Counter-Currents
What Jack Murphy Teaches the Right about Sociopaths
Travis LeBlanc
2,781 words
Drama gets a bad rap in dissident circles. You always hear people say, “I’m not getting myself involved in drama,” as if drama is inherently a bad thing.
But I say drama can be a good thing. For one, it can be good for morale. Drama can be fun, and can thus liven the spirits. Beyond that, however, most of the time there is a moral to the story. Sometimes, the lesson is one that was hopefully already obvious, such as “Don’t trust strangers from the internet” or “Don’t do a livestream while high on crack.” But when scene drama involves a sociopath, it is especially worthy of examination.
I’ve heard people say that sociopaths don’t exist and that sociopathy is just some bullshit made up by Jewish physiatrists. That is a shame, because in my opinion, being able to identify a sociopath is one of the most important life skills you can have. It can spare you years of chaos and sorrow.
It is a thousand times easier not to get involved with a sociopath in the first place than it is to untangle yourself from one once you get caught in his web. Once you let him into your life, he will start making friends with your friends, and then you can’t cut him out of your life without cutting out the other people as well. He’ll start turning your friends against you, if he thinks you might expose him. Hopefully you did not tell him anything in confidence before you figured out that he is insane, because that could also complicate things. It’s just a lot easier not to get into that mess in the first place.
So when a sociopath has a meltdown online, even if it is stupid e-drama with no political substance behind it, it’s helpful to observe and take note of some of the techniques they use. There’s a few that all sociopaths fall back on, and if you can learn to spot them early on, you can know how to steer clear of such individuals and save yourself a lot of pain.
You can buy The Alternative Right, ed. Greg Johnson, here
Today we will be looking at John Goldman, aka Jack Murphy, and his now legendary implosion. I understand that at this point, the story is kind of a dead horse, but if you have been living under a rock, the short version is that Goldman, under the goyface pseudonym of “Jack Murphy,” became a conservative media personality and “masculinity guru” who was heavily promoted by Conservatism Inc. (like Glenn Beck) and the more mainstream elements of the conservative alt-media (like Tim Poole). He also runs a men’s group called Liminal Order where, for $100 a month, Goldman will teach you how to be an apex alpha male pussy-slayer.
Goldman started his commentary career as an edgy manosphere blogger, but truly broke into the public consciousness in 2018 when he was doxed for attending an Alt Lite event with Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich. Goldman claims that this resulted in him being fired from the Washington, DC charter school system (“cancel culture”), but others have alleged that it was because of a pro-rape blog post he wrote. There have also been accusations that he was engaging in financial mischief with the schools’ money. Nevertheless, a few months later, Goldman published his book Democrat to Deplorable, which made him a darling of the mainstream conservative movement.
Unfortunately for Goldman, deranged essays he wrote from his manosphere days kept resurfacing, in particular one where he made the superbly unpersuasive case that being a cuckold was the ultimate in apex alpha masculinity. When asked about the article on a recent livestream, Goldman lashed out at the female host. The scene went viral on social media, which caused the cuckold article to go viral as well.
Then the gay porn that Goldman had made, featuring himself, surfaced.
Again, this is old news at this point, but most of the coverage has focused on Goldman being either a degenerate or a Jew. Indeed, he is both, but I want to take a look at this fiasco within the context of Goldman being a narcissistic sociopath, and some of the techniques he has used throughout the controversy.
Goldman as a Narcissistic Sociopath
If you look at Goldman’s infamous 2015 pro-cuckolding article, he displays levels of narcissism that would give even Richard “Cluster B” Spencer a run for his trust fund:
I’ve learned and practiced tantra, various elements of the bdsm lifestyle and just about every angle (pun intended) for male / female relations. From experience, effort, and education I’ve become an expert [emphasis in original]. I learned over time how my natural disposition is to be dominant. For submissive women, I’m practically an ideal. I’ve had sex slaves, little girls, and tied them all up. Feminists seek me out to fuck them like the patriarchy. And yet I’ve just sent my 15 year junior girlfriend to bang Matt from Tinder. Why?
The only people who talk like that are cokeheads and sociopaths (there’s a high degree of overlap between those groups in my experience). But unlike, say, Tommy Robinson, Goldman doesn’t show other signs of being a cokehead, so I’m going with sociopath.
Plus, there is the whole performative masculinity thing. The whole tough guy shtick is a red flag for me. It’s funny when pro wrestlers do it, and maybe some performative masculinity is necessary if you live in a dangerous area, but middle-class people who do it in non-dangerous situations is a red flag. Not all people who do it are sociopaths, of course; some are just douchebags. And sometimes a sociopath will play the helpless victim or the sensitive male feminist if they think it will gain them more power. Some prefer manipulation, and some prefer intimidation. But the ones who prefer intimidation will gravitate towards the tough guy shtick. So it’s a red flag.
Now let’s look at some of Goldman’s sociopathic techniques.
Evasion, Gaslighting, Attacking the Questioner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K15XFwezHxM
This is the famous clip from You Are Here with hosts Elijah Schaffer and Sydney Watson. Despite being employed by The Blaze, they seem like good people. A couple of months ago, as a principled free speech statement, they decided to have some people on their YouTube channel who had been banned from all other social media. They booked Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes. The Fuentes appearance resulted in an exchange between Fuentes and Watson on the role of women that went viral and has been endlessly analyzed since. Fans of both Fuentes and Watson declared victory after the exchange, so it ended up being good publicity for both.
Schaffer and Watson are fairly normie conservatives, but they are at least willing to platform people more “hardcore” than themselves and have shown more spine in standing up for free speech than 99% of Con Inc. Of all the people with connections to the “respectable” conservative sphere who might become potential allies or helpful bridges to a wider audience, I rate Schaffer and Watson near the top.
Watson asked Goldman about the pro-cuckolding article twice. The first time he was asked, he started with an evasion — “I have absolutely no comment on that” — followed by some quick gaslighting: “Whatever people’s perceptions are about that, it’s 180 degrees wrong.” He’s literally telling you that your eyes are deceiving you. Pretty standard sociopath stuff.
The second time he was asked, Goldman attacked Sydney Watson for asking. “I’m not going to talk about this, and basically, fuck you for bringing this up right here and right now,” he said. “Why are you doing this to me?”
