Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said:

Even within those subtypes that you define, there will be differences.

Precisely! 

Each newer and more extreme case defines the new bar, the new accepted 100% of that trait cluster. Even if someone is a recombination of multiple trait clusters, it's not like the room for variation within it is infinite. 

For one's nature it's just a mixture of ancestry, birth-housing conditions, and what conditions the planet was in when you were born, and for nurture it's just a bunch of parroting the people and events around you that resonate within your nature. 

Once you organize it into a diverse enough spectrum with multiple potential recombinations of pieces, human patterns start to yield complicated yet eerily consistent results. There actually is an end goal in sight with digging into variations, but that endgame however likely won't be 100% realized until an algorithm is predicting all our shit. 

So... You're hoping for a definitive mapping of human nature so that we can deduce trends? Lol? I mean, yeah I agree. 

TLDR; Just because it's straining and time consuming to measure it deeper doesn't make it not worth it. 

Well, yeah.  I just mentioned a principle of acceptance and you started talking like you disagree with a thesis of mine. 

Xadem said: 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said:

Even within those subtypes that you define, there will be differences.

Precisely! 

Each newer and more extreme case defines the new bar, the new accepted 100% of that trait cluster. Even if someone is a recombination of multiple trait clusters, it's not like the room for variation within it is infinite. 

For one's nature it's just a mixture of ancestry, birth-housing conditions, and what conditions the planet was in when you were born, and for nurture it's just a bunch of parroting the people and events around you that resonate within your nature. 

Once you organize it into a diverse enough spectrum with multiple potential recombinations of pieces, human patterns start to yield complicated yet eerily consistent results. There actually is an end goal in sight with digging into variations, but that endgame however likely won't be 100% realized until an algorithm is predicting all our shit. 

So... You're hoping for a definitive mapping of human nature so that we can deduce trends? Lol? I mean, yeah I agree. 

That's my life. 

TLDR; Just because it's straining and time consuming to measure it deeper doesn't make it not worth it. 

Well, yeah.  I just mentioned a principle of acceptance and you started talking like you disagree with a thesis of mine. 

I mean you went on about people being principally the same, I do disagree until you get to absurdity like "We all have tongues". 

I think you missed a post

Xadem said:

But looking at other people as extensions of yourself isn't mutually exclusive with being able to categorise them. I don't doubt that this, like many things, can be twisted to avoid self reflection, but that's not saying much at all.

Of course, but if I set bars towards those common threads I can measure how they are like more/less extreme versions of what I understand from myself, and if I can't identify or resonate with the trait I can still observe and compare it from a relative basis of data from other people I've interviewed. 

For example, if I see that my own anger hits roughly a 3/10 threshold, then I've likely met a 10/10 somewhere in my life. I can still use the data of the most extreme examples to relate to lesser expressions of it and proportioning it accordingly, but doing that in reverse is more difficult. 

Xadem said: 

I think you missed a post

Did I? I still disagree even when you concede this much: 

Everyone does seem quite similar even with all the nuances

We're a VAST tapestry of differences with tons of room to explore. 

Like you'd be arguing Cindy differs from Mindy because she prefers strawberry jam over apricot jam, but I'd point out that they both enjoy jam and the nuance of their respective tastes is just a manifestation of their similarity.

As for this, I'd argue you're oversimplifying it. There is something to people based on if they prefer sweets, mints, bitters, etc. 

Scorpios for example have a higher proclivity towards mint flavors, Aquarians find it easier to starve themselves, Cancers seem to have a shitty sense of taste, and Cancers + Leos seem to like stimulants like caffeine and sugar in a more compulsive fashion, which brings to question fun questions about the birthrights of our taste buds. 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

I think you missed a post

Did I? I still disagree even when you concede this much: 

Everyone does seem quite similar even with all the nuances

We're a VAST tapestry of differences with tons of room to explore. 

It's not so much a concession as us agreeing that there are over arching trends which bind us despite our perceived differences. I think you're conflating my point with a desire to simplify human nature. Just because I perceive others as being possibly me, but in different circumstances, does not mean I leave less room for complexity.  

Like you'd be arguing Cindy differs from Mindy because she prefers strawberry jam over apricot jam, but I'd point out that they both enjoy jam and the nuance of their respective tastes is just a manifestation of their similarity.

