At the risk of reminding you all of a very long thread 'elsewhere', I recently re-read I Am Legend (and made a thread about it. Thanks for all your contributions by the way, cunts) and it got me thinking about evolution.

I started to think about those creatures 'we' currently refer to as 'Neanderthal' etc and it got me to wondering about stuff. In the book, a bacteria infects the human race, turning everyone into vampire-like creatures. The bacteria requires fresh blood to live and dies when exposed to sunlight, so it turns it's host into something very akin to the vampire of legends.

Years ago, I used to think something similar may have occured with us. I wondered about whether that psychopathic tendency we have seemingly all become so used to, is in fact merely a trait of our 'new' selves. I have long suspected it is actually more prevalant within our species than we would care to admit. What if our ancestors were completely devoid of this trait? Nobody would ever know for sure, but if you think about a new branch of a race turning on what went before and hunting it to extinction (similar to the story mentioned above) it actually becomes quite interesting.

I have read about diets being broken down in remains that clearly indicate the 'neanderthal' was pushed in-land in many cases, up into the hills and mountains. From the evidence available, it does strike me that what we refer to as neanderthal may well have been a much more gentle and simpler version of our ourselves. If something happened that caused us to split (again, not unlike that which eventually happens to the human race in HG Wells The Time Machine), what was it?

What do you reckon?

That's an interesting thought, Abs.

I don't know the answer, of course.

But I've been wondering lately if there are 2 different breeds of us - or more. Nothing to do with location, but there just seems to be one 'species' of humans who are, as you say, psychotic. The controllers, pedo's, money worshipers, and then there are 'ordinary' people who have some reasonable degree of conscience and empathy, basic fair-mindedness. I'm wondering lately if the former outnumber the latter, or whether their ruthlessness just appears to make there appear to be more of them than I'd realised before.

I'd have to say with the frequency I believe I have encountered 'psychopaths' in my daily life, I wonder myself.

I've noticed there are two distinct camps, too. There are your out and out psychopaths and they don't give a crap who knows it (see politicians, royalty etc).

Then, there is a subtler, I'd say more intelligent version, which is VERY aware of whether or not others can perceive those traits in them. They are therefore perhaps, much more self aware than the former, inasmuch as they have noticed that 'normal' people find some of their behaviours peculiar. They go out of their way to engratiate and befriend, all the while ensuring everything is in place for them to achieve their ultimate goal, whatever that may be. The other thing with this second camp is, once they're rumbled, they're gone, usually. They don't stick around to explain or make excuses - like you and I might.

You really only need to take a glance at social networking sites to see this stuff in action, actually. It's quite interesting when you start to notice it and not just accept it as 'ego' or whatever else people may have called it over the years. As you point out, there is a distinct lack of compassion or empathy which makes this something very different from ego, imo.

Ab Origine wrote:
I have read somewhere that the majority people this way fear being found out and hide it as best they can, they are afraid of being found out, and i have to say that having experienced being on the receiving end of their agendas and exposed some people, it seems to be true. They are terrified of what people will think of them when their agendas are called out/exposed.

I recall the same article saying that because of this (hiding it) ... it is indeed much more prevalent in the population than people may first think.

As for the diffferences in people, the subject also dances around the nature vs nurture debate imo... there is an argument that people are just born different to one another in regards to the kinds of traits discussed here. The counter argument is about whether upbringing and/or trauma and so on brings out /increases/magnifies these traits. Maybe its a little from column A and a little from column B.

I agree the powerful dont give a shit what people think of them... they dont have to. And lets face it most people are apathetic even when they kinda know things arent right.

The 'neanderthal' argument has also gone the other way ofc. Where it is said they are the psychopaths in positions of power. Not sure if thats the 'other' thread youre talking about elsewhere Abs, it might be... i recall not agreeing with people on that and crossing swords somewhat with them, (yes on DIF) .. because i just dont agree that there are two distinct species of 'us' right now... ( i feel loopy even writing that out tbh) .. just differences.

I do think the same can be observed in animals tbh, maybe there are some lessons to be learned there?? Some have distincly different personalities to others despite being the same species, or even siblings or relatives sometimes. I think people are no different.

Again perhaps a combination of nature and nurture are the reasons for these differences, imo.

BTW i also think the whole 'neanderthals' are the psychos thing, is scapegoating, and its along the same lines as it being said that they are

I think we have to first accept that these traits are human in order to deal with them , I definitely think the people that tend to run things at the higher levels accept and actually embrace these things, and this is even the source of dualism allegories and symbolism that is prevalent to this day. ( good and evil , light and dark etc)

All this kind of stuff for example

Some good points there Nov. Yes, I was thinking about how different siblings can be.

And yes, people have different personalities - but it just seems as though the capacity to care about others, and have a conscience regarding the impacts of your own actions is something that's thought of (by me anyway ) as the essence of what makes us human. So if someone's devoid of it, they seem like a different kind of creature altogether to me.

Re, "And lets face it most people are apathetic even when they kinda know things arent right," I'm not sure how much is really apathy, and how much is self-preservation, or just a lack of knowing what to do about it.

Nature or nurture is quite interesting actually...an aquaintance of mine turned out to be one of these clever sods, and she has two daughters.

She had a very peculiar relationship with the eldest daughter, in that she was more like a mother to her in many ways. I remarked to her once, "you're going to have trouble with her when she realises how you are with her". To which, she just giggled - AGAIN, who would do that and not ask me what I mean't or argue with me? Anyway, couple of years later this eldest daughter has indeed got wise and recently moved out. I understand they are barely on speaking terms right now. You couldn't have met a lovelier young lady though. She was caring (to the point where she'd frequently put her drunk mother to bed) and polite and probably the antithesis of what I'm talking about here.

Her youngest daughter however, is the exact opposite. I can see the warning signs, even at such a young age. She's manipulative and furtive, just like her mother. Perhaps the potential is there in everyone but I'm more inclined to think maybe genetics plays a role. These two children have different fathers, which always made me wonder.