Pathological Science #15 Psychopathy

(PD) - Pathological Science #15 Psychopathy

Larry Neal Gowdy

A popular scientific definition of psychopathy is that the term implies an egocentric individual who has a callous unconcern for other people's feelings. Psychopaths are said to have shallow emotions, no conscience, no sense of guilt, no empathy, and the individuals openly lie and cheat to get what they want. Psychopathy is a term invented by scientists, defined by scientists, used by scientists, and judged by scientists, and scientists claim to be the sole experts on the topic of psychopathy.

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) lists twenty traits of psychopathy that are commonly found within convicted criminals (I have arranged the traits in alphabetical order): callousness and lack of empathy, criminal versatility, cunning and manipulativeness, early behavior problems, failure to accept responsibility for own actions, glib and superficial charm, grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self, impulsivity, irresponsibility, juvenile delinquency, lack of realistic long-term goals, lack of remorse or guilt, many short-term marital relationships, need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, pathological lying, poor behavioral controls, revocation of conditional release, sexual promiscuity, shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness).

There are many degrees of psychopaths, but perhaps the most familiar to the general public are the individuals who express fake facial expressions of smiles while lying and cheating to get their way, and they are prone to emotionally explode (bipolar-like) if their victims do not accept the lies. Political debates are but one of the very many examples of individuals who purposefully lie and give fake smiles while attempting to get their way.

As are all other 'psychological disorders' (OCD, autism, etc.), psychopathy is not literally judged by whether the traits exist or not, but rather an individual is judged to be psychopathic if the individual does not have the same degree of the same traits as the person judging. If an individual possessed no traits of psychopathy, then everyone else on earth would be deemed to be psychopathic, and if everyone had all symptoms of psychopathy at the highest degrees, then no one would know that psychopathic behavior exists. Very few humans are remorseful of stepping on a blade of grass, most humans are callous towards insects, and all known living beings possess similar callousness towards other living beings.

The science of psychopathy is a philosophy of comparing one man's quantity of mental instabilities to the average quantity of mental instabilities within a single species. All humans are callous and uncaring to one degree or another, in part because no one can know of the existence of all living beings, nor of the suffering that the living beings might be experiencing throughout the world. Scientists only fool themselves when they claim that someone else is psychopathic, all while the scientists accept no blame of being psychopathic themselves, which is itself an act and symptom of psychopathy.

How does the list of symptoms apply in the real world? [1] Callousness and lack of empathy is a universal necessity of life because no one can have empathy for beings unknown, [2] criminal versatility flows parallel to all forms of business incomes including the scientists who are government employees, [3] cunning and manipulativeness is also a common science and business activity, [4] early behavior problems might be the direct result of the negativity of science's influence upon the species, [5] failure to accept responsibility for own actions is directly an act by science, [6] glib and superficial charm is almost universal within humans (the few individuals who do not express the symptom are extraordinarily beautiful souls), [7] grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self is also almost universal amongst humans (especially amongst individuals who believe they are smart because they memorized some words), [8] impulsivity fuels business incomes, [9] irresponsibility is mandatory for creatures to survive, [10] juvenile delinquency is merely a matter of opinion relative to the region's culture, [11] lack of realistic long-term goals is predominate, especially within science and politics, [12] lack of remorse or guilt is a dominate trait of science, [13] many short-term marital relationships is strongly promoted and all but forced upon humans by politics and science, [14] need for stimulation is an inherent trait for all beings that remain alive, [15] parasitic lifestyle (I chuckled at this one) is a necessity for life, and is how science itself survives, [16] pathological lying is observed in the emotioned vocal tones of humans even when the individuals do not consciously realize that they are lying, [17] poor behavioral controls is all but universal, and it is very rare to find a human who has quality behaviors, [18] revocation of conditional release is, of course, only relative to convicts, but it also applies to parallel topics in which humans revert back to their unethical behaviors after being told how to be ethical, [19] sexual promiscuity is promoted and forced upon children and adults by governments, religions, businesses, television, radio, public schools, Internet search engines, and science, [20] shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness) is universal within all known science believers, and science itself holds a dogma that scientific activities are only scientific if the people performing the science are emotionally cold and callous.

The science of psychopathy is a list of traits that are merely different degrees of the scientists' own traits. Non-scientists, looking in from the outside, and seeing the topic from a different point of view, see little difference between the scientists and the imprisoned psychopaths. I once told an inmate in a maximum security state prison that the only real difference between him and the public outside, was that he got caught. He smiled and agreed. Scientists only fool themselves when they make egocentric claims of themselves being so educated, and learned, and blameless, and so utterly perfect in their dogmas and deceits, while claiming that anyone who is not identical to themselves must have a mental problem.

If science had long-term goals, then science would be active towards bettering the human species and all other things to create a paradise planet, but scientists only want to boost their egos and salaries. Science's long-term goals can never extend beyond what the scientists themselves are capable of, which, obviously, are all but non-existent.

Except for rare occasions, scientists are salaried by governments and large corporations, and the scientists' salaries are paid by forcing the public to pay taxes and dishonest prices. From the outside looking in, today, as an institution, science exists solely upon being a parasitic government-mandated religion that preys upon its victims, which is a symptom of psychopathy.

Scientists may not consciously know that they are speaking lies, nor have the mental capacity to cross-light thoughts, and so within the definition of pathological science being that scientists do not knowingly lie about their claims, then the most kind offer is to simply classify the science of psychopathy as being a pathological science.

It is easy for science to place blame on other people, and to term the people psychopathic, but it is also easy to place the same blame on the scientists themselves. Scientists earn ridicule when they behave psychopathically while claiming other people with the same anti-social sociopathic behavior have mental problems.

Most, if not all, of the components of psychopathy are ingredients that are necessary for human thought, but all humans are different, and all people have different quantities of different traits, and so it is expected that some humans will have a lot of the more creative traits, while a lot of humans will have the less-creative traits. Most individuals being diagnosed as psychopathic are merely individuals with a variation of necessary traits that are not of a similar quantity as the governing culture's traits. People in some countries sense no wrong in killing and butchering animals in the streets of cities, while in other countries the act would be deemed horribly psychopathic. Some cultures today still see no wrong in butchering children, murder, and violent physical assault against females, and now today the cultural behaviors are being forced on the USA culture by science and the government. If today's 'normal' social behavior in the USA were teleported back in time prior to the 1980s, all television stations would be shut down, all radio stations would be shut down, the Internet would be banned, and millions of individuals would be imprisoned, all for their immoral behavior. Terrorists find no wrong in their lies, hate, and extreme violence against humans, and scientists find no wrong in their lies, hate, and extreme violence against humans. The label of being a psychopath only relates to the degree of a culture's own accepted level of extreme violence.

Science should already know that.

All words are lies. No word is fully honest. All words only mean what they mean to the speaker, and the person hearing the words interprets the words to mean what the listener wants the words to mean. Hand an infant a banana and tell the child it is an apple. When grown, the child will still name bananas 'apples'. Science claims that love is lust, habit, and jealousy, while other individuals learned the word 'love' to imply something very different. Words only mean what an individual wants the words to mean, words can never fully nor accurately describe one's own thoughts and emotions, and, so, all words are lies. Are there differences of intent? The scientist speaks words with the intent to explain his thoughts, as does the kind person speak words with the intent to explain his thoughts: the intents are to communicate ideas, and regardless of how well the words are formed within the goal of communicating accurately, the words are still untrue, and somewhere along the process of speaking, all individuals will stumble upon their own inherent natures, and not realize that they may have spoken a contradiction, or not recognize a callousness within their own thoughts. No human is without blame, but the greater blame is the denying of one's own blame, which is what psychopaths do, and what science does.

A psychologist recently asked six questions about psychopathic behavior, but the questions were not asked of fellow scientists, nor of individuals who might know the answers; the scientist asked for philosophers to answer the questions. It is a fact of life that no one can know everything about all topics, and so the psychologist's questions ought to be accepted as a legitimate request for more information, but the act of asking philosophers for answers to 'scientific' questions is very peculiar. The questions and topics are useful for illustrating an underlying pathological nature of science itself.

The psychologist's questions were (paraphrased): [1] by what methods might it be possible to heal psychopaths, [2] which is the more ethical method to heal psychopaths, [3] do normal humans have psychopathic traits, [4] if normal humans have psychopathic traits, then what are the degrees, [5] if pathological behavior is a brain disorder, then should the individuals not be held responsible for their behavior, and [6] if psychopathy is genetic, than what does that say about the human species?

From what I have personally witnessed amongst hundreds of thousands of individuals, including the many thousands within prisons and hospitals, the answers to the scientist's questions appear to lean heavily towards a single goal: scientists ought to first accept responsibility for their own behaviors. Science is the world's leading influence on all cultures and ideologies — the masses sincerely do believe in science — and as such, science carries the greater responsibility to not be a negative influence. Each individual scientist is personally responsible for their own behaviors, and no quantity of ad hoc excuses can shift the blame of the scientists' own behaviors onto anyone else.

