Sociopath Community

I guess Ill just quote this time because why not.

Turncoat said: 

Jada said:

It's true I'm saying my problem's because I'm smart, while you seem adamant on anything but. So we're both really in the same boat

I'm adamant about exploring possibilities, while you are adamant that it could only be one thing.

It's moreso that I am adamant about exploring the correct explanation whereas you are adamant about exploring every possibility BUT that one. I don't think you're at all willing to explore the one possibility that I'm suggesting. So really we are still in the same boat.

The control.thing is not.intentional, its more that I see where it's going and I can choose to put it on a certain path or do nothing.

I tend to hear this the most out of mentally hyperactive people, a sense that the hyper person can do what the "slower" person is doing faster in their own head over how predictable it seems. When asked to recount what they've heard though it tends to show errors backed by prior knowledge. 

Also true out of hyperactivity is a need to feel like they're "moving", rather than staying in place to focus on something. Rather than focus on their own speed, many find it easier to externalize that blame to being about the larger world as if "the world is slow" or dumb or whatever else word can be substituted for this angst. 

The need for control tends to be automatic rather than intentional, even in other forms, as said need for control much like the urgency to speak at all denotes a discomfort with things as they are. If they were comfortable with how things were they would feel no desire to change it.

Do adhd people really often consider the world dumb? Would it be like, for them, the whole world will feel so slow that people will be unable to discuss scientific topics with them even if they patiently discuss about them for 2 hours, engage in socratic dialogues with them, use the whiteboard to explain their theories in detail, let them think for a few weeks, go by their best understanding and draft a tailored manuscript to explain the idea at a conceptual  mathematical, and theoretical level, and after that the problem is that the person's brain is working too slowly to catch up?

So what can I do? 

If you're asking me, rather than generally, then I feel I have given a fair amount of advice. 

I can't not know how.my actions affect people and my own emotional state.

Actually that can prove remarkably easy to do when it comes to someone's own emotional state. 

Yes, I read that most people cannot discern their own psychological and emotional biases. Or rather they're not aware of them, but believe they are. Personally I am aware of myself in a way that is not clouded by psychological and emotional bias, but I'm more of an exception to the rule, and there's a reason for it. But it doesn't matter because you don't believe me and while I have objective evidence you're not capable of assessing it.

I'd say that you too feel in control of this situation which allows you to negotiate with me despite you stating that I unconducively shoot down your ideas.

Is brainstorming an attempt at control, especially brainstorming that by design is meant to be over to the other person rather than myself? 

You're the judge and jury here, not me.

Well, the dialogue is, insofar as you're aware of the response your ques trigger. This is why I was ranting about constructivism, what we mean by control appears to be entirely different.

Jada said: 

Turncoat said: 

Jada said:

It's true I'm saying my problem's because I'm smart, while you seem adamant on anything but. So we're both really in the same boat

I'm adamant about exploring possibilities, while you are adamant that it could only be one thing.

It's moreso that I am adamant about exploring the correct explanation whereas you are adamant about exploring every possibility BUT that one. I don't think you're at all willing to explore the one possibility that I'm suggesting. So really we are still in the same boat.

You really don't see the problem with this explanation? I addressed your end, but posed it's an independent variable based on comparisons with others who have a similar problem. The lack of uniformity across intelligence makes it a broad conclusion that doesn't go into the finer points of what's causing it, which to me anyway would have it appear worth exploring it's symptoms and adjacent traits. 

All that could be said when discussing your conclusion is that you believe it, that won't go anywhere and you aren't finding the solution by looking at it solely. Like really, what about your intelligence is making this difficult for you while not difficult for others of a similar range?  When posed with a problem, it makes sense to try to see multiple angles to it, pose hypothesis, and then conduct tests on it to prove it's validity. 

It's not the same boat when one explores answers and the other stubbornly stands on a single conclusion, but if you really want to marry yourself up to this answer then what else is there left to talk about? My end allows endless questioning while yours has you stuck in one place and bored with how it isn't going anywhere. 

The control.thing is not.intentional, its more that I see where it's going and I can choose to put it on a certain path or do nothing.

I tend to hear this the most out of mentally hyperactive people, a sense that the hyper person can do what the "slower" person is doing faster in their own head over how predictable it seems. When asked to recount what they've heard though it tends to show errors backed by prior knowledge. 

Also true out of hyperactivity is a need to feel like they're "moving", rather than staying in place to focus on something. Rather than focus on their own speed, many find it easier to externalize that blame to being about the larger world as if "the world is slow" or dumb or whatever else word can be substituted for this angst. 

The need for control tends to be automatic rather than intentional, even in other forms, as said need for control much like the urgency to speak at all denotes a discomfort with things as they are. If they were comfortable with how things were they would feel no desire to change it.

Do adhd people really often consider the world dumb?

It's pretty damn common in general, but yes. People tend to externalize towards "the world", but people with a higher mental speed tend to have even less patience with exploring what else could be going on in favor of constant tangents. For whatever reason, taking steps backwards or otherwise sit still is painful for them. 

Patience outside of their strengths (or sometimes even within it) for this lot prove overstimulating through the understimulation, which often has hyperactive minds more prone to seeking out things to fill that need when compared to people of lower energy levels. Through the speed the mind is going and enough surface level pattern recognition they can often find themselves bored with "the world" over how they struggle to go beneath the surface level of it, like a life of reading bullet points and synopsis. 

What has people with faster minds struggle in classroom settings tends to not be the material itself so much as how it's taught, many prove to be quite successful as independent studiers if they otherwise find an interest in an area enough to trigger Hyperfocus. The struggle otherwise from the deep end of it can appear as if they are moving too fast to stand still long enough to gain anything from it, similar to the "come up" phase of an LSD trip where they can't enjoy anything around them for a brief while from a mix of high energy and sensitivity. 

Would it be like, for them, the whole world will feel so slow that people will be unable to discuss scientific topics with them even if they patiently discuss about them for 2 hours, engage in socratic dialogues with them, use the whiteboard to explain their theories in detail, let them think for a few weeks, go by their best understanding and draft a tailored manuscript to explain the idea at a conceptual  mathematical, and theoretical level, and after that the problem is that the person's brain is working too slowly to catch up?

You really don't see the above as a high energy approach when otherwise just trying to have a conversation with someone, and you don't see the steps you're taking here as your attempt to dominate the conversation? 

Jada said: 

I can't not know how.my actions affect people and my own emotional state.

Actually that can prove remarkably easy to do when it comes to someone's own emotional state. 

Yes, I read that most people cannot discern their own psychological and emotional biases. Or rather they're not aware of them, but believe they are.

The classic one is people saying they're "bored" when at like... stage two of their temper rising, but otherwise a lot of emotional appraisal tends to be figured out more often in hindsight from a triggered overreaction giving them pause. 

Considering not all emotions are a matter of overreaction, and that people will often tailor their environment to support their more positive aspects, this can have a lot end up going unaddressed. 

I'd say that you too feel in control of this situation which allows you to negotiate with me despite you stating that I unconducively shoot down your ideas.

Is brainstorming an attempt at control, especially brainstorming that by design is meant to be over to the other person rather than myself? 

You're the judge and jury here, not me.

Well, the dialogue is, insofar as you're aware of the response your ques trigger.

Not really, I'm asking questions and posing possibilities to see what you'll say. 

While this does open up the potential for things to go in a predictable way, like one of those branching tree diagrams, that doesn't mean I know which ones will be taken or if aspects of it will show variations to take into account that I have not seen already. On my end, it makes sense to keep the dialogue going so that the chance for other details can be dropped in response to the responses being posed to you. 

Everything I am having to do is over you, and you are the one in the judges chair that can ultimately determine where things go. Therefor I am not the one in control of the discussion, but rather you are, over how anything said and done here has you in the driver's seat with me at most backseat driving. 

This is why I was ranting about constructivism, what we mean by control appears to be entirely different.

Howso? Would it be easier if I went with "dominating" the conversation, or "commanding" it, or maybe even "directing" it? 

