Find out if you are good...or evil...

Started by mc ukrneal, December 10, 2015, 05:32:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mirror Image

I took the quiz (who knows why?) and I received 'infrequently vile' as my test result. :-\

drogulus

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

greg

Quote from: Mirror Image on March 21, 2019, 08:33:42 PM
I took the quiz (who knows why?) and I received 'infrequently vile' as my test result. :-\
Tbh that sounds completely accurate.  ;D  ;D  ;D

I scored moderately nefarious, but I looked at the questions again and I'm definitely sure that they are talking possible scenarios, or stuff I have no idea about- "Most people can be manipulated?" "You should wait for the right time to get back at people?"  ??? I don't know how to even answer those, so I hit agree and it gives me a high score...  :P

There's also a fourth factor, Sadism, which has recently been added to turn it into the Dark Tetrad. Pretty sure I'd score average or above average on that considering the times throughout my life where when I'm messing with people I don't want to stop, but keep going and thinking how satisfying it would be to tear them down- but then I stop since I realize how bad that is, and then everything is all good.  :P
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

greg

Quote from: drogulus on March 22, 2019, 10:17:04 AM
     Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath
   
Dude. I actually read about that guy some time ago.  8)
Funny that he didn't even know.  ;D
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

drogulus


Quote"You should wait for the right time to get back at people?"

     What, I should choose the wrong time? That seems dumber and not necessarily less evil.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Ghost of Baron Scarpia

Quote from: drogulus on March 22, 2019, 10:34:55 AM
     What, I should choose the wrong time? That seems dumber and not necessarily less evil.

Right, singularly un-insightful questions. These quizzes are supposed to ask questions that seem irrelevant, then you get the answer and you say, "how did they know."

This quiz can be replaced by:

1) Do you want to be rated as evil?   Strongly Disagree     Disagree    Neither Agree nor Disagree    Agree    Strongly Agree

2) Do you want to be rated as evil?   Strongly Disagree     Disagree    Neither Agree nor Disagree    Agree    Strongly Agree

3) Do you want to be rated as evil?   Strongly Disagree     Disagree    Neither Agree nor Disagree    Agree    Strongly Agree

4) Do you want to be rated as evil?   Strongly Disagree     Disagree    Neither Agree nor Disagree    Agree    Strongly Agree

5) Do you want to be rated as evil?   Strongly Disagree     Disagree    Neither Agree nor Disagree    Agree    Strongly Agree


greg

You two are dead-on. This is a fairly popular test, too.  :-\

Tbh I haven't heard of a satisfactory test for the other two traits, but the "trolley problem" (which I first heard about many years ago) still seems the most logical one for psychopathy.



QuoteWhat's the Big Idea?

The famous "trolley problem" was a psychological experiment developed by Philippa Foot that involved a railway trolley headed toward five people who can't get out of the way. These people will die unless you, the subject of this experiment, decide to divert the trolley onto another track. That decision comes with a cost. There is another person stuck on that track as well, and that person will die. What do you do?

Well, most people have little difficulty making the "utilitarian" choice of choosing to kill one person instead of five. However, the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson proposed a variation to the trolley problem, and the results of this test are quite different.

Thomson's variation is this: "You are standing behind a very large stranger on a footbridge above the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to heave the stranger over. He will fall to a certain death. But his considerable girth will block the trolley, saving five lives. Should you push him?"


The way I understood it-
don't hesitate to throw the guy: psychopath

hesitate, but throw the guy over anyways: normal

don't do anything: too empathetic to the point of backfiring
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

drogulus

Quote from: greg on March 23, 2019, 03:40:05 PM


The way I understood it-
don't hesitate to throw the guy: psychopath


    You have gots to be kidding!! The psychopath would just watch. The only way he'd push the guy is if there was nobody on the tracks.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

greg

Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2019, 03:46:51 PM
    You have gots to be kidding!! The psychopath would just watch. The only way he'd push the guy is if there was nobody on the tracks.
That is something that definitely crossed my mind. Wouldn't the psychopath just want the most damage done (aka letting the most people die)? Maybe this is also a flawed question.  ???

I'm finishing up a rewatch of my favorite anime (Higurashi no Naku Koro ni) and the backstory of the person who turns out to be the main villain (hot blonde, btw  :P) also had some traumatic childhood backstory- and it just seems like this is such a common trope for sociopaths.

Apparently the cutoff age to develop into a true sociopath is the age of 6. Luckily, I never experienced childhood trauma at any time in my life, though did go through parents' divorce, which I don't recall as being anywhere near traumatic. But I do wonder if there's any similar characteristic other people might have if they've had parents divorce before that age (I was like 4 or 5 at the time). All I remember is my dad saying some really pathetic stuff (telling me to tell my mom she broke his heart, etc.).  :D  :P
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

drogulus

Quote from: greg on March 23, 2019, 05:48:05 PM
That is something that definitely crossed my mind. Wouldn't the psychopath just want the most damage done (aka letting the most people die)? Maybe this is also a flawed question.  ???

I'm finishing up a rewatch of my favorite anime (Higurashi no Naku Koro ni) and the backstory of the person who turns out to be the main villain (hot blonde, btw  :P) also had some traumatic childhood backstory- and it just seems like this is such a common trope for sociopaths.

Apparently the cutoff age to develop into a true sociopath is the age of 6. Luckily, I never experienced childhood trauma at any time in my life, though did go through parents' divorce, which I don't recall as being anywhere near traumatic. But I do wonder if there's any similar characteristic other people might have if they've had parents divorce before that age (I was like 4 or 5 at the time). All I remember is my dad saying some really pathetic stuff (telling me to tell my mom she broke his heart, etc.).  :D  :P

     My right knee hurts, so we're even.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Ghost of Baron Scarpia

Quote from: greg on March 23, 2019, 03:40:05 PMTbh I haven't heard of a satisfactory test for the other two traits, but the "trolley problem" (which I first heard about many years ago) still seems the most logical one for psychopathy.

The way I understood it-
don't hesitate to throw the guy: psychopath

hesitate, but throw the guy over anyways: normal

don't do anything: too empathetic to the point of backfiring

The trolley problem is not meant to assess "psychopathy," it is meant to explore moral calculus or "normal" people.

The basic idea is that if you do nothing five people are killed but you were not directly involved. Perhaps you can reason that the blame is entirely on the negligence of the trolley company. If you throw the switch and divert the trolley to the track with one person you can argue that there is less loss of life, but that one person was killed as a direct result of your intervention. So the question is whether your direct involvement is needed for you to feel culpability. Would you feel just as bad for failing to save the five people as you would feel for causing the death of the one person on the other track?

I think you have your terminology mixed up. Psychopath is not really a technical term, but it is usually used to describe people with a dissociative disorder - hearing voices, hallucinations, delusions, detachment from objective reality. The amorality you seem to be discussing is normally described as sociopathic behavior.

greg

Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on March 23, 2019, 09:41:39 PM
The trolley problem is not meant to assess "psychopathy," it is meant to explore moral calculus or "normal" people.

The basic idea is that if you do nothing five people are killed but you were not directly involved. Perhaps you can reason that the blame is entirely on the negligence of the trolley company. If you throw the switch and divert the trolley to the track with one person you can argue that there is less loss of life, but that one person was killed as a direct result of your intervention. So the question is whether your direct involvement is needed for you to feel culpability. Would you feel just as bad for failing to save the five people as you would feel for causing the death of the one person on the other track?
It was originally introduced to me as a psychopath test (way back, maybe high school/middle school?) and that's how it was explained to me. But yeah, when I looked it up again just now it seems like originally it was designed to ask a moral question.

If it's a question of whether one is valuing the greater good, that just makes it even easier. I mean, five is greater than one (given they are all strangers), there really isn't much more to it than that.



Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on March 23, 2019, 09:41:39 PM
I think you have your terminology mixed up. Psychopath is not really a technical term, but it is usually used to describe people with a dissociative disorder - hearing voices, hallucinations, delusions, detachment from objective reality. The amorality you seem to be discussing is normally described as sociopathic behavior.
I think you need to double-check this, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
QuotePsychopathy is traditionally a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.[1] It is sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy. Different conceptions of psychopathy have been used throughout history that are only partly overlapping and may sometimes be contradictory.[2]

Psychopath and sociopath are both people with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). The difference is genetic (psychopath) vs. nurturing (people can develop into sociopaths if they are abused in their early years). I don't have a source for that statement, but it's based on what I've researched.

Perhaps the term "psychotic" is what you are thinking of? That might have something to do with a dissociative disorder, but that is completely different.

People with ASPD can appear to be completely normal and be very charming, etc. but there's warning signs if you pay attention. The main thing is the complete lack of fear and empathy, a blatant disregard for their own safety and the safety of others. I watched some videos on youtube about whether Jake Paul (and you could probably include Logan Paul as well) on the hotly debated topic of whether he is a psycho/sociopath, and man, he really checks all the boxes. I'm pretty convinced he is.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Ghost of Baron Scarpia

Yes, I was conflating psychopath with psychotic.

greg

Check this out:
https://www.quora.com/Socipathic-People-How-would-you-describe-socipathy-to-people-who-are-not-sociopathic-and-have-no-understanding-of-it

A sociopath describing their emotions based on the Plutchik wheel of emotions (something interesting that I actually discovered a few years ago). The blacked out parts are the parts that are barely felt, the circled ones are felt the most intensely.







Hmmm... so personally, for me:



Yellow (Ecstasy): I'd probably grey that one out. Feeling joy is so freaking difficult. I've always felt like even going to places where everyone is too positive, like parties, or church, etc. to be very uncomfortable. More than anything, though, having to express positivity is the most exhausting. There are moments where I've felt ecstasy, though- but it's rare and a result of waiting for years for something.

Green (Admiration): Felt, not strongly though
Dark Green (Terror): It's weird... but I can feel it but learn how to learn it off. Maybe it isn't weird, since exposure therapy is the main way of dealing with fears.
Light blue (Amazement): Not sure what to think about this one, but seems that over time it can be dulled with enough exposure to stuff (getting jaded).
Dark blue (Grief): Used to feel strongly, but haven't felt in a long time, almost seems like it's not there any more
Purple & Red (Loathing and rage): Unfortunately these are by far the most extreme emotions for me when they do occur. I'd circle both.
Orange (Vigilance): With certain things, this can be felt somewhat strongly. But maybe moderate on this? Not sure...



If I find someone with any interesting disorder or something that did the same thing with the wheel, I'd post it, just because it seems interesting.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

greg

This is fascinating.

http://psychopathsandlove.com/face-the-truth-what-can-you-tell-just-by-looking-at-someone/




Something about the High Machiavellianism girl is really hot...

looking at my photo ID for a neutral picture of my own face and honestly having a hard time matching up to any of them... oh well.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

greg

Is there a such thing as a nice, normal psychopath?

Since I've read the many characterizations of what they share in common, this guy that I work with shares a lot of those characteristics that are, for the most part, harmless.

Probably just coincidence, though... when there's long lists of harmless traits that psychopaths often share, it makes you wonder about literally everyone to a certain extent when you probably shouldn't.  :D
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

greg

Quote from: greg on June 12, 2019, 06:39:27 PM
Is there a such thing as a nice, normal psychopath?

Since I've read the many characterizations of what they share in common, this guy that I work with shares a lot of those characteristics that are, for the most part, harmless.

Probably just coincidence, though... when there's long lists of harmless traits that psychopaths often share, it makes you wonder about literally everyone to a certain extent when you probably shouldn't.  :D
Today I showed him about the study with people liking bitter flavors being more likely to be psychopaths and we laughed about it (he's always drinking mineral water and black coffee)...

This was after I was walking around and he followed me for 10 minutes without saying anything, knowing that I didn't know he was behind me. If I die, you guys will know what happened  :P ;D ;D 
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

drogulus

Quote from: greg on June 13, 2019, 03:06:58 PM
If I die, you guys will know what happened  :P ;D ;D 

     If you die I will know what happened.

     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

greg

Quote from: drogulus on June 13, 2019, 03:30:07 PM
     If you die I will know what happened.

     
Makes sense... no one else is reading this thread, after all.  :-X
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie