Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(1 edit)

Hon. Look it up. Psychopathic rage is a thing. And I’m studying psychology. Don’t forget that films are NOT reliable sources of information. This web page, along with a quick bing* search query should clarify.

While it’s typically accepted that psychopaths DO experience and exhibit muted emotional responses to stimuli, it’s also widely agreed that the majority of them have their spectrum of emotions.

Sociopathy, while it seems definitive of the individual, is as the name implies… A SOCIAL matter. It’s application is meant to imply the sense of a certain M. O. or pathology, given that another person is present and actively integrated in the instance we’re observing. In this case, with the main factor being observed through social interaction, “Sociopathy” is much more fitting of a plausible outcome since so much of it involves other and even specific people, rather than a close review of his childhood and individual life experience and personal reactions to a broad range similar stimuli.

(1 edit)

Sweetie, even specialists disagree with each other because there is no such thing as a single universal truth but as many truths as there are people to seek it, and as a psychology student, you should know at least that much.

And you better also learn that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source nor any random website which you find on a quick search, how about you improve your searching skills before you rely onto your sources?

I’m old enough to know that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source of information, alone.

But, unlike you, they cite sources and welcome scrutiny over their claims of truth. I’m not going to argue, anymore.

You’re falling dangerously deeper into fallacy, my friend. And the “no true authority” approach is quite childish.

I posted my public reply for others to have available SOME information, as much as I did for you… If not more, to be honest.

Take care.

(1 edit)

Relying onto age to claim wisdom is plain arrogant which is the antithesis of wisdom, just as calling names instead of actually counter-statementing is plain incompetence. 😉

I personally tried to contribute Wikipedia and let me tell you that it is a tyrannical bureaucracy which rejects personal experiences over official consensus which would have forbidden Galileo to write that our planet is a globe because consensus said it was flat and that's it, Wikipedia even rejected concrete evidences that Jeanne d'Arc was in fact a french princess and not a peasant, that she was in fact a high-ranking templar knight and not an inexperienced warrior, that she married to a duke, that she had children with him, and that she did not die in Rouen, Wikipedia rejects anything which contradicts official consensus therefore it is not a neutral encyclopedia but a conditioning tool to conform people's world view. As for more meaningless topics, they just don't care about your sources as long as "someone said so somewhere on the web". And you rely on THAT to base or check your knowledge onto?! 😲

I wonder which approach is the more childish between self-thinking and questioning authority or relying onto authority to not question oneself, what do you think? 😏