Understanding Psychopathy

Utilising The Dark Triad - Psychopathy
The psychopaths are always around. In calm times we study them, but in times of upheaval, they rule over us.” – Ernst Kretschmer

Firstly to define what psychopathy is for the purposes of this article; some experts, specialists and such talk about Machiavellianism and narcissism as being traits characteristic of psychopathy. Now although this is true in the sense that these “personality disorders” have a propensity to overlap with psychopathy, this isn’t always true. For example, not all psychopaths are charismatic, and not all charismatic people are psychopathic. Not all proficiently Machiavellian individuals are psychopathic, but almost all psychopaths are Machiavellian. Thus it seems that when psychologists, psychiatrists, CIA profilers and such talk about psychopaths, what they’re really referring to is “a dark triad individual.”

They use the term “psychopath” as a synonym for “dark triad,” when psychopathy in and of itself is more nuanced, comprising a mere third of the entire personality framework. When I refer to psychopathy, I will be looking at psychopathy specifically. Not the related but extraneous character traits that psychopaths often possess such as narcissism and Machiavellianism. These are traits that although fall into the category of deviant behaviour known as “the dark triad,” are capable of existing entirely independently.

In this article you’re going to learn what psychopathy is as well as how to emulate its beneficial aspects. This is relevant so you can differentiate (although not without difficulty) between someone who is very good at being an asshole by practicing detachment consciously (by practicing stoicism) and someone who is clinically incapable of empathising with another human-being (which is what psychopathy is.) There is one major difference between competent stoicism and psychopathy, the choice to care. In practice, a psychopath’s empathy switch is constantly set to “off” and cannot be turned on via conscious or subconscious choice, it’s a neurological defect (or improvement, depending on your world view.) A stoic’s empathy switch is set to “off” consciously but can be turned “on” or vice versa, the empathy switch is “on” by default and can be consciously switched “off.” The characterisation of this is of course dependent on the stoic in question and their level of competency in the endeavour.

Psychopathy is essentially the inability to empathise with others; it is both a gift and a curse in and of itself. It is a gift for the psychopath because it presents them with many avenues in which to act without any internal moral conscience or feeling of guilt nagging at them. It’s this lack of conscience which makes psychopaths feel somewhat omnipotent, feeding into their narcissism, because they don’t feel anxiety when pondering morality should they choose to ponder it as an intellectual abstraction (which is all it is to them.) Any pondering they do of morality is merely intellectual in nature, it’s not emotional in basis. They have no morality, but this doesn’t mean they don’t make moral codes for others. Psychopaths are amoral by merit of their inability to empathise. Their emotions are for them, and them alone, they are solipsistically emotional, in their opinion other people’s emotion exists for no purpose other than to be manipulated by them. They do not attribute value to other people’s emotional states the way in which they attribute an intrinsic level of value to their own. Psychopaths are amoral or immoral (depending on how you look at it.) To have morals you actually have to care about people and by nature of a psychopaths neurology, they’re incapable of doing this, or so barely capable of it that it is statistically insignificant in any decision-making processes they go through. Such a neurological defect can be shown by a low amount of brain activity on an MRI scanner.

Many people who read red pill philosophy are aware of the power which is inherent to “not giving a fuck”, characterised acronymically as “IDGAF.” A psychopath never gives a fuck, at least, not about you as a person, your well-being, your problems or the essence of your being. What they do give a fuck about is getting what they want by any means necessary. Symbolically, they characterise ruthlessness. They never care about YOU in and of yourself, but merely as a by-product of your utility to them. This is why in some circumstances they may conditionally care about you (because in such scenarios you represent an extension of their self-interest.)

Your perceived utility to the psychopath is defined by what you can do for them. Psychopaths value people who can provide them with an immediate service or a service that can be banked (in the form of a favour) and called upon in the future (to “use you”.) Thus it so that they want to safeguard you, their “investment”, until they can come to collect on the expectation of said service you will render to them. This is the limit of the psychopath’s capacity to care. They do not care for your personal well-being in and of itself; this is something a psychopath is completely incapable of. A charming psychopath can convince “their target” that they care, but they don’t. No matter how much you desire it and how much they feed into that desire, their façade of caring for you is merely a manifestation of Machiavellianism layered in charm. They are totally and utterly incapable of such behaviour. Anything you believe in this context is fanatical in nature, substantiated by idealistic desire and misdirection, not tangibility, reason or fact.

