Video: The true time cost of entrepreneurship (and overnight success)

It isn’t part-time.

It isn’t 4 hours a week.

It’s a mindset that plagues you every waking hour.

This guy should be famous in redpill self-improvement circles. (Well, I guess they want a part-time get rich quick scheme some of them but the rest of them yes).

This guy needs to be famous. He isn’t a household name because he tells the truth. It is hard. It takes decades of work. In convenience culture, this cannot be true to us, we feel. And when you GET there…

I’ve had that. Be nice to nice people, gracious to gracious people and so on, treat as you find, but the bulk of messages you get from weak connections will be chancers, the exceptions. The two main types of user are casual and malignant.

The best response to the fake nice shirty ones trying it on casually is actually;

I was working every single time you were out having fun. You got memories, I got paid. That’s the price of success and why by now you’ll never be able to catch up to me. But sure, ‘luck’, it was also luck I got better grades than you too, huh?

The reformed bullies are funniest. It’s like a script. Don’t think it’s about you, hence I’m posting the generic script.

Hey, remember me? (they’ll mention where they sat in a class) Listen I’m so sorry about (awful things I did) I was just a kid and I’m really ashamed of it now and I’d like to make amends and I saw (successful thing you’re doing) and I wanted (contact, connection, time, free stuff), it’s (compliments, often back-handed, like allusions ‘luck’) and I’d like to be friends.

The bolded phrase is the entire reason for their correspondence. If their sweet nothings are so good or you make an excuse they really mean it (that’s your vanity talking) say you forgive them but you don’t want them to contact you again. Oh, they’ll contact you again. Bullies can’t stand the victim taking control away. A sincere person would not reply, not even to snidely infer you’ll be sorry (I hope you can find it in your heart….)

It’s like, honestly? You think I’m stupid? Do I have doormat stamped on my forehead? I want you to fuck off and die you abusive piece of shit, you set the terms and chose to start on me. How dare you try and patch this over and further screw me now I’m finally out of school and your clutches. That’s a healthy response to abuse, you are not a bad person for it.
However, if you ignore them, read their messages but resist the urge to reply (reply to a designated vent friend), the mask usually comes off again. Something like…

OMG you’re so ungrateful, (what did they do?) you were always such a (spoiled brat) that’s why nobody liked you and (achieving thing) doesn’t matter because you’ll always be a loser to us.

They still think you care what they think. Just reply: Grow up.
Block them. Done.

When someone’s first impulse is to use you, and emotionally blackmail you with things they have done? That is a sociopath. 1 in 50. They are immature and the best response is to outclass them.

Shocker as low time pref predicts ability to maintain relationships

Proxy studied: credit score.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/10/07/relationshipstrategies/you-may-want-to-add-this-to-your-online-profile/

Commitment = ability to choose the long term over the short term.

What a shock.
Also a proxy for class. (Class similarity predicts longevity too, another surprise considering assortative mating).

“Credit scores are widely used in a variety of contexts as an indicator of reliability and ability to honor and maintain a broad range of commitments, such as rental and employment relationships, not just those involving debt and credit.”

Time preeeeeeeference.

The honor is IN the maintenance. Sure, I guess you married her with the best intentions, but that doesn’t change the fact you slept with the secretary, you know?

We know that impulsivity predicts poor relationship skills, and low credit scores may reflect impulsive spending behavior. In fact, one of the primary characteristics of Dark Triad males is impulsivity. (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011).

What matters here isn’t the brevity of their relationships (which might be agreed upon) as much as the fact they cannot maintain them. It isn’t an ability in their repertoire. They fall short, they fail.

Another study found that “Individuals who have intercourse in the context of hookups are differentiated by high impulsivity, low concern for personal safety, low dependency, their erotic approach to relationships and an avoidant attachment style.” (Paul, McManus and Hayes, 1999)

Anything other than secure attachment style is relationship hell for the other party. They’re afraid of emotional intimacy (and commitment, which is like emotional prison for them because of it).

Clearly, the inability to defer gratification through saving should be a massive red flag.

I love how attention whores brag about their shitty relationship skills. They wouldn’t do that with any other ability, like driving. Maybe maths, since these people aren’t especially bright. Stupid people tend to pair off again. Most couple’s fights are over money (generally, the man’s job, I should point out).

And blogging (public!) about a woman’s sex life without her permission is about as bad as posting a guy’s small penis selfie to his boss and colleagues: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/09/28/politics-and-feminism/a-normal-male-reproductive-strategy/ These are the same type who’ll go on about a woman’s reputation and how important it is, totally flouting the trust placed in them (they’d make such wonderful husbands, that 4 and 5) to have a sexual connection.

The male will compromise his standards for short-term mating, but not abandon them altogether. He attempts to maximize quality given the tradeoffs required by his overall goals.

Furthermore, the vast majority of men want to marry. They seek a monogamous lifelong partner. Research shows that when asked how many sexual partners a man wants in the next five years, the median answer is 1. (See the research HERE.) Marriage is by far the most successful way for men to pass on their genes.

Actually, the masculinity of what was called ‘sexual congress’ was bound up in the virility of the Pagan Gods. It was said The embrace of a god is never sterile or some such. It had nothing to do with the sex act itself. A man who has sex with 3 women and gets 2 pregnant is batting 66% reproductive recombination average. Hell, a virgin who marries and has children with one woman has a 100% success rate. A man who beds 500 women and bears no heirs (the male incentive, legacy) is a genetic failure. A man who beds every single, fertile woman on the planet with no heirs is judged impotent (not the same as infertility originally, because he could physically have children but the problem was …psychological). It used to be grounds for divorce if a man refused or didn’t want children with his wife, in a time when women didn’t have much going for them under Patriarchy (which always sides with the K-selected legacy producers aka future taxpayers). Everyone has a personal fertility rate, and in their heart of hearts, most of us don’t want to be genetic suicides.

This is why humans are monogamous. It guarantees not only paternity, but male virility (when in the state of nature, the baby or the mother would die or be killed/aborted without his protection). Evolutionary strategies around fitness ONLY APPLY WHERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED REPRODUCE. It’s like if I applied the archeology of dinosaurs to the Bible, it’s embarrassing, please stop. Evobio comes down to maths, much like game theory. Think of all the sterile sex going on. You think Evolution counts that? It’s a blip in the history of mankind, like men who couldn’t get it up. Nature is culling those people. They are self-selecting OUT of the gene pool. Let them! 

The topic of hypergamy again. ~big sigh~

Oh, now you guys finally give a shit about sociology? Now you think it’s real? Why isn’t it part of the subject called sexology then, genius? What’s the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy all about? They aren’t the same or the topics would be merged. Stop misusing the words again, Christ on a bike, read a book. A textbook. Or make up your own words instead of poaching a thing the means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to prove.

Expecting a woman not to care about social status (read; keeping her safe) is like a fat feminist expecting Ryan Gosling (he’s popular, right?) not to care about physical attraction (read: to get it up). See? It all fits. Quit buying into the undercurrent Narrative that the sexes are meant to be the same. Is/Ought is a guillotine that murders reason. If they were meant to be the same, evolutionally, then sexual dimorphism in our species wouldn’t have happened.

The drop of arranged marriages is actually nixing marriages of social advantage.

…Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is…in slow decline.

This is bad for men. The same men who tried to leverage their status (often inherited) into a better quality of wife (works both ways, don’t it?). And patriarchs (fathers) who would only give away their property (daughter) for the best price?
Which sex is more likely to ‘trade up’ (ugly term) after marriage? Clue: which sex had practically all the active profiles on Ashley Madison?

Which one usually has the problem maintaining their end of the relationship (up to marriage vows)?

…Roughly 10-20% of both men and women are promiscuous, though the most promiscuous men are more promiscuous than the most promiscuous women. (Research HERE.)

They believe it doesn’t affect their future prospects (it does with K-women aka wife material).

Futhermore, the opposite of hypergamy is hypogamy, which simply means that men tend to marry down. As hypergamy has declined with assortive mating and the egalitarian marriage, so has hypogamy. The marriage and divorce statistics contradict any notion of hypergamy as guiding female choices today….

I quibble with this when it comes to divorce settlements but the general point is true.

Here are the reproductive strategies [DS: that is not a moral license] Jared Rutledge and Jacob Owens employed to get sex:

Rape

Here’s an example from one of their podcasts (H/T: Wj):

Young Jay (Jacob), after describing a woman as manipulative:

It was really fun cuz we had sex in the shower. Hospital sex is weird! And when she is drugged, it’s strange, but it’s really cool.

Papa Jay (Jared): Could she give consent?

Young Jay: Uh-oh! (Laughter)

Papa Jay: You might have violated some California laws.

Young Jay: That is mah bad. That is mah bad.

Papa Jay: Good thing we don’t live in California. (Much laughter.) 

Projection. Scum. I bet he thinks it’s rape when a man is drunk though.

