Law# 2 - NEVER PUT TOO MUCH TRUST IN FRIENDS - Sociopathic, or not?

I guess it might if we all trusted our friends to carry whatever burden we give them as we would carry it ourselves. Full trust. True friends are essentially mirrors in that way wrt trust issues, IMO. That said, most friendships are glorified acquaintanceships. Very rare is the friendship that handles as much trust as we handle ourselves. In this rare narrative of friendship, there is no such beast as too much trust because we would never look at the mirror and reflect on that point ... we do trust ourselves to infinity (no matter what popular psychologists say about having, increasing, or decreasing self-trust). Because there are varying intensities of the friendship relation, then the definition of friend is not enough to solve the issue ... for the rare friendship can indeed solve the issue, but the common friendship remains confounded by it. IMO.

As much trust as we give ourselves in an empathic interaction. Do unto others as we would do unto ourselves ... that sorta thing. Probably not if one or both parties bear sociopathic intentions in the interaction; in which case we are looking at extending little or no trust as the wiser option. The empaths are ordered by their good intentions to let down their protective shields until a situation arises where their placement of trust is breached ... but up until the breach point, the normal course of an empath is to extend trust and keep on extending it.

Discovering the state of too much trust ... is the result of crossing the breach point. This discovery cannot be made short of the breach point. Ex post facto.

When Greene instructs never to extend too much trust to friends, he commits three errors. One, he uses the quantifier "never" and that prevents one from ever getting too close to anybody, not even empaths ... and distance from empaths is distance from empathy (which is necessarily sociopathic on the empath-sociopath continuum axis). Two, he locks himself out from accessing an understanding of "too much" for that requires going beyond the breach point, whereas Greene is sermonizing without any consideration for the breach point. Three, he is abusing the definition of friendship by shifting the center of mass towards the self and away from the midpoint of the friendship. When the center of mass is displaced from its natural equilibrium, you have an unbalanced friendship ... and trust issues are subverted into power issues. When the power issues of the seeking "friend" replace the mutual trust issues of both ... then the weaker "friend" must defer to the stronger to maintain the friendship else the friendship falls apart. But if it doesn't fall apart, it is maintained only with the energy of a master-slave dynamic. And that is inescapably sociopathic, IMO.

Actually there is a fourth error, but not so much an error as an orientation ...and that is this: Greene 's advice against extending too much trust goes against the empath's natural grain of extending trust incrementally, indefinitely, until trust is breached. So Greene stands against empathy, which is inherently sociopathic.

Here, I would like to add that sociopathy is a byproduct of civil construction. In the pristine jungle, there is no such thing as sociopathy, only the instincts of survival. If mankind wishes to go back to the jungle, then the coinage itself would disappear. The coinage only appears because progressive memes are in play ... and right and rightness can be differentiated from might and mightness. What Greene's laws are essentially proposing is a return to the instincts of self ... self-survival, self-empowerment, self-centeredness, etc. In this proposed return, trust concerns are but a faint humming noise noticed only when the jaws stop grinding on the carcass, momentarily, to allow the ears to scan the immediate environment (just in case bigger jaws are lurking the wings to snatch the bounty away).

Depends on the level of trust in the friendship. Once again, too much trust is only discovered when trust is breached.

You will find the answer to all those questions when the trust is breached, and not before. Indeed, not uncommon are cases where we refuse to extend enough trust (e.g. far short of the putative breach point) ... and we then miss the protection that would have been offered by bonafide empaths. Greene's law is unwise because its catching net makes no distinction between empaths and sociopaths. It keeps the angels at bay as much as it does the devils.

The definition of friend above has wide breadth ... and that necessarily means a wide range of trust intensities. Greene does not consider the wide breadth in the definition of friend nor does he distinguish the array of trust intensities.


