Video: James Fallon, psychopathy and the dead amygdala

Is this an old drum? Yes, it’s made of human skin. Deal with it.

We’re going into virgin ground, it’s going to be creepy. You’re used to it with me, with me, the questions get asked and nobody can say I’m braindead, at least. We’re trying, here.

Cut to 14 minutes in if you already know who this is.
Limbic system generally, deep cortex, and the amygdala structure referenced first.

This is intentional. From a lecturer, order matters.

Reader, pretending to care:


“It’s not something you can get used to”
louder for the naive psychopath worshipers at the back.
You cannot train it, it’s dead.
“It’s, it’s – The first part that develops, the cortex, in an infant”
“Before puberty: They’re full of emotion, or full of- morality.”

You might note similarities in the way he expresses himself, and the way I express myself.
Academese, mon amis.

He means there is only id and superego, devil and angel, “the orbital cortex is intimately connected to the amygdala…”
“In a psychopath, there is NO SENSE OF MORAL REASONING.”
So you can’t be moral and use psychopathic techniques.
It’s physically, biologically impossible.
You don’t get to claim to be a cool-headed psycho, but also a really nice, prosocial guy with a strong moral compass.
They have NO principles, that IS their principle.
Everything is totally, 100% selfish.
There are “impulsive” people with weak orbital cortex (DS: need training) that shut off “but they know what they’re doing is wrong.” Hedonists, this is very important. That is why they hide it, the personal and professional splinter, that dissociate compartmentalization. It also preserves the ego, as well as public persona.
In psychopaths, ‘morality’ doesn’t connect as something to countenance, it literally isn’t anywhere in their head.
They can predict other people probably care, but this is if you ask, if you plant the seed and make them think, referring to the hypotheticals of the interactions they’ve had with neurotypicals.
“A kid is really moral, oftentimes, hypermoral.”
I can see where he’s going but fear of punishment, a little different.
Naturally, he can’t see the difference.
Children have a strong sense (moral absolutism) because they are so weak and helpless. They see it clearly, good/evil and don’t rationalize excuses to be a shitty person like adults often do to ‘save face’, in part because no one would listen anyway. They’re not allowed excuses, only to obey the rules.
Where it’s “turned off” is epigenetic switching.
A psychopath has no instinct for what’s right. A latent psychopath still doesn’t, but they’re less inclined to act out, the
so-called successful sociopath. They can comply with the right authorities.

“Ethics is the rules of the game, psychopaths really know the rules of the game. They understand what you think and can therefore, play off it, but there’s no INNER sense of morality.

Empty, hollow, dead inside (that part of humanity).

Culture brainwashes you out of what natures instructs.

We know now Plato was correct, more than anybody, where you’re born with an innate sense of morality, you don’t have to tell a kid ‘don’t steal, don’t kill…’ they know it, we know now that you don’t have to be taught languages, you’re ready, your BRAIN is ready when you’re born.”

Fetal psychology?
Could this be the answer?
Could this be a form of birth defect when maladaptive to its Darwinian environment? In the extreme cases?

The same thing with beauty, there’s an innate sense of beauty so-“

I love how that’s the next thing he immediately latches onto.
I wanna see those studies, God-damn… imagine it…. but what would psychopathic art be? An instinct for corruption, decay and ugliness? It’s the deepest heart of emotion, so it must be the flipside.
Beauty must be limbic too, right? It’s gratifying to see my own thoughts align with other intelligent people.
“We accept instincts in animals but we’re not above that. No, we’re not. That’s innately there.”
The correct term is biological determinism.
The evolutionary stages of the fetus in the uterus is also BD.
SJWs are all about opposing any form of it, that’s insane. Completely disconnected from the biological realities, since all of biology, to be philosophical and technically accurate, all of biology is deterministic. It all grows in a precise pattern like chemical crystals, there’s a process and structure – you can’t have a diamond that isn’t related to graphite. Deterministic. Rare word outside of ivory towers, like reductionistic; related in practice. We can reduce a human to cells, human cells are deterministic of the human species, we grow from those stem cells.

See?
Back to instinct.
“Unless that area doesn’t develop, and it’s NOT THERE. It’s a kind of a blind spot. For morality, in psychopaths, it’s NOT There.”

Brain damage? I suppose most variations must be… depending on the rest of the structure, naturally.

“But the ethics they can learn and they use it against you.”
The antisocial rely on everyone else being prosocial. Predators rely on nice docile prey, even intraspecies predators, well, especially those.
In game theory, if you never punish, even the supposed Good players take advantage of you.
In a fake game where the stakes are ego.
Golden Rule involves reward AND punishment, at the same intensity. If your understanding of the Golden Rule isn’t 2+2=4, action and consequence, then you have understood it wrong.

I’m going to stop at the 20m mark, please read the book and watch the rest yourself, I wanted to show – since I haven’t for a while, that there is sound academic backing for some of the things I’m saying.

They sound off because I’m not lying – school was.

Dr Fallon has also done TED among other things, he gets around.
He shows it’s possible for someone with that brain to be a productive member of society.
Great guy.
You can find interesting write-ups.

RETURN TO FREUD.

YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.

Come to the Dark Side, the cookies are choc-chip.

We have biological correlates now, you can’t resist us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientist-related-killers-learns-psychopaths-brain/story?id=21029246
“Conscience and a sense of morality and impulse control lie in the limbic system and in the orbital cortex in the brain, according to Fallon.
“They connect and inhibit each other not unlike the super-ego controlling the id,” he said. “It’s the interface between the intellectual mind and the emotions attending to them.”
Fallon’s brain scans show low activity in both regions of the brain.
“No behavior is really evil or bad — it’s all contextual,” he said.

[what moral relativism was initially, Darwin]

“There is a time for sex and a time for killing, when someone attacks the family. But it’s done in context. The orbital cortex adjudicates the idea of morality and interacts with the amygdala’s drive to eat, drink and screw. There would be mayhem if it didn’t exist.” [which label do I cite? degeneracy, moral decay, dysgenics, dyscivics et cetera et cetera]
As a neuroscientist, Fallon said he always believed humans were ruled solely by their genes and not their environment in the nature versus nurture debate.
“I never took it seriously,” he said. “I was the poster boy for genes causing everything. But I had to eat crow and say I was wrong.” [he wasn’t though, it’s still natural and not manmade in CAUSE]
His personal story was the subject of a TED talk that went viral on YouTube in 2007 and he even had a guest role on the television show, “Criminal Minds.” Fallon was contacted by literary agents last year to write a book about his experience.
He blames abuse in the first three years of life, combined with biological features that turn off serotonin in the brain, leading to psychopathic violence.”

Loudspeaker: Epigenetics is still genetic.

The clue, is in, the name!
If political left-wingedness has a defective, atrophied, shrunken amygdala (lower volume, to put it clinically), that puts them closer on the Spectrum of Development to a psychopath, I find it funny he’s a moral relativist who stresses his own safety, moments after discussing revenge.
They think you don’t notice their slips. You’re not allowed to question their authority, think Cartman.
Serotonin, again, implicated, again…
I’m tired of being right. So, so tired…
Why are so many lefties needing to be on SSRIs? In good times, historically novel?
What happens when the meds aren’t made?

Here’s the emotional reaction of a neurotypical to violence, in colour.


Literal coldness in the psychopathic. Cold, hard reasoning. Calm in a crisis, calm enough to coolly kill you.
No emotion.

In the ABC article;
“I don’t have special emotional bonds with those who are close to me –– I treat everyone the same,” he said. “I am involved in a lot of charities and good works, and my intentions are good for the world. [he lives here] But I don’t have the sense of romance or love I am supposed to have for my wife. It’s not there.” [broken pair bonding, faulty attachment mechanisms]

I’d love to see Dr. Fallon and Anonymous Conservative interviewed by Stefan Molyneux.

A girl can dream.

I’m gonna throw out a theory here, while I’m here.

K-types have well-developed orbital cortex pathways.
In the future, there will be no leader, moral or otherwise, who doesn’t need to provide this proof of moral agency.
Otherwise, no one will trust them not to screw the ingroup.

Think of the scope of this information, it changes everything.
It needs to become public, it will eventually.

I wonder if there’s a hyper-K version with mild psychopathy (to protect one’s own) and strong conservatism in the amygdala?
Can we genetically engineer for this? Where can I sign that petition?

The Left mindset detests beauty

I want to comment on a comment left on VD’s blog.

I won’t link because it’s irrelevant.

“They hate you not because you are Christian but because you are white, they only hate Christianity because it is a proxy for traditional European culture.”

