For preview only.
Get it at Amazon.com #ad.
Are You Good or Evil?
6.55
Ratings: 6.55/10 from 40 users.
What makes us good or evil? It's a simple but deeply unsettling question. One that scientists are now starting to answer.
Horizon meets the researchers who have studied some of the most terrifying people behind bars - psychopathic killers.
But there was a shock in store for one of these scientists, Professor Jim Fallon, when he discovered that he had the profile of a psychopath. And the reason he didn't turn out to be a killer holds important lessons for all of us.
We meet the scientist who believes he has found the moral molecule and the man who is using this new understanding to rewrite our ideas of crime and punishment.
It's really a choice. Evil isn't born or genetic. Just a poor decision some people make, like a choice to study for an exam the night before or to slack off and watch television instead.
Psychopaths aren't born, they are made and in some cases, self-made.
Has anyone ever done a "reverse" test of what was in the documentary (the experiment with the men paying rugby)? In other words, take KNOWN violent offenders/criminals and test their levels of oxytocin and testosterone. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF AN EXPERIMENT LIKE THIS HAS EVER BEEN PERFORMED?
this is interesting
I am neither and I am both. I am a part of nature.
I am neither and I am both. I am a part of nature.
Humans are equiped with a mechanism that allows survival of the species. In a healthy human this sometimes calls for self preservation, sometimes for acts of selflessness to let others survive. When this mechanism gets disturbed, excesses occur. That has nothing to do with good or evil.
The center of evil(lucifer) is ...........lazyness.
the centre of Lucifer is i
I seek to hang my families organs across the walls of my room, yet i do all i can to protect them from myself. Id be willing to give my life to save a man who has tortured me, yet i constantly think about torturing him in ways he couldn't even hope to imagine. People see me as good, and having a good life, but my own mind is torturing me. What the hell is wrong with me?!
If you write a dissertation in the comments section, then you might be a psychopath.
Fascinating study which brings up as many questions as it answers. Environment and genes interact in certain ways to make it probable that you may behave in certain ways. Poor impulse control continues to be a major factor in people's lives.
I think it would be hard to test babies, I mean, they can understand some things but how on earth are they going to be able to make a moral choice? I think, like most animals, babies are born with just the instinct of self-preservation. Nothing else matters at that stage of life.
I also want to see what happens when a psychopath does the morality test they did in the beginning. Maybe its just me, but this fascinates me!
I completely resent this black-and-white, binary idea of morality and behavior. It is so much more complex than that. Most people can be 'good' one day and 'bad' another, and the rest (psychopaths etc.) are few and far between. Nature and nurture, life experiences, genetics, all of these things can affect the demeanor of a human being on a day to day basis. Yin and yang is evident in all things in different ratios.
I agree, morality is a grey area. Take soldiers, for one example. If a live grenade falls near a group of them, one of them will usually jump on it to save his/her buddies. Is this suicide? Should they all be wounded/ killed for that man's life? Is suicide wrong? Another example might be abortion. Is it murder to kill an unborn baby and an adult? Or just an adult? Is murder wrong? Its much more complex than "good" and "evil".
for a psychopath morality isnt so much grey as black, and when i say black i mean the abscence of all light.
#like really black.
To answer your question its generally accepted that murder is wrong, we decided this as a species with things called laws.
and yes jumping on a live grenade would be considered suicide.
dont you open that trap door, theres something down there with you.
Psychopaths are NOT few and far between. They're everywhere in the corporate workplace. The US is crawling with them. You're either very naive or very young.
Heres another example of binary thinking. 'you're either (column a) or (column b) based entirely on the 76 words I have been exposed to about the way you think'. as if there couldn't possibly be any other columns he might fit in. I'll bet he fits in several other columns too. More to diredamel's point.. I think many of the terms being used by people today are subjective- Both in their definition, and in their connotations; They offer little more than a way to communicate about things that aren't fully understood. Labels aren't really helpful until they mean something solid.
At 4:11 behavioural scientists (controllers) have been playing out these scenarios for decades whereby participants are given the option of sacrificing one person in order to save the group. There have been examples of people overcoming this by disobeying the 'rules' thinking outside the parametre set as 'either or' but this does not produce the desired response. Most people like in the Milgram experiment will just do as they're told without question which is the desired result.This VR allows no collboration or thought just 'see/do'.
As Drones (civilian track and kill) are operated remotely as are CCTV's, it's useful to see how ordinary (media programmed) people respond to VR situations as the only available work will be of this nature. Can they depend on the general public to operate their police state? All military training is done virtually prior to any real time or field action. People can easily be trained to 'recognise' a target from among crowds as determined by the Stasi.
Yes, if they can get us to over ride our imperatives to 'do good' when confronted by a real situation (all these things are potty training, predictive programming techniques) it's going to make life hell of course but then hell
doesn't exist either, does it?
The point of empathy is one of utmost necessity for survival; it is our true defense against attack and extinction. This is why life is made so painful and frustrating for all; so we'll run like hell from the pain of empathic emotions, block it out (meds nice profit, zombie drone zone) reframe it (NLP mind morphing dissassociation) subvert and suppress it, leading to breakdowns.
Power Elites have waged war on nature and natural mankind ... if they could irradicate that messy painful business of empathy, conscience and higher reasoning, then we're like the 3 Wise Monkeys.
What happened to them? As they refused to hear the 'evil' of men in the forests, they failed to 'see' them until too late, therefore they never got to speak about the evil approaching or warn their fellows.
Ended up in a lab being horribly tortured for the rest of their lives. Endlessly fascinated by their own condition, the Military Psychopathic Elites permeate their psychopolitically created 'Kulture' with their own insane psychotic lack of the right stuff.
As they 'lack' something or the brain has been damaged to a point of specialised retardation by traumas, they rule by brutality via mass military drone forces who are barely human, terrorised through infancy to adulthood by sodomy and MK UlTRA grooming.
Those apes, Freud, Darwin, Hawkins, Einstein ... making 'man' in their own image; down to their smut gutter insane debasement through the appliance of science producing nothing but instruments of torture, distruction and extinction.
Do As Thou Wilt Crowleism 'Liberty (from Law) Equality (in class) Fraternity is Sodomitic Brotherhood. These days, 'Equality, Diversity, Sustainability'. Transhumanism: NO ENTRY planet earth: Strictly by Invitation Only.
