Armchair psych profile and personal background

[dotr]

<rsbm>

I can't help but wonder about the post cutelittlenemo1 made about wolves:



<bbm>

Something about those particular words just puts a shiver down my spine also, wondering if it is a warning or a threat?

 

[Karmady]

Something about those particular words just puts a shiver down my spine also, wondering if it is a warning or a threat?

I think, sadly, he was telling us that the wolves had nothing to do with the dog going missing, but that's an excuse that's easily usable in Arizona. jmo Either he googled AZ or he actually was there, because he is correct. There are plenty of wild animals that can get your pets in AZ. Right out of your backyard, and even in highly populated areas. Lots of coyotes and bobcats, in particular, and the owls love cats :/

eta: nevermind. I think I see what you mean about humans. I have to go re-read that post!

 

[dotr]

I think the environment helps sort of "marinate" the genetic if that makes sense. If I am blind and my family is really helpful the outcome (impact of my blindness) , on my life, is gonna be diff than if my family told me to stay home while they go out.

you know what I am saying!

http://www.canada.com/news/mind+psychopath+Scientists+explore+brain+abnormalities/6754391/story.html
"Genetics may play a role. One gene in particular has been implicated — MAO-A, which produces an enzyme that breaks down serotonin, which affects mood and can have a calming effect. Sometimes called the "warrior gene," it's been theorized that the calming effects of serotonin may not always be effective in people born with a variant of the gene.


Stephen Benning is an assistant professor of psychology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. Two years ago, he was part of a team that reported in the journal Nature Neuroscience that the brain of psychopaths may be wired for rewards.


Brain scans showed that people high in "impulsive antisociality" — a combination, Benning says, of "meanness" and disinhibition — showed greater activity in parts of the brain related to anticipating and expecting rewards.


When those rewards don't come nearly as frequently as wanted, they become more aggressive, more frustrated and "more alienated toward the world," Benning said."

 

[Sunday]

It is not attacking -- in much the same way you can't grasp my view I cant yours . All that is is interesting dialog. Your not getting my world view is same as me not yours. I am not trying to attack you , I am trying to say (just like you to me ) how come you do not see the same view out of the window!

Cariis, I don't think that was directed towards you. I think they felt attacked by my comment.

It was not my intent to attack. I simply feel that many people allow their feelings of anger/rage/hatred to stand in the way of analytical thought and constructive dialogue. If someone is so angry and hateful that it creates bias then they cannot fairly and appropriately evaluate a situation. It clouds a person's thoughts and it's exactly why some people are not chosen as jurors.

This is a bit different, but another thought. What about his psychiatrist? Should he give him inferior care because of personal feelings? What about his defense lawyers? Should they do less to defend him because of their feelings and beliefs? If he was dying should the paramedics not administer CPR because of what he has done? Of course not -these things are unethical.

Sometimes you have to sit back, take a deep breath, and clear your heart and your mind, and then assess a situation objectively.

 

[pannekoek]

In what world is someone who's looking for extreme bondage and having someone force them to eat ***, etc. being selfish?

I also think its selfish but thats my opinion. I think you might be projecting your own sexual norms/morals onto LM and extracting conclusions from that. Sexuality is much more complex than your life experience and thoughts about it are. There hasnt been much scientific research done about the sexuality of psychopaths but what has been done is clear, it differs grately from ours. So using our own experience and ways of giving meaning to it doesnt work.

Again about the selfish part, even if he isnt a psychopath. He is asking for people to do things to him that you would deem to find degrating. But its him who is asking for it. The thing I learned from having some pretty kinky BDSM friends... that its the sub who tells the dom what will/or can not be done in their play... so a lot of the power, contrary to what most people think lays with the sub. So in this case I think its about him... either to shock people by the post or what he wants to have done to him for his own satisfaction (how disgusting you might think those things are)...

My 2 cents...

 

[Sunday]

http://www.canada.com/news/mind+psychopath+Scientists+explore+brain+abnormalities/6754391/story.html
"Genetics may play a role. One gene in particular has been implicated — MAO-A, which produces an enzyme that breaks down serotonin, which affects mood and can have a calming effect. Sometimes called the "warrior gene," it's been theorized that the calming effects of serotonin may not always be effective in people born with a variant of the gene.


Stephen Benning is an assistant professor of psychology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. Two years ago, he was part of a team that reported in the journal Nature Neuroscience that the brain of psychopaths may be wired for rewards.


Brain scans showed that people high in "impulsive antisociality" — a combination, Benning says, of "meanness" and disinhibition — showed greater activity in parts of the brain related to anticipating and expecting rewards.


When those rewards don't come nearly as frequently as wanted, they become more aggressive, more frustrated and "more alienated toward the world," Benning said."

This reminds me of a report I recently heard on NPR about psychopathy. Apparently many CEOs and other high ranking professionals score in the range of psychopath on psychopathy tests. It's nature + nurture.

 

[Karmady]

I also think its selfish but thats my opinion. I think you might be projecting your own sexual norms/morals onto LM and extracting conclusions from that. Sexuality is much more complex than your life experience and thoughts about it are. There hasnt been much scientific research done about the sexuality of psychopaths but what has been done is clear, it differs grately from ours. So using our own experience and ways of giving meaning to it doesnt work.

Again about the selfish part, even if he isnt a psychopath. He is asking for people to do things to him that you would deem to find degrating. But its him who is asking for it. The thing I learned from having some pretty kinky BDSM friends... that its the sub who tells the dom what will/or can not be done in their play... so a lot of the power, contrary to what most people think lays with the sub. So in this case I think its about him... either to shock people by the post or what he wants to have done to him for his own satisfaction (how disgusting you might think those things are)...

My 2 cents...

Believe me, I'm no babe in the woods when it comes to kink. And it surely is about him in a certain way. But even if you want to call it selfishness, it's deranged selfishness. Imo, no sane person feels "powerful" while eating feces...their own or someone elses. jmo

 

[pippirose]

I also think its selfish but thats my opinion. I think you might be projecting your own sexual norms/morals onto LM and extracting conclusions from that. Sexuality is much more complex than your life experience and thoughts about it are. There hasnt been much scientific research done about the sexuality of psychopaths but what has been done is clear, it differs grately from ours. So using our own experience and ways of giving meaning to it doesnt work.

Again about the selfish part, even if he isnt a psychopath. He is asking for people to do things to him that you would deem to find degrating. But its him who is asking for it. The thing I learned from having some pretty kinky BDSM friends... that its the sub who tells the dom what will/or can not be done in their play... so a lot of the power, contrary to what most people think lays with the sub. So in this case I think its about him... either to shock people by the post or what he wants to have done to him for his own satisfaction (how disgusting you might think those things are)...

My 2 cents...

Interesting perspective--I hadn't thought of it in that way, before.

Another possibility is that he is a masochist, and "needs" to feel pain--to feel *anything*. Whether to punish himself (because of past abuse), or the way a cutter does self-mutilation, or even to feel sexual gratification, as in S&M.

 

[Karmady]

Cariis, I don't think that was directed towards you. I think they felt attacked by my comment.

It was not my intent to attack. I simply feel that many people allow their feelings of anger/rage/hatred to stand in the way of analytical thought and constructive dialogue. If someone is so angry and hateful that it creates bias then they cannot fairly and appropriately evaluate a situation. It clouds a person's thoughts and it's exactly why some people are not chosen as jurors.

This is a bit different, but another thought. What about his psychiatrist? Should he give him inferior care because of personal feelings? What about his defense lawyers? Should they do less to defend him because of their feelings and beliefs? If he was dying should the paramedics not administer CPR because of what he has done? Of course not -these things are unethical.

Sometimes you have to sit back, take a deep breath, and clear your heart and your mind, and then assess a situation objectively.

This is a critical point, imo. I draw the line at defense lawyers who simply make chit up knowing perfectly well that their clients are guilty. I know some think that's fine, but I don't. However, you can treat or defend a client based on facts without compromising your ethics. I think his lawyers could totally legitimately put forward an insanity defense in this case. Again, not to excuse him, but to keep him confined in the proper space. Might not fly, but I don't think they would be unethical to do so under the circumstances.

 

[ToBeHonest]

This reminds me of a report I recently heard on NPR about psychopathy. Apparently many CEOs and other high ranking professionals score in the range of psychopath on psychopathy tests. It's nature + nurture.

Yes, no doubt about that. While I was getting my MBA, many of my classmates were quite ruthless and some of them actually creeped me out. They were quite successful, though, real climbers, and not afraid to steal, cheat, and rip each other apart behind their backs to be perceived as better. Future of America, yay! :floorlaugh:

Mitt Romney is actually a good example, I have no doubt his comment about firing people says a lot about his empathy for others--those at the top tend to focus on bottom line tactics to the exclusion of all else.

 

[dotr]

I once had a neighbour who was seriously into s and m and who delighted in telling (hoping to shock, I think) people all about it. Ironically, when he was hurt through "natural" causes, like a cut or sprain, he complained bitterly and endlessly about the pain.

