Hey, OS. I appreciate the intent because of having to have dealt with ,not one' but three sociopaths' in my life . They are brutally un pleasant ....but I am not sure this is good list. This fits too many "rebellions youths" or...partners that might be trying to get away from...a sociopath. . With respect, just saying...

I took the list from a mental health web site. I do agree that is sounds like a lot of people that I know as well. In the documentary they state that 1 out of 200 people is a psychopath. I always thought that they were violent people but it turns out that is wrong. The comment was also made that a lot of people that are high up in companies may actually have made it there because they are psychopaths.

Read "The Wisdom of pyschopaths" by Kevin Dutton. There are a larger percentage of these people in our society but only some go the violent criminal route. In many ways our society inadvertantly reward some of these behaviors.

Did I mention that I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal labotomy? 😯

Read "The Wisdom of pyschopaths" by Kevin Dutton. There are a larger percentage of these people in our society but only some go the violent criminal route. In many ways our society inadvertantly reward some of these behaviors.

Thank you. I found his web site and took the test.

Your Psychopath Challenge score is low:
5 out of a possible 33

What would it be like?

Random thought just now.
You see this like doctor of mental health and he says ah you have this wrong with you. Practise this for a few weeks. Our system will match you up with some appropriate paid for work.

Like that?

Interesting topic and list of traits.

Of course, we need to be careful not to paint people with too broad a brush. I think a person's actions are much more important than how many tick boxes they score on a pseudo-scientific inventory.

Also, many of the "psychopathic" traits also may represent characteristics that are important for survival. To a degree, one's morality will tend toward Utilitarianism during a true SHTF / WROL situation.

Medical personnel must be brutally efficient when making triage decisions in a situation with limited resources. Many diseases that we call "chronic" in (post)-modern society are termed "palliative" in less developed areas. In Afghanistan, allies used (unofficially) a different triage system for Canadians / US / etc., than for Afghan locals. A below knee leg amputation is probably a death sentence in a culture where people are living "hand to mouth." Such an individual would have an extremely difficult time pulling his weight and justifying his own sustenance. (This is similar to the cultural practice of "senicide" which may end up creeping into North American society if slippery-slope proponents are to be believed).

The old adage of "charity begins at home" will likely have stark implications in a grid down situation. Whatever supplies or food production will be primarily for oneself and one's family (or "tribe"), with a secondary goal of helping out neighbors (or being reserved for barter). Those who are "too nice" will remove themselves quite quickly from the gene pool by compromising their own survival.

With any luck the "true" psychopaths - which I will define here as those who are "gratuitous" in their use of force / violence - will be ferreted out and summarily executed. But people who are perhaps selfish, tenacious, cantankerous - might become the "new normal."

I propose that each of us needs to decide upon what are the "core" aspects of humanity that are "No - Gos" and what are the "niceties." We keep all the niceties we can, and then start casting off those "luxuries" until we butt against the edge of the core / non-negotiable traits.

I will give an example continuum of taboos that might separate us and cause friction or even fracturing of "prepper groups."

Most Compassionate / Least Utilitarian
-----
Giving everything away to those in need
Giving limited resources to those in need
Giving limited resources to those in need of "weaker" caste (e.g. women, children, disabled, elderly, infirm)
Eating of pets
Non-violent theft of the goods of others for survival of self / family
Killing as a last resort, in true self defence
Non-violent theft of the goods of others out of "toy envy"
Killing to protect one's survival supplies, without which, death of self is much more likely
Killing in the context of capital punishment ... of those who have committed "crimes against humanity"
Cannibalism (last resort, opportunism, of enemies > strangers > family members ... and only of people already dead)
Killing in the context of active conquest of other residences / farms for personal and/or group gain
Slave trading
Murderous Cannibalism (humans as viable long-term food source, construed as sentient cattle)
-----
Least Compassionate / Most Utilitarian

Of course, the above is just a very basic sample. Morality is probably far too complex to reduce to a mere continuum. And the "places on the ladder" could no doubt be hotly debated. I view animals as a renewable resource, and would value fairly despicable humans above many "noble animals" if I had to choose, in the heat of the moment, whom to kill or spare. Others might vehemently disagree with me and put "don't hurt animals" very high on a list.

However, given the above (not insignificant) limitations, I think it can serve as a tentative "first approach." The next step is, figure out where YOU are on the ladder, and decide what level you can tolerate from OTHERS, without being so internally conflicted that you want to kill them every time you look at them.

Personally, with the above list, my lowest acceptable behaviour is "opportunistic cannibalism." However, I also hold property rights quite highly, and would (at least from the comfort of my office as I write this) probably not steal from anybody, for any reason. If I came across a vehicle or home that looked truly abandoned, and I needed the gear, I'd probably take what I had to. Looting corpses would be distasteful, but possibly necessary in some cases. Again for my specific situation, I would not associate with thieves or those who are gratuitously violent toward humans. If a person "got off" on mutilating animals, I would disagree with it (it would turn my stomach), and I probably wouldn't let them babysit my children. But if they had an otherwise irreplaceable "x-factor" skillset, and no indication of turning their violence toward humanity, I'd probably reluctantly tolerate it.

I'd be greatly interested to hear the thoughts of others.

Have a great long / Easter weekend!

Since my first post, I have learned a bit more on psychopaths. Most of it by a friend of mine. He was a speaker at last year's Survivalist Show.
Defense Against the Psychopath (Full length Version)
https://youtu.be/MgGyvxqYSbE