Pax

 

I'm glad LightestSon has created a subforum here for the stuff that doesn't involve ideas but which does accommodate the devolved, and also provides a space for those offended by the devolved to defend themselves. I will point to that thread now ... and suggest you take your posturing over there, Chico. If you want to continue messing up this larger website and general purpose forum by dragging my name around so that you can call me a sociopath every second thread (as per your ongoing abuse of the term) ... then you'll have to do it alone until the administrators here get tired of your mental illness.


Pax

 

You are behaving badly, as usual, Zook. Sociopaths are like that.

You've already played these same con-games at UP many times. I suggest you quit polluting this forum with them. Please take it back to UP, where I have the patience and storage space to accommodate your BS.

 

One only knows how much a friend can handle by putting more and more trust on them ... until they crack and breach that trust, e.g. reach the state of too much, at which point we realize how much they can handle.

Greene's Law #2 might have some value if he had written "Never again put too much trust" ... implying ex post facto. But that only pertains to a friend by friend basis. Friend, in the singular. But Greene refers to "friends" in the plural.

IOW, a logical implication of Greene's statement is that if a particular friend's weight-bearing capacity is discovered, then that specific capacity becomes the default standard with respect to extending trust to all friends. He advises caution against all friends, even those to be acquired at a future time. Alas, you lose a good many close relationships that way, not to mention a good many empaths caught in the net set to protect oneself from sociopaths. The overall result is an increase in sociopathy in society, e.g. by breeding mistrust. East Germany and the Stasi system of informing on each other is a great example of what happens to society when people withhold trust in the duty of being cautious to a fault (e.g. too much), which first begins higher on the slippery slope with simply being cautious.

Another byproduct of Greene's law #2 is that it removes the distinction between empaths and sociopaths by treating them both the same wrt trust issues. Mistrusting sociopaths is understandable, is rational. Mistrusting empaths is irrational. Greene makes no distinction between the rational and the irrational.

Already from just three laws, we can recognize the mold of Machiavelli that created Greene ... and the value of deceit being advised for those seeking power. Alas, those seeking power over others are seeking an adult-child relationship with their fellow human beings. That may be empathic in the narrative of parent and child; but in the narrative of adults, it is inescapably sociopathic. IMO.


Pax

 

I dont like the vague generality of the presentation for this second law .

if you dont know how much a friend can handle from sharing life and experience with them id say your a shitty friend lol

 

Yes, but how is anyone to gauge how much trust a friend can hold? In metallurgy, if I'm not mistaken, they test metals to find out the weight-bearing capacity of that metal ... and usually decrease the recorded capacity by 50% to give a safety factor of 2.

Greene's Law #2 alludes to "too much" ... which is a descriptor for quantification. So how does one quantify the trustworthiness of a friend if not by finding the breaching point first ... and then putting in one's own subjective safety factors?

The breaching point is always ex post facto.

The logical implication of this is that one must trust a friend too much before one then stops trusting them that much again or at all.

Which, of course, is contradictory to Greene's law #2 which advises that one must never trust too much.


Pax

 

I said I wouldn't post in this thread again, but my integrity is being questioned and the pathological lying of Chico is just a bit much, even for my tolerance levels. Okay, Sherlock ... let's see the ban vote of UP1. You can post the link on the forum LightestSon created, for this thread is already off-topic.

I'm interested in finding out just how many of Screech Owl's sockpuppets (and shit-stirring friends) that you allowed to invade the forum prior to my contrived ban, actually voted ... and whether their votes carried the day over the combined positive vote on my behalf by the rest of the membership not named Chico, Mags, or Andy.

I say there were insufficient votes without the Screech Owl's sockpuppets and her mischief-minded friends some or all of whom you unilaterally later banned when you recreated UP1 as UP2, e.g. because Screech Owl and her associates had effectively destroyed UP1 and were beginning to attack you).

You imply there were sufficient votes even without Screech Owl and her associates, i.e. that mine was a clean ban and not a contrived ban.

Let's settle this once and for all ... where is the link to the voting list that banned UncleZook on UP1? (This ought to be interesting.) After all, every post ever made is preserved at United People, right?


Pax

 

facepalm

When you resort to mountains of lies, Zook, that's when I leave you to hang yourself. The United People forum has every post ever made in its one and current incarnation, which tells the true story of what happened there to anyone who wants to dig into it. I can't be bothered to refute the lies you now deliver en masse with such outrageous bravado. Anyone who wants to believe your twisted version of history is welcome to it. I would simply advise that they consider the Law of Truth #2 that this thread inspired -- Don't trust sociopaths, ever!

 

Actually , the idea behind it is so that argument doesn't ruin a thread and its taken to the level of jerry springer on purpose , why not make stupid shit fun ? lol

and this law Has anyone ever heard , don't trust your friends with more then they can handle because they will begin to resent you ? good advice i think

 

Mea culpa. You did mention "on this page" which I misread as "on this specific Law#2".

Mine too.

But first, let me apprise you of what exactly transpired. Note that I was focused only on Greene and his "laws" ... up until Chico made post #16 with an unprovoked ad hominem attack against yours truly and diverted the focus. Then you piled on with post #18 with a strange post that made no sense and had no bearing to Greene's Law#2. And this was followed up by a post where Chico introduced Zimbardo into the thread.

Chico's ad hominem in this post:
http://www.inphinet.net/threads/law...-in-friends-sociopathic-or-not.410/#post-4679

Rose's steering committee decided to go off ramp with this post::
http://www.inphinet.net/threads/law...-in-friends-sociopathic-or-not.410/#post-4683

Chico introducing Zimbardo, and basically distorting Zimbardo's conclusions because they shatter his morrisdancing on the subject matter for the fat part of the past two years on his own forum.
http://www.inphinet.net/threads/law...-in-friends-sociopathic-or-not.410/#post-4690

It was at this point that I myself went off course to defend myself against Chico's ad hominems ...and against his distortion of Zimbardo's findings ... with my own post #21 ... to begin page 2 of this thread.
http://www.inphinet.net/threads/law...iends-sociopathic-or-not.410/page-2#post-4697


If the good readers examine the sequence of posts, I'm completely exonerated. Chico is the primary culprit. And Rose, by ignoring the sequence of events is less culpable but not exculpable, for she ignores Chico's ad hominem insurrection and decides to attack me with weird contributions like post #18 and then later, the post with the 9.5 hour video/audio of Bertrand Russell that had nothing to offer to the discussion. I doubt that - with her attention span being informed by "incredible dullness" - that she even watched much of the Bertrand Russell video before her eyelids weighed in and commenced the snoring that could awaken an elephant a thousand miles away. (You'll pardon me, I'm trying not to be incredibly dull.)

I don't appreciate the audacity it then takes to turn this sequence of posts and repackage it as Zook's circular logic.

We probably lost a good contributor in Shezbeth. And only my empathy still keeps me here, because I really do want to understand what exactly is being promoted as sociopathy (and, too, empathy). Of course, if you'd rather I leave now, Rose, I will oblige. This is your forum. And I didn't arrive to create trouble but to create genuine discussion. If you want to find the actual source of any trouble that has arrived on this forum, inspect that person or persons initiating the ad hominems. You will have your culprit.


Pax

ps: FWIW, I only know Shezbeth by his arguments here. But based on his arguments, he at least attempts to discuss ideas. Which leaves me puzzled as to why he was made to feel unwelcome here.

 

Most of my posts - except perhaps these last two taking you to task for your mischief - were on topic. Indeed, my very first post in this thread was only about Greene's Law no. 2

How silly of you to present to your readers otherwise ... after all, they can read the posts in this thread themselves.

But thanx for warning me of your incredible lack of interest in the topic of sociopathy. You are here just to have a website and be tickled by the power it offers. Ironically, Chico falls into the same category. He has his own forum, too. I guess power does attract a certain sort.


Pax

ps: Btw, your Bruno Mars video was completely off-topic ... but hey, as an administrator, that's your privilege and power play. applauseee

ps2: And no one's going to buy your story about incredible dullness having to be countered ... not after you presented a 9.5 hour tome on incredible dullness masquerading as a Bertrand Russell video/audio.

 

You can do better than that, Rose. I explicitly pointed back to United People's archives as the place where Chico and I had descended into him calling me a sociopath at all opportunities ... and me calling Chico a gatekeeper and fifth columnist in tandem. That forum had long stopped being about ideas and civil discourse, and largely because Chico always initiates innuendo and I'm forced to react to defend myself and the truths. So ... when I stated that I did not want to bring that energy to this forum/website/whatever where you are an administrator ... why did you point me to a place where both Chico and I could create more bad energy?

To my credit, I did not want the bad energy here, so I ignored your offer. To your discredit, you ignored the fact that I did not want to bring the bad energy here (explicitly stated) and even tried to stoke the bad energy by showing me the way to LightestSon's forum, which I was not made aware to that point.

Owning up to one's own mischief is not mandated, true enough ... but it is expected that an administrator of a "pootative" healthy forum striving for repute would admit their mistakes when they are pointed out to them.

Pax

 

Rose, I'm not sure your intent is consistent with your previous efforts to deride my arguments (e.g. by making silly remarks about my usage of quantum sense) <------ was it really that hard to grasp after I explained the metaphor as it pertains to physics?

You also pointed me to a forum that another member created here that was more or less intended for boxing matches between members (after I had indicated that Chico and I had tussled often at his forum but that I wanted to keep our interactions here restricted to ideas alone; of course, he is doing his best to bring the fight here) <----- is that really the intent of someone who wants to exchange ideas; or someone who wants to recreate Jerry Springer to get more hits on her forum?

And most recently, you presented a 9.5 hour video that has no bearing on the discussion of Greene's 2nd law or sociopathy in general. <----- is that a genuine pursuit of ideas, or timewasting because genuine time spent on the issue of sociopathy itself might just create problems for your own narrative of sociopathy?

Ask yourself those questions with honest introspection, Rose, and see whether you wouldn't be put off yourself if the shoes had been reversed?

Getting back on topic, no ... the 9.5 hour video has very little to do with cognitive biases of ageism. I'll simply point you to one example where there would be a cognitive bias. I wouldn't expect Democritus to deliver a lecture on the atom in the 21st century, or throw tomatoes at him if he does. I would, however, expect Democritus (or any of the great Greeks of antiquity) to deliver a lecture on human nature and would throw tomatoes at him if his observations were subpar. For knowledge of human nature hasn't changed all that much, whereas knowledge of the atom has much more resolution today. Apples and oranges. All the advanced civilizations had sufficient knowledge of human nature to delineate the good seeds from the bad seeds. I would even argue that someone like Socrates might have better understandings because they are not thinking within the confines of an agenda, like most of the modern and hypermoderm quasi-scholars (who were and are being purchased with tribal fiat money).

No. Not a heuristic leap. When ideas are being discussed, the author(s) and authority are less important than realtime discussion of said ideas. One of the most common fallacies around is argument by fallacy of appeal to authority. Indeed, you see this everyday where on virtually all topics of import, you find the vast majority cowed down by the authority of the propaganda boxes ... and in such a cowed state, have lost the ability to think independently for themselves. They redirect back to authority for all their basic needs. No wonder the elites have an easy time of it.


Pax

 

I'm not going to waste time trying to reason with a delusional mind.

But let me dissect the first of Chico's 7 contentions above, expose the lie/distortion in it ... and let the readers here decide for themselves by pointing to the archives at United People, now in its third incarnation after Chico knowingly allowed sockpuppets to ruin UP1 (without said sockpuppets, he did not have the votes to ban me) ... then Chico tagged up with Mags and Andy (I no longer have any problems with Andy because he has seen Chico's autocratic behavior which includes banning Andy himself a few times) to ban me from UP2 ... and now finally, with Mags no longer participating in the forum due to his own conflict with Chico, Chico has full power to ban me without jury and has indeed threatened to ban me by accusing me of trolling when I occasionally create fresh threads on the topic of sociopathy (while he himself infects every topic that is being attempted with some link to sociopaths and sociopathy, not least by calling me a sociopath at every opportunity he gets). But here's that link to United People that gives us a taste of Chico's delusions when he directly and indirectly insinuates that I am a problem member who was banned because of my behavior at United People.

I was banned only because Chico invited sockpuppets in to stack the vote in his favor at UP1. Again banned, this time at UP2, because Chico tag-teamed with 2 other individuals who I was at odds with on many issues (here I could have stopped the ban by voting against myself because according to the charter at the time, if I recall correctly, 3 individuals did not meet the minimum number required to enforce a ban and by this time the forum had trickled to just a few members. By refusing to vote, I essentially allowed a 3-0 vote to go through, when a 3-1 vote would have stopped it. That sorta thing. Can't remember the exact details ... but it's all there in the archives. Suffice to say, none of the three bans that I incurred were genuine. None. I would like Chico to refute this or admit that he is a pathological liar. Indeed, other
than for the efforts of Screech Owl and her friends/sockpuppets ... and Chico, Mags, and Andy ... there were insufficient votes to ban me. That I was actually banned three times is really incredible come to think of it, given that I generally stick to the message (e.g. the ideas) as a first resort, and only start going after the messenger when provoked by the latter's character assassination attempts. The archives at all the forums I've ever been involved with hold this.

Without further ado:
http://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17169#p17169
beginExcerpt
Let the record state that I was never consulted about being added to the voting team nor assented to the poll system that Chico unanimously designed. Indeed, I have yet to cast any vote against anyone on this here burp of a forum.

Which brings us to Andy's question. Can someone who never considered himself a part of the voting system and/or voting team ... then give meaningful consent to their removal from said voting system and/or voting team?

To answer that, perhaps we should look at what really happened.

Fact check: I ridiculed the voting system every time the opportunity presented itself, often mentioning that the voting system only banned Zook three times because Chico enlisted Screech Owl and her associates and sockpuppets (the first time) ... and the last two times, because Chico, Mags and Andy, the three who fiercely opposed me at the time (Andy and I have since resolved our issues) banded together to load me into the tree bucket. IIRC, Mags was the one who initiated all three polls against yours truly, as per his hypocritical stance on freedom of speech where he waxes at length and with frequency about its sanctity ... and then summarily decides whose freedoms should be accosted. If Mags had been the owner of this burp of a forum, I'm sure I would never have been allowed back in a second time, and I'm sure he would have exercised universal decree even that first time that I got temporarily banned and euphemistically suspended. Kudos to Chico for being less of an autocrat than Mags has the potential to be.

So ... Andy was not all that incorrect when he suggested that I had no say in my own removal from the voting team. It was Chico's decision to force me off (because I was a constant irritant pointing back at the archives and the true nature of Chico's ill-designed voting system) ... and the easiest way for him to force me off is to basically set me up with a question which I would only answer in one way, as shown in the following exchange:
end


Pax

ps: (4) is also a distortion. Chico has mentioned on his own forum that genetic studies can be used as a basis for determining sociopathy (after all, I had suggested on many occasions that psychology is a soft science discipline). But what the fuch are genetic studies if they do not involve the brain and the genes at an organic level?? He is so illiterate on the matter that he makes these asinine statements now and then and expects people with better understandings to abide his knowledgebase.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/25/could-a-brain-scan-diagnose-you-as-a-psychopath

 

Running through your deceptive and manipulative (as usual) post:

1. I'm sure people can judge who is being disingenuous. They pretty much did when they voted you out of the UP forum.
2. There's no "Tactic of insinuation" when I quote you saying exactly what you claim I am insinuating. That's disingenuous of you.
3. Your own tactic is to dismiss what I'm saying with only a trite "Tactic of insinuation", which is incredibly disingenuous.
4. I never mentioned "genetic mapping of the brain". That's just you creating a straw man argument to destroy, again very disingenuous.
5. Specific human psychology like sociopathy was evidently not known in Aristotle's time. They were still grappling to explain basic human behaviors, and they made plenty of mistakes with just that. Your spin on ancient history is, as usual, disingenuous.
6. My identification of you as a sociopath is documented all over the UP forum, including in the thread you foolishly claim is "self-referential character assassination". You're being very disingenuous again.
7. Your habit of accusing your opponent (me) of your own malfeasance (such as being disingenuous) continues to convincingly argue for you being a sociopath.

 

I can find 9.5 hours of philosophical horseshit anywhere, Rose. If there's something specific in the above video that you want me to analyze for you, then please present it. I will gladly oblige.

For the record Bertrand Russel is an elitist ... promoted by elitist publishing houses. From the little that I have read of him, there is nothing particularly illuminating in his writings. Perhaps a little above mundane thought, but not much. He reminds me of Noam Chomsky (another elitist fraud) who is notable only because he is published extensively by the same tribal publishing houses that promoted the elitist agenda back in Russell's time. These two extensively promoted pipers of the tribal agenda - separated by a half-century - were charged with the task of capturing minds that are impressed easily, e.g. those minds that are intrigued well short of critical examination. So be it.

You should know one thing about me, Rose. I almost always reject arguments founded in fallacious appeals to authority.

I like ideas. I'm here to discuss ideas. If Bertrand Russel is meant to example thought of the late 19th or early 20th century, then give me something specific to chew on. What specific thought of Bertrand Russel do you want me to consider with respect to its possible worthiness (specifically, wrt sociiopathy)?

As I'm typing, I'm already 15 minutes into the 9.5 hour video. My first suspicion is proving to be correct. Pretty dry. Syntactic stuff is not usually enlightening or inspiring; more or less it's about constructing a dialectical matrix in which to exchange ideas, and not about the ideas themselves. Totally unrelated to the subject matter of sociopathy. Touchee. I'm 25 minutes in now and I'm looking around my mindspace capsule for the eject button.


Pax

 

You're being disingenuous, Chico ... but that is your modus operandi, always putting up innuendo and suggestions in the hope that people will not investigate your statements and claims, and possibly discover the emptiness in them. Your tactic of insinuating some personal remark against your debate opponents (alongside ideas or topics you happen to be discussing at that time) - is also classic clueless socially-maladjusted Chico ... not enough to earn the label of sociopath but more than enough to be called a social misfit.

Back on topic, the following video is prefaced by its youtube uploader as follows:

Zimbardo shows how most evil comes from hierarchy
[...]
"Uploaded on Sep 17, 2008
Stanford Prison Experiment. This is an excerpt of The Evilness of Power http://www.archive.org/details/mr1001... a documentary-montage I did in 2008 examining the effects of hierarchy on individuals, society and the world at large."

Here's that Zimbardo video now so that people can judge for themselves what it reveals:

Tactic of insinuation.

Tactic of insinuation.

Brain function and its association with psychology are indeed something new. But brain tissue and function are nowhere near an adequate mutual mapping to predict the divide between good and bad behaviors (that popular psychology is claiming). We are closer to the lobotomy era of understanding brain configuration as it relates to brain function than we are to a future era when the genetic mapping of the brain is adequately established that it may inform the divide between good and bad behavior. Right now, we are in primitive explorations of the genes involved with regards to empathy and sociopathy.

That said, Aristotle made no mistake. His assumptions about basic human psychology remain the same today as then. Here, we are not talking about organically-damaged brains but organically normative brains. With the average organic state of brains being taken into sole consideration, we begin to see differences in individuals primarily in the different intensities of their behaviors. Those that behave like sociopaths have different intensities in certain behaviors than those that behave like empaths. Indeed, empaths and sociopaths share virtually all human behavior ... the differences reside in the high intensity/frequency/incidence of good behaviors (empaths) and bad behaviors (sociopaths). Conversely, the low incidence of good behaviors (sociopaths) and bad behaviors (empaths). Empathic and sociopathic behavior exist along a continuum.

We don't need genetic mapping to understand the differences between good seeds and bad seeds. Neither did Aristotle in his time.

I'm not mesmerized by what popular psychologists have to say on the topic. I listen to what they say, process it, and file it away ... but it does not affect my own ongoing observations of the human condition more than to be reasonably expected. I update my databases as new credible (e.g. hard scientific) information comes along. You update your databases without critical examination. Your very arguments on the topic betray a a lack of understanding of the topic. Your laughable claimed identification of yours truly as a sociopath (and really, just about anyone that has the temerity to reduce your arguments to the baseless state they were founded in) ... is a reflection of the sad state of your database on said topic. So be it.

It's pitiable that you would think that a thread that you created for the sole purpose of derogating me (a thread with spurious content, to say the least) ... that you would think that that thread contains proof of anything other than self-referential character assassination.

Keep up the charge on that coin pony, sport. You'll reach that first aisle biscuit section yet if you put your mind to it.

Pax

 

Zimbardo has run a great experiment, but you assigned an explanation to the results that is a gross oversimplification. You do this continually, Zook, as I have pointed out so many times at UP. You concluded from Zimbardo's experiment that sociopathy is derived from organization. Zimbardo makes no such conclusion, but Zook does. Simple minds make simple conslusions and live in simple worlds.

You won't find me claiming that "evil is a source of organization" either. It appears oversimplification is your middle name.

Be my guest. Why don't you summarize the state of psychological science in the ancient world, with references to the sources? That's what I do, only I work with the modern authors, because information from 3000 years ago is so sparse and lacks context. It typically can only be taken at face value, which you, Zook, accept when it suits you and reject when it doesn't.

Issues of morality and ethics have been studied by humans throughout history, as far as I can tell, so that is not what is relevant at all. What is relevant is that studies of brain function and psychology are something new. Aristotle makes the classic mistake of assuming all humans are of the same basic psychology, with the same thinking processes in play. Because of psychology, we now know this is not the case. We now know things the ancient philosophers had no way of knowing. What were once called the "morally insane" or "puzzling people", as Thomas Sheridan calls them, can now be more accurately identified as sociopaths (criticism of Thomas Sheridan's work here).

And this wasn't going on 3000 years ago? So your ancient sources are completely legitimate, and no modern sources are? Zook, your hypocrisy is so over-the-top, it's shameful. But you have no shame, and take no responsibility for your outrageous claims. And we know why.

We are all parrots, Zook, some more than others. You are especially prone to parroting, and have been caught doing it so often that you have your own special thread at UP documenting your habit.

 

Your spin meter is turning too fast, Chico. I never claimed Zimbardo's finding of organization turning otherwise empaths into sociopaths ... as an important reference for my argument. Indeed, I explicitly remarked on the coincidental aspect of Zimbardo's findings with my own independent observations and arguments. Since you've already indicated that you would not be impressed by anything I had to say on the matter of sociopathy, I found it humorous that a so-called expert in the psychology discipline (combined with your track record of fallacious appeals to authority) would agree with my own independent findings. You may disregard my opinion, fair enough, but let's see you (a so-called expert lover) disregard Zimbardo, a so-called expert. smmile2

FTR, the soft science of psychology does indeed have its share of hard areas. But the soft areas are far more numerous than the hard areas. In light of your constant accusations of binary thinking against your opponents, it is revealing that you get bivalent (either/or) when it suits your purpose to do so. You want the readers to believe that my position is limited to bifurcating psychology into either complete validity (proof) or zero validity (disproof) ... when in fact, the discipline exists on a continuum of credibility, and is largely skewed towards disproof masquerading as proof. Where exactly Zimbardo falls on this continuum of credibility is anybody's guess. I happen to think he is credible largely because my own independent observations support Zimbardo's findings of hierarchy (organization) being a significant source of evil. Your argument claims that evil is a source of organization - as opposed to organization being a source of evil (Zimbardo's findings) - and that is why you have attacked Zimbardo at United People. I understand, Chico, old boy ... I mean we can't have a so-called expert disagreeing with you and agreeing with me, now, can we?

FWIW, hard science areas in the overall soft scientific discipline of psychology include stuff like Stockholm Syndrome, Milgram experiment, Pavlov conditioning, etc.

Why stop at 1000? Let's go back 2000 and 3000 ... Ever heard of Aristophanes? Sophocles? You think they had no insights into good seeds and bad seeds? Forget the ancient Greeks ... have you ever read the Mahabharata? How about the writings of Confucius?

Aristotle?
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/dianamertzhsieh/aristotle_responsibility.html

Here, it does not matter what Aristotle actually says or argues or is claimed to have said or argued by modern interpreters ... what is relevant is that Aristotle was thinking about issues of morality before the Christian era. In fact all cultures have great writers (on papyrus, on tablets, etc.) expressing in their own languages the fundamental aspects of being human, including this process called ratiocination (which is a cornerstone of all human systems to this day). Morality and the battle between good and evil is a huge chunk of this ratiocination. To deny that such critical understandings of human ethics and behavior did not exist millennia ago is a fool's prerogative.

You're not the first fool to be charmed by the tribal snakes of the last century and a half (and their designed deceptions and psychological subversions) ... snakes that have sought to steer understanding of the human condition for their own tribal agenda and as it suits their purposes at any given time in modern history. For instance, these snakes have steered us into political correctness, then into political incorrectness, back into political correctness, etc. This shifting of correctness is in sync with the cyclic inversions of good and evil, the most obvious example of such inversion being carried in the propaganda of war. When evil empires become good overnight ... and good empires become bad. That sorta thing. Drug trafficking is evil when a latin American name is attached to it; but when the evil Taliban tried to eliminate poppy crops, the good Americans went in and eliminated the Taliban and re-established the poppy fields. That sorta thing.

Moral relativism is inexorably tied to agenda. The ancients seeded it. The middle ages brewed it. The hypermoderns drop it into a cup and sell it with their own brand name.

I have genuine insights to offer ... not agendas to tread ... which is why most anybody that reads me goes away with something to ponder over, for better and for worse.

All you have, Chico, is a parrot dish topped with parrot feed ... and a gift for mimicry.

So be it. To each their own.

Pax

 

I guess you'll be abandoning your Zimbardo argument then, since that is the only time I can recall when you presented an argument about sociopathy and actually tried to use an "expert" to support it (with laughable results, I might add). All your other arguments used "Zook discernment" for their basis (with even more laughable results).

That's quite the claim, cher Zook! There is very little left of the great writers of a thousand years ago. Very few men were literate back then, and books had to be hand copied, so relatively few were made. That doesn't give you much to work with. Yet despite this handicap, you have determined that no progress has been made in psychology over the past 1000 years! And you did this how, exactly? By reading the few rare books in their archaic languages, and separating out their psychological knowledge, which you then compared to the massive quantity of psychological works we currently have available, which you also didn't read?

I hope you can see what your ridiculous claim is worth, but I doubt it. You keep making this claim over and over, as if it is going to save your credibility. You've already lost it, Zook, and repeating the same nonsense won't bring it back.

Not me personally. I find your inspections incredibly illuminating, similar to those of AndyWight and Shezbeth. I can see how others might be threatened, however. Most other people are expecting truth from you, not propaganda. Your inspections are always deceptive and manipulative, which I know to expect, but they don't. They might feel threatened by that, and rightfully so.

 

Barman..!!

"I'll have what she's drinking"