be exterior, and it's all happening there not here.

After all, there really is no "here" because the static has no location in space or time.

And the "there" is just a lie. So who cares what's happening to a "there" which is simply false and not really real?

Certainly sets the stage for cognitive dissonance and traumatic bonding.

I would imagine that part of the scheme was continuously pounding followers with the idea that "it's all going to end soon if we don't do something." The stress is tremendous. And one is not given time to examine what is happening. All these horrible things that the person is experiencing is justified away in comparison to what could be happening or what will be happening.

 

[BardoThodol]

I agree, Purple. "Stalking psychopaths" is what one person who wrote a book on psychopaths calls this activity, further describing it as an activity that can reduce the stalker's humanity and empathy, turning the "stalker" into a bit of a psychopath him- or herself.

Proving, as my husband says, that some people could fuck up a wet dream.

Technically, if it gets fucked up, meaning that it's ended prematurely, it isn't a wet dream.

It's a dry-hump dream.

All sorts of apparently fucked up stuff can occur prior to climax, but when the climax comes, who cares?

Like make up sex; who cares about the argument and discord at that point?

Just saying.

Technically.

 

[BardoThodol]

Man, I can't keep up with all you guys.

One of the major concerns here seems to be the list of attributes for a sociopath or psychopath, many of which we all share to one degree or other.

The thing that distinguishes such individuals and all who are evil is the complete lack of conscience.

Such an individual just does not care for you or anyone else, could care less if you suffer, actually usually enjoys seeing you suffer.

Whatever term you want to throw at such individuals, we are all nothing to them except something to be used.

All the other traits follow suite.

Such individuals can be intelligent or not, charming or not, athletic or not, artistic or not--or whatever other attribute you want to examine. They can be driven to conquer the world, or too lazy to get out of bed.

If you have any degree of caring for the well being of others, you just are not what's being examined and labeled here.

A serial killer who does stuff to get caught most likely isn't a sociopath or whatever label you choose for this, because somewhere that person is feeling remorse about what he's doing and wants to stop. A person without a conscience isn't going to want to stop or get caught because he has no remorse. Period.

His victims deserve what they get.

But, then again, most of us feel that our victims deserve what they get. But, often, deep down, under all the justification, we know that they didn't and feel a bit bad for them.

As long as we have any conscience at all.

 

[Udarnik]

Man, I can't keep up with all you guys.

One of the major concerns here seems to be the list of attributes for a sociopath or psychopath, many of which we all share to one degree or other.

The thing that distinguishes such individuals and all who are evil is the complete lack of conscience.

Such an individual just does not care for you or anyone else, could care less if you suffer, actually usually enjoys seeing you suffer.

Whatever term you want to throw at such individuals, we are all nothing to them except something to be used.

All the other traits follow suite.

Such individuals can be intelligent or not, charming or not, athletic or not, artistic or not--or whatever other attribute you want to examine. They can be driven to conquer the world, or too lazy to get out of bed.

If you have any degree of caring for the well being of others, you just are not what's being examined and labeled here.

A serial killer who does stuff to get caught most likely isn't a sociopath or whatever label you choose for this, because somewhere that person is feeling remorse about what he's doing and wants to stop. A person without a conscience isn't going to want to stop or get caught because he has no remorse. Period.

His victims deserve what they get.

But, then again, most of us feel that our victims deserve what they get. But, often, deep down, under all the justification, we know that they didn't and feel a bit bad for them.

As long as we have any conscience at all.

BT, there is some evidence that sociopaths can turn empathy on and off. And I think there area a number of partial sociopaths out there who have an impaired sense of empathy, or who need to be reminded time and again to turn up the volume. This is especially true if NPD is laid on top of the sociopathy.

 

[BardoThodol]

BT, there is some evidence that sociopaths can turn empathy on and off. And I think there area a number of partial sociopaths out there who have an impaired sense of empathy, or who need to be reminded time and again to turn up the volume. This is especially true if NPD is laid on top of the sociopathy.

Yes, some sociopaths have a very high social intelligence.

They can be extremely charming. They can look at you with such apparent appreciation that you feel as if you're the only person in the world that matters. And you just want to give them everything.

It's roleplaying to the extreme.

But, in the end, you're just a pawn in their game, something to use and toss aside.

Like Madoff. Like Hubbard. Like so many politicians.

But, just because some can do it, doesn't mean all can. There's a wide spectrum of capacity and talent amongst all of us--including those without a conscience.

And that's the difference: lack of conscience, and probably no way of growing or attaining or getting one other than pretending.

 

[BardoThodol]

It always raises a red flag for me... but then I was in Silicon Valley during the "boom". It gets ugly.

And yet, I got sucked into the cult, so my word might not be golden. But, yeah... sit in on almost any freaking PR meeting thing for a corporation and it'll probably turn your stomach if you have a soul. Bottom line becomes shareholders.

OK, Clammie needs a good fluffy movie on Netflix... seriously... this is just bumming me out and I need a laugh or two. Jeepers (and I'm noticing I'm also using jeepers a lot, which I thought I'd never do unless I was at least 20 years older....need netflix recommendations NOW--I finally watched all of Louis CK)

Jeepers, you mean Lucky Louie?

Too bad it got cancelled. Had some hilarious insights about life and relationships.

 

[TG1]

Yes, some sociopaths have a very high social intelligence.

They can be extremely charming. They can look at you with such apparent appreciation that you feel as if you're the only person in the world that matters. And you just want to give them everything.

Like this?

"In 1960, Robert Hare took a job as the resident psychologist in a maximum-security prison about twenty miles outside Vancouver. On his first day, a tall, slim, dark-haired inmate came into his office and said, “Hey, Doc, how’s it going? Look, I’ve got a problem. I need your help.” Hare later wrote of this encounter, “The air around him seemed to buzz, and the eye contact he made with me was so direct and intense that I wondered if I had ever really looked anybody in the eye before.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=all

 

[Free Being Me]

Yes, some sociopaths have a very high social intelligence.

They can be extremely charming. They can look at you with such apparent appreciation that you feel as if you're the only person in the world that matters. And you just want to give them everything.

It's roleplaying to the extreme.

But, in the end, you're just a pawn in their game, something to use and toss aside.

Like Madoff. Like Hubbard. Like so many politicians.

But, just because some can do it, doesn't mean all can. There's a wide spectrum of capacity and talent amongst all of us--including those without a conscience.

And that's the difference: lack of conscience, and probably no way of growing or attaining or getting one other than pretending.

Exactly, and at that's why understanding the mechanics of manipulation and the manipulative tools used is a way to be self informed.

 

[BardoThodol]

You decide with your own core values with this core value list for example what is right or wrong and the questionable shades in between contrasting a person using manipulation in the proper context. I don't decide this, not the guy fixing your car or the lady you're having tea with ... you do.

The common tendencies listed for a narcissist, a sociopath, a psychopath are again general guide lines within the scope of psychology as currently understood and new concepts are examined and old ones are discarded regarding behavior as our comprehension grows. It's the tools available at the moment. I'll return again saying such people have a common theme of using manipulation to control others which in itself is why if nothing else, understanding the tendencies and behaviors empowers a person to evaluate for themselves what is manipulation.

That doesn't mean labeling people, enacting witch hunts (no one has suggested anything of the kind, at least I haven't) or that because someone is manipulative that they are a sociopath et al. It's being self informed. Understanding manipulation will serve much better than the moral outrage label card.

Instead let's be outraged at what manipulation achieves. Cults, abusive relationships, Pathocracies, scams, cons, and trauma bonded victims.

Wonder if manipulation isn't also used at the other end of the spectrum: to accomplish some good.

Perhaps, manipulation has too many negative connotations, but influencing another's behavior subtly or overtly can sometimes be very beneficial.

My wife is constantly manipulating my behavior. I'm a slob, self-absorbed, neglectful, etc. Over the years, under her tutelage, I think I've grown to be a much more positive version of myself.

Or, another example, the KC Chiefs are now 7-0 after being 2-14 last year. Their coach manipulates the players attitudes to get them to win. Listening to the players being interviewed makes me believe it's a good manipulation.

We all want to influence one another. I want to influence my children, make them feel good about themselves, competent enough to succeed with what they choose and satisfied with what they do. I want them to live a full and meaningful life. But, let them choose how they do it.

 

[BardoThodol]

Like this?

"In 1960, Robert Hare took a job as the resident psychologist in a maximum-security prison about twenty miles outside Vancouver. On his first day, a tall, slim, dark-haired inmate came into his office and said, “Hey, Doc, how’s it going? Look, I’ve got a problem. I need your help.” Hare later wrote of this encounter, “The air around him seemed to buzz, and the eye contact he made with me was so direct and intense that I wondered if I had ever really looked anybody in the eye before.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=all

'xactly

 

[BardoThodol]

Exactly, and at that's why understanding the mechanics of manipulation and the manipulative tools used is a way to be self informed.

As well as being socially informed.

Social cognizance changes as our understanding improves.

The US government is a mess. Mostly because of the influence of individuals who fall under what's being discussed here. If the population understood how politicians manipulate and how to identify those who would bring great harm to society then perhaps we could be better informed in voting, thus changing the political landscape.

Unfortunately, the information stream (such as advertising) is often controlled by those who have the least conscience.

And that information stream can be used to lie about anyone, and make evil seem beneficial and good detrimental.

Sigh.

What's a puppy to do?

 

[clamicide]

Jeepers, you mean Lucky Louie?

Too bad it got cancelled. Had some hilarious insights about life and relationships.

Actually no... just "Louie". Haven't seen "Lucky Louie". "Louie debuted a couple years ago and is about a fictionalized version of himself. Freaking hilarious, and dark.

 

[Udarnik]

Wonder if manipulation isn't also used at the other end of the spectrum: to accomplish some good.

Perhaps, manipulation has too many negative connotations, but influencing another's behavior subtly or overtly can sometimes be very beneficial.

My wife is constantly manipulating my behavior. I'm a slob, self-absorbed, neglectful, etc. Over the years, under her tutelage, I think I've grown to be a much more positive version of myself.

Or, another example, the KC Chiefs are now 7-0 after being 2-14 last year. Their coach manipulates the players attitudes to get them to win. Listening to the players being interviewed makes me believe it's a good manipulation.

We all want to influence one another. I want to influence my children, make them feel good about themselves, competent enough to succeed with what they choose and satisfied with what they do. I want them to live a full and meaningful life. But, let them choose how they do it.

I think that's why we have two verbs with overlapping meanings but significantly different connotations: influence and manipulate.

Myself, I prefer modulate. That's what I do with my kids' independent behavior. Encourage it in the right venues, but try to teach them when to just shut up and do what needs to be done. Everyone needs a volume knob. On both their good traits, and their bad ones.

 

[Enthetan]

Alanzo, never having met you before, I don't know if you're a sociopath. I don't know how anyone could tell that on a message board.

Unlike you, I think sociopaths exist. They don't all commit capital crimes. They're leaders in communities, companies, schools, online communities, government, hospitals, law firms, construction crews, police forces, and bars. They're also seconds-in-command and powers behind the throne. They're not that rare.

And they're not that ridiculous thing we used to call "suppressive persons."

One of my bosses was a sociopath. I hired one once as my personal assistant. I hired a gardener last summer who was one.

I've had a lot of psychological training. So has my husband, who retired as a homicide detective after having had all the other cop jobs a person has to have to become one. He worked vice, child abuse, domestic abuse, and was a street cop in one of the toughest areas of a major U.S. city. He has seen more horror than most people on this board could imagine. After retiring as a police officer, he was a case worker on "murderers' row" in a large prison.

Since I posted the OP on this thread, he and I have been talking about it at dinnertime. He says a lot of people who get in trouble with the law or wind up in prison have just had a lot of bad luck in their lives or were on drugs or drunk when they did things that had terrible results. But he also has met his share of severe sociopaths and psychopaths in real life and in prison. He says prisoners can recognize the really bad ones faster than anyone.

When I posted this OP it never occurred to me that anyone would take from the OP that a single or even a few of those traits or even most of them exhibited rarely (not regularly) by a person would nominate them as possible sociopaths. If your "logical fallacy" post was meant to suggest that that's what the OP meant, then you have misread the OP, misunderstood it, you're being disingenuous, or you have some other reason to mischaracterize it.

I'm really glad I started this thread. It's turned into something I never expected it would. I have really enjoyed everyone's perspective, the additional information others have contributed here, and the often heartfelt debating. I don't think about sociopaths very much, but I think it's smart to think about them sometimes. They can cause a terrific amount of damage.

TG1

P.S. I don't even remember your interactions with Free to Shine or Bardol.

Like I said up-thread, I think there is a spectrum of sociopathy, corresponding to the degree of empathy and concern for others that a person has, and it's arbitrary to draw the line at any particular point and say "people with this level of concern or less are sociopaths".

I also think that there are people who are able to compartmentalize their feelings, for example having empathy for their kids and friends, but none for enemies who would harm them.