Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

I grew up used to people who could take it, it's jarring to see how many can't. My group of friends in school were able to take critique and my degree literally put us all through it for every class related to our major so it became normal. 

I then face others who didn't go through that and they see me as some sort of horrible person for making them ask questions. Obviously the questions make them uncomfortable but after so many it's moreover how they associate me with uncomfortable questions, but I'm like "How are you not supposed to ask them these things?".

It seems uncommon that people are willing to be so confrontational in that way, and I use the word confrontation because at times that's what being critical can be, if you're challenging how their mind itself works. I don't think you'd be associated with this if it was a common thing.

Is challenging how one's mind works bad though?

It isn't always, but can be. Is it still good if the person shuts down? What if it was done at a time when the person seemed more receptive?

You're actually an interesting example in that you have the same urge, but you'll play along with those 'too weak' to participate. 

I struggle to play along once something they've said is questionable, not even 'wtf' tier.

I don't see this as wrong. It reminds me of the YouTuber/streamer MrGirl and his dislike of not talking about the metaconversation or opaque things going on, even if people dislike it, or it creates awkwardness. The strength of that being a lot of deep and unusual discourse happens. The downside being that some people get defensive and shut down. 

It suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks. 

It contributes to the Cassandra Complex when things feel 'seen' yet no one cares. 

How does one accept that though? 

Don't really know what is normal when it comes to this.

My playing along is often more a position of suspension of judgment that extends from my view that everyone operates under their own set of rules, and theirs are often unimportant to me because they're transient parts of my life.

I tend to see you play along until drunken frustration yields. 

You don't enjoy it either, but you find it easier to play the game. I feel as if we both have the same distaste, but that you're more accommodating for it. 

I can recall instances of this. My inner dialogue isn't usually searing, but sometimes it is at what I see and I let that aside. I'm sure it would entertain people more if I was more caustic, but it really doesn't do anything good for me.

I can possibly learn from them or try to persuade them, or reason with them if I like them, but their minds are mostly things I interact with because of circumstance, and often my goal is to keep things flowing smoothly. Less so here, but even here I don't usually prioritize hardball over amicability.

I feel like we both learn the same thing but you take it more to heart; No one wants advice, they want to feel like their friends don't know how to fix it to further their inability. 

Like shiiiit dude, I can't fix my own issues or they'd be solved by now, but when it's other people it's so much easier. 

One thing that I heard a long while ago that really caught my attention was like "why the fuck would you listen to the advice of friends who don't even have their own shit together." And it reflected back onto me advising people what to do with their lives when I was at my grandma's all day getting drunk. It wasn't even that I always gave bad advice, but it's more like if everything in my head added up right, I would be living proof of my logic, instead of pushing a couple isolated equations on others when it feels convenient for me. Then I can know what I think is sound and really understand what it's like, because I'm living it. I'm hesitant to tell someone what ought to be, especially if it's someone more experienced than me.

Why do you say you can't solve your own issues?

Exactly, it's a bunch of lies people tell each other to feel more comfortable. 

I get that exposure to a person is supposed to have them codependently adapt off of what purpose you serve for them, but if someone is expressing a problem area then isn't my omission even more of a disservice? I'd prefer people tell me what I'm doing wrong even if I don't internalize it over that being the quote unquote "Better Way To Be". 

It's a matter of degrees when it comes to omissions. There must be times where you say nothing, no?

Only if I've otherwise "given up on them", meaning I'm still at least 1/5 invested. Enough of them lives in my brain, how do you ignore something like that? For me, I can't. 

I don't even know if there's a person I have no investment in, as if I don't I'm likely not noticing that. Dropping something is much more of a struggle for me than trying something new. 

No one with no investment? What do you mean by investment?

Tryptamine said: 

You're actually an interesting example in that you have the same urge, but you'll play along with those 'too weak' to participate. 

I struggle to play along once something they've said is questionable, not even 'wtf' tier.

I don't see this as wrong.

Yet you still show restraint? 

You see the problem and have learned to not respond to it. You'd rather have what gives you comfort than what feels correct, and your mates of choice express that. If it was about them "Being Real" it'd be entirely different people, wouldn't it? 

I see what you're doing as a different style of interaction. To put things in another perspective, I don't think every opportunity for criticism merits it.

What ratio would you throw at it though, like 20%? 

I've mostly seen you playing along until you hit points of frustration, showing some level of entitlement over the time you've spent listening to them. I see playing along like that to a certain degree as lying, even when it'd grant something convenient through omission and even when they are literally asking for enablers. 

I feel like being an enabler, even when it'd be circumstantially easier on me to do it, is a bad thing to do in casual settings. 

Not to say "let people be blind", but rather there are wrong settings.

Is it that, or is it a matter of patiently waiting them out for the few, rare, correct settings? Even if they are receptive at points, are they actually listening? Is it worth feeling like they can't hear you if they end up friendlier? 

I really don't see you being real with people too often, unless you've hit a boiling point of some kind, be it something anger or impatience. While you through your means are liable to be taken as friendlier for it, I see your pity for them or whatever might merit it having you rarely say what's actually on your mind. 

If it's someone I'm just meeting or someone I'm not very close to, I'm more prone to just let them express themselves than question their reasoning. Not just to avoid awkwardness, but to facilitate a more facile rapport. Not that critique is then off limits—it's just less important.

My affect tends to be taken better in person, not really sure why. 

It reminds me of the YouTuber/streamer MrGirl and his dislike of not talking about the metaconversation or opaque things going on, even if people dislike it, or it creates awkwardness. The strength of that being a lot of deep and unusual discourse happens. The downside being that some people get defensive and shut down.

Majority more like. 

People aren't built to take in things outside of their realm of perspective if it's enough degrees away, and I'm not aiming to accommodate that almost at all over how pretending to be who they'd need me to be feeling like lying. 

I'd rather be known as a potentially misguided truth-seeker than an intentional liar, as if I'm wrong with my statements I don't tend to see it pre-emptively. If I say a thing, it's not shrouded, but plenty of people insist it must be some sort of gimmick or play rather than a genuine critique from their fellow man. If I am to say these things, it can't possibly be about them if you ask them. 

I think the main criticism I see levied toward you in this regard is probably best articulated by Spatial, who's expressed that your questions seem to be trying to pave a narrative that characterizes him a certain way.

So you don't agree with the things being said about him then, or are you moreso commenting on how having critical things to say about someone so sensitive is bound to be go poorly? 

Your choice of language here shows me that, for one reason or another, you choose to play along with Spatial's delusions rather than question them. 

The example case being when you were interrogating him about his good will—one of the things specifically being generosity with money in relation to family. 

You've lost me here, I don't recall him going on about generosity with money in relation to family. 

Tryptamine said: 

How could truth be the enemy, other than it being able to rub the wrong way in certain circumstances?

Come on now, I'm sure you get this as much as I do or you'd not be quite as withholding over it. You've given me the impression of thinking that most people can't handle the truth, hence your tailoring your speech towards what makes them feel good. 

I get that people'd rather feel good than have real conversations, but 'playing the game' feels inauthentic. 

It's a matter of degrees when it comes to omissions. There must be times where you say nothing, no?

I feel shitty every time it comes up, the easier answer is to just say it. 

Can you think of an example of this that would probably be striking to most?

What, like an example of where I couldn't stop myself from saying my truths rather than letting them comfortably be nutty? 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

I grew up used to people who could take it, it's jarring to see how many can't. My group of friends in school were able to take critique and my degree literally put us all through it for every class related to our major so it became normal. 

I then face others who didn't go through that and they see me as some sort of horrible person for making them ask questions. Obviously the questions make them uncomfortable but after so many it's moreover how they associate me with uncomfortable questions, but I'm like "How are you not supposed to ask them these things?".

It seems uncommon that people are willing to be so confrontational in that way, and I use the word confrontation because at times that's what being critical can be, if you're challenging how their mind itself works. I don't think you'd be associated with this if it was a common thing.

Is challenging how one's mind works bad though?

It isn't always, but can be. Is it still good if the person shuts down?

I would have figured that said people shutting down would still remember what caused it once they've cooled off, and that past a certain extent that repetition would yield patterns even they might notice down the line. 

...I'm learning otherwise and it's really creepy. 

What if it was done at a time when the person seemed more receptive?

If it's about getting people to do something, yeah, this makes sense. If it's about having people face things they don't want to hear, unless the person's capable of introspection it's never the right time. 

I've found a surprising lack of introspective thought since leaving college, and people entering their 30s seem to be becoming increasingly rigid. Even people who used to be open to all sorts of debates before don't have the same stamina anymore. 

You're actually an interesting example in that you have the same urge, but you'll play along with those 'too weak' to participate. 

I struggle to play along once something they've said is questionable, not even 'wtf' tier.

I don't see this as wrong. It reminds me of the YouTuber/streamer MrGirl and his dislike of not talking about the metaconversation or opaque things going on, even if people dislike it, or it creates awkwardness. The strength of that being a lot of deep and unusual discourse happens. The downside being that some people get defensive and shut down. 

It suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks. 

It contributes to the Cassandra Complex when things feel 'seen' yet no one cares. 

How does one accept that though? 

Don't really know what is normal when it comes to this.

I've found the people here to be surprisingly sensitive relatively, but I also wonder how much of it is over having to read it rather than hear it. 

I think tone and body language can be disarming, while the typed form has them typically project or presume the other person's tone and subtext. In person these talks have gone much better, and even this forum in it's earlier days seemed much more equipt for it. 

Did the people here get weaker or something overtime? We used to be able to be way more scathing than this as the norm and people got that as part of the social culture. 

My playing along is often more a position of suspension of judgment that extends from my view that everyone operates under their own set of rules, and theirs are often unimportant to me because they're transient parts of my life.

I tend to see you play along until drunken frustration yields. 

You don't enjoy it either, but you find it easier to play the game. I feel as if we both have the same distaste, but that you're more accommodating for it. 

I can recall instances of this. My inner dialogue isn't usually searing, but sometimes it is at what I see and I let that aside. I'm sure it would entertain people more if I was more caustic, but it really doesn't do anything good for me. 

I'd think that holding so much in would be what leads to frustration and eventually explosions through bottling. 

Tryptamine said: 

I can possibly learn from them or try to persuade them, or reason with them if I like them, but their minds are mostly things I interact with because of circumstance, and often my goal is to keep things flowing smoothly. Less so here, but even here I don't usually prioritize hardball over amicability.

I feel like we both learn the same thing but you take it more to heart; No one wants advice, they want to feel like their friends don't know how to fix it to further their inability. 

Like shiiiit dude, I can't fix my own issues or they'd be solved by now, but when it's other people it's so much easier. 

One thing that I heard a long while ago that really caught my attention was like "why the fuck would you listen to the advice of friends who don't even have their own shit together."

I by contrast have seen many go with "Those who can't help themselves help others", like when someone is depressed and doesn't want that burden carried by those around them, or when someone who couldn't succeed in their field takes up teaching. Regardless of their level of success it still shows where their focus is, and within that focus will still be time. Even most of those in the field of Psychotherapy are themselves usually not neurotypical; something had to get them interested in the subject in the first place. 

When one's problems are unsolvable from otherwise above a certain threshold, the areas beneath that bar tend to be areas where they can still otherwise offer advice through experience. 

For those who immediately Ad Hom I always saw that as a cope, as with enough digging it's easy enough to construe that no one has their shit together, and if need be they will reinvent their perception of the one saying what they're hearing as to not have to take it in. 

Why do you say you can't solve your own issues?

That'd be a topic of it's own, moreover the question of what does and doesn't constitute issues. I have otherwise not been able to give advice when the problems people have are similar enough to my own, and being able to see problems without seeing solutions still has merit at least as half-baked progress (by contrast to completely ignoring it anyway). 

Exactly, it's a bunch of lies people tell each other to feel more comfortable. 

I get that exposure to a person is supposed to have them codependently adapt off of what purpose you serve for them, but if someone is expressing a problem area then isn't my omission even more of a disservice? I'd prefer people tell me what I'm doing wrong even if I don't internalize it over that being the quote unquote "Better Way To Be". 

It's a matter of degrees when it comes to omissions. There must be times where you say nothing, no?

Only if I've otherwise "given up on them", meaning I'm still at least 1/5 invested. Enough of them lives in my brain, how do you ignore something like that? For me, I can't. 

I don't even know if there's a person I have no investment in, as if I don't I'm likely not noticing that. Dropping something is much more of a struggle for me than trying something new. 

No one with no investment? What do you mean by investment?

The opposite of investment in this case would be complete apathy over them, letting them be themselves to their own detriment and potentially even my own amusement. 

Some corrective itch though feels like they need to recognize the existence of their problems. Rather than be bitter that not everyone is equipt for critique however I should be appreciating those I know who otherwise aren't so weak. 

Looked at some of this and will try to respond today or tomorrow, just busy and tired lately.

Tryptamine said: 

Looked at some of this and will try to respond today or tomorrow, just busy and tired lately.

That's fine, I haven't been responding ASAP either. 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

I see what you're doing as a different style of interaction. To put things in another perspective, I don't think every opportunity for criticism merits it.

What ratio would you throw at it though, like 20%? 

I've mostly seen you playing along until you hit points of frustration, showing some level of entitlement over the time you've spent listening to them. I see playing along like that to a certain degree as lying, even when it'd grant something convenient through omission and even when they are literally asking for enablers. 

I feel like being an enabler, even when it'd be circumstantially easier on me to do it, is a bad thing to do in casual settings. 

I don't know if I can put a percentage, it's more like I bring stuff up when it feels right. The points of frustration were probably all when I was drunk, though I do it sometimes sober—comes more from anger about something specific usually. It's not a sense of entitlement, I don't think I'm entitled to have people act a certain way, it's just frustration has boiled into anger.

It's hard to recall what sort of things have set me off. I think people doing the same dumb shit has done it. And I think I recall instances where someone is upset at me over something I think is trivial (which it isn't always), but instead of handling it calmly I become aggressive. I get how it can seem like I'm finally being honest or something, because if I'm angry I might want to actually hurt the person, which means hitting them where I know they're insecure. Normally these insecurities are a non-issue, everyone has them. It's just that I have damage on my mind, which isn't something to be celebrated.

Not to say "let people be blind", but rather there are wrong settings.

Is it that, or is it a matter of patiently waiting them out for the few, rare, correct settings? Even if they are receptive at points, are they actually listening? Is it worth feeling like they can't hear you if they end up friendlier? 

I really don't see you being real with people too often, unless you've hit a boiling point of some kind, be it something anger or impatience. While you through your means are liable to be taken as friendlier for it, I see your pity for them or whatever might merit it having you rarely say what's actually on your mind. 

I think a good example of this is when I was absent here recently; I did make a few puppets, including that one that was calling Med mentally ill and broken, saying she was fated to an institution. Normally I would be more nice, though I do lash out at her occasionally. It was meant to be cutting, but I'm not so reductive to think only those things about her. Med has redeemable qualities. You could say I was content to let blindness be when she said she was trying to get better, she realized how Chapo used her for money, etc. Even behind a puppet I felt bad and relented, though I doubted anything would change (and it didn't).

Feeling bad for people is probably the main thing that will have me let things be. If I would have kept going, what difference would it have made? I'd just have made her feel even worse, if she emotionally registers that kind of stuff anymore. Beyond that, everyone is a mixture of positive and negative. Harping on the negative only works for some types of people, and it's nothing new that positive reinforcement is generally more effective.

If it's someone I'm just meeting or someone I'm not very close to, I'm more prone to just let them express themselves than question their reasoning. Not just to avoid awkwardness, but to facilitate a more facile rapport. Not that critique is then off limits—it's just less important.

My affect tends to be taken better in person, not really sure why. 

It reminds me of the YouTuber/streamer MrGirl and his dislike of not talking about the metaconversation or opaque things going on, even if people dislike it, or it creates awkwardness. The strength of that being a lot of deep and unusual discourse happens. The downside being that some people get defensive and shut down.

Majority more like. 

People aren't built to take in things outside of their realm of perspective if it's enough degrees away, and I'm not aiming to accommodate that almost at all over how pretending to be who they'd need me to be feeling like lying. 

