Sociopath Community

1. You're confusing yourself with semantics. Any act of deception used to manipulate someone into give you what you want from them. Whether or not they think in their mind "I'm gonna con this guy" is irrelevant.

That being said there certainly are a subset of people that think exactly like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3xjjy5GdhY

2. Your post had nothing to do with my original post, which was to express that a "con" is nothing more than the evolution of your ability to manipulate someone. And that since such skills will be developed over time the concept of it creating anxiety should be mitigated (since anxiety usually stems from a paranoia of unknown or uncontrollable negative circumstances.)

3. You're a fucking idiot.

1. The semantics were my point. The fact that you're able to link that video means that there are people who romanticize the idea of a con artist, which I find ridiculous.

2. The difference between a "con" and manipulation is that a con involves some sort of fraud or lie, which is not a requirement of simple manipulation.

3. Did you just add this to make your list seem more complete by making three statements instead of two? In the spirit of bickering, you're a mediocre man with delusions of grandeur, a fetish for your own perception of sociopathy, an innate dissatisfaction with the petty victories you've been able to obtain, and an incredibly bleak future.

Can we get back to the discussion at hand now?

I'm not a sociopath and I don't get nervous. You need to realize you are in control. If anything goes wrong. It is on YOU because you failed to account for it.

I didn't read through the replies so I may repeat what others have said. My view is that socios/psychos are pathological liars from an early age so "the con" isn't so much an event as it is for the average 'bad guy' It's just an evolution of lies/scams. So along that vein, I don't think there is nervousness when deceiving. It helps to be a seasoned liar.

1. The idea of romanticizing con artists is as old as mankind. When the greeks used their trojan horse to infiltrate the city of troy that was a con. Some of the first black and white films featured the exploits of conmen lookup Trouble In Paradise. The show I linked previously is on its 8th season, and one of the top rated shows "Blue Collar" has a cult following.

2.. Fraud and lies are a form of manipulation, you're confusing yourself with semantics again.

3. I added it, because it seemed like you were unaware and I just like doing my fair share of educating the idiots of the world. You're welcome.

1. I see your point, that there can be admiration for a flawless scheme perfectly executed, but I maintain my position that the goal is what matters most.

2. You're confused. Lies require manipulation, but manipulation doesn't require lies. Or to simplify it to basic logical analysis:

if a then b != if b then a

3. I appreciate your humanitarian instincts, but if I ever value your opinion to the point that I desire it, I'll ask for it.

1. Depends on the view. When playing chess after you've gotten good and won a few times, the most gratifying part isn't capturing the king, it's the  clever set of moves that maneuver of the pieces in such a way as to outsmart your opponent. In some instances, it is the act itself that is gratifying. Another example is the clepto who takes things for the thrill instead of the actual want for the item.

2. That is irrelevant, my original statement was: a "con" is nothing more than the evolution of your ability to manipulate someone. Whether a manipulation requires a lie or not is of no consequence to that premise because a lies are encompassed in the category of manipulation.

3. That's the thing about stupid people, they rarely know when they need help. So I'm afraid I'll have to force my humanitarian instincts on you regardless of whether or not you want it. It's for your own good.

1. Again, my point stands. Sure, it's fun to play clever moves, but the goal is always, fucking always, the mate. What good is the most elegant loss if countered with the sloppiest scumbag mate?

2. You're still not understanding. Manipulation can evolve without requiring fraud. In fact, I'd say that the most skillful manipulations involve nothing but truth. Anyone can say a lie to make someone believe it, giving nothing but raw truth and having them crave more is far more interesting.

3. Well played with that one. You beat me on the insult front, but my arguments for point 1 and 2 still stand, while yours are weak. So at the end of the day, the score is 2-1 in favor of me, and you win the bickering battle while losing the logical war. I suppose that means something...somewhere.

1. Your mindset is of one who aches to win over all else, to the point of it being neurotic. That's the sign of great insecurity not mastery. Mastery comes with a desire to learn and grow and in that, it is the journey not the destination that matter.

2. No I get exactly what you're saying, but your point is being overly infatuated with semantics that have no bearing on the original premise. That premise being: A con is the evolution of your ability to manipulate. Regardless of the method used.

3. When you need to resort to declaring yourself the winner instead of being able to validate your points with logic and advance your position, that's the surest sign of someone who knows they've lost.

;)

1. In the context of playing chess...yeah. You can analyze the game after the win, or the loss. While you're playing the game, you play to win or you might as well tip your king and concede. How else can you learn, if your mistakes aren't real?

2. I still disagree wholeheartedly. If I haven't convinced you by now, I won't be able to.

3. There's no "point" to point 3, it started with "you're a fucking idiot" and was nothing but bickering and insults. You can feel free to disagree with my perception of the difference between manipulation and con artistry, you can wax poetic about a "journey not a destination" or whatever platitude you come up with, but you haven't convinced me that I'm wrong in either of my points 1 or 2, which are that the point of any manipulation or con is to achieve a goal, or that manipulation can exist entirely separately from fraud. 

Like really, for all you want to talk, it's binary. One or zero, yes or no, succeed or fail. If you want to talk style, that's one thing, but I want to get to the core of it. If I want something, I get it. If I fail, I learn. But for you to say that playing to win is insecurity is ridiculous. How else do you expect to play, if the "game" matters at all?