Where is the US economy headed?

I hope that you will take into consideration that when I speak of sociopaths that I am not doing it in a demeaning way. I look at sociopaths the same way I view deaf, blind and many other people. They have no control over their perceptions.

How do you presume to know that????

I agree; I don't understand how anyone can presume about another individual's perceptions.

LOL. That's ripe coming from you, CI.

Regularly patronising whole continents with your "holier-than-thou"attitude.

Thanks for the belly-laugh. Bonus.

I am only saying that when a person lacks certain sensors such as the eyes, they are not able to have a clear idea of what the color blue looks like and no matter how hard you try to describe the color blue to them it will not be what me and you are able to see.

I see sociopaths having similar problems. Just as you have blind people at one end of the spectrum and people who have 20/20 vision at the other, you have people with many different degrees of vision problems such as color blind or needing glasses of different strenghts. There are alot more people in the world wearing glasses than there are comepletely blind.

I think that sociopathy is similar but you can not order a pair of glasses to help correct lesser degrees sociopathy.

Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to fabricate a mental representation through the process of transduction, which sensors in the body transform signals from the environment into encoded neural signals.[1] All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs.[2] For example, vision involves light striking the retinas of the eyes, smell is mediated by odor molecules and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but can be shaped by learning, memory and expectation.[3][4] Perception involves these "top-down" effects as well as the "bottom-up" process of processing sensory input.[4] The "bottom-up" processing is basically low-level information that's used to build up higher-level information (i.e. - shapes for object recognition). The "top-down" processing refers to a person's concept and expectations (knowledge) that influence perception. Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.[2]

Since the rise of experimental psychology in the late 19th Century, psychology's understanding of perception has progressed by combining a variety of techniques.[3] Psychophysics measures the effect on perception of varying the physical qualities of the input. Sensory neuroscience studies the brain mechanisms underlying perception.

I did explain.



Are your perceptions not up to understanding such simple language? According to you that is the mark of the sociopath.

How would your precious ethicals have built the thousands of miles of rail-road that united the nation? That needed the Jay Goulds of this world not a bunch of fops waving their compassionate arms around at a ladies' coffee morning. There are as many ethicals as there are solipsistic demands. If they hadn't the mean and corrupt progress makers to feel superior to they would be fighting like cats in a sack.

That was my thought as well but I was looking for a confirmation Of posible sociopathy or not.

From my understanding you added clairity to my understanding by this last quote of yours.



Ok so you have very litle interest in sociology or psychology but do you think that this is the best way for humanity to progress?
I am not claiming that things have not evolved in the way that you have suggested but rather what I am asking is if you could explain in a scientific way how sosiopathy is a better aproach in solving our current problems.

Are you also willing to make the same claims for slavery? I have heard many arguments that slavery was a good thing. If you think that it was good as well then I would like you to address this issue rather than taking a cowardly approach to avoid it.

Interesting speculations about human perceptions and their potential effects on behavior. However I think you take the perception metaphor a good deal too far into the realm of brain activity, and behavior. Moreover human behavior is far from well-understood. Our behavior and the workings of our minds are, as well, influenced by the choices we make and the effects they have on our fate and on our subsequent perceptions and thoughts. None of these things are well understood, and even the recent discoveries that have been made about the various roles of different sections of our brains, and the more general dynamics of neural networks don't come close to any deterministic model for behavior. Moreover, even if we did have a near complete understanding of the workings of our senses and minds, it is very likely that we would still not have the ability to predict specific behaviors. Determinism does not ensure predictability - either about human behavior or the future paths of hurricanes or even the stabiulity of planetary orbits.

The term "sociopath" is simply a descriptive tag for an observable tendency to certain affects and behaviors. However that is very far from a model for behavior.

You are building a house on very loose sand.

You have contradicted yourself in your first paragraph about blind people. Since some sighted people cannot distinguish correct color, what's the difference?

Human "perception" is very subjective; that's the reason why people seeing the same thing can have different interpretations of what they "see."

I'm going to disagree with your thesis on this subject.

I am not exactly sure where you read me making a claim or suggesting that sighted people can distinguish correct color all of the time especially when there are so many shades of color and even when you have people picking common colors in certain lighting conditions or from different view points they can get it wrong at times. I was not claiming that we do not have subjective experiences but rather that we do.
I will add that I do think that some of our experiences are closer to reality than others.

I think that the statistical odds of a some what normal sighted person getting it correct more often than not may say something more about reality than what a color blind person's subjective experiences to colors would.

On wind and piss George. Just take a look at his last post. I'm a bit surprised that you allow American men to present a picture of themselves in the manner rl does without you having something to say about it.

What rl knows about sociology, psychology, sociopathy, slavery, evolution and good manners could be written on a pin-head with a jack-hammer.

Let me guess. This is your is your cowardly approach to the below question that I asked?

A sign of the direction of things.

Last night on the BBC's flagship current affairs programme a bevy of beauties, five in number, 30 to 40 at a guess. did a sort of salon on the European Debt Crisis. Kirsty Walk of the BBC in the chair with Gillian Tett, assistant editor of the Financial Times, Helena Morrissey the CEO of an investment bank, Emma Duncan the deputy editor of The Economist and Mariana Mazzucato the Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex. Three sets of thighs catching the eye.

A few snippets --"if only we could find a way of . . . ." "I think that at the moment we are actually treading on a knife edge". One nation, I forget which, was "walking a tightrope". It seems that "we need a stable regulatory background".

No blokes. Half an hour. Drivel from start to finish. Most amusing.

Switching over later I found Caroline Kennedy claiming to be a Catholic woman and going into bat for abortion on demand and the rest of the less important liberal agenda on sexual behaviour. O'Reilly nearly busted a gut. Old Rove had to calm him down.

I feel quite confident in saying rl that slavery was a good thing for some people and not so good for others. I imagine that most black people today are very glad of what happened to their forbears.

I know that the US government set up a repatriation programme to relocate slaves and ex-slaves to Liberia with free passage and a lump sum to get started with. Very few of them took up the offer preferring to remain in America. About 1000 in the 8 years before the policy was abandoned.

You're the coward. Throwing out these words with no beef and your position indefinite although characterised by vague and unreal good intentions and sweeping hand gestures. And frightened to death of reading the book I recommended you read in case it drives you to the conclusion that you're a silly sod which is the conclusion I reached long ago.

Being that you have one hell of an imagination I am not shocked that you would imagine "most black people today being very glad of what happened to their forbears."




Yep just like it could be a good thing for someone to rob you of all of your savings but not so good for you. It could teach a valuable lesson about why stealing from others is wrong, "just like if you were to enslave the slave master for the rest of his life.

Ask a few. 10 should be enough.



That is not what I meant and you know it. I meant that it is impossible to answer the question whether slavery was a good thing or not. It's a silly question and a cowardly one to ask. It tries to take a morally superior position on history without bothering to offer your own view. A form of social bushwhacking which is the sneaky, cowardly, yellow-bellied gambit that you specialise in. You can't answer your own question.

If that was not what you meant then what were you meaning?

Answer your own question.

From a Darwinian perspective slavery was a good thing because it promoted African genetic material into new regions. It extended the domain of that genetic material.

Really? So if someone came in the middle of the night and took you to a different country so that you could be their slave, "you still would not know whether it was a good thing or not?

Maybe you think that it is more of a subjective thing?

How about this then. If you were a young lad and one of your teachers that wore the long robe was making you into his sex slave several times a day but then another long robe teacher found out and took you from him and threaten to report the other teacher but instead relocated him.

Now this other teacher who is watching over you, he is a pedophile as well but he only has an interest in you once a day unlike your old sex slave master Does this mean that your new slavery is a good thing?