The BENEFITS of being a PSYCHOPATH

“Both extremely high and extremely low levels of psychopathy may be maladaptive. High levels are maladaptive for the trouble into which clinical psychopaths often get themselves. Low levels of psychopathy are maladaptive—this stems from the common observation of the role of anxiety in psychopathy: psychopaths do not seem to show any anxiety. The debilitating function of high levels of anxiety hardly needs to be stressed. In a normal, non-institutionalized population, therefore, their (psychopath’s) immunity from anxiety may give psychopaths an advantage.”

Kevin Dutton, The Wisdom of Psychopaths

       My learning binge this week involves the nature of psychopaths. While my learning attempts are typically short-lived and often superficial, this one will continue to gnaw at me as I seek to learn more.  Psychopaths have never really piqued my interest until I came across the book “The Wisdom of Psychopaths” (2012, by Kevin Dutton).

        The common public perception of psychopaths is that they are execrable prison-deserving slop, whose recidivism rate is higher than any other criminal. While this is usually true, let’s take a moment to glorify psychopaths and relish their positive strengths.  Remember, nothing in this world is entirely black and white. As thinkers in the modern world, we must seek to investigate the gray.

        Some of us tend to fall on the extreme opposite side of the psychopathic scale. We are the humans who lack psychopathic traits and have a hard time even contemplating the mind of a psychopath. We are the people who writhe with daily levels of fluctuating anxiety. We feel the guilt and shame to even the slightest of our trespasses and we often over-apologize.  We heartily empathize with others, understanding their human frailties as similar to our own and we have a difficult time maligning others for our own personal gain.   We do not readily discern the vulnerabilities of others, even when the manifestations are dangling right in front of our faces.  After reading this book, I’m starting to wonder if having a higher psychopathic score might actually prove beneficial in certain areas of a person’s life.

         Psychopaths tend to be unique in their inability to experience anxiety. This translates to a superb ability to be more present-focused and less distracted than those scoring lower on the PCL-R (Psychopathic Checklist-Revised). While many of us low on the psychopathic scale have minds stuck in the past or reeling towards the future, psychopaths have a present mindfulness that is enviable. Psychopaths have a fascinating aptitude to spot the vulnerability in others (research in this area is delineated in the book). Less self-conscious and not worried about their own performance—and usually scoring higher on the narcissistic scale—these individuals spot the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in others much faster than those scoring lower on the psychopathic scale. With this ability, psychopaths are better equipped to exploit other people, to take advantage of them and possibly murder them if the convenient time or desire arises.

         True, many psychopaths go down the path of creative killing or raping sprees that often brings them into a prison cell. Still, others pursue the much softer, less-offensive path. These individuals end up with careers like company CEO, stock trader or politician.  Notice how these careers require mental toughness, ruthlessness, fearlessness, mindfulness and action—characteristics that come naturally to psychopaths.  Psychopaths are adept at controlling their emotions when the pressure is on. Whether this is because they have this natural discipline within or because they feel emotions less intensely, is still being researched.

         This book was a mind-bending read! It will widen your perspective on psychopaths and start to make you see the broad continuum of personality (and personality disorders). Indeed, we are all a smidgen psychopathic, some of us more so than others.

Are religious (or atheist) people delusional? Musings tonight...

              The specific religious meme you believe in was passed down to you from your parents which was passed on down to them from their parents and on and on. Thus, the type of religion you have was primarily given to you by your genetic lineage (your parents). This is one important way how memes function. Memes can also operate in a more horizontal manner. They are pieces of cultural data that are transmitted from one mind to the next by way of language or behavioral imitation. There are exceptions to this rule, of course; in the case of religion, some people converted to a different religion from their parents and some religious individuals relinquished religion, entirely. (I tend to focus on trends, because trends usually offer more predictability than looking at exceptions.)

          Compared to other memes, I think a religious meme is a very strong, infectious piece of data. I say this because religion has the power to rearrange a person’s entire way of thinking and perceiving the world around them. It so strongly modifies their thinking to such a grand extent that they literally become trapped inside a delusion.

              How does one know that it is the religious individual trapped in a delusion and not the atheist? Perhaps it is really the atheist confined within the real delusion and God really does exist and accurately impinges himself upon the minds of the religious.

            Anyone can be trapped in a delusion, so how do we know who is affected by it? Is the religious mind more likely trapped in a delusion or is the atheist mind? Is this a false dichotomy? Are there more than these two possibilities—perhaps both the atheist mind and religious mind are trapped inside delusions? Or, maybe there exists a delusion continuum and one of these world-views is measurably more delusional in degree than the other.

             Again, how can we tell? To say that the religious mind is suffering from delusion is a tacit suggestion that the atheist mind is not, or, is less so. It would be difficult to propose that both an atheist mind and religious mind are equally right at the same time; these two would negate each other due to possessing claims that are in diametric opposition to each other.

           We are right back to where we must decide. Which of these—the atheist or the religious theist—is more delusional than the other? One of these has got to be more delusional because the claims that are acknowledged by one of these views are opposed to the claims acknowledged by the other view. In other words, they contradict each other. More clearly, ask yourself whether god(s) can and cannot exist at the same time.

            Whether we like to admit it or not, there are some minds following a set of ideas and beliefs that are false—ahem, delusional. Some people may not like this statement. The notion of labeling some minds more delusional than others is a very offensive declaration. How can anyone person’s line of thinking and believing be superior to anyone else’s?

            A good way to think more about this is to look at reality. Of course, this is assuming that there is an objective reality that exists outside and independent of human minds and human senses.  I happen to think there is—or else, what now?  Also, if one says that “Reality is really a subjective experience”, are they not making an absolute statement here? It ends up defeating itself.  Where can we even go from there if we don’t at least make this fundamental assumption that we can all agree on?

        There must be some kind of absolute, objective reality that exists in order for us to contrast and measure delusion against. From another angle, if reality is ultimately subjective, how can we even begin to propose that someone is suffering from delusion—maybe such delusion would be that individual’s reality? In other words, we can’t reproach anyone for being delusional if no universal reality exists.

          Next, if we agree that reality is objective, we can look for evidences of delusion. We can look at which of these views (atheism or theism) offers an overall position that is reflective of this objective reality. We can begin to sift through the purported claims of each. Are there more false claims offered by religion (e.g. Christianity) or atheism?

            Atheism would seem to be a rejection of the claim that god(s) exist(s). A religious/theistic view might say, “A non-physical, god(s) exists and that he rules the world and has an eternal plan for each human being—not for other mammals, and certainly not for icky bacteria.” Notice how this is a densely loaded, non-vague assertion.

           An atheist (non-religious) stance would say that humans and other life forms are the result of a materialistic, physical process that can be explained through DNA, evolution and rewound back through time. There are many preceding physical steps that gave rise to human beings (and other life-forms) existing. Where there are gaps in this physical history, they are not explained by something that transcends nature (as far as I know). If all the other gaps we have ever come across throughout history have been explained by a physical mechanism, why, for a new knowledge gap would we resort to a non-physical one, such as god(s).

Those are just some quick thoughts tonight...

Reflections on "The Problem of Evil/Pain"

“Christianity is called the religion of pity….A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousand fold.  Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy”    Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti Christ

I was recently skimming over the book, “Has Christianity Failed You?” by Ravi Zacharias.  There is a point in the book where he discusses the "The problem of pain"/"The problem of evil" and he responds to this problem by suggesting that through the pains and trials of our lives, we end up drawing closer to God. He even quotes a friend of his in India who often prays for America, “It must be hard to trust in God when you already have so much.”

What I’m gathering here is that the underlying theological response to “The Problem of evil/pain” is that it exists so that one might become more dependent on God. A person’s faith in God would end up strengthening their lives as they experience trials, tribulations and persecutions. Thus, the Christian response to the Problem of evil/pain is that yes—it obviously exists, but it is here to improve our relationship with God—to recognize our own weakness as we consider the big picture of our plight through this earthly experience that will one day usher us into eternity.

Now, in a way, they are right.  In a way, the Problem of Pain might end up making a Christian believer turn inward and reflect more upon the faith that they have. There is no reason why a person’s belief wouldn't act as a type of placebo effect—where the individual could draw positive strength from it.  This might help improve their situation and provide them with the mental fortitude to keep going (instead of kill themselves or resorting to “life is meaningless”.

I want to suggest that while there are pains in the world, one doesn't have to have faith or belief in God to get  through the rough times. There are plenty of individuals who have made it through without any particular faith. To assert that a person requires a deep faith to get them through a tough circumstance discounts all of the testimonies of all who have made it through the rough patches without deferring to god, or, belief in god(s).

You can draw strength from your own self—through the recognition that you have the power and will get through it. To quote Nietzsche again, “Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant.”

There are many individuals who have taken this journey and succeeded. They recognized that indeed, they could dredge up a sense of power and responsibility in themselves. Once you feel you have that power, wouldn't you now be more apt to go about taking physical steps to improve your situation?

I would think that when you defer your sense of power to an authority (or anything outside yourself)—while it might strengthen you to some extent to know that you have a guide—it might actually weaken, or obstruct your sense of strength that you can derive from yourself. Tethering your self worth to a non-existent being might not be the best approach either.

How I make Money on the Internet, (Satire)

 "How to Get Rich on the Internet"

(Satire Advertisement)

Tired of slogging through your days working long, arduous hours as a janitor or cashier? Are you sick of being financially dependent on your girlfriend or parents? Have no fear! Research has shown that due to the insatiable human craving to be rich, simply writing up a “Get Rich” advertisement on your blog will dramatically improve your odds of becoming rich. Why? Inside everyone is a mathematically-challenged lottery ticket consumer. Everyone naturally wants to become rich.  Once they spy your catchy blog post, they’ll inevitably click on it, hoping you can offer them advice on becoming rich. You won’t of course; you’ll just proceed to taunt them with what you’re trying to sell. Also, you’ll make a passive income by way of people clicking on your blog.

For the sake of this advertisement, let’s consider the history of all these “Get Rich Quick” gurus and how they’ve acquired their own wealth. What’s their secret, you ask? The secret behind all of these get-rich-quick gurus is that they’ve written books about getting rich or conducted seminars offering “Strategies on becoming rich”.  Here’s the clincher: every “Get rich quick” book is a cleverly disguised way of helping the author get rich, not you, silly. After all, whose the one buying the book or piece of software that will inevitably be stowed away in the crevice between the sofa cushions?

So how can you achieve your goal of becoming rich by simply writing up a simple blog advertisement about becoming rich? Here’s where the trick comes in. Instead of offering your potential patron advice on becoming rich, point them in the direction of your best selling book. The book doesn't have to be anything witty or densely packed with a step by step plan for wealth attainment. Instead, it should have lots of vague verbiage with heapings of obscure jargon where you blather on about “positive thinking” and “reframe your thinking” and “look at every failed opportunity as a learning lesson” and “diversify your stocks” and “make everything automated” “develop a passive income” and "find ways to achieve a positive net cash flow with rental properties” and “start a budget”…you get the picture.  In no time at all you’ll have penned out a novel that you can transform into $29.95. Give the consumer enough of the same tripe they've already heard from every other “get rich” book they've ever read and they’ll instantly credit you as being a financial guru in whom they can trust.

 What's next, you ask? The rest we leave to the glorious placebo effect. The person feels better after they've read your book, making them feel as though “They've done something” and “They’re on the road to wealth”---and you just made $29.95 off their desire to become rich.

Get rich today! Make sure to purchase our book entitled “How to write a catchy blogpost about becoming rich” for $29.95!

Christian man shortage? Should Christian women follow the command to not be unequally yoked?

Another problem with religion is that it has social implications…social taboos that can negatively impact the quality of your life if you follow them to the letter. I was thinking about this recently…

I’ve noticed an intriguing phenomenon occurring in churches across America. Walk into any church, and I can pretty much guarantee you will notice the disparity in the MALE to FEMALE RATIO. There appears to be far more practicing Christian females than there are practicing Christian males. This has resulted in an interesting cultural phenomenon, an odd shift of sorts, namely, there are far more single Christian women than single Christian men.