As for this, I'd argue you're oversimplifying it. There is something to people based on if they prefer sweets, mints, bitters, etc. 

Scorpios for example have a higher proclivity towards mint flavors, Aquarians find it easier to starve themselves, Cancers seem to have a shitty sense of taste, and Cancers + Leos seem to like stimulants like caffeine and sugar in a more compulsive fashion, which brings to question fun questions about the birthrights of our taste buds. 

That would again be Cindy and Mindy playing out their shared propensity for jam. Sure they like different tastes but why does that cancel out their similarity? 

Xadem said: 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

I think you missed a post

Did I? I still disagree even when you concede this much: 

Everyone does seem quite similar even with all the nuances

We're a VAST tapestry of differences with tons of room to explore. 

It's not so much a concession as us agreeing that there are over arching trends which bind us despite our perceived differences. I think you're conflating my point with a desire to simplify human nature. Just because I perceive others as being possibly me, but in different circumstances, does not mean I leave less room for complexity.  

To me, if they won't go into the deeper subtler traits of a person it feels like they're not even saying anything. 

Why point out that water's wet when you could instead see that it's composed of two hyrdogen and an oxygen molecule, as well as it's room to be carrying differing levels of impurities that make it "not just water" anymore? 

Like you'd be arguing Cindy differs from Mindy because she prefers strawberry jam over apricot jam, but I'd point out that they both enjoy jam and the nuance of their respective tastes is just a manifestation of their similarity.

As for this, I'd argue you're oversimplifying it. There is something to people based on if they prefer sweets, mints, bitters, etc. 

Scorpios for example have a higher proclivity towards mint flavors, Aquarians find it easier to starve themselves, Cancers seem to have a shitty sense of taste, and Cancers + Leos seem to like stimulants like caffeine and sugar in a more compulsive fashion, which brings to question fun questions about the birthrights of our taste buds. 

That would again be Cindy and Mindy playing out their shared propensity for jam. Sure they like different tastes but why does that cancel out their similarity? 

It'd be helpful when comparing them as an ingroup versus those who do not like jam, but if it's just those two in question why stop there? 

Our argument to me resembles the essence of I <3 Huckabees existential couple. While the two fundamentally agree that the world has meaning by virtue of it's existence, Dustin Hoffman's character argues how we're all connected, while Lily Tomlin's character obsesses over the smallest of details, noting that "even the smallest sample can turn into an entire case". 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said:

But looking at other people as extensions of yourself isn't mutually exclusive with being able to categorise them. I don't doubt that this, like many things, can be twisted to avoid self reflection, but that's not saying much at all.

Of course, but if I set bars towards those common threads I can measure how they are like more/less extreme versions of what I understand from myself, and if I can't identify or resonate with the trait I can still observe and compare it from a relative basis of data from other people I've interviewed. 

For example, if I see that my own anger hits roughly a 3/10 threshold, then I've likely met a 10/10 somewhere in my life. I can still use the data of the most extreme examples to relate to lesser expressions of it and proportioning it accordingly, but doing that in reverse is more difficult. 

If you don't resonate with a trait, can't you just grab onto the closest thing to it? All you have to do is remain consistent, and then I don't see a point where you will be completely alienated.

This reminds me about a thing I read, where people tend to underestimate the possibility of their own job being automated. The reason being that they're particularly aware of the complexity of their job. Maybe you're just too focused on the details? 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

I think you missed a post

Did I? I still disagree even when you concede this much: 

Everyone does seem quite similar even with all the nuances

We're a VAST tapestry of differences with tons of room to explore. 

Like you'd be arguing Cindy differs from Mindy because she prefers strawberry jam over apricot jam, but I'd point out that they both enjoy jam and the nuance of their respective tastes is just a manifestation of their similarity.

As for this, I'd argue you're oversimplifying it. There is something to people based on if they prefer sweets, mints, bitters, etc. 

Scorpios for example have a higher proclivity towards mint flavors, Aquarians find it easier to starve themselves, Cancers seem to have a shitty sense of taste, and Cancers + Leos seem to like stimulants like caffeine and sugar in a more compulsive fashion, which brings to question fun questions about the birthrights of our taste buds. 

 Dude I'm a scorpio and I hate mint.

Astrology is bullshit nathan