Sociopath Community

ScionReborn 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. 

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

You're also a moon, an ascendant, and a lilith if you go into base 12^4 (20736 combinations if you ignore ascendant staggers and cusps) for more obvious signs and symptoms. Also without proof thanks to your duplicitous nature I can't even trust that you're telling me your real sun sign. 

Odds are a funny thing when you gather enough seemingly irrelevant data, hence my use of the word "proclivity". We even have astrology being proven right now under a base 4 system (the seasons), and it's uncanny how some disorderly tendencies have higher likelihoods based on your birth spot on the crop clock. 

It's about as insane to believe in the demystified version of astrology (crop clock logic instead of star madness) as it is to believe in psychology. 

Turncoat said: 

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? 

My original point meant putting yourself in someone else's shoes and considering that you might fuck up in a way as well. The same combination of molecules will still form water no matter how much you narrow it down. If that comparison fits. 

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? 

 So what, you'd need an alien race to consider humans to be extension of yourself? 

Xadem said: 

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?

No, I need comparisons from other people who feel it truly, and seeing them interact with people who aren't myself is even more helpful. From me it's not the same as it is from them, and to compare it like that beyond the room for proportional similarity is just going to sell me a falsified, heavily impressionistic image.

I know there's many things I don't or can't know, many things I don't feel, and things I feel incorrectly to the point that it alienates me from many's human experience. It makes more sense to compare clusters of people with more in common than to take assumptive mental leaps, as said leaps I've already witnessed time and time again do a disservice to the field of Psych. 

I'd rather keep an open mind to the differences than assume that I can just look for what we have in common. If a therapist or psychiatrist were to only look for the streamline connections, they'd be prescribing everyone who's disordered as ADD instead of looking for what else might cause a similar spike in symptoms. They may even go as far as to say no one has anything going on with them. 

Fields of science develop from diving into further and further nuanced understandings. FFS the eskimos did that to snow and it made them experts. 

All you have to do is remain consistent, and then I don't see a point where you will be completely alienated.

Basically you demonstrate patterns and they either adapt to them or leave, and in turn they'll do it right back to you, yeah. That's less about resonation though and more familiarity, but it can lead to nurturing some bridges in spite of the initial differences. 

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? 

This assumes that automation isn't itself complicated. 

Once we have an algorithm that does psych better than a human can do, that shit'll be advanced as fuck. 

Xadem said:

So what, you'd need an alien race to consider humans to be extension of yourself?

It'd help a lot, it's definitely an old wet dream of mine. 

With an alien race that breaks enough human conventions, we'd be that much more capable of seeing what being human really means. Sci-Fi loves this shit. 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

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?

No, I need comparisons from other people who feel it truly, and seeing them interact with people who aren't myself is even more helpful. From me it's not the same as it is from them, and to compare it like that beyond the room for proportional similarity is just going to sell me a falsified, heavily impressionistic image.

I know there's many things I don't or can't know, many things I don't feel, and things I feel incorrectly to the point that it alienates me from many's human experience. It makes more sense to compare clusters of people with more in common than to take assumptive mental leaps, as said leaps I've already witnessed time and time again do a disservice to the field of Psych. 

I'd rather keep an open mind to the differences than assume that I can just look for what we have in common. If a therapist or psychiatrist were to only look for the streamline connections, they'd be prescribing everyone who's disordered as ADD instead of looking for what else might cause a similar spike in symptoms. They may even go as far as to say no one has anything going on with them. 

Fields of science develop from diving into further and further nuanced understandings. FFS the eskimos did that to snow and it made them experts. 

And I do appreciate that as a practical stance for the sake of preserving objectivity. 

All you have to do is remain consistent, and then I don't see a point where you will be completely alienated.

Basically you demonstrate patterns and they either adapt to them or leave, and in turn they'll do it right back to you, yeah. That's less about resonation though and more familiarity, but it can lead to nurturing some bridges in spite of the initial differences. 

Yeah man. THAT'S what I'm going for, I'm trying to relate to people, not map out human nature for my research. You're talking to me, remember? 

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? 

This assumes that automation isn't itself complicated. 

Once we have an algorithm that does psych better than a human can do, that shit'll be advanced as fuck. 

Does it assume that? It was less about the automation and more about people's bias towards their own field of expertise. 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said:

So what, you'd need an alien race to consider humans to be extension of yourself?

It'd help a lot, it's definitely an old wet dream of mine. 

writes down alien costume on shopping list

With an alien race that breaks enough human conventions, we'd be that much more capable of seeing what being human really means. Sci-Fi loves this shit. 