If a man claims to want an ethical society, then the man must first choose to be ethical himself. Asking for answers to questions, of merely wanting to gain memorized knowledge without first trying to understand through firsthand experience, the behavior is unethical, not smart, and psychopathic.

The following are my abbreviated answers that are relative to each of the questions.

[1] By what methods might it be possible to heal psychopaths? [answer] Heal? Science does not know what 'health' is, and so, if a psychopath were 'healed', then what should be the individual's behavior? 'Healing' a psychopath, to become the mirror image of a psychopathic scientist, the individual would still be a psychopath. If science were as knowledgeable as is claimed, then science would already know what health is, how health exists, and how health can be attained. Psychopathy is a scientific term invented by scientists, used by scientists, allegedly measured by scientists, and claimed to be a scientific topic, and yet the scientists are asking philosophers to answer questions about a topic that science has already claimed for itself as being the sole expert?

The psychologist is not alone in his apparent assumption that philosophers can somehow answer questions that are not related to philosophy. For quite a few years, a lot of scientists have visited philosophers to discuss various topics, and several of the scientists have boasted of the visits in books, articles, and videos. The discussions were very strange, because the scientists asked questions about scientific topics while the philosophers invented sophist answers that did not relate to the questions, and somehow, somewhere in-between the dialogs, the scientists formed imaginary conclusions that the philosophers gave useful answers.

The great humor with scientists asking philosophers for information about psychopathy is that the scientists appear to know so little about the topic that they do not know enough to ask meaningful questions, and too, the scientists appear to not even know what philosophy is.

[2] Which is the more ethical method of healing psychopaths? [answer] What is 'ethical'? Western philosophy does not know what an ethic is, nor does science. The question is nonsensical, but perhaps the question was spoken with an intention of asking for the most gentle and caring method, and the answer is very simple: scientists need to first become gentle and caring themselves. No one can teach nor do for others what the individuals have not done for themselves, and no scientist can behave 'ethically' without the scientist first being ethical.

Within some schools of theology, gnosticism (which from the Greek implies 'having knowledge') is often interpreted as being a belief that the knowledge gained by memorizing a lot of words is all that is needed to earn a soul an eternal life in heaven, and gnosticism does not believe that firsthand experience is useful or necessary. Within theology, gnosticism is commonly judged to be a repulsive philosophy inhabited by inferior minds that cannot recognize their own hypocrisies. Modern western science (which from the Latin implies 'knowledge') is gnosticism.

[3] Do normal humans have psychopathic traits? [answer] Of course they do. Similar to agnosia, alexithymia, autism, and OCD, each trait is almost universal within all humans, and so is 'psychopathy'. Perhaps the primary reason of why psychopathy is sometimes believed to not exist, is when the observer has a similar degree of psychopathy as the observed. Sigmund Freud was a sadistic pervert, but most scientists find nothing wrong with Freud's science, because the scientists share similar psychopathic perversions, and the scientists claim that their own psychopathic behaviors are normal and healthy.

The answer is extraordinarily obvious, and science ought to have already known that.

[4] If normal humans have psychopathic traits, then what are the degrees? [answer] The degrees are all but infinite, and if science knew anything about the mind, then science would already know that. Asking for degrees of psychopathy is as absurd as asking for a list of emotions.

[5] If pathological behavior is a brain disorder, then should the individuals not be held responsible for their behavior? [answer] All individuals should be held responsible for their behaviors, including scientists. If a specific behavior were found to have a specific physical cause (e.g. injury, infection, 'genetic', etc.) then the individual should still be held responsible, but the individual ought to be cared for relative to the cause. Regardless of what egocentric scientists might claim, science does not know how the mind works, science knows absolutely nothing about consciousness, nor memories, nor thoughts, nor emotions, and science does not so much as have an understanding of the nature of 'electricity' which means that science cannot have a knowledge of how the 'electric' brain works, and so it is not possible for science to know if a behavior is brain related, food related, or caused by anything else. Science has measured that some emotions and some forms of knowledge are passed down to offspring, and yet science accepts no blame for its own negativity that is passed down to everyone's offspring.

To further emphasize, it is utterly impossible for the brain to do all the things that many scientists claim. It is mathematically and physically impossible for the brain to store all memories, it is electrically impossible for the brain to process consciousness and all thoughts, and it is physically impossible for the brain to be the source of emotions. The science of psychology ought to invest an hour listening to the science of physics, and learn that an almost infinite quantity of information cannot be stored nor processed within a small number of brain cells. 100% of all scientists who claim that the brain is the sole root of the mind, are unlearned, uneducated, and pointedly ignorant frauds who exhibit the pathological science symptom of "fantastic theories contrary to experience."

[6] If psychopathy is genetic, then what does that say about the human species? [answer] It is an error to assume that all bipods are identical, but if psychopathy were a physical trait passed down to offspring, then science ought to already know the answer. Scientists need to stop placing the blame on 'genetics' and other people, and to accept that the emotions and knowledge that they impress upon other people are the emotions and knowledge that are passed down to each generation.

Some scientists interpret psychopaths as exhibiting irresponsible 'blame externalization', that of blaming others instead of accepting responsibility for their own behavior, and yet the scientists themselves attempt to blame psychopathy on genetics, brain disorders, and other factors that science knows almost nothing of, while science steps back and accepts no blame for its own behavior. The negativity of science creates more negativity: reading the fraudulent scientific claims stirs negative emotions, responding to science's negativity requires negativity, defending one's self from science's negativity requires a negative response, and science itself is one of the deepest roots of forcing negative 'genetic' traits upon offspring.

'Psychopathy' is indeed 'genetic', that is, a sizable degree of personality traits are inherited through the body's physical form. If science knew anything whatsoever about emotions, memories, reasoning, mate selection, beauty, love, compassion, fetal development, fetal experiences, or anything else related to the mind, then scientists would not be asking questions about behavioral genetics.

How can I say the following without my using explicatives? Seriously, do scientists not recognize that each species has similar appearances? Really? Scientists cannot extrapolate? Nor cross-light thoughts? It appears that the reason for why scientists cannot recognize inherited traits is because scientists cannot mentally associate two or more actions occurring simultaneously: it is the normal scientific method to only think two-dimensionally, and it is within that learned mentality that science cannot recognize what is so utterly obvious to non-sciencians. Creatures of the same species really do have similarly shaped bodies... really... they really do.

Within the many variables that must exist within a mind for the mind to think and to rationalize, each combination of variables is different for all living beings, and so it is to be expected that all individuals will possess different combinations that produce different results, from piety to selfishness, from love to anger, and it is absurd to believe that there might be a single 'brain function' that can be surgically removed so as to heal psychopathy. If scientists truly cared about healing psychopathy, then scientists would first heal themselves, but, of course, that will never happen.

Science is a gnostic philosophy... knowledge, can only be that of one's own experience... science does not participate in one's own life... science is the man-measure of predicting two-dimensional actions, and science can achieve nothing more than to measure walls, floors, and other objects, while never knowing what the objects are...

Now, what if... what if the psychologist had really intended to ask his questions to individuals who are consciously self-aware and can describe with great details of how their minds work? It is a reasonable plausibility that the psychologist believes that all humans must be members of an ideology, because scientists think two-dimensionally and therefore can only sum two-dimensional answers (e.g. everyone must either be a scientist or a philosopher, an atheist or a theist, etc.), and so it is feasible that the psychologist mistakenly believed that self-awareness is a thing that philosophers do. Unfortunately, science forbids self-awareness, and labels it as the taboo 'subjectivity'.

I sincerely did hope to find the psychologist to have been asking an innocent question to a group of individuals that the psychologist likely had little or no experience with, but upon further investigation, I discovered that the psychologist egocentrically believed of himself to be a philosopher, and he believed that philosophers are those who can self-observe and know the nature of things through self-observation. Wow.

Scientists and philosophers are paid a lot of money to invent theories, and since I am not paid for my answers, then I will not give direct answers to any of the questions beyond what I have already stated: scientists need to accept responsibility for their own actions. There is no hope for science. The scientists will forever refuse to participate in their own lives, they will forever refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, and science itself will refuse firsthand observations as legitimate research. The scientific topic of psychopathy, is pathological science.

Scientists have already written their lists of psychopathic symptoms, and similar to science's lists of emotions, the lists describe the scientists' own minds, and no ad hoc excuses can now make the lists go away.

It is easy to find errors, both in man's beliefs, as well as within one's own self, but the difficult thing, is to find that which is good, and positive. This article points to the negatives of man's errors, but if I were to not offer a positive side — a choice — then my words would hold no good. My Daodeai pages are now publicly available, and are useful as a contrast to the topic of pathological science.