For the record, the mother of the patient, referred to as “A.” is planning to bring charges against her daughter’s rapist.

Physical Abuse

Jared admits to “wailing on a woman with a belt” and “gagging her with my dick.”

Holistic Game also tweeted this dating advice: “Bitches get stitches.”

See it all HERE.

It’s like they’re doing the jury’s job for them.
See, the problem with jokes is that some total retard is going to do it, thinking you were serious. And that could count as incitement if it’s on a somewhat serious platform like a blog, certainly in Europe. These twits don’t bother to check the laws of the countries they travel to as sex tourists and complain when they get done.

No one is faulting the men for promiscuity. With the exception of the hospital patient, the women described appear to have consented to sexual relations with Rutledge and Owens.

It’s freedom of association. They were literally two-faced (the common stereotype I have no doubt they accuse of women). I doubt those women would’ve done if they had known the other side and that’s why the blogs didn’t use their real names (what social proofing, are they doing something to be ashamed of?). At least guys like Roosh have the balls to use their real name (although he lies about it while travelling which would beg legal questions about consent). A future question on the scene might be “are you a fuckboi or PUA”? for legal protection in case he turns out to be (you laugh but it could happen, nobody likes misrepresentation and those cases are pretty cut and dried).

I. Of the 50 women Rutledge had sex with, only 3 qualified as “carousel riders.”

He found that the rest were seeking monogamous relationships, in some cases agreeing to casual sex in order to get that. He exploited that opportunity.

See what I mean?
That right there is a social contract, folks.

oh shit damn fuck hell no give up dean winchester shrug

The rest is quite pathetic.

“…Women want to be swept up in an emotional whirlwind, and the more I tried to keep my “Alpha cool” the more they responded with flakiness or coldness.”

I know teenage boys with more common sense. “If I don’t show I like her – she’ll think I don’t like her!” actual quote, I was very proud of that one.

They assume you’re politely fading them out. They tend to follow. And being honest, did either look Alpha? Come on. SMV-wise. Come on.

On the manosphere;

“There’s a tremendous amount of ego, and a lot of anonymity.

…They didn’t hear the hurt, they didn’t see my mom cry when she learned how many people I’ve had sex with. They don’t see what the judgmentalism they are still engaging in did to myself and other people.

I am not going to be on my deathbed having engaged in these kinds of judgments anymore, this breaking people down into their component parts. [DS: breaking people down and using their broken-ness to manipulate what you want out of them, leaving them broken – those are the actions of a sociopath] It’s unhealthy for me, and it causes irreparable and widespread damage to other people.”

She knows she raised a scumbag. She sounds like a nice woman and he let her down (and by extension, her sex, which she also let down by producing and raising him, yes women think like that, on that scale of complexity). It’s little better than a drug problem, with a similar rate of disease. If you are aware enough to see the societal decay, you have a civilian duty to never contribute to it, maybe try to repair it. Social problems happen in shockwaves. Never be the rock.

Enjoying the decline is about not causing undue pain to yourself – or anyone else.

This article ends badly, the red-pill isn’t twisted, this information used to be considered Common Sense (e.g. women and men are different creatures) and should form a reaction/reminder to unrealistic PC lessons. A balm to the bruise. Twisted people are using it as a shield to hide behind and hide their abuses of the human condition we all share. I’ve written here this has become a ‘disturbing trend’ and one we here blogging might become known for.

Ironically, real sociopaths with low time preference (called ‘successful’) are almost always married, and quite happily. They slot right into the role, overjoyed to fit in for the first time ever and have a safe outlet for their personal doubts. Those men are not sadists and their wives love them. They make good husbands.

Shark eyes, the amygdala and You

First, a joke —

http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/wordpress/2010/11/04/the-reptilian-stare-psychopaths-pupil-dilation-just-before-they-attempt-to-murder-you-may-be-a-function-of-target-detection/

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

…This gets into the bowels of the brain, the reptilian brain, so to speak, to the roiling, evolutionarily archaic areas that operate in that primeval brew of neurotransmitters, heavy metals and glyco-fiber, the brain stem.

Glyco-fiber should not be part of a balanced diet.

The locus coeruleus is, for one thing, blue, apparently, from melanin that is located in the substantia nigra radiating out.