Some psychopaths are so cold it is completely obvious they are psychopathic, others are very good at cultivating an outward charismatic persona which conceals their true character. These types are the wolves in sheeps clothing, those you would never guess are psychopathic from mere interactions. It depends on the psychopath in question, although all psychopaths share the trait of being uncaring and incapable of empathy internally, they are still fundamentally different characters independently of that thus affecting how they choose to present themselves to the world around them. Some are very obviously detached and cold, others can be incredibly charming and warm (in order to co-opt, befriend and betray etc.) What one must realise is that the emotion a psychopath feeds you (because that is what they are doing to you, feeding your hindbrain) is inherently superficial, it is a device to manipulate you via your emotions, to gain leverage over you, to influence. To them it is a tool to be exploited, to you it is a way of viewing the world. You cannot influence their view of the world with the same mechanism (emotional pleas), psychopaths are attracted to and influenced by power.

Psychopaths likewise have incredible powers of observation and deduction. Your body language, your eye movement, the placement of your hands, your posture, your vocal tonality, they are the masters of discerning the strength of one’s frame. Worse to be a person with a weak frame that realises a psychopath is analysing their every fidget, glance and bodily scratch than be an ignorant participant in a psychopaths internal observational process where mental notes are made on your presentation and correlated to personality traits. EG: the likelihood of your susceptibility to certain types of behaviour and courses of action as well as a quick cost-benefit analysis which deduces your risk factor as an adversary to them. Psychopaths are social predators, they will use this information to control you and reduce your working effectiveness as well as in some situations, ensnare you totally if you’re not prudent. Their motives depend vastly on your utility, perhaps how sexually appealing you are as well as how much you’ve tried to shit on their ego (psychopaths tend to be egotistical.)

All psychopaths are machiavellians, but not all machiavellians are psychopaths. You can learn some of the traits psychopaths use by utilising stoicism to emulate psychopathic traits. In a way one could argue, you could in fact emulate a psychopath so competently through training that it’s difficult to discern the difference between you in your stage of completed training and a legitimate natural psychopath, however, you cannot neurologically become a psychopath. You will always have to keep on top of your emotions and stay in control, suppressing your ability to care for others rather than lacking that capability entirely. Things which are innate to a psychopath by mere nature of their biology you will have to contest, suppress and/or reconcile. Examples of this are the psychopaths inability to empathise with their victim’s pain and thus no inclination to deliberate over the morality of such actions or experience any of the emotional fallout associated with it, such as guilt or remorse. For a psychopath there’s no process for them to deal with they do something immoral because the emotional process simply never occurs for them. For a non-psychopath, it does, a stoic is simply a master of suppression.

Machiavellianism can be taught but psychopathy cannot. One is a vocation/art, the other is a neurological disorder. Although you cannot become psychopathic, you can learn skills which come naturally to the psychopath.

To a psychopath you are always perceived through the filter of “being a tool” if you have no utility to a psychopath, a psychopath will not bother you. If you are a liability to a psychopath and you have no utility, they will not hesitate to fuck your shit up. Psychopaths are the personification of the concept of “cruelness” because they are completely liberated from guilt and are thus mercilessly ruthless. As previously stated, they are biologically incapable of empathising with other human-beings and thus guilt is not a phenomenon they ever have to contend with. The ability to connect with other humans and feel guilt is what stops the typical person from indulging in their own amoral selfishness, it is the barrier between their desires and total decision-making liberation.

Due to their genetic (hormonal) propensity for emotionalism, female psychopathy is rare. In its place the average woman commits immoral acts by dissociating from reality in order to justify her actions, placating her emotions that she is “doing the right thing.” So although a woman’s behaviour can achieve a similar result to that of a psychopaths, there is an emotional component to their decision-making process. This emotion manifests through “feeling” and they have to deal with it, women tend not to have “an absence of emotion” like a stoic does through suppression but rather they are good at “coping with emotion” as in, addressing it when it comes along and rationalising it away to avoid cognitive dissonance. They do this by deluding themselves to believe in falsehoods that can be typically characterised as idealistic and biased in their perception of events. It is this mechanism which allows them to reconcile their sense of guilt with their committed atrocity. EG: blame shifting, justifying, tweaking facts. It is by merit of this mechanism that the average woman is not technically psychopathic, but seemingly capable of performing callous acts.

The average woman is very good at making herself believe delusion due to the foundation of her reasoning stemming from her current emotional state. Their current emotional composition can completely rewrite their internal narrative, allowing them to self-deceive and disassociate in a way that most men find remarkably difficult.

