Josh T > Recent Status Updates

#7 - the friend who did me wrong, I decided not to be friends with, because of their poisonous self righteous high and mighty attitude and their desire to make me feel bad about everything I do.

I went out with a girl, briefly, whom they had a sociopathic interest in. He became enraged and told me I was stomping on his turf. The guy is gay, and the girl, a girl... me a straight guy... But he saw her as his.

#6 - now when I say these people exhibit the traits, Ireally mean it. They have no conscience. They feel no shame, no embarrassment. They can cut people out of their lives easily. They can do mean things and laugh about them. They have zero guilt. They exhibit an emotional hollowness that is profound. They are charismatic. But only one of them did me any wrong directly albeit rather innocuously (No longer friends).

Continuation 5 - The author invokes fear to sell the thesis of her book, that sociopaths, the 4%, are dangerous and you should avoid them at all costs because they mean you nothing but harm. Maybe.

I know a few people who exhibit all the traits of sociopathy. One was of the covetous variety, and also enjoyed doing everything to put me down, in spite of being a friend. But the others had no negative impact Iknow of.

Continuation 4 - So how can she say, 96% safe... if you account for things like drugs/alcohol/addiction/authoritarianism/rage or other extreme emotion... the world can LITERALLY.... NOT be 96% safe, when she herself discounts the aforementioned influences among others as causes for the 96% to do horrible things.

This book ISvery interesting, but this line of reasoning is DRIVEL. I had to stop and write this.

Continuation #3 - So if most of the 4% do not commit horrid crimes, and the 96% are conscience bound not to, unless something like alcohol/drugs/gangs/authoritarian_figure, etc acts in such a way to coerce a person to... what about the rest.

I should like to note that a lot of bad crap DOES happen because of people who are NOT sociopaths. In my own life I can cite endless examples from petty to more extreme

Continuing on with her bastardization of math and statistics...

So the world is 96% safe? She implies that the conscience bound do not perform the worst crimes and that the 4% (sociopaths) would do this. Yet she contracted herself when clearly stating that most sociopaths (that 4%) don't perform horrifying crimes.

So how the bloody... how can she say 96% safe.

I feel obligated to point out that at this point, the authors argument has completely deteriorated. She claims 4% of people are sociopaths and that most of the worst crimes are likely commited by them.But she also previously said in another chapter that most are harmless sociopaths

Furthermore, she claims the world is thus 96% safe. That is a clear bastardization of mathematics and statistics