Jon Ronson's book was quite entertaining. Anyone here read it? For a tl;dr, here's his TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYemnKEKx0c
I was hoping there would be a test in this thread. :(
TED talks. :bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2015, 01:38:06 PM
I was hoping there would be a test in this thread. :(
It's easy enough to find a psychopathy test on the internet. Here's the first one on google:
http://personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php
I've taken these before and they told me I was a psychopath. :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2015, 01:38:06 PM
I was hoping there would be a test in this thread. :(
:yes: :thumbsdown:
We call it Voight-Kampff.
I think I'm more of a sociopath.
Quote from: citizen k on September 18, 2015, 01:45:54 PM
TED talks. :bleeding:
Videos that it is acceptable to watch during office hours :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2015, 01:49:01 PM
I've taken these before and they told me I was a psychopath. :ph34r:
Well, posting on Languish is a pretty good indication. ;)
You both are knuckleheads.
Psychopaths tend to be charming and display a glacial calm. Neither of those qualities apply to anybody here :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2015, 03:07:08 PM
Psychopaths tend to be charming and display a glacial calm. Neither of those qualities apply to anybody here :P
:yeahright: Speak for yourself.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2015, 03:07:08 PM
Psychopaths tend to be charming and display a glacial calm. Neither of those qualities apply to anybody here :P
Nah, those are just the high-functioning psychopaths.
There are plenty of low-functioning psycopaths in the prison system who are neither charming nor calm. :(
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2015, 03:04:08 PM
You both are knuckleheads.
Well, well. Here comes Exhibit "A". :lol:
I'm definitely not a psychopath. :wacko:
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2015, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2015, 03:07:08 PM
Psychopaths tend to be charming and display a glacial calm. Neither of those qualities apply to anybody here :P
Nah, those are just the high-functioning psychopaths.
There are plenty of low-functioning psycopaths in the prison system who are neither charming nor calm. :(
And that's just the guards and prosecutors! :P
Given that most of us are neither "charming and calm", nor in the prision system, I guess that makes us "middle functioning". :D
I've never been called functioning. :ultra:
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2015, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2015, 03:07:08 PM
Psychopaths tend to be charming and display a glacial calm. Neither of those qualities apply to anybody here :P
Nah, those are just the high-functioning psychopaths.
There are plenty of low-functioning psycopaths in the prison system who are neither charming nor calm. :(
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2492393372/begbie.jpg)
Languish, we put the "Fun" back in highly functioning psychopath. :)
(So, are you sorry you came back yet Hami?)
Quote from: Savonarola on September 18, 2015, 04:35:27 PM
(So, are you sorry you came back yet Hami?)
I'm mildly surprised at how much the casual insults feel like routine. You people have slacked off over the last few years.
Well fuck you too, buddy.
That said, I enjoyed the video. Thanks for posting it. :)
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 18, 2015, 04:40:23 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on September 18, 2015, 04:35:27 PM
(So, are you sorry you came back yet Hami?)
I'm mildly surprised at how much the casual insults feel like routine. You people have slacked off over the last few years.
Yeah, we're all just mailing it in now. :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2015, 01:47:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2015, 01:38:06 PM
I was hoping there would be a test in this thread. :(
It's easy enough to find a psychopathy test on the internet. Here's the first one on google:
http://personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php
A lot of these answers really changed for me during the last 6 months or so.
I still ended up with 1.9 on primary psychopathy and 2.6 on secondary psychopathy.
1.9, 2.3 for me. ~40th percentile for each.
:showoff: #notapsychopath
1.7, 2.3
Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 3.7. 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 2.6. 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 87.41% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 54% of people who have taken this test.
:ph34r:
Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 1.9.
Your score from secondary psychopathy has been calculated as 1.8.
You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 41.76% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 16.44% of people who have taken this test.
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2015, 01:47:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2015, 01:38:06 PM
I was hoping there would be a test in this thread. :(
It's easy enough to find a psychopathy test on the internet. Here's the first one on google:
http://personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php
What a load of BS. It put me at the 91st percentile for rule-breaking, when anybody who knows me IRL knows I am
anal about rules.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 18, 2015, 09:13:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2015, 01:47:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2015, 01:38:06 PM
I was hoping there would be a test in this thread. :(
It's easy enough to find a psychopathy test on the internet. Here's the first one on google:
http://personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php
What a load of BS. It put me at the 91st percentile for rule-breaking, when anybody who knows me IRL knows I am anal about rules.
Pretty much the same here. But, I think there's an explanation, at least in my case. I tend to stay within the bounds of formal, written type rules. I think this may be more about informal social rules. Anyway, my results:
QuoteYour score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 1.9. 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 3.7. 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 41.76% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 90.6% of people who have taken this test.
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2015, 08:57:30 PM
Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 3.7. 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 2.6. 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 87.41% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 54% of people who have taken this test.
:ph34r:
And you come across as so normal in real life. :hmm:
I scored primary higher than 50% and secondary higher than 72%. :unsure:
69 and 39. Btw, does appreciating a good scam really make on psychopathic? Can't you appreciate something and still condemn it?
QuoteYour score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 1.6. 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 2.2. 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 25.79% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 34.17% of people who have taken this test.
:yeah:
Of course a psychopath would lie when doing the test and get suspiciously low scores :hmm:
Can I ask people who got low results - how many of the answers you chose were "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree"? I don't think I picked even one of those as I don't think it would be honest if I did. I suspect this contributed to my score being relatively higher.
