Women -from a Man's perspective

I have been asked to write about women. More specifically on the, if I remember the wording of one such request, "the craziness of women". I had to chuckle when I thought about the wording of that particular request. I, being a middle-aged man and having my share of serious relationships with women myself can understand the frustration his words reveal. There are thousands of songs that have been written through the decades by male lyricists on the topic of the fairer sex. I don't think there isn't an aspect of women that hasn't been sung about by men. Songs about brokenhearted men abound. To be accurate there are plenty of happy songs about the love of a woman as well.
There also is a plethora of books and articles written by psychologists, marriage counselors and relationship experts that are centered on the female aspect of male and female relationships.
I am not one of those professionally trained individuals. But I have no doubt that most will agree with what they read in this article.

There was a book published a number of years ago titled "Men are from Mars and Women from Venus". The book was published in 1992 by Dr. John Gray. The books title alone got people talking about the differences between men and women besides their obvious aesthetic and physical differences.
Another book written from a different perspective than Gray's book is titled "The Adam and Eve Sindrome" written by Roy Masters. Yes the spelling of the word "sindrome" is correct. This book was first published back in 1985.
A book I highly suggest is titled "Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women". Like the Mars and Venus book it too was published in 1992. The co-authors are Anne Moir and David Jessel and in my opinion did an awesome job explaining the biology, neurology and science behind the differences in the genders.
There have been, and continue to be written, innumerable articles in both men and womens magazines on the topic of relationships of the heterosexual kind.

Churches also attempt to tackle the complicated subject of relationships between man and woman. I am a Christian myself and can site, quote and refer to many Bible verses concerning the subject. I can think of many Bible stories that both directly and indirectly relate to men and women relationships as well.
In spite of all the works of print, and all the counseling, and all the preaching that exists on the subject of inter-gender relationships there remains confusion.
The solution to that conclusion lays buried under our own baggage of expectation.

We enter into a relationship with hope for the future of that very relationship. We have hopes that our dreams of finding that "perfect one" for us has finally come to pass. The brutal reality is that is often found to not be the case down the road.
Sometimes that "special someone" turns out to have habits, traits or behavior that we didn't initially see. Maybe we didn't see them because of our own self-imposed blindness, or maybe they were well hidden from us by that person. Whatever the case may be the bliss of love and happiness turns into sadness and bitterness.
The drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths and mentally unstable aside, relationships between two normal people fail at a high rate needlessly.
I use the term "normal" to define those who do have the mental capacity for loving another person of the opposite sex. We all bring emotional "baggage" with us into a relationship. Yes, men that means you, my fellow males as well. The baggage an addict or psychologically disturbed person brings could fill a tractor-trailer and that is not "normal". That is way too much baggage and dooms a relationship from the start. Those type men and women are not the subject of this article. The rest of us that are "normal" still have certain amounts of baggage we bring into a relationship. Some of us have a pick-up truck load, some just have enough to fill one large suit case.
The fact is, male or female, we are all human and have our imperfections.

I once heard it said that a friend is someone who sees your flaws but likes you in spite of them; that a friend likes you for what they see in you and your potential good. I think of my own friends and my like for them and I agree with that statement. A friend, a true friend, loves you even though you aren't perfect. The love of a friend is a very powerful one and a forgiving one when it comes to your flaws. They forgive your shortcomings and still enjoy your company. We men folk get along so well with our "buds" because we not only see each others' good character traits we also see the not-so-good ones and tolerate them. Women do the exact same in their own friendships with fellow females. Where I believe men and women both go wrong in their relationships with each other is they don't see their relationships as friendships. Opposite sexed people develop platonic relationships all the time. A man and a woman that are simply friends with no sex involved can get along quite well. They get along as well as same-gender friendships.

In relationships that involve sex friendship seems to become secondary. Why is it that the same man and woman in a relationship can have happy realtionships with their friends yet fail at the relationship between them as a couple? The answer is, as I have already stated, they don't see their "significant other" as a friend.
Not only do a man and woman have to be friends they need to be best friends.
Men that view their wives or girlfriends as their best friends are the happiest men I have ever met in my life. Happy relationship wise at least. The women in those type relationships think of their men as their best friends as well. Couples must be friends, and best friends at that, to have happy and healthy relationships. I realize I will have those who oppose this assertion, but I challenge them to show me a truly happy couple that don't work that way.