Who says blue isn’t found in nature?
pron.: nigh-gr-uh

(For more explanation, here is a terrific Youtube neuro class, about 18 minutes. ) But, more to the point, this evolutionarily archiac little bundle of neural controls is key in how we respond to danger, or what we perceive as danger. Where the brain detects a threat, the amygdala and limbic system are activated and transmit signal to projections leading to the locus coeruleus. …

The wiring from the locus coeruleus goes up through the midbrain to connect with the amygdala and other areas. The brain midline defects apparently found in psychopaths (here) seem to provide a wide open highway for the reptilian signals . ….

THE HILLS ARE ALIVE

WITH THE SOUND OF SMUGNESS

WITH SCANS YOU CAN CHECK

FOR A THOUSAND YEARS

The Manosphere is not as Shallow as You Think, or Girls, Don’t Stress Out About Your Looks

Problem being, if you have the looks where you get approached with paid modelling offers (real photographers), you tend to get a bitch shield because the other men approaching are either 1. creeps who have no sense of boundary or rudeness who might actually be rapists or 2. PUAs pretending to have the same ignorance of boundaries to build kino (assault) and fake rapport (repulsive).

Both only want one thing and it has nothing to do with a sweet personality, that’s why all women above a certain level are said to be bitches by these men, they don’t understand it’s situation dependent. We can smell that desperation like a shark smells blood and being rude makes them go away and stop wasting our time as quickly as possible, and who cares what they think because they’re rude to begin with?
The looks/personality thing is a trite dichotomy designed to make ugly people feel better, model-level people are really sweet in my experience…. as long as you aren’t trying to use them. This is crucial. It’s like a rich man is attuned to gold diggers. It’s fair to protect and guard your best asset.

It’s a laughable Demonstration of Lower Value when various men complain about women being ‘cold’ or having a bitch shield. Usually this is because they stupidly decided to neg her and she matched his bitchy tone. It isn’t a ‘test’. She’s giving you shit because she wants you to leave her alone. You interrupted her finite time and you aren’t even being nice about it. That alone merits rudeness. They assume this rejection (that’s what it is) happens to all men in all situations (meanwhile the real Alphas are laughing at them) and it comes down to a huge Fundamental Attribution Error. 

I like to explain it to men thus: imagine if women were the approaching sex and crazy Lindy West-alikes kept stalking you, verbally antagonizing you to get a rise, and physically assaulting you under the pretense that you must be interested because you must be a slut (as a hot person)? You’d be rude too.

r-types and arguments

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-are-now-at-the-point-in-this-argument-where-i-realize-i-am-wrong

If you’re playing by Queensberry rules using logic and the other guy is fighting dirty and kicks sand in your eyes, he will always win.

At this point, I’m no longer connected to my actual values, but instead the pure animalistic desire to be better than another person. You’re still playing with everything to lose. I wish I could just say you’re right — I really do — but my lizard like brain is defensive and you’ve attacked me. I can see in your eyes how much you actually care about not only this issue, but also how much you care about me. I’m actually kind of sad for you.

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Subhuman, see it? Zero intellectual honesty, no searching for truth, no emotional sincerity whatsoever. They’re bullies looking for someone to verbally kick. The ‘debate’ is a framework, they broke the rules first by entering with dishonest intentions. Morally, you’re clean.
They don’t feel genuine pity or remorse (except for themselves, hardly genuine). They know the words but not the music, as is often said of sociopaths.
When in debate with a person like this, do not let them go. Do not let them wriggle out. Amygdala hijack them over and over again as hard as you can and wait for them to crack before they run (you’ll know when they crack, you’ll just know). You screw them down and crush them (h/t Greene) or they will go after other innocent people. When they run away by choice (which requires cracking first), they don’t come back. It triggers their childhood rejection schema. When they are crushed, they think twice the next time they want to start trouble. If enough people do this, they stop altogether. It’s a moral duty to create this outcome if you may.

Know how I know this?
How I can tell the damaged ones on-sight? Partly experience, partly….

In the future, I will perhaps be calmer and admit my wrongdoing. However, more likely, I will add this moment to the large list of times I’ve been wrong and let it be erased from my memory. When you mention it again, I will pretend it never even happened.

MEMORY BLACKOUTS ARE NOT NORMAL. 

I believe AC covered them in r-type narcissists/sociopaths.

He genuinely believes all of that, because that is what he remembers, even if he doesn’t remember a single phrase or idea Klingenstein said to him (which I am sure he doesn’t).

False memories up the wazoo.

