Are you a psychopath?

Message boards : Politics : Are you a psychopath?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1614375 - Posted: 15 Dec 2014, 21:53:41 UTC - in response to Message 1614273.  

Nice link. Here's a question then: -

How many atheists married in church?



Many, it has become a tradition rather than a belief.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1614375 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1614379 - Posted: 15 Dec 2014, 22:02:18 UTC - in response to Message 1614273.  

Nice link. Here's a question then: -

How many atheists married in church?

Oh please. Are we going to have the marriage debate all over? Besides it is a loaded question. You assume both parties are atheist. You assume a jurisdiction where the officiant can be other than a priest. Your real question should be does that church recognize a marriage of an atheist?
ID: 1614379 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1614423 - Posted: 15 Dec 2014, 23:09:07 UTC - in response to Message 1614379.  

Nice link. Here's a question then: -

How many atheists married in church?

Oh please. Are we going to have the marriage debate all over? Besides it is a loaded question. You assume both parties are atheist. You assume a jurisdiction where the officiant can be other than a priest. Your real question should be does that church recognize a marriage of an atheist?

I haven't assumed anything, perhaps you have? It was a tongue-in-cheek question.
ID: 1614423 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1614431 - Posted: 15 Dec 2014, 23:18:29 UTC - in response to Message 1614423.  

Nice link. Here's a question then: -

How many atheists married in church?

Oh please. Are we going to have the marriage debate all over? Besides it is a loaded question. You assume both parties are atheist. You assume a jurisdiction where the officiant can be other than a priest. Your real question should be does that church recognize a marriage of an atheist?

I haven't assumed anything, perhaps you have? It was a tongue-in-cheek question.

Then you needed an emoji.
ID: 1614431 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1614450 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 0:21:10 UTC - in response to Message 1614247.  

Religions have had their own share of psychopaths - yet often fail to recognise that. To listen to many of them - Dawkins belongs to a whole group of them.

Every sufficiently large group inevitably has psychopaths included in them. It has nothing to do with the group or what it stands for, its just simple statistics. Religion might not recognize the psychopaths that are a part of their group, but other groups will be just as bad at recognizing them.

With regards polarisation leading to shouting matches... that usually occurs when irrefutably painful truths do NOT want to be accepted for what they are. You can't blame Dawkins for that.

I'm not blaming him for what he's saying, I'm blaming him for how he is saying it. Look, if you wanna convince people that their world view that is deeply linked to their identity is flawed or wrong, you need understand that going up to a person and telling them that in their face is extremely counter productive. It not only fails to convince people, it will make them actively resist anything you are trying to tell them, and they will start to avoid or actively oppose what you are telling. If you fail to recognize this basic truth about educating people, as Dawkins has so clearly done, to me it means he should have stuck to the science and leave it to other people to convince people that evolution is the truth.

Its also why I think scientists, especially those from the natural sciences would be horrible politicians. Bluntness like that doesn't get you very far in politics.
ID: 1614450 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1614462 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 1:00:09 UTC

well well who's idea to put this thread up ....

my score

58

Though your conscience is in the right place you also have a pragmatic streak and generally aren’t afraid to do your own dirty work! You’re no shrinking violet - but no daredevil either. You generally have little trouble seeing things from another person’s perspective but, at the same time, are no pushover. ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life.

In other words i'm a !unt...! :)))))
ID: 1614462 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1614467 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 1:08:41 UTC - in response to Message 1614462.  

Naw mate, in today's society, you'd make an excellent copper or squaddie :-)
ID: 1614467 · Report as offensive
Profile celttooth
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 99
Posts: 26503
Credit: 28,583,098
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1614471 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 1:20:10 UTC - in response to Message 1614462.  

‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life.


So they are saying that you are a cheep date?


ID: 1614471 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1614609 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 11:01:03 UTC - in response to Message 1614450.  
Last modified: 16 Dec 2014, 11:06:18 UTC

Religions have had their own share of psychopaths - yet often fail to recognise that. To listen to many of them - Dawkins belongs to a whole group of them.

Every sufficiently large group inevitably has psychopaths included in them. It has nothing to do with the group or what it stands for, its just simple statistics. Religion might not recognize the psychopaths that are a part of their group, but other groups will be just as bad at recognizing them.


No-no-no, not so fast and not so easy. That could convice only those who "don't believe in evolution", really :) But for those who know what natural selection about your argument is very weak one. Yep, every large enough population have "mutants" (psychopats in this particular case). But then natural selection comes into the play. The statement is: the religion serves as positive selection for psychopats. Deal with this statement, not just with large polupation per se ;).


With regards polarisation leading to shouting matches... that usually occurs when irrefutably painful truths do NOT want to be accepted for what they are. You can't blame Dawkins for that.

I'm not blaming him for what he's saying, I'm blaming him for how he is saying it. Look, if you wanna convince people that their world view that is deeply linked to their identity is flawed or wrong, you need understand that going up to a person and telling them that in their face is extremely counter productive. It not only fails to convince people, it will make them actively resist anything you are trying to tell them, and they will start to avoid or actively oppose what you are telling. If you fail to recognize this basic truth about educating people, as Dawkins has so clearly done, to me it means he should have stuck to the science and leave it to other people to convince people that evolution is the truth.

Its also why I think scientists, especially those from the natural sciences would be horrible politicians. Bluntness like that doesn't get you very far in politics.

[/quote]
Fair enough, providing the aim is to convince those who so deep into religion as you assume. But there are numbers (and these numbers exceed both religious and atheist I think) of not so religious peoples that support religion and its power just by inertia, as usual tradition and so on. To get attention of such peoples near scandal approach that enlighten by media widely can be the best one! Get attention is the first and hardest part, all advertisment system is about that.
Say, how many would know Dawkins name if he would act as you propose? Now almost whole world know him :P

EDIT: btw, not only advertisment, all politics about that also!!! You say Dawkins will be bad potitical. But look how many real politicials do quite radical statement just to get public attention... Not underestimate this.
ID: 1614609 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1614616 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 11:33:22 UTC - in response to Message 1614609.  

No-no-no, not so fast and not so easy. That could convice only those who "don't believe in evolution", really :) But for those who know what natural selection about your argument is very weak one. Yep, every large enough population have "mutants" (psychopats in this particular case). But then natural selection comes into the play. The statement is: the religion serves as positive selection for psychopats. Deal with this statement, not just with large polupation per se ;).

So does religion attract more psychopaths than other social institutions? Probably not. Religion does not give intrinsic benefits to psychopaths. In fact, one might argue that religion rejects psychopaths. After all, psychopaths can't feel emotions while the greatest benefits a religion gives you are in the field of emotions. As such, psychopaths attracted to a religion will probably only do so because they are either raised that this is proper way of living or because there are clear benefits to be seen as religious by other people.

But in more secular societies where religion has become more of a personal experience than some social ritual, psychopaths probably are less inclined to bother with it.


Fair enough, providing the aim is to convince those who so deep into religion as you assume. But there are numbers (and these numbers exceed both religious and atheist I think) of not so religious peoples that support religion and its power just by inertia, as usual tradition and so on. To get attention of such peoples near scandal approach that enlighten by media widely can be the best one! Get attention is the first and hardest part, all advertisment system is about that.
Say, how many would know Dawkins name if he would act as you propose? Now almost whole world know him :P

Those not so religious people are generally also not creationists because they are smart enough to realize that science and religion can go hand in hand quite easily. Dawkins doesn't need to convince them that he is right about evolution because those people already accept evolution as scientific truth and not in conflict with their religious believes. On the other hand, thanks to Dawkins blunt approach by basically equating all Christians with creationists, he is pushing a lot of moderate religious believers to oppose him and his message. Again, he is polarizing and that also means widening the gap between people who accept evolution and people who do not accept evolution.

EDIT: btw, not only advertisment, all politics about that also!!! You say Dawkins will be bad potitical. But look how many real politicials do quite radical statement just to get public attention... Not underestimate this.

Those radical politicians either do not try to convince anyone, and simply say those shocking things to get attention, or they do believe it but they never get anything done. In both cases however, they are not good politicians, because even when you say stuff just for attention, you build up a reputation that will hinder you getting things done later.
ID: 1614616 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1614625 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:05:12 UTC - in response to Message 1614616.  


So does religion attract more psychopaths than other social institutions?

Yes, it does. And not probably but actually. For confirmation just look for history and meaning of this term: yurodivy, "God's fool".
Religion serves as positive selection for many mental illnesses. It's the medical fact :)
Many such cases described in literature.



Those not so religious people are generally also not creationists because they are smart enough to realize that science and religion can go hand in hand quite easily. Dawkins doesn't need to convince them that he is right about evolution because those people already accept evolution as scientific truth and not in conflict with their religious believes.

Fact or wishful thinking? I would be glad if it will be so but afraid it's not.


On the other hand, thanks to Dawkins blunt approach by basically equating all Christians with creationists, he is pushing a lot of moderate religious believers to oppose him and his message.

This rises good question: what is "moderate Christian" is? Those who identify themselves as christians w/o really knowing what is this? Perhaps so. Well, will be good for them to think about... just as in popular sentence in Russia from old times "I did not read Pasternak, but condemn him too"... I don't think that such equality sign between christian and creationist is wrong sign. That's true, how one can be christian and not to be creationist? Only if he doesn't understand what is christianity is (as religion, not as complex of moral rules, let make this clear from the start). So, not bad to get attention, not bad... Maybe some logic will return to those "moderate" ones.


Again, he is polarizing and that also means widening the gap between people who accept evolution and people who do not accept evolution.

Yep, gap increasing. And gap should be wide, indeed. So wide that at some point to "not accept evolution" will be real nonsense! Gap should increase!
Think about it as gap between base and excited energy levels in atom ;)


Those radical politicians either do not try to convince anyone, and simply say those shocking things to get attention, or they do believe it but they never get anything done. In both cases however, they are not good politicians, because even when you say stuff just for attention, you build up a reputation that will hinder you getting things done later.

The facts say opposite. They have own agenda and got finanses very well for their agenda. Even if some peoples dishonour them. You mix 2 areas here: those who look for reputation and radicalism not needed to be convinced about evolution as rule of thumb :) And crowd we discussed earlier as main driving force for politic (remember own conclusion regarding that astrophysisist) - crowd likes hot news ...
ID: 1614625 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1614649 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:46:04 UTC - in response to Message 1614471.  

So they are saying that you are a cheep date?


hahahahahaha

no actually i'm a romatic at hart .

A typical date with me would be dinner at the seafood resturant in the Rocks in sydney (very expensive) followed buy a ferry ride to manly (30 mins) and then a walk on manly beach , a ride back on the ferry then off to a night club , and then back to the hotel (Hilton or Hyat Regency) and a champene breakfast.

And i am not bullshitting (it's probably why my ex still try's to contact me after 20 yrs)
She cost me a small fortune so guys don't be romatic it costs to much and never make the mistake of buying flowers every payday . First time you stop all hell breaks lose as the woman will think you stopped loving her (rolling eyes)
ID: 1614649 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1614658 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:24:04 UTC

My score is 36%

Though your conscience is in the right place you also have a pragmatic streak and generally aren’t afraid to do your own dirty work! You’re no shrinking violet - but no daredevil either. You generally have little trouble seeing things from another person’s perspective but, at the same time, are no pushover. ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life.
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1614658 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1614668 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:36:59 UTC - in response to Message 1614658.  

So Robert if you score less than me but get the same description as i did , does that mean the test is crap ? or you put your score with my description .

At what score are you a psychopath then .

Darn i thought i scored high enough to be a nutter , darn i'm gona have to be careful i mite lose my pension then as that will be Abbott's next move to refuse a pension unless your a bona fide nutter .
ID: 1614668 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1614677 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:54:03 UTC - in response to Message 1614673.  

Clyde don't know about America but over here the church is bringing in counselling for priests . Something about the vow of celibacy causing the priests to molest children .
So there not psychopath's then , but can't control there urges without counselling .

But then this is the response to the Royal Commission into child abuse witch is continuing right now over here .
ID: 1614677 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1614678 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:01:28 UTC - in response to Message 1614625.  

Yes, it does. And not probably but actually. For confirmation just look for history and meaning of this term: yurodivy, "God's fool".
Religion serves as positive selection for many mental illnesses. It's the medical fact :)
Many such cases described in literature.

Most of those cases from times when mental illnesses where not understood as they are today and times when the vast majority of people where religious. Again, the only reason this is the case is statistical inevitability. If 90% of the people are religious, then chances are that 90% of the people with a mental illness are religious. More so when you take the socio economic factors into account that determine who is religious and who is most likely to get a mental illness. Does religion therefor attract mental illnesses? Hell no, there is absolutely no proof to support such a notion. All you got is correlation, but as everyone should know, correlation does not equal causation.


Fact or wishful thinking? I would be glad if it will be so but afraid it's not.

Except that the Catholic church has officially stated that evolution is in fact a fact. And there are plenty more moderate churches that accept science as fact and don't bother with creationism. In pretty much every Western, Christian dominated country creationists only make up a minority of the people. So the idea that creationism is widespread among religious people is just utter nonsense.

This rises good question: what is "moderate Christian" is? Those who identify themselves as christians w/o really knowing what is this? Perhaps so. Well, will be good for them to think about... just as in popular sentence in Russia from old times "I did not read Pasternak, but condemn him too"... I don't think that such equality sign between christian and creationist is wrong sign. That's true, how one can be christian and not to be creationist? Only if he doesn't understand what is christianity is (as religion, not as complex of moral rules, let make this clear from the start). So, not bad to get attention, not bad... Maybe some logic will return to those "moderate" ones.

What is a Christian? Well anyone who believes Christ is his Lord and Savior and who died on the cross for humanities sins. If you believe that, you are a Christian. It says absolutely nothing about having to believe that the Bible is literal world history. I would argue that every Church that does not take its bible literal, and who accepts that science and religion are not mutually exclusive are moderates.

Which says a lot about Atheists, given how Atheists for the most part believe that science and religion are indeed mutually exclusive, and argue that true Christians take their bibles literally.

Yep, gap increasing. And gap should be wide, indeed. So wide that at some point to "not accept evolution" will be real nonsense! Gap should increase!
Think about it as gap between base and excited energy levels in atom ;)

The bigger the gap, the more difficult you make it for people to cross the gap to come to your side. What Dawkins does is not to convince people that evolution is a fact, but to ensure that Creationism will be around for at least another generation. So in effect, Dawkins is successfully ensuring the human race remains more ignorant about science than it perhaps would have been if he had kept his mouth shut. Good job scoring a goal for the other team.

The facts say opposite. They have own agenda and got finanses very well for their agenda. Even if some peoples dishonour them. You mix 2 areas here: those who look for reputation and radicalism not needed to be convinced about evolution as rule of thumb :) And crowd we discussed earlier as main driving force for politic (remember own conclusion regarding that astrophysisist) - crowd likes hot news ...

Being a good politician goes beyond simply being well known. It also means you get your interests represented. A controversial politician will have a hard time getting his interests represented because no one likes working with controversial figures.
ID: 1614678 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1614696 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:40:40 UTC - in response to Message 1614677.  

Clyde don't know about America but over here the church is bringing in counselling for priests . Something about the vow of celibacy causing the priests to molest children .
So there not psychopath's then , but can't control there urges without counselling .

But then this is the response to the Royal Commission into child abuse witch is continuing right now over here .

Anyone willing to take a vow of celibacy is a sexual deviant, psychiatry is just to terrified to put that on paper because of the power of the church.
ID: 1614696 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1614698 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:43:06 UTC - in response to Message 1614691.  

wasn't shore Clyde where you are coming from .

I do think the churches do have more psychopath's in it but not so much religion but stupidness of forgiving to much , the bible does not say you just forgive , there are punishments for crimes .

Just because you may be a psychopath does not mean your bad or evil all it means is you can't feel emotions the same as others , you have to be a socialpath too to be dangerous aka : a killer
ID: 1614698 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1614702 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:46:48 UTC - in response to Message 1614698.  

Just because you may be a psychopath does not mean your bad or evil all it means is you can't feel emotions the same as others , you have to be a socialpath too to be dangerous aka : a killer

Think you got that the wrong way round...

Differences
ID: 1614702 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1614705 - Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:52:38 UTC - in response to Message 1614668.  

So Robert if you score less than me but get the same description as i did , does that mean the test is crap ? or you put your score with my description .

At what score are you a psychopath then .

Darn i thought i scored high enough to be a nutter , darn i'm gona have to be careful i mite lose my pension then as that will be Abbott's next move to refuse a pension unless your a bona fide nutter .


This is the description given to me by the test. I think we can assume there are only three descriptions.

1) Innocent as a newborn
2) Normal
3) Dick Cheney
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1614705 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Are you a psychopath?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.