It is, according to some psychologists that one will find the worst psychopaths in top political positions and as CEO's...damaged souls. Damaged from early childhood... with the unmet and unresolved childhood needs and damages forever driving them, who no matter how powerful or wealthy they are, will somehow always need more and more.
Imagine a wealthy family, like say the Rockerfeller family. .. The oldest one who first made money in oil at the start of last century, was the child of a snake oil salesman who lied and cheated his way through life, who knows what that mans childhood was like? His son who became an oil Baron, was a wily, greedy, amoral, unscrupulous businessman who didn't care on whom he trampled to get his own way, no empathy for others. Who knows how awful his childhood was like, being mothered by a single parent, the snake oils salesman had another wife or wives. The first wealthy Rockerfeller grew up in poverty. Whatever damage was done to him as a child, it must have been pretty awful to turn him into the monster he became, his reputation was rock bottom until he decided to become a philanthropist. Funding medical schools, but only as long as they taught chemical medicine, he didn't fund any schools that allowed Homeopathy, Herbalism or any of the many other curative methods that had long been in use. And now we have the monstrosity he built, the medical/pharma/chemical industry. The damage done to his soul in early childhood from what he experienced, was probably passed on via his parenting to his son, as the abused often, though not always, abuse their children or other peoples kids and so the evil is passed on. Imagine how much evil is generated when you have wealthy, dysfunctional families bringing up their kids the way they were brought up. No love, nannies, boarding school, authoritarian father, possibly sexually abused by either older boys, father, teacher or priest. Dependant on the genetics, the childs' reaction will vary one from the other, there are all kinds of ways of compensating for what one has experienced in childhood, psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism, obsessive compulsive behaviour, paranoia, fear of heights. So many irrationalities and more rooted, mostly in early trauma.
I couldn't make friends with women, didn't trust them until I did therapy and dealt with the old childhood feelings of distrust in my mother, which I hadn't realised lay below the surface and coloured my life. Most of us carry un-needed baggage; some baggage appears to turn some people into psychopaths., and the less damaged in the world have to deal with these monsters.
I feel Lobaczewski says that there are some small fringe of people who are actually born in such a state that they match what you describe: the person who, once adult, will see all the childhood trauma (for example) manifesting
He distinguishes two kind of people I believe and it's very important
It would explain why some mothers instinctively tell their kids "this one, you stay away from"
Lobaczewski identifies a difference carried by DNA in rare cases, so it's not that every people are born equally good, but rather that some are born inherently "evil", from the start
that's not to say that traumatized people cannot become monsters. Harrison Koehli from ponerology substack has a lot of interesting inputs on the topic
Lobaczewski's theory allows us to solve the old riddle "too good too stupid"; we feel we must choose one or another. Actually there are a few people that absolutely require "closing the door" (those DNA different people), while most people should see no limit in our love - as long as they are healthy. His theory helped me a lot to understand our world in a more precise manner. Hope the aboves makes sense!
Thanks Elsa for promoting the book! I often read it!
Your write: His theory helped me a lot to understand our world in a more precise manner. The same for me. So much makes sense -the minority without empathy - yes, sometimes "born bad" - anyway born without the capacity to feel for another person.
I have to agree that genetics will play its part in the formation of psychopathy, our genetics definitely colour how we react to both negative and positive input as children, it is a mixture of Nature and Nurture (or lack of), but feel that believing genes are the 'cause' of psychopathy is dangerous to many who have genuinely been badly hurt in childhood and have not been able to help themselves overcome the damage done and therefore may behave very badly; being tarred with the brush of 'bad genes', means been hurt a second time and is exactly the way the unethical pharma industry and fascists want us to see things, just as the Nazis did.
We therefore need to be careful how we label each other.
In the case you raise, I feel that the person tarring another with the brush of bad gene is thus simply miss-understanding reality and that it does not apply to the situation (while it would fit in other cases)
Hi Psychology, what prompted my cautiousness in how we label people is rooted in what I've seen pharma do. They as quickly as is possible produce a 'remedy' for whatever new 'health' label has materialised, as prime example ADHD, the drugs for which are damaging so many youngsters.
My cautiousness is also rooted in how the Nazis had rather more radical solutions as remedy for perceived malaise, having first 'labelled' each malaise. There is nothing stopping some currently powerful psychopath or sociopath from applying labelling (anti-vaxxer/conspiracy theorist) to any one or group they dislike, and 'genetics' being so fashionable at the moment, they might be inspired to utilise the label genetics in yet another horrifying manner. Why give them the tools?
I know it stymies one to have to choose ones words too carefully, but words have power and whilst our society still produces clever maniacs, maybe we should be more cautious?
So important - the personal connection to everything: "So many irrationalities and more rooted, mostly in early trauma. I couldn't make friends with women, didn't trust them until I did therapy and dealt with the old childhood feelings of distrust in my mother, which I hadn't realised lay below the surface and coloured my life."
The lack of empathy is the foundation of the immorality. And it is not immorality to someone with no empathy. I'm listening to Political Ponderology - just now brain damage connected to lack of empathy as a foundation for evil.
So, they are psychopaths, lacking the capacity to feel, are hyper rational and narcissistic, only understanding the world through their own self-perception. This raises two questions. Were they were born this way, or were they nurtured into this psychopathy by elite institutions during their childhood years? For the betterment of society, do they need therapy or institutional isolation?
From what I've read, they were born this way - or anyway, a good portion were. The Psychopath Cohort - they are, for people exploring narcissism, Dark Triangle Narcissists. Very poor prognosis for change. (All narcissists have a poor prognosis. Dark Triangle Narcissists - the worst.) No vested interest in learning, changing. A friend commented: there's even a subgroup, the Dark Rectangle Narcissists - meaning, even one more characteristic that makes them unlikely to be reachable.
How to treat? As noted, in general, therapy is not effective.
If we (the 94% - the empaths) become alert, we learn to spot them, alert others to them, make sure to get them out of power positions and/or that they don't get into power. To lock someone up (institutionalize them), they need to have done something criminal.
While some may be born this way, a book was written which gives some parents hope in steering their children to become decent citizens.
Before It's Too Late: Why Some Kids Get Into Trouble--and What Parents Can Do About It
by Stanton Samenow.
Those who seek political office should always be looked at with skepticism. Pure charitable attitudes are almost like finding a unicorn. So rare is this quality that historians looking at George Washington's attitude marveled that all he wanted to do was do his job and go home to his farm. How rare is that, especially since many wanted to make him king!
The desire to control other people's lives in every respect is something I've never understood, but seems to be a quality that is too common in those at the reins of power whether elected or appointed. Voter beware!
It is, according to some psychologists that one will find the worst psychopaths in top political positions and as CEO's...damaged souls. Damaged from early childhood... with the unmet and unresolved childhood needs and damages forever driving them, who no matter how powerful or wealthy they are, will somehow always need more and more.
Imagine a wealthy family, like say the Rockerfeller family. .. The oldest one who first made money in oil at the start of last century, was the child of a snake oil salesman who lied and cheated his way through life, who knows what that mans childhood was like? His son who became an oil Baron, was a wily, greedy, amoral, unscrupulous businessman who didn't care on whom he trampled to get his own way, no empathy for others. Who knows how awful his childhood was like, being mothered by a single parent, the snake oils salesman had another wife or wives. The first wealthy Rockerfeller grew up in poverty. Whatever damage was done to him as a child, it must have been pretty awful to turn him into the monster he became, his reputation was rock bottom until he decided to become a philanthropist. Funding medical schools, but only as long as they taught chemical medicine, he didn't fund any schools that allowed Homeopathy, Herbalism or any of the many other curative methods that had long been in use. And now we have the monstrosity he built, the medical/pharma/chemical industry. The damage done to his soul in early childhood from what he experienced, was probably passed on via his parenting to his son, as the abused often, though not always, abuse their children or other peoples kids and so the evil is passed on. Imagine how much evil is generated when you have wealthy, dysfunctional families bringing up their kids the way they were brought up. No love, nannies, boarding school, authoritarian father, possibly sexually abused by either older boys, father, teacher or priest. Dependant on the genetics, the childs' reaction will vary one from the other, there are all kinds of ways of compensating for what one has experienced in childhood, psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism, obsessive compulsive behaviour, paranoia, fear of heights. So many irrationalities and more rooted, mostly in early trauma.
I couldn't make friends with women, didn't trust them until I did therapy and dealt with the old childhood feelings of distrust in my mother, which I hadn't realised lay below the surface and coloured my life. Most of us carry un-needed baggage; some baggage appears to turn some people into psychopaths., and the less damaged in the world have to deal with these monsters.
I feel Lobaczewski says that there are some small fringe of people who are actually born in such a state that they match what you describe: the person who, once adult, will see all the childhood trauma (for example) manifesting
He distinguishes two kind of people I believe and it's very important
It would explain why some mothers instinctively tell their kids "this one, you stay away from"
Lobaczewski identifies a difference carried by DNA in rare cases, so it's not that every people are born equally good, but rather that some are born inherently "evil", from the start
that's not to say that traumatized people cannot become monsters. Harrison Koehli from ponerology substack has a lot of interesting inputs on the topic
Lobaczewski's theory allows us to solve the old riddle "too good too stupid"; we feel we must choose one or another. Actually there are a few people that absolutely require "closing the door" (those DNA different people), while most people should see no limit in our love - as long as they are healthy. His theory helped me a lot to understand our world in a more precise manner. Hope the aboves makes sense!