(It should be noted, if attempting an amygdala hijack, and your opponent successfully meme-ifies you in their mind, your hijack will fail, because they will no longer be listening. In such a case, you must de-meme-ify yourself in their head, by identifying how they meme’d you, and then showing exactly how wrong they are using pure logic, in an argument made to the crowd of observers watching. Once you are no longer racist, etc. to the crowd, they look silly for thinking that, and they are back paying attention, continue to out-group and humiliate, in a calm and reasoned fashion.)

and here

The first time I realized he had real problems was the day after he did something weird right in front of me. The next day I asked him why he did it, and he looked at me confused. “I never did that! Not only didn’t I do that…. I would never do that!” His voice rose to a crescendo, his arms waved in the air, and his insistence, combined with the genuinely puzzled and confused look on his face, made me think he literally didn’t remember doing something very memorable the day before. Otherwise, how could he deny it, and think I would acquiesce?

…This was my first clear introduction to the concept of “False Reality.” Narcissists inhabit what is called a false reality. In this false reality, they are as near to perfect as a human being could possibly be. Of course this false reality usually diverges from real reality, where they often will have difficulty in the simplest of relationships over the long term – and most who know them well view them as, for lack of better words, evil, damaged, and crazy.

Everyone else is screwed up, even people they used to sing the praises of, suddenly stories of secret abuse and “deserving” bad things come out. It’s warped to watch them. Highly disturbing.

Something common I’ve had: They claim correcting them on the inappropriateness of personal issues in reasoned debate is abuse. That you are abusing them by using logic. Seriously.

pause stop wait what is going on confused da vinci demons leonardo

n.b. I realize this site is comedy but it really nails the mindset.

BBC Sherlock, sociopaths and the INTJ confusion

http://www.sociopathworld.com/2015/01/sherlock-sociopaths-intjs.html

A reader writes on the relationship between sociopathy and the Myers-Briggs personality type, INTJ:

In short, I think a lot of people take MBTI too far. They base huge decisions about life direction on a general tendency to think in a specific way and use their psychological reserves in a particular direction. It isn’t a horoscope, the MBTI is supposed to be used to branch out into other styles and become a well-rounded person. No one is a pure type, and INTJs can be arrogant about their perceived purity of rationality, which, ironically, isn’t what a rational person would think. The website LessWrong is a pretty good breakdown of the kind of self-regulation a high-minded personality type requires. I type as INTJ myself and can’t help but facepalm over the self-appointed geniuses who never created a damn thing in their entire lives. It’s a potential, not a promise.

Personality typing is complicated when you bring in certain disorders. INTJs, being a hermitic type, are often judged for that literal and mental distance. The two common slurs are Aspie and Sociopath. What do these have in common? Blunted affect. Or so it seems.

There’s very little written on the connection between certain personality values and mental abnormalities (I mean that in the mathematical sense of rarity). It’s largely speculation and from what I studied at Uni, it’s imprecise. Like throwing at a dartboard and hitting the same place twice it may happen, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. 

The similarities I can see between sociopathy and INTJs are best described as coping mechanisms. Both types of person deal with copious amounts of information on a daily basis and some form of filtration is required to thrive. Both types tend to live in their heads and this can fairly freak normal people out. The pressure release valve of INTJs is easily upset by undue amounts of stress in a short period of time, causing them to lash out. On the surface, this might appear a sociopathic 0-60 in temper. 

Neither is automatically trusting and these belief systems about testing the world, changing things and treating the world like a gigantic experiment can appear manipulative in a damaging way, as many people are socially-oriented before ideas. The dark sense of humour in expression make it sound worse than it is. “I wanted to see what you’d do.”

INTJs and sociopaths value truth above socially-proscribed norms and among the common herd this can make them enemies. I agree with those who type BBC’s Sherlock as INTJ because his deep, alarmingly sharp processing of information screams INTJ to me. 
http://sherlockcharacterconfessions.tumblr.com/sherlockholmesprofile 
That isn’t to say the guy is without faults. He’s full of inconsistencies, being the product of many writers, and one outright declared he isn’t a sociopath although “he wishes he was.” With all due respect, that guy is full of shit. If we place the INTJ typing aside, the Sherlock they wrote behaves in a sociopathic way. Whether it’s for dramatic effect and whether he intends to are irrelevant. SEASON 3 SPOILER ALERT: A person with no sociopathic bent could never shoot a guy in the head at point-blank range in cold blood. On a practical level, their fight/flight response would make it impossible. What annoys me about the character’s recent outings are the typical attempt to make him cuddlier and in the process lose the veracity of the Sherlock Holmes brand. 

