Absolutely no aspertions or accusations of any kind meant against Dr Mitchell or you, but:
[The entire argument about human predators could just as easily fit as a strategy used by such a person to snare victims into unthinkingly following the one informing them about predators.]
It is the same problem, or almost the same, as when you write a book about poisonous plants and mushrooms/toadstools; it serves just as well as a poisoners field manual.
That said, it is good to learn the tells of the entire family of what was called personality disorders when I took very basic psychology at uni as part of sociology. The hardest for most I think is realising and accepting that true personality disorders cannot be cured or even treated (barring incarceration) - there's simply nothing to cure. The disorder is the outside world's judgement on the aberrant behaviours deemed unacceptable, but the personality is the true one of that person.
One might just as well try to cure lefthandedness.
A hard lesson for well-meaning people who do not want others to suffer, or cause suffering, but a necessary one lest the good become victims or even worse, enablers and protectors of the disturbed ones.
Obligatory caveat: as with all mental disorders, forms of retardation and what not, it is important always to remember that any kind of behaviour, any phrase, any thing about someone can easily be pathologised and turned into "proof" that there is something wrong. Clear and systematical and consistent patterns are what to look for, not random oddities.
"[The entire argument about human predators could just as easily fit as a strategy used by such a person to snare victims into unthinkingly following the one informing them about predators.]"
Yep, Mitchell discusses this in the book. Many such personalities are predators.
"It is the same problem, or almost the same, as when you write a book about poisonous plants and mushrooms/toadstools; it serves just as well as a poisoners field manual."
Interestingly, it seems that all predators know all of the tactics on their own. No need for a manual.
Yes, it is true they seem to have an in-born ability for how they are/what they do. Possibly, it is a social-evolutionary adaptation to modern (i.e. post-urbanisation) society, where manipulativeness (or egotistical/malignant sociability) is becoming more important than practical skills. Also, I think the near-total removal of social codes and mores has helped this development. Where the borderline cases in ages past found that learning the rules paid off better than violating them, we now have a situation where learning how to violate the rules pays better.
Tangent: a psychiatrist my wife was friends with worked his whole life treating convicted pedophiles, and this man's assessment was that pedophiles - where we're talking about a compulsive behaviour - were somehow born with the ability to identitfy by looking those children that would be "perfect" victims.
Somehow, they just knew which kid was of the correct vulnerability to be susceptible to grooming and advances. It was also this psyhicatrist's professional judgement after decades of experience, that the only "cure" was lifelong incarceration or execution.
It may sound weird, but all predators have an insitnct for spotting weakness in their targets - why wouldn't human social predators also be able to do that?
I do believe social media(internet has served as a field manual for narcissists, though - before that they couldn't communicate or spread their brand of (I hate having to use the term) toxic personalities to potentially millions.
Psychopaths do indeed spend plenty of time these days accusing the relatively sane of being criminally insane.
I have not studied the published criteria used to classify such personalities. But Hubbard warned us when he published his system that both positive and negative behaviors must be equally considered before making a judgement. The basics of his system are available online in video format.
The PPP provides a set of attributes and tactics used. If the person has the attributes and uses the tactics, the rest follows. As for hypocrisy, very few people are not hypocritical at least some of the time, so I don't think it's a useful indicator by itself.
"But he’s stuck in the “common worldview,” the ordinary world of concepts that sees all these dynamics in terms of surface-level features like political ideologies (or economics, or religion)."
The article you linked analyzes events, mostly based from the lens of "Politics" - it nevertheless sucessfully highlights hypocrisy, but, based on an appreciation of "left/right".
Some stated it was not enough; they explained that the lens, for the first approach, is insufficient since it does not start up with the appropriate "discriminants" (if I may use such term)
(So that we would need to access the realit, based on different idea, in the first place)
Back to the article. It's "hammer hits" - there:
"This is not a principled stand against violent rhetoric. It is a desperate attempt by Farage to distract from his own scandals - one which has instead exposed the grotesque hypocrisy of him and his party."
Seems this sentence is the summing-up of the author's idea; seems it's what leads up to the consideration of "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy, here, being the top problem. This must be correct. Farage, like many politicians - navigate through waters and leverage simple events "to appear nice". Mostly, I assume - "to get votes".
I would say: keep in mind that the elements, that gave birth to a rotten society, in which we got the antifa and his revolutionary t-shirt, to then a N. Farage being an opportunist.... Has antecedents. Deep antecedants. Very old motions, that slowly fashioned the society up to that point, where everybody is doing a mess and cares for his own profit (service to self).
I think that the overall matter does not boil from an original conflict "left vs right" because the real elements that conditions the health of societies - are different ones.
From there, we should not stare at the conclusion and link those to the "left/right" variables.
Result remains "hypocrisy" and it seems correct. But Lord knows why N. Farage, the person who successfully took Britain out of Bruxelles' black hole of "Euro money for all" - acts as he does.
Within the real context (that we don't know of - and it's not a simple clash between the right and the left) - "Nigel Farage acts stupid". That is the end of the chain of a long long motion - can be we'd need to analyze Britain in 1950, and that we would find out an element that has been slowly hiding up to today.
So - the service to self metric:
- guy Polanski organizes a meeting
I don't know who this Polanski is. Is he a good person or not? Politicians have the tendency to be "rotten" and many are self-serving via a political career that grants them power over others, among others that want a big salary and a cozy existence.
- revolutionary guy has a t-shirt
That guy wants to be seen, with shocking things, and he wants his persona to appear, to be. Barely self-serving, isn't it? He wants to push an opinion. But methinks UK people ought to be grateful to Farage for Brexit. Nobody should decapitate him.
- N. Farage comes by, seems to leverage the turmoil in his favour, to get votes, or attention. We would have to understand why he does that. It can be that he is in touch with the "real reality" - and not basing his actions on "left vs right". End-result would be his attitude. But I agree he looks like an opportuints, simply seeking the spotlight and votes. In doing so he would be serving the self ("on the behalf of").
My point here is that serving one's own is most always latent and underlying in many many motions.
I hope my explanations have a bit of sense. I don't aim to correct you, respect your right to think, and am more intending to show you a different perspective, that which exists - so that you may have alternative ways. Seems to be about the apparition of "hypocrisy", and how ? why it appears. Then, a second question, too, is "is hypocrisy the utmost vector here": I would say something else (above, uphill) - made Farage act hypocritical. We don't know all the mcanics of the British apparatus - but various episodes, especially teh Dolphin square one - can teach one about various things that may be pulling the strings of Britain.
And, too, sorry. Britain is undergoing a so rotten momentum that I have big pain, big sorrow. I respect your seeking of "hypocrisy", your interrogations. I don't want to "push" anything. Anybody sane wouldn0t last one minute in such an environnment. Day after day, I see new crazy things. Non-stopping madness.It is very difficult than to stare at anything and remain calm, and thinking about it.
I will have a look at the above-mentionned article.
May I try something very simple? I shall get back at some basics.
It has been said that the world has two types of people - normal people and DNA psychopaths.
Take a normal person: with habit, wrongdoings - the person becomes a hypocrity. One day, the normal person "tries" hypocrisy - and nobody corrects it, nobody is around, nobody knows etc. With time, big hypocrite. Big big rottening, a parangon of problems. Almost a psychopath! If we apply psychopath to a person who has a DNA tweak, we need to use another term.
Take a DNA psychopath: seems the person is born out a condition that will be like an impulse, bit even more. The person only feels it. The context - relaity, other people etc etc are all based from the DNA tweak. Hypocsrisy or something alike could developp, but I suspect it would not be hypocrisy. Well, technically speaking, being false in order to get things - is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy, at the level of some DNA psychopaths - has been described as "the mask of sanity".
So whila normal person is located in "waters" that makes the person "unsure", "trying", "getting down a slope" (so moral could be) - a DNA psychopath is already embed in something so specific that hypocrisy benefits from quite a different psychiatric perspective - if we were to assess both.
Naturally, the above "difference" I am pointing out is based on the knowledge of "there are two types of people". Without such premise, all is worth the same, etc. Thsi dichotomy is a first theoretical step, that which conditions the understanding of "hypocrisy" as being different (second step).
Hypocrisy, IMO, amounts to "lying". Lying to one self. Both normal people and psychopaths can do that. Can we set "lying" above "hypocrisy"?
Note: Annah Arendt is quite old. She was a precursor in the knowledge on evil. Since then, both her school of thought (Arendtians) and other approaches in ponerology made their way. In the Arendtian school, Christophe DEJOURS - a pure Arendt follower - made very interesting observations. Ariane Bilheran too.
AH could not make all the observations, I think. She did what she could, and did much much right. New discoveries have been made. Overall, her model remains correct in the sense of "studying evil". The hypocrisy spec may be insufficient if we use it as the top qualificative.
Now let me read the article and I will get back to you. But, look - what evil deed isn't motivated by an impulse of serving the self!? (??????!!!!!!!????) Each time I think of the evil deeds, I can narrow it down to a person thinking "me, my", and who decides to "carry on an action". I am sure I shall find this in the article you linked. It takes various forms but it seems that the core impulse amounts to it.
A hypocrite would decide to be hypocrite for various reasons - but it amounts to serving the self. "I want to appear great" "get things that I cannot get via the right way"
> The core impulse of using hypocrisy seems due to the eventuality of serving the self - in whichever manner (getting something)
Still dealing with these types every day. I've some new insights since you and I had our brief conversation a couple of years ago, and I can't escape the nagging suspicion that I'm still (to some degree) "reinventing the wheel."
Actionable information on specific methods for dealing with DT types in business, is rather thin on the ground. Trying to refine my methodology as I mentor my staff on precisely what to do, how and when.
If you ever have the "bandwidth" and are curious about individual cases, send me a PM.
I listened to that interview and shared it with several people. It is so good. It's nuts how the publishers are trying to steal it from her! Thank you for sharing.
Absolutely no aspertions or accusations of any kind meant against Dr Mitchell or you, but:
[The entire argument about human predators could just as easily fit as a strategy used by such a person to snare victims into unthinkingly following the one informing them about predators.]
It is the same problem, or almost the same, as when you write a book about poisonous plants and mushrooms/toadstools; it serves just as well as a poisoners field manual.
That said, it is good to learn the tells of the entire family of what was called personality disorders when I took very basic psychology at uni as part of sociology. The hardest for most I think is realising and accepting that true personality disorders cannot be cured or even treated (barring incarceration) - there's simply nothing to cure. The disorder is the outside world's judgement on the aberrant behaviours deemed unacceptable, but the personality is the true one of that person.
One might just as well try to cure lefthandedness.
A hard lesson for well-meaning people who do not want others to suffer, or cause suffering, but a necessary one lest the good become victims or even worse, enablers and protectors of the disturbed ones.
Obligatory caveat: as with all mental disorders, forms of retardation and what not, it is important always to remember that any kind of behaviour, any phrase, any thing about someone can easily be pathologised and turned into "proof" that there is something wrong. Clear and systematical and consistent patterns are what to look for, not random oddities.
"[The entire argument about human predators could just as easily fit as a strategy used by such a person to snare victims into unthinkingly following the one informing them about predators.]"
Yep, Mitchell discusses this in the book. Many such personalities are predators.
"It is the same problem, or almost the same, as when you write a book about poisonous plants and mushrooms/toadstools; it serves just as well as a poisoners field manual."
Interestingly, it seems that all predators know all of the tactics on their own. No need for a manual.