Before I start, imagine this is part of the ongoing dialogue in the 'change agent' field to convince people who don't know any better, that there is 'no such thing' as good or evil. The New Age Gurus and their channelled demons say so, that's why. There has to be something to justify the hell a-coming and replace the abolished religions with something universal: Enlightenment or Luciferianism, and if you check out David Spanger of UN and Michael Aquino of Temple of Set then there you have it: no good, no evil, just 'is'.
Been studying 'the other' that which is not (psychopath) for going on 40 years: it's what passes for authorised history as it is both an inherited trait and one which can be induced by brain trauma, psychotropic medications etc. So will watch this as far as the olde BS detector gets triggered. As for the comments of Atheists on the question of no soul, or conscience, how they wish. But it is to bear in mind that those 'scholars' which they follow like sheep to the sermon preachers are absolutely 100% iredeemably psychopathic themselves.
A soul is a joke, there is actually no evidence at all for the existence of it, and is based on emotional values, because some if not all, would prefer it be true for the knowledge of being "special". therefore(the no evidence part) it is the most illogical explanation for anything. Anything that wants to be count as an explantion for anything, must be able to be investigated, provide evidence, else it cant hold any significance as truth, for it is not open to discussion. that is the scientific way, and the only sensable way to knowledge that we know of.
"The human language for example is so unique that it cannot have evolved from previous animals or chimps"
it sad to see such language from a descendant of a what we would call apes.
Evolution is a fact, theologians agree on that, so should you. not by what i'm saying just now, but the mountains of evidence that surpass the evidence for gravity,
therefor any ability a person has or could gain, is a product of evolution.
A conscience mind is a product of your brain, and the brain is a product of evolution.
your saying it doesnt exist, on the mere fact, that you dont like the way it sounds, im guessing which is not an argument at all for any explanation given. that is childish and pathetic, u dont have any evidence for your own argument, of immaterial logic, how can something immaterial, be based on anything? because of a creator ? the ones who to prove a point, will ask a father to sacrifice its son? that is no sense moralistic or anyone who you should take any advice from.
this is just a guess, that your a theist.
lets just say the cognitive neurobiologists are closing in,
they have mostly uncovered the processes of emotion, motor movement, somatosensation, which they can see is a product of brain structure. why not free will, in what sense should it be possible to love someone, based on biological processes, and not being able to construct free will?
íf im shown that you can get love neurobiochemically, and lets just say that it turns in psychology then you can get me to check out, and propably believe on grounds of reason, that it is at least possible to get free will out of neurobiochemical processes.
again you insisting on language, is the same lame poking the holes, as they did when they said that evolution couldnt make the eye.
and if you get some articles by leading experts, they are certainly able to fully, or at least mosly cover the evolutionary ability of speech, which many animals posses, only in a smaller sense.
Sorry for the juggled message if it is read so.
nice quote from the bible Troy.
"Believing, are the ignorant"
and anyone who adores an entity of any kind, that asks his believers to sacrifice ones own child should reflect on their stated moral determinism.
Pft pls you have no evidence that fish can evolved into humans over millions/billions of years , yet you believe it.You also have no evidence that the earth is 4.7 billion years old.You also have no evidence that lighting can strike a mud puddle and create life or volcanoes erupting under the ocean or what ever so so story is main stream now.You have nothing but faith in the words/speculation/beliefs of other men.So pls stop spouting with the ''evidence'' crap until you have some yourself.All the great wonderful technological advancements science has made that make people put science on some high pedestal of knowledge comes from empirical science empirical evidence.....That is testable repeatable verifiable and observable.Anything that happened in the past or over the span of millions of years is not testable , is not observable , is not verifiable , therefor it's not actually science but faith.Good luck with your religion sir.
A soul is a joke, there is actually no evidence at all for the existence of it, and is based on emotional values, because some if not all, would prefer it be true for the knowledge of being "special". therefore(the no evidence part) it is the most illogical explanation for anything. Anything that wants to be count as an explantion for anything, must be able to be investigated, provide evidence, else it cant hold any significance as truth, for it is not open to discussion. that is the scientific way, and the only sensable way to knowledge that we know of.
"The human language for example is so unique that it cannot have evolved from previous animals or chimps"
it sad to see such language from a descendant of a what we would call apes.
Evolution is a fact, theologians agree on that, so should you. not by what i'm saying just now, but the mountains of evidence that surpass the evidence for gravity,
therefor any ability a person has or could gain, is a product of evolution.
A conscience mind is a product of your brain, and the brain is a product of evolution.
your saying it doesnt exist, on the mere fact, that you dont like the way it sounds, im guessing which is not an argument at all for any explanation given. that is childish and pathetic, u dont have any evidence for your own argument, of immaterial logic, how can something immaterial, be based on anything? because of a creator ? the ones who to prove a point, will ask a father to sacrifice its son? that is no sense moralistic or anyone who you should take any advice from.
this is just a guess, that your a theist.
lets just say the cognitive neurobiologists are closing in,
they have mostly uncovered the processes of emotion, motor movement, somatosensation, which they can see is a product of brain structure. why not free will, in what sense should it be possible to love someone, based on biological processes, and not being able to construct free will?
íf im shown that you can get love neurobiochemically, and lets just say that it turns in psychology then you can get me to check out, and propably believe on grounds of reason, that it is at least possible to get free will out of neurobiochemical processes.
again you insisting on language, is the same lame poking the holes, as they did when they said that evolution couldnt make the eye.
and if you get some articles by leading experts, they are certainly able to fully, or at least mosly cover the evolutionary ability of speech, which many animals posses, only in a smaller sense.
Sorry for the juggled message if it is read so.
"Believing, are the ignorant"
Ok, so, this is just a thought I want to throw out there. I'm having a go at swallowing how drastic the verdict was for that case, and I got to thinking how this jury of peers came to such a conclusion... And I started to wonder whether these people can even be considered peers at all. I mean, there is a a genetic difference between that man and those people now, science has high lighted it, even drew pictures to keep them entertained.
Can we even begin to say he wasn't responsible for his actions? I'm more likely to tell someone off then my boyfriend; thus, I work harder to bite my tongue. There are lots of people who have that gene, that brain pattern, that do not kill others. He might have different factors than most of us, it doesn't make it right. That was a bad verdict; and puts everyone else at risk.
Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
@Troy Knudson. Hmm, well in science, the field of enquiry that mandates what we call facts, if a theory is submitted that is so far off base due to lack of evidence - it is sometimes said, "It is not even wrong." This implies that it is unworthy of consideration. And so I say to you, "You are not even wrong ."
p.s. Merry Hitchmas (no doubt you will miss the allusion - some won't)
Hello Teddy Mcd. This is in reply to your reply to Troy Knudson. He has posted comments on a number of documentaries (his take on multiple personalities is breathtakingly cruel & heartless) & two things have become quite obvious to me:
1) He does not "engage" in these discussions, he simply talks AT us.
2) He's incapable of thinking for himself & so uses the bible to do it for him.
I am therefore left scratching my head: what could possibly attract such a backward thinking person like that to a site like this?
Pity that your post script most likely went right over his head.
please watch the doc "why i am no longer christian" it will really show you alot you never knew about your religion or atleast give you some insight as to how people of different faith or of no faith dont take your bible passages as a viable statement or argument to there original statement
and god loves his perfect creation :)
@Troy Knudson: You could try reading a second book for a change. A light novel for starters. You will be amazed of what you have missed all this time.
Troy is entitled to his opinion, he is entitled to quote whatever book he desires and he doesnt therefor need to be bullied or belittled due his opinions and quotes. I suggest you read a few books yourself and try commenting on the actual video in an intelligent manner and leave the bullying for the school years.
and ye shall know them by the fruits of their labours.
Romans 5:12
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."
Why do you waste your time visiting Doc. sites when you could better spend it reading the Bible?
However religiously crazy troy knutson is, it doesnt stop his quoting of that particular biblical verse being the most pertinent on the page...attracting the disdain of the psychopathically minded (or blinded) to the nuances and scientific precision of a well placed piece of scripture...the psychopathic love a religee, they think they are all weak because they believe in something that one day they might understand. nice bait troy. fat fish. ugh.
Can't religious people ever say anything original, not to mention decipherable and relevant?
Great food for the hungry mind. Where to now, perhaps discovery of the bias if one exists is nature v nurture 50:50, 60:40 ??? How strong are the genetics compared to the social/environmental factors??? A phd is waiting for someone who researches this.
Chris: I would like to know more about this subject too, but I'm certain we should all still be accountable for our own actions eventually. Maybe they should require pre-nuptual gene screening and I would highly suggest those with the "warrior" gene NOT breed!
its not the warrior gene that is playing the part in psychopathy, it is the psychopath,
The quick to temper and easy provocation of the 3r genotypical human is often used as a behavioural trigger...
(Hitler had an army of highly emotional supporters many of whom had the 2r and 3r "warrior genes")
....by the psychopath whose condition is related directly to the limbic structure of the brain and its empathic responses,
the symptoms are shallow affect and inactivity in the amygdalae(almond shaped structures at the centre that simply dont seem to react in the same way 1 in 25 of us does to emotional stimuli,
if you feel something, sadness for example ...23 people in the room feel it too if they are looking...one of them doesnt...he or she is watching...learning how to manipulate feelings, inspiring them,creating them ,literally an ability to view people in a game of their own, concvincing all they are playing by the same rules as everyone else.
emotionally r*tarded so to speak.
Do not misunderstand psychopathy, it is not safe territory to do so, especially if you are one who is prone to strong emotions,
One more step towards moral relativeism.
another show telling me most all genes just give u predispositions. And the underlying causes of most could be settled through restructuring society, cities and the like but also how we integrate such with the environment. All genes came from something we just have to figure what causes such to come about.
This documentary leaves out the biggest problem with our society, psychopaths in government. Much more dangerous than the corporate psychopath. Put the two together and you get what we have to day. Google Political Ponerology.....
users.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/problem.html
Excellent, explains a lot
That's just the materialistic point of view, guys : too simplistic ,as if we were just chemistry, neurophysiology , biology, ecology ....with no free will , no spirit :
i wonder whether anyone is responsible for one's deeds according to this materialistic optic.
You can say as well that love for example is just ...chemistry, according to this materialistic reductionistic view : silly really .
Those scientists can stigmatise people when they pretend to have a neuro-physiological , genetic profile of psychopaths : reminds me of those silly "scientific facts " pretending to determin the intelligence of people just by measuring the sizes of their skulls or heads haha:
reminds me of those silly IQ tests as if intelligence can be reduced to statistics or as if beauty can be reduced to the size of the noze , the form of the jaw, ...while there are many sorts of intelligence for example science cannot measure .
@AbdelZ
"That's just the materialistic point of view, guys : too simplistic ,as if we were just chemistry, neurophysiology , biology, ecology ....with no free will , no spirit :"
Prove your assertion that viewing the universe as material and natural is too simplistic, and that supernatural agents must be invoked.
"i wonder whether anyone is responsible for one's deeds according to this materialistic optic."
Whether or not we have free will and to what degree one should be held responsible for one's deeds in still up in the air.
"You can say as well that love for example is just ...chemistry, according to this materialistic reductionistic view : silly really ."
Love, as we commonly use the term, is a bit more abstract and vague than simple chemistry. But chemistry definitely has a big influence. Romantic love wouldn't exist if amino acids didn't need to reproduce themselves. Why would it have to? Chemicals in the brain can sustain a destructive relationship by attracting two people to each other. The purpose of this is so that the people will reproduce and raise a child (to the age of about 3). After a certain point (everyone's different people, but usually about 3 years) the chemicals will relinquish their grip on you. A lot of relationships self-destruct around this time. There are also chemicals to make mothers protective of children. There's nothing "silly" about knowing and understanding that.
"Those scientists can stigmatise people when they pretend to have a neuro-physiological , genetic profile of psychopaths : reminds me of those silly "scientific facts " pretending to determin the intelligence of people just by measuring the sizes of their skulls or heads haha:"
The beginning of this statement doesn't make a lot of sense, but I gather that you're trying to compare something you see as a fault of modern science to the outdated pseudo-science of phrenology. It is because of science that we have learned enough about ourselves and the universe to progress beyond faulty concepts like that.
Had you rather live in a world where we all believe that earth is a flat disc, the sky is a dome, the sun and moon climb and descend that dome, snakes talk, people literally come back from the dead, people used to live for hundreds of years, people used to be giants, people can live for extended periods of time in the bellies of fishes, people can magically summon bears to attack their enemies, the positions of the stars at the time of our births determine everything about our lives and personalities, faeries and leprechauns exist, and that invisible spirits must be contented with blood sacrifice or else they'll cause havoc???