It’s ironic that, within a context of “red pill, blue pill” that the psychopath has probably some of the most astute, observational insight you’ll ever hear uttered from human breath. Their ability to observe deeply and comprehend the synoptic workings of the various elements which make up a targets persona allows them to weaponise the truth. By having such a strong understanding of the inner workings of a person’s specific circumstances they can mold the relevant knowledge to overwhelm a target with a tirade of truth. Truth delivered in such a callous and cold way that it borders on abuse. This is truth that the target usually isn’t mentally strong enough to hear or handle; kind of like “swallowing the pill” except the person espousing this truth has ill-intent and is subjecting you to everything they can muster, with the intent of destroying rather than assisting.

Psychopaths can bury the truth in a glazing of bullshit and reattribute the credibility of the truthful elements within their presentation to convince the target of the false elements via repetition and false appeals to the credibility inherent of the truthful elements. These are the “grains of truth”, not the elements which are fictitious or illusory in question. A psychopath will attempt to transfer the credibility from the truthful statement(s) onto the untruthful statement(s) in this amalgamated package bundle of psychological bullshit, and it’s for this reason they make exceptional gaslighters, going through a tirade of bait and switch, conflation, and trickle truth, effectively. They possess the ability to drive people insane because they won’t feel guilt for emotionally abusing you. This paragraph of text overlaps heavily with machiavellianism, but a machiavellian with minimal psychopathic traits cannot gaslight in a way that a psychopath with machiavellian traits can.

If machiavellianism is neutral, a tool which can be forged as a means of attack, defence or even mere abstinence, psychopathy has a distinctively aggressive edge to it, as by its very nature, it will cause harm. It cannot be suppressed or argued – it simply “is.” It is a condition, a state of being.

What does this mean for someone who isn’t psychopathic but wants to implement this facet of the triad into their life? How can you “utilise” psychopathy when it’s a neurological condition? Well what you can do is utilise the psychological abilities that the condition rewards its occupant without being restrained by the curse of being incapable of emotionally connecting to other beings. As I’m keeping narcissism and machiavellianism separated to their respective corners of the triad, I’m just going to look at the powers of perception and observation psychopathy awards as well as the self-control and frame control it grants rather than explore the other facets of the triad.

“Not giving a fuck” – Empathy, guilt, fear, anxiety etc – the crippling, limit imposing emotions.

To embody this trait a typical non-psychopathic person must substitute the psychopath’s inability to empathise with a non-psychopathic equivalent, which is not an inability to give a fuck, but a proficiency in suppressing how many fucks you give – stoicism.

Stoicism, verb form “to be stoic” is the mental process of suppressing emotions, not thinking about them, not reasoning with them, not reconciling them but simply concentrating so strongly on the emotions at hand with “nothingness” that you destroy the integrity of the emotional presence within your mind using sheer will. Concentration, intense focus, like a ray of sunlight refined into a narrow beam through a magnifying lens is the embodiment of mental power, discipline. Emotion, unacknowledged, without any facts or bullshit added to it will pass, it is simply a biological impulse, a feeling, one part of your brain sending a communication to another part that causes discomfort. By addressing feelings you give them more importance and power than they inherently possess via rationalisation. Their power lays in their potential to influence you. If you destroy their potential they become powerless, nothing but mere tickles, tingles and sensations.

If you are for example, as is common with many nowadays, anxious, concentrate on the anxiety, embrace it rather than pretend it isn’t there, concentrate very hard and try to clear your mind focusing on the sensation of irrational fear (which is what debilitating anxiety is.) In a way one could say this is a form of meditation, it is disconnecting ones thoughts from one’s feelings so that the irrational and harmful nature of negative emotions cannot pollute the thoughts and thus the actions an individual commits to.

One could well argue that stoicism can be utilised as a purification process of sorts, it allows one to keep self-control, frame and become the master of their own destiny. If you can overcome negative emotions, the debilitating emotions, your power as an individual spikes massively. Fearlessness is power. Confidence is power. These are things which come naturally in the absence of negative cognitive feedback loops and unhealthy detrimental emotion rampaging around in one’s mind. I recommend practising meditation, look up Buddhist temples in your area and see if you can go along and meditate with them. Weightlifting, additionally, is good in reducing the mind’s natural production of anxiety.

I have this book on my Amazon wish-list until I do my next shop as I was recommended it to be a good book on Zen/frame control: Zen in the Art of Archery: Training the Mind and Body to Become One

“The powers of observation – The ability to understand, discern, correlate or simply “connect the dots” based on non-verbal cues”

The powers of observation are not psychopathic per se, but anyone who has formal training in psychology based roles such as psychiatry tend to have heightened powers of observation; a critical mind that can observe and deduce to create fairly accurate deductive analysis. Manipulation does not know stupidity and psychopaths are always manipulative, and it is analysis which plays the part of providing data that the psychopath can use in decision-making. This is why the job of a shrink requires them to be able to comprehend psychopaths in some kind of tangible manner. In order that they can create some kind of evaluative report. Even if the report isn’t completely correct, they have to medicalise how fucked up the dark triad individual in question is and somehow rationalise an explanation for their deviant behaviour.

