Reddit reviews The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry
We found 56 Reddit comments about The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Great book!
Avoidance of responsibility is a primary characteristic of psychopathy. He ticks off all the other checkmarks, too. Only libel laws are protecting his ass from being called a psychopath openly. Educate yourselves about psychopaths -- I recommend these books I have read to understand my own lifelong contact with psychopaths, starting with my mother:
Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us
Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work
Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry
The Inner World of the Psychopath: A definitive primer on the psychopathic personality
He is commonly called a narcissist, but here's a handy rule of thumb. Not all narcissists are psychopaths, but all psychopaths are narcissistic. It's easy to understand why -- they don't see humans as humans, only objects to be manipulated for fun and profit. They, themselves, are the only conscious being, so nothing else matters. Their brains aren't wired to understand we have minds and memories, which is why they lie constantly to achieve their immediate needs. Strangely, the inability to experience emotions (and that includes fear, which is why Trump seems to never give a fuck about consequences) comes with no sense of past or future. There is only the "now."
1% of the population are psychopaths. You know more than one. Some say it's an evolutionary adaptation that exploits humans with emotions and morals, and that they are "intraspecies predators." There are professions that rely on psychopathic behavior, and you can draw your own opinions on them:
The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success
It is also commonly said that psychopaths are experts are reading people. This is false (because, to them, there is nothing to read). They are simply experts, from lifelong experience and practice, at putting people into situations with predictable reactions. For example, Trump likes to insult people because he knows it distracts them and takes them off their game as they try to defend themselves. Psychopaths like to do their manipulating in the background and behind peoples' backs (and in Trump's case, behind NDAs and hush money), thus Trump's biggest problem -- he's the world's most watched person and nothing goes unnoticed, so his previous tactics aren't working. He is thrashing more and more as he gets more desperate to deceive. He is not losing his mind or getting senile. He's a psychopath who can't understand why his old tricks are no longer working.
His apparent "humanness" is a practiced façade, as is true for all psychopaths. They learn, starting in childhood, how to fit in. Some learn how better than others. Trump is good enough at it to fool a large number of voters.
BTW, there's nothing saying a psychopath can't also be dumb as a brick or illiterate.
The Psychopath Test and The Sociopath Next Door both touch on the subject that many CEOs express psychopathic qualities or tendencies.
The book on CEOs having it at a higher rate than the general public.
It certainly implies that very bad things happen to the public because of CEOs like that.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp/1594485755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368106143&sr=8-1&keywords=ceo+psychopath
Your old boss was right and if you're interested in reading about this topic more I would highly recommend reading The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. There's a lot of fascinating info in this book about psychopaths and how they operate and there is a section that talks about the fact that there is a higher rate of psychopaths among CEO's compared to the general public. Unfortunately, in business it does tend to be beneficial to only care about yourself and what you can gain and to not have any qualms about screwing people over to benefit yourself and the company.
The book was The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry. Your right and I wish this was higher up so people could see it. I'll make this bold so people can see it THEY KNEW HE WAS FAKING THE WHOLE TIME. The author talked to the psychologists who reviewed his case.
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry
read the book the psychopath test apparently glibness / superficial charm is a very strong indicator of psychopathy
I think the biggest warning flag is if a person has a clear sense of humour and such but, as with this kid, never seems to quite have their shit together in certain areas
DM doesn't just stand for District Manager, it also stands for Dick-Move. Upper management types and such tend to skew heavier toward narcissism than the general populace fwiw. (see The Psychopath Test)
If you want to learn more about sociopaths in a simplified but still good form, read this book.
As for what I said, if you're confident in your ability to detect a sociopath by his or her appearance, someone who's able to disguise those traits will be able to play off your misplaced confidence in them if they passed your test.
There are two sort of relevant standards involved. First is competency, which is whether a defendant is or can be made to be competent to stand trial- basically, are they too crazy to assist in their own defense, understand what is happening in the court proceeding, etc.? Second is an insanity defense, basically, were they insane at the time that they committed the offense to the extent that they didn't understand what it was that they were doing?
Both require examination and testimony from a psychiatrist to establish, and they're generally pretty hard to fake. There can also be consequences for faking that aren't great- such was the subject of Jon Ronson's book, The Psychopath Test. Fascinating read: https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Test-Journey-Through-Industry/dp/1594485755
A few graphic novels:
A couple more books that are on my wish list, though i haven't read them yet, are:
I first read about it in The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson, where he goes in depth and interviews some of the participants and administrators.
Here is a wonderful book by Jon Ronson on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594485755?pc_redir=1408028606&robot_redir=1
While I like the care you give to the subject, I would just like to fill in some cracks with a few resources. I have a background in AbPsych and one of my mentors did a lot of interesting work with real life psychopaths.
The baseline for psychopathy was first and best (so far) laid out by Robert Hare. This site has a nice explanation.
Two great books on the subject (non-fiction) are: The Anatomy of Evil and The Science of Evil. Something more in the popsci vein would also be Jon Ronson’s The Psychopath Test, though I have some personal qualms with Ronson’s view.
For fiction, there’s of course any of the works mentioned in the original post, as well as American Psycho and We Need to Talk about Kevin.
Somewhat related, I highly recommend The Psychopath Test; there is a portion of the book that considers the idea that CEO's and people in high positions of power have many of the personality traits that define psychopaths. In general it's a great read.
The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson is an awesome non-fiction book about psychopathy and the "madness industry." I also second The Devil in the White City!
But is there someone who said that? If you prefer a logic guy, the one you're defending, like you, misread "probably" as "always" to make his case.
This book, though, would tell you that there are more psychopaths working as CEOs than in any other profession, another placing an estimate of psychopathy in CEOs at four times the average (at 4%). Here's a study I haven't actually read echoing those findings.
While neither are exactly terms happily used by medical psychology, let's put down a bit of vague bullshit and say psychopaths are rarer, overclocked versions of a sociopaths. Logic would then dictate that in professions you'll find psychopaths involved in, you'll find even more sociopaths. By a reasonable, subjective definition of the unreasonable, totally subjective word, say, 20% prevalence of sociopathic behavior in business CEOs would sound like a very low estimate. With big companies in particular, I'd guess we're dealing with much higher numbers, which would lead to a logical formula of either highly successful CEO-ship implying sociopathic behavior, or vice versa.
The very concept of a working-as-intended corporation is often likened to psychopathy, one of the primary cases made by a documentary called The Corporation.
I had read Jon Ronson's excellent book "The Psychopath Test" months prior to seeing "The Jinx." Durst would have to score very high on the test.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp/1594485755
Non-mobile: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594485755?vs=1
^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?
Actually, on average there are a higher number of psychopaths in high level business positions. This may include a fair amount of mega-successful entrepreneurs.
I think I heard the author of [The Pyschopath Test] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594485755/) talk about it in an interview.
I migliori: Il Maestro e Margherita e The Psychopath Test
Jon Ronson actually has a very interesting book on this subject, with interviews of mental patients, prisoners, and CEO's, comparing and contrasting the traits that might tick them off as sociopaths. The Psychopath Test.
I'm in the middle of Homo Deus currently. Its great so far, Yuval is a great writer and his books are a lot more accessible than traditional history books. I'm sure there are a lot of liberties taken with some of the history but I think Sapiens is a must-read. Homo Deus is more assumption based on current reality but its very interesting so far.
Gulag Archipelago is one I read based on the recommendation of Jordan Peterson. Awesome book if you are into WW1-WW2 era eastern europe. being an eastern european myself, i devour everything related to it so this book tickled my fancy quite a bit. good look into the pitfalls of what peterson warns against.
Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning is another history book discussing that time period and how it all transpired and the lesser known reasons why WW2 went down the way it did. some surprising stuff in that book related to hitler modeling europe around how the united states was designed at the time.
apologies for inundating with the same topic for all my books so far but Ordinary Men is an amazing book chronicling the people that carried out most of the killings during WW2 in Poland, Germany and surrounding areas. The crux of the argument which I have read in many other books is that Auschwitz is a neat little box everyone can picture in their head and assign blame to when in reality most people killed during that time were taken to the outskirts of their town and shot in plain sight by fellow townspeople, mostly retired police officers and soldiers no longer able for active duty.
for some lighter reading i really enjoy jon ronson's books and i've read all of them. standouts are So You've Been Publicly Shamed and The Psychopath Test. Highly recommend Them as well which has an early Alex Jones cameo in it.
Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test: http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp/1594485755
Off the top of my head:
The Psychopath Test is a wittily written personal study of detecting, treating and (possibly) rehabilitating psychopaths.
The Freakonomics books are written by both an economist and a journalist (so easy to read) and contain slightly left-of-centre economic theories with easy to follow research. These are excellent.
The Omnivores Dilemma is both engaging and though provoking. It's All about the production of food in the modern age. In particular, four different meals.
The Code Book is one of my all-time favourites. As the title suggests it's about all forms of cryptography. If you have a mathematical bent I also like Singh's book about Fermat's Enigma).
No, that's not how psychopathy works. Not every murderer is a psychopath, hell, most psychopaths aren't even murderers.
Psychopathy is very specific disorder with histories and observable traits. Here's a good book on the subject if you're interested or at least checkout the wikipedia page.
Walt isn't a Psychopath at the beginning of the series, and he just suddenly didn't become one.
His book The Psychopath Test was an interesting read. I've tried applying the Hare Psychopath Checklist in everyday life, the results are a bit scary!
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594485755/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_WKVNzb1NVN5S7
You are talking about psychopaths - and yes, its an excellent book, based on many studies, the book deals with CEO's specifically.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp/1594485755
However, my pedantry aside, you make a fine point - it is indeed not about journalism at all, rather it is about his mental problems.
Pretty concerning that people are missing the entire thread of the movie and considering it a comment on cut throat journalism and not the portrait of a psychotic.
Sounds like The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. A man who claims that he faked being crazy is sent to an asylum and says he can't get out because everything you would do to convince them he was not crazy simply makes him sound crazier.
I'm not sure that this is a very productive or useful response, and you seem to be being unnecessarily emotional about this. It is particularly unhelpful to tell people "do your real homework" rather than providing sources.
> Remember that banking reforn bill she campaign on then killed once she got elected?
I'm actually not sure what you are talking about here. It sounds to me like you are talking about a garbled version of the bankruptcy reform which she opposed in 1999 and then favored once she was in the Senate. See e.g. here. In this case, this isn't particularly surprising, nor should it be: New York has many credit card companies and related businesses and she was a Senator from there. Representing constituent interests is a natural thing.
> Remember how after the collapse she told the bankers and walk street guys to "cut it out" while granting them immunity from any crime?
This is a gross oversimplification of a complicated legal situation.
> Remember the times as SoS she helped overthrow whole governments because they were creating a gold backed currency in Africa?
This is again garbled and confused. It is true that the Clinton emails revealed that a specific country, France was concerned about the impact a gold-backed currency would have on the franc. The primary mention of this is in one of the Blumenthal emails, detailing this as one of a variety of French motivations for supporting the intervention. So no, she didn't help overthrow any government because of this.
> She's a lefty on social programs ONLY.
Uhuh. That's why for example she has an 82% from the League of Conservation Voters, which is higher than most Democrats.
The only way I can parse your sentence mean that she's a "warhawk" on foreign policy and that under your terminology every other issue is "social." I'm not completely sure what warhawk means, but it seems that much of the left uses it to mean anyone who ever favored any military intervention that the speaker personally did not. In which case, sure she's a warhawk. But it may be helpful to ask if when labeling her as such, you are actually saying anything at all useful about reality. For example, most people when using the term "warhawk" mean people like Lindsey Graham and John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain, or for that matter, Donald Trump. When you use large categories like "warhawk" and lump a very diverse group together you end up losing any trace of nuance.
> sociopath
This sounds more like a boo light, the negative version of an applause light rather than a substantive statement. I recommend reading Ronson's "The Psychopath Test" about sociopathy and psychopathy
> Will say anything to get elected, once elected, will not give one shit about the platform they ran on.
Again, you haven't responded to the fact that empirically her voting record is left of most senators and nearly identical to Bernie's. I pointed you to this Five Thirty Eight analysis which you never responded to. If you'd like to respond to the actual data about the details of her record it might be helpful. But it makes it very difficult to make any claim that that's all she cares about.
Look, I'm not a fan of Hillary far from it. And she's clearly made selfish decisions and has a lot of ambition. But you are apparently confusing that and thinking that she's somehow the worst thing ever which just isn't accurate or born out by her actual statements or senate record. Nuance is important, and it is normally the American right which has trouble understanding nuance and degrees of difference. Don't be that way.
None of this points towards actual psychopathy. See the Psychopath Test.
Check out Jon Ronson! I've only read two of his books, The Psychopath Test and Lost at Sea, but they were both really good.
Here are a couple daily show interviews about the books if you want to get a feel for them. They're super entertaining. He's also had a couple segments on This American Life about similar subject matter.
On a different note, Salt is also way more interesting than it has any right to be.
There are others but oh god I really need to be studying for my exams.
That sounds a lot like the guy Jon Ronson interviews in his book The Psychopath Test but he used a pseudonym. Was it in the UK?
> That's the whole point of ethics, its normative
If it's normative, then people are choosing an ethical ideal. That means it's no longer an objective ethic, but a normative ethic, a voluntary ethic. If you want to say it empirically results in the most X for society if you build a society on this ethical norm, then I will certainly agree. Rand's 30 second explanation of objectivisim standing on one foot would be a good explanation of the values chosen by her.
If we look at the world political system, people generally have chosen as their highest political ideal either equality, security, or liberty--and this forms the three major schools of political thought in the US.
From that stems the political and economic conclusions of each camp.
How can you change someone's highest political ideal? Unless you can do this, you cannot change their mind.
> I cant force you to be ethical if you choose to violate someone else's right to life then you can certainly do that. All I can do is say that something is good or bad based on some standard, in this case the individual's life.
Yes, exactly.
We can then go further and apply values-free suitability analysis which was Von Mises's technique throughout his life. We can ask, will X policy get you to Y result, why or why not.
This, I think, is where valuable political discourse begins.
>
>
>
> The same problem can be found in the NAP, I as a murderer couldn't give two shits about your NAP but its the cornerstone of AnCap ethics, it doesn't mean that since I break the rule that the whole principle is useless.
Sure, but we don't say the NAP is an objective ethic that therefore veryone must be made to follow, that is, we are not statists, but Rand was a statist, Rand wanted to force a political system on an entire population drawn from her own political conclusions.
We say rather that the NAP is an ethical stance and we only want to associate with others willing to live and contract within its bounds.
>
>
>
> If a murderer truly valued his own life he wouldn't murder, how long until he comes upon someone who kills him in self defense, or throws him in jail? Valuing ones life is not immediate its life long and long ranging.
>
>
>
> Idk if you are familiar with calculus or not but its kind of like the derivative vs the integral, the derivative is instantaneous, the integral is the summation of the whole function. That's how I think about it, valuing ones life is looking at the whole not just an instant in time or the future moment.
Others are simply high time-preference, where they want things now, now, now, including perhaps the emotional jolt of killing someone for whatever reason.
We assume the murderer cares about his life 10-20 years from now, or even tomorrow, thus the prospect of life in prison should curb actions that will get you jailed for life. But many sociopaths have a physical inability to care about future consequences.
There's a famous test where they literally put sociopaths in a chair, record their vitals, and hooked up their hand to a shocking wire. Then they told them what would happen, counted down to 10 and gave them a decent shock, something really painful.
They would invariably express pain, like any normal person. But here's where it gets interesting.
In a normal person, as the second count-down proceeded to ten and the shock approached, a normal person would begin to cringe because they knew the pain was coming. But sociopaths did not have this response. Their response was the same as the first time they had not been shocked, they calmly waited without their vitals changing, no heart-beat elevation, no nervous response, no muscular cringe, etc. Even though they knew the pain was coming now, they were unable to fear what was about to come again.
This suggests that a sociopath does not learn from punishment, and thus has no fear of future sanctions against their behavior now.
This is recorded in a book called "The Psycopath Test".
One chilling story he gives is of a psychopath who had been violent, I think killed someone, then was let out on a pass into the yard years later and immediately killed someone, and when asked why he simply said he wanted to see what killing someone felt like again :\ something like that.
Anyway, I'm off topic here so I'll quit.
This book is actually really and talks about this subject: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594485755?vs=1
"The Psychopath Test" is pretty good on the subject
Essentially, there aren't many rules in terms of law governing what we call insanity. It's deferred entirely to doctors. That's not necessarily a bad idea, provided the doctors know what they're doing.
It's primarily about a man who committed burglary(?) and, on the advice of a friend, pleaded insane. He would have served like five years in prison if he plead guilty. He spent decades in the institution. His doctors commented that they believed him when he said he faked it, but that only a psychopath would be so manipulatively self-destructive to commit to such a lie.
It also deals with attempts to diagnose high-functioning forms of psychopathy/sociopathy in fields that would, theoretically, attract such types of people (i.e. cutthroat business and politics.) This is based on the eponymous "psychopath test" used to diagnose people with psychopathic conditions--a set of criteria which encompasses far more types of people than are actually diagnosed. The test also veers into circular logic at times (i.e. denying you are a psychopath is a criterion for being a psychopath. "Of course a psychopath would LIE about it!") The core issue of the book is whether the way we define insanity and psychopathy is fair and scientific.
Are you referring to The psychopath test by Jon Ronson? An excellent book.
the psychopath test
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp/1594485755
> The greed of the gun CEOs, on the other hand, can't be explained as easily by mental illness.
It's been theorized that the occurrence of psychopathy is significantly higher in CEOs than the population at large. I believe the figure is 5x higher. Causation is still being determined. I've seen some studies suggest that obtaining power can cause people to lose empathy, and some have theorized that the modern corporate boardroom is simply the ideal environment for psychopaths to thrive so it attracts them.
I'm pretty sure it's covered in this book. If I could find the actual studies or data, I'd link that. If anyone else knows anything that supports or refutes the claim, I'm all ears.
This is true and I am no expert, but I just read a book, which I will post a link to in a moment. The author states that there really is no specific difference, as in the 'definition', and it really is just a matter of preference which one is used when mentioning the condition outside of a clinical or legal classification.
The book is The Psychopath Test. It's informative and really witty so although it tackles a serious subject, it was a fun read. I highly recommend it. BTW, it was written by the guy who wrote The Men Who Stare At Goats.
I think my post triggered you.
You want to make the video better, change the title
"RICK SANCHEZ IS A PSYCHOPATH"
should be the title.
You flat out SAY he is a psychopath at the 1:31. He "displays all the typical signs"
Your video is based on this sentence : "people think it means you need to axe murder people but the mental health definition differs from this common public perception"
But that IS NOT the public perception. Your audience is not a bunch of morons.
If anything rick and morty fans are probably smarter than average. ... and there is this shit:
https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Test-Journey-Through-Industry/dp/1594485755
which is absolutely in common parlance....
" It spent the whole of 2012 on United Kingdom bestseller lists and ten weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list.[1]"
People know what "psychopath" means, and it's SUPER obvious Rick is one.
Not exactly profiling, but The Psychopath Test was a very interesting read and tells you how to truly use the Hare test
I watched a Ted Talk by Jon Ronson and it made me want to read his book, The Psycopath Test
(It's currently in my Audible wishlist because I like to listen to audiobooks in the car on my commute - but I'd be just as happy with a paperback or kindle version) ;)
>an example of Haruhi being tsundere. Kyon falls asleep and wakes to find Haruhi waiting for him to wake up. (She has even been watching him as he slept.) She has covered his back with her cardigan. Her actions are kind and affectionate, but she won't admit to it in words. The viewer though, sees it. it's this contrast that makes a tsundere endearing.
..yeah I don't know why I remembered this scene completely differently. I literally remembered kyon giving haruhi "his" jacket. Okay that was an interesting experiment on flase memories. Even so season 1 is 240minutes long and you can literally find only one minute of haruhi acting like a normal person.
>Often Japanese stories in manga are about coming of age, beginnings, initial romantic tensions, etc. The story is about the journey, not the destination. A lot of Western readers get frustrated that relationships don't progress more quickly, while the manga author is actually trying to keep the focus on the slow development of the relationship.
No. That doesn't explain the popularity of tsundere. First off I think we relate a lot more to fucked up characters then even we ourselves realize. So the so-called "nomal" characters we see on tv and movies don't relate to us that well. We are inavertainly drawn to fucked up characters. We have a darkness inside all of us For example imaginary zenpacki chastises ichigo for being to hesitant to attack,that he holds back his power because he's too kind and afraid . This restraint of power is why hollow ichigo will always be stronger. When ichigo becomes vizard ichigo he is accepting the dark side in him and thats why he's twice as strong. That's why everyone has gone crazy over the new jessica jones show. She's the first character on live tv who exactly represents most of us. We look up to jessica jones, and hollow ichigo because rather then completely shun their dark side, they try to channel their dark side and put it to good use.
So going back to our discussion at lot of the behaviors of tsundere women are to certain extent relatable. With the haruhi example there was this one scene where she talks about how there are thousands of classrooms just like the one she's in and nobody is unique or special. That she's not unique or special.Which can lead to a dark place. I mean it's pretty normal to think about suicide however even in the real world if you mention to your close friends that you think life is meaningless there's a good chance they'll call you a weirdo. She seems be unable to delude herself like most people seem to do and think that they are somhow a unique snowflake. So she act's out. That to a large extent is perfectly understandable
Another good example is Homura Akemi. She started off as an immature but relatably nerdy girl. Then she grew cold and distant as she watched her friends die over an over again due to forces she can't control and because of kyubey who is a psychopath. Which unlike the godzillza like monsters is an enemy that many people face in real life. One out of every a hundred people is psychopath. In fact it's been alluded many times that feminists who are vehemently against MRA's face may have psychological issues.Like they think all men are rapists because they are psychologically projecting themselves on to all men. We literally to some extent are facing some of the same villains we see in anime. That's why we find these characters relatable
This only explains why we tolerate female characters being bitchy and mean most of the time. It doesn't explain instance like we see in tsundere characters where it's 90%+.
Perhaps "the immoral conscience kills experience." It sounds like this kind of situation isn't suited to a conversation on the interwebs, and it wouldn't be right of me to speculate without talking to you in person to learn more. Assuming that what you are describing is something like "psychopathy" in the psychoanalytic sense (not the hollywood portrayal), you might like this book or this book. There are other books about it out there, Robert Hare is one of the more well known researchers on the topic and is mentioned in Ronson's book.
Not read this anywhere else - but Jon Ronson wrote "The Psychopath test" -
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp/1594485755
Does this help?
Maybe this has been in your recent reading? If not, it should be as an enjoyable journey into some related topics. :-)
There's a book called The Psychopath Test that talks about this, it really makes you ask, how can you prove your sanity?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp/1594485755
I strongly urge you to read this book and to be more skeptical of medical "science."
https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Test-Journey-Through-Industry/dp/1594485755
If you want a good book that explores sociopathy, try the psychopath test.
Another way is a sort of riff off EY's "Minds are made of parts." After creating a decently complex character, imagine that all the people who get in his way are just simple programs and ask yourself: how he would respond to those few lines of code? After all, code has no feelings...
The Psychopath Test, by Jon Ronson
Trump is the epitome of a sociopath or someone with Anti-Social personality disorder. He's willing to say whatever he needs to to get to the top no matter what the cost is. He's fear mongering in order to get support because there's a large chunk of Americans who are naive enough to give into fear and support him. His only goal? Power. I guarantee trump doesn't give two shits about you or me, even as Americans. He sees you as a number contributing to his campaign. As long as he gets power he's content. He's the owner of a billion dollar enterprise and my guess is he didn't make too many friends getting their but he doesn't care, as long as he has power. Even the fact that he's been in and out of marriages and relationships is a textbook symptom of sociopathy. He's popular because he knows how to rile up people and to get them to believe anything because people are too stupid to understand that he's nothing but a fear-mongering liar. If anyone was going to turn America into a totalitarian state it's him. Thanks for voting for him though you're only enabling fear.
Edit: and if you don't see how this is possible read this book please: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594485755/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468353790&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=the+psychopath+test&dpPl=1&dpID=51lkKtVCJPL&ref=plSrch
Uhhh so much to unpack here
> a lot of these kids who say they are persecuted are usually assholes and/or have very bad interpersonal skills
I think having poor interpersonal skills is a pretty normal thing, especially for kids/teens, and isn't what I was referring to. I was talking more about the straight-up psychopaths, like the guy who initiated this plot.
> Society usually has a way of putting people exactly where they belong.
... maybe, but not in the sense of them sinking to the bottom. This book says it all better than I could.
25% among CEOs. I wish I were making that up!
EDIT: Oops, I meant sociopaths.
Wiki Source
TED Source
Actual Source (includes studies)