Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Has anyone else ever been bullied by a manipulative sociopath?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Regarding Zoid’s last post ...

1. AR made a mistake in her evaluation of Hickman. She made a mistake in her evaluation of many, perhaps most, of the journalists condemning him (e.g. Edgar Rice Burroughs). Two private mistakes.

2. Reread Zoid’s earlier statement:

“ ... since sociopathy is characterized by a habitual disregard for the rights of others, and since rights are central to Rand’s philosophic thought, it’s clear that she would never have deemed such psychological illness ‘a gift.’”

It’s a fallacious, rationalistic argument. What she said in the 1920s is what she said. She could have made a mistake despite whatever is central to her current -- or later -- philosophic thought.

Again, where are you getting this idea that I'm claiming Rand never underwent intellectual development? If Alice says "Bob would never advocate the initiation of force" and Carol counters with "Not true; Bob started a fight when he was in the third grade," then Carol is missing the point entirely. I meant that "Ayn Rand as a mature philosophic thinker would never have deemed sociopathy a gift."

Edited by Zoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The type of person you describe (manipulative, but extremely dependent on the reactions of others) seems very different from what I've always a "sociopath" to be.

I understand what you say about being upset by what you read in Rand's journals. Sometimes one observes something extremely negative when it is viewed in full context, and yet one might spot a sliver that can be inspiring if one rips it completely out of context and imagines just that sliver being applied in a positive context. It is almost impossible to describe what one sees to other people, without also communicating the larger -- overwhelmingly negative -- context. For instance, one can observe a very serious ascetic hermit starving himself to death with apparent unconcern for his life. He is so wrong in every important way, and yet one might see a spark of intensity and serious commitment to an idea. One might even find that spark admirable if one can drop (i.e., abstract away) the real-life context. A bard might even be inspired to take that sliver and wrap it in a completely different -- and perhaps very positive -- context.

That is just one aspect of it. Sociopaths are like that in a way, but after you get to know one, you begin to feel as if you're not even talking to a real person. You can't quite pinpoint it, but something's just not there. It's a bit hard to explain, but it's only obvious that they are dependent on the emotions of others after you carefully analyze how they react. What I had at the time was an intuitive reaction, it was not on purpose. If I really understood what was going on, it would have turned out differently.

Sociopaths are not concerned with having feelings for others, but they need to to get by in the world, and since they are lacking parts of their brain that do that, they have to manipulate people and control relationships. This is why they mimic emotions, it's just like a person with aspergers who can't read facial expressions (although sociopaths are not really intellectually handicapped like autistics are). When they can't have control over other people they break down because they can't survive the way they want to.

Edited by Dreamspirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tanaka is mistaken not only about Dreamspirit’s post, but about Ayn Rand ever writing about Hickman in an essay. It was in her very early private journals where she wrote about him, blown way out of proportion by her detractors.

It was an essay. In a private journal. Imagine that.

Defending Ayn Rand by saying she was perfect, never made a mistake, only helps them.

Where did I (or anyone else in this thread) claim or imply that she was perfect?

1. AR made a mistake in her evaluation of Hickman.

What was the evaluation, and how was it wrong? Be specific. Give facts, not opinions, both about Ayn Rand's (now public) essay, and Hickman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tanaka repeats his assertion that Ayn Rand wrote an essay on Hickman, dishonestly abusing the meaning of “essay” in the process.

I think what I wrote about perfect makes sense in the full post.

I’m not going to write about details of AR and Hickman. The subject is disgusting and doesn’t interest me that much. It’s inconceivable that AR – later in her mature years when she better understood English and Americans – would either defend any aspect of Hickman or denounce his detractors for hating him as an egoist rather than a creepshow killer.

Tanaka – he of the private disorganized and rambling diary “essay” – may have the last word, I shall not reply.

Edited by Mark2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...