Monthly Archives: October 2013

Ethics of revenge


Wanting to get even is inherently a dangerous proposition, but grasping why can be difficult.  Revenge is a competitive act.  Sometimes it is selfish thoughts about a legitimate loss in a fair contest.  Just as often, it’s about a losing a contest you didn’t even know was a contest.  Avoiding selfish gratification becomes an easy choice for most empaths, but result of losing a hidden contest is moral outrage.

Think carefully about this asyemetric condidtion.  If you were wronged by a person or a society because they were competing  when you were cooperating, they have commited a psychopathic act.  This does not mean they only capible of psychopathic or selfish acts (a psychopath) but it may.   You may challenge them to a fair rematch, but if they are a psychopath they will only accept if they think they can win.  Rematches for unfair contests are a cooperitive not competitive behavior.

If you relize that they have intentionally slighted you, the temptation may be to challenge them to a second contest with some unfair suprise.  Retribution is the act of challenging a person or society to an unfair contest, to teach them a ‘lesson,’ about having done the same.

You may already see what is wrong here.  If they are a psychopath, they will not learn any lesson about right and wrong.  The only possibly good outcome is if they fail to assess the contest, agree to it, loose, and then determine that they were in correct and you are actually the master and they the slave.  You can imagine how likely that is.  Even if you get the prize of being ‘master’ who want’s to hang around with a psychopath?

If it is an empath or a moral society, you simply need to point out the inequity, and they will correct it as soon as they can.  You should forgive them, as that is best for everyone’s emotional health and well being, but don’t forget.  Memory is critical to seperate an unethical act from a patern displayed by an amoral entity.

So personal retribution can have a good outcome, but it’s a BIG risk.  Hence our unexplained aversion to it.  Our metamind’s advantage in long term high impact risk.

Of course retribution does not need to be high risk does it?  Life operates as many levels.  Even if they don’t cooperate with them, that person or society interacts and perhaps even hides in many other societies.  Societies have rules to keep out psychopths.  If the rule is ethical, and it has been broken, invoking it is actually doing a service for humanity.

Of course if you’ve encountered a sociopath, their guile will slide past your attempts to unveil them.  The best advice you can get is ‘the best revenge is living well.’  Free yourself from the people and organizations that shield the amoral agent.  Turn your back.  Shun them all.  Don’t interact.  Don’t communicate.  Don’t invest.  And encourage others to do the same.  Adapt to life without their society.  Remember it’s not the strongest or the smartest, but the most adaptive to change.  Make your life a contest they could never win.  A contest of cooperation.

Is peer review broken?


A straight forward article discussing the NIH funding model and the journal peer review process.  Nothing insane like a condemnation of the scientific method or something like that.

It seems that scientific journals have been too profit oriented.  Of course there is a virtue to this as there is a big motive to solve societies real needs.  It fails when an intermediate problem needs to be researched or solved to get the data to solve the big problems.  Also scientists simply reading another’s article only proves something is ‘plausible’ not necessarily true.  As science gets bigger and smaller, experiments are more costly.  That’s just life.  But often ‘published’ is mistaken as ‘fact’ by a great many people.

Looks like things are headed in the right direction.  The push is for open source journals.  Still some rules, but much lower barriers to entry.  Open source software is the state of art peer review.  Computer science has the most successful reference model of all the sciences.  Linux.  Something to be learned there, by everyone.

Jon Ronson TED talk

This one starts off slow, but some interesting points.  Jon Ronson decided to read the DSM manual.  Starting him off on a quest to determine if psychology is even real.

Guess were he ended up?   Studying psychopaths.  Hmmm.

I’ll let you enjoy the video and come to your conclusions after I make two points.  I poked around a bit and it seems the Hare does not offer a psychopath spotting course to the public at the moment.  Too bad.  It is possible to be self taught.  If you have a psychopath in your life and follow all the steps in my ‘help‘ post you will get better at spotting them.

He points out that we are all a little psychopathic.  100% true.  We can do all the things they can do, including the horrible things.  But we are bigger than that, figuratively and literally.
Again, thanks for the videos.  More please!

More on amnesia prototyping and children crying #$*#@!


Read the posts here about childhood amnesia and the boy who cried #$*#@! for more background.  It seems that our aversion to bad manners may be that our brains light up like Christmas trees when we hear a ‘bad’ word, usually a body archetype or such.  This causes new insights to derail and possibly putting a call out for immediate attention and assistance.  This is why almost all adults use these words, but very sparingly.  To indicate surprise or injury.  An immediate call for attention.

The more active a child’s metamind is the fewer prototypes it creates.  Development of the metamind (aka:the conscience) is inversely proportional to the development of new prototypes.  As the metamind begins it’s metadata classification role rational memories begin to appear, and childhood amnesia draws to an end.

Children go through a ‘potty mouth’ stage.  Of course this drives adults bananas interrupting fragile rational thoughts, seemingly intentionally.  But for the children this is not merely an exercise in annoying futility.  They are intentionally lowering or even ending their prototype creation.  They are subconsciously, attempting to inspire adults to expand their metamind though emotional reinforcement.  They are asking for emotional metadata to activate and use another prototype.

It appears that the hard stop for prototyping may be cultural, based on varying ends of childhood amnesia by locale.  The sudden cessation of ‘potty mouth’ of children between eight and nine years old in the United States seems to indicate the end of inactivated prototypes.   Of course this process begins at age 5 or 6 pointing at 2-4 years spent in the intermediate stage where the conscience is active and raw brain pathways are still being created.

All children in a locale seem to stop the constant colourful metaphors around the same age.  Psychopaths seem to begin the end of prototyping with their first experiences of extreme despair.  Is it possible that children are able to sabotage each other’s further prototyping via naughty archetypes?  Can’t really predict what’s happens here, but could make for some interesting simple experiments.

One final avenue to explore.  What if the metamind sends out some sort of final signal to end all prototyping?  Pure speculation, but it could have big implications.  Lets suppose it’s true and the signal is never sent.  Wouldn’t the brain continue to try and end prototyping by sending out disruptive words, in an attempt to complete an active metamind, to no avail?  This does have some similarities to Coprolalia with Tourette syndrome?

Don’t call me stupid!


Since we’ve essentially got two brains we have a nice social advantage.  If an empath is unintelligent, they may still have the advantage of multi-generational emotional knowlage.  That is dependant on wise careful parenting.  This scenario is almost common knowledge.  Even possibly a stereotype.  One pop culture example might be Forest Gump.  Guided by simple idioms and warm emotions, freakishly ‘lucky’, but not the brightest bulb in the box.


This is a nice advantage.  If someone calls you ‘stupid’, true or not, you can take comfort in the fact that someone in your family or even your society may not have been so dull, and you carry their wisdom with you.  But you already knew that didn’t you.  :)

Psychopaths on the other hand are one trick ponies.  If they don’t have the ponies upstairs, there isn’t much hope.  They feverishly work with logic and their limited prototypes to demonstrate their cleverness.  It only takes a little push to send them over the edge.  Be a shame if they lost their temper in court don’t you think?

Detailed explanation of childhood amnesia


Another lesson from the psychopath as the pre-civilization human.  Human beings are born as psychopaths.  Just as the fetus mimics evolution in the womb, we are not conscionable beings when we are born.  Empaths have the hardware to develop a conscience.  In fact nothing can stop that, though it’s usefulness will be reduced without any parental programming of long term risk.  All of this has been observed though established science, though the explanations differ.

Many two and three year olds go through an awful stage of selfish behavior.  This is when the metamind is beginning to develop.  This is directly connected to childhood amnesia.  The mind is prototyping behavior.  Prototyping is when you are creating the classifications of data built into a recognizable model of the world.  The prototyped data becomes the prototype, so it can’t be accessed directly.  Hence the amnesia.  That the metamind is minimal or dormant during this stage is an evolutionary advantage, because fewer prototypes would form.  The metamind is usually normalizing or averaging behavior.  The earlier it kicks in the smaller the breadth of different kinds prototypes the child could develop from the start and the smaller their understanding of the types of data in the world around them is.

This can be demonstrated by the lack of effectiveness of scolding young children.  The metamind is simply not responding yet.  The more active it is, the fewer prototypes are being created.  It is well understood that the most healthy method of changing the behavior of young children is to change their environment to make the negative behavior impossible, better known as childproofing.  What you are actually doing is avoiding the early activation of the metamind, and allowing more prototypes to form.

It is possible that you can damage a child’s future intelligence, by activating their metamind too early.  This is a done when a very young child is being constantly scolded creating very strong emotional barriers to new thoughts.  The time of building potential prototypes passes and the child future dims.  Cultures that scold children at young age may be able to get their children to accomplish adult behavior, but it is by sacrificing breadth of thought later on.  These cultures can easily be identified by childhood amnesia that ends very early in age.  While it may seem a sign of intelligence, it represents the opposite.

Further evidence is indicated in psychopaths ability to remember very young childhood.  Hardly suffering from childhood amnesia at all.  Without the metamind to moderate their first traumatic experience, it would lead extreme despair, and limit or shut down prototyping from there on in all experiences would be literal and memorable.  Additionally this may be a second explanation why their imaginations(source of empathy and powered by the metamind)  are far more limited.  They are traumatized very early on and prototyping ceases.

Interestingly a wide breath of rules and a heavy structure at a young age may actually benefit young psychopaths.  It furthers the idea that the parent is the master and the child the slave, setting the child at ease and simplifying all adult interactions.  These may represent the most socially successful psychopaths as adults.  There are fewer emotional reactions of despair and bliss, because they never experienced them as children, and prototyping ceases later providing them with a broader understanding of how things could work.  As a result psychopath parents may impose what seems to be an absurd amount of structure on their empathic children, damaging their minds and stunting their growth.  They recall how the benefit of order in their own childhood did or could have helped them and are actually trying to help their children (which they are biologically compelled to care for) but simply don’t understand they are not the same.  This last case alone is a huge ethical indication for genetic screening

Please pass this one along.  Thank you.

The Rose/Manson Interview

Now for something a little more down to earth.

This is a great video to grasp the basics of psychopathy.  Manson clearly lands in the ASPD stage.  This includes Narcissistic elements of course.  Looks like he never resolved himself to the long game of sociopathy.  He is not aware and apparently not interested that Rose is not falling for his emotional trigger saturated scripts.  He is clearly very intelligent as the smarter the psychopath the more effective the scripts.  Not that it matters for him at this point, facing life in prision give little motivation to cover up who he is.

It’s not surprising if you find this video difficult to watch.  Beside ethical indignation at his acts, he is very, very good at lighting off emotional triggers.  He is actually trying to program the other viewers, Rose, and you as you watch.  If you didn’t notice you are likely very vulnerable to both marketing and propaganda.  Your metamind, probably felt in your gut, should be screaming!  It is critical that you understand and recognise that technique if you ever expect to know yourself.

If you’ve seen inception, your metamind should feel something like this.


You’ll only get to experience clear first hand sight of these scripts if you improve your technique enough that a psychopath is forced to switch scripts several times.  This is what Manson is doing throughout with Rose.  Constantly changing the topic so he can use his whole salvo of emotionally charged words to try and implant new ideas in your or Rose’s head.

If you were to transcribe and then rewrite Mansons words with less common synonyms, you would notice a few things.

While the scripts are coherent to themselves, the larger thread they follow is almost totally incoherent.  He is clearly just pulling the next script out of the ‘comfey’ or ‘scared’ or ‘remorseful’ pile, depending on what he wants you to feel.   Of course a sociopath who is successfully integrated into the corporate world (for example) will have much longer much more complex scripts.

In a more abstract sense the rambling choice of scripts is a commentary on the empathic mind.  He so much as says so.  He is pointing out how irrational we are, and how we made ourselves vulnerable to people like him.  He clearly is not aware of others in this sense.  That’s why he isn’t a sociopath.  He has no idea we have a metamind that specializes in connecting unlike things by compound emotion.  From his perspective the origin of empathic ideas is totally opaque.  Just a random number generator.

This video in part is the inspiration for the metamind model.  We could sit there all day and attach meanings to his ramblings, he’s counting on that, but his assortment of scripts are are what they are to him.  Just buckets full of scripts.  His lone insight through his sole lens is that we are insane from his perspective.