Every war is a race war. It’s all Darwin, all genetic, a selection pressure.
The Left’s only lasting principle is anti-white. This is unusual for its longevity when their signals change constantly to confuse us  and keep us reactive so we can’t intellectually mobilize.

The mindset of the left is the mindset of the serial killer whenever they see a pretty white women they want to torture and kill her.

Ed Gein was a tranny, btw.
“When I see a pretty girl…”
And despite the Oedipal issues in misogyny, nobody advocates returning to Freud.
Men need standards of honour and decency not blame and bitchiness.

They want to get rid of white men so all white women can be raped.

The fake right who think a brown man’s opinion is greater than any white woman….on the white homelands? Tempted to point out that’s cultural theft, outright.
When the West is undefended, it dies. If Western man is weak, woman falls prey. Sex is the reward of conquest, breeding.
Sexual divide and conquer is a cloak and dagger to ignore the racial element of ‘tension’ issues.
Multiculturalism is the enemy, men and women were fine while homogenous in their own homelands.
Remember that, they don’t want you to. Immigration is the Trojan horse. You can’t be raped by someone in another continent and Muslims use homosexual rape as a punishment too. I’ve mentioned this recently.

They want all pretty people castrated so that only the ugly can breed because they hate beauty and love ugliness. Cucking pretty people into adopting brown babies and supporting the third world is just their consolation prize. They would like all pretty people to have their faces mutilated for the sake of equality.”

Ah, Harrison Bergeron, so predictive of the politics of Cultural Marxist envy.
This was a comment floating the idea of white men converting to Islam en masse. 2 issues.
1. women wouldn’t follow. We’re not stupid. Jesus never needed to hit a woman when you hurt his feelings. That’s strength, in all mating preference studies for marriage, women prefer conscientiousness in men. Sadism is the polar pathological opposite. At best, they’d attract the crazy ones.
2. you can preach and quote without conversion, especially quoting the common opinions on Jews. This might be why older working-class factions like Corbyn are temporarily aligned with the Muslims.
It’s a countersignal to temporarily defang them, especially from splintering off into their own party and forming an Islamic Party of Great Britain, which would eat into Labour’s own voteshare. However, it pushes us further away from a return to national traditionalism, where true security and progress lies. Meanwhile, NRx has long discussions of what traditionalism is, but fine if you want to ignore it. What comes after your civil war? Vacuums need plans.
Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a war manual, to submit to supranational slavery. They’re worse than the Catholics ever were. The majority of Muslims would starve if the taxpayer stopped funding them, they’re leeches in the most literal fiscal sense. Without production, how do they take over? Well, enslavement. The Left are lazy and already parasitic as r-types, do you really think they’ll work harder for the Arab than the European? No, they won’t work at all. We destroy the Left by letting their chickens come home to roost, by encouraging squabbles and in-fighting. They have no loyalty to the host nation or one another, this will come to a head and the sooner the better. Concern trolling as one group to another. This works. Black ops is invisible to idiots.
All you need to do is cite the Talmud AND the Koran, there are plenty of online resources for passages, cite it with original, not dhimmi or gentile wording, and the Left cannot object to this without their favourite pet turning on them because the Left is entirely dis-united. This signal boosts the true face of these religions too. Anything that stops them pulling together strengthens us. Otherwise, demographics is a ticking time bomb. It needs to be kept as casual references, defanging the cultural and acadmic power of Cultural Marxists who think Islam is so secular and neoliberally progressive. Simply throw it in their face casually often enough and they’ll stop signalling it. I know how these people work so please listen to me. Tweeting passages to celebrities and using them casually in articles is the ultimate weapon. It doesn’t take them seriously because only the Left are stupid enough. It’s a glorious shitpost.

I’ve mentioned the technical apsects of signalling here many a time, if you take it seriously, the signalling value is NIL.

This also gives away the premise and paradigm to the enemy, to judge you on their metrics. You want to flip the sociological (social) script by questioning their premises but in such a way they feel ashamed to openly discuss those premises. You cannot be serious, that’s WHY the Left cannot meme! No sense of humour! Too serious!

They almost want you to use their memes, to embolden them as the only ones worth stealing. I know how they’d play this because I know how these people operate. I already know how they’ll break their own toys if you steal them – white privilege. It’s been set up this whole time, beginning with the original sin of white guilt. Instead you must oppose the r-selected behaviours. That is their Achille’s because according to them, all behaviour is a Tabula Rasa CHOICE.