Being best friends in a relationship with the opposite sex does not mean there won't be problems, arguments and disagreements. But being tight friends there will always end up a fair compromise and a resolution to any issue that might of caused some conflict initially. What I believe leads to the break up couples and marriages, besides the obvious infidelity, abuse and the such like, is general unhappiness. Takes no psychologist to figure that one out. But what leads up to the unhappiness? This general unhappiness comes about from lack of desired fulfillment. The level of expectation of fulfillment of needs and desires by our significant other may or may not be realistic. Usually they are quite basic needs and desires. It is just that we think and assume that the other person automatically knows what we need and when we need it and how we want it. I am not just talking about sex here, but that definitely is one of the needs. I have heard it explained like this: men need validation and compliment and women need attention and compliment. Men may think they need physical attention in a sexual manner and women just want to cuddle, but it isn't that simple. Men like to be touched, hugged and given non-sexual contact just like women do. Granted we men may want sex more than our wives but if you gave her the other physical attention she needs you just might get more.
Some women complain they don't get sex as often as they would like from their men and the same advice applies. Non-sexual physical contact is extremely important in a happy relationship. The more the better, if even just one graves more of it than the other.
It is not just non-sexual contact that matters, it is mental contact. A couple must validate and compliment each other everyday. A wife likes to hear she did a good job on something she made or cooked as much as a husband likes to hear his wife compliment him on fixing or building something.
No two persons are exactly the same. Not even twins are exactly alike mentally and emotionally. Two men or two women that are great friends and get along wonderfully don't share 100% in traits, likes, dis-likes or whatever.
A man and a woman coupled together, no matter how much they are alike, will always have differences. Differences in mentality, emotions, interests and other areas.
It is how they compromise in those not-so-same areas that makes a difference in whether they are a happy couple or not.

I have provided above the titles to three different books on the exact same subject. The subject being the inherent differences between men and women. One mostly deals with the psychological differences. One attacks the subject from a somewhat spiritual and philosophical aspect. The third deals with the differences in a more scientific or medical way. There remains but one real answer to relationship problems between men and women who are coupled together. That one answer is COMMUNICATION. First both have to strive to learn how to begin communicating. Second they have to both work on keeping the communication open and constant. This is a daily effort, but hey, we all know relationships take work.

If you have read this article thus far you may be wondering where does the "women" aspect and their "nuttiness" come in all this? Well here it comes, hold on to your hats gentlemen. Woman are NOT "nuts" as you may suppose. Woman just don't seem to know how to express their thoughts instead of their feelings.
We men have been condemned to the category of unemotional brutes for decades. Men are accused of not being able to express their thoughts or show feelings. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a common myth and misconception. Many men can and do express their thoughts. Others just need to learn how.
On the flip side of that relationship coin women have been accused of being emotional wrecks. That myth is perpetuated by men who misunderstand the very nature of a woman. Women actually have the same problem men do when it comes to relationships with their men. The problem is cross communication between the 2 different genders. Women speak in a different language than men, and men vice versa.

Men and women that are not "bi-gender-lingual" can not understand each others way of communication. Woman often say what they feel, whereas men just say what they think. Yet neither actually share their inner most thoughts concerning troubled areas within a relationship. This can be the results of one of two things, or a combination of both. The first one being they don't even know themselves what they think or feel. Secondly, they just don't know how to express their thoughts in words.
Where women end up bitter and many times bitchy is they have an expectation that their man fulfill that he doesn't realize is even there.
Where men end up unhappy in relationship is when they reach the point they can't take the bitchiness of their women.
It becomes a vicious cycle.
For men I would suggest seeking a way to learn your lady's gender-language. She most likely is not a bitch, she is just bitching out of frustration.
The language of a female is not an easy one to learn and very few men learn to master it. Yet the more fluent you become in it the happier you, and she, will be.
For women I would suggest learning your man's gender-language and stop assuming he is a cold heartless bastard. The gender-language of the male is no more complicated to learn and understand than the females gender-language.
The extra benefit to learning the language of the opposite sex is that your own expectations of what they should do or say or act will become more realistic and less selfish. That last comment is directed to both sexes/genders.

Psychopathic Love

When we meet someone and fall in love we may not know what type of person we really are getting with, at first. Psychopaths don't there wear warning labels to warn us of what mentally problems they may be concealing from us.

"Psychopathic Love", the title of this article, seems like an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Well as one who has had the displeasurable life experience of being with a true psychopathic personality, it is quite the fitting phrase. It expresses the chaoticness of the whole experience. The craziness of it all, the total insanity. As I later would read on the website Lovefraud.com my experience with a former "significant other" was not the unheard of nightmare I originally thought. Through that website I discovered my experience was not so uncommon. I only wish I had discovered this website before I went through what I went through. Sure, many of us have had relationships that went awry. Many of us of had relationships with people who did not do their part to make the relationship work. We adults go into, or should go into, relationships that we plan on lasting the rest of our natural lives upon this earth, knowing they take work. Personal sacrifice of things we would not normally deny ourselves if we were single. A relationship, a healthy one, is a work of compromise. Compromise on both sides, that is. But a true loving relationship is worth the compromises, concessions and sacrifices. In the end it all balances out and both sides receive the love, assurance and security they need.
I heard a psychologist and marriage counselor once say that in a relationship some times it is 50/50, sometimes it is 60/40, some times it is 80/20. It all depends on where that relationship is at a particular time period. Relationships, like the two individual people involved, are constantly in flux, moving and hopefully growing. Sometimes they get stagnate and are stuck in the proverbial "rut". It may take the person who is pulling a little more, or at times a lot more, than the other to get the "wheel unstuck" in that rut. At other times it is the other partner doing the pushing or pulling. What matters is the relationship get out of the rut and continue moving forward. In relationships we look to each other for strength. Especially when we are weak at the moment. As a well known psychologist has said sometimes relationships that are stuck or going in the wrong direction need a "hero". One of the two partners needs to "step up to the plate" if you will. We can't always depend on our spouses, or significant others, to do "their part". Perhaps they don't know they need to or don't know what to do, or just are waiting for the other to "do something" to fix whatever problem(s) there is (are) in the relationship at that time. When one of us in a relationship simply steps up and "takes the reigns" when something has to improve, the other will, if they are mentally healthy, eventually "catch on" and get in step.

When one is in love with a psychopath, or sociopath, (the terms are interchangeable, according to clinical psychology) there is no "give and take" in the relationship.
Well, let me qualify that statement. There is plenty of "give" and plenty of "take". 100% giving by one person in the relationship and 100% take by the other.
A TRUE "psychopath" is not just a "user". Oh no, they are much more, much worse, than just a parasitical type personality. They are tornadoes, hurricanes of destruction. Dare I say demons of destruction.
They are "psychic vampires" on steroids.
They drain you of all your life's blood, even your soul. But unlike vampires of fiction you don't "live forever" once they sink their fangs into your jugular. You do become the "living dead", an emotional and mental zombie though.
Like the shock of victims of a tornado that tears up their homes and property, or a flood event, you walk out of the relationship in total and absolute dispair.
You can loose not only your physical possessions, you can loose your own since of self worth, your own since of self. During a relationship with a sociopath you begin to doubt your own sanity. After such a relationship you struggle to regain sanity of mind and sanity in your personal life.

Most people don't understand what a true sociopath/psychopath really is. In a way, being a victim of such a personality, I wish I didn't, but I do, now.
For those of us unfortunate to of been intimately tied to a true clinically defined sociopathic person it is so hard to explain it to others who haven't.
Even among psychologists, a clear, definite definition of a psychopath seems to escape a hard and fast definition. There are, however, agreed upon traits that are universally accepted. I am not a psychologist, nor do I play one on television, but I am an expert on my own personal experience with a sociopath. Lessons hard learned and my "degree" is well deserved.
In my own personal reading of what both psychologists and victims have written about psychopaths I have found that not only have many gone through what I did but that there seems to run a constant pattern.
I have been asked by others what I would suggest to look for in a suspected individual to detect a psychopath. The first thing I do is refer them to the website lovefraud.com. Then I tell them my own formula I have come up for helping to detect a suspected sociopathic psychopath. I will get to that in a minute.

First let me explain some things. We all have heard the terms "pyscho", "psychopath" and "sociopath" on television fiction shows and movies. Remember that those are sources of entertainment and the script writers take artistic license. Kind of like the Rambo movies and the whole "Green Beret" thing. No real-life Green Beret, presently or veteran, will tell you that they are "Rambos". Rambo is a fictional character. He is also nothing like a real wearer of the Green Beret of that particular segment of the Army Special Forces. As in all myths, fables and fictional stories, there is some truth in them, somewhere. Hey, lets face it Green Berets, as a character says in the first Rambo movie, "First Blood" (Rambo Part I), "those Green Berets, they're some real badasses", and they are. But they are nothing like the fictional character John J. Rambo. The same goes for the "psychos" betrayed on the big and little screens we all stare at for entertainment. The psychopaths portrayed on t.v. and in the movies do have some things in common. They, true psychos, have no emotional connection to others, except where it suits them, and only on that basis. They can be as horrific as the fictional ones and sure some psychopaths can be murders, serial killers and even cannibals.
Yet the majority of those persons that are psychopaths do not go "that far". Many are fascinated with the taboo, socially unacceptable, macabre, and anti-social things in this life. I know from my own personal experience with a psychopath that person was, in my estimation, just a little to into horror movies.
I certainly do not mean to insinuate that those who are fans of horror flicks have psychopathic tendencies.
I personally enjoy action movies, that does not mean I am overly fascinated with violence.

The point about a true psychopathic personality to keep in mind is they are extremists, extreme in what suits their mood at the moment.
As my present girlfriend, who also, as fate would have it, was a victim of a sociopath in her past, puts it, "they live in the moment". That is a great way to explain a psychopath/sociopath.
They are very impulsive, very emotionally driven if you will. Yet, at the same time they are very calculating. Very methodical in their madness. A psychopath fits the old saying "crazy like a fox" to a t, or should I say a c, as in crazy. Crazy, but calculating is what a psychopath/sociopath is. The "mad genious" of a psychopathic personality is that they are masters of deception and misdirection. They are exceptional actors. Stage and movie actors have to "get into character", but a psychopath IS that character at that moment. They are con-men, or con-women, yet unlike a person who runs a confidence game, they are not simply "putting up a front" like a confidence trickster. Undercover investigators and undercover cops have to put on a mask of sorts, and work at maintaining the "person" they are claiming to be to gain information and conduct surveillance, but the sociopath/psychopath has no such inner struggle to maintain their fronts. Psychopaths live 24/7 as "con-men", they never stop running games on their victims.

The one thing that is a main tool, or I should say, weapon, that a psychopath uses is lying. They can lie with great skill and at the drop of a hat. Basically their whole lives are lies. Now you must understand that there are many pathological liars out there, but being such a personality does not mean they are actual psychopaths. Matter-a-fact there are many traits that are displayed by many people with anti-social personalities and traits that are shared by psychopaths but that does not mean the anti-social persons are true psychopaths. For instance psychopaths lie, but that doesn't mean a habitual liar is a sociopath. Psychopaths steal, but thieves, not even those who suffer from the mental condition of kleptomania (the irresistible urge to steal) are psychopaths. Psychopaths as I mentioned above have an excessive draw to what general society would call "sick". Yet there are those who have that excessive draw to the grossly taboo, but that certainly does not make them psychopaths. Sociopaths (remember I am using the two terms of psychopath and sociopath, which mean the same, interchangeably in this article) have a collection of negative traits like no other anti-social personality.
Murders, thieves, and all other types of destructive persons are not all psychopaths, though some are for sure.
According to psychologists a percentage of psychopaths never commit crimes that gain them hard time in a prison cell. These are termed the "functional psychopaths". These are the psychopaths that seem to get away with their immoral lifestyles. Some may have minor run ins with the legal system, but don't quite commit the major crimes. But trust me, it is not because they are moral people. Psychopaths by very definition follow no moral codes, ethic system or guides of conscious. If they don't commit a heinous act of crime it is not from lack of desire to do so, it is simply that their self-preservation desire is stronger. Psychopaths operate on pure self-preservation and self-aggrandizement only. Sociopaths care nothing about "doing the right thing". Sociopaths do not care about social norms and can not comprehend them for that matter.
They can not understand why they can not help themselves to other people's things, especially relatives and loved ones. They are incapable of loving anyone, literally. The Golden Rule of "do to others as you would have them do to you" is no where in their black hearts. I don't say that to be insultive, nor to be sarcastic, I say that to be factual. Sociopaths have absolutely no conscious, thus to say they have "black hearts" is not just meant to be poetic. It is said by psychologists that study sociopaths that there is no cure for their mental condition. It is permanent and they are what some religious people would term "reprobates". Again, I don't say this to be hateful, nor bitter, but to simply lay out the facts. You see psychopaths have no regret, no remorse for what they do wrong to others. The only time they express regret or sorrow is when they get caught. Caught lying to a loved one for instance. They may put on a pity act or they may display the other and opposite reaction and express anger. They can even act out in anger physically. Yet anger is not the psychopaths favorite mode of operation and they will soon calm back down and express sorrow, once again, this time for "loosing their cool". They will always blame their anger fits on the person that has confronted them about a wrong they have done or lie they have told. Another time they may display anger, albeit impulsively, is if they are having a hard time manipulating a person that is close to them to do something they want them to do, yet that person is being resistant. Again, anger is not their favorite tool and they do try to manipulate situations and victims so that they are always in control. Psychopaths are cold blooded beings and always seek to be in total control of their emotions and surroundings, and the people that are close to them. Any emotions they display are one of two things. They are either feeling that emotion for that moment, or they know they must display a particular emotion at that moment. They really don't care either way. For example a psychopath can cry at the sad news of the death of someone they know because they actually feel that emotion at that moment. The flip side to that psycho coin is they may not have any emotions towards that person but will display them because they know that is what they are to do to look right to those around them. Yet they always show emotion as a means to an end. A psychopath will feel happy and laugh at something they hear or see funny that the rest of us would, yet they are simply in the moment. Psychopaths have absolutely no empathy for other human beings. This is not to say they don't "feel" an emotional response to say a sad news story on the television news. It's just that psychopaths are only relating to their own personal feelings at the time and really don't care what tragedy others go through. The way you gauge if a person really cares is by their actions towards, their sacrifices for, those they love. "Love thy neighbor" is a Christian saying, but the principle is pretty universal in society to Christians and non-Christians alike. Sociopaths simply don't love their neighbor because the only person they really love is themselves and are incapable of acting out of love. Psychopaths only act out in ways that suit their own, selfish, desires at the moment.

Even though I have had personal and intimate experience with a true psychopath writing this article to explain them is very difficult. Not that I don't have a way with words and can normally explain subjects I know well to others who don't know what I know about a given subject, and can explain in a way they can come to an understanding. It is difficult to write this article for this reason, well for a second reason too, that I will get to in a second. The first reason it is so difficult to write this article explaining to those who don't know about psychopaths/sociopaths is because they are just so hard to explain and define. Even psychologists find it hard to explain. Many psychologists don't even totally agree 100% on the symptoms. The second reason it is so hard for me to write this article is though I am known as a passionate writer, and even speaker, on the subjects I love to write and speak about, the passion, the emotion I feel, about this particular subject is very strong and can be overwhelming at times. There are even support groups for victims, such as myself, of psychopaths. To put it frankly you just don't know until you have been through it. Plus, I am a man, a middle-aged one, I would like to think I do have some sanity and am a well adjusted member of society in general. I also would like to think that I was not capable of being a victim of a sociopath, much less fall in love with a woman that is one. I do have some street-smarts and am not, I thought, easily fooled or taken in by cons. But, alas, I was taken in and I am a victim of such a person. It, I admit, has wounded my ego. Here I was trying to be the loving, understanding gentleman we are encouraged to be in relationships and yet I was a fool. Okay, psychologists and my fellow victims of sociopaths would chastise me for calling myself a "fool", but I don't know how else to explain my feelings about it all. I will heal, in time. I hope that my writing this blog for others to read and gain insight on the psychopaths that walk among us will help others....but that it will also serve as a therapy for me.

Psychopaths and sociopaths seem to have what I call a Triad of Behavior Traits.
It seems from the information I have gained, first from my own personal experience, the experience my present lady-friend has had in her past, and the writings of other victims as well as psychologists that true "bonafide" psychopaths/sociopaths have 3 main traits. Three main behaviors that are constant and continual.
I put those traits in a Triad of Psychopathic Behavior Traits as follows:
LYING
MOOD/MIND CHANGES
MANIPULATION
Now keep in mind these three traits are ALWAYS and consistently in operation. Like the triangle of fire Boy Scouts and those who are being trained in wilderness survival and how to make a camp fire are taught, the psychopath also has a triangle of their own "fires". Even firemen are taught about that triangle of fire; Oxygen - Heat - Fuel. In the triangle of fire, the 3 needed elements, none is more important than the other. In trying to identify a person as a true psychopath/sociopath, you as a laymen in psychology and not a trained, professional and licensed psychologist still can identify them if you know the symptoms to look for. You don't have to be a medically licensed doctor to "diagnose" a loved one with a cold or flu and you don't have to be a psychologist to at least figure someone out enough to know that they may in fact be a psychopath. Let me say this, if you have a loved one who may be in a relationship with someone you suspect being a psychopath, don't just come out and tell them that. Psychopaths have an uncanny way of mentally blinding their victims. Being a person who has been through it, a victim of a psycho, it is almost like some sort of "magic evil spell" they put on you. It is mind games they play with you. They are always scheming and plotting. They watch their victim and study them so as to know what to say to alleviate doubts that come up in the victim's mind. They always have an answer. They always have an explanation. And, they always use the guilt trip on their victims for "not trusting me" if all else fails.

The Triad of Psychopathic Behavior Traits I give above is a triangle, all sides lean on and depend on each other. Just like the triangle of fire, if one of the elements is removed you have no fire, if you remove one of the three traits I outlined above you may not be dealing with a true psychopath.
You may have an anti-social person who has psychological issues, but they may not be a true and legit psychopath.

They will constantly be doing all 3 behaviors, on a daily basis. Some days more than others, but they exhibit them every day. They will constantly use what ever means, and displays of emotions, to MANIPULATE their victim into doing what they want them to do. And thus, in the process, drawing that victim deeper into their web of deceit.

They will constantly be LYING. Yes, they can be termed pathological liars. Yet they are not so much impulsive liars as pathological ones, but more calculating and methodical. They can lie on impulse too. Remember they are impulsive personalities as well, but they are also cold blooded and calculating too.
They will constantly have MOOD and/or MIND CHANGES. This means their moods change constantly. It all depends on the situation. They will display a given mood to illicit a response from a victim in a cold and calculating planned out way. Yet they are impulsive too and can display a mood they feel at that moment. Like the mood or emotion of anger, they can loose control for a moment, but they soon will recover as they see that that particular display does not go with their over all plan of manipulation. They will change their minds on any given subject from day to day and even minute to minute. It will seem like dealing with a schizophrenic or person with multiple personalities at times, literally. Yet it is not the same as dealing with a true schizophrenic. It is the same personality you are dealing with, they just change their minds on things according to either how they feel at the moment, or according to a actual plan they have. The plan, the Grand Master Plan of a sociopath/psychopath is total control of their victim. They will use a victim, use them up, drain their blood if you will, for their own agendas and pleasure. Psychopaths have no real capability for loving anyone. I am not just saying that, experts and psychologists say that as well. They see people as stepping stones in their lives to step on and use to bear their weight. Anytime they do something that appears to be love or bearing your weight it is only for their own agenda. Oh, and they will throw up everything they have ever done "for" you too. Psychopaths do NOTHING out of pure, unselfish love, there is ALWAYS an agenda.

Since I broke up with my now very ex-girlfriend, I have received multiple communications from others that have also been "played", suckered or manipulated and lied to by her. She will never stop because she can't. To get away from her and to make a clean break I ended up loosing almost all my personal possessions. Like a wife or girlfriend fleeing a physically abusive husband I had to run and not look back. Leave with the clothes I had with me, literally. If you have never dealt with a psychopath you just have no idea what they are capable of. They are capable and conniving enough to be the most wicked people you have had to deal with if you dare to get away from them. My, and others advice to you if you think you have a loved one, or friend, trapped in the mind-wash of a relationship with a psycho is just be there if they are ready to leave. They will need emotional support, not judgment, and they may need a sanctuary and safe place to disappear from the psychopath. As some psychologists will tell you anyone can get caught up with a psychopath. They can if they don't know they exist and how to identify them. Even if a person is just a bad person and has psychological problems that prevent them from being a good significant other or spouse yet you suspect they are a psychopath, albeit incorrectly, I would suggest it is better to be safe than sorry and stay away from that person. Men are from Mars and women from Venus they say, but I say the psychopath is from the outer dark reaches of the universe. They are not like any other person, even other psychologically demented persons. A psychopathic sociopath is like no other being on earth. It is almost as if they are from another planet. But, maybe they are from earth, the fabled center of the earth, Hell.

