FEATURE ARTICLES. THE SOCIOPATH- A DANGER ALL AROUND US. PT 19.

As I said in part 18, the FAILED SOCIOPATH is the Easiest to Identify, but those who are in Crisis and Vulnerable may not see Their TRUE NATURE UNTIL IT IS TO LATE.

By To Late, I mean Allowing  the Failed Sociopath Access to Intimate Parts of Their Lives.  It could be Financial, Social, Sexual, or the Most Personal and Devastating Category: FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

In Many of These Cases, perhaps even the Majority, it is others who see the Danger First, seeing this New Part of Someones Life for what they really are; AMORAL OPPORTUNISTS WHO SENSE WEAKNESS AND VULNERABILITY MOVING INTO THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ATTEMPTING TO CONTROL THIS NEW VICTIM SO THEY CAN GAIN THE FINANCIAL, EMOTIONAL OR SPIRITUAL UPPER- HAND.

Unfortunately,  Although the Failed Sociopath is Fairly Easy to spot, especially if your the One in the Relationship, IT TAKES INTELLECTUAL AND MENTAL DISCIPLINE TO ADMIT THAT YOUR BEING VICTIMIZED.  This is Something Many are Unwilling to Consider, at Least in the Beginning.

Nobody likes to Admit They have been Fooled.  It is even more TRAUMATIC WHEN IT IS SOMEONE THE VICTIM THOUGHT CARED ABOUT THEM, EVEN TO THE POINT OF CREATING A FACADE OF LOVE AND DEVOTION.

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1)  BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, AND SEE THINGS FOR WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO BE.

Nothing can Really be Accomplished in Removing the SOCIOPATH FROM YOUR LIFE, IF YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. The Failed Sociopath, or for that Matter any Category of Sociopath, Counts on Wishful Thinking and the Fear of Public Exposure about the Truth of the Relationship, to Work in Their Behavior.

Perhaps the First Test in Measuring the Odds that you are Dealing with a Sociopath, Particularly if it is Close  Personal Relationship, should be something like the following:

REVERSE THE ROLES, AND ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION;  IF I TREATED THIS PERSON IN AN IDENTICAL MANNER, WOULD I CONSIDER MY BEHAVIOR APPROPRIATE?  FURTHER, WOULD I EXPECT THIS PERSON TO STAY WITH ME, OR PERMANENTLY LEAVE THE RELATIONSHIP?

In other Words, if you wouldn't Treat Someone in such a HEINOUS MANNER, why would you allow them to GET AWAY WITH SUCH BEHAVIOR BEING DIRECTED AT YOU?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN- A SENSE OF DUTY TO HIS COUNTRY... NOW AND THEN. UPDATED...12/2/2017.

THIS IS WHAT HONOR SOUNDS LIKE.
"I cannot in good conscience vote for Graham-Cassidy. A bill impacting so many lives deserves a bipartisan approach." SENATOR JOHN McCAIN.

UPDATED...12/2/2017...MY MISTAKE, I GUESS HONOR IS FOR SALE. I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. HOW MANY RELATIVES AND ANCESTORS OF THOSE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY, WILL NO LONGER HAVE AFFORDABLE MEDICAL INS. HOW "PROUD" NIMITZ WOULD BE.

LOGIC. A LOGICAL FALLACY FROM THE "ANIMAL KINGDOM?" PT 2.

The RED HERRING is a common Logical Fallacy.  Unfortunately, sometimes it is hard to pick up on, because of its Flagrant Absurdity.

It is the Literal, "COMING OUT OF LEFT FIELD", type of response.  It catches many Debaters off guard, who try to find the Reasoning behind it, but cannot because it is Essentially Nonsensical. 

It is used for many different reasons, and with a little practice can be a Formidable Weapon to create Doubt and Dissension among Opponents and Casual Observers. 

It can be a Developed Skill, used to confuse the Issue at Hand, and directed at those unfamiliar with the Rules of Deductive Reasoning. 

Naturally, there are certain Professions that can turn this Fallacy into an Effective Tool.  It can be used to gain support, or influence others to make decisions that are not considered carefully, and without an eye towards possible Deception.

Here is an example;

Politicians-  There are many issues that a Constituency might consider important, but for those Voters voicing opinions that might come across as Narrow Minded, Prejudicial, or Self- Centered, when viewed by the Opposition or the Undecided, an Unscrupulous Politician can provide a "RED HERRING" that creates a Scapegoat or Phantom Enemy, to justify the opinions put forth by that part of the Electorate. 

Remember, the RED HERRING HAS NOTHING TO WITH TRUTH, FACTS, AND THE REALITY OF A GIVEN SITUATION.  ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO HIDE THE ACTUAL REASONING BEHIND THE OPINIONS BEING EXPRESSED.

IT IS A FALLACY THAT LOOKS FOR EXCUSES TO EXPLAIN THE SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN ISSUES, OR THE JUDGMENT THAT IS BEING EXPRESSED ON GIVEN SUBJECTS. 

LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #4 PT 3.

Remember one thing:  A Doctor or Lawyer dispensing advice or opinions on a network T.V. or radio 

program is mindful that the show is there primarily to entertain.  It might also educate, but that is secondary.

Often this means promoting, or at least not being critical of dubious and unproven health products, and offering legal advice without being sure of the true nature of the matter as it pertains to our legal system.

Acquiring the education and passing the necessary hurdles to legally practice Medicine or Law in the U.S. is a tremendous accomplishment, both intellectually and emotionally. You don't fake your way through Medical or Law school, you earn it.

However, what the general public must understand is that Doctors and Lawyers are, after all, still human beings. Dedicated and brilliant as they may seem, some will succumb to the influences of fame and easy money.  This can sometimes lead to questionable judgments that are not in the best interests of the Audience, Society or the Public Image of the given profession.

Here are some guidelines to keep in mind:

-  No MD is an expert in all fields of medicine, and no attorney is an expert in all parts of the law.  Is the opinion or advice really in their area of expertise, if not, how far removed are they?

-  To what degree will they profit in choosing one side over another, do they have a vested interest in the outcome?

-  Are they promoting themselves as having special knowledge or expertise that is not known or available to others?

-  Sometimes your judged by the company you keep.  Who are their allies?  What types of Individuals or groups agree with the opinions being offered, and who are opposed?

-  This last one especially applies to the medical field-  What type or manner of evidence is provided supporting their point of view?  Is it based on Proper Peer Reviewed Clinical Trials?  Can it withstand scrutiny by the Scientific Method?  How much of the evidence is anecdotal?  Anecdotal evidence is virtually useless in establishing the worth of any drug or treatment.

So, no matter who you are watching or listening to, always keep an open mind.

Your life may literally depend on it.

Look for future entries in this category.