OK, to the gritty now, cold reading is essentially what you’re after. Cold reading is the ability to create deductions based upon non-verbal observations and the nuances in verbal communication, so nonverbally we’re talking posture, body language: what direction do they face, their hand placement, their eye movement speed, are they fidgeting or controlled, do they scratch or needlessly touch areas of themselves for no obvious reason (eg: putting your hand on your neck, bringing hands together to make hand gestures etc.), non-verbal but auditory cues include sighing, breathing heavily and making noise with the air in the nose, such as snorting. What direction do they gaze in, can they hold eye contact – yes or no? Who looks away first? The last one is a hugely important one, it signifies confidence and dominance.

Verbally we’re talking tonality, with word choice do they self-censor? Do they use Ebonics? Do they swear? What idiolectal mannerisms do they adopt? In the UK accent often gives away one’s social class and economic standing, with the better educated trying to hide their natural regional accents (you see this a lot in places like Scotland/Newcastle) by consciously changing their pronunciation of vowel sounds to sound more southern, whereas the lower class give no fucks and pronounce many things incorrectly, staying true to the local dialect/accent.

There’s overall articulacy (to indicate speed of thought, knowledge base, intelligence, wit, charisma etc.) and then there’s vocabulary, do they use simple words or complex ones? When they use complex language is that natural or a redundant effort to impress present company involved?

Clothing, make-up and overall presentation. What do they wear? Why do they wear it? What image are they trying to convey to the world around them? Is it a rocker full of tattoos and piercings? That types want to communicate they’re rebellious and don’t give a fuck, they don’t respect boundaries and demand respect. Is it a man in a suit? He wants to communicate he’s socially and economically successful. Black guy in a jersey wearing abundant, opulent and excessive jewellery? He’s peacocking to welcome attention and wants to command respect by implying he’s a force to be reckoned with both physically and economically.

Make-up is a bigger one in and of itself; it demonstrates vanity and a preoccupation with the perception of one’s physical presentation. Makeup is worn by most women; their looks are both their strength and their weakness as it’s their major and preferred tool for self-empowerment. Women who wear little to zero make-up and don’t look like candle wax just melted are the natural genetic beauties. Women who wear abundant amounts are insecure of their natural beauty and trying to deceive you by employing illusion to convince you they are more sexually desirable than their genetics naturally signify. Every time they see a naturally pretty girl, they get jealous because women actively compare their own to beauty to other women’s.

Through cold reading you will fine-tune your intuition to a point where you form heuristics that allow you to know things about a person without really being able to reason why you think these things, despite the high degree of accuracy said heuristic grants your perception. Once competent, your “intuition” or “gut” will be right the majority of the time about your deductions. The great thing about cold reading is it’s called cold because its covert, you can ascertain all this information, a plethora of it, via mere observation. You need not have any meaningful or probing conversation with the person in question (which would be overt/hot) – it’s a great way to reconnoiter a person psychologically before having to deal with them head-on. You can then use this knowledge to make rational assumptions about a person and employ it as you see fit in your future interactions with them. This will aid in decision-making, protecting yourself, or if you should choose to, influence or befriend the person in question.

I recommend you sit around in public places, say coffee shops and just observe people. Listen to people earnestly. Look at them closely. Eavesdrop profusely, don’t stare just glance around, use your peripheral vision to “look, but not look at people.” If you have sunglasses, great – you will conceal your line of sight, can be more overt but still conceal your intent. Observing how different types of people behave will only attune your ability to read people and discern things about them based on externalities. The more you do it, the better you’ll get. Like anything, you will have to put the time in, but desensitising yourself emotionally and improving your powers of observation are capabilities which both fall within the realm of possibility.

Relevant Reading:

Blog Material:
Everything in the Dark Triad Portal

Also, specifically:
Utilising The Dark Triad: Machiavellianism

Book(s) on Psychopathy:
Buy “The Wisdom of the Psychopaths” in the USA
Buy “The Wisdom of the Psychopaths” in the UK
Buy “The Wisdom of the Psychopaths” in Canada


  1. “What every BODY is saying” by Joe Navarro is an excellent book to learn to cold read people. An ex FBI agent talks in depth about body language from all parts of the human Body. I found it very helpful


  2. Your concise explaination on the difference between psychopathy and stoicism is outstanding. Some times ago I was trying to analyze Ryan Holiday for the purpose of understanding if he was a spath or not. The conclusion of the analysis is that he is not. He talks a lot about stoicism and perhaps he might wanted to show to people how to obtain psychopathic traits without talking about them explicitly (convert talking using stoicism which is a noble and not biased topic), but reading him and conducting the analisys for months the conclusion is clear now.

    Your posts are the most direct and deep writings about psychopathy, Game, dark triad and the 48 laws someone can find on the net. You clearly understand how a psychopath think.
    You write:
    “They never care about YOU in and of yourself, but merely care about you as a by-product of your utility to them, this is why in some circumstances they may conditionally care about you (for as long as your useful.)”
    Yes, this is the essence of their mental processes.

    Do you ever encoutered a psy in your real life? Well, I suppose yes. But another question is: can you recognize one? Or maybe, a more detailed question could be: what information do you need to recognize one? How much time? What heuristics you use in your mental processes? I know, to recognize one you could need time and perhaps even more important you could need to observe what he does.
    Another question: do you think you can recognize one by the way he writes? Suppose there is a psy who write a book about a topic T, you like topic T so you read the book. Do you think you can say that that book was written by a psy?
    Some examples. Let’s take Robert Greene. The first book of him is with no boubt an extensive analisys of a psychopathic mind. One can argue that Greene himself is a psy too, but (and this is an opinion of mine) after analyze him I came to the conclusion that he is not. I saw videos of him and read all of his books. But the problem is that he could have “faked” all of his video interview. A trained person could do it, but it seems too difficult to go around in different places in a long period span and mantain the fakeness for all of this time. I know that it is difficult.
    Let’s instead take the wallstreetplayboys blog. Their (do we have proofs that they are “they”, how can we be sure that it is not just a “he”?) writings make my bell rings. Some of their propositions can lead to think their are psy. But I cannot know for sure. One thing I have in common with them is that we both really dislike the book of Marc Aurelius. Whereas Ryan H. really likes it, he refers to it whenever he can (but again, how can we be sure Ryan is not lying? Analizing him for an extended period of time could be the answer. Suppose he is lying: is he capable of going around and talk with a lot of people and CONSTANTLY mantain the state of in the mind that permits him to lie? It sounds difficult, but again, I cannot be completely sure.)
    Some time ago I asked them a question about what are the connections between psychopathy and Game and between psychopathy and huge financial success, and they answered they knew nothing about it and that “There is zero relationship between game and psychopathy”; here is the complete answer http://wallstreetplayboys.com/what-information-do-you-need-2/#comment-36016
    After the answer one can think two things. 1. They are saying the truth. 2. They are saying a lie. But neither of these answer can add information about their psychopathy because they can be psy but they can be not aware of their conditions like many psys are.
    It souds, at least to me, that neither Roosh or Krauser are psy too, or at least they are not in the extreme side of the spectrum.

    But why a person should search for writings written by psys? Well, if the psy is not aware of his condition AND he is somehow succesfull AND you can read between the lines then you can learn a lot just by reading them. If the psy is aware you still can learn by reading him because his thoughts will surely be conveyed in covert language (saying that he is a psy will not help him, generally speaking) but the thoughts will be more systematic and well detailed.

    So, your solution to the matter of “How can a person “utilise” psychopathy when that person is not a psychopath” is to utilize Stoicism as a proxy to psychopathy. And also to become a master in cold-reading. Is that right? Have I summarized it right?

    A question:
    why do you say that it is a curse to be incapable of emotionally connecting to other beings? People who are not psys always say this, but at the same time most of them want the psy traits (as it is assumed in this article). A solution to this is to use Stoicism, OK. But why adding a personal and not objective word like “curse”? A “curse” from what point of view by the way? Is it a curse from a point of view of a non-psy person or is it a curse from a psy point of view?
    Non-psy people always seems to say and think “oh, poor little psy, he cannot feel humans emotions, that must be sad”, or some stuff like that. You see, these non-psy persons interpret the world from THEIR point of view, they do not try to see the world from different point of view. On the contrary a psy alwsy try to see how the other person sees the world because being able to see how the other sees means to have an advantage, it means you observe how the other thinks and see the world and thus the psy can play with the non-psy as he pleases to do.

    An observation:
    at the end of the article you talk about the concepts of “cold reading” and “connecting the dots/power of observation”.
    Cold reading and connecting the dots are, we can say, “passive” action (you just receive input from the world and you try to utilize your brain to process these informations). What the post lack (in my opinion) is an emphasis on the fact that the psy passively accumulate this knowledge for the purpose of actively abtain what he wants. Even though you wrote in the initial part that whatever a psy does he does it because he thinks it is useful to do it. Just this.