Thanks Elsa for promoting the book! I often read it!
Your write: His theory helped me a lot to understand our world in a more precise manner. The same for me. So much makes sense -the minority without empathy - yes, sometimes "born bad" - anyway born without the capacity to feel for another person.
:)
Reading his book from time to time helps a lot, Gosh
Each time I find and understand something new
You should head for the ponerology substack of H. Koehli if the book resonates with you, it's very precise writings straight on the topic!
Thanks for your kind words! All the very best!
I have to agree that genetics will play its part in the formation of psychopathy, our genetics definitely colour how we react to both negative and positive input as children, it is a mixture of Nature and Nurture (or lack of), but feel that believing genes are the 'cause' of psychopathy is dangerous to many who have genuinely been badly hurt in childhood and have not been able to help themselves overcome the damage done and therefore may behave very badly; being tarred with the brush of 'bad genes', means been hurt a second time and is exactly the way the unethical pharma industry and fascists want us to see things, just as the Nazis did.
We therefore need to be careful how we label each other.
Hello Sue and thanks for your reply.
In the case you raise, I feel that the person tarring another with the brush of bad gene is thus simply miss-understanding reality and that it does not apply to the situation (while it would fit in other cases)
Hi Psychology, what prompted my cautiousness in how we label people is rooted in what I've seen pharma do. They as quickly as is possible produce a 'remedy' for whatever new 'health' label has materialised, as prime example ADHD, the drugs for which are damaging so many youngsters.
My cautiousness is also rooted in how the Nazis had rather more radical solutions as remedy for perceived malaise, having first 'labelled' each malaise. There is nothing stopping some currently powerful psychopath or sociopath from applying labelling (anti-vaxxer/conspiracy theorist) to any one or group they dislike, and 'genetics' being so fashionable at the moment, they might be inspired to utilise the label genetics in yet another horrifying manner. Why give them the tools?
I know it stymies one to have to choose ones words too carefully, but words have power and whilst our society still produces clever maniacs, maybe we should be more cautious?
So important - the personal connection to everything: "So many irrationalities and more rooted, mostly in early trauma. I couldn't make friends with women, didn't trust them until I did therapy and dealt with the old childhood feelings of distrust in my mother, which I hadn't realised lay below the surface and coloured my life."
Personal experience certainly helps one understand many things
Zero empathy. Yes. But all are also amoral too.
The lack of empathy is the foundation of the immorality. And it is not immorality to someone with no empathy. I'm listening to Political Ponderology - just now brain damage connected to lack of empathy as a foundation for evil.
So, they are psychopaths, lacking the capacity to feel, are hyper rational and narcissistic, only understanding the world through their own self-perception. This raises two questions. Were they were born this way, or were they nurtured into this psychopathy by elite institutions during their childhood years? For the betterment of society, do they need therapy or institutional isolation?
From what I've read, they were born this way - or anyway, a good portion were. The Psychopath Cohort - they are, for people exploring narcissism, Dark Triangle Narcissists. Very poor prognosis for change. (All narcissists have a poor prognosis. Dark Triangle Narcissists - the worst.) No vested interest in learning, changing. A friend commented: there's even a subgroup, the Dark Rectangle Narcissists - meaning, even one more characteristic that makes them unlikely to be reachable.
How to treat? As noted, in general, therapy is not effective.
If we (the 94% - the empaths) become alert, we learn to spot them, alert others to them, make sure to get them out of power positions and/or that they don't get into power. To lock someone up (institutionalize them), they need to have done something criminal.
While some may be born this way, a book was written which gives some parents hope in steering their children to become decent citizens.
Before It's Too Late: Why Some Kids Get Into Trouble--and What Parents Can Do About It
by Stanton Samenow.
Those who seek political office should always be looked at with skepticism. Pure charitable attitudes are almost like finding a unicorn. So rare is this quality that historians looking at George Washington's attitude marveled that all he wanted to do was do his job and go home to his farm. How rare is that, especially since many wanted to make him king!
The desire to control other people's lives in every respect is something I've never understood, but seems to be a quality that is too common in those at the reins of power whether elected or appointed. Voter beware!
Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, learn to do what you can to help kids be good caring human beings.