 

[CuriousRus]

The Casey Anthony trial was a complete failure of the US legal system. The circumstantial evidence against her demonstrated clearly she was responsible for he daughter's death. The jurors in that case had the critical thinking skills of a bowl of tofu! When I've heard their rationales for how they came up with their descision it's clear they had IQ's at least a full standard deviation below normal.

Unfortunately I agree with the sad state of the minds of many jurors in the US (I can't speak for other countries). I've been on two juries and both times were really frustrating for me and I'm pretty easy going, or at least I think I am. I found that many jurors have a hard time understanding what is "reasonable" doubt. Many think that any doubt is reasonable, and since none of us are ever at the scene of the crime, we always will have a little bit of doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is a concept that many people simply don't get either, and I sort of blame the defense for not educating the jurors so they understood reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence. They really need to treat these terms like they are educating first graders. Even when you challenge people with logic, and take a soft approach in explaining facts, some are just stubborn and refuse to acknowledge they might be wrong. Many people don't seem capable of following simple logic. Sometimes, of course, the logic is more difficult to follow in a complicated case that consists of circumstantial evidence, but sometimes it's very, very clear. I fear the logic trail in the LM case will be very difficult to follow, and I hope the jurors selected are capable of critical thinking.

On my first jury, one lady came in one morning and said she changed her mind about the guilt simply because she "slept on it and woke up with a feeling the defendant was not guilty." My inner voice was thinking, "are you on crack lady?" I calmly reminded her that we really were instructed to stick to the facts and not our emotions and feelings, but she stood firm and it turned out to be a split jury and the defendant ended up walking. I have to admit, my thought is that we really did a disservice to the community in letting a potential rapist go.

The second jury I was on was so clearly guilty with direct witnesses, who weren't even cooperative because the witnesses feared retaliation from the defendant. The supportive defense witnesses were all clearly discredited and proved to be untruthful several times.

Once again, the deliberation started out with a couple of people who felt sorry for the defendant and when those jurors would discuss the case, they failed to use logic and fact, and, once again, used emotion and feeling to express their opinion on the case. My thoughts were, oh here we go again, I'm stuck with a couple of idiots that can't follow the dots from a to b to c. However, they did come around in the end.

I have to also admit that the defense was very good at building up irrelevant sympathy towards the defendant; they would interject statements that talked about his efforts to purchase his family a home and that without him, his parents and siblings would have a really difficult time. I even felt a little sorry for the guy and his poor family, even though he stabbed an old homeless black guy just because he was in a latin hood. Our guilty verdict ruined his life, even though the real logic is that he ruined his own life when he decided to stab this homeless man.

I'm good friends with a psychologist that does jury selection work and the stories are interesting. The process is quite an art and each juror is profiled and determined to be likely for or against the defendant (even if they don't word it that way.) I'm not sure of the jury selection process in Canada, but I'm guessing it's similar to that of the US.

 

[sinwonderland]

Thought this was an interesting blog. If I can't post blog links, I'll delete it!

http://blogs.canada.com/2012/06/23/sandusky-magnotta-williams-homolka-what-is-our-duty/

 

[Sunday]

Unfortunately I agree with the sad state of the minds of many jurors in the US (I can't speak for other countries). I've been on two juries and both times were really frustrating for me and I'm pretty easy going, or at least I think I am. I found that many jurors have a hard time understanding what is "reasonable" doubt. Many think that any doubt is reasonable, and since none of us are ever at the scene of the crime, we always will have a little bit of doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is a concept that many people simply don't get either, and I sort of blame the defense for not educating the jurors so they understood reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence. They really need to treat these terms like they are educating first graders. Even when you challenge people with logic, and take a soft approach in explaining facts, some are just stubborn and refuse to acknowledge they might be wrong. Many people don't seem capable of following simple logic. Sometimes, of course, the logic is more difficult to follow in a complicated case that consists of circumstantial evidence, but sometimes it's very, very clear. I fear the logic trail in the LM case will be very difficult to follow, and I hope the jurors selected are capable of critical thinking.

On my first jury, one lady came in one morning and said she changed her mind about the guilt simply because she "slept on it and woke up with a feeling the defendant was not guilty." My inner voice was thinking, "are you on crack lady?" I calmly reminded her that we really were instructed to stick to the facts and not our emotions and feelings, but she stood firm and it turned out to be a split jury and the defendant ended up walking. I have to admit, my thought is that we really did a disservice to the community in letting a potential rapist go.

The second jury I was on was so clearly guilty with direct witnesses, who weren't even cooperative because the witnesses feared retaliation from the defendant. The supportive defense witnesses were all clearly discredited and proved to be untruthful several times.

Once again, the deliberation started out with a couple of people who felt sorry for the defendant and when those jurors would discuss the case, they failed to use logic and fact, and, once again, used emotion and feeling to express their opinion on the case. My thoughts were, oh here we go again, I'm stuck with a couple of idiots that can't follow the dots from a to b to c. However, they did come around in the end.

I have to also admit that the defense was very good at building up irrelevant sympathy towards the defendant; they would interject statements that talked about his efforts to purchase his family a home and that without him, his parents and siblings would have a really difficult time. I even felt a little sorry for the guy and his poor family, even though he stabbed an old homeless black guy just because he was in a latin hood. Our guilty verdict ruined his life, even though the real logic is that he ruined his own life when he decided to stab this homeless man.

I'm good friends with a psychologist that does jury selection work and the stories are interesting. The process is quite an art and each juror is profiled and determined to be likely for or against the defendant (even if they don't word it that way.) I'm not sure of the jury selection process in Canada, but I'm guessing it's similar to that of the US.

I'd lose my mind and end up incarcerated myself if I was working with jurors like that.

 

[CuriousRus]

Yes, no doubt about that. While I was getting my MBA, many of my classmates were quite ruthless and some of them actually creeped me out. They were quite successful, though, real climbers, and not afraid to steal, cheat, and rip each other apart behind their backs to be perceived as better. Future of America, yay! :floorlaugh:

Mitt Romney is actually a good example, I have no doubt his comment about firing people says a lot about his empathy for others--those at the top tend to focus on bottom line tactics to the exclusion of all else.

It sort of makes sense that if you're strictly using logic and you treat business and it's outcome of success with wealth maximization as a goal, empathy and sympathy don't weigh much. Unfortunately nice isn't always effective. I'm not saying that it is right by any stretch, but is that psychopathy or just what people are taught or maybe they are one in the same? If it's one in the same, is there a level of psychopathy that most possess that is considered acceptable and therefore potentially just normal? Does that even makes sense? lol

If you have a business and it takes 20 people to do a job or just one computer that costs the same as one year's salary of one person, what would you choose as an owner? Is firing the 20 psychotic? Does it depend on the state of mind of the business owner making the decision to fire the 20 people? Does the business owner get pleasure from the firing? Or does the business owner lose sleep over the fact that he has to fire 20 people? Sometimes business owners also must appear stoic and unemotional and in charge or they are seen as vulnerable and weak and lack leadership in today's business environment, while they might often struggle with decisions that appear to have no empathy.

I'd want to know what percentages of people in your class portray the psychopathic behaviors as I would also want to know the percentages in the original posting about CEOs lawyers, etc. And is the psychopathic behavior only while they are doing their jobs, or are they that way at home too? People wear a lot of hats and ruthless business owners are often the biggest philanthropist.

 

[sinwonderland]

I hadn't heard the connection mentioned yet, but the alias LM used when he uploaded the One Lunatic One Ice Pick Discussion video on youtube was Alexis Valoran Reich.

This is the name of a transsexual who is aka John Mark Karr... Karr made a false confession in the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

Alexis Reich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ToBeHonest]

Speaking to the topic of juries, has anyone else been summoned? I found it was common that the lawyers would press to get a couple of people on the jury who they felt could be more easily swayed to their way of thinking, which may be why people come in with biases in the first place.

 

[ToBeHonest]

It sort of makes sense that if you're strictly using logic and you treat business and it's outcome of success with wealth maximization as a goal, empathy and sympathy don't weigh much. Unfortunately nice isn't always effective. I'm not saying that it is right by any stretch, but is that psychopathy or just what people are taught or maybe they are one in the same? If it's one in the same, is there a level of psychopathy that most possess that is considered acceptable and therefore potentially just normal? Does that even makes sense? lol

If you have a business and it takes 20 people to do a job or just one computer that costs the same as one year's salary of one person, what would you choose as an owner? Is firing the 20 psychotic? Does it depend on the state of mind of the business owner making the decision to fire the 20 people? Does the business owner get pleasure from the firing? Or does the business owner lose sleep over the fact that he has to fire 20 people? Sometimes business owners also must appear stoic and unemotional and in charge or they are seen as vulnerable and weak and lack leadership in today's business environment, while they might often struggle with decisions that appear to have no empathy.

I'd want to know what percentages of people in your class portray the psychopathic behaviors as I would also want to know the percentages in the original posting about CEOs lawyers, etc. And is the psychopathic behavior only while they are doing their jobs, or are they that way at home too? People wear a lot of hats and ruthless business owners are often the biggest philanthropist.

I graduated a few years back so my memory is waning, there was one person in my class of 20 I would have pegged w/ psycho tendencies. He was charming, a finance guy, and a ringleader in the class. He had been married but his wife had left him and RAN, cut off contact, took down her fb, everything suddenly--I have to think it wasn't happenstance. He told me that himself, but never gave me details. The rest I think were playing the game, but the game was nasty so I don't know what that says about their tendencies. Most were white conservative males, happily married. So one in 23. Close to this: http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/2...e-psychopaths/

The other aspects, I can speak from my experience, the most successful among us have souls but know when to dissociate. Layoffs are tough; firings, eh, generally you've warned them many times so it's on them. I don't know what it says about me but I lack patience there and by the time I get to the firing I don't look back or feel remorse, at that point they are making my job harder.

I think if anything, successful CEOs build (superficial networking) relationships w/others. Therefore, narcissists and psychopaths who can play self-confident and superficially charming would tend to do very well. Can you tell if they are pathological? Not necessarily.

As for philanthropy, I don't think it always represent someone's intentions. Some give because it selfishly makes them feel good, some give for the tax break, some will fund a school so that they can hope to recruit good workers from there, and some are purely altruistic.

Anyway, I've wandered off topic here, so to wind back in, I have thought it is ironic that LRM was not successful because he was so offputting to others; I feel he is not a bad looking guy, had some charm to him in certain interviews, so had he been 'normal', or even a flat out narcissist he might have actually had the opportunity to be what he wanted to be; however, it's the other disorders thrown in that created the paradox we see today.

 

[Sierra20]

I hadn't heard the connection mentioned yet, but the alias LM used when he uploaded the One Lunatic One Ice Pick Discussion video on youtube was Alexis Valoran Reich.

This is the name of a transsexual who is aka John Mark Karr... Karr made a false confession in the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

Alexis Reich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not know this. There is little research on the net about this.
LM even uses this innocent person's middle name as well I believe. What is LM trying to gain from this?

 

[CuriousRus]

I graduated a few years back so my memory is waning, there was one person in my class of 20 I would have pegged w/ psycho tendencies. He was charming, a finance guy, and a ringleader in the class. He had been married but his wife had left him and RAN, cut off contact, took down her fb, everything suddenly--I have to think it wasn't happenstance. He told me that himself, but never gave me details. The rest I think were playing the game, but the game was nasty so I don't know what that says about their tendencies. Most were white conservative males, happily married. So one in 23. Close to this: http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/2...e-psychopaths/

The other aspects, I can speak from my experience, the most successful among us have souls but know when to dissociate. Layoffs are tough; firings, eh, generally you've warned them many times so it's on them. I don't know what it says about me but I lack patience there and by the time I get to the firing I don't look back or feel remorse, at that point they are making my job harder.

I think if anything, successful CEOs build (superficial networking) relationships w/others. Therefore, narcissists and psychopaths who can play self-confident and superficially charming would tend to do very well. Can you tell if they are pathological? Not necessarily.

As for philanthropy, I don't think it always represent someone's intentions. Some give because it selfishly makes them feel good, some give for the tax break, some will fund a school so that they can hope to recruit good workers from there, and some are purely altruistic.

Anyway, I've wandered off topic here, so to wind back in, I have thought it is ironic that LRM was not successful because he was so offputting to others; I feel he is not a bad looking guy, had some charm to him in certain interviews, so had he been 'normal', or even a flat out narcissist he might have actually had the opportunity to be what he wanted to be; however, it's the other disorders thrown in that created the paradox we see today.

Here's an interesting article about the subject of CEOs and psychopathy you might enjoy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/

Also, getting back to LM, in one of his alleged posts somewhere I read along the way, or maybe it was an interview, he said something about needing a fallback plan because "your looks don't last forever."

Approaching the age of 30 (identified himself as "twink" escort), seeing signs of aging and your hair falling out (wigs/no money for plastic surgery), having no higher education or known skills (145 IQ he said?), having an animal rights group on your tail, losing contact with your family (the aunt) and apparently having no close "real" known friends (tranny girls from years past) is a lot of pressure for any fella pushing 30. That in combination with mental illness maybe pushed him in a box where maybe the idea of the snuff movie was his way to fame and with fame comes fortune (Paris H)...book and movie deals. It was his opportunity for a future where he no longer had to escort on someone else's term. I know...a lot of maybes.