Sociopath Community

Tryptamine said: 

AliceInWonderland said:

I actually saw something like this discussed the other day, though I do not recall what the phenomenon is called.

The theory stated was that a person with higher intelligence can convince people of things can as consequence gain a position of leadership over them but there's a limit to the process where if you are such and such number of deviations more intelligent than the individuals you are convincing they will no longer believe or follow you do to a break down in communication.

If I recall it was stated that 30 IQ points was the key number that if you exceed that over your peers they will no longer follow you.

This reminds me of an article I read a long while back, some of which addresses that.

 

https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/ said:

The data show three things. First, that there is a definite trend for the maladjusted to make higher scores on the Concept Mastery test. Second, that women show symptoms of maladjustment at lower scores than men. And third, that 21 percent of the men and 18 percent of the women showed at least some form of maladjustment.

During 1950-52, when the group was approximately 41 years old, another examination was made using a new test, the Concept Mastery test form T. Test scores were again compared to assessments of adjustment. (CMT-T scores are not interchangeable with CMT-A scores. They have different means and standard deviations.)



Similar conclusions can be drawn from these data as well. Again, there is a definite trend shown for the maladjusted to make higher scores than the satisfactorily adjusted. Again, women show symptoms of maladjustment at lower scores than men. But the most alarming thing of all is that the percentage of maladjustment shown for both sexes rose in the 12 years since the previous examination. The percentage of men showing maladjustment having risen from 21 percent to 29 percent, and the figure for women having risen from 18 percent to 33 percent! Nearly double what it was before!

 Okay, so concept mastery is a type of test based on ones ability to abstract (similar to IQ as I understand it which is hardly an understanding) and maladjustment is a failure to meat the demands of your environment while satisfactory I assume is the converse (I am not sure of that though). 

From this you infer that the better a person performs on the CMT the worst off they are in so far as meeting the demands of their environment. If you look at N for each there are far more individuals in the satisfactory/low performance category; if that trend held beyond the scope of this experiment then you could assume the larger mass of people who are satisfied but low performing on the CMT are determining the environment, hence the better performers have higher rates of maladjustment. 

That's interesting and not all that unexpected. 

 The criterion for adjustment went like this (looks like you may have already read it):

https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/ said:

1. Satisfactory. Subjects classified in this category were essentially normal; i.e., their “desires, emotions, and interests were compatible with the social standards and pressures” of their group. Everyone, of course, has adjustment problems of one kind or another. Satisfactory adjustment as here defined does not mean perfect contentment and complete absence of problems, but rather the ability to cope adequately with difficulties in the personal make-up or in the subject’s environment. Worry and anxiety when warranted by the circumstances, or a tendency to be somewhat high strung or nervous–provided such a tendency did not constitute a definite personality problem–were allowed in this category.

2. Some maladjustment. Classified here were subjects with excessive feelings of inadequacy or inferiority, nervous fatigue, mild anxiety neurosis, and the like. The emotional conflicts, nervous tendencies and social maladjustments of these individuals, while they presented definite problems, were not beyond the ability of the individual to handle, and there was no marked interference with social or personal life or with achievement. Subjects whose behavior was noticeably odd or freakish, but without evidence of serious neurotic tendencies, were also classified in this category.

3. Serious maladjustment. a.) Classified as 3a were subjects who had shown marked symptoms of anxiety, mental depression, personality maladjustment, or psychopathic personality. This classification also includes subjects who had suffered a “nervous breakdown,” provided the condition was not severe enough to constitute a psychosis. Subjects with a previous history of serious maladjustment or nervous breakdown (without psychosis) were included here even though their adjustment at the time of rating may have been entirely satisfactory. b.) Classified as 3b were those subjects who had at any time suffered a complete mental breakdown requiring hospitalization, whatever their condition at the time of rating. In the majority of cases the subjects were restored to reasonably good mental health after a brief period of hospital care [6, pp. 99-101].