    You see, psys don’t have a color, they can be whatever color is useful to be in a given situation. Using Stoicism a non-psy might learn how “to not give a fuck”, but how can a non-psy learn to be whatever color it is needed to be? That seems to be not teachable.

    You wrote this article some time ago, thus you could have read Zen and Art of Archery by now. I have read that book and if you haven’t yet here some thoughts: it is not long, so you can actually read it in a day, but you can avoid to read it because it was nothing really special.

    You asked about a book on cold reading.
    I want to emphasis one thing. Sometimes, maybe more than just sometimes, if you want to learn and internalize something it is useful to read more than one or two books on the topic. Some suggestions on cold reading and more could be:
    – all the writings of Navarro
    – all the writing of Paul Ekman
    – Peoplewatching by Desmond Morris
    – The Definitive Book Of Body Language
    – The Art of SpeedReading People by Tieger
    – Robert Cialdini
    – Books on heuristics and biases
    – Books on investigation techniques
    – and why not, the bibliography of T48LoP

    A tip on effectively read people. Most of the people are average people. Most of them are common people, but even if you are dealing with a not so common person here a tip:
    your ultimate objective must be to understand what he wants, and if he can be useful to you, you then study a plan to give it to him and then take your part (this explanation is at the high level. When you have an high level goal, you can use more powerfully all the tactics and techniques you believe are the most useful).
    To undestand what a person want you must watch, generally speaking, what he does and also how he speaks and what kind of words he uses (but the language part somehow derives from what he does).
    You can use heuristics to speed the process of understanding, but you use heuristics only to create hypothesis. Once you create hypothesis you “smash” the hypothesis with reality. If the hypothesis “hold the crash” with reality you then can be quite sure that your hypothesis is true. If not you continue to gain informations (you see, here in the locution “to gain information” is included the cold reading part with other stuff and with your mental abilities of inferring) and repeat the process, creating new hypothesises and smash them on reality.
    If, for instance, a person has a family then you can make some hypothesis.
    If he likes to go to concerts you create other hypothesis.
    If he makes some smirks when you and him talk about girl you can create hypothesis. If he smirks when some argument about money is made you can create hypothesis. If he says to you that he won a lot of money on poker some years ago, but when you stay in his company these days you notice some strange behaviour when money arguments are made then you create hypothesis.
    If he can wait to “save” money buying 3 and paying 2 you create hypothesis.
    If he watches tv you create hypothesis.
    If he has a company but he is solding one of his cars you create hypothesis.
    If he wide-open his eyes when he sees a picture of a beautiful girl you can create hypothesis about his sex life.

    These are just some random examples I was able to think while I was writing to show the process. Another different example, if you one day read about the human mind and you find out an heuristics that says: “for a human mind it is easy to recognize than to examplify” you then can use this fact for your own purposes, meaning that it could happen that you have to decide between making think a person about an example about a topi and giving a person two situations about the topic and he has to choose which is more related to the topic. Now, you now that for the human mind is easier to recognize than to examplify, and if you think that in this situation it could be more userlfu (to your purposes) that the person recognize instead of examplify you then have a valid support to make your decision.
    I don’t know if I made myself clear enough.

    I want to thank you for your posts about these topics. You helped me clarify some very important concepts in my mind.


    1. This recorded Skype interview may shed some light on the comments about psychopaths and “cold reading”. Edwin Rutsch and Sam Vaknin, in their discussion, define what they end up calling “cold empathy”.

      Edwin is a “highly sensitive person” or “empath” who has dedicated his life to understanding and promulgating empathy, and Sam is a self-aware narcissist with psychopathic traits (according to the massive testing he underwent in the documentary about him, “I, Psychopath”.


      Liked by 1 person

  3. You have changed the “curse” part of your post. Sounds good now with the “gift” supplement. But you do use just the word “curse” some paragraphs later, when you say “what you can do is utilise the psychological abilities that the condition rewards its occupant without being restrained by the curse of being incapable of emotionally connecting to other beings”

    I don’t remember quite well, but you maybe added a little sentence now that is really the core of a psychopathic mind:
    “What they do give a fuck about is getting what they want by any means necessary.”
    Yes, that is it, nothing more.
    From the semantic conveyed by that sentence it derives the “amoral” concept about psychopaths. Normal humans have this thing called “moral” and than they read about psychopahty, or watch a psychopaht from their point of view and they say “psychopaths don’t have morality”. In the Rep Pill community it is said they are “amoral”. But again, this is from an external point of view. From a psychopath point of view those are just words; they mean nothing. The reality is much more simple actually, and your little sentence say it all. A psychopath wants just get what he wants. Once he have decided what he wants, he will make a plan to get it. If (by their plan) doing these things called “morals” are needed to be done, then they will be done; if doing these things called “immorals” are needed to be done, then they will be done. If a good strategy seems to be (from the spath POV) to act like a normal human, then it will be done. Of course a spath is not mistake-free. It could happen that in a specified situation the best course of action is the “act like other humans would act” but somehow it happens that the spath gives away some “non-human” signals. It could be a particular stare, it could be a strange comment, or something more serious.

    In general, the thing that I notice is that the psychopaths are given all these adjetives by the academic and non-academic world like: lack of guilty, lack of remorse, ruthless, cruel etc.. The fact is that these adjectives are given by normal humans, and again, these normal humans see the world from their point of view, thus they see that normal people have these things called guilt, remorse and are generally not cruel and not ruthless. But from a spath POV this concept of guilt (and the others) is, we can say, a little bit like unknown. Your little sentence is the core. If a spath child do something that is not commonly seen to be a good behevior by their parents, it could happen that the parents scold the child. From the child POV he can think that the most useful thing to do is to fake guilty thus give the parents what they want, i.e. the parents want to see that their scold was effective. The goal of the child is to be free from the parents’ boring talk as fast as he can so he can continue to do what he wants.

    You wirte:
    “A charming psychopath can convince “their target” that they care, but they don’t. ”
    Perhaps a funny thing to add could be: one of the most difficult task of spaths could be to convince themselves that they care enough in order to convince “their target” that they care. This could be simple for short term goal, but not that simple with long term probabilistic positive relationships outcomes.

    Another funny situation could be:
    it could happen that a spath is seen as someone who “doesn’t give a fuck”, and/or as someone with a strong mental attitude, or simple he as seen as “cold”. People could start to wonder things (just for the sake of the example). Here’s a funny thing a spath could do: he could say that he has studied stoicism, let’s say he can also state that he has studied it for many years; the thing is: he says he studied Stoicism and he has become proefficient on it. He can say that he is a good Stoic. With saying this he could appear an interesting person without raising some suspects, as to speak. You see, for a spath it is easy to “fake” Stoicism (the other way around is the difficult part), he actually doesn’t have to do anything. In fact, it could happen that he has to show some “flaws” on he being Stoic, just to make things a little bit more credible. You talk about this concept in your post when you write the paragraph that talks about the “grains of truth”.
    Going even further, one can even argue that the first Stoics were actually spychopaths and they went around telling people these “Stoic concepts”, and/or people will observe these first (spath) Stoics and thus we have now this philosophy of life. But this can never be known. Just wanted to say it, it is nothing special to talk about.

    You nicely polished the post, now it is much more fluid and easy to read. You also included the heuristic concept.


  4. Stoicism / meditation does not work, in practice anyone other than an authentic psychopath will falter.

    It will be the false sense of power, and the others realize … if you want to do x and feel guilt for it, or other emotions, just do it, and then rationalize… stay meditating does not solve.

    For example, my mother treated me very well, but she only did it because in the future she wants to have a “retirement” at my expense, so it does not matter if I use her to parasite.

    But only gets easier if you already have awareness of the nature of people, it is virtually impossible to return to empathize when you understand the reality around them, as they are rotten and false.


  5. Another thing, if you feel anxious you will not “not to think about it,” you must face situations with a lot of pressure, is intelligence with action, simple as that. Anxiety will be replaced and not neutralized, fake a feeling does not work, always runs the risk of returning.


  6. I was drawn to this article piece by the sentence in your latest post: “Sure, women will try to rehabilitate bad boys due to their primal attraction to psychopathy…” A spectacular example of this was the Austrian psychopath, writer, freelance journalist, and international serial killer, Jack Unterweger. With a few notable exceptions which may have been of a homoerotic nature, Jack’s charisma did not work on men. They found him vulgar, overbearing, and childishly aggressive. Countless women, on the other hand, totally loved the guy and would do absolutely anything for him. At the same time, he only murdered (in a highly sadistic way) women.I wrote about the guy, and for my research I hung out with three of his ex girlfriends. It took me the longest time to realize that they did NOT — as they often assured me — believe he was innocent of the murders (the case against him was largely circumstantial). On the contrary, they strongly sensed that he was in fact guilty and they were turned on by it. I was never able to reconcile their treatment of me, which was always affectionate in a purely platonic way, with their eerie attraction to a man who sadistically murdered at least 13 women over the course of his life (two in his early twenties, 11 after he conned his way out of prison).