Jada said: 

 

Personally I am aware of myself in a way that is not clouded by psychological and emotional bias, but I'm more of an exception to the rule, and there's a reason for it. But it doesn't matter because you don't believe me and while I have objective evidence you're not capable of assessing it.

Is the fact that you presume I wouldn't believe you enough to not bother posing it? 

What if the conversation were to go somewhere else meaningful as a result of my not believing it? 

I managed to convince myself that getting drinks will help me with my deadline and so I just drowned quite a few beers, and now Im here.... We can test if the drunk me is better at communication or not. Ill use the data here to inform my future decisions.

What so I mean by control? It's when you know what will happen and no matter what you influence the conversation. A bit like God is accused of causing us to sin because whem he created us he knew what would happen but created us anyway. In that sense God was controlling us. Now remove the knowledge of future from the equation and there's no control left. Thats kinda the control I have, knowledge of future events. What you mean is more directing where the conversatiom goes.

ada said: 

I managed to convince myself that getting drinks will help me with my deadline and so I just drowned quite a few beers, and now Im here.... We can test if the drunk me is better at communication or not. Ill use the data here to inform my future decisions.

I guess we'll see. 

How smart do you feel while drinking? 

What so I mean by control? It's when you know what will happen and no matter what you influence the conversation. A bit like God is accused of causing us to sin because whem he created us he knew what would happen but created us anyway. In that sense God was controlling us. Now remove the knowledge of future from the equation and there's no control left. Thats kinda the control I have, knowledge of future events. What you mean is more directing where the conversatiom goes.

Much like two people fucking in the bedroom, typically one takes the role of top while the other opts to be the bottom. 

Conversationally speaking, you've been topping. 

The data here tells me that my attention span is smaller when drunk, maybe I'm adhd after all lol.

No, I am very aware of the fact that I can't think fluently when I'm drunk or tired. Unlike others. It's like a superpower for me. I've heard that people often realize after they're drunk that they were not in their full senses when they look at a video where they made a fool of themselves or something. That's never happened to me, curiously enough.

Ha! I knew it. I knew that you'd say that my using a whiteboard and writing a draft is controlling the discussion. The point is moreso that there are different ways to convey thoughts. Irrespective of whether you're in control or not, you still must offer your own thoughts, because, well, you can't exactly offer thoughts that you don't have. The whole point is that you have your own subjective experience of reality, and everyone else has their own. Unless you're a heyoka empath and you mirror people to show them how they are behaving, which in itself is a great way to conflict resolve, then you must internalize what others say and then give your interpretation of it You can this at varying levels of shallowness ranging from asking them questions, with the questions themselves being motivated by what you see and what there is, to telling them what you think. However, for you not to internalize what people say would be to .

You know, you say that you're not controlling this discussion, but you surely are pointing it in one direction whether you are aware of it or not. If I dared you, you would find it hard to think of an example that couldn't be framed as controlling. Everything we do exerts control in one way or another. But what we typically mean by control in the colloquial sense doesn't involve metaphysics and philosophy though. What we mean is: Stop telling your kids what to do, stop controlling what other people think, and stop deciding what we're gonna do all the time! You're so controlling!

So really, I guess my question here is, in the TC-control metaverse what action would you say is an example of someone exerting control and what would be an example of an action that does not exert control, and why? Because I think we're talking about things that are worlds apart here.

Jada said: 

The data here tells me that my attention span is smaller when drunk, maybe I'm adhd after all lol.

What sorts of effects does caffeine have on you? 

Ha! I knew it. I knew that you'd say that my using a whiteboard and writing a draft is controlling the discussion.

How shocking, you found a predictable element to a conversation you're in control of. 

The point is moreso that there are different ways to convey thoughts. Irrespective of whether you're in control or not, you still must offer your own thoughts, because, well, you can't exactly offer thoughts that you don't have.

Is this you excusing yourself over your need to control the conversation though? 

Your complaint is over how there's a lack of novelty in your talks with people, yet you're the one putting the conversation through filters that render them increasingly predictable to you. 

