|
Mark_Wallace wrote: psychopaths talk more pleasantly than good people, because good people talk honestly; psychopaths are always on the make.
You're going to be very disappointed when you find out that only 1% of people are psychopats. The amount of people that will lie is a bit higher.
Also, honesty is overrated; while it may sound cool to say that it is not the jeans that make her look fat, it is also the most social incompetent way of handling the situation.
It is also not said that psychopats cannot be "good" people, whatever that is.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: It is also not said that psychopats cannot be "good" people, whatever that is.
Sure, if it's to their profit, and entirely in their own interests.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Sure, if it's to their profit, and entirely in their own interests.
Which also goes for 99% of normal people.
Them religious nuts only try to be nice because they want to enter some heaven. That's not self-interest behind their piety, is it?
How about the average "normal" atheist? Where do they get their moral? Like the psychopats, perhaps from learning (!) what is socially acceptable and what isn't, and behaving accordingly?
Show me ten normal people, and I shall heal them 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Which also goes for 99% of normal people.
Not at all.
Well over 90% of people will make an effort to treat people decently, and offer assistance to people who have problems, even if they get absolutely nothing out of it -- not even rep, kudos, and/or the keys to Heaven.
By definition, psychopaths will not. They are incapable of it.
I think you might be getting psychopaths mixed up with @rseholes.
@rsehole behaviour is just behaviour, which some people exhibit more than others, but which everyone exhibits, from time to time. Psychopathic behaviour is the result of a mental condition.
Psychopaths are @rseholes all the time -- but some of them manage to hide it behind outward behaviour which makes people think they're not.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Well over 90% of people will make an effort to treat people decently, and offer assistance to people who have problems, even if they get absolutely nothing out of it -- not even rep, kudos, and/or the keys to Heaven.
Because it is in their interest to do so; it makes one a member of society, bringing some benefits. There's also some punishments for not being a "decent" member of society. That's also why you don't steal or murder, even when pressed 
Mark_Wallace wrote: By definition, psychopaths will not. They are incapable of it.
Why would they be incapable of such? Please explain the mystical barrier
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Because it is in their interest to do so
I'm afraid not. The conscious desire to "play nice with the other kids" has nothing to do with conscious self interest; it's evolved instinct (another mental condition, if you wish).
It's all well researched and documented, with so much experimental and empirical proof that there's no arguing with it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Mark_Wallace wrote: By definition, psychopaths will not. They are incapable of it.
Why would they be incapable of such? Please explain the mystical barrier
Um, because that's the definition of the word -- which is kinda why I said "by definition".
"Pathological narcissism" is my favourite way of expressing it (Otto or Igor someone -- this ain't a formal text, so I'm not bothering to look up attributions)
People who don't meet that definition ain't psychopaths, just like people who ain't got blond hair ain't blond (even if they go to great lengths and expense to fake it).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Um, because that's the definition of the word -- which is kinda why I said "by definition".
No, it's not. A psychopat will be nice and kind if it is in his or her interest.
Mark_Wallace wrote: "Pathological narcissism" is my favourite way of expressing it
A narcist and a psychopat are two different things.
Mark_Wallace wrote: People who don't meet that definition ain't psychopaths
Then psychopats don't exist
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: A psychopat will be nice and kind if it is in his or her interest.
Well, I'm glad we at least agree on that much.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: A narcist and a psychopat are two different things.
It was described as the highest form of narcissism (quite rightly, when you think about it) by an accepted high-order expert on the subject, named [take a breather whilst I search for the name] Otto Kernberg (Damn! I was hoping it was Igor something!)
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Then psychopats don't exist
Oh, they do.
But it can be very hard to tell whether you're talking to a genuinely good person, or a psychopath who's playing you.
I remember, going back a few years, there was a trial of a group-therapy thing, aimed at helping psychopaths to stop being psychopathic criminals, by, among other things, making them take part in role-play exercises where they (in theory) would learn to be a tad more selfless.
It was abandoned after two or three years (or maybe not even that long), because all it achieved was to teach them how to better pretend to be selfless.
Gun. Bang. Ow, my foot!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Well, I'm glad we at least agree on that much.
You didn't; according to you that was impossible, due to the definition.
Mark_Wallace wrote: It was described as the highest form of narcissism (quite rightly, when you think about it) by an accepted high-order expert on the subject, named [take a breather whilst I search for the name] Otto Kernberg (Damn! I was hoping it was Igor something!)
Meaning it is arrogant, not that a psychopath acts like a narcist.
Mark_Wallace wrote: But it can be very hard to tell whether you're talking to a genuinely good person, or a psychopath who's playing you.
Now you are claiming a psychopath cannot be a good person; while in the first paragraph of the post you agree that one would have good reason to.
Mark_Wallace wrote: aimed at helping psychopaths to stop being psychopathic criminals
Yes, because mental tendencies as categorized by DSM IV means the subject IS a criminal, regardless of past or actions taken 
Mark_Wallace wrote: all it achieved was to teach them how to better pretend to be selfless.
Which is what "normal" humans do. It is also simply good economics to ask the Garfield-question (what's in it for me?). You might say that evolution did not kill the psychopath because it has an evolutionary advantage.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Mark_Wallace wrote: Well, I'm glad we at least agree on that much.
You didn't; according to you that was impossible, due to the definition.
The Lounge[^]Eddy Vluggen wrote: Meaning it is arrogant, not that a psychopath acts like a narcist.
OK, I think you need to look up what narcissism is -- it's kinda the ancient Greek fable about self-love and arrogance.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Now you are claiming a psychopath cannot be a good person; while in the first paragraph of the post you agree that one would have good reason to.
Pretend to be, out of self-interest.
Doing good things exclusively for your own benefit is not the same thing as being a good person.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Yes, because mental tendencies as categorized by DSM IV means the subject IS a criminal, regardless of past or actions taken
Read this again:
Mark_Wallace wrote: aimed at helping psychopaths to stop being psychopathic criminals
And try not to intentionally misinterpret it, this time.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Which is what "normal" humans do
No, it is not.
I find it worrying that you think it is.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: The Lounge[^]
So, is or isn't it impossible for a psychopath to be altruistic? And done come with the argument "because the definition said so".
Mark_Wallace wrote: OK, I think you need to look up what narcissism is -- it's kinda the ancient Greek fable about self-love and arrogance.
I've been accused often enough to know what it is
Mark_Wallace wrote: Pretend to be, out of self-interest.
Doing good things exclusively for your own benefit is not the same thing as being a good person.
Aw, so now your motivation makes you a "good" person? The amount of thieves in a population is limited to the 1% of psychopats?
Mark_Wallace wrote: And try not to intentionally misinterpret it, this time.
Simply pointing out that you are en passant stating that all psychopats are criminals.
Mark_Wallace wrote: No, it is not.
I find it worrying that you think it is.
There is no such thing as being "selfless". You go bless yourself
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Simply pointing out that you are en passant stating that all psychopats are criminals.
* sigh *
I said nothing of the kind, and you appear to be simply arguing for argument's sake; intentionally misinterpreting my very precise words
I suppose that that is one rung up from my having to argue with what is "carefully researched by going to wikipedia", but it is still utterly pointless.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote:
I said nothing of the kind
After the lenthy explanation on how they're no good?
Mark_Wallace wrote: you appear to be simply arguing for argument's sake
No, pissed for the black and white verdict.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: a photocopy of your proof of identity.
...
How, exactly, will a photograph of me prove my identity, when you don't know what I look like?
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but "she" never requested a photograph, only a photo of your proof of identity, which could be anything, including a photograph.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. On checking, it's the first time (in the almost 50 messages) that the word "photocopy" was used. Most of them demand a photographic copy of my passport AND a current photograph.
I suppose that, by that time, the sentences referring to it had all blurred together, in my mind, so I just skimmed over it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Needed a code fragment to do "blah"? So you Google it, and the top link is an article or tip on CP?
Follow the link, read the words, looks like it's exactly what you want.
Then you notice you wrote the article four years ago ...  
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Had that once...
And just yesterday someone asked me "do you know how to do that in SQL?" and I just said "Google my name" and pointed him to one of the top results (my CP articles page) 
|
|
|
|
|
Embarrassing, isn't it?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I think it's kind of cool 
Sometimes you have a problem, you Google, and someone has the answer and you think "this guy's my hero today!"
Now I get to be my own hero 
A while ago some coworkers were Googling for something and they stumbled upon my blog.
It didn't help them as my blog was now outdated (I wrote it like two months earlier, friggin' fast moving technology) and they needed the newest version, but it's pretty cool to be one of those guys you find when you Google for solutions
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Then you notice you wrote the article four years ago ...
4 years ago? I've had that in mere months.
Then again going to admit sometimes on purpose...
Now back before google if I solved something I might have thought to myself: damn that's good, I should remember this, perhaps even making some sort of bookmark, i.e. //SPECIAL-COMMENT-FOR-FUTURE (though usually just a mental note).
Months/years later: damned if I can remember where I did X, ok, I added a comment, lets search for IMPORTANT_COMMENT ... yeah, results not so good.
Nowadays:
stuck on something... lets try google: yup, found some OK-ish solutions. but after seeing how they did (or even just describe the issue) figure out my own better way (or not).
OK post it into CP (or lets face it, onto SO)
Guess what, when I want to remember I'll just google it back. Nicely categorised, and quite fast too.
Yeah using message boards as a personal repository - is that a bad thing?
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. Sucks.
It wasn't an article but a question I asked. - that's worse.
modified 23-Feb-19 19:25pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't been working long enough to forget things.
So far it has been recalled from memory. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's what you get from being so prolific 
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, I keep hitting OG's articles. 
|
|
|
|
|
I usually search through my main project for "Richard" they both have numerous code snippets in there and usually cover most issues I have 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
