Stanley the psychopath. Excerpts and analysis by Chateau Heartiste from The Mask of Sanity, a book written by American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley, first published in 1941.

IllimitableMan · 2014-02-06T01:56:52+00:00

Reading stories about real-life psychopaths and their escapades is far more interesting than having psychopathy explained to you on an intellectual level.

I really enjoyed reading this piece. However I will say, reading about psychopaths isn't too instructional, what you take it from is based upon your own perception/ability.

This is a very enjoyable piece but even with heartistes interpretations there's not much I could take from it, in fact a lot of the things he's saying aren't really psychopathic in nature, the psychopath employs certain techniques but they are not psychopathic per se, as in - belonging exclusively to the psychopathic mind.

Take away the quotes and you're getting a bullet list of points which is the core meat of the post. It's a long post mainly due to the copious quotations being briefly analysed. The only actual psychopathic trait looked at is the inability to give a fuck about other people, the other things although used by the psychopath are not exclusively psychopathic, I've repeated that because it's important to make this distinction.

Outcome independence
Aloofness
Always DHV, never DLV
Inability to feel emotion for other people/IDGAF (for a normal person that's practicing stoicism to emulate it or taking drugs in light/low quantities to kill anxiety/stress but retain self-control)
Be spontaneous
Be fearless
Use fear and violence to persuade (push)
Use charm to persuade (pull)
Have strong inner-game (narcissistic self-confidence, not narcissistic need for approval)

The problem with reading about psychopathy is most of us aren't genetic psychopaths and therefore you're not reading shit from someone who has actual experience. The closest you can get is having a "friend" or relation that is a psychopath and observing their shit. Those of us who have met or grown up with some fucked up people who may or may not have been diagnosed as psychopathic are thus the closest thing to constitute "experience of psychopathy" other than a psychopath themselves.

The closest I personally ever get to legitimately feeling and behaving psychopathic is when I'm intoxicated occasionally. I've tasted that baseless narcissism which sends you off to go conquer shit, it's incredibly psychologically addictive, one could almost say as addictive for a man as love is addictive for a woman.

It takes ridiculous skill for a healthy person to emulate a psychopath, you're fighting your genetics and having to overcome feelings and sensations which are simply absent in an actual psychopath... to use a metaphor it's like a woman lifting so she can be as strong as the average man, but then the average man goes and lifts and she can't match that. Compared to the average woman she seems quite manly and strong, but she's not a strong man.

Remember guys, you can learn from these people but you cannot become them - despite how much you want to escape your pain. Trust me, I know. You can get close to it, very close, but you will always have "a soul."

As far as I'm concerned psychopaths are soulless "people", I use the word "people" loosely. They are fascinating, sometimes incredible, seductive and even intelligent. But they are not people. There is nothing but a cold inner core, it's not self-control or the mark of a well-disciplined man, it's simply an absence of humanity which sets them apart from the rest.

A psychopath will betray you/abandon you at a moments notice also. It's called outcome independence here, try being on the receiving end of that shit and see "how you feel" then though. Exactly. There's outcome independence and then there's objectifying everyone and not giving a fuck about them, again, subtle distinctions are to be made.

Btw, my dark triad results from some test (I left the url intact in the pic if you want to use the test yourself):

http://i.imgur.com/5oiO7oU.png

So to break down what the results say and what they mean: I can manipulate the shit out of people but I'm not overly in love with myself (the less logical you are the easier it is to baselessly love yourself which is why women probably get really high narcissism scores in the west.)

Looks like stoicism could do with some more work but I'm in the top 49% (of this sample, which is people who are aware of the dark triad, in the actual population I'm gonna be way higher up the spectrum.) I've had times where narcissism has been a lot higher, narcissism is one of those things that is most in a state of flux, I believe unless you were raised from a young age to be narcissistic that it is the most malleable dark triad trait. Narcissism can be inculcated socially unlike psychopathy. Narcissism is perhaps more important than both machiavellianism and psychopathy when it comes to a short term mating strategy or even making friends/causing attraction in both men and women (not purely sexual) as it's a constant DHV, hence my own personal quest to experiment with it and raise it within myself. I see myself as a project, fuck what society tried to make me, I'll use that 95 percentile machiavellianism to build me a new me - I suggest the same to all of you too.

More shit to say:

Machiavellianism - social strategy, planning, contingency planning (hypothetical weakness deduction), analysis & observance (cold-reading), emulation/mimicry, awareness and understanding.

Psychopathy - self-control, fearlessness, emotionally grounded.

Narcissism - charisma/attraction, confidence, self-presentation/looks orientated, superficiality.

Psychopaths get shit done. Narcissists are popular and loved by many. Machiavellians pull the strings.

-Illimitable

TRPsubmitter · 2014-02-06T20:26:04+00:00

I've always viewed psychopathy as kind of man's true nature. Maybe the "final form" or Plato's "form" of mankind, instead of true nature. Not everyone has it inside him, but it's kind of a final evolution.

Only fear and the implied "social contract" (which does have evolutionary benefits for survival) keeps it in check. It's like if you bred the ultimate man (as dogs are bred), you would get personality traits reflecting psychopathy. All those small thoughts & tendencies that most men ignore or inhibit due to societal expectations would be forced out.

It's kind of like those comic stories where the hero is waiting for some trigger to bring out his suppressed power. He doesn't want that fate, at first, and wants to go back to his normal life. People hate him for it and don't understand. But that power sets him a part and puts him literally above others.

MaunaLoona · 2014-02-09T15:39:59+00:00

It's as if nature conspired to give Stanley those genes which would maximize women's attraction to him with reckless disregard for all other traits in a sort of Fisherian runaway (but for an individual, not a whole species). Looking at him from the point of view of genetic dissemination, he is almost the perfect machine at the shotgun strategy to mating: fuck and get out. It's a dangerous strategy which requires utter disregard for his own survival and lack of long term planning.

erich_von_stalhein · 2014-02-13T08:16:45+00:00

I think the sexual aspect of Stanley's case is being over-emphasised. He was apparently mainly motivated by novelty and money, and sex was primarily a means to an end.

Also, Stanley's impulsivity represents a very poor model for behaviour. Without the support of a rich family, consequences would have been inevitable at some point.

pcadrian · 2014-02-12T02:55:57+00:00

If you are interested in this topic, there is a PDF floating on the internet of Confessions of a Sociopath by M. E. Thomas (woman, somewhat autobiographical - the author is the sociopath). I have a copy sitting on my computer that I haven't read yet, so I can't really say whether or not it's any good. Here's the chapter list:

I'm a sociopath and so are you
Diagnosis: sociopath
We're creepy and we're cooky
Little sociopath in the big world
I'm a child of God
Saints, spies, and serial killers
Emotions and the fine art of running people
Love me not
Raising Cain

Hopefully these can help you decide if it's worth reading.

Title	Stanley the psychopath. Excerpts and analysis by Chateau Heartiste from The Mask of Sanity, a book written by American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley, first published in 1941.
Author	YouDislikeMyOpinion
Upvotes	8
Comments	12
Date	February 5, 2014 10:26 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/AlreadyRed
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/AlreadyRed/comments/1x4got/stanley_the_psychopath_excerpts_and_analysis_by/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AlreadyRed/stanley-the-psychopath-excerpts-and-analysis-by.1217991 https://theredarchive.com/post/1217991

Comments