THE ANTISOCIAL QUOTIENT

Tags

Mankind should be our business, The antisocial quotient, The show NUMB3RS defines the antisocial element

This is a post I have been thinking of for weeks, but it has come to fruition due to the combination of a few events and experiences I have had in the past last 5-6 days, as it started with my watching a couple of NUMB3RS episodes of season 2, and then watching the ongoing BS of Hillary Clinton’s announcing her candidacy for President, and finally just listening to some of the crap from various colleagues and reading more BS from the APA in their recent Newsletter I continue to get without any effort on my part to request.  Oh, and the shooting of the man in South Carolina, that had an impact too.

So, the following scan is a summation of what I deem THE ANTISOCIAL QUOTIENT, and while it is a bit rough, I think it hits the highlights, or better to term the lowlights that are the antisocial.  The three groups in our society that prompted me to compose this are our politicians, our health care system, and our police force.  I think it is applicable to others in America, but, let’s start with those who seem to impact on us with a regularity that may redefine obscene and disruptive.

Oh, and you might note the theme of words with the letter “D” in there, and that is not a coincidence.  I like to look for patterns and similarities, and I think the letter “D” for deviant, disaster,and plain Demon or Devil seems to fit, eh?

So, here is my “Charley Epps” moment, hope it is entertaining, if not provocative and just plain presumptuous?

I  can’t enlarge it too much for the post and risk the type becoming more illegible, so if you want to read it, you have to click it as a separate page and enlarge it as able per your device.  I want readers to know, I really did spend a good deal of time composing this in my travels and thoughts.  I will be adding addendums to this post in the coming next few days to clarify and postulate further, so if interested, please come back and read up.

But, let’s end this post now with something that hit me while lying in bed last weekend, while not related to this season, I think the scene transcends the Christmas holidays and is applicable to any time, any moment, and any real point of what our culture has lost in it’s meaning and intent these last couple of decades, to me since Reagan was President…

Go to minute 5:30 for the classic line, “Mankind was my business!”

Not what you hear from the usual suspects in the Democrat Party these days, not that the Republicans as a group fare much better anyway.

Just think of Obama when you consider an example to fit the Quotient, I think the scoring might just frighten you…

________________________________________________

Addendum April 16 8PM:

Good work always needs to be cleaned up, and I will start with noting I had just 6 immature defenses listed, not 7, so I am not going to reprint the scanned sheet above, I ask readers to note it is an equal number of immature to mature defenses.

It shouldn’t mess up the quotient significantly at the end of the day.

Next, I found this today in my search for other scales for antisocial PD, and will link it for those interested, although it is moreso about psychopathy:

http://vistriai.com/psychopathtest/

It does overlap a bit of what I list in my scale, er, attempt at quantification of human deterioration of values and boundaries.

Anyway, I hope readers note this is just my simplification at documenting the depths that people can degenerate to in being disgusting at the end of the day.  Like the ongoing use of “D” words there?

I do declare, the dogma is daunting…

Feel free to offer your declarations.

______________________________________________

Addendum #2 April 16th:

Oh hell, let’s have some fun, I want to apply the quotient to Hillary:

Section A:  1.  Dishonest: can we give her a 6?  Ok, a 5.  2.  Disingenuous: easily a 4, I would give a 5 but people think this is a 5 across the board.  Maybe…  3.  Disdain:  she is a poster child, 5.  4.  Disruptive: a 3, only because so many Democrats are willing to suspend reality and believe her.  5.  Divisive: again, a poster child like her predecessor Barry, a 5.  6.  Disinhibitive:  a 3, she has some boundaries, just not around people like you and me.  7.  Destructive:  again, a 3.

So, 5+ 4+ 5+ 3+ 5+ 3+ 3 = 25.  Divided by 7 = 3.6 (average up)

Section B:  potential to destabilize, let’s use that phrase so well associate with her, “what difference does it make?!” = 8.  So, the denominator of negating factors, well, she has Republicans, but business opponents, who?  And influential family members not allied with her, again a fat 0!  Community groups as outlets, I guess some to count as 1.  Responsible media outlets, outside Fox News, I mean, how big is this woman’s butt to have all those media outlets with lips affixed to her cheeks?  Total a kind 2!

Total here = 4

Section C:  Determined by past, present and future, I give her 3’s for every one!  Yeah, I know I am accused as not being impartial!  Shit, and she is?!

Total = 3

Section D:  Drugs, I think not, a 0.  Debauchery?  I give her a 0.5, as I think she is not a healthy heterosexual, and married to Bill after all his BS cheating, that counts at least for something against her.  Duplicitous, again, can I go above 1?

1.5 divided by 3 = 0.5

Section E: Defense mechanisms, this will be fun!  Denial, projection, minimizing, deflecting, false rationalizing, and acting out, textbook on all counts from her!

+6!  Then, let’s here from the back about any mature defenses by her.  Displacement, really?  Intellectualizing, only in her mind.  Undoing, not the way the definition is for a defense, but if it happens in her campaign, hell yeah!  Realistic rationalization, maybe at times, a kind 1 here!  Sublimation, really a stretch to give her that one.  Assertiveness, well, not in a healthy way, but I am trying to be a kind guy and not give her every negative..

+6 for immature and -2 for mature, = 4

Section F, the Quotient Denominator, I can’t keep a straight face reading them and applying them in any fashion to her, well, maybe take out an enemy of the country, oh, Ambassador Stevens was on our side, shit!  Accepting of punishment, yeah, get back to me when the email fiasco plays out in the end!!!

SO the ending:

3.6 + 4 + 3 + 0.5 + 4 / 1 (and a kind one, note that if it is 0 it does not negate the quotient, but nice try out there Hillary defenders!  = a big ass 14!

Frightening if you agree with me to some level, eh!!??

______________________________________________

Addendum April 21 9PM:

First this, from the most recent issue of Psychiatric Annals, Vol 45 Issue 4 (Ironically dedicated to Psychopathy versus Sociopathy, are they catching up to me in meaningful topics?), article by Michael Brook PhD, The Role of Psychopathic and Antisocial Traits in Violence Risk Assessment:  Implications for Forensic Practice:

Interesting how they show the progression of antisocial PD into pure psychopathy intent, hmm?  I feel the overlaps into my Quotient give it some validity?

Anyway, I ask readers to do their own assessment of Obama from my Antisocial Quotient, I think the scoring would be at least 10 if not even higher than what I scored Clinton a few days ago.

And I think my addendums for this post are done now.