R-types enable r-types. Do not enable them in rape, theft or murder. They want that. Never do what the enemy wants, reaction formation is sane when you’re acting in self-interest.

They detest any meme that calls them to demonstrate virtue, see “so much for the tolerant Left” which exposed their hatred and bloodlust for civilized culture. The Left always come out with their authoritarian face eventually and we need to speed this up. Let people see them for what they truly are. If we keep trying to out them, they bury deeper like societal termites. Let them in-fight and expose themselves. They oppose liberty, the intellectual freedom to dissent foremost. Workers must keep working – or else. Show them which hand holds the whip.

That is how status signalling works. You don’t walk up to someone and say “I’m rich”, you mention your holiday in the Alps. Don’t sperg all over the place and think you’ll change them and their Narrative. You’ll just vindicate Muslim positions when you should be vindicating Christian ones using Islam and Judaism so they dunno which one to start on without either sponsor turning like a rabid dog. Game theory, guys. We’re using their common tactic of triangulation against them, because they are naturally diverse, divided and we are not.

You can’t countersignal a countersignal (eugenic by dysgenic), you can’t satire a satire (the Alt Right’s success, see: Why mockery?) but you can signal something similar but different, to weaken the original one and strengthen your future ones. Think of it as ideological lubricant. We need to slide into a real war on terror with Crusades nice n’ easy.

The first move in chess has the most freedom but the second holds the strategic advantage since the opponent’s move is already set. To choose another game, we need only knock down their dominoes. They’ve arranged them opposing one another, it’s a flawless set-up IF ONLY you get them to swipe at one another, also giving us time to replace them culturally. This is why I am also NRx and see no contradiction with calling for a cultured aristocracy. It replaces the extant academic degenerate class of Cultural Marxism, which the Alt Right’s existence is dependent on. When CM is gone, the AR too shall disband, like soldiers after the war. To do what? Depends on your traditionalist vision of utopia.

The stage five clingers will just be shirkers power-tripping.

Do you want to save the West or call someone an n-word online?

Link: White nationalism as a survival strategy

Ooh, game theory related.

http://therightstuff.biz/2016/04/19/white-nationalism-is-a-tactic/

I think of it from the reverse perspective.
If you want to know how to beat your opposite at chess, you imagine yourself as your opponent.

Well, SJWs are pushing this, the rhetoric that becomes policy.
SJWs project. They project their greatest fears into reality: everyone who disagrees is Hitler, free speech is bigoted because reality is unequal and the physical problem is White people.

OK. So their problem is White people. What should those people do to dispense with the temporary enemy?

If we trash their belief system it will never take hold again. It took them decades to march through the institutions like this and now we know the enemy, we can name the enemy and have preventative strategies against their entryism. They’re cornered and they know it. They’ve turned on one another like cannibals to last a little longer as the money tap dries up.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Europe, in particular, has a long history of tribal alliance and putting aside our differences to deal with a common enemy. Our sense of fair play and the Rules of Englishmen are Euro-conventions, nowhere else in the world are they capable of this cooperation. Neither are we without guile. The man who wrote the book on manipulation was Italian. There are many slumbering giants among us. Every generation has them. These people are not narcissists and will not be found on a Youtube channel, peddling a blog with supplement ads or e-books. They’re out there IRL doing things. They have the skills we need. Think of it like a superhero team. Individually, we might get taken down. Collectively, with our strengths, we’re invincible (and yes, I count Russia, Western Russia). We shouldn’t assume that silence is tacit agreement, and the common man is against us, that’s SJW programming. To make us feel isolated. Many people want to do something and have no idea what. They need a positive vision. A peaceful action plan. Something inspiring.

The SJWs, with their ‘critical theory’ of nagging and bitching, could never compete.
Inspiration is a joke to them.

What strikes fear in collectivists?
A bigger crowd.

