Carl-Richard

We were a group of about a dozen people. The person had booked the table. We arrived half an hour before the booking. The waiter said "sorry, you have to wait". The person then asked "can we sit in the bar in the meantime?". The waiter said "no". So we walked around in the city while waiting. The person expressed disappointment and controlled anger, "I've never ever experienced this; I say we just go another place now, if that's how it's going to be". The others did not want that, so we went to that restaurant. We also waited a bit extra, and the waiter told us why he had denied us a table, that other people had stayed for long and were told to leave but they were slow. We order our food, then a different waiter serves drinks, the wine drinkers including the person have Prosecco (sparkling wine). Then, after everything is served, the person asks the waiter: "I want to taste the white wine. Can we do that?". The most chilling and ominous vibe spreads across the table. The waiter paused for about a second, then said with an almost timid or terrified voice "yes, yes, the white wine.. I can bring it to the table... yes?". The person: "yes, thank you". It was clear that some seething, boiling rage, was subtly spilling out between the words of the person, but the tone, the voice, was controlled, only a subtle hint of anger. The person tasted the white wine, then asked if the other wine drinkers wanted to taste and tell them if they wanted it. The second wine drinker said "I think it's too dry". Then the rest of the wine drinkers concluded "no thanks, no white wine". The person laughed as the waiter left with the now opened and barely used wine bottle. At some point, the person also asked the waiter "can we get it by the glass?" (meaning they can pay for only each glass and not a full bottle). The waiter said "five wine drinkers means five glasses which is a wine bottle so that would not be possible". The person said "alright alright". At this point, I had tuned completely out of the conversation. I usually speak more than most in that group; after that point, I didn't speak but when people asked me why I was silent, dropping hints about what the hell was going in in front of their eyes and which they were repressing to not stir the pot too much. So what was happening was that because a waiter in the restaurant had "slighted him" by having him wait outside the restaurant because he came half an hour too early, he had planned to harass the waiters with wine tasting theatrics where his goal was to be as unpleasant and demanding of a customer as possible, and when it did go that way (the wine drinkers turned down the white wine), he laughed. This is psychopathy because it's not just impulsive anti-social behavior. It's cold, calculated anti-social behavior. Behavior where you plan, behavior where you know better, behavior where you choose to go down one path over another, repeatedly, incessantly, without changing, until you are satisfied.

When things get sufficiently removed from oneself into the past, we start to view it more through aesthetic than the brutal factual reality. We see this with the Vikings, pirates, Romans, Spartans. We start viewing them as cool, even noble somehow, perhaps despite the factual reality, and we even identify with them. Look at the Norwegian football fans during the World Cup role-playing as Vikings with their "Ro!" chant. The Vikings were essentially what Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida are today. Violent, ruthless killers, slaughtering everyone in their way, doing surprise attacks on larger cities and settlements. Norwegians are terrified of Islamic terrorists, yet they identify with the Vikings. The distinction is the separation of the far past and the immediate threat towards their survival. Remove the immediate threat to survival and you start viewing them in a different light. "But their ideology is different, that's why Norwegians don't like Islamic terrorists". Yes, different from their own, so it threatens their survival because it threathens them now. But is it really different from the ideology of the Vikings if you look at the pure structure rather than the content? Violent Islamic jihadism is not really that dissimilar from violent Norse paganism. Also, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, who couldn't be more different from oneself ideologically, also get the aesthetic treatment. There is even the idea that they were somehow enlightened or peaceful, living in perfect harmony with nature with egalitarian and matriarchical tribal structures, when that probably couldn't be further from the truth. This image crashes immediately once you replace "pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers" with "uncontacted jungle savages", and you see how when you meet these people in the present, you will end up with an arrow through your eye before anything else you can "gather" from them (talk about "aesthetics"). And of course, pirates get the Johnny Depp treatment, the Romans get the "every movie ever made about Ancient Rome" treatment, Spartans get the movie "300" treatment, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if 1000 years into the future and if violent Islamic jihadism has somehow become a thing of the past, Norwegians (or whatever they're called) start viewing violent Islamic jihadists as something cool, a bit like pirates, or the Vikings.

If you suppress emotion when engaging with genuine psychopathy, only in order to come off as more civil and perhaps more argumentatively effective on a virtual text editor machine, you are doing a huge disservice for your general life. But yes, perhaps it's even better to simply not engage.

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

That's what I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipulation_(psychology) Jirh's aim is to make me stop being mean. Inliytened's aim is to make me shut up and stop myself from getting banned. Both said the same thing, both want the discussion to go in a certain direction, what they said makes sense. It's sleazy because it's a kind of love bombing tactic which feels weird when you couple it with whatever else is happening. "But I didn't explicitly have that in mind while saying it!" But it facilitates your aim, doesn't it? Manipulation does not have to be conscious. Especially if you're a socio-logist-, a soci-al worker- a so-prano singer- a - never mind.

There will come a day where I will treat the candidates for category #2 of my ignore list the same as the candidates for category #1: sudden, complete, silence, no explanation, nothing. One day.

Such a sleazy manipulation tactic. Also ironically what the other dude I ignore-listed used to do.

That's what you care about.

Lmao. My ticked-off-ness is directly proportional to what is happening in the thread, such as has happened in a prior thread where I also put a person on the ignore list for the exact same type of reason, and that time, I also called the person a sociopath and whined about them contradicting themselves and engaging in a petty, irrelevant way. If you see me name-calling and being "ticked-off", it's to protect my soul, against soulless, self-contradictory, non-integrous trolls.

Maybe follow the discussion before you judge who is an adult and who is a child.

You're the one who brought up an academic analogy you absolute dofus. No consistency to find anywhere in what you're saying. Completely lost in sociopathic crybabying.

If a colleague asks me for a scientific reference for a project ("evidence") and then doesn't look at it and then pretends like they didn't actually want a scientific reference, I don't know who deserves to get fired. Last irrelevant "point" I will engage with.

Wow you just discovered how a conversation works, going from point to point. But you "forgot" that a conversation is often two-way. You asked for scientific evidence, I gave you it. All this bullshit just to not admit that you can't answer to the scientific evidence that you asked for. Consistent bullshit > honest engagement => psychopathy. Our engagement is over until you answer to the evidence you yourself asked for (is it satisfactory evidence? Is it not? Why?).

If your statements about what convinces you about the reality of a phenomena ("science will convince me") are dependent on local events in a discussion and not your values, you either have dementia, schizophrenia, or you're only concerned about winning in a local part of a discussion and not honestly evaluating what is true and thus a psychopath. Put more simply: how is it possible to "forget" that something extremely general like "science" would convince you that psychic phenomena are real?

There are two ways you end up on my ignore list: 1. your posts are literally schizophrenic, 2. you engage in a discussion in what seems to be good faith but then you withdraw when it gets hard, start contradicting yourself and start talking about utterly irrelevant shit, turning whatever is left of the discussion into a shitfest. Only two people have managed to actually fill criteria #2. And there is a word that describes their behavior with DSM-5 precision.

I don't know, man, what do you call a person who contradicts themselves, lies and plays psychological games instead of just engaging with the subject matter?

*Psycho expecting me to care about some posturing/shaming/psycho-tactic of them withdrawing their flailing 'approval' which changes whenever it suits them in the conversation instead of actually engaging.* You psychopaths are all the same. So concerned about dishing out petty shit, but not actually engaging. If you want my approval, actually engage. Until then, ignore list.

Anyways, ignoring all of the retarded vacuous non-argumentation about nothing at all that the other person on the ignore list also engages for some reason that we could only infer: so what do you think about Dr. Cardeña's American Psychologist review, particularly the 108 studies on the Ganzfeld effect?

I was pointing out a performative contradiction in you claiming to be bored while still engaging. How is that "bad faith"?

Explain what the fuck was "bad faith" with anything I've said.

Lack of argument detracts. Lack of consistency with prior statements detracts. Literally lying detracts. Such as:

Sometimes communication also depends on the person creating the signals. What even is this. You don't have to be logically consistent or consistent with what you said earlier either, you know, having just a modicum of integrity. Shady behavior gets called out. Makes a scene about leaving. Suddenly the discussion is about you. What a surprise. You came here to have a discussion and now you're leaving. That's the frame people in this thread will agree on. Your pity frame is likely soelly your own, just like your common sense frame.

You're lying. This is like uncanny, you're using the same language as the person on the ignore list. "Emotionally reactive". And of course without providing an argument. Let me also show you what "emotionally reactive" looks like: It's all projection with you guys. You're not bored, you're bored engaging using arguments and "common sense". Evident by your continued engagement following the exact trajectory I've described, "pretending to exit and poisoning the well". This is exactly the same psycho tactics that I put on my ignore list. Let it be clear yet again that the person above is now "leaving" the discussion after I provided the exact kind of evidence he was asking for and without responding to anything about that evidence.