If I hear someone described as charming, I stay away from them. To charm someone is to manipulate them. Serial killers are often high functioning and can hide in plain sight. You'll not know if you meet one unless you're their next victim. John Wayne Gacy used to be a clown at children's parties🫤
Someone described as "very charming" is someone I also make a note to avoid. It is a red flag. I say that from both long-time observations and experience.
The Troodos of Canada -- both Pierre and Justin -- announced themselves this way, in my opinion. The so-called "Troodo-mania" of the late 1960s was a giveaway that this man should not be voted into office. But of course, what do so many people do, but encourage this type.
"Woodworth and Porter attempt to reframe the issue, writing that “it may be that impulsivity in psychopaths has less to do with a lack of control than with conscious decision making that depends on a rapid consideration of the gravity of the consequences.” What we see as an impulsive decision could simply be the external manifestation of a conscious choice we simply do not understand."
I think this is the crux of the confusion. Modelling other minds is hard, messy work, under the best of circumstances. And it's not a problem that can be solved through pure scientific inquiry either, because eventually you'll hit the hard ceiling of consciousness.
That's not to say that good work can't be done in the field, and useful applications developed from it. But "soul killer" hits closest to the mark, even without reading the source material.
All the other models on display seem to agree that the mind on question is the blackest box, capable of deep and multi-nested deceptions. We only realky have their words to go on -- and these only from the (self)reports of those captured in the net, or volunteering for the trial.
And that's not even to mention the addied complexity of their victims own reports, song of whom could possess complementaru masochistic traits that they also try to disguise. How do we evaluate what data is to be trusted in such a maelstrom, let alone figure out a cure?
>We only realky have their words to go on -- and these only from the (self)reports of those captured in the net, or volunteering for the trial.
Except in rare cases like the Marquis de Sade, where we have a whole lot of words celebrating the "genius" of his "philosophy". Reading him opened my eyes to the existence of PPPs.
Yes. But the seemingly impulsive action can be turned off just as quickly, without any emotion, giving you a “did that really just happen” feeling. It’s more like a switch. An invisible line has been crossed.
It does grow increasingly apparent that the puppeteers are hinging the entirety of the social dis-order through utterly transparent gaslighting—but it is not impulsive. It is tactical. It is malevolent.
How to accurately capture such malevolence through data does appear to be a Sisyphean task.
Scientific inquiry may hit a ceiling in this regard, for sure… that has always been my assumption is that we may intuit the issue (and it is a hell of an issue) but have few very little in the way of receipts. I am extremely curious to keep digging through the proverbial gunk to find clearer waters.
What I can say with greatest certainty is that Mitchell is being very thorough about all of this.
Hubbard's early work on personality traits produced an "Emotional Tone Scale." The "dark" or "predatory" personality falls at 1.1 (Covert Hostility), just a little above Fear.
In the next ten years, his views on these types came to include other factors. He was most interested in spotting such people so they could be removed from the organization. But he also developed a way to treat such people. I have not fully studied all of his technical work on this. But a few messages always came through loud and clear from Hubbard: These people are indeed dangerous to your own mental health, to the health of any organization they are a part of, and also to themselves. They are driven and deeply troubled. Your best strategy is to stay away from them entirely. Society does not yet know what to do with them and only catches a few of them; most "criminals" are their victims.
For me - and I think for Łobaczewski as well - the huge challenge is to find a way for society to protect itself from these people in a way that respects basic human rights and seems just and fair. That is to say, what system will adequately protect the population from false accusations (like the old "witch trials") and rob it of some of its best people?