The whole point is that you have your own subjective experience of reality, and everyone else has their own. Unless you're a heyoka empath and you mirror people to show them how they are behaving, which in itself is a great way to conflict resolve, then you must internalize what others say and then give your interpretation of it

At the same time the things that connect people show patterns and bridges, and the clashes offer opportunities to see if things match between different things. 

Everything is connected, and everyone is a distinct recombination of the same things within that. 

However, for you not to internalize what people say would be to .

To..? 

You know, you say that you're not controlling this discussion, but you surely are pointing it in one direction whether you are aware of it or not. If I dared you, you would find it hard to think of an example that couldn't be framed as controlling.

So your aim now is to generalize it enough to invalidate the claim made against you, like the "everyone is selfish" argument? 😛

Like most things in life there are degrees of severity, and considering the questions you're posing over the situation you've found yourself in I'd argue your aim to control the conversation is a roadblock when it comes to your seeking out novel experiences. 

Have you tried seeing someone else's world without filtering it? Emptying your cup, to see the world like a child who has yet to learn? 

So really, I guess my question here is, in the TC-control metaverse what action would you say is an example of someone exerting control and what would be an example of an action that does not exert control, and why? Because I think we're talking about things that are worlds apart here.

Even further externalizing...

Again, sub this word with "dominating", "commanding", "directing", or even "Topping" and the picture's fairly clear. 

We're discussing control, which is a topic you chose. So I don't see it?

Do you see conversations rather as a fight for dominance or as participatory/equal? It's not my intent to change the definition of control but moreso understand if that's what you're doing.. trying to shoe me into a box that doesn't quite fit, which in itself is an attempt to control.

Yes, I frequently entertain exploring other people's ideas and worlds. The evidenced benefit of doing that is one of those reasons that I support some level of constructivist philosophy, because there are ways to absorb information, knowledge, and experience from others through exploring their subjective reality. In the process, your own subjective reality broadens and starts to include a broader set of realities, and hen those realities are no longer novel insofar as people dlack true depth and ability to introspect, which is what has happened with me.

Like i said, I'm more inquisitive than people you normally meet. But there's a pervasive lack of novelty after doing it for 15 years. You could say I'm smart because I learn, rather than saying I don't learn because I am smart, which is what you seem to be getting out of what I'm saying.

What effect does caffeine have on me? It doesn't. I'm one of those people who can't get up in the morning without coffee.

Jada said: 

We're discussing control, which is a topic you chose. So I don't see it?

We're discussing control, because you are declaring it as of now. Before it was just an aspect of the former conversation, but now you are choosing to make it the focal point over your objection with the use of the word. 

This is like when Med corrects people over the meaning of a word. Surely you see how this can get in the way of the flow of the conversation? People with Charisma tend to know that conversation is about the flow of it moreso than the exactness of the words chosen, as it's moreover the attempt itself to convey the message. 

Social adaptation may be culprit for some of your struggles, as you keep trying to have others change to fit your needs rather than the other way around. 

Do you see conversations rather as a fight for dominance or as participatory/equal?

It doesn't have to be a fight, but there there are two degrees to it: 

1) Whoever is talking at the moment is the one with spotlight, which to this point I'd say we're about equal. 
2) The one who is being appealed to is the one in the judge's chair, which to this point you clearly are the one holding focus. 

I am posing ideas, you are solely going with 'yes' and 'no'. This puts you in a position of dominance in the discussion, and this dominance is what is rendering your conversations predictable. 

It's not my intent to change the definition of control but moreso understand if that's what you're doing.. trying to shoe me into a box that doesn't quite fit, which in itself is an attempt to control.

You saw the other words I used in it's place, right? 

"Dominating", "Commanding", "Directing", or even "Topping". 

Like i said, I'm more inquisitive than people you normally meet.

I keep seeing you singing your own praises, rather than letting those traits that'd be praised speak for themselves. 

What effect does caffeine have on me? It doesn't. I'm one of those people who can't get up in the morning without coffee.

Then the caffeine is affecting you, isn't it? If it had no effect you'd not drink it, unless for the flavor or something.