These problems are not going away. Their Orwellian command of language (Diversity is unity, a true strength) and books like Rules for Radicals, along with their mastery of protests and public influence at debates, have trounced the Right. Objecting politely is the blunt tool of cuckservatives, with no idea what they’re meant to be preserving. You could have a diverse table of European weeaboos, Europhiles and Anglophiles, they can dress and speak and act however they want, embrace the culture, they’ll never be European. Fighting a cultural battle is giving the enemy ground, because they have been slowly infiltrating the bastions of intellectual standard. Remember, when run by conservatives, Universities used to be good. [OT: And here, totally free, which really pisses off the Leftists when you remind them. They could justify the costs because standards were high and hardly anyone attended. The economy thrived and wages were higher because few people abroad were competing.]

They’ve been successfully executing a divide and conquer strategy on White people for decades.
By sex, nation, sexuality, anything to avoid the racial element. Anything that makes us turn on each other is aggression away from them, the cause. Let’s you and him fight. No more.
If you accept the premise of your enemy’s tactics without question, you accept defeat.
Why not try the opposite? Things can hardly get worse, can they? Realistically?

It matters because one thing doesn’t negate the other. White Nationalism doesn’t have to negate individual ethnic nationalism or identity. White Nationalism is possible as a temporary arrangement. As a tactic.

We are at war. We are being targeted as a whole, because we are White. Other groups have always defined us as “the White man”, that is all they see, they couldn’t care less about your special unique culture. This is not an individual issue about the fate of France, but not Spain, of Ireland but not Austria. It’s all of us together at the same time. Europeans are being targeted as a group. So we MUST respond as a group.

White Nationalism doesn’t have to be a permanent arrangement. We don’t have to erase Denmark to save Europe, but what good will it do to Denmark if the rest of Europe is lost but only it remains?

What happens at the end of a tournament? You go home.
What happens at the end of a fight? The victor goes home.

The conditions of war make the exceptions of peacetime. 

Last time, depending on what you count, either Vienna, the Crusades or Vlad the Impaler pretending to be batshit saved Europe from the current threat. Also, for wording, can we stop using extremism? Extreme beliefs mean nothing. Communists are extreme on property. The SJWs are using it as a synonym for terrorism (a criminal act) and we’re letting them. Soon having certain extremist beliefs will be enough, in pre-crime logic. They have a sliding scale of ‘fascism’ and we shouldn’t feed it. We are not reporters or biased journalists. Say what you mean, say Muslim terrorism.

Name the enemy. Mention Leftists secrets like the Progressive Stack, and how Muslims are at the top. Mention the soft bigotry of low expectations. Read their books, learn their linguistic tricks.

Keep it peaceful. Keep it positive.

While that’s still an option.

The Golden Rule is for suckers

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/201208/how-the-golden-rule-makes-us-dumb

In conflict, the Golden Rule is mute, so we abandon it, and then give ourselves or our opponents a hard time for not living up to its supposedly gold standard.

moot*

The Golden Rule is intended to appeal to your opponent’s better nature and a sense of equality.
It relies on the premise they have a ‘better nature’, a sporting competitive zeal.
This is why it fails.
Most countries in the world failed to invent or follow Queensberry rules. It’s an Anglo convention.

At best the Golden Rule is a paradox: “We should all compromise so no one has to compromise.” As such it’s perhaps a useful way to frame a moral dilemma but it’s neither golden nor a rule.  Dilemmas masquerading as principles are a big part of the problem with how humans handle conflict. The supposed rules deceive us into thinking there’s a problem-solving formula when there isn’t. They distract us from wondering about exactly the dilemmas that need our careful attention.

Instead? I suggest you adopt girl’s best friend:

http://www.sociopathworld.com/2011/09/diamond-rule.html

The simple decision to marry

Yes, it’s really simple.

If you apply the Prisoner’s Dilemma from Game Theory. Which nobody seems to have done so I had a go. You can use this with credit given.

The Prisoner's Dilemma as Applied to Marriage game theory original

For those scoffing and saying “what’s good” it means good – for marriage.
As in, K-type.

Don’t pretend you’re not impressed.

Notes

Like hiring for a job, it’s all in the selection. You control your contribution (what you are and always have been) but also the selection of your co-contributor. Cold feet isn’t about marriage per se, it’s about marrying the wrong person. You need a mix of good-good for it to work as intended. Marriage is a contractual exchange between K-types. Broken marriages are the product of at least one broken party to it (but sometimes both). You must be good yourself to expect a good deal (unless they wish to create a long-suffering situation, the other party should recognize before marriage). You must have something to offer. A bad prospect has no business in marriage and should, if the MMP is true, be left on the shelf.