...because THAT is just a sampling of the great knowledge mysticism/spirituality/shamanism/religion tells us about the universe. If it hadn't been for science, we'd still believe all of that nonsense and probably a ton of even crazier stuff by now.
Starting with nothing but the aforementioned mystical hogwash as the sum of human knowledge, of course science has followed some dead-end paths in the course of its development. But with science, we learn from our mistakes instead of continuing to insist upon their truth despite utter lack of evidence.
"reminds me of those silly IQ tests as if intelligence can be reduced to statistics or as if beauty can be reduced to the size of the noze , the form of the jaw, ...while there are many sorts of intelligence for example science cannot measure ."
Science does not tell us that beauty can be reduced to the size of a nose or the form of a jaw, although it can tell us that people are usually more attracted to symmetrical faces. IQ tests are not designed to measure every quality that a person might vaguely label as "intelligence." IQ tests are also not a scientific theory and do not have any bearing on whether or not it is accurate to view the universe as strictly natural (as opposed to supernatural).
So, can you tell me what there is outside of the material world? Or how that's possible?
If you really don't believe the world is really material, and that your attraction to other people has nothing to do with the material world, but rather some mystical invisible force, how about an experiment or two?
I want you to attempt concioussly controlling your affection and attraction towards a wheelchair-bound 50 year old lady, with 3rd degree burns all over her body. If chemistry and the material has nothing to do with this,you should be able to be aroused by her wonderful personality and nothing else.
So by this stage you might admit that "fine, it has SOMETHING to do with it, but far from all! I mean, the feeling, the state of being ... bla blabla..." Yes, yes, we've all felt this before. The thing is that this is an illusion. It's just the way we percieve the effects of these 100% physical components.
That's why , for our last experiment, you have to find out which parts of the brain causes certain sensations or feelings. Now, I want you to have those parts of your brain removed. Are you able to feel that way EVER again?
Conclusion: If you remove a cog-wheel from a machine, the machine is missing a part, and can no longer produce the desired function.
exCEpt that, as with stroke victims, if you [paraphrase] "cut away" those parts of the brain - the brain will simply re-locate those centers to facilitate feeling those feelings, sensations abilities, habits once again. rendering your last experiment moot.
All human emotions are based on brain wiring, chemistry, and physics. What else is there?
That's just the materialistic point of view that dominates in exact sciences & in human sciences excluding all non-materialistic paradigms in the process .
What do you make of the free will notion then we all do experience every single day ?
What do you make of the role of the environment if you think that it's all about chemistry or genes , neurophysiology ...biology...
Do you think that love is just ...chemistry by the way ? makes no sense , even though love has a chemical neurophysiological biological dimention
Do not tell me that neither the free will nor love do exist as such ? do not tell me they are just illusions or survival strategies
Come on, get real
Materialism as an ideology in science goes the whole way back to the 17th century at least , materialism that was introduced to natural sciences by Descartes , then it was expanded to the rest of the exact sciences , human sciences , including to modern philosophy ,so
Even that materialistic monism or monistisc ethics that say that :
neither good nor evil do exist as such , idem ditto for the free will....go the whole way back to Spinoza's ethics or monism , so
What have ethics to do with science then , even though some modern thinkers , philosophers , scientists try to approach ethics via science = The so-called science of morality , like Sam Harris whose video on the matter can be found in this great inspiring eye-opener site in the sense that morality can be a matter of fact : some kindda morality are more true than others .
Long story .
A soul & therefore a certain amount of free will that separate us from the other animals for example .
The human soul , consciousness , mind or whatever you wanna call it is immaterial even though it has material reflections & mutual constant interdependence with the body ...for example .
The very existence of the immaterial dimention of man is the strongest evidence against materialism as an ideology, against the materialistic version of evolution in regard to man at least ....that's why materialism either denies the immaterial nature & function of the human consciousness, ignores it as such or reduces it to just material processes : the so-called emergent property theory : human consciousness as allegedly being the product of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the human brain: human consciousness as just a matter of material neuronal processes ,blablaba ... .
How can the intellect be just a product of the evolution of its own "tool " to abstractly apprehend reality : the brain : a paradox .
Even the "fact " that life itself is just a matter of material processes is just a materialistic ideological prescriptive, not descriptive, speculative view that can be traced the whole way back to the 18th century at least & can therefore be placed in its Eurocentric historic ideological cultural...context in relation to the ideological struggle against the medieval church .
Long story thus.
P.S.: The human language for example is so unique that it cannot have evolved from previous animals or chimps ,even though some neo-darwinists try to 'prove " the "fact " that human language had allegedly evolved from chimps' hand & other body gestures ...
we do choose. I believe we choose our entry into this physical world at the soul level before we enter, knowing what we have chosen
@roxwal
You can believe that, but there's absolutely no evidence to support it. And if you know how sexual reproduction works, then you should realize that people have absolutely no choice in entering the world. I certainly did not choose to be born.
We don't always need evidence to believe something, that's 3d thinking. We are all more than that.
We don't need evidence to believe something, but that means we're believing something for no logical reason and that something could be completely and totally false.
An angle that I considered concerning the puppet experiment...maybe a psychopath would choose the good puppet because it appeared to be the one that was easily manipulated. The puppet who ran off with the ball is too independent and therefore too hard to manipulate because its behavior is too erratic. The puppet who rolled the ball back was more trusting and it is this trust a psychopath takes advantage of. Just a thought.
Or maybe the use of puppets which by their very nature must be manipulated introduced an effect.
Why odes the good girl look better than the evil girl with horns?
...
@ ZarathustraSpeaks
Maybe there are those who think the evil girl looks better. A person's choice may say a lot about the observer.
@Jack1952
If the bad girl was wearing a radiant smile like the other one, I'd be one of them!
@ pysmythe
I'm a sucker for the radiant smile. It has proven to be a mask...at times. Had I been able to recognize it as a mask, I could have saved myself a lot of heartache and a bit of cash.
I liked your banana avatar. About six months ago, I sent the some picture to a friend who had made a remark about my 18 year old niece not realizing how young she was. He got quite a laugh out of it.
@Jack1952
From what I've seen from you here, Jack, I think it would take the machinations of a psychopathic woman to outsmart you, lol.
I had a similar experience with a tequila-swilling, sexy as hell half-caste senorita from Texas back in '93...At the end of that one, I'd lost nearly every single thing I had but the clothes on my back and one guitar. We may not be talking about quite the same thing, though, I'm not sure. Mine was only a 3 month relationship...but it SURE WAS FUN while it lasted!
