I think I read about a criminologist who studied the brains of about 60 psychopaths and found that there was some damage to the frontal cortex with various causes amoung most of them. He was seeking an anatomical cue for psychopathy. What was fascinating about his story was that at one point he was lecturing and was attacked at night in his sleep by an intruder in a hotel suite (in Istanbul, I think it was. He said that he always counseled his students, in such a scenario, to just give up to the robber—but when he was actually in that situation, he found himself fighting, and, getting the worst of it. During the battle his assailant broke off a knife blade in the lecturers throat. The professor survived the attack but his vocal cords were cut and it took about a year to recover his ability to speak. Now he confesses that, on the issue of capital punishment, as a good liberal academic he wants to oppose it, but as a crime victim something in the body feels like this is a mistake and doesn’t agree.
Interesting. My hypothesis: the frontal brain damage is a big reason why they got caught. Without it, they would’ve just been “successful” psychopaths.
It is interesting how often head injuries turn up in the biographies of pathological individuals. Just one that comes to mind is the English sadist serial killer Fred West;
"At age 17, Fred suffered a fractured skull, a broken arm, and a broken leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unconscious for seven days and walked with braces for several months; because of this incident, he developed an extreme fear of hospitals and became prone to fits of rage. Two years later, Fred suffered a further head injury when a girl he groped on a fire escape outside the Ledbury Youth Club punched him, sending him falling two floors"
Phrenology does have some merit and needs to be revisited. The bumps on one's head really can tell you something about the way they are. One example is the occipital bun, or "math bump" on the back of one's head. The prominence of the occipital bun correlates with higher numeracy. People with Asperger's are more likely to have a math bump.
This is just a correlation, though. You can have Asperger's, and/or be a math whiz and not have the bun.
That is the kind of discourse I think has value - and now let me ask you this - what is 8 times 7 minus 6?
50
So fifty is the middle of the way to 100 - and 100% means for sure probability wise, but lets all admit - there is uncertainty - and tis my view that it is not wise to judge a man by his forehead or the shape of his body for that matter - what matters is what is expressed in action - is that not true?
~
Nor is any man wise to judge a women in emotions - cause that is outside the bailiwick of most men's mind.
Agree or not - or do you have insight into the mind of a women?
Nice mental math there, guy, but I judge a man by his MAN BUN. You seem prone to mental shortcuts—a real SLOPE HEAD comment. CRANIAL PIX OR GTFO!!!!!!!!
Wasn't there a French criminologist who also tried to use it as an identification technique, which I think at one point was competing with fingerprinting? Or maybe I've read too many historical fiction murder mysteries.
Meta-historic is an interesting way of putting it. I'm not exactly sure of what the context of "Lindy" means. That went a bit over my head. Would you mind explaining it to the students like me who visit your classes via the short bus?
I was trying to make a wry reference to the convention of suggesting theories like phrenology are antiquated by virtue of their age. [I should add that I'm not attributing that view to you Mr. Antares! Just a silly little joke on my part.]
I got hair on most of my head by virtue of my momma's papa I reckon - but my forehead is hairless no doubt - and the slope of it is really subjective - and brain damage is no laughing matter - but to try to find the origin of ponerology via phrenology and/or the hair on somebody's head is what?
Is that good science or speculation?
I suspect the latter mainly - and fraught with discrimination potential for trouble when trying to explain something so complicated as the brain by judging the shape of a person's head for goodness sake.
That leads down ways of thinking that I suspect even Lobaczewski would disavow.
~
Whatever - I don't have hair on my toes - but others do - I don't have hair on my back - but I seen some gorillas of men who do - I don't judge based on physical attributes - that is a slippery slope.
It's actually quite objective as it can be measured directly.
"brain damage is no laughing matter"
True, but then again, like everything else, it can be a laughing matter, as demonstrated by comedians' ability to make anything funny.
"but to try to find the origin of ponerology via phrenology"
No one is trying to find the origin of ponerology via phrenology. Not sure where you got that idea.
"and/or the hair on somebody's head is what?"
How did hair having anything to do with ponerology enter this discussion?
"Is that good science or speculation?"
To the extent that forehead slope is correlated with either traits which themselves are correlated with psychopathologies or potentially even psychopathologies themselves, then it would be good science. As it is, there is a correlation with impulsivity, and any further correlations are mostly speculative, but supported by the work of the man which forms the basis for this Substack.
"fraught with discrimination potential for trouble"
I am unconcerned with this, as any truth is fraught with discrimination potential. I'd say ignoring such truths have their own potentially fraught implications.
"when trying to explain something so complicated as the brain by judging the shape of a person's head for goodness sake."
My own slope is anywhere from 18 to 22 degrees, putting my as much as a standard deviation above average, and I find judging people's head slopes, including my own, is hilarious. Why so serious?
"That leads down ways of thinking that I suspect even Lobaczewski would disavow."
I think you are overreacting and imagining scenarios that have no actual basis in reality.
"Whatever - I don't have hair on my toes - but others do - I don't have hair on my back - but I seen some gorillas of men who do - I don't judge based on physical attributes - that is a slippery slope."
I don't judge on physical appearance, except when the person deserves it. Like Jeffrey Epstein's absolute troll face. His physiognomy is a perfect reflection of the sordid state of his decrepit soul. Totally imbalanced facial thirds. And this is coming from a guy--me--with too large a forehead.
Wow - that sounds like it was a hell of a collision....hope you are healed.
~
I've had stitches on my head numerous time when I was a kid - one time - this is funny - me and my brother were playing "deer hunter" and I was the prey - and dang - he hit me square in the middle of the head with I think it was a "pole stick" - and it was yet another visit to the hospital to get stitched up!
But if the excessive slope does indicate physical damage prenatal or in infancy, this might be a telling physical characteristic.
We could remind ourselves that there are a few people walking around with very little brain matter at all who still manage to pass as "normal." And we also know that some psychopaths are quite intelligent and "normal" looking. From my training, the psychic (or psychological) damage caused by the physically damaging event might be more important in determining the mental and emotional stability of a person than brain damage. Hubbard found many such cases.
It is not as if cranial matter has no influence at all, but the mental recordings of bad (severely bad) experiences have been found to exert an undue amount of influence later in life.
OK - lets say during the birthing process the head got seriously squished - are then all folks look sort of like Neanderthals going to be judged as such?
This is more than a slippery slope - it is sort of science fiction - I'd prefer some HARD data versus slope calculations on a persons face - and what about all them folks maybe had some shrapnel come upon their skull and then change the slope?
~
So, I concur brain damage can occur when being born, but jumping to conclusions premature is not advisable - and that is why phrenology ultimately was "dismissed" back in the day - right or wrong.
and please - tell me what you think the "norm" is - I'm curious.
But yes - I may be out of bounds here - but I'm going to look up the definition of "norm" in Websters 3rd International unabridged and then I will post an image of that - and decide for yourself - if the definition has merit.
OK - I'll give you this - tis 68.2% under the "normal curve" linked below - correct - 84.1 - 15.9 on the "standard" bell curve is what - 68.2% and if I'm outside of the "norm" and you are making "fun" of me - then know this - tis not wise to make fun of a Forest Walker.
and now for your edification think you can laugh your ass off about somebody being "triggered" - you ought edit yourself with this pompous statement - and truly - who you think you are to talk to a Forest Walker as such? You don't even know me but you think you can tell me I've been "triggered" - oh.....you ain't seen nothing yet - and you ought look in the mirror.
It is the same difference as talking to a psychologist think they got all the answer regarding the human mind - after awhile they get so pompous they lose touch with what it means to be a human.
This is going to be quite the can of worms! Interestingly, Nicholas Wade makes this claim in his book, A Troublesome Inheritance. Then you look at his photo on the back sleeve and his giant forehead looks like it's about to explode!
Now try this one, but before you do, try to picture "Professor of philosophy" "expert in artificial intelligence" and "literally wrote the book "Superintelligence"
Before my dad got his traumatic brain injury, he was a psychiatrist and studied criminally insane, most all had a history of massive head trauma. Dealing with my dad after his injury,it was obvious it affected his impulsiveness. His short term memory. He was supremely self centered for years after. He has mostly gotten past that. He didn't get hurt til his 50s.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. The craziest example like this I read was in Adrian Raine’s book about a man who developed a brain tumor. Each time the tumor came back (after surgery), he acquired pedophilic tendencies, and each time the tumor was removed, they went away.
I’m not really sure what there is to gain by sharing such a study. What a psychological burden to bear if, God forbid, someone should now learn that he has a possible predisposition to psychopathy because of the way his forehead slants—a physical characteristic that cannot be changed.
Here's Lobaczewski's perspective on this. First such a possible predisposition would be for, at the very least, impulsivity, and at the most, what he called "characteropathy" (not psychopathy). Characteropathy is brain-damaged-induced psychological dysfunction. He was of the opinion that psychopaths should not be told they have a genetic disorder, and their condition should be discussed with them only with allusive language. As for characteropaths, he thought it was helpful to discuss the exact nature of their disorder with them. He thought that knowing that some of their flaws had an origin in a physical accident was helpful, as it would give them some self-insight and let them manage their condition better.
No, I get it. It’s an interesting study that could potentially yield benefits in a clinical setting. Still, I’m just not certain it serves the general readership that well. Case in point, I can’t help wondering how many people—since reading your post—have taken profile selfies and measured the angles of their foreheads. I’m guilty of doing just that.
Same here. LOL. I still think the potential benefits outweigh the risks. I for one have an above average slope, but very low impulsivity. If another has a remarkable slope and also recognizes that they're impulsive, then they will be able to say, "Ahh, maybe that explains it." And to all those self-conscious about their slopes, I would just emphasize that it's not THAT big a deal.
Let's just hope I don't now do a post on "minor physical anomalies" suggestive of fetal neural maldevelopment! (For reference, these are mentioned on p. 232 of PP.)
Let me try something a little bizarre and approach this question from another angle, an angle perhaps 180 degrees removed.
Here is a little bit about Shao Lou, the Daoist God of longevity, often seen with a peach, and a spotted deer, but always an old man with a long white beard and an absolutely huge domed head.
Perhaps you think that's too bizarre as it is in no way supposed to be an accurate depiction of a real person. But then again, it is an anthropomorphic image of deep wisdom and benevolence that has been popular for hundreds of years. This is what common people though a benevolent celestial being might plausibly look like.
And he looks like a kindly Grandpa with a duplex brain.
Lobaczewski for one didn’t call him impulsive, but rather focused on his “mental shortcut” way of thinking, combined with extreme egotism. Found this in a quick search though:
“Stalin was an impulsive character. As described by Khrushchev (1970) sudden impulses decided large-scale public projects such as the building of canals or momentous political decisions such as the postwar partition of Germany. Associates would be suddenly summoned and meetings would be ended abruptly or the agenda switched at the whim of Stalin. Without regular meetings of the governing bodies Khrushchev noted, “the government virtually ceased to function.” Stalin often postponed for months dealing with critical problems that needed to be solved urgently (Khrushchev, 1970, p. 297; Glad, 2002).”
I think I read about a criminologist who studied the brains of about 60 psychopaths and found that there was some damage to the frontal cortex with various causes amoung most of them. He was seeking an anatomical cue for psychopathy. What was fascinating about his story was that at one point he was lecturing and was attacked at night in his sleep by an intruder in a hotel suite (in Istanbul, I think it was. He said that he always counseled his students, in such a scenario, to just give up to the robber—but when he was actually in that situation, he found himself fighting, and, getting the worst of it. During the battle his assailant broke off a knife blade in the lecturers throat. The professor survived the attack but his vocal cords were cut and it took about a year to recover his ability to speak. Now he confesses that, on the issue of capital punishment, as a good liberal academic he wants to oppose it, but as a crime victim something in the body feels like this is a mistake and doesn’t agree.
Interesting. My hypothesis: the frontal brain damage is a big reason why they got caught. Without it, they would’ve just been “successful” psychopaths.
It is interesting how often head injuries turn up in the biographies of pathological individuals. Just one that comes to mind is the English sadist serial killer Fred West;
"At age 17, Fred suffered a fractured skull, a broken arm, and a broken leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unconscious for seven days and walked with braces for several months; because of this incident, he developed an extreme fear of hospitals and became prone to fits of rage. Two years later, Fred suffered a further head injury when a girl he groped on a fire escape outside the Ledbury Youth Club punched him, sending him falling two floors"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West
I believe that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome also leads to this.
I've sometimes wondered how much pathological behavior could be traced to neurological damage, whether caused by birth defect, malnutrition, or abuse.
Expect snarky references to phrenology for talking about it.
Lobaczewski definitely thought so. He called it "characteropathy". Adrian Raine's book Anatomy of Violence gets into this territory.
"snarky" references to phrenology is sort of a misnomer or what is that damn word....
an acronism.....no that ain't it....a word that is self-evident contradiction - what is that damn word....
oh screw it....I got the word in my head.
~
I found it with the help of some Brave "AI" - tis either or both an oxymoron or a autantonym - you know Isaiah A?
Phrenology was a nineteenth century thing. Folks thought they could determine one’s personality and morality by examining the bumps in one’s head.
Phrenology does have some merit and needs to be revisited. The bumps on one's head really can tell you something about the way they are. One example is the occipital bun, or "math bump" on the back of one's head. The prominence of the occipital bun correlates with higher numeracy. People with Asperger's are more likely to have a math bump.
This is just a correlation, though. You can have Asperger's, and/or be a math whiz and not have the bun.
That is the kind of discourse I think has value - and now let me ask you this - what is 8 times 7 minus 6?
50
So fifty is the middle of the way to 100 - and 100% means for sure probability wise, but lets all admit - there is uncertainty - and tis my view that it is not wise to judge a man by his forehead or the shape of his body for that matter - what matters is what is expressed in action - is that not true?
~
Nor is any man wise to judge a women in emotions - cause that is outside the bailiwick of most men's mind.
Agree or not - or do you have insight into the mind of a women?
Nice mental math there, guy, but I judge a man by his MAN BUN. You seem prone to mental shortcuts—a real SLOPE HEAD comment. CRANIAL PIX OR GTFO!!!!!!!!
Oh great - you ain't even seen my forehead - yet you cast dispersions on the slope of one's forehead?
🤣
Wasn't there a French criminologist who also tried to use it as an identification technique, which I think at one point was competing with fingerprinting? Or maybe I've read too many historical fiction murder mysteries.
Cesare Lomroso, also discussed in Adrian Raine's book.
Judging a mates by, among other things, the shape of their face and head is a pre-historic thing.
*meta-historic. Lindy.
Meta-historic is an interesting way of putting it. I'm not exactly sure of what the context of "Lindy" means. That went a bit over my head. Would you mind explaining it to the students like me who visit your classes via the short bus?
I was trying to make a wry reference to the convention of suggesting theories like phrenology are antiquated by virtue of their age. [I should add that I'm not attributing that view to you Mr. Antares! Just a silly little joke on my part.]
Yeah....tell me about it!
I've got a few bumps on my noggin....but don't we all?
👌
My head has several bumps as well, thankfully all covered by hair.
I got hair on most of my head by virtue of my momma's papa I reckon - but my forehead is hairless no doubt - and the slope of it is really subjective - and brain damage is no laughing matter - but to try to find the origin of ponerology via phrenology and/or the hair on somebody's head is what?
Is that good science or speculation?
I suspect the latter mainly - and fraught with discrimination potential for trouble when trying to explain something so complicated as the brain by judging the shape of a person's head for goodness sake.
That leads down ways of thinking that I suspect even Lobaczewski would disavow.
~
Whatever - I don't have hair on my toes - but others do - I don't have hair on my back - but I seen some gorillas of men who do - I don't judge based on physical attributes - that is a slippery slope.
"the slope of it is really subjective"
It's actually quite objective as it can be measured directly.
"brain damage is no laughing matter"
True, but then again, like everything else, it can be a laughing matter, as demonstrated by comedians' ability to make anything funny.
"but to try to find the origin of ponerology via phrenology"
No one is trying to find the origin of ponerology via phrenology. Not sure where you got that idea.
"and/or the hair on somebody's head is what?"
How did hair having anything to do with ponerology enter this discussion?
"Is that good science or speculation?"
To the extent that forehead slope is correlated with either traits which themselves are correlated with psychopathologies or potentially even psychopathologies themselves, then it would be good science. As it is, there is a correlation with impulsivity, and any further correlations are mostly speculative, but supported by the work of the man which forms the basis for this Substack.
"fraught with discrimination potential for trouble"
I am unconcerned with this, as any truth is fraught with discrimination potential. I'd say ignoring such truths have their own potentially fraught implications.
"when trying to explain something so complicated as the brain by judging the shape of a person's head for goodness sake."
My own slope is anywhere from 18 to 22 degrees, putting my as much as a standard deviation above average, and I find judging people's head slopes, including my own, is hilarious. Why so serious?
"That leads down ways of thinking that I suspect even Lobaczewski would disavow."
I think you are overreacting and imagining scenarios that have no actual basis in reality.
"Whatever - I don't have hair on my toes - but others do - I don't have hair on my back - but I seen some gorillas of men who do - I don't judge based on physical attributes - that is a slippery slope."
I don't judge on physical appearance, except when the person deserves it. Like Jeffrey Epstein's absolute troll face. His physiognomy is a perfect reflection of the sordid state of his decrepit soul. Totally imbalanced facial thirds. And this is coming from a guy--me--with too large a forehead.
I have a pointy skull that absorbed a frontal collision with a vehicle. Without it, I suspect my skull would be concave.
Wow - that sounds like it was a hell of a collision....hope you are healed.
~
I've had stitches on my head numerous time when I was a kid - one time - this is funny - me and my brother were playing "deer hunter" and I was the prey - and dang - he hit me square in the middle of the head with I think it was a "pole stick" - and it was yet another visit to the hospital to get stitched up!
(ha, ha.... - brothers ....)
BK
I've had my share of lumps.
[Puts hand on forehead, the same way someone would check to see if my temp was high]
LOL. You’re not the only one.
I had always noticed this about Stalin. It is typical of the Armenid type, with which he as a Georgian likely had some admixture.
This does sound like phrenology.
But if the excessive slope does indicate physical damage prenatal or in infancy, this might be a telling physical characteristic.
We could remind ourselves that there are a few people walking around with very little brain matter at all who still manage to pass as "normal." And we also know that some psychopaths are quite intelligent and "normal" looking. From my training, the psychic (or psychological) damage caused by the physically damaging event might be more important in determining the mental and emotional stability of a person than brain damage. Hubbard found many such cases.
It is not as if cranial matter has no influence at all, but the mental recordings of bad (severely bad) experiences have been found to exert an undue amount of influence later in life.
Yep, this forehead example is just one example of many.
studies on the prefrontal cortex (and how that changes your forehead) are not phrenology
OK - lets say during the birthing process the head got seriously squished - are then all folks look sort of like Neanderthals going to be judged as such?
This is more than a slippery slope - it is sort of science fiction - I'd prefer some HARD data versus slope calculations on a persons face - and what about all them folks maybe had some shrapnel come upon their skull and then change the slope?
~
So, I concur brain damage can occur when being born, but jumping to conclusions premature is not advisable - and that is why phrenology ultimately was "dismissed" back in the day - right or wrong.
You know?
BK
Outliers are not the norm
and please - tell me what you think the "norm" is - I'm curious.
But yes - I may be out of bounds here - but I'm going to look up the definition of "norm" in Websters 3rd International unabridged and then I will post an image of that - and decide for yourself - if the definition has merit.
So - I'll post this in a note momentarily.
Now you want to study "outliers" - well then you need data don't ya?
So sometimes tis premature to jump to conclusions - and don't judge a man by his forehead please.
the norm is typically on a bell curve defined as 2/3rds of the entities under said curve - 66.66666667% - so tell me something I don't already know.
lmao three triggered comments, you should've just edited the first one when you gathered your thoughts
OK - I'll give you this - tis 68.2% under the "normal curve" linked below - correct - 84.1 - 15.9 on the "standard" bell curve is what - 68.2% and if I'm outside of the "norm" and you are making "fun" of me - then know this - tis not wise to make fun of a Forest Walker.
and now for your edification think you can laugh your ass off about somebody being "triggered" - you ought edit yourself with this pompous statement - and truly - who you think you are to talk to a Forest Walker as such? You don't even know me but you think you can tell me I've been "triggered" - oh.....you ain't seen nothing yet - and you ought look in the mirror.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bell-curve.asp
~
It is the same difference as talking to a psychologist think they got all the answer regarding the human mind - after awhile they get so pompous they lose touch with what it means to be a human.
So really - shall I analyze you?
You gather your thoughts - and don't talk to a Forest Walker with disrespect.
What triggers you?
Well get ready - I'm gonna post the image of the definition here - do you doubt me?
Page 1540 of the aforementioned dictionary:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe9371ba1-f302-4d41-9d70-5f586ee9e171_4032x3024.jpeg
This is going to be quite the can of worms! Interestingly, Nicholas Wade makes this claim in his book, A Troublesome Inheritance. Then you look at his photo on the back sleeve and his giant forehead looks like it's about to explode!
https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/article.22717/abs/si-wadebook.jpg
Now try this one, but before you do, try to picture "Professor of philosophy" "expert in artificial intelligence" and "literally wrote the book "Superintelligence"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prof_Nick_Bostrom_324-1.jpg
That’s a fivehead at least!
LOL
He had a flathead and no forehead, basically small brained
Was skull deformation among the Eurasian elite thus a deliberate attempt to turn their children into psychopaths (useful trait for steppe nomads).
Before my dad got his traumatic brain injury, he was a psychiatrist and studied criminally insane, most all had a history of massive head trauma. Dealing with my dad after his injury,it was obvious it affected his impulsiveness. His short term memory. He was supremely self centered for years after. He has mostly gotten past that. He didn't get hurt til his 50s.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. The craziest example like this I read was in Adrian Raine’s book about a man who developed a brain tumor. Each time the tumor came back (after surgery), he acquired pedophilic tendencies, and each time the tumor was removed, they went away.
He was an excellent psychopath surrounded by enablers who allowed him to indulge in his delusions.
I’m not really sure what there is to gain by sharing such a study. What a psychological burden to bear if, God forbid, someone should now learn that he has a possible predisposition to psychopathy because of the way his forehead slants—a physical characteristic that cannot be changed.
Don’t we already have enough to worry about?
Here's Lobaczewski's perspective on this. First such a possible predisposition would be for, at the very least, impulsivity, and at the most, what he called "characteropathy" (not psychopathy). Characteropathy is brain-damaged-induced psychological dysfunction. He was of the opinion that psychopaths should not be told they have a genetic disorder, and their condition should be discussed with them only with allusive language. As for characteropaths, he thought it was helpful to discuss the exact nature of their disorder with them. He thought that knowing that some of their flaws had an origin in a physical accident was helpful, as it would give them some self-insight and let them manage their condition better.
No, I get it. It’s an interesting study that could potentially yield benefits in a clinical setting. Still, I’m just not certain it serves the general readership that well. Case in point, I can’t help wondering how many people—since reading your post—have taken profile selfies and measured the angles of their foreheads. I’m guilty of doing just that.
Same here. LOL. I still think the potential benefits outweigh the risks. I for one have an above average slope, but very low impulsivity. If another has a remarkable slope and also recognizes that they're impulsive, then they will be able to say, "Ahh, maybe that explains it." And to all those self-conscious about their slopes, I would just emphasize that it's not THAT big a deal.
Let's just hope I don't now do a post on "minor physical anomalies" suggestive of fetal neural maldevelopment! (For reference, these are mentioned on p. 232 of PP.)
Please refrain from doing such a post—it might ruin my day. LOL!
Another thought provoking piece Harrison.
Let me try something a little bizarre and approach this question from another angle, an angle perhaps 180 degrees removed.
Here is a little bit about Shao Lou, the Daoist God of longevity, often seen with a peach, and a spotted deer, but always an old man with a long white beard and an absolutely huge domed head.
https://symbolsage.com/chinese-god-of-longevity/
Perhaps you think that's too bizarre as it is in no way supposed to be an accurate depiction of a real person. But then again, it is an anthropomorphic image of deep wisdom and benevolence that has been popular for hundreds of years. This is what common people though a benevolent celestial being might plausibly look like.
And he looks like a kindly Grandpa with a duplex brain.
Sage dome indeed! Inverse retardation. ;)
Here I am - working in discourse - yet even the author it seems don't appreciate it....
that is why before this article even started I cancelled my subscription....
No offense Harrison - I'm on a tight budget - and seriously...
I still haven't met anybody as capable as you leading a group discourse via remote communication.
So God Bless that.
talk to you later hopefully....
Ken
Stalin was not impulsive though. He could bide his time for years.
Lobaczewski for one didn’t call him impulsive, but rather focused on his “mental shortcut” way of thinking, combined with extreme egotism. Found this in a quick search though:
“Stalin was an impulsive character. As described by Khrushchev (1970) sudden impulses decided large-scale public projects such as the building of canals or momentous political decisions such as the postwar partition of Germany. Associates would be suddenly summoned and meetings would be ended abruptly or the agenda switched at the whim of Stalin. Without regular meetings of the governing bodies Khrushchev noted, “the government virtually ceased to function.” Stalin often postponed for months dealing with critical problems that needed to be solved urgently (Khrushchev, 1970, p. 297; Glad, 2002).”
https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/joseph-stalin-psychopathology-of-a-dictator/
Now do Oppenheimer.
Looks like around 15 degrees.