This is a good study, but it's important to understand that the study results [1] don't really contradict much of our current understanding of serotonin-related antidepressant activity. If you read through the actual study, you'll see that the authors aren't disagreeing with SSRI activity but rather attempting to gather more insight into the accepted anxiolytic activity of SSRIs.
Neurotransmitter reductionism is one of the more difficult pop-neuropsychiatry concepts to shake, because it's so tempting to think of neurotransmitters like serotonin in the same way we've come to think of more basic biomarkers like cholesterol levels or other hormone levels. Neurotransmitter function is several orders of magnitude more complex, and can't simply be summarized as "too much" or "too little."
For example, neurotransmitter signaling is often divided in to two components: Tonic and phasic release. Tonic signaling is lower frequency (think closer to DC current for a very crude analogy), while phasic release is higher frequency (think more along the lines of AC current). The balance of tonic vs phasic signaling often has a massive influence on the actual outcome of the signaling. SSRIs are frequently (and wrongly) thought of as generically "increasing serotonin levels" when what they're really doing is altering serotonin dynamics in the synaptic cleft. Inhibiting the serotonin reuptake pump causes the serotonin to stick around longer in the synaptic cleft, which (again, roughly speaking) slows the serotonin dynamics down a bit and moves toward tonic, rather than phasic, signaling. It's not difficult to find studies showing relationships between serotonin tonic and phasic signaling, SSRIs, and stress adaptation differences. See [2] for the first example I found in a quick search.
Another very important component of serotonin signaling are 5-HT1A autoreceptors located on presynaptic terminals. These are part of the feedback loop regulating serotonin release. Briefly, 5-HT1A autoreceptors bind serotonin in the synaptic cleft and apply negative feedback to serotonin release. More serotonin in the synaptic cleft results in more 5-HT1A autoreceptor activation, which will in turn slow serotonin release. SSRIs will increase extracellular serotonin area under the curve, which will result in additional 5-HT1A activation and altered serotonin release dynamics. This system will ultimately re-regulate to some other set-point after several weeks, which is theorized to be part of the reason for the therapeutic lag in SSRI treatment, and also thought to explain why SSRIs often initially cause more anxiety by acutely increasing serotonin levels before the system re-regulates. 5-HT1A autoreceptor modulation is also the theorized mechanism of action of anti-anxiety medications like Buspirone, and 5-HT1A modulation is a property of two of the most recent anti-depressant medications Vortioxetine and Vilazadone.
This is another good study to have, but it's important to not be too quick to think that this contradicts our current understandings.
Before anyone considers experimenting with Donepezil or other acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in hopes of enhancing their learning, it should be noted that there are plenty of unknowns and a few serious concerns around altering the cholinesterase levels of otherwise healthy adults.
Briefly: Acetylcholinesterase terminates acetylcholine neurotransmission events by deactivating the acetylcholine, allowing it to be reused. An acetylcholinesterase inhibitor such as the Donepezil used in the article inhibits the action of acetylcholinesterase, which in turn enhances acetylcholine neurotransmission in a dose-dependent manner.
Highly potent acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are used as poisons (Sarin gas, for example) because they interfere with all of the acetylcholine-based neurotransmission that happens throughout your brain and body. Less potent inhibitors are used at lower doses in Alzheimer's disease as it is hoped that they will improve cognitive function and perhaps even slow disease progression. Thus far the results have been mixed.
Now the bad news: Cholinergic neurotransmission is widespread through your brain and your body. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are a very blunt and non-specific way to manipulate that neurotransmission. Unfortunately, you can't just enhance memory formation and learning related neurotransmission, you amplifiy cholinergic transmission indiscriminately everywhere. As a result, it's possible to get some quite negative effects as well. There are reports of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors causing or at least inducing PTSD-like symptoms ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17308243 ). Furthermore, we just don't know the long-term effects of these medications on young, healthy adults as they've primarily been studied in elderly populations.
In short: It's potentially very unwise to use Donepezil or similar medications for the purposes of enhancing your learning or your memory. Leave the experimentation to the carefully controlled studies until more is known on these powerful substances.
The takeaway from this article is that hoarding cash is not a good store of wealth, and that the key to long-term wealth is to acquire net income generating assets. Great points for sure, but I strongly disagree with his assertions that saving up for retirement is ill-advised and that traditional investments (stocks, etc.) are too volatile and risky to be useful.
He never explicitly gives any advice for acquiring net income generating assets, but reading between the lines (and given the context) the advice is to pursue entrepreneurship. While I strongly encourage people to pursue entrepreneurship when it makes sense for them to do so, I don't think it's a substitute for proper retirement planning and long-term investment as this article seems to suggest. And it's certainly not good retirement planning advice for anyone who doesn't already understand the basic differences between money, wealth, and assets as this article seems to imply.
Given the failure rate of entrepreneurs and start-ups on average, it seems quite strange to dismiss traditional retirement planning and long-term savings as too risky while encouraging entrepreneurship as the solution in the same article. Traditional retirement investment vehicles (low-overhead diversified ETFs with a mix of bonds, ratio depending on years until retirement, combined with taking advantage of tax-advantaged accounts such as 401Ks, IRAs, etc) isn't anywhere near as risky, especially over the long term. Remember, a single stock market crash in your 20s or 30s is going to have virtually no impact on your retirement savings in your 50s and 60s. When saving for retirement, you have to consider the timeframe involved. By the same token, risky entrepreneurship isn't all that risky when you're young.
I'm glad to see someone advocating sensible retirement planning here. Though the post had a few good points about how to perceive wealth vs. money, I cringed at the notion that most stocks are "buy and pray" investments. Stocks have a better risk/return profile than just about any other asset class with a given 10+ year time window over the last century, assuming proper diversification. I should also point out that stocks, by definition, are ownership.
That being said, it is important to further diversify within a stock portfolio by having a good mix US, European, Emerging Market, small/mid/large cap, etc. As one nears retirement, risk can be reduced along with return by shifting into bonds. Again diversification is useful here. Have a good mix of both corporate and government, high quality, high yield, floating rate, inflation protected, etc.
Of course, developing a skill is a way to increase your wealth, as defined by the article, but diversified equity and fixed income holdings are a way to protect that wealth for a time when those skills are no longer relevant, whether it is by the slow erosion of time or a sudden unfortunate event.
I also found the article to be lacking. The overemphasis on "income-generating" assets does indeed reflect a misunderstanding of any sort of risk profile, as does the "buy and pray" moniker.
Income-generating assets do have a place in your portfolio, but certainly should not be the majority especially if you are so far away from retirement. As you mentioned, as one ages the allocation can be changed. Towards retirement and into it, income-generation should have a much bigger proportion as it better reflects one's needs.
> I strongly disagree with his assertions that saving up for retirement is ill-advised and that traditional investments (stocks, etc.) are too volatile and risky to be useful.
With my retirement age ~40 years away, it's not clear to me that locking my money into traditional investments is a good idea: existing historical records are not statistically convincing (to me) over such a term.
A single stock market crash or economic crisis may not matter over the long term, but I'm sure you're not suggesting there will be only one such occasion: it seems more likely that there will be several, which may or may not be timed in my favour.
When I come to unlock a pension, there's no way to know what the state of the economy will be and where the legislation will have gone. However, if I am dependent on that pension, it puts me in a very vulnerable position where I am likely to be taken advantage of - perhaps by the state or by an uncompetitive financial market.
You talk about tax-advantage, but I would have to retain this over several successive governments. I personally don't believe that it's in the interests of society for significantly wealthy people to retain additional tax advantages. I suppose it's in my personal interest for now to take those advantages, but I don't feel like they can be relied upon, and seem likely be changed over this time period - perhaps even retrospectively.