This is a technique that probably works well in one-on-one encounters with friends or co-workers. “Okay, I guess I shouldn’t ask about that again, or I might lose him as a friend/employer/whatever.” But it’s going to have the opposite effect on the internet.
Goldman then tells Sydney that she had made a mistake, and indeed, that she was stupid (“use some fucking common sense”) to have even asked the question in the first place. To the sociopath, offense is always the best defense.
Blame Shifting
A few days after the You Are Here blowup, Goldman then went on Tim Pool’s over-a-million-subscriber YouTube channel for a damage control stream. Goldman claimed that there had been an agreement between himself and Watson before the show that Goldman’s cuckold article was not to be discussed, and that Watson had agreed to those terms. Watson, Goldman claims, either accidentally or maliciously violated the terms of that agreement.
Thus, Goldman’s claim was that while it was wrong to swear at Watson, he was still entirely within his rights to be angry given her betrayal. His crime was that he had merely overreacted to Sydney’s fuckup.
Sydney Watson herself disputes this narrative, and I am inclined to believe her.
Threats of Social Exclusion
Sometime after the Tim Pool interview, livestreamer Nick Rekieta started getting in on the fun and was tweeting jokes about Jack Murphy’s cuckold article. Rekieta claims that Goldman PM’d him on Twitter and demanded that Rekieta delete his tweets, and that he shouldn’t do it merely for Goldman’s sake. According to Goldman, Rekieta “wasn’t looking good to our mutuals.”
This was basically a threat to turn Rekieta’s friends against him, and that if Rekieta continued, it would escalate into a feud requiring people to take sides, and therefore Goldman was insinuating that all their mutual friends will side with him. Whether Goldman has enough clout with their “mutuals” to actually make good on that threat is doubtful, but this is a standard sociopath move.
Lying by Omission
Then Goldman’s gay porn surfaced. It was initially released on Twitter by YouTuber The Quartering. Some of the videos were as recent as 2019, a full year after the release of Goldman’s breakthrough book that had established him as a conservative influencer.
Goldman again went into damage control. In a post to the Liminal Order group, he acknowledged that, yes, he did in fact do porn, but he only owned up to the heterosexual kind he had made with his loving wife. Theoretically, that’s the least immoral kind of hardcore pornography you could produce; it may be degenerate, but at least it is not sinful in the eyes of God. The Bible says you have to be married to have sex, and it says nothing forbidding people from broadcasting it on the internet.
I have been trying to avoid Mr. Goldman’s porn, but according to Mister Metokur, who has perused it, the videos of Goldman having sex with his wife comprise only about 10% of his artistic output. The vast majority of it — Metokur estimates approximately 70% — involves Goldman inserting large objects into his own rectum.
Goldman’s statement to his group was not therefore false per se, but grossly mischaracterizes and obfuscates what all the commotion is actually about, which is that most of Goldman’s porn involves him engaging in stereotypically unmanly behavior.
More Gaslighting & Blame-Shifting
Goldman then immediately started gaslighting and blame-shifting. He claimed that he is the victim of “revenge porn.” If you don’t know, “revenge porn” refers to a girl sending her boyfriend a nude photo, or they make a sex tape, and then the guy later releases it to the public after they break up, usually out of revenge. Revenge porn is illegal in most states.
Goldman’s porn in no way, shape, or form constitutes “revenge porn,” however. He streamed his porn live to the public on the website known as Chatterbate, which allows people to show sex acts in exchange for viewer donations.
Goldman insanely and recklessly kept his account open throughout this whole period. Sociopaths supposedly do not experience fear the way normal people do, which is why they are prone to high-risk behavior. It’s the kind of insanity that makes someone like Eli Mosely think he can talk to the New York Times about his non-existent war service and think that they won’t check. I’ve heard that sociopaths will frequently give themselves food poisoning by eating food that has gone bad because their brains do not register the danger.
In this instance, it is both gaslighting and blame-shifting. He didn’t do anything bad by making porn, he claims; the bad thing was that someone else told people about it. This is another example of offense being their preferred defense.
The Sociopath Death Spiral
I said earlier that it’s easier not to get involved with a sociopath to begin with. But when you do, sometimes fate will work in your favor and he will self-destruct on his own without any effort from you. But even then, when a sociopath realizes that he has been exposed and that there is zero hope of gaslighting his way out of the mess, he will often try to take as many people down with him as he can.
After the porn was revealed, Goldman became like a cornered and wounded animal. He started lashing out at everyone who played any part, however tangential, in him being exposed as a fraud. He resolved to make them suffer for revealing his weakness so that they will serve as examples to anyone else considering exposing who he really is.
First, like any true lolcow, he started flagging any and all YouTube videos that make fun of him. Copyright claims started being thrown at anyone posting images of his porn. He managed to get The Quartering’s Twitter account temporarily suspended. He then started threatening lawsuits, and as a result, people began deleting things voluntarily. I can’t say I blame them. Even a frivolous lawsuit can be expensive, while access to social media is precious and tweets are not hills to die on.
Goldman then threatened to go to The Blaze’s legal department to try to get Schaffer and Watson fired, something which the two later confirmed he did in fact attempt to do, albeit unsuccessfully. Fortunately for Schaffer and Watson, they are more popular than Goldman, and contrary to what Goldman believed, his pal Glenn Beck is not their “boss,” strictly speaking. But certainly the will and intent were there.
This gives you an idea of how destructive sociopaths are and why you should stay as far away from them as possible. All Sydney and Elijah did was to make a two-hour livestream with a sociopath, and a week later, he is trying to ruin their lives. Sydney Watson’s only crime was in asking a superchat question; she had nothing to do with the porn coming out. Elijah Schaffer did even less than Watson: His only crime was that he was in the room when the superchat question was asked. But even that small amount of contact with a sociopath was enough to put them in danger.
At this point in the saga, there is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that Goldman’s group, Liminal Order, has lost 200 members in the last week, which is a loss of $20,000 a month in revenue for him. The bad news is that there are allegedly still 600 members remaining.
I’m not a hardcore anti-grifter. Grifters can sometimes be useful as gateways or when they platform our guys. If they say the right things, so what if they make some money from it? But then I hear about someone like John Goldman and the kind of money he is sucking out of the Right, and I think, “We have got to get rid of these grifters!”