The Box

Most of us have heard the saying “Think outside the box”. First we have to define the “box”. The phrase’s origin goes back somewhere in the late 1960’s and has an American genesis. The original source of the actual wording of the quote is lost to history. Who first coined the phrase is unknown. It did first begin to become a maxim within corporate business meetings, this we do know. It has been suggested that the actual original “box” was a puzzle game that appeared in a book of puzzles in the early part of the 20th century. The mind-teaser consisted of 9 dots arranged in a box shape. 3 sets of dots in vertical, or horizontal lines.
The objective of the game was to draw a continuous line through the center of each dot without going through a dot more than once. The game stimulated a person’s creative and logical thinking. It can be used to try one’s cognitive thinking ability. Cognitive thinking is defined as thus: cog•ni•tive [kog-ni-tiv] –adjective 1) of or pertaining to cognition. 2) of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.
We can see, from that definition, the original “box” was a mind game. The 9 dot box puzzle was a good way to challenge the way an individual thinks and uses their mind. Without being a psychology test it tested the person’s perception, creativity and reasoning. Corporate management consultants used the puzzle as a way to help corporate businesses encourage more creative thinking from their employees and executives alike. It is highly suggested that the actual phrase “Think outside the box” came from the lips of one of these consultants. No one can be sure from who or where exactly it came from originally.
From the pages of a puzzle book published in 1914, titled “Sam Loyd’s Cyclopedia of 5000 Puzzles, Tricks and Conundrums", to a corporate seminars, to television shows and commericials it traveled. From television it spread to the rest of the population’s ears and now has become an almost meaningless phrase. Think outside the box is now mostly just a old cliché.
It is the aim of this article to resurrect the meaning of the saying. Not so much the corporate business aspect of the of it’s meaning, but the overall and general spirit of it. I personally find the phrase stimulating in itself. Kind of like the line from the movie the Matrix “Free your mind”. You see free thinking is the ultimate way to see yourself through life. We are all raised by our parents and trained as children growing up in school to always contain our thoughts within boxes. As adults we are all expected to think within certain parameters, no matter the topic. Then there are the subjects we are trained to stay away from mentally. Those taboo and socially unacceptable areas I speak of are termed “politically incorrect” subjects. We are conditioned to think that our curiosity into the unknown or unexplored is not to be pursued. Alas many do dare to re-visit those subjects society as a whole has been mentally conditioned to ignore. Those that dare to look into things and revisit the facts on any particularly distasteful topic are shunned by society. Yet out-side the box thinking persists by those cerebral “rebels” among us. Many subjects are considered “open and shut cases”. We are told “the jury is in” and that society has “ruled” or “come to a decision” on particular subjects. Yet there are those among us who dare to challenge the status quo and continue to search for truth on their own.
The motive of a person thinking outside the box on any given particular subject is usually a simple and honest desire to confirm what the real truth is. It is generally discouraged by society to challenge the official or traditional line of thinking of many subjects. To help me explain to you what I am speaking of concerning unboxed thinking let site some examples. First let me start with the two party dominated political system of America. The Republican and Democrat political parties basically have a strangle hold on the American voters. Sure there are third party candidates and independents but they rarely win statewide or national elections. Those that do win an office are marginalized as far as party affiliation goes. They are the “odd ball” politicians that rarely get noticed as non-Republican and non-Democrat. Such is the Republican-Democrat party dominated political system in America. The Libertarian or Constitution parties get very limited coverage in the main-stream news or on political commentary network shows or talk radio. When they are brought up it is as a side subject. Republican commentators constantly encourage their listeners and readers to not vote third party or independent. They claim it is a vote thrown away and actually will help the Democratic candidate win. They are generally correct as that does split the votes of those who are not voting for the Democratic Party candidate. As this will lesson the chance of the Republican winning the election. This is all based on the assumption that the voters would vote for the Republican if there was no third option candidate to vote for. The same is true if Democratic pundits tell the people to not vote for a 3rd party candidate who will not vote for the Republican one. Again, the logic behind this is sound in that it does keep votes from going to the Democrat. Yet if one dares to think outside the box on this topic it don’t take long to figure out that as long as voters cave into the two party system there will never be a third way to go. This being locked inside of a 2 political party system “box” hampers the political growth of the country. This box also locks out many voters and would-be voters. I would suggest that the political party system in this country be done away with, even outlawed, if constituents wish to truly have a voter voice in politics. Let each candidate stand on their own merit and not join a particular corporate party. This would do away with party politics and party voting blocks and realign the focus on the individual running for office and their stance on the issues that matter to each individual voter. This article is not about the silliness of partisan politics, nor about the ballot box. The above example is to explain an aspect of out side the box thinking people need to have in general, not just about politics.
The mental freedom one gains when he/she frees him/her self from the box placed around them at an early age is well worth the effort. We all have heard the analogy of a person “living in a cave” applied to someone who has been uniformed about a topic. Usually that topic is one considered to be general knowledge. The common wording of the assertional statement is something like “Unless you have been living in a cave you know about…….