Types of Evil Personalities

excerpts:
About four percent of the population is evil - that is about one person in twenty five.

The mental abilities of evil people closely echo those of the normal population; there is a bell shaped curve of intelligence in both good and evil people.

Most good people are only aware of the least intelligent part of the evil distribution; those are the people who are obviously evil: criminals. The normal and intelligent ends of the evil distribution totally escape most good people's understanding. In this web page I will describe those undetected parts of evil.

What does an evil person of normal intelligence look like? Most people are very familiar with them. An evil person of normal intelligence is a person who makes life difficult, painful, and unpleasant for the good people around them. The supervisor who creates a crises at work by trying to pour a cup and a half of coffee into a cup and then requires everyone to work holiday's and weekends to clean up the mess - is an example of an evil person of normal intelligence. What distinguishes such people from criminals is that they are quicker learners; they figure out what will happen to them if they pursue the sort of obvious evil things that the least intelligent of the evil spectrum do.

Evil people of normal intelligence are careful to do their best to blend into good society. This insulates and protects them from the angered reaction of good people; who would hammer them just as hard as they hammer the least intelligent of the evil. Indeed, evil people of normal intelligence are so successful at blending into good society that their statements, goals and culture have become 'normal' and 'accepted'.

For example, the comic strip 'Miss Peach' is an example of the behavior and actions of evil people of normal intelligence. The 'Put Down', passive aggressive behavior, insults, 'back stabbing', these are all typical behaviors for evil people of normal intelligence. All of these things are so common that many good people adopt them as reasonable ways to behave; they are not, they are as evil as anything could be.

By far evil people of normal intelligence are the most common type of evil person most people encounter. The stress in most good people's lives comes from interaction with evil people of normal intelligence. The goal of the average evil person is to make the lives of those around them as miserable as they can - without doing enough to attract the retribution they richly deserve.

Next up the ladder is the evil person of above average intelligence. These people have a similar goal to evil people of average intelligence; the production of human misery. However these people see the opportunity to do something that evil people of normal intelligence don't see how to do; murder someone and get away with it. They understand that the way to murder someone and get away with it is to not care who they kill, how they kill them, or when they kill them. Such people set up conditions where someone will be 'accidentally' killed and wait for the circumstances to occur.

That leaves us those who are evil and of high intelligence. Most good people are also familiar with these kind of people; we call them leaders - both of industry and of government. It is the goal of such people to get away with mass murder.

If you are a good person you will meet many evil people in your life, you need to recognize them and their actions. More importantly you need to recognize which evil behaviors you have been conned into excepting as reasonable and to reject those behaviors - both in yourself and in others - as unacceptable.

Of course Yin and Yang complicates the detection of evil; in any good person there is an element of evil - in any evil person there is an element of good. In a good man that element of evil belongs in his fighting spirit - where it causes no harm and strengthens his nature. Incidentally, it is because of this element of evil in the fighting spirit that good triumphs over evil; it is something evil lacks.

original article found here

ONLINE RELATIONSHIPS: THE ART OF MISPERCEPTION

Is "real" love possible to attain via computer? There are many factors that come into play when two people fall in love. Some cannot be described in a definitive way; such as chemical attraction. Other factors are qualities that we find in another person that compliment our desires of a “perfect” mate. Honesty, integrity, loyalty, caring, a fun loving personality and good morals are just a few of these qualities. Many woman and men alike, have “fallen in love” over the internet. They have done so, without the possibility of truly seeing any of these qualities in the other person. So before we put our hearts on the line, we must ask ourselves; is it truly possible to love someone via computer?

The majority of people who believe they have discovered true love without actually meeting the other person, have done so by implementing a type of instant messenger or video conferencing. We will focus on this element, as the element of a webcam can be misleading. When two people find each other and begin to chat online, one of two things happens. Either they do not feel a connection or they do. If a connection is felt, this can quickly escalate into chatting every day. They believe they have discovered the excitement that one feels when meeting someone new. However, they have not really met, have they?

It is a fact that many people are lonely. This is not new to us, many single people are busy with work, single moms are busy with their children and it can be very daunting and difficult to find a meaningful relationship in the “real” world. With personal computers in the majority of every household, many people turn to this internet environment when they are lonely and wish for someone to talk to.

It is important to realize that the world inside a computer is not, and never can be, the real world. When craving acceptance, love, caring, attention and a relationship, one can easily be led astray into the art of misperception. Often, this misperception is not done on purpose. Both people involved in the online relationship do not even realize this is happening.

The truth of the matter is this: the key elements of a true and loving relationship cannot materialize through a computer. You may wish for them, daydream of them and tell yourself they exist, but they do not.

Starting with physical and chemical attraction: a person may feel they are attracted to the image on a webcam but this in no way is the actual person that exists. Anyone who owns a webcam surely understands that it is very easy to show yourself in a good light via cam. If you feel that you are completely attracted to the other person, ask yourself this: Do you entirely show your true self on your cam? Webcams are an image of you, a moving image and very far from what you are perceived as in person. If you are attracted to someone via cam, ask yourself, have you stood close to him or her and taken in the presence of his or her body? Do you love the fragrance of their cologne/ perfume? Do you love the feel of their kisses? When they hug you, is it done strongly or softy? Do you love those hugs? When you touch their hair, do you admire the feel of it? The smell of it? The answer, of course is no. You have no idea what this person is like in person nor how you feel physically and emotionally when touching them.

Qualities such as honesty, loyalty, integrity, caring and general overall mood are extremely important to a strong and loving relationship. If a person possesses these qualities, it can then free you to respect the person and set a ground for trust and a feeling of safety. Someone who is in love online, may debate that they have seen these qualities already. To this, I ask:

Are you there in the house when they get home from work and see what they do with all of their spare time?

Are you witness to their work ethics?

Do you sit around a table with their family and see the loving interaction?

Have you gotten in an argument and have seen if the other person stays to talk or walks out the door in anger?

Have you stood by them when they hear some unpleasant news and are witness to how they react?

Have you greeted them at the end of a long day, a day that tested their nerves, and then received a hug?

Did you cook and then burn dinner and they told you it does not matter, they love you for trying?

Did you forget to run an important errand that you promised you would, and they told you not to worry?

The list is endless. The conclusion is that there is no possible way to know of how this person will interact in a relationship without physically being with them.

Love can be confusing. Craving a relationship or marriage can send people in a blindness that prevents them from understanding the misperception that occurs online. Again, this misperception does not need be by intention. The mere fact that there is no actual “in person” interface is what causes this misperception to arise in the first place. A person can be intrigued, in lust, in "like", or in a false reality of love when online with another. Only in spending quality time face-to-face, will the true colors of the other surface.

It is at that time, that one should decide if they are in love.

Written by Alisa Chagnon

If You're Accusing or Exposing - Make Sure It's the Correct Person!

PROMINENT writer and radio broadcaster Marieke Hardy has issued an apology to a Melbourne man she incorrectly accused of authoring a hate blog against her.

In early November Ms Hardy, a regular panelist on the ABC’s First Tuesday Book Club, drew media attention for naming Joshua Meggitt as the alleged author behind a long running campaign of online harassment against her.

Pointing the finger at Mr Meggitt even sparked a Twitter campaign under the hashtag #mencallmethings, in which many female tweeters and bloggers reposted some of the worst online comments that had been made about themselves.

In the December 23 post on her blog, Ms Hardy issued a formal apology, saying: “For over five years I have been the victim of a hate blog against me. On 9 November 2011 I incorrectly identified Joshua Meggitt on this site as the man responsible for writing that blog.

“I accept that Joshua is not the writer and I sincerely apologise to him and his family for any upset caused.”

According to The Sydney Morning Herald, Ms Hardy is believed to have paid Mr Meggitt a legal settlement of $13,000.

original article found here