Okay but what keeps you from generating a hypothetical alien race and just observing humans that way? Do you think you can't escape your human point of view? 

Also what bothers me about a lot of sci-fi is how awfully human the aliens are. Or even just Earthly. Are we just so devoid of creativity? 

Xadem said:

Does it assume that? It was less about the automation and more about people's bias towards their own field of expertise.

It still fits in that replacing a person's specific job requires very, very specific construction and programming. Check Michael Reeves for his take on it in the following video and others on his channel: 



People can be taken as the currently easier answer from how squishy and basic peer-to-peer training is, it's a nice stand in while engineers work on replacing us with the only real cost being upkeep prices. Making a machine that won't screw shit up takes someone who isn't at a basic understanding of tech, it takes enterprising types who know how to avoid Union complaints. 

Xadem said: 

With an alien race that breaks enough human conventions, we'd be that much more capable of seeing what being human really means. Sci-Fi loves this shit. 

Okay but what keeps you from generating a hypothetical alien race and just observing humans that way? Do you think you can't escape your human point of view? 

They'll reflect the author too much. 

Life doesn't follow a concise human narrative, books and television meanwhile do. 

Also what bothers me about a lot of sci-fi is how awfully human the aliens are. Or even just Earthly. Are we just so devoid of creativity? 

Ooh you see it too. 

There's sci-fi people who share your frustration. Check the Alien series, the deeper Cthulhu inspired stuff, and check games like The Last of Us, there's artists out there trying to push that medium further. 

Edit: You might really dig SCP Foundation, too. 

I'm trying to relate to people, not map out human nature for my research. You're talking to me, remember?

But I do said research to understand people. If I don't, I'm not really listening to them, and other people's egos seem validated from seeing me giving them so much attention. 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

With an alien race that breaks enough human conventions, we'd be that much more capable of seeing what being human really means. Sci-Fi loves this shit. 

Okay but what keeps you from generating a hypothetical alien race and just observing humans that way? Do you think you can't escape your human point of view? 

They'll reflect the author too much. 

Life doesn't follow a concise human narrative, books and television meanwhile do. 

I'm still having trouble seeing how that means we're not principally the same entities with extreme nuances. Honestly I could probably say the same for cats if I was one. You'd be saying the same shit too. 

Also what bothers me about a lot of sci-fi is how awfully human the aliens are. Or even just Earthly. Are we just so devoid of creativity? 

Ooh you see it too. 

There's sci-fi people who share your frustration. Check the Alien series, the deeper Cthulhu inspired stuff, and check games like The Last of Us, there's artists out there trying to push that medium further. 

Edit: You might really dig SCP Foundation, too. 

I'll check those out. But it's still making me wonder whether we're even capable of conceiving of something truly alien. I'd love to experience that just once. 

I'm trying to relate to people, not map out human nature for my research. You're talking to me, remember?

But I do said research to understand people. If I don't, I'm not really listening to them, and other people's egos seem validated from seeing me giving them so much attention. 

 That doesn't mean you can't keep someone's else shared taste for strawberry jam in the back of your mind. 

Xadem said: 

Turncoat said: 

Xadem said: 

With an alien race that breaks enough human conventions, we'd be that much more capable of seeing what being human really means. Sci-Fi loves this shit. 

Okay but what keeps you from generating a hypothetical alien race and just observing humans that way? Do you think you can't escape your human point of view? 

They'll reflect the author too much. 

Life doesn't follow a concise human narrative, books and television meanwhile do. 

I'm still having trouble seeing how that means we're not principally the same entities with extreme nuances. Honestly I could probably say the same for cats if I was one. You'd be saying the same shit too. 

I don't imagine myself being born as a talking cat. 

Also what bothers me about a lot of sci-fi is how awfully human the aliens are. Or even just Earthly. Are we just so devoid of creativity? 

Ooh you see it too. 

There's sci-fi people who share your frustration. Check the Alien series, the deeper Cthulhu inspired stuff, and check games like The Last of Us, there's artists out there trying to push that medium further. 

Edit: You might really dig SCP Foundation, too. 

I'll check those out. But it's still making me wonder whether we're even capable of conceiving of something truly alien. I'd love to experience that just once. 

We'd need someone who dabbles in the field of Marine Biology if we wanted to find something closer. 

I'm trying to relate to people, not map out human nature for my research. You're talking to me, remember?

But I do said research to understand people. If I don't, I'm not really listening to them, and other people's egos seem validated from seeing me giving them so much attention. 

 That doesn't mean you can't keep someone's else shared taste for strawberry jam in the back of your mind. 

Does it mean anything though without digging deeper?