For example, anyone who picked "strongly disagree" on a question like "I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do." or "strongly agree" on a question like "I would be upset if my success came at someone else's expense." is simply a liar or someone very unaware.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 19, 2015, 02:12:46 AM
Of course a psychopath would lie when doing the test and get suspiciously low scores :hmm:
Yeah that's my point. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2015, 02:19:06 AM
For example, anyone who picked "strongly disagree" on a question like "I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do." or "strongly agree" on a question like "I would be upset if my success came at someone else's expense." is simply a liar or someone very unaware.
Strongly disagree.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2015, 02:23:12 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 19, 2015, 02:12:46 AM
Of course a psychopath would lie when doing the test and get suspiciously low scores :hmm:
Yeah that's my point. :P
:mad:
1.8 primary, 3 secondary. Both in the middle half(25-75%).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:35:52 AM
1.8 primary, 3 secondary. Both in the middle half(25-75%).
Who are you again?
That's Mr. Eddie Teach!
:pirate
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2015, 02:19:06 AM
Can I ask people who got low results - how many of the answers you chose were "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree"? I don't think I picked even one of those as I don't think it would be honest if I did. I suspect this contributed to my score being relatively higher.
For example, anyone who picked "strongly disagree" on a question like "I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do." or "strongly agree" on a question like "I would be upset if my success came at someone else's expense." is simply a liar or someone very unaware.
:huh: No, why would you think this?
Because he's a cynic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
Because he's a cynic.
I was going to say a "yes man" and "back stabber", but perhaps that's to militant.
Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 2.9.
Your score from secondary psychopathy has been calculated as 3.2.
You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 72.84% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 78.18% of people who have taken this test.
:hmm:
Not sure what to make of this - for one thing, there seems to be less variance between my primary and secondary psychopathy scores than appears to be the norm for Languishites taking the test.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 19, 2015, 04:01:54 AM
Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 2.9.
Your score from secondary psychopathy has been calculated as 3.2.
You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 72.84% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 78.18% of people who have taken this test.
:hmm:
Not sure what to make of this - for one thing, there seems to be less variance between my primary and secondary psychopathy scores than appears to be the norm for Languishites taking the test.
You're kind of nuts. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on September 19, 2015, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2015, 01:52:51 AM
69 and 39. Btw, does appreciating a good scam really make on psychopathic? Can't you appreciate something and still condemn it?
I think so. Like when I heard about Bernie Madoff's scam my first thought was "Wow, he's one of the best con men of all time and I can't believe none of those idiots (investors, the SEC) ever suspected anything was amiss."
These sort of test just suck up my time and get in my way. :ultra:
Get in your way of...? Also it is a pretty short test.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2015, 07:59:01 AM
Get in your way of...? Also it is a pretty short test.
Wosh.
Yes, I think by now we know that most of your 'posts' zoom right by me.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 19, 2015, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
Because he's a cynic.
I was going to say a "yes man" and "back stabber", but perhaps that's to militant.
He is, in fact, a lawyer. ;)
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 19, 2015, 12:56:36 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 19, 2015, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
Because he's a cynic.
I was going to say a "yes man" and "back stabber", but perhaps that's to militant.
He is, in fact, a lawyer. ;)
I had hope, despite that.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2015, 02:19:06 AM
For example, anyone who picked "strongly disagree" on a question like "I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do." or "strongly agree" on a question like "I would be upset if my success came at someone else's expense." is simply a liar or someone very unaware.
Sounds like something a psychopath would think.
Quote from: Maximus on September 19, 2015, 01:37:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2015, 02:19:06 AM
For example, anyone who picked "strongly disagree" on a question like "I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do." or "strongly agree" on a question like "I would be upset if my success came at someone else's expense." is simply a liar or someone very unaware.
Sounds like something a psychopath would think.
:yes: Cynical people have a hard time contemplating how a non-cynical person would think.
Those two words are not remotely synonymous. :mellow:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 01:55:40 PM
Those two words are not remotely synonymous. :mellow:
There is a strong relationship. There aren't many naive psychopaths around. And in my personal experience, a lot of people who are cynical are that way because they themselves are not good people, and thus expect other people to be that way.
Cynicism is it's own naivete. There's a reason why people who are Cynical about everything often believe in absurd conspiracy theories.
Which is more absurd, Jews or Lizards?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2015, 06:08:51 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2015, 06:34:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2015, 06:08:51 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2015, 11:40:52 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2015, 12:30:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2015, 11:40:52 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 19, 2015, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2015, 12:57:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2015, 01:10:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2015, 01:10:02 AM
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 19, 2015, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
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.
:yawn: :zzz
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.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2015, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2015, 01:10:02 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2015, 01:11:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2015, 12:57:31 AM
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
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2015, 12:57:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2015, 12:30:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2015, 11:40:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2015, 01:10:02 AM
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 19, 2015, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
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.
I don't understand. The Third World would be better off without a West?
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2015, 01:20:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2015, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2015, 01:10:02 AM
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.
Well, there's your problem. if you have a hard time figuring out ethical people from unethical, then of course you are going to assume the worst in everyone.
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 20, 2015, 08:52:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 19, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
Which is more absurd, Jews or Lizards?
Jewish Lizards.
Especially given that the only insect that is kosher is the locust. What would a Jewish Lizard eat? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2015, 01:10:02 AM
Quote from: dps on September 19, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 19, 2015, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2015, 02:51:34 AM
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.
How the hell is that even an example of my success coming at the expense of others? It's not like Mono was born in HK and Tamas was born in Hungary because I was born in the US--they would have been born there even if I had never been born at all. And my being born in the US didn't prevent them from being born here--it was the fact that their parents lived in HK and Hungary respectively.
I think Mart is saying that the West maintains a parasitic relationship with the 3rd World. Dependency theory.