Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Siren Watcher's avatar

Realising I ticked a lot of these boxes I wrote some stuff articulating my position trying to think of which way I fell out of the running...

Narcissism, open to new ideas: created a good balance between proof and non-proof markers of not disbelieving without proof but having a lower epistemological belief in them - but still reallowing them consideration in a looping fashion when new information is brought to light that may affect them.

Ability to remove association with people and find new ones: lack of interest in funders, but ability to swoon them and not dislike them as high extroversion - ie, praise from those unskilled is not addictive, if a man says a woman is attractive, the woman knows he doesnt understand the work, but a supermodel saying you are attractive carries substantial weight - funders are all flavours of humans looking at you and your work and are unlikely to be able to engage intellectually about it enough for their praise to carry the addictive "insider" element. IQ segmenting out Narcissism to control it. Realisation there is different "quality of foods" makes some food seem unappetising and easier to fall flat on your palete, Narcissism and peoples words are the same. A truly skilled high IQ Psychopath is harder to avoid because they make sure to have a wide range of topical knowledge alongside the excellent swooning skills, but its rare. Most people have one or the other. I find most people put skill points in the latter and lack the sheer intellectual depth to keep up complex conversation and get caught in politeness loops.

"What do you think about rats?"

[person has a mental flickering of behavioural learning that rats should have a disgust reponse due to times pre sewerage, but do not have the same response to cats whom also carry disease as they go into sewers].

"Did you know in Asia rats are symbolically associated with intelligence?

[person then makes a decision, i am asking them to 180 their disgust response. it may be interesting, but they shake about being 100% anti-rat to mixed, to maybe pro rat when looking at how unwaveringly casual and charming I appear... whilst they are considering this fight or flight...]

"Did you know rats are really genetically similar to humans and thats why we do research on them... fucking fascinating how such a small animal is so closely similar..."

[I give the person an out, i swear - implying low status, their brain is sometimes looking for some box to tick to find something wrong with me so they dont have to absorb the data].

"Thats great... sorry I just have to go get a drink," and they take the card I gave and they go.

Most people can be charming, but most people dont have the mental dexterity to bend 180, and if they do, they cant bend 180 multiple times in an hour. I do this as introductory. If they cant, comprehend, the new antipoliteness data, I lower their praise weight. Like as a person, they are less "weighted" in their ability to fuel my Narcissism as their brain has less use to me - they lose peer connectivity, th3 weight in their words stops being absorbed. My need for peers is to have them feedback loop my new ideas, thats what I think friendship is, interest in my ideas, comprehension and feedback, and then repeat and I aim to offer the same in return. As we both get interested in each others ideas then get competitive about who knows more so become more depthful in knowledge, both, on the subject.

I do this for average IQ strangers often, show highly complex interest, which is simulated and not true interest but I simulate it long enough for them to go incredibly deep into their concept for the short time I am there to obtain a new nugget of data about it found within their own subconscious. Dunno whether I enjoy it with the average IQ/mid-to-high openness strangers talking about common stuff, which is the majority of cases, but I 'have the skills' so do it. Cause I can and the Narcissism gets fed from doing it even though it drains you to force their brain through the complexities.

Dont care about ideologies: extroversion/openness so high i see millions of opinions and teams and feel they must speak for themselves - i am a mouthpiece for myself/my creations. Took me a long time to realise people were doing that with me/i was innately doing it for others and had to learn that blind support for friends was actually cruel rather than kind. As i can create damage with my forcefulness which they didnt intend, ie, i 'crush' their opponents as I dont have as easily to judge stop markers because they are the source rather than myself.

I have sheer interest in all that is on the edges and an extreme love of debating them and making others both uncomfortable and have awe. Sit next to someone on a bus and ask them about x and y, just spewing out my thoughts and gain the randomised feedback with little consequence (low politeness has its good and bad sides).

My issue is laziness and occupational selection which in a sense go hand in hand. In my youth being so noncomformist, my desire to put my blood sweat and tears into someone elses concepts/company disincentived me. When i did my journalism degree out of school I realised how fraught the industry was with forcing you to be the mouthpiece of the organisation. I wanted to be a writer and the journalism industry wasnt what I, as a nonconformist, seemed to be looking for. Toeing the line in academia with generally those higher in agreeableness and not being truly peers didnt appeal to me... agreeable people dont scratch my back the same way diaagreeable people do. I wanted a mix of staff where construction worker personality and academic personality were mixed together for my intellectual pursuits and that industry never seemed to manifest. So whatever career I chose I felt the only places I could do mentally what I needed to would be self-employed. But academia is a complicated place. People tell me all the time I should be a professor but its complicated - years of study just to be fired seems unneccessary. I thought about RnD within corporates but then your research can be squashed by the company and im sure it routinely may and its selective research.

Quite complex about "where to take yourself" if you tick those boxes to best use your skills.​

Expand full comment
Saifullah Khan's avatar

It might be fanboy bias but I would not place Sailor or BAP on the same level as Scott.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts