@Whisper

I'm not sure why you don't generalize psychopathy -- under your definition -- to explain the symptoms of high intelligence more generically. If you think in a way similar to others, if only because you are of similar intelligence, then you will appear to be naturally empathetic. To what you are saying, if you do not think in a way similar to others, but are smart enough to fake it, then you will appear to be naturally empathetic. It is the valley in the middle that is problematic: too smart to feel it, not smart enough to figure it out.

I lose the thread when you talk about mirror neurons -- is this just a succinct way of articulating the point of "feeling your way to a successful vibe"? If so, you've kind of made psychopathy a natural consequence of intelligence. An ability to mask the symptoms doesn't make the symptoms go away.

I take an interest because this really speaks to me. It takes me an enormous amount of effort to "vibe" with others -- to the extent that I believe I have some kind of high functioning autism -- but when I get in state I am extremely socially successful. I don't know that this is due to a lack of mirror neuron function (not clear on this -- see above), it's more that there is an extra bash script bolted onto the social protocol that hogs a disproportionate percentage of the CPU.

I just wish I knew how to consistently perform. Some days are better than others. Some days I know just what to say, and how to say it, and others... not so much. I've decoupled it from physical state -- being well rested, hydrated, fed, etc. doesn't really correlate. Curious if this is something you are familiar with and/or you have some insight.

But I would say that most antisocial acts committed by psychopaths originate in loneliness, and the resentment brought on by perceived rejection, since psychopaths have the same emotional needs as others, but many low-functioning psychopaths are unable to get those needs met due to decreased mirror neuron function, which both makes them unable to successfully interact with others in certain ways, and makes them unable to feel emotional support when it is actually directed their way.

So what happens then? What is the advice you would give to such a person?

@Whisper Yes we mostly agree, although I'm not so sure the problem can be so conveniently located in the mirror neurons.

DSM-5 panters too much to postmodernism, so provides endless lists of disconnected behaviour sets, skipping the issue of underlying structure. Cleckley describes the psychopath's functioning, which is good enough. But he rejects the old "faculty psychology", which has been revived in evopsych and provides, imo, the key - to the psychopath and to psychology in general.

Where in the brain "faculties" reside is not, afaik, yet determined. Brain structure definitely plays part, but they are not exactly localized. It's more like programs that are distributed accross several brain structures, and they become phase-locked at times, booting evolved behaviours (adaptations).

So, the lack of guilt would probably be enough to separate and define the psychopath. It's like having a constant bug in the aforementioned system of faculty alignment. Intelligent psychopaths can often side-step the bug, but that consumes brain power and can be exhausting. Still, that's a best case scenario. More often than not, psychopaths will just play with people and destroy what's not theirs, just for the fun of it.

This description would mean that even "normals" can enter - and utilize - psychopathy-like states, just as they enter and utilize obsessive compulsion i.e. when studying for the exams.

@Bozza

You're onto something there.

Most women don't understand that a committed relationship no longer has inherent value to us. If they want to be a girlfriend, that's something they have to buy from us, not vice versa. And there is no promotion from girlfriend. That level no longer exists.

I have a girlfriend (in fact, I have two), not because I need to be in a relationship, but because they "purchased" that status from me by packaging it with other things that I like. Not just blowjobs on command, but complete, instant, cheerful, and unquestioning obedience, and personalities and skills that add value to my life.

Hell, they're working to pay the bills while I take early retirement and write books.

My point here is to tell young men: Don't pay for something that you should be getting paid for instead.

You are the prize. And if a woman doesn't think so, let her be off somewhere else with your blessing to speed her along. Never spend money, or time, or care, or effort, or worry, on a woman who doesn't already see the value in you .

Sure, with good "game", you can seduce hostile or indifferent women. But only consider relationships with women who chase you.

Sure, there will be women who would read something like this, give a haughty sniff and say "as if we'd want this misogynist anyway". Well, when they say that, fine. Let such women go their own way. I won't hit on them, nor should you. They can be blissfully free from our attentions.

I'm already with the girls I like. You will be, too. Can they get the same deal? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe they'll end up with cats. Either way, not our circus, not our monkeys.

In an indifference contest between men and women, men will always win once we actually start playing to win.

@MentORPHEUS

The problem with "I can't possibly be a gold digger, I already have money" is that it misapprehends WHY women become gold diggers.

They're not necessarily just looking for money they can spend. They're also looking for money to be spent on them, to feed their sense of importance and self-worth.

If gold-digging women were purely about padding their bank accounts, they would be unimpressed by diamonds, paid-for luxury vacations, or anything else they couldn't convert into liquid cash.

It's about the dopamine.

However, in this girl's case, there's more than one dopamine source. She isn't just fucking rich dudes who made their fortunes on Wall Street that no one's ever heard of. She's picking celebrities who are not only wealthy, but also well-known for public-facing roles... actors, rock stars, etc.

She's not seeking wealth, but status.

It's about the dopamine.

@Green_Echoe

Don't get too drilled down into the details of those exact points. This is not an exhaustive list... there are others.

The important lesson here is that men, like women, have a sort of sub-to-semi-conscious cost-benefit analysis that they do on prospective partners. BUT men's priority list for relationships is completely different than women's, and there tend to be heavy social sanctions against being too honest about that list.

This means that in most social situations, most men will be silent or lie about what we want in a partner.

The reason the term "pickme" is only applied to women, is that "pickme" behaviour is considered normal, and even socially demanded, from men.

What this pattern of silence, lies, and pandering means is that most women are completely deluded about what men want, and how to have a relationship with one.

This is symptomatic of how our society interacts with women. Women are the preferred sex, and the privileged sex, in western culture, but this does not mean that they are treated in a health-promoting way. Western culture prioritizes pandering to women, flattering women, and saying positive things to and about women, over telling women the truth, or what they need to hear.

So, pretty much since the beginning of the modern era, western women have grown up in a situation where they are surrounded by a perfect storm of flattery and lies, told that they are perfect the way they are, and that there is absolutely no need for them to develop character, grow as people, improve themselves, or change in any way apart from acquiring more "self-esteem". Any countervailing message is confined to porn and beer commercials, and dismissed as misogyny.

If alien anthropologists were to watch American television and movies, they would perhaps think that "women's self-esteem" was a rare and precious substance used to catalyze nuclear fusion reactors, or cure cancer, or extend the human lifespan.

In reality, what women's self-esteem is actually used for is turning normal women, with a realistic assessment of their capabilities and weaknesses, into insufferable entitled cunts.

This is why 21st century Hollywood cannot create likable female characters. To be likable, a character must have a character arc... she must grow, change, and develop. But Hollywood cannot bear to depict any female main character as lacking character, morality, competence, or enlightenment, even at the beginning of her story. Thus, there is no way for her to change or grow.

Which is exactly what happens to real women in a society nurtured by such stories. I truly feel sorry for women in today's western society. I mean this literally. It is not a rhetorical expression, veiled insult, or sarcasm of any form. Women are literally being deprived of the feedback they need for healthy psychological development. How can women possibly be expected to know when they need to improve, or what they need to improve, or how they need to improve, if no one will criticize them honestly?

Which brings me, at last, to you.

You believe that your problem is that you don't know where to meet men. I suspect you are wrong, and that is not your problem at all.

Instead, I believe that you would already have at least one, possibly several, good choices for a boyfriend if you weren't already unappealing as a partner, for some reason that no one will tell you about, because they don't want to say mean things to a woman.

To be clear, I do not know you, so I cannot know which of several possibilities is your actual problem.

But, in my experience, very few western women are so cloistered that they will not be approached and propositioned by men, unless there is something in their appearance or behaviour that stops this from happening.

So my suspicion is that you do not need a recommendation for a dating website, but a fearless self-assessment.