Even when I was a believing, practicing Christian, I encountered this at my own church. All the 20-something males were partnered and married off quickly while a sizeable number of Christian women in the same age group remained single.

In fact, whenever I go back to my childhood church I see that many of these Christian women have thriving careers, have kept up their appearance and their spirituality—yet they can’t seem to find a Christian mate. Conversely, I don’t think I can name a single Christian male past the age of 25 that I grew up with who is currently single.  Yes indeed, Christian males get married off very quickly. Even in the Christian world, with decreased supply, comes demand.

 Amidst this imbalanced ratio, there is still the ever quoted Bible verse (2nd Corinthians 6:14) “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers…”.  Considering the disproportionate ratio of males to females in churches these days, this Bible verse seems to benefit Christian males more than Christian females. The options that many Christian women are left with is either to disobey this command and yoke-up with an unbeliever, or, to live the rest of their lives happily single. This is not to suggest that being married is an endlessly sublime experience without trials and tribulations. Nor is this to mean that being single for the rest of one’s life is the epitome of all existence—far worse things could happen, sure.  I just happen to know very few women who say their ideal life is “remaining single and going through the entire rest of their life by their lonesome….err, with Christ as their husband”.  

A number of studies seem to show a correlation between marriage and health and overall happiness. http://www.livescience.com/20649-married-people-happier.html Some studies even show that married people live longer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/marriage-research_n_2450639.html. Finally, married women are also better off financially than single women http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/married_women_better_sex_more.html. There are truly many advantages to being married that married people probably take for granted that many singletons are profoundly aware of.

Some of these unmarried Christian women I know do initially seem to think that it is much better to remain single than to marry a man who isn’t a Christian. They talk about the “consequences” of entwining their lives with such a person.  This is easier said than acted upon, long-term. It is hard to go through one’s entire life fighting off one’s natural urges to find love and companionship simply because the Bible commands “Do not be unequally yoked”. For instance, I have one single Christian friend who struggles when being asked out by a particular non-believing male—she wants to get to know him, but realizes he “isn’t spiritually available” and “isn’t a Christian” so she declines the invitation and chooses to wait for the right Christian guy. Like many other Christian women, she follows advice like the kind in this blog http://thechristianpundit.org/2012/08/15/it/.

One of the first pieces of advice offered to the single Christian woman is “You have no business yoking a redeemed soul with an unregenerate one, even if he seems open to change”. (per blog above)   Aside from the fact that this statement exudes divisive, black and white thinking and uses tribalistic language to describe the entire non-Christian male population, does this actually make sense?  Is this a factual, evidenced based account of the average non-Christian male? Should Christian females abstain from forming relationships with non-Christian males simply because the Bible says so?—especially when there are so few Christian males to begin with? Should Christian women simply wait for the right man to come along when studies show women’s relationship options actually become fewer over time?

While there is already a marked decline in male church attendance, I predict that with the internet and this constant access to science, information and other forms of accessible entertainment, this trend will only continue.  Why would this not affect female church attendance too, you ask? I’m sure it will, but my view is that it will not be to the same extent that it would affect male church attendance and male religious affiliation.  Females tend to be generally oriented towards community and social events. A church membership can help fulfill these needs. Also, many studies seem to show that instead of spending time on scientific sites and philosophical debate-type sites that encourage examination and reconstruction of one’s world-view (and abandoning of one’s religion), user demographic data seems to indicate females generally gravitate towards sites like pinterest, and other social media sites, as well as sites that involve fashion, décor, clothes shopping and anything that involves food and recipes.

From a practical standpoint, Christian females can only expect the Christian mancession trend to continue. Perhaps single Christian females should be more open to forming a relationship with a non-Christian male. Perhaps they should consider objective qualities that matter in reality—like how kind the man is, how he treats you, whether he shares your interests (aside from church) and whether he is a hard worker, is committed, has integrity, honesty and is loyal and caring. Perhaps single Christian women should just abandon their alliance with superstition and magical thinking, realizing that being “Married to Jesus” ends up making you feel lonely in the long-run—because Jesus is the quintessential absent husband and father.

In the end, relationship formation is based upon common interests and traits that you deem important for your partner to have (and vice-versa).  Thankfully, these traits are human traits and can be possessed by both Christian and non-Christian males alike.

Are Atheists less biased than Christians?

"There is an asymmetry: atheists in general welcome the most intensive and objective examination of their views, practices and reasons. (In fact, their incessant demand for self-examination can become quite tedious.) The religious, in contrast, often bristle at the impertinence, the lack of respect, the sacrilege, implied by anyone who wants to investigate their views."  Daniel Dennett, Breaking The Spell

Many times I have been admonished by my family and friends about “Going down the wrong path” or "becoming an apostate". Often, the conversation begins in the form of a question, “Why do you reject Jesus?” and “Why are you choosing the path that is going to lead you to hell?” The tone of the questioning is typically condescending. It is coming from an individual who assumes they have most of the correct answers about reality, and that I, a fallen ingrate, needs their assistance in understanding things correctly. After all, they only want to eschew me out of my faulty thinking and my path towards everlasting torment.

I sometimes wish to say back, “It seems so easy for you to just assume that you are right about all this. Have you noticed how I refrain from employing this same tactic? I do not accept any assumption I make with pure ease. I hold assumptions loosely…tentatively, and I do not proceed to go further and create dogma out of them.  I patiently listen to all the Christian CD’s that you have made me. I read every Christian book that you get me for Christmas and I read your unending bible passage texts and the constant stream of email devotionals that you send me. Yet, you can barely tolerate 30 seconds of a debate between Dan Barker and Dinesh D'Souza. If this were a game of fair-mindedness with regards to the other person’s ideological position, there seems to be great deal of imbalance going on.”

Many Christians that I know are unwilling to expand their thinking to include thoughts that are secular in nature (i.e. thinking about events as if there was no god). So, while they want you to read through all of their homemade tracts and listen to their sermons, they will not bring their mind to your side of the fence. The reason, I suppose? They are afraid of doing so. Many Christians think that this act alone—this simple shift in perspective— is moving into satanic territory. This is one reason why Christian leaders often warn their devotees to abstain from reading books by atheists. They truly believe that demonic powers have invested such atheist minds so that they can beguile and corrupt other minds, ultimately bringing their readers to the lordship of Satan.

Unlike the Christian, the atheist/skeptic has no reason to refrain from considering the other person’s perspective (in this case, the Christian perspective). There is no atheist creed with warnings of “Loosing one’s beliefs may result in atheist hell” or “You can be blinded by Christians”. There are no pejorative labels equivalent to “backslider”, “apostate” or “infidel” to slap on former atheists who have changed their minds and have become religious.

While atheists might have logical problems with religious view-points, they won’t be tempted to disown their friends and family members simply for having a “change of mind” (To an atheist, a change of mind carries no spiritual/moral implications but it does for a Christian). To the atheist, actions carry far more weight in the grand scheme of things. For Christians though, a change of mind…a change of thinking or “heart”— is ultimately what determines your place in the afterlife.  This is why the traditional Christian view allows absurd things to happen…like Ted Bundy getting to go to heaven, and Einstein, to hell. (i.e. one of these people changed their mind about Jesus and made a decision to believe in him while they were alive.)

The skeptical position says, “Go ahead; check out all the other world-views! There is nothing inherently diabolical about doing this. In fact, doing so expands your mental horizon so that you can be better informed about different view-points and why certain groups hold them. Furthermore, learning about other views is a good way to avoid the temptation of misrepresenting them.”

My point is that the atheist view is less biased. That is, the atheist is on a less biased thinking platform. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself, are atheists ever advised not to read Christian literature? Are atheists warned to NOT read the Bible, NOT learn about creationist ideas and to NOT read apologetic books written by Christians? It seems to me, that some of the most informed people about creationism are atheists. These individuals don’t shy away from their “opponent's” position, but instead, seek to learn all about it and then make an assessment about whether it is more or less reasonable than the current position they hold.