Anyway, if I am not completely dependent on my retirement savings, but have a means of generating wealth in my retirement, then I am in a much better position.
This is why I find entrepreneurship a good investment: it gives me valued skills that I will most likely retain into older age (even if I fail at first). Whereas, people who remain in traditional jobs have some danger of being obsoleted, or competed out of their jobs in older age.
> A single stock market crash or economic crisis may not matter over the long term, but I'm sure you're not suggesting there will be only one such occasion: it seems more likely that there will be several, which may or may not be timed in my favour.
Certainly, there should be several cycles expected in the economy and stock market every decade, but this is not entirely negative.
1) You are not investing all at once. Instead, you are dollar cost averaging - each paycheck, some of you money goes into the market, at either a high, or a low.
2) You are not divesting all at once. While taxable accounts have minimum distributions, no tax accountant is going to suggest that you take out all of your money at once. If you have 'enough' 1-3 years of divesting in a down market will leave you with a principle that will restore in a 1-3 year up market.
===== Other Note ======
> Whereas, people who remain in traditional jobs have some danger of being obsoleted
You are going to be in much more risk of obsolescence if you don't improve your skills as an entrepreneur than if you don't at a traditional job.
The stock market has historically never dropped in value over a 15 year period. If you continually invest through a crash, you will make insane amounts of money.
Lets say you started investing in 2006 (before the crash), specifically in SPY. Lets say you put $10,000 / year into SPY.
You'd have spent $80,000 over those years, and today, your SPY holdings would be worth $118,176.92. You'd make a 47% profit because you invested through a crash.
Crashes are the most amazing thing for your investment portfolio. Investing THROUGH a market crash makes insane amounts of money.
----------------
The risk however, is the day you retire. If you retire during a market crash, you will lose a lot of money. But a crash during your 40 year investment period? That's the best possible scenario. Every crash will lead to insane gains in your portfolio. As others have noted, you can mitigate this risk by simply moving your money away from stocks as you near retirement age.
Bonds don't make as much money, but they're a lot more reliable.
> The stock market has historically never dropped in value over a 15 year period.
Feel free to clarify this, because I don't agree.
The records of the FT30 index only go back to 1935[0] - which is not nearly long enough to make reliable predictions about the next 40 years - but still, it dropped in value in the following 15-year periods (before taking into account time value of money):
> it seems more likely that there will be several, which may or may not be timed in my favour.
This is why people are advised to move into bonds as they get closer to retirement age. Easier said than done though, if you just saw the stock part of your savings get cut in half. Very tempting to stay in stocks until it comes back.
+1 entrepreneurship is risky and not for everyone.
I have generated wealth by working for other people, diversifying, having low living costs, and getting most happiness out of life from being with friends and family.
In other words, a mixed strategy of setting goals for lots of free time and consuming less than I produce.
Agreed that he misses the point with retirement. "Saving up" for retirement doesnt mean $1M in cash, it usually means $1M in income producing assets pieces of profitable businesses and future promises of more (bonds).
Perhaps the most fascinating part of this letter is observing people's reactions to it. In the letter, the author goes so far as to admit that s/he is and always will be a psychopath without a sense of guilt or remorse toward others and a keen ability to recognize and exploit weaknesses in others for his/her own gain.
Judging by the comments here, the letter has done just that. One comment below notes that "Jeez, that's the single most interesting, insightful, and well-written piece I've read on the internet in a long time." Others are expressing a desire to meet the author or expressing how they can identify with the author. It's incredible to see just how effectively this letter resonates with the people who read it.
Don't get me wrong: It's both impressive and admirable that the author was able to not only admit that he needed therapy but to press on long enough to make therapy work for himself in an effective manner. I don't want to downplay his accomplishments. However, it is still interesting to dissect and observe all of the persuasiveness of the letter and the fluidity with which the author transforms psychopathy from a very difficult personality disorder into somewhat of a super power that the reader can't help but envy by the end of the letter.
As you read the letter and experience strong feelings of empathy for the author, consider his own poignant words at the end: "In the end, psychopaths need to be given that very thing everyone believes they lack for others, empathy."
The letter begins with the psychopath distancing himself from the traditional destructive psychopathic traits in the most admirable and self-aggrandizing way possible: He went against all odds and admitted himself into treatment, where he claims the health agency had never seen someone of his nature walk-in before and he was too incredible of a case for anyone but the highest-ranking therapist to handle.
He continues by setting up various straw-man caricatures of psychopathy ("cartoon evil serial killers" and the CEO who prizes profits over people) and knocking them down one-by-one, leaving the reader feeling guilty of possibly embracing those stereotypes at one point. With the reader feeling a bit guilty, empathetic, and as if the author's condition is simply misunderstood, the author has set the stage to rebuild the reader's view of psychopathy in a way that benefits the author.
Toward the end, he even goes so far as to put words in the reader's mouth just so he can turn around and undermine the very caricature of a psychopath he suggested you might hold : "Such as statement might tempt you to say 'well obviously you're not a real psychopath then'. As if the definition of a psychopath is someone who exploits others for their personal power, satisfaction or gain."
The rest of the article explains the author's psychopathy the way the author wants you to view it: As "a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning." He goes on to say that he "enjoy[s] a reputation of being someone of intense understanding and observation with a keen strategic instinct." At this point, the author has completely distanced his psychopathy from the purely negative caricature he painted in the first half of his letter. Who wouldn't be envious of such incredible, valuable, and morally-neutral abilities as he described them?
I've read the letter several times over, and I'm still amazed at how effective it is at garnering empathy from the reader and cultivating a sense that the author is an impressive individual who has triumphed over adversity after a great struggle. And it's true that overcoming your own objections to seek, and stick with, treatment for such a severe personality disorder is both impressive and admirable. His points about the general public's misunderstanding of true psychopathy are equally true, although he crucially omits any and all explanations of how psychopathy can actually be dangerous and destructive to others. It's an incredible piece of writing, and incredibly persuasive and manipulative in a way that I'm sure PR and marketing teams everywhere would be jealous of.
What's brilliant about this letter is how easily I stepped into it. C admitted to possessing the abilities to be a master manipulator and exploiter of weakness; and I still let C manipulate me into thinking exactly the way he/she wanted me to by the end of the letter.
It was the literary equivalent of the cup-and-shell game. I saw the con happening right before my eyes and still got duped. Brilliant writing.
(Note: I refer to it as a con, but only for convenience. I don't think it's necessarily negative to leave the reading thinking exactly what the author wants you to think. The process C undertook for doing so was simply so well constructed that it didn't dawn on me that I was being expertly manipulated until tomstokes pointed it out.)
You have no idea. I was "friends" with someone for years, who at the time I didn't know was a psychopath (over time I realized they met literally every item on the psychopathy checklist). The manipulativeness, the ability to lie completely sincerely (I bet a lie detector test would show absolutely nothing), and absolute and utter lack of remorse is terrifying, in a way.
The most striking thing, in retrospect, is the manipulative talent they have, and how relentlessly and patiently they are to go for the "long con".
In my case, I happen to be very talented at programming and computer science. The psychopath (who has no particular scientific talent) I refer to found me, and basically befriended me and over time convinced me to work some 100+ hour weeks on an entrepreneurial project building prototypes. This would ordinarily be fine if the profit was split evenly, but only in retrospect did I realize the disparity of my persuaded reality from their distortion field versus actual reality -- i.e. this person took 100% credit for my work, and was sure to leave no evidence that I did anything so there was nothing I could do.
But that's not even the persuasive part. The persuasive part was when I brought this up with my "friend", saying "hey so I noticed you're taking complete credit for this with no mention of me" or something of that sort. I don't even remember the details, but this person masterfully diverted attention in such a way that I found it not important, and thought about other things.
Ultimately over time, I noticed all the little disparities (lies, deception, hints of absolute lack of remorse) and had a pretty good suspicion that this person was a psychopath. It was only when I caught him in a completely undeniable lie that it all exploded.
The excuses given when confronted were pretty impressive at the time, but I'm not stupid, and it was pretty clear he was struggling to come up with answers when confronted. The strangest thing though was despite me having hard and undeniable evidence, to this day he would refuse to admit the lie, and in fact tried to convince me to apologize for slandering him (despite him knowing very well I have conclusive evidence).
Then I let on I knew he was a psychopath. The change in personality was dramatic, creepy, and like something out of a horror movie. You don't know this person, but normally he has a very persuasive, seductive (in a non sexual way), and extremely socially charming and polite personality. When you're around him, he makes everyone feel good about themselves (part of his strategy to get people to follow him and do what he wants is making them addicted to feeling good about themselves around him).
But after he knew I knew, things were different. The attitude DROPPED completely. He had a stone cold expression, no emotion in his voice, and the coldest eyes and voice tone you could imagine. There was only one emotion he showed when I revealed I knew, and it was terror. Deep, deep terror he was struggling to conceal. This made the situation all the more creepy, because this person is characterized by being completely fearless (as is typical of psychopaths), but I suspect if it's one thing that scares a psychopath, it's being found out -- which btw is why this article from the OP is so remarkable (though no doubt it's just an attempt at manipulation, if you know anything about psychopaths). But beyond the terror you could see, there was nothing -- just pure cold and calculating rational self-serving thought. He immediately terminated a multiple year "friendship" without even a thought, and distanced himself from me after he realized I could not be persuaded and distorted into thinking I was wrong and imagining things.
Since then we've crossed paths only a few times, and you can tell he's still afraid of being revealed. He's doing well though in business as you would expect of a psychopath, climbing the social ladder very quickly to a future of possible fortune.
I should add that it is indeed a common misconception that psychopaths are cold blooded killers. The reality is in some ways much more scary. The stupid ones perhaps kill, but they eventually get caught. The smart ones are leeches on society, who have no regard for anything but their own animalistic desires of power, control, and inflated ego.
Also, having been "friends" with a psychopath gives an interesting perspective on other well-known figures. Though I never met him, I am convinced Steve Jobs is pretty high on the psychopathy spectrum. What's interesting is that Jobs accomplished something valuable to society, though not without leaving a trail of damage in his wake. The psychopath I met also has a strong motivation to make an impact in the world, to be known almost as a hero, no doubt to satisfy desires of ego and power. So perhaps society's social structure can work for good and turn the desires of a psychopath towards good (but unfortunately it can also work in reverse). So in a way, I think psychopaths aren't all inherently leeches on society if what they accomplish is positively impactful to it.
But you see... the scariest part of having encountered a psychopath is it's sometimes very difficult to know if that last thought is my own, or something I was persuaded to think.
I'm finding most of these posts to be deeply unsettling. Psychopathy is a mental disorder -- you guys are writing off psychopaths en masse as 'bad people', who cannot contribute to society at all. Consider if the submission piece is genuine: a guy with a mental disorder sought out help to curb any harm he might have otherwise done to others. That's a happy ending isn't it? Be cautious, sure, but let's not just take them as 'evil people'.
Anyway, reading these comments I'm reminded of a friend, -- Jake, shall we call him. Jake has severe autism, but he is an incredibly smart guy and an excellent programmer. He's of old age now. He's completely broken... and he says the reason he's broken is no-one ever saw him as a friend, only as a worker they could use. Every other business person saw him as a tool that could write good code, and not complain about a shitty (or no) salary. I got to know some of the people who'd employed him... they were... well, just normal people, they were not psychopaths. I'm betting that a lot of people who're right now commenting on this article, and calling him are evil are possibly the people who'd use Jake just like psychopaths supposedly use mentally normal people. The power differential of a normal, average human being and Jake is comparable to the power differential of a psychopath and a normal, average human. Psychopaths see the weaknesses that can be exploited in normal people; normal people see emotional weaknesses in Jake - and they realize they can make him do whatever they want to, and he'll be helpless and voiceless in the end with you having gotten what you'd wanted from him.
It's easy to either over-demonize or underestimate the nature of actual psychopathy if you've never encountered it. By definition, a pure psychopath feels absolutely no remorse, no guilt, and has an unshakable egocentric view that does not change. They're effectively intelligent rational agents without the natural mammal-evolved desire to benefit the group -- they only seek to benefit the self. They would stab you in the back both figuratively and literally without the slightest hesitation or emotional reservation, so long as they know the benefits to them sufficiently outweigh the risks.
You can no more teach a psychopath to be caring and empathic than you can teach someone with autism to implicitly understand social context and facial expressions. However, a psychopath will be thrilled to find someone who thinks they can "convert" them, because they can use this to their advantage.
On the other hand, I say some people over-demonize psychopaths though because they assume they're all on the extreme end of the spectrum and all with the same traits. For example, some autistic people can recognize facial expressions masterfully, but fail at other things. Similarly, not all psychopaths are alike or have the same motivations or methods.
If you read my post again, you'll note that I am admitting to the possibility that psychopaths can contribute positively to society, but only in as far as society arranges a cost/benefit system where positive contributions are rewarded more than negative ones.
However since there is really no scientific evidence a psychopath can truly change, you should not find it unsettling that we hold a non-scientific, subjective, anecdotal, and self-reported essay of change on the part of a psychopath with pessimism and doubt.
If they're rational agents, then they should understand the results of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, and understand that screwing people over doesn't pay, remorse or no remorse.
For starters, it is a two player game. Secondly it will not always be crystal clear that you chose "defect" to your coplayers in the real world, since actions are subject to interpretation. Third, the real world is not a game of perfect information.
It is clear that you chose "defect" in the real world.. over time. It is in fact theoretically impossible to escape this consequence as time approaches infinity. Think about it, you are constantly leaving traces of you "defecting" and not leaving traces of not defecting. Eventually this catches up. This is also an example of the principle of karma, aka cause and effect. You can't escape fundamental effects of causes forever.
Aside from the fact that life isn't a restricted theoretical game theory puzzle and rational doesn't mean educated (thus aware of prisoner's dilemma), this would assume that the people they're screwing over are also rational actors and are capable of cooperating.
You don't have to be aware of the iterated prisoner's dilemma. My point is that as a psychopath screwing people over, you should realize that this strategy is suboptimal. You will lose out to people who do cooperate.
He fucks you over and that is eventually a non-cooperation in an even bigger iterated prisoner's dilemma game.
Unless you willingly let him fuck you in the ass again, then his psychopathic strategy will no longer work on you, and you will at least not cooperate, and possibly retaliate resulting in a net loss. In fact, this is extremely likely because it's in your incentive now to disincentivize him from further fucking you because you want to send the proper signal.
I know it's not their fault and that they were born with it, but it still disturbs me. They don't have empathy or morality and I would consider that the definition of evil. Someone can still be a bad person through no fault of their own.
This whole thread strikes me as having a very strong 'us vs. them' mentality. The guy in his letter makes a plea that 'Psychopaths are just people.' and the general feeling of these comments is to completely throw this away and view psychopaths as a dangerous and scary group of people.
Psychopaths look at the world differently than we do, they are highly rational and self motivated, but that doesn't need we need to fear them, hide from them, avoid them, or try to lock them up. There are more ways to deal a person like this.
Highly rational and and self-motivated are not the only distinguishing features of a psychopath. And those are not the features, or the only features, that people are afraid of.
I've known a few psychopaths myself. It is interesting how they react when you make it clear you know all about their deception. I personally find it hilarious that they think they're able to dupe everyone they meet, but I also feel sad that it still works on so many.
It's hard though to differentiate true psychopaths from those who simply share a few traits. When I read about psychopaths, I tend to find common traits within myself. I can't tell if I'm a psychopath or not. Are those who desire power, control, and inflated egos always psychopaths? Or do psychopaths just happen to always have that in common? Regarding myself for example, I may dream big and make promises that take time to meet, but I'm not a liar and I don't actively manipulate people for selfish gain; and I do crave power, control, and prestige, but not for the sake of it; I just know that those three characteristics are required to make some kind of real impact on the world that truly improves lives; and I've come to realize that if I want something to be done, I can't always rely on others to do it, so being in a respectable position of power and control is almost certainly required. Does that make me a psychopath?
Usually the defining characteristic of a psychopath is an inability to feel shame, remorse, or empathy. If you catch someone with narcissistic personality disorder in a lie or situation where they've hurt someone and call them out on it, the response is usually bluster, a frantic attempt to shore up ego. If you catch someone with borderline personality disorder or just plain deep insecurity, they'll often deflate and get downcast. Catch a secure person and they'll apologize and try to make things right. Catch a psychopath and they'll react rationally to further their own interests - they completely lack an emotional response to hurting people.
hmm.. In some sense, a psychopath is someone who is perfectly cool under (social) pressure.
When a normal person gets into a dispute, they worry about saving face and moral obligations, instinctively comfort (or maybe attack) the other person, etc, in an "I-Thou" situation. But a psychopath just sees a dispute as an "I-It" situation, like seeing a puddle on the sidewalk, something to casually (or carefully) navigate around, or (in the worst case) plow through and brush off.
> I can't tell if I'm a psychopath or not. Are those who desire power, control, and inflated egos always psychopaths?
No. I, and I suspect most ambitious people, also desire power, control, and have inflated egos to some extent. Psychopaths are still human (though broken) and also have these traits, but since they lack other traits like compassion, generosity, etc., the former tend to show through more.
I have a problem with the whole notion that runs throughout this conversation -- the notion that psychopathy is a binary state. Everyone should do a mental find-and-replace of "psychopathy" with "homosexuality," and re-evaluate their views in light of the existence of the Kinsey scale.
One thing you can say about the human mind is that there's nothing binary about it.
Your story resonates with me and I notice we're both using throwaway accounts to share our stories (mine elsewhere on this thread.) Once you've had close relations with a full blown psychopath you'll never be the same again. There is absolutely no way to learn about the experience except to go through it. I still think about mine and want to pick up the phone sometimes and call him. Psychopaths can be everything you need from another person because they'll study those needs intensely to manipulate you to get what they want. It's hard to explain, like trying to explain a hit of crack to someone who has never tried it. Psychopathy explains con artists, pimps, cult leaders, and yes, even Steve Jobs to a certain extent.
> I suspect if it's one thing that scares a psychopath, it's being found out
No, that's a narcissist. Afaik psychos aren't attaching that much emotional involvement to their public persona. They might be annoyed if sussed out, but that's about it.
You might be right. I must admit the "fear" I thought I detected was subtle at best, and the word "fear" is just my attempt to assign a word to a response I hadn't seen in him before. I think a better way of describing it is he showed he was "unsettled" at a deeper level than I'd seen before, since generally nothing phases him.
Edit: BellsOnSunday: I'm responding in an edit because for some reason HN doesn't allow me to reply directly to your post.
"Deep, deep terror" does not imply "strong, outwardly expressed terror." By "deep" I meant it was well concealed, deep rooted, and rarely encountered whatever it was. If you replace the word "terror" with "unsettled loss of composure", the sentiment remains the same. The latter is perhaps more accurate, the former takes less words and is what first came to my mind when initially describing it.
> There was only one emotion he showed when I revealed I knew, and it was terror. Deep, deep terror he was struggling to conceal.
with
> I must admit the "fear" I thought I detected was subtle at best
you seem to have got a bit carried away in the telling of your story (which sounds to me like a rather standard one of someone taking advantage of another in a business situation).
this person is characterized by being completely fearless (as is typical of psychopaths)
Everyone is afraid of something. Psychopaths are still people. If you believe someone is fearless, it's a safe assumption they either hide their fear (when they feel it) extremely well, or you simply haven't encountered it yet.
Psychopaths tend to fear negative consequences less than non-psychopaths. They are still people, but having less fear (not being literally fearless) than most is a defining trait.
They fear negative consequences less, or they fear social consequences less?
That is, are they less afraid of car crashes and drowning, or just less afraid of pissing people off (because they don't care about other's personal needs, and because they can easily "fix" a relationship with the advantages of deception)
For reasons I won't get into, after he was confronted, he did what I'd describe as "firing a warning shot", but in terms of social power. Basically it was his way of saying "Don't mess with me. I have influence and can destroy your life." Following that, I've been forced to take precautions in terms of carefully bringing friends into this knowledge, among other strategic preparations in case he "attacks" some day with his army of devoted followers. (Another trait of psychopaths I believe is the accumulation of a large network of followers, across which they can magnify and extend their influence far further than you could purely through 1st order persuasion.) I won't get into details, but posting this under my real account and therefore real name would be counterproductive to the precautions I'm taking.
Thanks for all your insight here in this thread. I went through all this myself and haven't really been able to talk about it. Its reassuring to see others have been through the same. My psychopath convinced everyone I had psychosis when I questioned her once. I refused to believe something that I saw her do was a 'hallucination'. For months I was gaslighted by everyone I knew. I would think I was in the clear and then a friend would call me up at work out of the blue, asking if they can take me to accident and emergency. I had 9 months depression and am only now getting out of it.
It is insane how memories can be overwritten. I can write at length on this, I learnt it from videoing her talking to me. They have total frame control and will keep switching subjects away from facts.
I never confronted her to tell her that I knew who she was, but she did warn me indirectly. She showed the 'psychopath face', if that means anything to anyone...
I'm actually surprised it would be said directly to your face. Obviously psychopaths are different, but the person I knew was very smart and knew not to overextend their influence unless necessary, and was very careful not to self incriminate. Saying "don't mess with me" outright to someones face is risky, especially if it's overheard or recorded. My case was much more subtle, more of a "show of power" socially which nobody else would understand except me, given the recent confrontation.
To me, it's far more dangerous to confront someone who is a master manipulator and expert at knowing how to do so subtly and undetectably, versus someone who throws around angry threats. The latter is almost harmless, unless it's backed up by the former.
> But beyond the terror you could see, there was nothing -- just pure cold and calculating rational self-serving thought.
Apart from his feelings he didn't have feelings? I appreciate you telling your story and I realize you were taken advantage of, and he treated you unquestionably bad, but painting this person as completly unhuman is not very helpful.
It seems to me that the things you describe here is an extreme end of human nature, but in way outside human nature. The best laws of physics are the one that are valid from all perspectives, so it is with the laws of human nature. Having a completly ad-hoc theory for someone elses behaviour is not emphatic or useful.
Any letter that honestly describes overcoming hardship should trigger empathy. That doesn't mean one is being manipulated.
The trouble with much of this discussion is that, apparently, once classified as a "psychopath", all bad behavior is typical and all good behavior manipulative.
Furthermore, though, minds are assembled of, and driven by, complex and messy mechanisms: "lack of remorse" means what, exactly? Lack of feeling? Or, perhaps, the person feels it but chooses to ignore it? Are they ignoring it for self-serving reasons? What if those "self-serving" reasons are necessary because of the job one has (e.g., military)? Similarly, "lack of guilt" means what, exactly? Is it lack of learning what things one should feel guilty for? Is "feeling guilt" a learned skill, or does its ontogeny happen "all on its own"? (whatever that means; but in any case, we cannot have had the capacity to feel guilt "since conception")
So you're saying the letter is a long-con to increase trust in psychopaths to make it easier for the author to take advantage of people?
You say you don't necessarily mean "con", but "manipulated" definitely implies you feel you were led to believe something likely false that you wouldn't have otherwise via trickery, etc.
Don't overthink my comment. I don't know C and have no idea how pure his intention in writing the letter may be.
Despite his intent, I believe that I left the letter thinking exactly what it was designed to make me think. Therefore, the actual mechanics of the letter (which were outlined well by tomstokes, in my opinion) were excellent at eliciting what I assume is the intended response. This is akin to successful manipulation, but may not necessarily be from a place of malice on the part of C. However, C's changing my opinion of psychopathy does in fact place him in a more advantageous position if the two of us were ever to meet, thus I was manipulated.
I don't agree that whenever someone changes your mind to their way of thinking because of compelling writing, they "manipulated" you. You have the choice of agreeing with them or not. If you agree with them and change your views, you can't just say "they manipulated me".
Perhaps the most fascinating part of this response is observing how this has changed the tone of discussion in this thread. It's interesting how the parent tries to downplay his own ability to identify weakness in his readers and manipulate them into thinking of what they found as inspirational as being manipulative.
Judging by the comments here, the parent's been pretty successful. One comment below notes that "What's brilliant about this letter is how easily I stepped into it." Others are calling the parent's analysis "fantastic". It's incredible to see just how effectively this parent comment resonates with the people who read it.
Don't get me wrong: It's both impressive and admirable that the parent was able to not only paint the original author's analysis as manipulative, he was able to build such a persuasive and fluid dissection of it. What's truly amazing is how the parent transforms the original author's letter from an anonymous insightful expression to a vile manipulation of the reader that the reader can't help but feel fooled by the end of the parent's comment.
As you read the comment and experience strong feelings of guilt about having been manipulated by a psychopath, consider this: You can paint pretty much anything effective as a psychopath's manipulation. For an author to be effective, she must portray her beliefs as effectively as she can. Discrediting the words of any person - psychopath or otherwise - on grounds of them being capable of effective manipulation serves little purpose and just perpetuates a stereotype.
The op was successful because the analysis was accurate unlike yours.
As I stated below, the article more or less claims the author has magical supper powers. He overcomes the great internal struggle (with some help from the great expert) and ultimately chooses to use his powers for the good of the world.
The comment isn't transformative when the article is taken at face value- self aggrandizing.
I hate to logic-chop a civilian (i.e. someone who didn't waste their youth in an analytic philosophy department studying ethics) but here we go.
If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference.
Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!
Generalizing, there's always a reason why someone's supposed perfidy makes them an untrustworthy speaker, and that's a problem.
One floor down, what's going on is 'begging the question' -- not in the colloquial motivates-the-question sense, but in the sense that you are assuming what you set out to prove (circular reasoning).
Watch:
CLAIM = C is a psychopath; therefore, don't trust him when he says C is good.
CLAIM' = X is a Y; therefore, don't believe X's claim that Z.
But there's still an implicit claim hiding! In fact, it's the value of Z. Let's suss it out:
CLAIM'' = X is a Y; Ys are untrustworthy; therefore, don't believe X when X says that Ys are trustworthy.
There you have it: a textbook case of circular reasoning. That's the sort of thing C is talking about: people get so emotional when they think about psychopaths, they fail to hold themselves up to the same standards for rational discourse at which a psychopath ironically excels.
> If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference.
Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!
Your logic chop fails because one of the elements of psychopathy is being a convincing liar.
Not just a convincing liar, but one with a propensity for manipulation and a lack of empathy. Because of that, I think tomstoke's analysis is unique to sociopaths/psychopaths, and you cannot simply insert any bogeyman.
What you just described is not a lie. It would be a lie if you were a martian having no understanding in how humans operate. The question "Does my bum look big in this?" may be a factual inquiry about the qualities of the chosen garment or may be a solicitation of a social interaction expressing support and admiration, due to the feelings of insecurity or needing external validation. Yes, I know it sounds the same, humans are complex. But calling such social interaction "a lie" just because it is not a factual exchange is IMO misunderstanding the whole process and devaluing the term "lie".
But these lies are exactly why psychopaths lie. They start by telling the truth, and realising it doesn't work. They learn to lie. They discover that does work. They then use this technique and apply it to everything. Lies become more than the social oil that everyone uses to avoid offence, lies become a tool of manipulation.
I still have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't have an abundance of trust for psychopaths, pedophiles, or crack dealers. I've worked very closely with psychopaths (one was also a pedophile) in an institutional setting in the past. I had to assume that every interaction was a manipulation. Even being extremely careful, it was easy to get caught from time to time particularly when I was understaffed (i.e. 1 staff to 3 clients).
Reading the top parent of this thread was very interesting because he was thinking in exactly the way I had been conditioned to think at that time in my life.
When a person in your life lies to you or manipulates you, you will certainly begin to question the value of other interactions from that person. Once you have confirmed that the person has a personality type that makes them particularly likely to lie or manipulate (compulsive liars, psychopaths, criminals, what have you), you must be careful about your interpretation of any communication. But here's the real difficulty: If a psychopath is trying to manipulate you and knows that you are conscious of it, the manipulations morph. They adapt to your particular defense. In the institutional setting, they're in it for the long haul so they don't mind missing a couple times. In fact, getting caught is often part of the manipulation.
I wandered off my initial topic here so I better wrap it up.
vanderzwan: I'm intentionally dealing with public-paranoia stereotypes: The pedophile on the hunt; the crack dealer at the schoolyard; etc. etc. I meant 'pedophile', and used this charged word, specifically to pick out how our reactions often blind us; but in doing so, I myself equivocated between illness and criminality. Ew. Thanks for catching that.
I'm not sure if I would lump in "successful criminal" - which implies doing something criminal - with a mental sickness (sexual attraction to children) that may or may not actually be acted upon.
To be fair, he is specifically pointing out bits of information that are designed to lead you a certain way, he is not just saying don't believe him.
Thus you can't debunk him just by saying "Don't believe him because he is a psychopath is insufficient".
If you want to pin all of his logic on that baseline theory (which would be stretching it), then your replacement no longer works, as crack dealers aren't known for being persuasive and manipulative in words in that way. Similar for most other distrusted groups.
additionally crack dealers and pedophiles are probably more likely to be sociopaths. i'd guess most groups gain 'distrusted' status because of the influence of sociopaths within them.
Orthogonal to my point, and I would guess that your assumption is incorrect. Well known cases are probably sociopaths, due to the combination making them more interesting.
Actually, the comment you're referring to just suggests people take a step back from the material of the letter, and look at its overall effect: one of self-aggrandizement.
Once you see that, the material of the letter takes on a different aspect. Even if it weren't from a psychopath, it would be enlightening.
(I have other issues with your use of naive logic based on non-probabilistic propositions, but you may be doing that to dumb it down for the audience.)
Yes it is true. This is a very manipulative and actually non substantive, shallow piece of writing. It smacks of the superiority complex and has the shiny flawless gleam of the narcissist in the psychopath. It is just too slick and seamless. That is what gives away the fact of his psychopathy. In fact he is one of the worst forms of psychopath I think, which are those that actually believe what they are telling others about themselves. They feel themselves sincere, but they are not because inevitably the predator cimes out and takes his victim because thats how his mind unconsciously sets everything up to than end badly for the other at the hands of his destruction. Beware the psychopath that sincerely believes his own lies. Its very easy to get sucked in by pseudosincerity fueled by self conviction. These are the pernicious psuychopaths, not the ones delinerately trying to mislead you.
In fact, why this young mans treatment likely exacerbated his psychopathic acumen, is because it gave him an entirely knrw language to dissimulate with. Why the psychopath is untreatable, is because it is a
"lying" disorder. The essence of psychopathy is profound dishonesty. It is an inversion of meaning, an inversion of the order, where good
becomes bad and bad becomes good. Where kindness is reformulatrd through the process of the ultimate lie, which is a perversion in the thinking processes. Evil triumphs. It is strong and good. The psychopath has only the machinery of perverde reasoning to use to cogitate reality. Thus he lies not only to others but neecessarily lies to himself about himself. Because of this endohenous
...continued due to mobile phone limitations endogebous dishonesty. He is intrinsically incapable of telling the truth. Thus he cannot accurstely self assess He can nevet formulate a truthful thought due to
this profound mental perversion that is the hallmark of this disorder. He has only acquired more slick, refined and better labguage to dissimulate others as s "treatment success." Thats why so many of you were duped into feeling enpathy for him. He is simply pullung for ut in you, but he has no empathy for you. It is alk just a gane for him. There is nothing genuine about his letter. Feelibg empathy for a psychopstg is a fools gane. Thst is luje having
the profoubd mental perversion that is the hallmark of this pernicious disorder. He only coopts ndw slicker, more refined language as a "successfully therspized
I took the liberty to correct the phone typos in your post, sorry if I missed any:
---------------
In fact, why this young man's treatment likely exacerbated his psychopathic acumen, is because it gave him an entirely new language to dissimulate with. Why the psychopath is untreatable, is because it is a "lying" disorder. The essence of psychopathy is profound dishonesty. It is an inversion of meaning, an inversion of the order, where good becomes bad and bad becomes good. Where kindness is reformulated through the process of the ultimate lie, which is a perversion in the thinking processes. Evil triumphs. It is strong and good. The psychopath has only the machinery of perverse reasoning to use to cogitate reality. Thus he lies not only to others but necessarily lies to himself about himself.
Because of this endogenous dishonesty, he is intrinsically incapable of telling the truth. Thus he cannot accurately self-assess. He can never formulate a truthful thought due to this profound mental perversion that is the hallmark of this disorder. He has only acquired more slick, refined and better labguage to dissimulate others as a "treatment success." Thats why so many of you were duped into feeling empathy for him. He is simply pulling for it in you, but he has no empathy for you. It is all just a game for him. There is nothing genuine about his letter. Feeling empathy for a psychopath is a fools game. That is like having the profound mental perversion that is the hallmark of this pernicious disorder. He only coopts new slicker, more refined language as a "successfully therapized".
> That is what gives away the fact of his psychopathy. In fact he is one of the worst forms of psychopath I think, which are those that actually believe what they are telling others about themselves.
I disagree: People who believe their own lies eventually get caught off guard by the discrepancies between their lies and life. That leads to their downfall.
You don't have to lie to manipulate. That's the scary beauty in that piece: it's almost certainly sincere, but it doesn't stop it from being manipulative and misleading.
What is most fascinating to me is the fact that posts like the parent will delve into the game theoretic motivations of psychopathy as if the psychopath were some wholly unique flavor of creature operating under behavioral algorithms never before seen, when the truth is that your neurotypical, salt of the Earth Johnny Lunchpail is doing the same thing, except on a different timescale, and with the utility functions ingrained into heuristics like 'empathy' and 'compassion' and the like.
Unless you believe that your motivational orientation is made of some magical pixie dust handed down by the Holy Ghost, you should keep in mind that your instincts, your sense of morality and right and wrong and all those gut feelings are engendered by a truly massive utility computation; your feelings of selflessness as you drop the coins in the bell ringer's jar, your protectiveness toward your children, your lesser protectiveness toward your more distant kinship relations, all of it is equivalently cold-blooded. It's just dispersed enough that you don't see it for what it is.
So when you stop talking to your friend because he's annoying, or you don't give money to that homeless guy because you've already gave enough money, and maybe he's a drunk; and you buy a nice present for your nephew but not your coworker's kid, and you think it's best that your grandmother died because she was suffering so terribly, you're a psycopath, too. There's just a lot of epiphenomenal stuff larded on top of it.
Funnily enough, I didn't feel any empathy at all. Does this make me a psychopath too? ;)
Instead, reading it gave me the impression of somebody obsessed with themselves - somebody with a superiority complex. Nothing more, nothing less, and I've met plenty of people who have that in different amounts. But maybe that is what psychopathy is?
> I'm still amazed at how effective it is at garnering empathy from the reader and cultivating a sense that the author is an impressive individual who has triumphed over adversity after a great struggle.
You might be right, but you seem to accuse the writer of a hidden agenda because he tries to gain the sympathy of the reader. If he didn't try at all, would you see callousness and cold detachment (and therefore a psychopathic trait) in this? What would constitute for you a honest, non-manipulative account of the same facts described in the post? How should it have been written to be consistent with the 'psycho no more' scenario?
> It's both impressive and admirable that the author was able to not only admit that he needed therapy but to press on long enough to make therapy work for himself in an effective manner.
If it's true, that is. Pathological lying is a part of Hare Psychopathy Checklist. The entire article may well be totally made up.
While I can't dispute the wisdom of being leery of a manipulator, I can't help feeling sad for anyone in a situation like this that actually does change. If you expose yourself as having a penchant for manipulation, how can you ever truly break that stigma. It's similar to the brain in a vat problem.
I am an ex heroin addict who lied and cheated and took advantage of people. I've been completely clean for a year an a half, and people still treat me like I'm the same person. Which is annoying at times, and I feel like some of the people around me will never change their opinion regardless of what I do.
This is a great analysis of the letter. I, like you, was amazed by how empathetic I felt towards the writer by the end. I wonder how much time was put into working the letter into what we read vs. the first thing the author wrote down. Best of all, reminds me how powerful good writing is :)
It reminded me, as most things do, of the writings of Erich Fromm... what he said about sadism, that is. The desire to look down on, control and/or hurt others seems like a "consolation prize", like the highest you can achieve when you can't really live constructively, when you're deathly afraid of uncertainty and new things. The need to be able to strategically assess flaws in others to exploit ultimately speaks of fear, or at least lack of vision/capability. I mean, just imagine being around people you love wherever you are... all the stuff others work for without ever getting it, you have all the time, for free; welcome to compassion, step right in! :D
Also, maybe I am wrong, but I don't think there are people who "just are" psychopaths? I mean, if it's chemical/hormonal, it could theoretically fixed that way... and if it's not, then it might not be "fixable", but it's not magic either, and layers and layers and layers of defense, redirections and rationalizations are expected. Nobody wants to accept that the center of their pearl is some banal, useless, accidental piece of dirt someone else or the wind put there. But that's usually what it is, I think. And pearls can kill, they're not pretty at all. They're like a scab turned cancer.
I agree that considering psychopaths as some spooky "other" is silly, it's all a matter of degree, and I guess we only call it psychopathic once it crosses a threshold. That is, I doubt anyone here can claim they never used someone, or calculated more coldly than they let on, or looked down on sentimentality when they didn't feel sentimental about a particular thing. Or maybe I'm projecting, I don't know. I know putting others down because I felt crappy, and for me that letter sounds like a much more elaborate and Machiavellian version, but still kinda the same.
TL;DR: The thing about the powerful is that they're not, that's why they need power, and of course the alligator part of the brain gets real good if that's all you use. Use your mammal brain to see what a small achievement that really is.
Also a fantastic example of why real world psychopaths are so dangerous. Most don't kill or commit any serious crimes. They just win people over and draw them in, smoothly and very easily. Until it is to the psychopath's advantage (or impulse, really) to use, hurt, and leave others behind them.
That's not why they are dangerous, it's why they aren't. You could just as easily say that rich people, or charismatic people, or exceptionally intelligent people are dangerous, and it would be just as wrong (or just as correct, if you insist on thinking that way). Sure, greater potential overall translates to greater potential for evil. But it translates just as well into greater potential for good.
Here's something even more fascinating, and surely much more controversial - now re-read that letter, and try and count how many times you hear in it echoes from Ayn Rand's characters, or from the writer herself.
I upvoted this because I also was sucked into watching those flicks again recently as they are playing on one of the premium cable channels. I didn't mean to do it- they just grab me. For the milionth time...
One thing I find interesting about this topic is that as far as I know conventional wisdom says psychopathy is incurable, and comments here implicitly or explicitly seem to agree on this. Neuroplasticity, at least in my interpretation, says that there is an observable feedback loop between the biological structure of our brain and our thoughts/feelings/actions, ie. our "mind". If someone with characteristic of psychopathy, or any mental disorder labelled as incurable for that matter, consciously decides that he/she want to change his/her behavioural patterns then theoretically it is possible. Now, in a way all I did was rephrase my question into how conscious are we regarding our behaviour? Conscious enough to change it? :)
he was too incredible of a case for anyone but the highest-ranking therapist to handle
I was actually waiting for a reveal of something like, "And I discovered the reason I connected with the top therapist so well was because she was a closet psychopath!"
The detail of the highest-ranking therapist, plus others -the need for validation, the fact that the writer declares to be keen on interpersonal connections, the general air of self-involvement, plus the simple act of dishing personal stuff in public - makes me think more of narcissism than psychopathy.
(IANA psychiatrist, needless to say)
In fact, I suspect that most people who flaunt their psychopathy on the internet are in fact narcissists. The two psychos I've met in my life couldn't have cared less for attention from the public at large or validation of their struggles. I can't really imagine them writing an open letter about their condition, an act that doesn't provide tangible control, or money, nor damages an enemy. On the other hand, narcissists needs validation and attention and writing an open letter is attention-seeking behaviour (which we are involuntarily feeding).
You might not be all that far off the mark. I'd imagine people who fall somewhere within the dark triad [1] would connect better with a psychopath, even if they are not one themselves.
This is, of course, the only safe (for the speaker) way to admit to normals what s/he is. Otherwise it is torches and pitchforks with you people. (Normal humans are far more frightening than any psychopath. ;-)
A fun endeavor for sure and I like that he measured before & after results for comparison, but I'm not convinced that he made a real improvement. He notes that he saw "a 1db increase in downstream levels occurred along with a full 1db increase in S/N" but 1dB is well within the margin of error and day-to-day variations, especially for the imprecise internal power measurement circuits of the modem. In fact, simply adjusting and re-tightening your coaxial cable can easily result in more than a 1dB change. Also, I'm not quite sure where he came up with the 1000:1 reduction in power rail noise, because his waveforms show significantly less (although still significant) noise reduction. Finally, having a 10-ping average of 7ms vs 6ms is very much within the margin of error one would expect to see.
If he really wanted to improve the RF performance of his modem, he should have used small, low-value, surface-mount capacitors instead of the large tantalum capacitors with relatively long leads and large electrolytic capacitors. Cable modems and other RF equipment operate at very high frequencies by definition, and tantalum & electrolytic capacitors with long leads are ineffective at these high frequencies. The long leads of the capacitors act as inductors, which will prevent the high frequency fluctuations from ever even reaching the capacitor.
If you look closely, you can see that he added his tantalum capacitors to the already-present small ceramic decoupling capacitors. If he really wanted to improve the RF performance of the circuit, he would have been better off adding more low-value, surface-mount ceramic capacitors in parallel with the pre-existing ones to help with the high-frequency decoupling, where it counts in an RF circuit. If he was really adventurous, he could splice some ferrite beads in series with the supply lines to form an LC filter for even better noise rejection.
Furthermore, he could have taken measures to improve the S/N ratio of the circuit by improving the shielding around the sensitive RF circuits in the middle of the board. You can see where the designer originally made room for a shield "can" to be soldered over the sensitive components, indicated by the exposed copper rectangle around the heatsink area. However, you may get unlucky if your shield can volume has resonant frequencies in the operating range of the circuit which will trigger feedback and render the circuit inoperable. A safer option would be to add some RF-absorbing foam over the sensitive area to absorb the noise.
I concur. He also says " The upstream power decreased by 1.5db indicating that the transmitted signal was being seen more clearly now" but that is inaccurate.
A cable modem's upstream power level has nothing to do with noise. The CMTS will always power adjust the modem so that it hits the CMTS at 0db, it doesn't power adjust based on noise. A 1.5 db change in Upstream SNR would be a different story, but that is a reading that can only be obtained from the CMTS so there isn't any data to backup that claim.
I also would dispute the clam that a modem vendor or MSO is trying to only minimize the cost of the cable modem. If minor internal changes reduced the number of service calls and truck rolls a small increase in upfront cost would quickly be recovered.
> Finally, having a 10-ping average of 7ms vs 6ms is very much within the margin of error one would expect to see.
It's not like he did a google.com ping on each and called it a day... From the post:
> I used Multiping set to do 10 pings a second and chart it. My target was the CMTS IP. I did weeks of charting and then did mods and did more charting. The differences were quite interesting.
Weeks of charting should more than correct for other factors.
But we don't get to see the 'interesting' charts. You're just kind of taking it on faith that he noticed monotonically increasing performance as he soldered more and more expensive caps to his power supply.
Maybe I understood wrong, but the capacitors he added are to the DC circuit, not the RF circuit
By reducing power noise in that area (including noise created by the consumption variation due to the processor/circuitry itself) you end up reducing some noise in the RF section as well
This is a very misleading Kickstarter. They open with a graphic containing logos for 10+ different wireless protocols (including WiFi!), but the board itself only supports a fraction of those. It has pads for two RFM12B module, a Z-Wave module, and an EnOcean module as well as a socket for an XBee module. They also included a few nice extras such as a real time clock and a temperature sensor.
However, you have to scroll to the bottom to see that the remaining "supported protocols" such as UMTS, 3G, 4G, LTE, WiFi, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, X10, etc. are supported "via USB" or over the ethernet port. In other words, they have nothing to do with this project. You buy those adapters (separately) and plug them into any Raspberry Pi.
This looks like a decent PCB and case if you want to add an RFM12B, Z-Wave, EnOcean, or XBee module to your R-Pi and get a decent case, but they've stretched the marketing copy to include "support" for all of these unrelated protocols and features.
EDIT: As pointed out by unwind, this PCB has an include XBee header to support the addition of a Bluetooth, WiFi, or Zigbee module. If you're after these protocols CISECO (the company behind this kickstarter) has a £3.90 adapter board to connect these to the Pi: http://shop.ciseco.co.uk/slice-of-pi-add-on-for-raspberry-pi...
I think you're being a bit too negative. The hub has support for modules using the XBee form factor, and there are Bluetooth modules available for that form factor.
Very interesting perspective into the shortcomings of our military system. The article is worth reading through, but in summary: The author suggests that our drawn-out, meandering wars are the result of a perverse incentive system among the higher ranks of the military. Leaders are not rewarded for successes or, perhaps more importantly, punished for their shortcomings and failures. Instead, they are given short, time-limited appointments in leadership roles, which changes the goal from military success to simply ensuring that nothing too bad happens on their watch. Likewise, these time-limited roles result in a diffusion of success, where everyone can claim that progress was at least partially due to some of their own actions.
Perhaps the most succinct explanation from the article:
But the Army continues to do too little to sort the average performers from the
outstanding ones. That has long-term consequences for the caliber of military
leaders. A recent survey by students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government
found that good young officers have left the military in large part because of
frustration with military bureaucracy and the sense that the armed forces do
not have a performance-oriented system for managing personnel.
The author proposes that the military should more frequently relieve poor performers from their positions until they find the person with the right personality and intelligence for the position.
I've never been involved in the military, but I feel as though this perverse incentive structure is common among many businesses as well. Most big companies I've worked with have a few obviously incompetent employees in leadership positions, but harbor an unwillingness to demote or fire them because they've "earned" their position through hard work and loyalty to the company. Taken to the extreme, this is the famous "Peter Principle," which suggests that employees will continue to be promoted until they reach a position beyond their abilities, at which point they languish in mediocrity. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle )
Making sure that nothing bad happens under your watch may not be such a bad thing in the military. Most of the critiques in this tread sound like this comment by Davidson about the french change of leadership in Vietnam:
On arrival, Navarre was shocked by what he found. There had been no long-range plan since de Lattre's departure. Everything was conducted on a day-to-day, reactive basis. Combat operations were undertaken only in response to enemy moves or threats. There was no comprehensive plan to develop the organization and build up the equipment of the Expeditionary force. Finally, Navarre, the intellectual, the cold and professional soldier, was shocked by the "school's out" attitude of Salan and his senior commanders and staff officers. They were going home, not as victors or heroes, but then, not as clear losers either. To them the important thing was that they were getting out of Indochina with their reputations frayed, but intact. They gave little thought to, or concern for, the problems of their successors.
Just look at the ambition and creativity displayed by Navarre's "hedgehog" strategy, and the (spoiler alert: dismal) result it got for France in the Vietnam war:
Not losing may in fact be one of the requirements for winning :-)
In corporations, the consequences are not that bad - closing door is not a big tragedy. Ten of thousands dead on the other hand, and a war lost is a tragedy.
So please don't dismiss the military just because they work differently. They are on a different problem space. They need different solutions.
The hedgehog strategy there worked, brilliantly, but it is a strategy, a strategy designed around not losing. In the case of the American military, most of our missions now have specific aims that can't be accomplished by simply avoiding disasters.
The early decisions in the Iraq war like de-Ba'athification, dissolution of the military and not protecting vital government sites, could be seen as thinking to much about "winning the war" and not enough about not losing it.
On the other hand it was somewhat the tactic of the Iraqis, or even more so the Taliban. To not lose by disrupting society enough that their enemy can't "win".
Summary: TCP throughput drops dramatically when packet loss is present. This technique uses forward error correction to compensate for packet loss, resulting in higher effective throughput over lossy links. Many WiFi and cellular connections are lossy, so this would be helpful in those cases.
They haven't improved the underlying link rate at all. In fact, the FEC overhead is going to reduce the effective link rate. However, in some edge-case high packet loss scenarios, the reduced packet loss will more than make up for the reduced effective link rate.
Yep. This appears to be nothing more than FEC. Maybe they used LDPC or LDGM, which are superior to traditional Reed-Solomon codes.
I remember doing research on FEC codes back in 2003-2004 for developing a protocol for sending large files over satellite links to multicast recipients when I was working for SmartJog.
> I remember doing research on FEC codes back in 2003-2004 for developing a protocol for sending large files over satellite links to multicast recipients when I was working for SmartJog.
Interestingly, this tool looks like it is useful for the problem you describe:
Yup. I remember looking at udpcast. I did not select it because, amongst other things, it did not support encryption. And I don't think we could use IPsec.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Oh look, someone had discovered forward error correction.
Now if they can compute a series of code blocks over a rolling set of data blocks, that would be new. It would be like singing a round of "Row Row Row your Boat" but in data packets, just waiting and you'll be able to figure out the packets that were dropped. Anyone know if this is what they did?
yes and no. So typically low density parity codes (aka fountain codes) break up a 'chunk' into some number of data blocks and some number of code blocks. Depending on the number of code blocks (its a tradeoff between time and number of blocks) you get 'most' of the blocks back and you can reconstruct the data blocks.
Now you could code up a packet, break it up and then add code blocks, that works great for the packet, but if you don't get enough blocks from that set of blocks you have to resend the packet which is something you don't want to do.
So if instead you send say 3 data blocks and 2 code blocks and then start sending two data blocks and 1 code block and set it up (this is the part that would be impressive) so that the previous two code blocks and the current one could reconstruct the two datablocks you just sent. (re-using previously sent code blocks) My brain is wincing trying to imagine the kind of ECC code that would be, sort of like solving the ECC polynomials in two dimensions or something.
Any way, if you could do that, the outcome would be that you could continually send data and dropped packets would always be correctable by later packets received. I drew out a picture of what relationship the code blocks would need and its complicated. Say you did an 8x3 (8 data segments, 3 code segments, you send
And you do the math such that over any 11 pieces of that you can recover the 8 data pieces. Including:
D05 D06 C03 D07 D08 C04 D09 D10 C05 D11 D12
(see what I did there? Data segments from both parts and code blocks from both parts).
Anyway, that would be some nice math if its doable. And really game changing, it would mean you would get less bandwidth in a situation where there was no packet loss (you're injecting ECC data). But it also makes me wonder if you don't just fix the underlying wireless protocol to do this with the frames sent, why does it have to be at the TCP level?
I wonder what's so proprietary about their algorithm. I'd assume it's just Reed–Solomon coding on a UDP tunnel (or, alternatively, modifying TCP to accept partially mangled-packets if FEC is successful).
I don't know what the Wi-Fi is like at your home or business, but packet loss is actually really common on my University's wireless network. I wouldn't call this scenario artificial at all.
From what I can gather, the White House didn't explicitly ask for the clip to be removed. Rather, they suggested the clip might violate YouTube's own terms of service.
From the article:
> White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service
Still, the net effect is the same. The gesture was made with the goal of having the video removed from YouTube. It's unfortunate that our administration went down this path at all.
We have to ask why on earth the White House should even care if the video violates Google's TOS. This was as close as they could get to a takedown request without violating the Constitution.
Tapping someone on the shoulder and saying "Hey, could you take that down" is disgraceful? This was handled completely honorably and amicably as I can see. WH made a request, Google declined.
I haven't missed the news. I'm well aware of the video and what it's been used as an excuse to do.
I'm also aware that this request is effectively the White House requesting that content be repressed on political grounds, which is wholly antithetical to one of the core principles by which our government is run.
It's trivial, by watching the video and by reading Google's TOS to say "oh, that's clearly not a violation". What the White House did is say "We want you to take that video down, and here's an excuse you can use to do it", which is Not Okay.
So people aren't confused as to what you are responding to, it was a comment of mine. A lot of people apparently completely misunderstood the point, so I deleted it. Sorry for orphaning your response.
