The Psychopath Test

[Razgovory]

Cynicism is it's own naivete.  There's a reason why people who are Cynical about everything often believe in absurd conspiracy theories.

[The Brain]

Which is more absurd, Jews or Lizards?

[DGuller]

Cynicism is it's own naivete.  There's a reason why people who are Cynical about everything often believe in absurd conspiracy theories.

It's not a linear scale.

[Razgovory]

Cynicism is it's own naivete.  There's a reason why people who are Cynical about everything often believe in absurd conspiracy theories.

It's not a linear scale.

Perhaps not, but I think there is a strong correlation between a cynical outlook and gullibility.  A naive man is fooled because he believes everyone is honest.  A cynic is fooled because he believes everyone is dishonest.

[katmai]

Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 2.5. Primary psychopathy is the affective aspects of psychopathy; a lack of empathy for other people and tolerance for antisocial orientations.

Your score from secondary psychopathy has been calculated as 1.6. Secondary psychopathy is the antisocial aspects of psychopathy; rule breaking and a lack of effort towards socially rewarded behavior.

You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 64.41% of people who have taken this test.

You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 9.61% of people who have taken this test.

[DGuller]

Perhaps not, but I think there is a strong correlation between a cynical outlook and gullibility.  A naive man is fooled because he believes everyone is honest.  A cynic is fooled because he believes everyone is dishonest.

I disagree.  You're thinking of idiot conspiracy theorists when you think of cynics, but I would argue that it's not even an excess of cynicism.  Cynics assume that most everyone else is a cynic.  Conspiracy theorists believe that most people are naive, and are being fooled by the master cynics.

[Razgovory]

Perhaps not, but I think there is a strong correlation between a cynical outlook and gullibility.  A naive man is fooled because he believes everyone is honest.  A cynic is fooled because he believes everyone is dishonest.

I disagree.  You're thinking of idiot conspiracy theorists when you think of cynics, but I would argue that it's not even an excess of cynicism.  Cynics assume that most everyone else is a cynic.  Conspiracy theorists believe that most people are naive, and are being fooled by the master cynics.

I'm thinking of Russians and Arabs who despite their cynicism are willing to believe all sorts of nonsense.

[Martinus]

Because he's a cynic.

I was going to say a "yes man" and "back stabber", but perhaps that's to militant.

Well, he comes across as someone who would prefer that his success comes at the expense of someone else, so he probably strongly agreed with that one, and can't comprehend anyone strongly disagreeing with it.

And as for the first one he mentioned, I strongly disagreed with it as much as a practical matter as anything else.  In my experience, telling people what they want to hear doesn't really get them to do what you want them to do, it just gives them an excuse to do what they really want to do anyway.  Of course, maybe that just means I'm bad at manipulating people.

I don't know whether I should respond as you seem to be an idiot, but let's try.

My point is that even if we are not by nature manipulative, every now and then we all do tell people what they want to hear to get what we want and this is pretty normal in human interaction (even if less than saintly) (every one who ever tried to talk their way out of a speeding ticket knows this) - so saying you strongly disagree with this one is either hypocritical or unaware. I went neutral on this one.

Similarly, with the success coming at the expense of others, most people would prefer that it doesn't - but a lot of our successes actually come at the expense of others (with the most obvious one being "being born in the West", which automatically gives us an advantage in life and it is clearly at the expense of others - i.e. people born in the Third World) and we are not always terribly upset or even aware of it - so saying you "strongly agree" that you are very upset every time your success comes at the expense of others is simply a lie. I said I agree - but not strongly agree.

[DGuller]

I'm thinking of Russians and Arabs who despite their cynicism are willing to believe all sorts of nonsense.

I think in these cases it's much more of a national thing rather than an aspect of personality thing.  An American moron who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is not necessarily a cynic, just someone who tries to be a skeptic but doesn't have the IQ for it.  Russians or Arabs, well there are so many reasons for so many of them to have severely fucked up thought processes, that it's not even worth the hassle of getting into it.

[DGuller]

My point is that even if we are not by nature manipulative, every now and then we all do tell people what they want to hear to get what we want and this is pretty normal in human interaction (even if less than saintly) (every one who ever tried to talk their way out of a speeding ticket knows this) - so saying you strongly disagree with this one is either hypocritical or unaware. I went neutral on this one.

Speak for yourself.  The only time I say to people what they want to hear is when I don't want to hurt them.  Out of empathy, not out of consideration of what I can get out of them in the future.

[11B4V]

Because he's a cynic.

I was going to say a "yes man" and "back stabber", but perhaps that's to militant.

Well, he comes across as someone who would prefer that his success comes at the expense of someone else, so he probably strongly agreed with that one, and can't comprehend anyone strongly disagreeing with it.

And as for the first one he mentioned, I strongly disagreed with it as much as a practical matter as anything else.  In my experience, telling people what they want to hear doesn't really get them to do what you want them to do, it just gives them an excuse to do what they really want to do anyway.  Of course, maybe that just means I'm bad at manipulating people.

I don't know whether I should respond as you seem to be an idiot, but let's try.

My point is that even if we are not by nature manipulative, every now and then we all do tell people what they want to hear to get what we want and this is pretty normal in human interaction (even if less than saintly) (every one who ever tried to talk their way out of a speeding ticket knows this) - so saying you strongly disagree with this one is either hypocritical or unaware. I went neutral on this one.

Similarly, with the success coming at the expense of others, most people would prefer that it doesn't - but a lot of our successes actually come at the expense of others (with the most obvious one being "being born in the West", which automatically gives us an advantage in life and it is clearly at the expense of others - i.e. people born in the Third World) and we are not always terribly upset or even aware of it - so saying you "strongly agree" that you are very upset every time your success comes at the expense of others is simply a lie. I said I agree - but not strongly agree.

[Martinus]

Similarly, every time we win a lottery or succeed in a competition, whether formal or informal (such as when we are competing for a job or a promotion) we succeed at the expense of others.

[Martinus]

My point is that even if we are not by nature manipulative, every now and then we all do tell people what they want to hear to get what we want and this is pretty normal in human interaction (even if less than saintly) (every one who ever tried to talk their way out of a speeding ticket knows this) - so saying you strongly disagree with this one is either hypocritical or unaware. I went neutral on this one.

Speak for yourself.  The only time I say to people what they want to hear is when I don't want to hurt them.  Out of empathy, not out of consideration of what I can get out of them in the future.

I find it hard to believe, especially as you do not come across as a particularly ethical individual.

[Razgovory]

I'm thinking of Russians and Arabs who despite their cynicism are willing to believe all sorts of nonsense.

I think in these cases it's much more of a national thing rather than an aspect of personality thing.  An American moron who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is not necessarily a cynic, just someone who tries to be a skeptic but doesn't have the IQ for it.  Russians or Arabs, well there are so many reasons for so many of them to have severely fucked up thought processes, that it's not even worth the hassle of getting into it.

I don't think the American who believes that 9/11 is a moron, he simply has a difficult time figuring out what is true and what is not.  The reason is a cynical personality.  Sadly the Cynic often thinks he has more accurate world view then the average person.  This sort of illusory superiority is common amongst incompetents.  There has a been some psychological studies done on this.  Here's an interesting study.  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjADahUKEwiwhue4goXIAhUH8z4KHboDCkY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.bu.edu%2Fkleinstein%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F01%2FBLS-IRSv13.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGK86sLiBWGJM84PTjjfa75P-0chw&sig2=eeWY-_VrJFBobsDdw9thcA

[The Brain]

Perhaps not, but I think there is a strong correlation between a cynical outlook and gullibility.  A naive man is fooled because he believes everyone is honest.  A cynic is fooled because he believes everyone is dishonest.

I disagree.  You're thinking of idiot conspiracy theorists when you think of cynics, but I would argue that it's not even an excess of cynicism.  Cynics assume that most everyone else is a cynic.  Conspiracy theorists believe that most people are naive, and are being fooled by the master cynics.

I'm thinking of Russians and Arabs who despite their cynicism are willing to believe all sorts of nonsense.

Russians and Arabs come across as incredibly naive.