Unlike the religious view where the mind has a very deep emotional attachment to a predetermined set of infallible, immutable beliefs,  the skeptical view attempts to make commitments only to reason, reality, logic, truth and evidence. If a piece of evidence appears to disrupt a former idea, that idea can be changed. All ideas are subject to change based on new information.

Need for cognition?

“If you think humanity is high minded, just check out google’s zeitgeist archives for the top ten search terms. Movie and pop stars, bands, top athletes, and current political events are the perennials, with nary a scientist nor scientific discovery among them (and this is after the most popular search terms, those that relate to sex, have been screened out).  
                     Christof Koch, “Consciousness” (neuroscientist, Caltech)

Some people like to have involved conversations about religion, atheism, skepticism, philosophy and science. Many of these people have an easy time tolerating ambiguity, enjoying abstract thinking or entertaining themselves with controversial subject-matter. For such individuals, thinking itself is an artful endeavor that becomes its own reward. These are the kinds of people who relish being in the throes of a florid argument--provided no individual is being personally attacked. An intense need for cognition is a prevailing theme in these people's lives.

 I’ve noticed that people who engage in the above style of thinking, discussion and debate are often reprimanded with the following criticism:  “Stop wasting your time thinking or talking about this” or “Move on to something else” or “This isn’t changing anyone’s mind anyways” or “No one cares” or “You’re just a novice anyways, save the attempted thinking for the professors”.

 Clearly, there are many people who feel uncomfortable or apathetic about conversations that involve the philosophical realm or the pursuit of inquiry to gain knowledge. This type of person has a very low need for cognition. What would they prefer to talk about? Their dog? The reality television show they watched yesterday? The weather? That funny scene in a movie or television show that they just watched? These are fine things to talk about (and everyone already talks about them INCESSANTLY)—but what makes them appreciably more worthy of attention?  There is an endless deluge of concrete minutiae people talk about, but, for some reason, NONE of it receives the same kinds of rebuke and “You’re wasting your time!” that an attempted philosophical or intellectual discussion receives.  It’s as if having a philosophical discussion is the ultimate waste of time—but talking about your favorite celebrity or music artist is NEVER reproached—this is just expected.

Perhaps it is just “normal” to have water-cooler discussions about celebrities and their latest escapades; it is “abnormal” to initiate a Socratic dialogue with a stranger at a bakery (or anywhere else, I guess). If one of these scenarios above is considered “wasting your time” isn’t the other one too? How many times in life have we heard conversations about the first subject? How many times have you seen two people going-at-it in full-fledged Socratic dialogue?

I see it like this: a person is inevitably going to spend their time thinking or talking about certain things in this life. We choose the content that we discuss, that which arouses our sense of intrigue or passion, and this ultimately feeds and programs our brains. The time we spend having a discussion about that person we think is stupid or about our favorite celebrity—could also be time spent thinking about or discussing a scientific principle or philosophical idea.

If you are an individual with a high need for cognition, you get far less pleasure having discussions about events and other people. Instead, you thrive on ideas and how they have sex with—how they merge with other ideas forming new tiers of thought—novel possibilities to better understanding reality. Every invention or theory starts with a trail of thinking—and many times it requires abstract thinking generated from a philosophical or intellectual dialectic. Many people are perfectionists so they say “Why bother if I’m not very good at this kind of foreign thinking?” It doesn't matter if the initial thinking is rudimentary, naive or marked by flaws in reasoning. We all have to start somewhere, and sometimes we struggle in the same spot for  years—even the most brilliant people in the world were once three-year olds. At least here, we are at a place to learn and expand intellectually.

Chit-chat is a kind of rubbish talk; it really cannot advance the mind—or conversation— to new possibilities. While we all participate in this kind of daily drivel, it does take the place of excruciatingly fascinating conversations that we could be having.

We can only hope that more and more people apply their minds to new ideas and to innovative thinking.  With this method, more solutions and possibilities can be explored.