You're probably right about how the environment is determined by the majority. This particular study was of genius, so all the subjects are presumed to be 2 standard deviations up at the lowest. I think that puts the alienation at the higher up cognitive levels in more perspective.

Thinking of some of the most creative geniuses like Newton, Gödel, Nietzsche, Kant, Tesla, maybe Leibniz, etc., there seems to be a lot of eccentricity going on. 

Tryptamine said: 

 The criterion for adjustment went like this (looks like you may have already read it):

https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/ said:

1. Satisfactory. Subjects classified in this category were essentially normal; i.e., their “desires, emotions, and interests were compatible with the social standards and pressures” of their group. Everyone, of course, has adjustment problems of one kind or another. Satisfactory adjustment as here defined does not mean perfect contentment and complete absence of problems, but rather the ability to cope adequately with difficulties in the personal make-up or in the subject’s environment. Worry and anxiety when warranted by the circumstances, or a tendency to be somewhat high strung or nervous–provided such a tendency did not constitute a definite personality problem–were allowed in this category.

2. Some maladjustment. Classified here were subjects with excessive feelings of inadequacy or inferiority, nervous fatigue, mild anxiety neurosis, and the like. The emotional conflicts, nervous tendencies and social maladjustments of these individuals, while they presented definite problems, were not beyond the ability of the individual to handle, and there was no marked interference with social or personal life or with achievement. Subjects whose behavior was noticeably odd or freakish, but without evidence of serious neurotic tendencies, were also classified in this category.

3. Serious maladjustment. a.) Classified as 3a were subjects who had shown marked symptoms of anxiety, mental depression, personality maladjustment, or psychopathic personality. This classification also includes subjects who had suffered a “nervous breakdown,” provided the condition was not severe enough to constitute a psychosis. Subjects with a previous history of serious maladjustment or nervous breakdown (without psychosis) were included here even though their adjustment at the time of rating may have been entirely satisfactory. b.) Classified as 3b were those subjects who had at any time suffered a complete mental breakdown requiring hospitalization, whatever their condition at the time of rating. In the majority of cases the subjects were restored to reasonably good mental health after a brief period of hospital care [6, pp. 99-101].

You're probably right about how the environment is determined by the majority. This particular study was of genius, so all the subjects are presumed to be 2 standard deviations up at the lowest. I think that puts the alienation at the higher up cognitive levels in more perspective.

Thinking of some of the most creative geniuses like Newton, Gödel, Nietzsche, Kant, Tesla, maybe Leibniz, etc., there seems to be a lot of eccentricity going on. 

 I didn't realize the whole sample was high IQ, that changes a lot. 

 I wonder if this is could explain paradigm shifts in science. You often see the case where an outsider is rejected by the whole scientific community only to be proven correct later on. That outsider is likely to feel serious maladjustment given he/she has been rejected by everyone else, Boltzman for instance was driven to suicide by his peers (they dismissed him so bad that he wasn't allowed at physics conferences, only being accepted at philosophical ones). All the other scientists who are intelligent enough to make observations and do simple calculations on the other hand are likely to feel satisfied given all they have to do is to continue with the status quo confirm the current state of knowledge. 

So far he has attempted

• trying to pull alice on his side after she broke him down, if you can't beat em join em, plus desperate for allies after everyone turned on him as the lolcow, he has no enablers left now xd
• attacking some randos he never talked to before in an attempt to score an e-victory to heal the humiliation from chapo
• project his realization that people are laughing at him and thinking of him as a scared puppy, he knows somewhere deep down that he's the mockery, but can't handle the realization
• as a last resort, lashing out at everyone writing 100 lines per every 1 line written to him (super invested and desperate)
• He is also mass reporting servers and accounts now, trying to get revenge

I will miss his proud self-state tbh, it was fun. It's not enjoyable watching him as a collapsed narcissist.