More importantly, however, any movement needs to be ever-vigilant against sociopaths. To me, sociopaths are far worse than Jews, because Jews are at least loyal to each other, whereas a sociopath is loyal to no one. There is no “He may be a sociopath, but he’s our sociopath.” That’s not how sociopaths work. They are always a net loss.
Every person who ever platformed John Goldman now looks foolish for having promoted such a ridiculous fraud. Literally everyone who associated with him is now tainted by that association. All of them are worse off than if they had never associated with him in the first place.
Fortunately, the Right has rid itself of Goldman relatively painlessly. A smarter and better-connected sociopath lashing out in retaliation for a less humiliating scandal might have been able to cause more damage on his way out, however. If this controversy had happened five years from now, after Goldman had had more time to establish himself, he may have been more difficult to dislodge. Bill O’Reilly managed to survive embarrassing accusations that he was a sex pest for years before finally getting #MeToo’d, for example.
The Right needs to get better at identifying and shutting down these kinds of people earlier. The longer you wait, the harder it will be.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
72 comments
“I’ve heard people say that sociopaths don’t exist and that sociopathy”
I don’t think anyone is claiming that. Some people say that sociopathy and psychopathy are the same thing, which would make the term “sociopathy” redundant.
The words are interchangeable. I prefer “sociopath” because “psychopath” sounds too Hollywood. Pop culture has totally ruined the word “psychopath”.
The biggest misconception about sociopaths is that they are defined by being mean. “So-so said a mean thing! What a sociopath!” In reality, the defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they lie. They lie about everything. They will lie about things that there is no reason to lie about. They’ll tell lies that they can’t get away with and then deny they said it. And just the sheer impossibility of getting the truth out of them. No matter how much evidence you present them with, they will defend their lies to the point of logical absurdity.
When I hear the word “psychopath”, I think of a heavy metal album cover or a horror movie. You think of Norman Bates from Psycho. You think of a deranged loner who can’t have a conversation with saying something creepy or ominous and then they go stalking the night with an axe. IMO, that plays into the misconception that a sociopath is defined by being mean.
The word “sociopath” is certainly abused and misunderstood but nearly as much as the word “psychopath”. What people think a sociopath is a lot close to the truth than what pop culture presents a “psychopath ” to be. So I use “sociopath”.
I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read over the years, there very much is a real difference, and the terms are not interchangeable. Sociopathy denotes pure amorality in furtherance of normal goals; psychopathy, the intentional infliction of evil. The sociopath lacks a conscience. He pursues his self-interest (as he understands it) without regard to moral norms or consequences. Think of some of the characters in The Sopranos (but not Tony himself, who occasionally does exhibit some shreds of ethical concern, or at least adherence to a peculiar moral code). Or think of the typical ghetto street thug. Sociopaths don’t engage in evil acts out of sadistic joy, but because it serves their otherwise normal desires and interests (for easy money, power, women, etc).
The psychopath, OTOH, like fictional Norman Bates or real life Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, various “night stalkers” and “freeway stranglers”, et al, is either a straight up head case (Bates), or someone who revels in making others suffer, either for emotional or sexual reasons. They aren’t merely evil in pursuing normal ends via criminal means; their ends are themselves totally abnormal and repellant.
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
What are you referring to? I don’t understand your comment.
“In reality, the defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they lie. They lie about everything. ”
In reality, every time one tries to find a definition of “sociopath” on places such as Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster, they are redirected back to words such as “psychopath” or “psychopathy.” It’s true that even the experts have not ironed out the distinction between “psychopath” or “sociopath.” The defining characteristics of “sociopathy”—if one actually thinks such “conditions” can realistically be defined and diagnosed—are “persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.” But if your focus is on people who “lie about everything,” there’s already a term for that—”pathological liar.”
Fully
There is a difference. The DSM-IV provides textbook definitions.
In current clinical practice, psychiatrists do not refer to psychopaths or sociopaths. Both are synonymous with anti social personality disorder, for which there are a set of specific diagnostic criteria in the DSM 4, which you can look up online if you are interested. A pervasive pattern of deceit as trav describes is one of the criteria. Neither necessary or sufficient though. Various theoretical papers have attempted to apply more specific and graded meanings to the various terms, as lord Shang says, but this is not accepted clinical practice right now. People bandy the terms about too much. There are some people of very poor character out there who are not clinical psychopaths, technically.
Also, a history of substance abuse is a strong element of antisocial p disorder. This is not listed as one of the criteria, probably for political reasons. Substance abusers have a status like holy cows in psychiatry right now. I’m not a psychiatrist or anything.
Good essay.
Drama is part of human nature and serves an important purpose, beyond simple diversion.
People like Goldman are not always easy to spot, and if all of their contacts “stay above drama” then the sociopaths win. They work by dividing and conquering, and preying on the good faith of decent people.
People who extend good faith often are overly forgiving, and need reinforcement from others to realize that they are right to discard someone.
This is an informative article. I didn’t know all this stuff about sociopaths. Now I have a better idea. I instinctively avoid them (sometimes I have good instincts).
From the videos linked to in this article, John Goldman looks and talks like an regular Antifa type. He is a repulsive creature, a typical pervert. The Dissident Right must avoid any association with such persons, especially psychos like Goldman. He belongs with Antifa. The good news is that we are rid of him.
The John Goldman cries out in pain as he cuckolds himself, apparently.
I was out of the loop for a bit and thought all this drama was centered around Jack Dorsey of Twitter since they both have that wannabe lumberjack beard going on. Interesting read on all the background info with this e-drama and how it all came to a head because the dude just couldn’t let it go quietly into the night. Great breakdown of a classic sociopath.
A big, “alpha” male’s life destroyed by a $10 superchat, written by a guy under the nom de plume Mr. Dickenballs.
As the left likes to say, “Big Yikes!”
Still, I think the name Goldman was the first red flag. The rest is starting to seem common for their people.
I’ve never heard of this guy, or this (dare I say, pretty tame) “incident”. The Twitter/Youtuber/podcaster sphere is just such a waste of time (with some notable exceptions, of course). I’ll listen to Jared Taylor or Greg Johnson podcasts because they are serious thinkers with enlightening things to say. I’ve even watched maybe 3 or 4 Jordan Peterson lectures (he is, after all, a real academic, though I can’t say I really learned anything from those viewings). But forget this Goldman creep; what could I possibly expect to learn of value from the ‘millennial’ host podcasters (Elijah + Sydney)? Life is short; don’t waste it on fourth raters.
But as to your comment: the moment I saw this guy Goldman, I couldn’t help thinking how much he resembles The Meathead (co-ethnic Rob Reiner) from the 1970s sitcom All in the Family. I wonder if anyone else had a similar impression?
Now I can’t unsee it. In probably less than 10 years Goldman will be just as fat and effeminate as Meathead, too.
I thought he looked like exactly what he is, but I saw Seth Rogan, who himself looks like meathead.
Pretty humorous for you to say a sociopath is worse than a Jew – having already admitted in the article that Goldman is both.
This guy reminds me of a guy that used to be on Facebook before we all abandoned that platform.
I can’t remember his handle, but he would post pictures of the same male model, a sculpted 30something guy with a sandy brown beard and Fashy haircut. Various poses. Drinking coffee shirtless. That kind of thing.
There was even a secret group dedicated to making fun of his posts.
I’ll never understand what makes these people tick. My life is extremely normal, somewhat bland, but I am who I am and have no desire to be something I’m not, and I certainly don’t want to build a house of cards that a mere puff of wind can blow down.
Xander was the guy’s handle. Lol
The sociopath is certainly a problem of our modern age. Identifying the “poisoners” of intellectual thought and reasoned discourse is certainly a necessary skill that grows more and more important as time goes on.
A sociopath I would deign is a “poisoner”, one who cares not for anything of value except that which is of the poisoner themselves.
Not every Jew is a con artist.
Not everyone in the Manosphere is a grifter.
However, when you have a Jew in the Manosphere who wants to charge $100 a month to teach you how to be a ladies’ man, grab your wallet and run. Your shekels ate in danger!
The most important takeaway isn’t that he’s a Jew, a cuck, a degenerate or even a sociopath, but that he was heavily promoted by Glenn Beck, Tim Pool and other cuckservative/alt-lite creatures, and even by Bronze Age Pervert.
Either they did no vetting before propping him up, which means they’re too stupid to be useful allies, or they knew about him, his gay porn and his sociopathic personality before propping him up, which means they’re either cynical grifters or outright enemies. Of note is that Bronze Age Pervert is one of those people who claim sociopathy doesn’t exist.
They are allies. Hahahaha!!!!
I’m sometimes rather baffled to see otherwise intelligent and erudite people struggling with basic social perception skills that an 11-year old child had mastered. The dude goes by the name ‘Bronze Age Pervert’. He also unironically celebrates nudism. What kind of discernment exactly do you expect to find in him? I’m not saying he is a bad guy or that he has nothing important to say, but you can’t take these people seriously if you yourself are a serious person.
BAP has a persona and it reaches people, some more than others. Even if he’s said good things about Goldman (now obviously an error), people will continue to pay attention to him.
If we wanna talk sociopaths, Beck would be a wonderful case subject.
I haven’t trusted Glen Beck for at least a decade, and I strongly suspect he’s a mole. There’s no way that someone as interested in history as Glen is could be so wrong about Joe McCarthy and “Dr” King.
Strong points. I tried to read Bronze Age mindset again and still I get nothing out of it. Juvenile misreadings of nietszche.
That might be so, but if Bronze Age Pervert really is Costin Alamariu, it means that they’re not juvenile misreadings, but deliberate misrepresentations of Nietzsche. Something that’d be 100% on-brand for a neocon Straussian.
That is fake news tho… BAP is one of Curtis Yarvin’s personas.
No, BAP is not Yarvin.
Has anyone in WN circles written about BAP’s misrepresentations of Nietzsche? Even if he misjudged Goldman, he’s still influential, and not for bad reasons. He also represents a major overlap between White Nationalist and other more anti-technocrat niches in the dissident Right. I’m not qualified to judge it myself, but I’d like to be more informed given that Bronze Age Mindset is a book I’ve handed out to guys I think might be more receptive to it than WN material.
The Murphy/Goldman story keeps on giving, but I roll my eyes at the disturbingly ubiquitous tendency of non-psychologists to play Armchair Psychologist and carelessly lob meaningless fart-bombs such as “sociopath” and “narcissist” at those whom they dislike. This is a tendency that the “dissident right” shares not only with the headhunting left, but also with every jilted girl who wants to explain that it wasn’t her nagging ass or smelly vadge that drove her boyfriend away—it was because he was a “narcissist.” She saw a whole story about these people on Dr. Phil! What’s worse, her next boyfriend was a “sociopath”! Jeepers, what are the odds?
The main thing is that psychology is such a soft science that it’s flaccid, and terms such as “sociopath”—just like other scary smear words such as “racist”—are innately meaningless and unquantifiable. I realize that such terms serve as shorthand to describe behavioral patterns, but these patterns can’t in any reasonable way be measured, and no one has even begun to comprehend their etiology. I mean, are there gradations? Can you take a breathalyzer that will determine you are 53.79% sociopathic and 79.55% narcissistic? These amateur diagnostics are all very lazy and imprecise. Plus, as someone who has observed for decade after decade that people in groups seem to act with more ruthlessness and less conscience than nearly any malicious individual could ever hope to match, I’m not sure that “sociopath” is as much of an insult as it’s made out to be—but that’s exactly what a narcissistic sociopath would say, right?
Fair points, but perhaps you are referring to social psychology, a sub-discipline ripe for and rife with pop culture abuse. “Scientific psychology”, quite unlike Marx’s “scientific socialism”, is at least a real attempt at developing a science of the mind – a genuine social science (whether any social science will or even can ever develop into an actual science is debatable, and perhaps ultimately a philosophical question). The philosopher and intellectual historian Daniel Robinson authored an extensive and now classic history of the pre-scientific development of psychology as a discipline, one which is replete with the names of some of the most brilliant men of the West, beginning with Aristotle. I think Bertrand Russell said something to the effect that disciplines begin as philosophical questions and inquiries before in effect graduating into sciences.
Anyway, contemporary men like Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Richard Herrnstein, Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Kevin MacDonald (all on the Right; several on the Far Right) were or are serious men, and I think deserve to be called “scientists”.
Agree. And respectfully disagree. Agree that “psychology” is a joke of a “science.” I mean, we are all psychologists. That is how humans interact with other humans. There are billions of interpretations of what psychology is. Right? We are all armchair psychologists, that is what differentiates us from most other animals. That we know of, of course. But to label someone as a sociopath, a racist, a narcissist? I just call ’em faggots. And in that, it is anyone who acts like an idiot or says something not based in reality or nature. Not a sexual identity slander. Nothing against Mark “cutback” Johnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPo2RMHgSKQ
“…we are all psychologists.”
Respectfully disagree. I suspect that most (but not all) people speculate what drives others’ behavior. Taking it up a notch, there are people who state with absolute certainty (but no proof) what drives others’ behavior. And then there are those who blithely toss out established psychological diagnoses like a physician at a pill farm scribbles out prescriptions—only they’re not physicians, and their “patients” are people they’ve never met and who aren’t asking for their help.
“…we are all psychologists.”
I would like to try and clarify that statement in that I was using it very loosely. I think I failed to convey that in my comment. Obviously we aren’t all psychologists as far as having some degree that says as much. With regards to your response, I agree that most people speculate whether asked for or not. I just believe that this is a human trait, both good and bad that we all have. I will just stop here before I put my foot in my mouth farther than I already have.
Agreed, just like what was said in The Sopranos, everyone knows Psychology is just Jewish Grift/Fraud, the real psych on how to control and anipulate people is well known in the elite circles and is ancient. They know well enough how to manage and farm the “human resource/capital” herd. That is TRUE hard science, you get a glint of it in those ancient Roman how to control slaves manuals, but its far older than that
If you go through life waiting around for a professional psychologist to tell you that the person in front of you is a sociopath, then you are in for a HARD FUCKING ROAD ahead of you.
Way to savagely misinterpret (or perhaps misrepresent) what I wrote! What I essentially wrote is that even a “professional psychologist” is basically a voodoo doctor blindly wagging his magic stick in the dark, which means that professional psychological diagnoses are basically bullshit and which makes Extremely Online Armchair Diagnosticians even more fulla shit than that.
I’m cynical about the endless flurry of Online Diagnosing for two reasons:
1) Nearly every time that someone I’ve never met states for certain what my REAL motivations are, they are wrong. I would suspect that this sort of thing has happened at least once to most people, so I also suspect that most people can relate. And when you tell them they’re wrong, they say you’re “in denial.” Even lie detector tests aren’t reliable, so the main problem with pretending to read someone’s mind is that not only can’t you prove your assertion, they can’t disprove it. It becomes a viciously retarded cycle that seems very much like gaslighting.
2) It all lurches dangerously into the realm of mind projection fallacy.
Bro, I’m still being stalked by a girl I dated for 4 months 11 years ago. I promise you don’t know more about this subject than I do.
I promise that you’re wrong about that.
http://www.jimgoad.net/sound/anne.mp3
https://jimgoad.net/index.shtml?stalkiest
https://www.amazon.com/Headache-Factory-Online-Obsession-Madness-ebook/dp/B0791Y3QLC
Great, you have a crazy ex. Welcome to a club of which I’m the founder and CEO. That doesn’t mean that “sociopath” is a legitimate and quantifiable term, though.
No one’s arguing that people can’t act crazy. I’m talking about the legitimacy, and especially the verifiability, of facile and arbitrary classifications such as “sociopath.” You said that the distinguishing characteristic of a sociopath is that they “lie all the time.” You’re the only one I’ve ever seen define it that way, which proves my point that these are flimsy and mostly subjective terms.
When asked to define “obscenity,” Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said he really couldn’t define it, but “I know it when I see it.” Wonderful, Justice Stewart, but that’s not a definition.
Besides, calling Jack Murphy a sociopath makes him sound cooler than he is. Just call him a lying and malicious douchebag. It’s scientifically more accurate.
“… these are flimsy and mostly subjective terms.”
Psychopaths and narcissists would like others to think that. They’d like nothing more than for others to think there is no such thing as a psychopath or narcissist, or that it is impossible for anyone to know if someone is psychopath or narcissist.
It’s a ruse – they don’t want to be spotted for what they are.
“…these patterns can’t in any reasonable way be measured…”
People diagnosed as psychopaths have a unique brain structure that can be seen with fMRI scans. Psychopathy isn’t a substance in the body that can be measured with blood tests and breathalyzers. It’s a neurological condition that gives rise a common set of behaviors. Of course there is going to be variation among psychopaths – some psychopathic brains will look different than others, and some psychopaths will behave differently than other psychopaths. But there is variation in the phenotypes of every organism we know of. Not all schizophrenics manifest the same degree of psychosis, not all people with bipolar disorder experience the same level of depression, and so on.
People naturally categorize things, because they notice similarities. If we didn’t call people “psychopaths” we’d call them something else because we’d notice the same set of behaviors common to these types.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that if I get a blood test, the experts can’t conclude if I am a psychopath or not? Sounds like some breakthrough science to me!! I wasn’t aware that physiology had nothing to do with psychology and visa versa. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
A variation of the Turing Test was conducted with psychiatrists. A computer program imitated a paranoid schizophrenic obsessed by the mafia trying to frame him for a contract killing…and was interviewed by psychiatrists over a text based interface. The professionals couldn’t tell the difference between the real Paranoids they interviewed and the program. The program was called Parry. Suppose you set up a fake psycho or Sociopath program and had clinicians interview… Would they detect the difference with the real?
In the same way that smart and dumb are useful but broad labels that reflect several underlying concepts (g, spatial, verbal, etc), sociopath combines several aspects about a person. Willingness to lie, inability to empathize, weakness of character, bias to self over others, loyalty, and so forth.
And so I think it’s useful to call someone a sociopath when it’s likely that they will fail to act in a less prosocial manner (compared to others) given a context that is likely to come up.
And so, yes, I believe it is a range, and it would be hypothetically possible to devise a test that could score someone 1-100 on sociopathy, though I can’t see how it could be made practical, and I admit that not everyone would agree on the scoring.
Psychopathy/sociopathy definitions boil down to a total or near-total absence of empathy. Going by the view according to which the mind is a modular apparatus, you can easily place psychopathy in the realm of neurology or physiology – one of the mind modules doesn’t work properly. There are well recorded cases of psychopathy resulting from from physical brain injury. So no, it’s not some made-up non-sense.
I’m not seeing claims that sociopathy doesn’t exist. But characterizing Phineas Gage wasn’t done online. Any time our feelings are hurt or pissed it’s easy to say the offender has no empathy, and the slippery slope goes right to sociopathy/psychopathy. Most of commenters have doubtfully read Hare’s psychopathy checklist, itself somewhat arbitrary. While psychology is a softer science than physics, it’s way less arbirary than sociology, history, philosophy, or the proselytizing of academic departments whose 2nd word ends in “studies”. The media left routinely takes liberties with psychology, leading to accusations its pseudoscience. But when the topic of IQ scores comes up, the right loves that topic. IQ is one the most reproducible and well studied areas in psychology, and if you’ve met a psychologist, they choose their words extremely carefully out of fear.
It’s true that remote armchair psychology diagnoses come easy, and terms like “narcissist” can serve as catch-all terms for all kinds of unpleasant people. Indeed the diagnosis is very often projection by people who are equally mad or often the really mad party in the game. I’m also not sure if we know enough about Goldman-Murphy in order to label him a “sociopath” in a clinical sense. He certainly is the kind of egocentric grifter and con-men one should be aware of.
However I think anyone who has experienced the destructive power of “Cluster B”-personality types instantly will recognize their behaviour patterns whenever he meets their sort again. The way you (Jim Goad) described Ann in “Shit Magnet” is severe textbook Borderline personality disorder with every symptom and cliché imaginable (and BPDs routinely label their abused partners as “narcissists”).
I saw the the quartering tweet with the infamous picture with the caption “this man wants to teach you masculinity.” This is just too much. I think even more so than the Ted Haggard scandal.
Egon’s gigameter is about to blow from the pulsating bullshit in the psychomagnatheric field. Instead of diagnosing blarney goldman as a whatever-path I see just a whinging asshole. Puffed vanity. Misogynists welcome in the e-man cave. Men and only men and their cubs. “I’m right, case closed. Click, subscribe, pay up, and fuck you.” If a man doesn’t want his rectal erotomania out there for the world to see and make fun of, don’t post it. I guess the money is too good cause these grandstanders never change their hateable personalities or tweak their gruntgrifts are failed faiths and ideologies; Billy Mays’ cleaning products were at least useful for the bathroom grime. However they muster to milk you, these clowns-whose common attribute is being very disliked-leapfrog the lily pads from Godguy shyster (peter popoff & pat robertson) to republican mug-hawkers (crowder & kaitlin bennett) to offshoots like “conservative” toadies in the 1776 hat, bedecked from tie to socks in all-amerikan wear as ridiculous as Don Cherry’s suits. Translation: give tel aviv and the jewish whatever they want and never suggest a bad thing about either. Cause I’m a pussy. Oh, and freedom of speech and amerika first. Where’s my puke bucket? Yes, the bushy beards suggest questionable character, but Patrick Rothfuss is a good enough fantasy storyteller and before blasting the burdensome goliath-wear as more dumb glasses than face, George Romero did make some seminal films in them. That joke aruna khilanani doesn’t help the reputation of the headshrinkers whose help she desperately needs more than any white man does; maybe Mr. Murphy should seek her help and her his so both can learn to quell their anger in a cooperative caring environment though I suspect blarney goldman will leave session as Dexter Morgan.
Sociopathy and psychopathy are very similar. Essentially means lack of a conscience, no morals whatsoever, purely opportunistic. Psychopaths tend to be more charming and successful and grandiose (think corporate executives), whereas sociopaths tend to be more bottom feeders. The majority of prisoners are sociopathic/psychopathic.
psychopathy is a clinical condition to describe a person who has either a congenitally defective brain, or has suffered damage to their brain (specifically, the frontal lobe) during their lifetime, with the result that their brain no longer feels or has extremely muted feelings of empathy, remorse, fear, capacity to plan ahead or analyze, etc
sociopathy is an adjective used to describe people with generally anti-social traits or people who do not automatically subscribe to the accepted shared moral system/beliefs of the larger society around them. this is not necessarily a “bad” thing. for example, someone who flaunts covid restrictions like public mask-wearing would be seen by most normal people as “sociopathic,” even if their behavior is perfectly rational or even strictly more pro-social when analyzed fully
this particular person can be described as having psychopathic traits, but i don’t think he is a bona fide psychopath. bona fide psychopaths are pretty rare and almost all in prison or on the fringes of society. the hollywood/netflix trope of the high IQ, high-achieving, cunning and ruthless CEO/politician is just that – a dumb trope that almost never exists in real life. but there are plenty of people out there like this guy who have psychopathic traits – muted empathy, remorse, fear, caring about others, etc – who still function well enough to get by in regular society
I have had this conversation a thousand times. I will say there “sociopath and psychopath are interchangeable” and someone will say “Nuh-uh! There’s a difference! A sociopath is X and a psychopath is Y!”
But the funny thing I’ve noticed is that the people who tell me that I am wrong and that there is a difference between “sociopath” and “psychopath”, I never hear same explanation twice. I’ve heard “the difference between sociopath and psychopath” explained to me a million different ways. It’s like the aristocrats joke. Everyone puts their own little spin on it.
Hell, just look at the comments section of this article. There are several people telling me “Nuh-uh! There’s a difference between sociopath and psychopath!” and what do you see? They all give slightly different explanations for what that distinction is.
One says “psychopaths are high achievers and sociopaths are low achievers”. One says “Psychopath is nature and Sociopath is nurture.” One says “Psychopath has a, b, c, traits and sociopaths has x, y, z, traits”
Now, they can’t all be right. It’s possible that one is right and the rest are wrong. Or it could that they are all wrong and that I am the only one who knows what they are talking about.
Nice name by the way.
Read what I said above. Right now psychopath and sociopath are equivalent, but there are other formulations in the literature which try to make distinctions. Actually your essay rekindled my interest in personality disorders so I was looking into their history and previously, in dsm3 there were more different personality disorders. For example, there was a sadistic personality disorder in addition to antisocial. Sadistic was equated with psychopath and antisocial was sociopathic. And they had subcategories, for example there was tyrannical type sadist and enforcer type sadist! Note that sadist does not mean bdsm—they don’t necessarily take sexual gratification in their behavior. The tendency appears to be simplification with each new edition of the dsm, I suppose to make it easier for the affirmative action crowd, lol. So right now the two terms are equivalent for professional purposes, but at times there have been distinctions.
i wasn’t trying to nitpick you, was just trying to contribute to the comments section discussion about the semantics and definitions of psychopathy/sociopathy. i was a neuroscience grad student until i quit because academia sucks. that’s what those terms meant for a long time. but the other commenters are correct in pointing out that these DSM psychiatric definitions have changed over time, and currently neither “psychopathy” or “sociopathy” are even in the DSM anymore – now they call any and all broadly anti-social behavior “anti-social disorder” (lol)
it’s totally fine that you called him a sociopath. he is very sociopathic, after all. and for the purposes of an article like this, the exact terminology used doesn’t really matter. the important thing is the message: that you really do need to avoid psychopathic people at all costs. there is no possible positive outcome with them. they are black holes of human suffering and destruction. it’s always good to have reminders like this article that really drive that point home
Trump also seems like a textbook definition of a socio/psychopath.
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-online-right-cancels-one-of-its-own/
This is an interesting bit of what may be counter-signaling. No one on the right is canceling Murphy. His page is still up, he still has his twitter, I’m assuming his payment processor hasn’t dropped him.
how does one deal with sociopaths at work who are gunning for you?
Like the author said: if at all possible, avoid any and all entanglements with them. If u must deal with them, you have to show strength and keep them from targeting you. Its predator and prey mentality for them. If they think its going to be a nasty fight and theyll get dirty by messing with you, they are less likely to target you.
If a sociopath is your boss or has authority over you, find another job or find a way to get them fired, by force or guile. An honorable person who isnt a follower/conformist cannot coexist with a sociopath for long. A weak-willed conformist will just walk on egshells and pay homage to the predator.
Presumably the biggest danger sign is if the personality is a life long liberal Democrat who suddenly has a conversion to populism, nationalism or traditionalism which coincides with the rise of a candidate like Trump. Murphy/Goldman was of this type, but the conversion was a bit clouded by his wanting to also be a man-o-sphere figure.
There’s a 60/40 chance such people are just cynical opportunists like Jared Kushner. They want to use the movement’s energies for their own narrow subversive ends.
Well Travis, it turns out Goldman is even more of a predator & con man than his post-2015 deeds reveal.
Here’s a clue regarding the scam he was running in 2012 to draw two salaries from the same charter school org.
https://twitter.com/crabcrawler1/status/1478883523599736834
“Sociopath” seems to be a term that normies love to attach to anyone who stands out from the herd. I’m sure Nietzsche would’ve had something to say about it.
Sorry, not buying it. But it is a trait prized by manosphere chuckleheads, so I see how you would take that line.
But it is a trait prized by manosphere chuckleheads, so I see how you would take that line.
The PUA and red-pill community do lionize “dark triad” characteristics, so they tend to attract those sort of folks.
The Nietzsche reference is hardly a good angle. Nietzsche unironically considered Borgia a type that resembles his own idea of a Superman. I don’t think any other philosopher of his caliber ever disqualified his own idea in such an inapt way.
Update on this story:
Tim Pool, who was one of John Goldman’s last big public supporters and his main ally throughout this controversy, had been besieged by his own fanbase for the last couple weeks with demands that Pool disavow Goldman. The chats of his livestreams have been nothing but Jack Murphy and cuckold jokes for the whole stream.
So a few days ago after relentless trolling, Tim Pool finally unfriended Jack Murphy on Twitter. Lo and behold, yesterday, Tim Pool gets swatted live on stream.
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-tim-pool-gets-swatted-during-live-broadcast
Now, no one can prove that Goldman was behind the swatting but the timing was suspicious and according to The Quartering, very few people know Tim Pool’s address (but John Goldman is one of them).
But if it was John Goldman, this goes back to the point I originally made in the article: “Hopefully you did not tell him anything in confidence before you figured out that he is insane, because that could also complicate things.”
Tim Pool gave a sociopath his address and then found out the guy was a sociopath. Goldman now had the power to harm him. This would explain why Tim was so slow to disavow Goldman. He was in a Catch 22. If he disavows, he puts himself at risk. If he doesn’t disavow, he loses the respect of his audience who would leave him in disgust.
These are the kinds of situations you wind up finding yourself in when you deal with sociopaths, where you have to choose between your ethics and your personal safety. Do you stand up to them and make a permanent enemy of a pathological liar with no conscience or do you stay silent and be complicit? It’s not a good place to be.
A discussion on this topic would be remiss if it did not include references to Canadian Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Robert D. Hare [1934-], who holds a Ph.D. in Psychology. Dr. Hare is considered to be the foremost researcher regarding the personality disorder of psychopathy. As is well-known, Dr. Hare developed a Check List of twenty character traits of the psychopath. Dr. Hare’s list is based on a list compiled by psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley of Athens, Georgia. [1903-1984]. Dr. Cleckley wrote the book The Mask of Sanity, which demonstrates how a psychopath is able to present himself as sane although seething under the surface with a serious personality disorder. Dr. Cleckley, M.D., was a professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Georgia School of Medicine, in Augusta, Georgia.
Some of the character traits of psychopathy on Dr. Hare’s checklist are: glibness and superficial charm; grandiose self-worth; pathological lying; cunning and manipulative; lack of remorse or guilt; emotional poverty; lack of empathy; parasitic lifestyle; and promiscuity.
An overriding, umbrella term that encompasses many of the above traits is “lack of conscience”, hence, the title of Dr. Hare’s seminal book “Without Conscience”, published in 1993.
The two quotes below address the distinction between the terms sociopathy and psychopathy:
The quote below is taken from Wikipedia; this quote is a paraphrasing from the book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. New York City: Regan Books, 2006, p. 19. This book was co-authored by Dr. Robert Hare and Paul Babiak.
“[Dr. Robert D.] Hare has defined sociopathy as a condition distinct from psychopathy, caused by growing up in an antisocial or criminal subculture rather than being marked by a basic lack of social emotion or moral reasoning. He has also regarded the DSM-IV diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder as separate to his concept of psychopathy, as it did not list the same underlying personality traits. He suggests that ASPD would cover several times more people than psychopathy, and that while the prevalence of sociopathy is not known it would likely cover considerably more people than ASPD.”
Further elucidation is provided in Dr. Hare’s seminal work Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.
“In many cases, the choice of term reflects the user’s views on the origins and determinants of the clinical syndrome or disorder described in this book. Thus, some clinicians and researchers – as well as most sociologists and criminologists – who believe that the syndrome is forged entirely by social forces and early experiences prefer the term sociopath, whereas those – including this writer {Dr. Hare} – who feel that psychological, biological, and genetic factors also contribute to development of the syndrome generally use the term psychopath. The same individual therefore could be diagnosed as a sociopath by one expert and as a psychopath by another.”
The quote above from Robert Hare’s Without Conscience is on pages 23 & 24.
Is Barack Obama a Sociopath or a Psychopath?
Regarding whether an individual would be categorized as a sociopath or a psychopath, this is better understood in light of an example. Since so many businessmen and politicians are accused of being psychopaths, let’s consider Barack Obama. Critics often referred to Obama as displaying narcissistic character traits, and some critics even went so far as to suggest that Obama is a psychopath. Using Dr. Hare’s definition, as presented above, let’s see if Obama would actually be categorized as a sociopath or a psychopath.
Sociopaths and Psychopaths are Distinct from One Another
According to Dr. Hare’s definition, a sociopath has grown up in an antisocial or criminal subculture. This individual’s personality has been forged entirely by social forces and early experiences. This, clearly, was not the type of environment that Obama was brought up in.
A psychopath’s personality, on the other hand, has been strongly influenced by a combination of psychological, biological, and genetic factors. This combination results in this individual lacking social emotions and moral reasoning.
Expressed differently, although a sociopath manifests most of the same character traits as a psychopath, the sociopath expresses these character traits in a much less sophisticated way; the sociopath could be described as a “crude, rude, dude” whereas many psychopaths have been described as a “refined and well-mannered gentleman.” In achieving their respective goals, the sociopath would be much more inclined to be abrasive, violent, and criminal whereas the psychopath would be agreeable, cunning, and manipulative.
Barack Obama’s Genetics
Regarding genetic factors influencing Obama’s development: Obama is of mixed-race; however, he’s not half-White and half-Black: Obama’s mother is Caucasian, and his biological father, Frank Marshall Davis, is about 85% Negro and 12.5% Hispanic – along with some Caucasian genes. Davis’s mother’s, father’s, mother was Mexican – most likely with ancestors from Spain; she was one of Obama’s great-great-grandmothers [Davis, Livin’ the Blues, p. 7] Davis refers to himself in this memoir as ethnic hash.
Davis’s complexion is described by his Negro biographer, Kathryn Waddell Takara, as cinnamon or ginger. [Takara, Frank Marshall Davis: The Fire and the Phoenix: A Critical Biography (Pacific Raven Press, Ka’a’awa, Hawaii, 2012) 2nd Printing, page 2.] Takara was married to a Japanese-American, and she lived in Honolulu, Hawaii; Takara was a professor at the University of Hawaii; she taught ethnic and Black studies for thirty-one years. Takara was acquainted with Davis from 1972 until his death in 1987. Although Takara most likely knows that Davis is Obama’s biological father, she does not even hint at this in her book. Takara’s Ph.D. was based on her study of Frank Marshall Davis.
Following up on the above paragraph: Obama is genetically about 42.5% Negro, 6.25% Hispanic, and 51.25% Caucasian; this explains why Obama is so light-complected. Had Obama’s biological father been the Kenyan, Obama would have a much darker complexion, and he would be shorter.
The Kenyan was 100% Negro; he was born in Kenya near Kendu Bay of Lake Victoria, close to the city of Kisumu, which is well inland; it is 436 miles from Mombasa, Kenya, which is on the Indian Ocean. Kisumu is 164 miles from Nairobi, which is the Capitol of Kenya and is centrally located. The 2021 population of Kisumu was 367,000. The Kenyan was so black that he often appeared to be purple. The Kenyan was 5’ 10”; Frank Davis was 6’ 1”; Obama is 6’ 1”. Furthermore, Davis was left-handed, and Obama is left-handed.
Psychologically: Obama was traumatized because he was of mixed-race – however, with clear Negro characteristics – living in two countries during his youth and adolescence – Indonesia and Hawaii – where there were few Negroes. He was further traumatized when he found out that his mother, Ann Dunham, had been lying to him about who his biological father was; this occurred at the age of fifteen. Until her dying day on November 7, 1995, Ann maintained that the Kenyan was Obama’s father; Obama never confronted his mother about this lie. Ann was very obese; she developed uterine cancer; she died at the age of fifty-two, just about three weeks shy of her fifty-third birthday.
Biologically: Because of the strong Negro admixture, Obama’s testosterone levels were higher than the Caucasian and Asian males he came in contact with. This meant that his sex-drive was stronger. It has been speculated that Obama’s father, Frank Davis, taught him how to satisfy his sex-drive orally. This led to Obama earning money as a homosexual prostitute at the age of sixteen; he used the money he earned to buy refined cocaine. This was the beginning of Obama’s homosexual lifestyle, which, in all likelihood, continues to this day.
The above genetic, psychological, and biological factors led to Obama developing to be a psychopath.
Comparisons between Barack Obama and John Goldman
Comparing, then, John Goldman (aka Jack Murphy), with Barack Obama, Goldman is clearly a “crude, rude, dude” whereas Obama has usually presented himself as a “refined and well-mannered gentleman.” Hence, in accordance with Dr. Hare’s definition, one is correct in describing Goldman as a sociopath; and Obama would, clearly, be described as a psychopath.
Comparing these two men in reference to the character trait of “sexual promiscuity,” Goldman is about as crude as one can be whereas Obama has been fairly discreet regarding his promiscuous homosexual lifestyle.
Comparing them in reference to the character trait of “glibness (smooth-talking) and superficial charm,” although lacking in charm, Goldman has been able to convince young men to join his organization. Obama, on the other hand, has been a glib, smooth-talker, and he exudes superficial charm.
In conclusion, according to Dr. Robert Hare, sociopathy is a personality disorder that is distinct from psychopathy. This is clearly demonstrated through the comparison between Barack Obama and John Goldman.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment