Monthly Archives: April 2015

Psychopaths effect on culture


“Did you exchange. A walk on part in the war, For a lead role in a cage?”  –Pink Floyd

What are the consequences of shifting a civilization’s culture from an empathic one?  The scripts and narratives the psychopaths use become embedded in our metamind and in turn form myths.  One could spend a lifetime exploring and discussing those myths, but that shouldn’t stop us.  That very idea leads into the first myth.

1.  You must be an expert:  You must understand something en total to contribute to it’s exploration. – Since all exploration occurs at the outlying data, and outlying data is OUTSIDE the pattern and the potentially incomplete or incorrect function that’s assigned to it, a new perspective may be the only functional one.  I’m not saying modeling the world around us has no value.   I’m saying pretending safe understood decisions are growth is a lie.  A lie told specifically to prop up the master/slave relationships that psychopaths superimpose on our lives to simplify their social interactions.  This flows into our next myth.

2. Experts must be vetted: It is dangerous to allow decisions to be made by people without official training. – While learning is always beneficial, there are often vast obligations that come with vast training.  Those obligations form another hierarchy, which in turn can put cooperation, the source of most human progress, at risk.

Experts are often employed at the periphery of growth where there their role if successful is not to employ their training, but to avoid it.  Yes knowing what’s known is important, but being multi disciplinary, probably not at an expert level is more important to identifying the cause and sources of outliers.  Since there are not enough hours in a human life to become and expert in everything, cooperation is needed where disciplines intersect aka: the outliers.  The only thing expertise guarantees is more of the same.

3. Competition is efficient:  There are winners and losers, and who needs the loosers?  –  Competition can efficient, but also can be flat out counterproductive.   It can be very beneficial but not for the reasons frequently touted.  Competition is great for forming perspective.  Understanding others points of view and skills, and understanding your own.  It’s great for learning how to fail and observing behavior and expressing compassion when others fail.  Competition is crucial to communication, as we explored communication is needed for real growth or progress.

Problem is a competition is defined by it’s rules, so it’s only as good as they and their scope, interpretation, and enforcement are.  Rules that promote both fair weights and measures and personal expression are fundamentally conscionable because they promote communication.  Communication is vital to growth as the periphery is explored.  At any scale it enhances the economy of scale.

Poor competition focuses on rewards, especially external to human communication.  The more permanent power such rewards afford, the less productive it is.  While not all communication or interaction is productive, blocking communication through hierarchy(the afforded power) is never productive.  While it may exclude the selfish and inept, it also removes the individuals ability to decide who those unable players are.   Reward focused competition is a way to disable the risk assessment abilities of the competitors conscience, allowing the psychopath equal footing, at the expense of both real growth and productivity.  This is identified by most as the lack of will to ‘play fair’, as learning benefits of the game are counter productive to the psychopaths status above those around them.  Their real goal is obfuscation of their condition and avoidance of their more primal reactions like jealousy.  That goal is hurt by growth stemming from cooperative competition.

4. Silence is consent:  That’s a myth deriving from freedom as a give and take (which proper freedom is). – Just because you are in a position to see risk doesn’t mean you can address it.

At this time in the United States, it is widely thought that speaking your mind is both a human and legal right.  But there is a flip side.  Trying to convince people of a wrong, if you fail, will create the opposite effect.  We have embraced judgement of winners and loosers instead of consideration.  Consideration of both freedom and perspective.  Often a failed attempt to sway a person is considered proof that person is wrong.

To end implied consent we must end judgement of those who speak their minds.  Not only should we walk a mile in another mans shoes, but then fail to judge after we take them off.  Wisdom is the understanding of our vast limitations when assessing the environment around us.  We can see what’s in front of us.  We can only feel our own heart beat.  We only speak of the things for which we have words the listener understands.  Cooperation is difficult with our small perspective in a big universe.  Only a concatenation of our views can begin a mosaic with any real perspective.  A mosaic which will never form without communication.   Communication that will never happen if we only play to win favour instead of the currencies of accomplishment.  That is how the psychopath population destroys a civilization.  By inspiring people to jail themselves with perspectives they can’t change to protect rewards from rules that block progress, by blocking cooperation.

If you liked this please review my type one civilization paper and consider supporting legal distribution.

Secrecy becomes regressive



Why do hierarchies embrace secrecy?  To lower the risk to hierarchy, both real and imagined.  The problem is there is no way for the citizens of the hierarchy to discern between the real and imagined risk with the secrecy blocking reasonable analysis of the distortion of identity, justice, and some or all of the facts.  This is a direct result of amoral agents being imperceptibly embedded among moral ones.  The result for the hierarchy is even greater graft and corruption.

Unfortunately secrecy is also necessary.  Those same amoral agents will always seize perceived (sometimes real) golden opportunities and they will always, with time, occur with complete transparency.  Since making mistakes is necessary to both emotional development of empaths and to social cohesion, the same things that make moral people grow, present amoral ones with opportunities to accumulate and grab power.

Emapths who push for a more compassionate society or civilization often run into a wall.  A wall of skepticism of erected by those who recognize that some people are amoral as described above.  They recognize part of the equation.  That some people are not reasonable and see power as an end to itself.  They don’t know how to accommodate required mistakes without adding vulnerability.

It is a human right to fork.  This is where some basic human rights (like freedom of religion) derive from.  Forking should happen early and often.  Forking solves the issue of opportunistic taking of power derived from hopefully minimal but required mistakes, by assigning the secret to the most interested moral party.

This is the rational basis for organizational forking, or at a governmental scale legal distribution.  Since power can be leveraged and projected, this also suggests a mechanism for successful legal distribution.  A petition to fork a legal authority (a law) should be completely democratic (direct citizen voting) with no secret components.

For the ultimate authority the person or persons proposing the vote only need to demonstrate interest beyond denial of government services.  For example it might be required present a petition of one tenth of one percent of the voting population to set the proposed distribution to ballot.   A simple majority vote of ‘no confidence’ in the larger bodies ability to manage their secrets without corruption should immediately distribute the challenged law and it’s apportioned funds to the lower jurisdictions.

In the case of a non legally binding entity, no formality is required whatsoever.  Simply a decision by anyone that trust is not possible at the current scale.  That a hierarchy with a smaller scope and fewer more accessible leaders is needed.

If a distribution or fork is initiated by an amoral or incompetent agent, it can be forked (or distributed) again until corruption and waste is brought under coherent control.  Success in preserving identity, justice and ready access to accurate facts will be modeled by lateral organizations or governments through competitive pressures.  The feasible scope has been found.

Since to err is not only a common attribute of moral human society, but a prerequisite, it is a basic human right to distribute laws by majority in the face of corruption.  Denial of that right is denial of freedom itself.  Freedom is a fundamental attribute of the conscience.  Denying this right is a psychopathic behavior.

Edit 4/7/15 10:50 EST:  Sorry for all the changes. (title, image, some structure) This was a sudden inspiration last night that exhausted me before editing was complete.  Please reread it at your convenience.