Honey, I'm home...
I have to respond one more time. Consider this statement: "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU." I'll bet that your attention! After further reflection--and especially on my own overblown and antagonistic reaction to a post, a post that seemed to reach out of the faceless chaos of cyberspace, at a time when I deactivate my social media to avoid pointless distraction and conflict, and like a psychic communication, or demonic infestation that crawls through my walls and invades my reclusive little existence to bite me on the ass--I am still left with a sense of self-loathing for railing against to the chattering voices that tell me things that I have zero interest in hearing about, and always seem to leave me looking like a lunatic, which I clearly am. But besides my own affliction, I am left with a separate but equal loathing of the mindset that thinks the way the author of this article thinks. Unfortunately for me, it is people with this mindset that seem to have defined the infrastructure of institutions and power of this society; a society that, I feel, is marked by warped reason, false justice, ugliness, misplaced compassion and blind devotion to policies and solutions that make difficult matters worse. If I erred in my initial reactions, it was that I let my internal torment spew out into the public square, so I only have myself to blame for my humiliation. And some might mistake my blunt criticism for a lack of mercy. To that, I would argue that fierce and uncompromising debate never offends mercy, especially if it furthers the cause of discerning what is true and not true. And if I continue to err, it is that I imagine someone might even read my words and actually care. Regardless, I will purge the poison in my soul one more time in my quest for redemption and sainthood and continue to argue with myself. And I will do it here, since if I want a real fight, then I will take it to my tormentors in person...but alas! My vow of non-violence to God precludes the administering of poison to anyone, even myself, and instead of lashing out at my imaginary tormentors, I will take the author to task on an article that I feel is bunk.
Why is it bunk?
It is like all intellectual tripe: it lacks the focus of a definition. True science and true rational discourse states it's thesis or hypothesis up front and defines its terms; logic starts with an axiom or premise and proceeds down a logical line of causal events to assert a fact, theory or unsolved question, and when leaps of logic are made, then they are clearly spelled out. It is not clear in the article what exactly a 'sociopath' is? Is it a mass murderer? A cult leader? An overly ambitious, self-centered narcissist? Is it someone who does not conform to social conventions? Someone who creates chaos in the community? The mental health industry has clearly defined personality disorders, but there is no mention of them in this article. This article bares the usual mark of progressive error: fuzzy terms, vague accusations and nonsensical correlations. The sheer shallowness of this article and the conspicuous absence of anything that resembles sound science is made evident in the frequent and comical disclaimers, like: "not all sexy people are sociopaths.” Oh, thank God! I was worried that my choir leader might be one!
Another mark of such tripe is the lack of legitimate data gained by legitimate methods. There are so many unsubstantiated claims asserted as fact that it would be funny if it was not spreading error. This 4% is such nonsense! 1 in 25 people are incapable of 'feeling' love? Really? What hogwash! 'Love' is not a feeling! It is an action...or rather, the only way to sense that it is present is by its effects in the physical realm. This notion of 'feeling' anything needs to be explained. And what is meant by 'love?' Is the ability to bond intimately, romantically? And behavior and perceptions--such things as remorse, guilt, empathy, etc--is driven by such a complex interplay of chemical, electrical, anatomical, physiological factors that to suggest that we humans are capable of reading the heart, mind and soul of another person reveals that this author is not only ignorant of brain science, but also the Nature of Man--specifically, humanity's shared 'fallen nature'. For example, this article presents an inability to bond as some indication of derangement (being a sociopath)--it is portrayed in a negative light, some kind if moral deficiency, something to be feared and marked as possible sociopathy (whatever than means?). But what if a person struggles to connect with people because of some kind of abuse they suffered. Or what if a woman's ability to produce oxytocin has been damaged by toxic exposure or brain trauma? For such people, who know only loneliness, their suffering is increased as people who know nothing of human behavior, the ones who fill the positions of the social sciences and law enforcement, project moral judgments like 'sociopath.' For real insight into understanding behavior, insight based on REAL, EMPIRICAL data, then checkout the brain imaging work of Daniel Amen, MD.
Again, the mark of science and reason is in its predictive value. This business of 'spotting' a sociopath is made absurd in its 10 points that use personality traits that describe the majority of the great writers, artists, actors, teachers, musicians, thinkers, etc., down through the centuries. There is zero predictive value in these ten points, since they describe way more people that are not sociopaths than are. Manson was a sociopath because he was complicit in a murder. There are only two ways to predict a sociopath: 1) what they do, and 2) what they say they are going to do. But even 2) is not really predictive, because EVERYONE says things that they have no intention of carrying out. When someone says, "I'm gonna kill you!" (Who reading this has never heard this or said it themselves?) Does anyone really believe it? Not usually. So really there is only one sure way to predict a sociopath: by what they have already done.
Another absurdity of the 10 points is designating risk takers or those with a willingness to breach the social contract. What social contract? I openly 'breach the social contract.' I could care less about social convention and norms...such things have no correlation to morality. Does my defiance mark me as a sociopath? I view my defiance as a civil duty to resist the forces of big government intrusion and tyranny. I am a native to Colorado. I have watch all of the gems of open space and wilderness by bulldozed and terra-scaped. And what is left is fenced in and over-regulated. The full range of the minutia of human activity is spelled out in suffocating legalese. Vast fortunes of our country's wealth is squandered securing the borders of others but not our own. My child was murdered under the euphemism 'women's health.' On and on and on... Am I a sociopath because I refuse to give into the social convention and norms that seeks to control the lives of 'The People'? The real danger presented to society is not the breach of contract by misfits and hell-raisers. It is the breach of contract that occurred long ago by the ruling classes (I'm not talking about the rich). It is the abuse of the public trust that spends $4,000,000 to prosecute a murderer who admits to the murders. It is the breach of common decency that dehumanizes and abuses drug users while the most lethal drugs, alcohol and cigarettes are sold on every corner. It is these breaches and many more that lead this sociopath to conclude, 'fuck your social contracts and fuck your ten points!'
...say tuned for a diatribe on 7 points of self empowerment that imparts such powerful techniques personal growth as planting non-GMO seeds, quitting your job at Big Pharma and the pesticide factory...good grief! I guess all those blood pressure and cholesterol meds are impeding your ability to spot and defend against sociopaths...and so is pest control! Somehow the devastation that a generation of fruit fly could do to our food supply is somehow subservient to being empowered to spot a sociopath. Since the 7 points of personal empowerment are absence any of the proven and timeless principles of empowerment, like the 10 commandments or even the 12 steps & 12 traditions that lead a soul and mind into the light of truth, but instead assert sociopathic principles, like reliance on following 'your own inner truth,' I have no doubt that a mind like this might have conned a paycheck, but will never spot a true sociopath, like the BTK killer who displayed none of the ten points.