Yes, it is true they seem to have an in-born ability for how they are/what they do. Possibly, it is a social-evolutionary adaptation to modern (i.e. post-urbanisation) society, where manipulativeness (or egotistical/malignant sociability) is becoming more important than practical skills. Also, I think the near-total removal of social codes and mores has helped this development. Where the borderline cases in ages past found that learning the rules paid off better than violating them, we now have a situation where learning how to violate the rules pays better.
Tangent: a psychiatrist my wife was friends with worked his whole life treating convicted pedophiles, and this man's assessment was that pedophiles - where we're talking about a compulsive behaviour - were somehow born with the ability to identitfy by looking those children that would be "perfect" victims.
Somehow, they just knew which kid was of the correct vulnerability to be susceptible to grooming and advances. It was also this psyhicatrist's professional judgement after decades of experience, that the only "cure" was lifelong incarceration or execution.
It may sound weird, but all predators have an insitnct for spotting weakness in their targets - why wouldn't human social predators also be able to do that?
I do believe social media(internet has served as a field manual for narcissists, though - before that they couldn't communicate or spread their brand of (I hate having to use the term) toxic personalities to potentially millions.
Psychopaths do indeed spend plenty of time these days accusing the relatively sane of being criminally insane.
I have not studied the published criteria used to classify such personalities. But Hubbard warned us when he published his system that both positive and negative behaviors must be equally considered before making a judgement. The basics of his system are available online in video format.
Yes, 'what is The Metric' to ascertain/judge which are the Predators?
Perhaps Hypocrisy?
especially re: 'The Accountability WE supposedly seek'?
--
Escape The DemoRub!
The Neurotic Double-Barrel Predator
----
Focus Unite!
;-)
The PPP provides a set of attributes and tactics used. If the person has the attributes and uses the tactics, the rest follows. As for hypocrisy, very few people are not hypocritical at least some of the time, so I don't think it's a useful indicator by itself.
Ponerology / Hypocrisy
https://www.google.com/search?q=ponerology+%2526+hypocrisy
AI Overview:
Ponerology is the scientific study of the causes
and mechanisms of widespread social injustice,
institutional evil, and political oppression.
-
Hypocrisy is the primary psychological tool
used by destructive individuals
to mask their harmful intentions and
maintain power over others.
Hi,
your position: 'as for hypocrisy' condoning; reminds me of this quote:
--
"As witnesses not of our intentions but of our conduct,
we can be true or false, and the hypocrite's crime is that he bears false
witness against himself... Only crime and the criminal, it is true,
confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is
really rotten to the core."
~ Hannah Arendt -
----------------------------------
condoning a sanctuary for hypocrisy does not bode well for you, nor us!
;-)
But I didn't condone a sanctuary for hypocrisy.
AI Overview
hypocrisy / corruption
Mechanisms of Power and Control
https://www.google.com/search?q=hypocrisy+%252F+corruption
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=hypocrisy+and+corruption
-------
'Control-Fraud'
is a type of fraud where individuals in positions of control use
a seemingly legitimate organization as a "weapon" to defraud others for personal gain.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=control+fraud
Escape The DemoRub / Leviathan / Blob! ;-)
TrumpClinton / DemoRub DemoUSA
https://youtu.be/qPK7uStv6zA
You seem to have stopped at "hypocrisy" as being the ultimate top culprit ("what's the metaphysic", so ultimate catoegorization for reality)
If so, try "service to self" - it's even more encompassing and as far as I can say, cannot beat it
I see the last part of the quote as being the culprit
Let's assume a hypocrite is rotten to the core
I would the come by and say "rotten to the core, hypocrisy-related, is one field, one area..."
"There exists other areas" "those areas compete with "rotten to the core""
Various ways, or "Qualities" - of rottening. Some don't amount to "rottening" but are as damaging, problematic and deserve that much attention.
AH sets up a standard for "ultimate evil" (but can be it's not her final model)
Does it makes sense?
Hi Moth,
what you posited appears quite complicated, or could be, not sure; but I'll try:
Perhaps considering this part:
"but of our conduct,
we can be true or false, and the hypocrite's crime is that he 'bears false
witness against himself' "
--- it would seem in that there is an extreme rot internally / core?
here is a recent article regarding hypocrisy, can you apply your metrics to it?
https://www.owenjones.news/p/nigel-farages-raging-hypocrisy-over
Ok, I see something from the article.
First, a quote that I always keep in mind:
https://ponerology.substack.com/p/the-long-road-of-degeneration
"But he’s stuck in the “common worldview,” the ordinary world of concepts that sees all these dynamics in terms of surface-level features like political ideologies (or economics, or religion)."
The article you linked analyzes events, mostly based from the lens of "Politics" - it nevertheless sucessfully highlights hypocrisy, but, based on an appreciation of "left/right".
Some stated it was not enough; they explained that the lens, for the first approach, is insufficient since it does not start up with the appropriate "discriminants" (if I may use such term)
(So that we would need to access the realit, based on different idea, in the first place)
Back to the article. It's "hammer hits" - there:
"This is not a principled stand against violent rhetoric. It is a desperate attempt by Farage to distract from his own scandals - one which has instead exposed the grotesque hypocrisy of him and his party."
Seems this sentence is the summing-up of the author's idea; seems it's what leads up to the consideration of "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy, here, being the top problem. This must be correct. Farage, like many politicians - navigate through waters and leverage simple events "to appear nice". Mostly, I assume - "to get votes".
I would say: keep in mind that the elements, that gave birth to a rotten society, in which we got the antifa and his revolutionary t-shirt, to then a N. Farage being an opportunist.... Has antecedents. Deep antecedants. Very old motions, that slowly fashioned the society up to that point, where everybody is doing a mess and cares for his own profit (service to self).
I think that the overall matter does not boil from an original conflict "left vs right" because the real elements that conditions the health of societies - are different ones.
From there, we should not stare at the conclusion and link those to the "left/right" variables.
Result remains "hypocrisy" and it seems correct. But Lord knows why N. Farage, the person who successfully took Britain out of Bruxelles' black hole of "Euro money for all" - acts as he does.
Within the real context (that we don't know of - and it's not a simple clash between the right and the left) - "Nigel Farage acts stupid". That is the end of the chain of a long long motion - can be we'd need to analyze Britain in 1950, and that we would find out an element that has been slowly hiding up to today.
So - the service to self metric:
- guy Polanski organizes a meeting
I don't know who this Polanski is. Is he a good person or not? Politicians have the tendency to be "rotten" and many are self-serving via a political career that grants them power over others, among others that want a big salary and a cozy existence.
- revolutionary guy has a t-shirt
That guy wants to be seen, with shocking things, and he wants his persona to appear, to be. Barely self-serving, isn't it? He wants to push an opinion. But methinks UK people ought to be grateful to Farage for Brexit. Nobody should decapitate him.
- N. Farage comes by, seems to leverage the turmoil in his favour, to get votes, or attention. We would have to understand why he does that. It can be that he is in touch with the "real reality" - and not basing his actions on "left vs right". End-result would be his attitude. But I agree he looks like an opportuints, simply seeking the spotlight and votes. In doing so he would be serving the self ("on the behalf of").
My point here is that serving one's own is most always latent and underlying in many many motions.
I hope my explanations have a bit of sense. I don't aim to correct you, respect your right to think, and am more intending to show you a different perspective, that which exists - so that you may have alternative ways. Seems to be about the apparition of "hypocrisy", and how ? why it appears. Then, a second question, too, is "is hypocrisy the utmost vector here": I would say something else (above, uphill) - made Farage act hypocritical. We don't know all the mcanics of the British apparatus - but various episodes, especially teh Dolphin square one - can teach one about various things that may be pulling the strings of Britain.
And, too, sorry. Britain is undergoing a so rotten momentum that I have big pain, big sorrow. I respect your seeking of "hypocrisy", your interrogations. I don't want to "push" anything. Anybody sane wouldn0t last one minute in such an environnment. Day after day, I see new crazy things. Non-stopping madness.It is very difficult than to stare at anything and remain calm, and thinking about it.
Hello, thank you for the comment.
I will have a look at the above-mentionned article.
May I try something very simple? I shall get back at some basics.
It has been said that the world has two types of people - normal people and DNA psychopaths.
Take a normal person: with habit, wrongdoings - the person becomes a hypocrity. One day, the normal person "tries" hypocrisy - and nobody corrects it, nobody is around, nobody knows etc. With time, big hypocrite. Big big rottening, a parangon of problems. Almost a psychopath! If we apply psychopath to a person who has a DNA tweak, we need to use another term.
Take a DNA psychopath: seems the person is born out a condition that will be like an impulse, bit even more. The person only feels it. The context - relaity, other people etc etc are all based from the DNA tweak. Hypocsrisy or something alike could developp, but I suspect it would not be hypocrisy. Well, technically speaking, being false in order to get things - is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy, at the level of some DNA psychopaths - has been described as "the mask of sanity".
So whila normal person is located in "waters" that makes the person "unsure", "trying", "getting down a slope" (so moral could be) - a DNA psychopath is already embed in something so specific that hypocrisy benefits from quite a different psychiatric perspective - if we were to assess both.
Naturally, the above "difference" I am pointing out is based on the knowledge of "there are two types of people". Without such premise, all is worth the same, etc. Thsi dichotomy is a first theoretical step, that which conditions the understanding of "hypocrisy" as being different (second step).
Hypocrisy, IMO, amounts to "lying". Lying to one self. Both normal people and psychopaths can do that. Can we set "lying" above "hypocrisy"?
Note: Annah Arendt is quite old. She was a precursor in the knowledge on evil. Since then, both her school of thought (Arendtians) and other approaches in ponerology made their way. In the Arendtian school, Christophe DEJOURS - a pure Arendt follower - made very interesting observations. Ariane Bilheran too.
AH could not make all the observations, I think. She did what she could, and did much much right. New discoveries have been made. Overall, her model remains correct in the sense of "studying evil". The hypocrisy spec may be insufficient if we use it as the top qualificative.
Now let me read the article and I will get back to you. But, look - what evil deed isn't motivated by an impulse of serving the self!? (??????!!!!!!!????) Each time I think of the evil deeds, I can narrow it down to a person thinking "me, my", and who decides to "carry on an action". I am sure I shall find this in the article you linked. It takes various forms but it seems that the core impulse amounts to it.
A hypocrite would decide to be hypocrite for various reasons - but it amounts to serving the self. "I want to appear great" "get things that I cannot get via the right way"
> The core impulse of using hypocrisy seems due to the eventuality of serving the self - in whichever manner (getting something)
Thank you, Mr. Koehli, I'll be buying the book.
Still dealing with these types every day. I've some new insights since you and I had our brief conversation a couple of years ago, and I can't escape the nagging suspicion that I'm still (to some degree) "reinventing the wheel."
Actionable information on specific methods for dealing with DT types in business, is rather thin on the ground. Trying to refine my methodology as I mentor my staff on precisely what to do, how and when.
If you ever have the "bandwidth" and are curious about individual cases, send me a PM.
I listened to that interview and shared it with several people. It is so good. It's nuts how the publishers are trying to steal it from her! Thank you for sharing.
Thank you. Ordered. There are two books on Amazon entitled Human Predators...make no mistake, readers! (Although the other one may be good, too.)
Got my copy!!!! Thanks for sharing Dr. Karen Mitchell's interview. Her insights and yours are needed more than people realize.
Ugh. Amazon says there's no Kindle version, just a paperback.
Looks like the ebook is available here: https://payhip.com/b/Wlh5B
Thank you Harrison.
This is an important issue that is not going to go away.