I'm glad I can look at it like that now...
@ Pysmythe
Not the same thing. Mine was blond and loved zambucca. The smile was radiant with a hint of evil along with a few other attributes prized by the superficial male. Lost more dignity than anything else but was a lot of fun.
I sincerely hope you're not complaining.
Why is that, exactly?
Christ Py, that a woman can do that to you is truly one of the gifts of being alive. Think what your life would be without that experience.
If the documentary states are true, does that make the likes of Hitler not responsible for their actions?
I seem to remember watching a doc, on a serial killer (physio) and this guy stated in an interview that to blame your actions on your up bringing was a copout.
Seems a bit of a contradiction from where I stand.
As for the warrior gene even the most dull witted must have some idea what crime they want to commit is “out of step”.
We need bad people, that's just the way life is.
We need psychopaths and serial killers and mass murderers.
We need nuns and nurses and humanitarians.
Its just balance.
You don't need somebody to tell you weather your good or bad.
If your good, that's good.
If your bad, too bad.
Get over it and move on, the sun is still going to come up in the morning.
And everyone that reads this is still going to die.
So if you want to be good, do something good for those that you love.
And if you want to be bad, do something bad to those that you hate.
And if you're not sure, that's fine, just kick back and eat more pizza.
There's no criteria to how a person should or shouldn't behave.
And if you have scientists and experts trying to find ways to identify and modify a persons behavior, i say to hell with them!
Walk in the light, or creep in the shadows.
If the devil knocks at your door, he/she must want your company.
If there's an angel at your table, feed him/her well.
Everything happens for a reason.
There are no rules to this thing called "Life".
Love who you want to love.
Hate who you want to hate.
Be who you want to be.
so if someone knocked you in the head and robbed you blind, that would be a-ok.
or did i miss something?
I couldn't have said it better myself! Live long and prosper.
Que sera sera, whatever may be may be, the futures not ours to see........que sera sera :) You failed to see what i was trying to put across my friend, and that is ok by me.
Hi ForeverDove. While I do agree that getting rid of the evildoers is impossible, accepting evil without question is not about actually about balance, so consider this. Balance only exists when you have equilibrium, and this only occurs when potentiality is kept in check. The best example is we all have cancer causing genes in us,(oncogenes) but if they are allowed to fester unchecked, you simply die. To accept everything as acceptable without question or concern is apathy, a prequisite for psycopathy.(evil) If you still accept what you wrote, then you should never complain about anything unjust. Besides, doing something bad to someone you hate doesn't imply they deserve it, it only proves that you hate. With that said, I still agree with some of what you wrote, and there is truth in it. In other words, I got it, I can only hope you get what I am trying to convey to you as well. Live long, and prosper.
I think that's a whole lot of poetic rubbish. Nobody is inherently good or bad, people are defined by their actions (or inactions) and choices in life and we always have choices. The idea that we need mass murderers is s*upid - they have no value, they are less than worthless. There is no "balance" that they provide; I think you've been watching too much Star Wars. Not everything happens for a reason, and if it did, then you would've contradicted yourself, because if there are reasons behind all things, then it follows that there are, in fact, rules to life. Which there are - everything you do has consequences and what separates children from adults, is accepting this. That is one of the inescapable rules of life.
In 1986, now declassified by the Russian government, the Russians seeded the radioactive cloud from the Chernobyl meltdown to make it rain radioactive material back down onto Belarus because the cloud was predicted to head directly over Moscow. With a much greater population many more would die but 60% of that material fell on Belarus causing mutant births, cancer and mass relocation. I would like to know what your thoughts are on this as its a typical case of sacrificing the few to save the many but in this extra-ordinary case the 'few' were so many. Truly a test of moral fibre.
Hi Tariqxl. I am assuming your question was directed at me. 1st, I agree with your assertion of the spock mentality that the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few, or the one.(generally speaking) I am unfamiliar regarding the seeding of the radioactive cloud, and will accept your word as to how the Soviet government dealt with it. I guess the first thing I would discern is the difference between ignorance(stupidity) and evil. What I do know of Chernobyl is that they attempted to test their backup systems at the nuclear power plant, which led to the runaway reaction. What many people are not aware of is that nuclear power plants were initially designed for submarines.(a much smaller application) The containment needed to support nuclear power in the case of a meltdown was never financially feasible in larger applications like powering a city. For this reason alone, all nuclear power stations around the world don't have appropriate containment, thus making them all dangerous.(stupidity)
3 mile island in the U.S also found this out the hard way, that their backup system was useless because the water they applied for cooling was displaced as fast as they added it. This problem arose in Japan as well, and Fucashima has been leaking radiation since it failed in May of this year. One good thing that came from Chernobyl was 20 years after the meltdown, they discovered if you received radiation in smaller dosages(outside the fatal zone), genes in people and animals were activated that prevented errors from occuring during cell division. This altered the accepted incremental theory regarding radiation exposure. So in hindsight, the Soviets would have been better off letting the cloud disperse over a larger area than forcing it to drop it's radioactivity over a less populated area. Since they were not aware of this at the time, their actions in dealing with the problem were as ignorant as the actions that caused it. In my opinion, I define these as issues of ignorance, rather than issues of evil. The only evil I am aware of was in saving money cutting corners in containment design. Once again, many innocent people pay the price for those without forsight, or driven by greed. Of course, this is just my opinion, and since I am not an authority(whatever that is) I can only give an opinion based upon what I am aware of. I am sure with those in the knowing, a lot more 'evil' was occuring, and only they would be able to identify it with certainty.
In any case, I hope this answers your question regarding my opinion. I am certain that the 26,000 people that have died in Japan from it's recent events probably wouldn't like my answer. Watching large numbers of people dying is devastating to anyone other than the psychopaths. My greatest concern is this number is actually quite tiny to what could happen if the economy collapses(and it will) because it is flawed from the ground up. Water or oil shortages alone in themselves could de-populate the planet in the billions, and that is not disregarding other possibilities such as nuclear war or pandemic. Billions of people dying is a tragedy on a monumental scale, but the actual evil is letting it happen or making it happen for the sake of the chosen few. Live long and prosper Tariqxl.
"What many people are not aware of is that nuclear power plants were initially designed for submarines.(a much smaller application) The containment needed to support nuclear power in the case of a meltdown was never financially feasible in larger applications like powering a city. For this reason alone, all nuclear power stations around the world don't have appropriate containment, thus making them all dangerous.(st*pidity)"
Are you sure about that?