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said about psychopathy, as far as lack of empathy goes. However, many of the psychopaths I have known have also had issues with anxiety disorders, OCD, and panic attacks, probably to a greater extent than the average population. Psychopaths can still experience emotional distress, it just isn’t [usually] rooted in empathy. This emotional distress can compromise their capacity to actualize their full power, and make them as effectively weak as an empath, just for different reasons. Some psychopaths I know use anti-anxiety drugs for this reason.

    Another thing about psychopaths is that they do have fear, but for different reasons than an empath. Empaths fear hurting others, psychopaths fear hurting themselves, which results in a pseudo-benevolence, because it is obvious that in hurting others too much, one ultimately risks the wrath of the masses. So while I agree with your estimate in many ways, the idea that psychopaths lack emotion is probably false. Rather, their emotional imperatives are rerouted toward the self, rather than the other. I think even the biggest psychopath can be physiologically compromised to the extent that they are robbed of their powers. They aren’t magical beings divorced from the laws of biology and physics, they just have different emotional imperatives.

    Another way that psychopathy can result in positive behavior is that psychopaths will self-police self-destructive behavior to a certain extent, because they understand it robs them of power and outs them in jeopardy. Whereas an empath might have no reservations about annihilating their body, especially in reaction to some emotional trauma [drink/smoke the pain away], a sociopath has no such illogical imperative, and will police behavior to maintain their grip on reality and their surroundings. They are actually MORE cautious and conscientious in my experience, when it comes to self-preservation at least. IMO, serial killers like Ted Bundy were often actually empaths who used extreme stoicism and substance abuse to numb their emotions and allow them to commit crimes.

    Anyways, the conceptualization of psychopathic traits as “dark triad” or “destructive” is somewhat misguided. They are emotionally destructive to people close to the psychopath, but on a larger scale allow for the psychopath to take massive action and bring about change for the better of society as a whole. Pragmatically speaking, emotions are meaningless, as you’ve acknowledged through your machiavellian ideals, so calling a psychopath evil is a bit illogical. There’s a lot of evidence that people like Ghandi and Nelson Mandela were psychopaths [just listen to stories from their family members], but they accomplished great things.


  8. Psychopathy is one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted psychiatric terms and by many people often misused fe to indicate that someone is very bad. Its in the past ‘invented’ by a psychiatrist to catagorize a certain group of patiënts who didnt behave accoring to the social norms and values of society of that time and it became really known and cultivated in the main public by movies like ‘psycho’ and ”silence of the lambs’ and adjusted by professors as Hare who tried to give importance to the now excisting psychiatric term of ‘psychopath’ resulting in the Hare checklist. And for example dont forget an austian professor who called a group of young boys with certain rigid behaviour autistic psychopaths while later on the term ‘psychopath’ was erased quickly in the anglosaxon world (because of its negative image) and became knows as autists with asperger sydrome. What I want to say is that the term of psychopathy (sociopathy/psychopath/sociopath) in the anglosaxon world is at least a very weak, false and old fashioned definition which probably in the near future will be completely put upside down and loses its value. Right it is because recent research reveals socalled diagnosed ”psychopaths” against all expectations in basic do have all emotions which they can show, recognize and even experience. Even empathy, one of the most misunderstood defects of the psychopathic brain is present and functioning very well in psychopaths fe when they were asked to empathize. The only difference with other people should be their empathy is normally switched off. This leaves more open questions like which moral norm defines a psychopath like why are the pilots who in WW2 threw bombs on Dresden and Hamburg burning thousands of innocent children to dead not diagnosed as psychopaths? Isnt this evil enough? Why is Bush Jr. who invaded Irak and did the same to innocent Iraqi not brought to a mental institution? In both cases there where INNOCENT VICTEMS. Are all supporters and also the ones who did nothing to stop these atrocities then not also secondary psychopaths? Conclusion: psychopathy is present in society much more than the estimated 1-2 procent of the population its an national desease and depending on the circumstances everbody can display psychopathic behaviour and should be diagnosed as a psychopath. Why don’t we? Because most hypocryte people excepted evil in society and only depending on certain criteria like WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE and WHO it is will condem it. Isn’t that somewhat moral insane? Probably its much easier to declare that psychopaths don’t excist.


  9. I’m new in your blog, and there is something here that I don’t understand. The way you describe psychopathy, for me seems that everybody acts like that. What you call empathy for me seems like moral obligation, and so guilt. But not because you are considering other people feelings per se, but because being the object that caused hurt, hurt your own image. Both ways are egotistical, one just don’t have a image to be hurt of oneself. This is how I see this. Would love to hear your opinion about that.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s