Those personality traits don’t need to be fixed, they’re valuable to society. However, sometimes the person who embodies them needs to branch out for personal reasons and that is to be encouraged. 
If a pure INTJ met a pure sociopath, the latter would be irritated because the former would see them as a big puzzle and the latter would see somebody with a good theoretical brain being wasted on impractical goals. They overlap where they think: yeah, I know the social rules, I just don’t care.

ah who knows mystery shrug eva green pfft haha

 

Video: Hidden Psychopathy + Sherlock/Moriarty

I’m going to do something here I’ve never done online before. This is how I pick up on stuff.
A casual linguistic analysis, an excerpt from this video, transcribed by me. And pop culture comparison for fun.
Key: Bold and italic, by me too, note for tone. (round bracket) implied, covert or omitted. [sq., clinical note, overt presentation]

Of note, ~9:00 in:-

(serotonin amelioration explanation)
…so Psychopaths will get very angry but they’ll stay angry. …I said when I get mad, I don’t show it to anybody. I said I could be furious at you and you’d never know. I show no anger whatsoever. I don’t show anxiety. I said first of all, you’ll never know. I can sit on it for a year or two or three or five. But I’ll get you. And I always do. And they don’t know where it’s coming from. They can’t tie it to the event and it (seemingly) comes out of nowhere. And something dramatic happens in their life but I’m very careful, almost pristine about it, that’s a fair response. So if somebody does something [DS: note linguistic distancing] you can do a lot, you know. [DS: linguistic hedge, appeal to popularity/commonality]. You can say anything to me and I won’t get mad, really. [superficial] Those things don’t get me mad. [unique triggers] Somebody’s trying to get me [challenge, disrespect] , it’s like another psychopath or another (…) you know, someone’s trying to mess with me [perception of threat]. I have uh, I have a high (standard) threshold [pattern-seeking, repetition of slight required], so many things really don’t get me mad. You can just about do anything. I’m pretty cool that way. [rarely emotionally involved personally or socially] But if you really do [personal attack, repeated or major, provocation] then I always get even [balance scales, sense of justice] and I’ll make sure [intellectual control] it’s the same sort of intensity [proportion, category] that their initial damage (caused). …I can stay cool and it’ll happen (inevitable) and they’ll look around –
What happened with their job, what happened with their family, what happened [I happened. Person as event/God.] they won’t know. [stealth] And they both said that’s psychopathic. That’s exactly it. …..
Really when I saw Dexter, I absolutely understood it, because he was being fair, he was being fair to the universe [moral code, higher power appeal] and the world of ethics of the universe he was absolutely fair. Morality wise not so much [minimisation] but I could really understand [empathise] that behaviour. [decision-making process]
……..It was always the most selfish behaviour. ….It gets worse than that. ….It would extend to everything I was doing. [global traits] …Everything I’m doing is maximally selfish. (tries to change) I said you know I don’t really mean it. My wife goes I don’t care. ….I couldn’t believe it. I thought, you see, I had taken the whole thing of empathy and meaning beyond what people behaviourally are asking for [deep, higher processing, sincerity in social observance of norms] … people said you’re trying and that’s all that matters. This really blew me away and I really still don’t understand it [DS: it’s interpersonal respect, respect for observance of norms]….

This is the living example of a successful sociopath (non-criminal, prosocial psychopath).
BBC’s Sherlock, continually selfish, would also meet this (before they made him mushy and weak for the fangirls in Series 3).

a-friend-an-enemy-oh-which-one bbc sherlockMan, how many people do you piss off???

Despite the writer’s insistence they haven’t written one, he is. He totally is. They’re just reading sociopath as a criminal. No no, ‘successful sociopath’. Successful. High-functioning, almost. If you were to apply functioning criteria to this condition, yes.

And this bundle of characteristics, as it were, makes them so dangerous. Calculating, ruthless, precise. Think Moriarty. No doubts over that one, but aren’t they similar?

I listen in for linguistic cues and quirks like this at cocktail parties, with surprising results.
This is why successful sociopaths are best in business. It’s the ideal set of traits. Look out for these clinical markers I pointed out in conversations with high-flyer types. Sometimes I announce to them on the quiet that I know what they are. Good times, good times.

no one ever gets me bbc moriarty sherlockCome on, it’s transparent as a pane of glass.

Video: Dr Robert Hare explains psycho/sociopathy distinction

From the guy who made the PCL-R, pretty good resource.

Another I’d heard, commonly used, is that sociopathy has a heavier weight on nurture, they won’t born like it. This ties in well with the criminality element, which becomes apparent in childhood with freedom of movement from the primary caregiver.

Overlap with personality disorders;