• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Brain of a Lifelong Bully...

I have often said that putting Trump's brain on the edge of a razor blade would be similar to depositing a pea on the Santa Monica Freeway.

Now I can see there is some proof of it. Funny, but I always had said that as a joke or insult to the person in question. But it is apparently true.
 
We should probably make a more generic test for this condition ... and then maybe not let them vote in elections? Or be electable? Almost kidding.. Also be testing for the MAOA gene, I think there is certain kinds of people who dont necessarily fit into the "of the people by the people for the people" algorithm. Or at least make them wear an armband arm with some designated symbol that lets us identify these "people" from a distance. Again. Almost not kidding.
We could keep em in camps or cages.
KIDDING.
/s.
 
cytg111 said:
We should probably make a more generic test for this condition ... and then maybe not let them vote in elections? Or be electable? Almost kidding.. Also be testing for the MAOA gene, I think there is certain kinds of people who dont necessarily fit into the "of the people by the people for the people" algorithm. Or at least make them wear an armband arm with some designated symbol that lets us identify these "people" from a distance. Again. Almost not kidding.
We could keep em in camps or cages.
KIDDING.
/s.
Click to expand...

There's a serious ethical problem based on health concerns here along with the philosophical.

I have an innate dislike of bullies and always have. People who choose to harm others because of pleasure, the desire for control, the abusers of people whether they be President or street thug (and thugs isn't a race in this context).

But

How much is choice, free will for them and as a society that collectively and hopefully better than these, what can and should do? In olden times they became leaders or bosses or were killed outright, however it seems this is a natural thing for some.

So what should be done when harm is biologically hardwired in?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
There's a serious ethical problem based on health concerns here along with the philosophical.

I have an innate dislike of bullies and always have. People who choose to harm others because of pleasure, the desire for control, the abusers of people whether they be President or street thug (and thugs isn't a race in this context).

But

How much is choice, free will for them and as a society that collectively and hopefully better than these, what can and should do? In olden times they became leaders or bosses or were killed outright, however it seems this is a natural thing for some.

So what should be done when harm is biologically hardwired in?
Click to expand...
Test for it in the womb, like with Downs syndrome and the like... and give the parents some options.
 
It's been my observance that, like gunslingers of the old west, sooner or later somebody's going to come along and beat you no matter how tough or how fast you are. I've seen it too many times where I have come to the conclusion that bullies eventually get bullied right back at them and when they do, karma comes a-calling with a vengeance that produces really messy results.

Usually, the bully picks on the wrong victim at the wrong time in the wrong place and gets a hard painful lesson in discretion being the better part of stupid, especially where family or group pride comes into play.

Wuzzat say'in where it went sumth'in like "You can bully all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time , but you can't bully all of the people all of the time."

Not saying all bullies get their just due because there are those that are clever enough to get away with their shit for awhile, but eventually, one way or another, they get what's coming to them.

edit - Not meaning to turn this thread political in any way, but Trump is a perfect example of a bully and the problems they get themselves into being that way.
 
"Antisocial behavior" is an odd label. I expected this subject to be talking about introverts. People who feel stress in social settings. Not... criminals.
 
Jaskalas said:
"Antisocial behavior" is an odd label. I expected this subject to be talking about introverts. People who feel stress in social settings. Not... criminals.
Click to expand...

Introverts don’t feel stressed in social settings, they just have their energy drained quicker. It’s due to being over stimulated. Loud music and flashing lights can have a similar affect.
 
nakedfrog said:
It would be more accurate to describe introverts as asocial versus antisocial, IMO.
Click to expand...


I don't think either of those are correct. Introverts have no problems having deep conversations or interacting with others if the conversation is meaningful. Its the small talk that they do not like.
Introverts simply don't have the need to interact with people and are perfectly content with being a fly on the wall.
 
ivwshane said:
I don't think either of those are correct. Introverts have no problems having deep conversations or interacting with others if the conversation is meaningful. Its the small talk that they do not like.
Introverts simply don't have the need to interact with people and are perfectly content with being a fly on the wall.
Click to expand...

so, asocial.
 
I'm suspicious of such ideas. For starters, surely the definition of something like 'anti social behaviour' depends very strongly on the nature of the society you are in? Is it really an objectively scientifically measurable category?

They included 'stealing' and 'getting into physical fights' - what if the society in you have grown up in has 'getting into physical fights' as part of everyday cultural norms? What if your entire society is based on stealing (as in slavery-era US or Europe when the colonial powers were looting the rest of the globe)? Does everyone in those societies have the same smaller brain trait?

Seems like there are a _lot_ of ways such research could involve mis-analysis. Causation vs correlation being the obvious one - how do they know the brain differences aren't caused by the same social factors that are associated with alleged 'anti social traits'? Or that the anti-social traits cause the brain changes directly?

I notice they do acknowledge precisely that point and admit they can't prove how causation runs, but don't seem to give it the weight it merits. Which seems quite typical of these reductionist biological explanations of things. I'm also suspicious as to how solid their statistics are, given that there's usually an ideological agenda involved in even looking for such an explanation.

And a small population of people in New Zealand isn't necessarily representative of the whole human race - how much social and genetic diversity is there in that sample?

When they say "“It is also these individuals who are generally capable of reform and go on to become valuable members of society" I wonder how they define 'valuable members of society'. Isn't that a subjective judgement?

Maybe it's one of those things that is true in a subset of extreme cases, as physical trauma to the brain certainly causes behavioural changes, but it seems wide open to over-interpretation.
 
zinfamous said:
so, asocial.
Click to expand...

Not according to the dictionary definition:

Asocial: avoiding social interaction; inconsiderate of or hostile to others.

They don’t avoid social interaction nor are they inconsiderate or hostile to others. They simply find small talk draining/tiresome. They are also considered very easy to talk to and good listeners because they usually speak when they have something thoughtful to add.
 
Trump's pathology -- "Narcissistic personality disorder" or in the extreme "malignant narcissism" -- occurs within 10% of the population. In Hollywood, there would be a disproportionate percentage. They can find their way into upper-tier management positions or even teaching. I know this firsthand. I have been "recovering" for about 10 or 15 years . . .

While we live in a culture of narcissism and a larger percentage of the population exhibit various narcissistic traits, the extremes are insidious. Fritz Lang, the German filmmaker, had produced a silent movie during the late 1920s featuring Peter Lorre as a serial child-killer: "Der Kinder Mord" or "M". The narcissist aspects of sociopathy often manifest themselves in the subject's inclination to tease his police-pursuers by leaving clues. It becomes an "I'm-smarter-than-you-are" sort of game.

He can then look back on his crimes with greater satisfaction, savoring his risk-taking successes. For this, he may also take trophies.

Trump does much the same thing. He blurts out in public exhortations with a treasonous implication, like "Russia -- if your listening! . . . "You can think of dozens more examples for the Putin-President and his "Henker" -- henchmen. Likes attract likes, so it is understandable that Hitler's entourage all exhibited similar narcissistic traits.

CIA would immediately refuse a disordered applicant under testing. Narcissists are often tempted to spill the beans -- about themselves, about their work, about things that are matters of secrecy or national security.

It would stand to reason that bullying behavior would accompany this other aspect. The narcissist on the outside may appear confident. On the inside, there's a deficit of self-esteem. Thus it is with bullies.

I submit this question of my own, having heard something from the television from a Trump biographer. Is it true, that at a pre-adolescent age, he had grabbed a smaller child by the ankle and hung him outside a second-story window to savor the child's screams?

There is a sadistic dimension in the lust for revenge.
 
ivwshane said:
Not according to the dictionary definition:

Asocial: avoiding social interaction; inconsiderate of or hostile to others.

They don’t avoid social interaction nor are they inconsiderate or hostile to others. They simply find small talk draining/tiresome. They are also considered very easy to talk to and good listeners because they usually speak when they have something thoughtful to add.
Click to expand...
It does appear it's considered a synonym in some places, when it really shouldn't be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top