(fill in the blank)”. Social normalcy requires we all have so-called common knowledge of particular contemporary topics and events. That is not necessarily to say that is a unjustified social requirement. Yet there are those who, as the saying goes, “did not get that memo”. No matter how much one tries to stay on top of the latest news topics and events there will always be topics they miss. Once a topic has been brought to their attention they can always catch up on the facts. Not only are there contemporary, or present day events we can all go back and catch up on the facts about, but there are historical ones as well. Just because a person didn’t pay attention in history class in school does not mean they can’t read about historical events and people later in life. Nor does one have to be a history major in college to know history. Whatever the topic, if it is about past events as recent as yesterday or as old as ancient history, one can always read up on it. There hides a problem with that though. Books and articles, and television programs, are all written by those who we always suppose are experts on the subjects. Lets say it is about a specific period and place in history one is looking into. I will pick a commonly sited one for an example here, Nazi Germany. Specifically the Holocaust of the German and Polish Jewish people. If a researcher wants to go back and examine the evidence and facts and they come to a different conclusion, in any way, than the official and main-stream academic conclusion they are condemned. The term “Historical Revisionist” is a term used to describe those who present historical facts not before presented. When it comes to those who dare to look further into the time period I am using here as an example a more snide term is used: “Holocaust Denier”. It is claimed that only Neo-Nazis and racist haters of Jews “deny” the traditional recitation of that time period and the events that took place. It is even illegal to openly question or write exposes on the subject in at least 7 countries in the world. One being a neighbor to America, Canada. In America it is still legal to question the traditionally accepted history concerning the Holocaust. Yet an American that does and openly shares their views and findings is still subjected to ridicule from academia, political and religious leaders, and anti-racist groups. Never mind that even some Jews have written works that also challenge the official Holocaust stories, and therefore could not be “Neo-Nazis” with some “Anti-Semitic agenda”. I am not debating the Holocaust here, I am simply demonstrating the strength of mental boxes we can find ourselves locked into. What if all the stories of the Holocaust and all the historical books on the subject are correct and all the Revisionists wrong? What is important is that people dare to question even the most sensitive of subjects. Nothing should be taboo to question and re-investigate. No topic should be illegal to dare to offer a differing opinion or viewpoint on. Whether it be official government statements, or traditional explanation of history, everyone should be free to investigate on their own to see what the truth is. No matter what the topic in question is.
Anyone should be able to voice their own findings without social condemnation simply for doing so. Social pressure is a natural form of keeping a society civilized and culturally unified. There is also nothing wrong with breaking with social and cultural traditions in it self. Some cultural norms and traditions need to be broken, or at least modified in my opinion. What is important is that people are free to question authority without reprisal. Not just government authority but academic authority and even experts in their field. What makes one an “expert” on anything for that matter? A nice piece of pulp fancily printed upon, and framed on a wall? I will say this, I am an expert in what I believe. We all are experts on what we believe, because we know what we believe. We are all individuals and have our own minds and therefore all have our own individual beliefs. The issue of the “box” comes in when we look into what we believe and see why we believe it. We may know what we believe concerning a certain topic or issue, but we may not know why we believe it. We may not realize how we came to our conclusions. We have to remember what our sources of information were that led us to our beliefs. We also must take into account what events happened in our individual lives to lead us to where we are in our belief process? We all develop personal biases and they shape how we process information and the purest of facts. “Perception is reality” is an old saying and truism. How we perceive facts, or even incorrect information, is based on the focus of our mind’s eye. We use eye glasses, contacts and laser surgery to correct out of focus eyeballs. You mind’s eye, or “third eye”, also may require some help to see things more clearly. The biggest way to help bring your mind into clearer and shaper focus is to think outside the box. The proverbial interior of the box and it’s walls prevent your eyesight from focusing on the bigger picture. Being locked inside a big box would prevent you from seeing the outside world. And like the original puzzle box made up of dots can demonstrate you are only hampered from solving the puzzle by your lack of perception. If all one sees is a square made up of 9 dots arranged in sets of 3 dots in 3 lines that are side-by-side they will never figure out the puzzle. To solve that brain teaser one must not see a square of dots. The solution to the puzzle is a single line drawn dot to dot in a not-so-square pattern. We have all seen visual bran teasers where we have to stare at the picture to see the other “hidden” aspect drawn within the design. In other words what we first perceived was not the true picture, or at least not the whole picture.
Let me give you an example of my own having to think outside the box. When I first started hearing they phrase “think out side the box” it was on television shows and commericials years ago. The saying was almost always said in a betrayed office like setting. I deducted it was not Hollywood script writers that invented the saying, but that it originated out of corporate office boardrooms. Given that line of thinking I added my own assumption to it’s original reference. I assumed it to refer to the office worker sitting at their desk inside the privacy of a cubical with portable walls placed around it. I thought the “box” reference was to the boxed in office cubical. I laugh now at myself looking back at my naïve thinking. I have since learned that though I was correct that the actual phrase started within corporate America, I was wrong on why the term “box” was used. This is a perfect demonstration of what I am referring to in this article. I had to dare to think outside the box, and question my assertion. I had assumed, but I had not confirmed with facts and good information. I am not afraid of being wrong, I am afraid of NOT FINDING OUT I am wrong. I have no problem admitting when I learn I am wrong on a subject.
We never find out if we are wrong on a topic or in something we believe in if we don’t dare to question even ourselves. We must question authorities and experts as well. To do that questioning properly we must dare to think outside the box. We must constantly challenge others and our own selves to explore even the most taboo of sources of information on a topic. No source and no fact must be overlooked when seeking to establish truth on a matter. That can be a daunting task all in itself, but if we want to know the truth about a subject we must be willing to go where others may fear. Yet if we do perhaps in time others will follow and truth, not pre-packaged controlled information will prevail. Many complain about censorship, and that is a bad thing, but we become our own censors when we refuse to look into other sources of information for the facts.
Know what you believe and why you believe it. Do not believe anything until you can confirm it through facts you have accumulated from your own research. And finally let your own thoughts rule your life, not what you have been told think about something by others. But make sure your thoughts are not only your own, but the results of free thinking. There is no freedom living inside a box.

One "box" to think outside of is the television box! Whether it be political, social or cultural values, neither the news nor fiction shows or movies are good sources for generating your own Free Thought and Thinking.