It was my understanding that development of both marine reactors and land based ones, ran alongside each other, but quite separately. This resulted in the first nuclear sub being launched by the US in 1954, and the first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall, which was initially designed to produce plutonium for weapons, going on-stream in the UK, in 1956.
The USA certainly didn't share any of its technology with the UK, quite the opposite in fact, they very deliberately shied away from collaboration, as the last thing they wanted was for Britain to become a nuclear power. So the two countries ended up developing quite different types of reactors.
Hi Earthwinger. Quickly speaking, the USA, Great Britain, and Canada were all involved together towards the creation of the atomic bomb.(1945) Scientists from around the world were recruited for this operation. Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, and John Weeler to name a few, many from European countries. (U.S warned by Albert Einstein letter via Leo Silard of German success in splitting the atom - fission) After Russia set off a nuke in 1949, attempts were made by the UN to gain control over the knowledge of nuclear power, while scientists resisted by trying to preserve international science.(Neils Bohr through Unesco) Espionage aside(Klaus Fukes, Rosenthals) scientists were considered by governments to be a 'weak link' to national military secrets. Although you are correct that nuclear development was independently pursued, they all ran into the same problem in how to contain a runaway nuclear reaction, and all chose to impliment unproven backup systems instead of ensured containment because it was not economically feasable. The land based plants were just scaled up versions that were being designed for submarines and aircraft carriers. Since these were much smaller, they were built first, and they had the advantage of never having to surface for air,(subs) and if there was a meltdown, they could scuttle the vessle in deep water, all impossible for land based generation. So, to answer your question, yes I am sure of this. As far as the U.S not wanting to share knowledge with the U.K, I believe you! After the Avro Arrow was torched,(literally) Canada signed an agreement with the U.S that they would never pursue major military applications again without their approval first. In the final analysis, lack of concern for one's fellow man, the pursuit of power over another, and the desire for wealth at other people's expense are all evil, psychopathic forms of behaviour, which is the topic of discussion. Live long and prosper Earthwinger.
A fascinating and insightful reply, thank you. I wasn't aware of a lot of that.
The UK has a similar story to that of the Avro Arrow, with it's TSR 2. There's a doc. somewhere on Youtube if you're interested. There's also a fascinating Equinox doc. about the history of the British nuclear program, called A Very British Bomb, which is well worth watching.
When all's said and done, I absolutely agree with you. Man's inhumanity to his fellow man, seemingly knows no bounds. Lets just hope that we don't all pay the price for the evil that some do.
Hi Earthwinger. Thanks for the kind words and the links to the documentaries regarding the TSR 2 and a very British bomb. Like yourself, I have a thirst for knowledge, and like to get as much information as I can on a variety of topics. Take care, live long and prosper!
A good documentary. In the end, it is only logical to conclude that pyscopathy is a combination of genetics and environment. For those who question whether such things as good and evil exist, (and what that is) may I suggest an easy way to identify evil. In my opinion, all people have the potential for good or evil actions, (no question they exist) it is identifiying them with certainty that is the problem, and here is the solution.
We acquire physical strength from the resistance of gravity. Some people would extend this argument that morality is acquired from the resistance caused by immorality.(evil actions) I say draw the parallel, and ask the question, is gravity evil? I can answer this with a resounding NO. The reason gravity isn't evil is because it effects everyone equally. (what a qauint idea) Man made rules are seldom equitable, making evil easy to identify. (inequity) We all have different levels of strength, intelligence, and financial postion in life. It is the explotation and subjugation over others who have less then we do in these different areas that is evil. Some would have you believe they are clever because they utilize their strength over others. The root cause of these actions are based in your seven deadly sins that we all hear about.(pride, sloth, envy, ect. - no religious connotations intended)
If everyone applied this to all aspects of life, they would easily identify those with immoral intentions,(evil) critical thinking would rule the day, and brainwashing and indoctrination would be minimized. The banking and corporate world wouldn't be robbing everyone blind, the American public wouldn't have supported the attack of Iraq,(for oil) and those who were persecuted by the Nazi's and fled to create Israel couldn't have stolen the homes from the Palestinians who had built them, and justified it as acceptable. Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.(almost everyone) Recently, I watched a documentary on the 3rd Reich where Nazi propaganda films were making statements like, ' the greatest threat to the German people are the Polish terrorists '. (sound familiar???) Here we are 70 years later, and nothing has changed because people refuse to acknowledge(apathy) their actions for what they really are. With that said, if we can't see it in ourselves, no doubt we won't see it from those who would manipulate us for their own ends.(Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Cheney, Ted Bundy - same crap, different pile) The bottom line is this. Anything worth having does not come easy. For evil to be sidelined instead of running the show like it always has, calls for endless vigilance. The second anyone drops their guard, the people with evil intentions will be there waiting to exploit it! This is not clever, it is just evil, but the second you call someone on it, wait and see the list of excuses they use to justify why they deserve more than they have, (especially if they haven't actually earned it - sloth) or why they deserve more than they need. (greed)
Live long and prosper everyone.
But evil can come from weakness too, and the exploitation and subjugation of others is only one kind of evil. There are many other kinds of evil - and not all evil is intentional, sometimes its just a question of priorities. Simple carelessness can often manifest as evil - for instance, neglect. Like those two people that were playing online games so much that their infant was living in his own faeces. They weren't subjugating anyone and they didn't desire to see suffering or profit at anyone's expense. They simply neglected their duty as parents. Children can neglect duties too, such as when senior parents are neglected by their children and wind up living in horrific conditions - not because of what their children did, but what they didn't do.
A great doc. I really enjoyed it. A few questions arose...scans of schizophrenics show their disease only AFTER it has occurred, leaving me to wonder if it could be true of psychopaths? I wasn't all that shocked to hear that there are a number of psychopaths in high ranking postions in the Corporate World, but to be fair, the same could be said of many areas of society if examined. I was amazed when the fella who was related to Lizzy Borden ended up having the same brain scan as is common with serial killers--yikes! But this too leaves me asking more questions...It was said early on in the doc that serial killers need to do extreme things to feel any emotion--what is it that this fella is doing? Is it his career, etc. "Warrior Gene" brings up many conotations that don't exactly fit the bill. All in all, I love a doc that brings many questions to the surface and makes me have some "wow" moments and if I laugh, I gotta give a 9 outta 10
The problem is that psychopaths don't in the end think they act for normal people if given time to think and cool down they will not commit the crimes. Thinking is the only thing that will prevent us and putting ourselves in the others place will also stop us from committing crimes.