I believe that Hubbard thought that society as it exists today would not be capable of this. This results in most governments and many businesses being "suppressive," or more precisely "covertly hostile." This is the awful truth of life on Earth today. It is extremely difficult to tell between lies and truth. It has almost become socially acceptable to act like this in public.
scientology is like freemasonry, some sub-earth club where all that is outside "should" be assimilated
let's say that freemasonry or scientology got the favor of approx 1% of the total of people on the planet: still, freemasons and scientologists are firmly convinced that the 99% ought to align with them, and mostly "because it's so great"
in so we see how "scientology"/"freemasonry" "goes first", for everything, to them
thinking about humanity/society? No, let's think scientology first and then humanity
this is the logic that the frequentation of such clubs produces; it shapes some inverted logic, applying the stuff from top to bottom
I find that improper - and the problem is that members find it so great that their brand overrides whatever, as a principle. They fell it's so cool that their coat overrides all... it's so disturbing
ponerology is no brand, Lobaczewski is no franchise
it's nuts to get some glimpse of how freemasons see things; for them their stuff should be everywhere; they stopped considering first basics - even society "is freemason", "should be freemason" etc... I am telling you this is true those guys have their very own eyes coated with a freemason layer tainting all and everything beforehand
and they did not wait for infiltrating society, to then do what? proudly self-congratulate about being able to leverage things... whole point is that they did not ask the 99% what they wanted, if they wanted such thing... they "took the liberty" of it... we would then spectate the worst of behavior: some fellas being spotted, but forced to go "negation" (adult people but 8yo mentality)
i wouln't be surprized that scientology works the same
i kind of see that between the scientologist adept and any considered object, there is an additional step, "ron hubbard"
this puzzles me and i highlight it
lobaczewski does not trigger such phenomenon and this is why i remain very very cautious about your discipline or any other tending to taint things in a similar fashion
i encourage you to get as much from what you feel deserves attention, so do i. if you like scientology, it's great; it's just that i see that you are constantly pushing ron hubbard in the equation
top conversation rule requires to say what we have in mind to be practical: here it is: it's as if your interventions come from out of space, i feel that as soon as i read "ron hubbard" there is a big shift in regard of the topic and that you are trying to get things back at scientology
your interventions, seen from outside, make me tend to think "wow this person is completely off the mark, what does ron hubbard has to do with this?"
i am kind of stunned, then. i am WAY not implying that you are a bad person; but feel that scientology is doing damages.
no offense, and could be that scientology had valid points. But... why keep going "scientology framework" when we have a perfect template (lobaczeswki)?
sorry if my words are offensive, you are entitled to free will to learn and read what you want and i respect that
the world has been heavily corrupted by ideologies, systems of thoughts, wrong intellectual frameworks and i mourn that; believed i saw similarities between freemasonry and scientology, so expressing "believe i kind of see some similarity in the functionning... does not bode well... is it the same fabric?"
very intersting reading as usual, Harrison, thank you for all those knowledge you are sharing to the world or to those who want to understand the dark face of humanity. There are subjects that should be learned in schools and that would be maybe the best protection for so many who will one day find themselves facing one of those PPP. But it seems that most of that knowledge has been hiden from the public for too long and there was no will to share it to the masses -witch is right the predatory position or choice ...to carry on taking advantage of that situation - and even professionals or specialists seem not so willing to talk about it. I have read few months ago, that some studies have "discover" a kind of behavior they have called : "knowledge hiding behavior" and that behavior might have quite an importance in the fact that we still now in 2024 are not enough informed on that PPP condition and still giving them advantage in many social level, as governement, organisations, work places, and so on...
Harrison - I hope you don't mind - I'm on a tight budget - just cancelled my subscription - but being I'm pretty sure you are somewhere in western NC - hopefully we get to meet face to face under good circumstances.
Best to you sir - you are incredibly skilled at leading group discussions.
I type this respectfully to you - I'm just trying to get back down to the basics - I'm sure you understand.
I know people tend to gloss past the brutality towards pedophiles. But waking up to about fifteen minutes of screaming when a child murderer came into my unit had me thinking: How did the guards know who would be the most sadistic towards the child abuser?
The guy who has his way with his girlfriend's corpse after cutting her throat, same deal. I was told he got all his fingers broken. So why are they brutalized, when so many guys did nasty things? My belief is that they [*edit* The ones who attacked child abusers] were abused as children, or helplessly watched people abused. I think the guards got an intuitive sense as to who they are.
That's why I didn't get raped even though I was accused of something similar. Every criminal knew the charges were **** ****.
If I hear someone described as charming, I stay away from them. To charm someone is to manipulate them. Serial killers are often high functioning and can hide in plain sight. You'll not know if you meet one unless you're their next victim. John Wayne Gacy used to be a clown at children's parties🫤
And "nice" is all too often the opposite of "good".
Yep.
Someone described as "very charming" is someone I also make a note to avoid. It is a red flag. I say that from both long-time observations and experience.
Sometimes called malignant Pied Pipers.
Yep. Every time.
The Troodos of Canada -- both Pierre and Justin -- announced themselves this way, in my opinion. The so-called "Troodo-mania" of the late 1960s was a giveaway that this man should not be voted into office. But of course, what do so many people do, but encourage this type.
Yep.
"Woodworth and Porter attempt to reframe the issue, writing that “it may be that impulsivity in psychopaths has less to do with a lack of control than with conscious decision making that depends on a rapid consideration of the gravity of the consequences.” What we see as an impulsive decision could simply be the external manifestation of a conscious choice we simply do not understand."
I think this is the crux of the confusion. Modelling other minds is hard, messy work, under the best of circumstances. And it's not a problem that can be solved through pure scientific inquiry either, because eventually you'll hit the hard ceiling of consciousness.
That's not to say that good work can't be done in the field, and useful applications developed from it. But "soul killer" hits closest to the mark, even without reading the source material.
All the other models on display seem to agree that the mind on question is the blackest box, capable of deep and multi-nested deceptions. We only realky have their words to go on -- and these only from the (self)reports of those captured in the net, or volunteering for the trial.
And that's not even to mention the addied complexity of their victims own reports, song of whom could possess complementaru masochistic traits that they also try to disguise. How do we evaluate what data is to be trusted in such a maelstrom, let alone figure out a cure?
>We only realky have their words to go on -- and these only from the (self)reports of those captured in the net, or volunteering for the trial.
Except in rare cases like the Marquis de Sade, where we have a whole lot of words celebrating the "genius" of his "philosophy". Reading him opened my eyes to the existence of PPPs.
Yes. But the seemingly impulsive action can be turned off just as quickly, without any emotion, giving you a “did that really just happen” feeling. It’s more like a switch. An invisible line has been crossed.
Fascinating read!
It does grow increasingly apparent that the puppeteers are hinging the entirety of the social dis-order through utterly transparent gaslighting—but it is not impulsive. It is tactical. It is malevolent.
How to accurately capture such malevolence through data does appear to be a Sisyphean task.
Scientific inquiry may hit a ceiling in this regard, for sure… that has always been my assumption is that we may intuit the issue (and it is a hell of an issue) but have few very little in the way of receipts. I am extremely curious to keep digging through the proverbial gunk to find clearer waters.
I went through this in the original paper.
What I can say with greatest certainty is that Mitchell is being very thorough about all of this.
Hubbard's early work on personality traits produced an "Emotional Tone Scale." The "dark" or "predatory" personality falls at 1.1 (Covert Hostility), just a little above Fear.
In the next ten years, his views on these types came to include other factors. He was most interested in spotting such people so they could be removed from the organization. But he also developed a way to treat such people. I have not fully studied all of his technical work on this. But a few messages always came through loud and clear from Hubbard: These people are indeed dangerous to your own mental health, to the health of any organization they are a part of, and also to themselves. They are driven and deeply troubled. Your best strategy is to stay away from them entirely. Society does not yet know what to do with them and only catches a few of them; most "criminals" are their victims.
For me - and I think for Łobaczewski as well - the huge challenge is to find a way for society to protect itself from these people in a way that respects basic human rights and seems just and fair. That is to say, what system will adequately protect the population from false accusations (like the old "witch trials") and rob it of some of its best people?
I believe that Hubbard thought that society as it exists today would not be capable of this. This results in most governments and many businesses being "suppressive," or more precisely "covertly hostile." This is the awful truth of life on Earth today. It is extremely difficult to tell between lies and truth. It has almost become socially acceptable to act like this in public.
scientology is like freemasonry, some sub-earth club where all that is outside "should" be assimilated
let's say that freemasonry or scientology got the favor of approx 1% of the total of people on the planet: still, freemasons and scientologists are firmly convinced that the 99% ought to align with them, and mostly "because it's so great"
in so we see how "scientology"/"freemasonry" "goes first", for everything, to them
thinking about humanity/society? No, let's think scientology first and then humanity
this is the logic that the frequentation of such clubs produces; it shapes some inverted logic, applying the stuff from top to bottom
I find that improper - and the problem is that members find it so great that their brand overrides whatever, as a principle. They fell it's so cool that their coat overrides all... it's so disturbing
ponerology is no brand, Lobaczewski is no franchise
it's nuts to get some glimpse of how freemasons see things; for them their stuff should be everywhere; they stopped considering first basics - even society "is freemason", "should be freemason" etc... I am telling you this is true those guys have their very own eyes coated with a freemason layer tainting all and everything beforehand
and they did not wait for infiltrating society, to then do what? proudly self-congratulate about being able to leverage things... whole point is that they did not ask the 99% what they wanted, if they wanted such thing... they "took the liberty" of it... we would then spectate the worst of behavior: some fellas being spotted, but forced to go "negation" (adult people but 8yo mentality)
i wouln't be surprized that scientology works the same
For anyone who knows the score, this is totally ridiculous.
i kind of see that between the scientologist adept and any considered object, there is an additional step, "ron hubbard"
this puzzles me and i highlight it
lobaczewski does not trigger such phenomenon and this is why i remain very very cautious about your discipline or any other tending to taint things in a similar fashion
i encourage you to get as much from what you feel deserves attention, so do i. if you like scientology, it's great; it's just that i see that you are constantly pushing ron hubbard in the equation
top conversation rule requires to say what we have in mind to be practical: here it is: it's as if your interventions come from out of space, i feel that as soon as i read "ron hubbard" there is a big shift in regard of the topic and that you are trying to get things back at scientology
your interventions, seen from outside, make me tend to think "wow this person is completely off the mark, what does ron hubbard has to do with this?"
i am kind of stunned, then. i am WAY not implying that you are a bad person; but feel that scientology is doing damages.
no offense, and could be that scientology had valid points. But... why keep going "scientology framework" when we have a perfect template (lobaczeswki)?
sorry if my words are offensive, you are entitled to free will to learn and read what you want and i respect that
the world has been heavily corrupted by ideologies, systems of thoughts, wrong intellectual frameworks and i mourn that; believed i saw similarities between freemasonry and scientology, so expressing "believe i kind of see some similarity in the functionning... does not bode well... is it the same fabric?"
very intersting reading as usual, Harrison, thank you for all those knowledge you are sharing to the world or to those who want to understand the dark face of humanity. There are subjects that should be learned in schools and that would be maybe the best protection for so many who will one day find themselves facing one of those PPP. But it seems that most of that knowledge has been hiden from the public for too long and there was no will to share it to the masses -witch is right the predatory position or choice ...to carry on taking advantage of that situation - and even professionals or specialists seem not so willing to talk about it. I have read few months ago, that some studies have "discover" a kind of behavior they have called : "knowledge hiding behavior" and that behavior might have quite an importance in the fact that we still now in 2024 are not enough informed on that PPP condition and still giving them advantage in many social level, as governement, organisations, work places, and so on...
Harrison - I hope you don't mind - I'm on a tight budget - just cancelled my subscription - but being I'm pretty sure you are somewhere in western NC - hopefully we get to meet face to face under good circumstances.
Best to you sir - you are incredibly skilled at leading group discussions.
I type this respectfully to you - I'm just trying to get back down to the basics - I'm sure you understand.
Ken
No problem, Ken!
this is now on Minds
Excellent series! So illuminating!
I know people tend to gloss past the brutality towards pedophiles. But waking up to about fifteen minutes of screaming when a child murderer came into my unit had me thinking: How did the guards know who would be the most sadistic towards the child abuser?
The guy who has his way with his girlfriend's corpse after cutting her throat, same deal. I was told he got all his fingers broken. So why are they brutalized, when so many guys did nasty things? My belief is that they [*edit* The ones who attacked child abusers] were abused as children, or helplessly watched people abused. I think the guards got an intuitive sense as to who they are.
That's why I didn't get raped even though I was accused of something similar. Every criminal knew the charges were **** ****.
You might find the answer over on “the convict” Substack