I'd rather be known as a potentially misguided truth-seeker than an intentional liar, as if I'm wrong with my statements I don't tend to see it pre-emptively. If I say a thing, it's not shrouded, but plenty of people insist it must be some sort of gimmick or play rather than a genuine critique from their fellow man. If I am to say these things, it can't possibly be about them if you ask them. 

I think the main criticism I see levied toward you in this regard is probably best articulated by Spatial, who's expressed that your questions seem to be trying to pave a narrative that characterizes him a certain way.

So you don't agree with the things being said about him then, or are you moreso commenting on how having critical things to say about someone so sensitive is bound to be go poorly? 

Your choice of language here shows me that, for one reason or another, you choose to play along with Spatial's delusions rather than question them. 

The example case being when you were interrogating him about his good will—one of the things specifically being generosity with money in relation to family. 

You've lost me here, I don't recall him going on about generosity with money in relation to family. 

With the Spatial thing, I think he had a legitimate gripe in that it seemed like you were trying to pigeonhole him a certain way. I wouldn't remember the name of the thread, but he came to explain that parting money has gravity for him, because any money he expends could otherwise be put into crypto for profit. But despite that he helps family with loans, I think he mentioned something about helping with car payments as well. The whole thing may have started because he said he was altruistic, or generous. Your questions seemed pointed as if to arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't that way. At least that's the gestalt I had gotten, maybe he remembers it more clearly.

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

How could truth be the enemy, other than it being able to rub the wrong way in certain circumstances?

Come on now, I'm sure you get this as much as I do or you'd not be quite as withholding over it. You've given me the impression of thinking that most people can't handle the truth, hence your tailoring your speech towards what makes them feel good. 

I get that people'd rather feel good than have real conversations, but 'playing the game' feels inauthentic.

Not so much that as I just don't have being mean as my default mode. Maybe if you think of some instances where I was withholding I could see more of what you're referring to. It's also not like old SC where the place was a perpetual roast pit.

It's a matter of degrees when it comes to omissions. There must be times where you say nothing, no?

I feel shitty every time it comes up, the easier answer is to just say it. 

Can you think of an example of this that would probably be striking to most?

What, like an example of where I couldn't stop myself from saying my truths rather than letting them comfortably be nutty? 

Yeah, something that sticks out to you perhaps.

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

Is challenging how one's mind works bad though?

It isn't always, but can be. Is it still good if the person shuts down?

I would have figured that said people shutting down would still remember what caused it once they've cooled off, and that past a certain extent that repetition would yield patterns even they might notice down the line. 

...I'm learning otherwise and it's really creepy. 

Yes, I would say it's more likely that the negative emotion they feel becomes bound to the sentiment. It's like telling a kid they can't do something, the mind rebels against what it's told. Maybe you haven't seen this one a lot, but I have: When someone is complaining to you about what someone else said about them, and it's kind of true, but they say "what an asshole!" and blow it off. Or, "what does he know?" The receptiveness to negative information has to make it to the ego without hitting a barrier. Some better at this than others.

What if it was done at a time when the person seemed more receptive?

If it's about getting people to do something, yeah, this makes sense. If it's about having people face things they don't want to hear, unless the person's capable of introspection it's never the right time. 

I've found a surprising lack of introspective thought since leaving college, and people entering their 30s seem to be becoming increasingly rigid. Even people who used to be open to all sorts of debates before don't have the same stamina anymore. 

I try to be more subtle with delivery, but like I said I see that style of communication as not wrong.

I've also noticed that about people in their 30s. It's not everyone, and I used to think it was an IQ thing. Which it probably is in part, but then I also realized that a lot of intelligent people are pretty narrow, and it makes sense if you think about Big 5 and Openness to Experience being its own dimension that is only loosely correlated to g factor. Cognitive flexibility seems like a matter of temperament, David Bowie probably had tons more than whichever kids could to differential equations when they were 6. Age makes who we are more clear.

 

Don't really know what is normal when it comes to this.

I've found the people here to be surprisingly sensitive relatively, but I also wonder how much of it is over having to read it rather than hear it. 

I think tone and body language can be disarming, while the typed form has them typically project or presume the other person's tone and subtext. In person these talks have gone much better, and even this forum in it's earlier days seemed much more equipt for it. 

Did the people here get weaker or something overtime? We used to be able to be way more scathing than this as the norm and people got that as part of the social culture. 

It's a mix of things. The crowd of people, actual names being out in the open, more threatening behavior ever since the Cad fiasco. I don't throw down much with most of the people here because we've become friends, and even when I roast them I have to be careful sometimes. sugar is basically carrying the torch. Jim's barely interested in fucking with people.

The site has long ago mutated from what it once was into a perverse mockery of its origins—now a sentimental place where the chat is filled with people spamming loving words into the abyss nearly unchecked, threads with cooperative posts that stay on topic, and moralfagging where the last remaining vitriol is dosed out to the safest thing in the word to hate: pedophiles. Most of the interesting and extreme people who have used this place have moved on in life, leaving a husk of a site inhabited by those who simply have stuck around for one reason or another, or drifted into this thing rather late. The common bond? Not moving on.

I can recall instances of this. My inner dialogue isn't usually searing, but sometimes it is at what I see and I let that aside. I'm sure it would entertain people more if I was more caustic, but it really doesn't do anything good for me. 

I'd think that holding so much in would be what leads to frustration and eventually explosions through bottling. 

Doesn't feel this way to me, I think like I said earlier blowing my stack changes my focus. Good and bad are there in everyone, bad is just a more tender spot.

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

One thing that I heard a long while ago that really caught my attention was like "why the fuck would you listen to the advice of friends who don't even have their own shit together."

I by contrast have seen many go with "Those who can't help themselves help others", like when someone is depressed and doesn't want that burden carried by those around them, or when someone who couldn't succeed in their field takes up teaching. Regardless of their level of success it still shows where their focus is, and within that focus will still be time. Even most of those in the field of Psychotherapy are themselves usually not neurotypical; something had to get them interested in the subject in the first place. 

When one's problems are unsolvable from otherwise above a certain threshold, the areas beneath that bar tend to be areas where they can still otherwise offer advice through experience. 

For those who immediately Ad Hom I always saw that as a cope, as with enough digging it's easy enough to construe that no one has their shit together, and if need be they will reinvent their perception of the one saying what they're hearing as to not have to take it in. 

That makes sense. I think people who lack direction in their life are probably not usually good at giving advice related to life direction. But their advice related to relationships might be fine. Each person has their own peaks and valleys of wisdom.

Why do you say you can't solve your own issues?

That'd be a topic of it's own, moreover the question of what does and doesn't constitute issues. I have otherwise not been able to give advice when the problems people have are similar enough to my own, and being able to see problems without seeing solutions still has merit at least as half-baked progress (by contrast to completely ignoring it anyway). 

Ironically I hadn't read this before I wrote what I did above.

Would you say your biggest issue is depression? Or perhaps more elaborately a failure to see some grander scheme beyond being around for the sake of others?

Exactly, it's a bunch of lies people tell each other to feel more comfortable. 

I get that exposure to a person is supposed to have them codependently adapt off of what purpose you serve for them, but if someone is expressing a problem area then isn't my omission even more of a disservice? I'd prefer people tell me what I'm doing wrong even if I don't internalize it over that being the quote unquote "Better Way To Be". 

It's a matter of degrees when it comes to omissions. There must be times where you say nothing, no?

Only if I've otherwise "given up on them", meaning I'm still at least 1/5 invested. Enough of them lives in my brain, how do you ignore something like that? For me, I can't. 

I don't even know if there's a person I have no investment in, as if I don't I'm likely not noticing that. Dropping something is much more of a struggle for me than trying something new. 

No one with no investment? What do you mean by investment?

The opposite of investment in this case would be complete apathy over them, letting them be themselves to their own detriment and potentially even my own amusement. 

Some corrective itch though feels like they need to recognize the existence of their problems. Rather than be bitter that not everyone is equipt for critique however I should be appreciating those I know who otherwise aren't so weak. 

I agree with that. I also wonder if it might not be a detriment to be so involved with so many others. Spreading oneself thin and whatnot.

My eyes glazed over very quickly

Honestly I don't think you could ever achieve it