Could not watch all of it. The premise that there is absolute good and evil in the world is unprovable and probably unmeasurable. The first three "experiments" were so flawed that they bear no resemblance to science and I watched no further. If women were examined in the rugby test would they show the same level of the rise in testosterone? If not, what would it tell us? Are women less evil than men? Should we keep a close watch on the men with the greatest testosterone rise? All of us have baser instincts that society discourages and we can rise above, and we all have noble instincts which society encourages. "There's a lot of cooperation in the world and we don't know why" is obviously a foolish statement. When there are common goals cooperation ensues among chimps, wolves, whales, dolphins, and not surprisingly, humans. Nature vs nurture is an argument where the pendulum has swung back and forth and most actions are undoubtedly a combination of the two.
Immediately below, Kim Bruce poses a reasonable question which is answered by Far Spam with a lack of empathy. I doubt very much if either of them are evil.
Mass hatred must be indoctrinated into a population by politics, nationalism, militarism, religion, or similar ideals.
What makes a group of Muslims to go wild in the streets of Cairo and kick the crap out of a Christian Copt until he is dead?
Is this caused by an evil gene? Or is it indoctrination into killing in the name of one's religious ideology?
Anything is now justifiably to do to Muslims for what they are doing.
wake up and smell your own f@rts!
The good and bad depends on the eyes that judge it.
Typical example: I am atheist. in front of me are two persons.One tells me, "almost everything is wrong with you, after all you are an atheist". The other tells me, "i see nothing wrong with you, after all you choose to be an atheist."
In this example, we can see the definition of bad and good, without changing the initial condition. Social, cultural, and moral bases are common to all humans as a starter kit at the moment we are born. These "starter kits" change from society to society.
To talk about an absolute definition of good and bad, in my humble opinion, is pure nonsense.This issue is too complex to be talked in such a simplistic manner.
Since my last post, I've slept deeply and imbibed copious amounts of coffee, so I'm firing on all cylinders now (or as close to that as I ever get).
Methinks that these studies are fundamentally flawed in that, they start out based on an assumption that good and evil really do exist, and lo and behold, they find evidence that *suggests* exactly that.
I'm not questioning the validity of studying brain activity in differing personality types, I think a fascinating area of study, and very worthwhile. What would be even more interesting though, and possibly a lot more telling, would be to introduce a control group, ie. brain scans of people from indigenous tribal cultures, that don't have psychopaths/serial killers.
I'm going to hypothesize here, and suggest that it's quite likely one would find similar degrees of variance in brain activity. Perhaps in another culture, the sort of patterns that we would ascribe to psychopaths, would be the best hunters, and the other extreme end of the spectrum might be healers or storytellers and the like.
As I said earlier though, pure hypothesis on my part, but I suspect that without such a study, our culture's concept of good and evil is really an untested one, and assumptions based on it, are in all likelihood, inherently flawed.
Of course, without good and evil, there would be no need for organized religions. No great loss there! ;)
How about just assuming that serial killers and non-serial-killers exist, and then looking for possible differences between them in brains, genes, and environment?
I wasn't aware that I'd said anything to the contrary. Clearly they exist, and for many years they've been studied in the just the way that you described, but that wasn't my point. My point was simply to suggest that it might be helpful to compare societies that breed psychopaths (such as our own), to societies that don't.
I suspect that the reason there's not much of an appetite for those sorts of studies, is that they would most likely point out what should by now be painfully obvious - the societies that we have created are probably the root cause of most psychopathic behaviour. It's much easier to blame aberrant behaviour on individuals and use concepts such as good and evil, than it is to hold a lens to wider society and ask the question, would a more egalitarian environment prevent psychopathy in the first place?
Richard Manning wrote some interesting stuff on this subject. There's a great little clip of him on Youtube, which you might find interesting. Just search for "Richard Manning on the Cage of Civilization".
All psychopaths should be taken out of society, and placed in secure laboratories.
Taking the place of animals in medicinal and cosmetic experiments.
Much better than allowing the animals to suffer, they don't care anyway!
They should all be destroyed.
They harm to many people.
Wouldn't it be better to understand what it is about our society that leads to the condition of psychopathy, and adjust society so as to prevent the problem in the first place?
To do any less is surely to passively accept the notion that "evil" people exist, and exact vengeance only after innocents have died.
exactly, but make the most of them 1st!
This illustrates exactly what bothered me about the film. It presented good evidence suggesting a biological basis for characteristics which humans experience in varying degrees such as empathy and aggression. It then connected these with absolute concepts of "good" and "evil" which are culturally constructed without examining how they are constructed or how aggression and empathy are useful or harmful in context. It combined this with an extremely othering discourse about a specific group of people, allowing them and their (narrow range) of "evil" actions to be reviled at the same time the viewer is expected to distance themselves and think of themselves as "good".
How much harm is caused by non-psychopathic people "following orders" or honestly thinking they are "protecting" society form people who are presented as "evil"? Not all psychopaths turn out to be murderers, and not all murders are psychopaths. How many genocides have ordinary people been complacent in because the media demonizes a group of people. Is advocating the destruction of a group of people based only on their genetics (and ignoring the role of environment and individual agency) really that far removed from advocating the destruction of a group of people based on their ethnicity?
When it comes down to it genetics may limit empathy and make it easier for individuals to cause harm to others but empathy can be limited by more than just genetics. All humans have the ability to cause harm, especially when they deny the humanity of others.
@Jack Skye
Well said Jack Skye. My feelings mirror yours on this subject but I lack the eloquence to state them so clearly.
Shall we let you decide who qualifies as a psychopath? Should George Bush be the "decider"? ;0) Would you trust me with that position?
You finish by stating "Much better than allowing the animals to suffer, they don't care anyway!" Who doesn't care? The animals don't care if they suffer? You're confusing me.
haha, yea that wasn't too obvious.
The animals should absolutely be left alone, its the psychopaths that don't care.
I became a psychopath as a teenager but thanks to some intelligent warm people I more and more learned to feel empathy and compassion towards not only human beings but even so-called animals who I now refuse to abuse in any way and I've become a 95% vegan because sentient creatures deserve a decent life without fear and torturous circomstances like in factory-farms !
this will explain why Inbreeding is bad and why, torys, zionist, and bnp
types are the way they are, from isolated council estates, isolated
zionist groups and our ruling class are all inbred and have the primitive minds of a less developed human, intelligence has nothing to do with it, it is all to do with developing empathy, many of the researchers of this were from the Zionist group and were shocked to find out that they had high intelligence but though there own test found out that they had no empathy at all, this is why we can no longer let inbred types run anything.
It does explain why the banking families are the way they are and the suffering they have caused us over the ages.
'there's a lot of co-operation in the world but we don't know why' ... there speaks the stupidity of the scientist or psychopath, they just, duh, can't figure it out. The quest for the empathy signature will or is already leading to a brave new generation of psychopaths; remove the code, remove the feeling and experience. That Prof. Bloom looks like he could be Al Gore's brother and THAT's worrying enought. The precious Oxytocin necessary for bonding between mother/child is largely lost with the placenta.
Interesting that the analogy of rugby is used as a metaphor for natural life struggles but the truth is, we have no natural predators and the game of life should be win-win with little cause for 'struggle'. So what and who is the opposing 'force'?
Suprisingly candid talk from the Marines and the admission (rarely aired) that man is by no means a 'natural' killer. Killing to protect life? The same manipulation is done on dogs. A sizeable proportion of the sample range of psycopaths portrayed had one thing in common: Jewry. A dispropotionate number of psychopaths are. They aim to create man in their own image and via chemical/psychological manipulation, they're doing a damn fine job.
Natural selection becomes reality when the military (operated by psychopaths) selectively recruit psychopaths to operate drones, prisons and hospitals. Note how they glamourize the deficiency via 'warrior' genes. Double-think. Scientists should be looking for psychopaths - in the mirror.
They make a mockery of the American Dream - you've got to be a psychopath to enjoy and thrive within the nightmare. They should all be behind bars; the insane have to be contained until there is a proven cure. I think that we used to be able to identify psychopaths through our senses but with their imposition of addictive, limiting technologies, these senses have been largely lost as we have become so image-conscious. There is definitely something missing in the eyes and I'm certain that empathic people are able to tune in to the vacant coldness of these beings.
there's a lot of co-operation in the world but we don't know why'
yes we do, Dawkins answered that ages ago!
the apes that co-operated by and large got laid and passed their genes on.
They make a mockery of the American Dream
Nope, you guys manage that all by yourselves...as nice as it would be to be able to blame that on scientists i' m afraid you really cant.
Scientists should be looking for psychopaths - in the mirror
Why? There's plenty in church to study.
"I think that we used to be able to identify psychopaths through our senses "
That was once true I think, but its mo
I think humans are hard wired for compassion and kindness...evolutionary psychology would tell you that. It just makes no sense for us not to show compassion for our fellow humans.
But the question posed at the end is incredible. Because genes and our early environment tend to shape who we are...do we really "choose" who we are? Are we truly culpable for our actions? That is a dangerous idea for law and justice; how many murderers will be allowed to get off easier because "they are the result of poor genes and a bad childhood" ? What does that mean for the victims and their loved ones? So none of those people are responsible for their actions?
You raise a good point, maybe the most important one. it IS a great challenge to administer justice when what is judged is culpability. the example in Tennessee, where a fellow is essentially given somewhat a pass because of a novel insight into one (of how many?) aspect of potential infirmity.
But was his infirmity greater than those of an offender with 'normal' genes who had been beaten much worse? or someone of limited intelligence who had been socialized or manipulated in the company of sadists? Where does or should such detailed considerations enter or be left to the side?
the question really is: how can we be fair?
I'm really not sure that there's such a thing as good and evil, so I'd question the very basis of this documentary.
I suspect this is all tied in with the school of thought described by the environmentalist, Richard Manning, when he talks about the "cage of civilization" that we've locked ourselves into. People are just people, intrinsically neither good nor evil, but because we've lost touch with who and what we really are, it can and sometimes does, lead to aberrant behaviour.
When you look at indigenous tribes, you just don't see the same sorts of aberrant behaviour patterns that you see in our so called "civilized" societies. I think that's quite telling.
Manning describes it all far better than I could though, so if interested, try searching on Youtube for "Richard Manning on the psychosis of civilization".
First of all, the initial study was flawed from the get go. The babies tested were already influenced and manipulated subconsciously by what they've already experienced in society (parents, siblings, other relatives, strangers, playmates, television, videos, ...).
The more one gets rid of the negative(evil) thoughts, the more one is aware of what remains.
az
Heya az, I trust your judgement so I will ask you your opinion. This doc looks pretty interesting, is it worth watching? I just want to be entertained by it I am not looking at it from to much of a scientific point of view but the science in it can't be to flawed. CREEPY CREEPER found a flaw in it right from to start but I am viewing it from a laymen's perspective so is it done well enough that I can just watch it without noticing to many holes in the theory that it takes the enjoyment out of it?
I am in Vancouver at my daughter's, i have not watched any videos for a week or so, came on SeeUat Videos just a few minutes here and there. I just gave this one a try but i couldn't get pass the marines experiment, men being trained to kill turned me right off, or i'm just tired. I thought the experiment with the babies wasn't too revealing either, they may have picked the same one because it was on the right side, right handed babies??? who knows!
I bought a new computer today...wow...my old one died on me after 7yrs and this Thursday my old car did the same half way from here and Nelson. Had to leave it aside and bus to Vancouver for an interview. What a day...real good interview though!
I look forward to watching the wormhole Can We Live For Ever. I always like that series.
You tell me what you thought of this one, i may give it an other try tomorrow.
az
Welcome to my Vancouver, my adopted hometown.
I'm sure the researchers weren't blind to the obvious biases that could have occurred (e.g., the good doll was not likely always presented on the same side, wearing the same color, etc). Statistics 101.
I'm evil, but incompetent. I always do really nice things with the worst intentions... never really pans out right for me.
Lol that may well be one of the best self analyses I have ever heard
HAHA LMAO! very witty Neal very witty!
The 3 puppets test is a joke. And they asked to choose between 2 of them, the two almost identical puppets.
I think we are all good and evil, everything depend on your life experience.
When scientists prejudge what response is good and what is bad, the experiment is already ruined. Perhaps the real comparison is, what is advantagous and what is not.
Actually the first question should be, what?s good and evil...
Very interesting!! A real mind opener! It is really about the question: are we really free to chose, what kind of pearson are we?!?!
Depends on whether or not I've had my morning coffee!