Hm, I see this is still going. Seems like the most invested characters are those I clapped on Based that one day (Jim, TC). They seem to continue dickriding each other and coming back in the thread projecting the narcissistic defensive mechanisms again. Seems to be the biggest thing with them. 

Can't tell if they believe their own delusions or it's simply a damage control tactic. Seems more of the former as they come back to vent in my thread and let out their hurt feelings. 

You may continue using this thread for all your troubles. I know this is needed for you. 

Turncoat said: 

Dude, how are you still this triggered and salty? 

Slay:
Words = dont take at face value.
Unless you're an idiot like chapo
And get cucked out of $500 bucks

Slay:
These are the reasons I stated btw: to break down other people's larps/see their copes/defense mechanisms, etc.
Attacking people in certain ways tells you about who they really are

Slay:
Ways that you can't achieve by being less polarizing
Becayse you need to engage the the ego
and their emotions, and investment
to really understand someone
vs what they might like to present as
which is usually just a front that is fake
and does nothing for me

Slay:
Because I like interesting people
And that way I can sift through the trash quite easily.
Garbage = discarded
Potential = I work with and delve deeper into them.
And drop my "larp"
After they've been tested.
and ofc, passed that test

Slay:
Me saying I use a certain tactic for interesting people doesn't mean it's always used for the same reason. I like engaging in this form of bullying, testing other people's mental strength behavior, etc because

Slay:
1. Entertainment
2. It keeps you learning and thinking
Requires you to use your brain and constantly update on people's behaviors
and it is very high-paced thing.
So it's fun.
But you seem schizoid/autistic
0so it won't be you're thing you're too retarded no offense
your*
But also.

Slay:
Time and time again I've had people tell me that I've pointed out something that no one ever has about them, some small detail that is quite significant in some way.

Slay:
So my observational skills are at an extremely high skill level

Slay:
The thing I've had to work on was communicating that
and being succinct about it
So that my point gets across more smoothly to the more retarded and vulnerable parties.
Socially yes, I have a very hard time understanding these types of behaviors - I am far more intelligent when it comes to numbers and logical structures. - Yeah that's autism.
I could tell immediately that you had ASD traits by how you initially tried putting social interactions into rigid systems
But, you could have also been baiting but I thought it was more of an ASD thing.
Be back later. Good talk

Like seriously how are you narcing out this hard? You lost, swallow that pill and grow up instead of acting like a petulant child. 

At least it's fun to wake up to your sperging, I hope you never get over this mark on your e-rep. You only make that plane trip he took more and more valuable as you keep freaking out like a bitch. 

In life, you win some and you lose some, and the sooner you swallow your loss in the form of Chapo's e-load, the sooner you can move on, but if you can't then you will be our punching bag in the meantime over starting something you were too weak spirited to finish, no different from Cawk. 

 You seem very emotional. 

Here, let me hand you a tissue and a bandage for that wound. 

It's ok buddy. Cucking the only place on the internet that accepts you doesn't mean you need to lash out this hard. I turned a schizophrenic pseudointellectual autist into a full-blown vulnerable narcissism with one move. 

🤭

You still can't allow it to be about yourself at all. 

Good shit. 🍿

"Stop pointing the finger at me, let me point it at you instead 😭" 

Don't worry, I'm already breaking you down into these weak-willed responses that expose your nature. Your argumentative control tactic is feminine and lesser in nature, thus the "Just give in already" frame. It's pathetic. Don't beg others to submit, offer superior frames and points and the winner will be decided that way. 

You can't bare to look at yourself, let alone let others look at you, then you find yourself flinging your issues at a conspiracy driven bandwagon rather than handle your problems. 

We're literally sitting here laughing at you while you think it's us playing pretend. 

Turncoat said: 

playing pretend. 

 No. You're not pretending at all. You really are butthurt. You keep trying to affirm yourself with jim because you're the most affected by this; and also the most feminine of the "males". 

You can laugh, pretend to laugh, etc.

This is what you're laughing at: