6 replies to this topic

[truepurple]

"Anti-social hysterias" as those who sacrafice themselves for the sake of others as something opposted to pyschopaths who kill/use others for their own purposes...

This is so unlikely on so many accounts. I understand that it need not be as accurate as a pyschologist dissertation paper, but considering how much of the story revolves around these terms, you would figure they would do a little better job.

Especially "anti-social hysterias" there is no such term that I could find online,(and anything that came close to that structure of word had a radically different meaning) and if you are going to make up a term for someone whos willing to sacrifice themselves for others, It is difficult to imagine two less likely terms then "anti-social" and "hysteria" If this really is a accurate translation, perhaps this would be a good example where the translator should take a little liberty and come up with a imaginary term that seems even somewhat believable.

Aside from this big issue, it really is a interesting discussion in the comic about approaches to how you treat others and life your life.

Edited by truepurple, 06 June 2012 - 01:49 AM.

[DualPrinciple]

Yes, "antisocial hysteria" truely is a horrible made-up term (and I have not encoutered it anwhere else, although I do dabble in psychology > not a professional though/). And yes, the translator(s) could have his(their) imagination to come up with a better name for it - this might even be the better version of the original name! - or it could be difficult to translate and thus not so translated. However, most importantly, this is a story, so it does not have to be perfectly credible. You read a manga where angels are actually evil beings that suck out humans souls and make them magical jewelry users and complain about a made-up term that is in it? Well, LoL.

Anyways, you are right when you say that this brings an interesting discussion. However it is too long for me to start writing about it now. If anyone else is interested in sharing thoughts, I'll gladly reply and discuss.

[AlterReality]

They are anti-social because they are against the current form of society (the weak ruled by the powerful). Hysteria can mean a frenzied emotional state, and while it is an odd word choice, I believe he is referring to George Whitefield-like fervor for ones' beliefs. Just my guess, anyway. Possible translation effects noted.

[truepurple]

Sure, ruling other people is a social thing, but only barely. Social is emotional connections made with other people, friendships and dependencies in that regard. By the comics own words, the "weak" make up for their weakness in numbers/unity AKA socially. While the "strong" are more loners, since they have trust issues and mostly only depend on their own strength. So it is the "psychopaths" that are truly antisocial, rather then the "antisocial hysterics" who are very social.

But with time to think about the whole thing, while I still think there is a interesting conversation in there, alot of it is hogwash. Being compassionate doesn't mean you are weak. Nor does it preclude ruling. While I am sure old time kings had to be very Machiavellian behind the scenes to keep their power, it is the rules that have demonstrated, or at least faked, that they have the peoples interest at heart that have the best grip on power.

Three forms of ruling that I can see,

By iron/force:

But as a old twilight zone episode (or was it outer limits) showed with a mirror that showed who was thinking traitorous thoughts, the tighter you hold on to something, the more it slips through your fingers.

By blood right:

If its been ingrained into a society that people of certain families have a natural right to rule, then this alone can forgive much careless ruling.

By the will of the people:

They don't want or need people to rule because they are "psychopaths", but because they demonstrate that to at least a degree they hold peoples interest at heart. Even rules by the first two can be preempted if they demonstrate enough destructive tendencies to the society they rule and the society is organized enough to overcome the rulers, ruling structure.

People in power crave power, which does tend to mean they are less interested in being nice. But there are plenty of people who have craved and gained power, but been compassionate too. The other issue is that power can corrupt, which has happened to many people, and has nothing to do with "psychopaths" verses " anti-social hysterics".

And people who have overthrown rulers have done so in numbers, sure, but that is because rulers tend to control military and such. Not because they are naturally stronger being "psychopaths"

In the end, I think this is a false dichotomy, this "psychopath" verses "social hysterics". People can be compassionate in some regards and ruthless in others, those two things are present in most of us. Peoples strength has nothing to do with how compassionate or ruthless they are. But how much willpower, natural skill, and training they have (plus things like access to weapons and natural body strength)

[AlterReality]

-Cusses Animatedly- Accidently hit backspace when i was done saying everything.

Very less detailed version. (This version sounds much more rude, I apologize, but instead of gentle transitions from what you got right (in my eyes) to what was wrong and why i think that to what is right in that case to what i believe with a lot of examples to justify things, I'm going to sorta bullet-point)

Society can define several things; you can't confuse socializing with society at large.

Anti-social hysterics are against the current way society functions, but they aren't against people. In fact, they NEED people to get their own beliefs about how society should function set in place. An example is an old Judaist priest way back when who traveled around Eastern Europe spreading Judaism where another religion already existed (I may have details of this example wrong, but there was something like this at least) He was anti-social because he was trying to change the way people lived, but he was good at socializing because he was successful in doing so. He was hysteric (again, as in full of emotional fervor) because he did this all over until he was killed by the then-government (head of the way society functions) for doing what he did.

Psychopaths can have socializing skills as well, because, despite who is called psycho in the book, the only true psychopaths (very bad word, get to it below) are Ayako and business-guy (Tachibana? I'm bad with names, but I'll go w/ that).

Psychopaths are strong people capable of ruling. That's it. Rich-chick is not a psychopath because she is not strong-willed, as in evidence by the fact that the only people she cares about never receive any sort of aid by her. She does nothing for them, even though she could (she could capture her father and force him to transfer everything he owns to her before doing away with him, then using the power of the company to escape due process, then adopt the kids, as one example), and they die as a result. After that she becomes strong-willed in the nothing-to-lose-fight-for-vengeance sense (at this point, she could be considered a psychopath). They are rulers. They can be good, bad, or ugly, that has nothing to do with it. All about power.

Difference between Ayako and Tachibana, who are both psychopaths, is in degree and scope (are those both mouthwashes?).
Ayako's society consists purely of Reiji (no, she's not part of her society, her lack of care for herself is part of what makes her "crazy"). The scope is very small, and the degree of protection is high. She keeps Reiji at something like a 99% chance of survival as much as possible to the best of her ability (as well as keeping his emotional and mental safety in mind, though she keeps physical survival as the top priority. Tachibana's society is much larger than Ayako's, and there is only so much he could do to protect him; since he cant get enough points for everyone to survive on alone (though I doubt he'd do that regardless), he makes efficient teams to minimize losses and maximize "survival points." However, he does not do purely beneficial things for society as proven by his bringing Ayako within reach of it and setting her loose, just to prove a point to himself (she would not have went after the others first, but she would have killed everyone there (which Tachibana knew) to save Reiji (he thought herself).

The point Tachibana is trying to prove to himself is that either Ayako only cares for herself. If she does care for others (Reiji), then that either means a) that she is not a psycho, or that they both are psychopath (which is the cas).

I should probably have said this earlier, but the definition of psychopath and the definition of psychopath that people believe within in the manga is different, which is very confusing, and I should really switch out one of the definitions with a different word, so I will. In everything you just read, Psycho is the perceived definition of what a psychopath is, and psychopath is the actual definition (its a bad word for the actual definition)

The actual definition of psychopath is what the goddess-like lady describes when talking to Reiji - Strong people who take control of various aspects of life from others to make life easier.

The perceived definition of psychopath (psychos) are killing machines who think only of themselves.

The only characters who know of the actual definition are goddess-lady, Reiji when he tells her (and unimportant-to-this-discussion-chick), and Tachibana, who refuses to believe it but does.

Now, onto your description of rulers (again, apologizing for abruptness and sounding rude, i really am re-typing these things from a much nicer, cleaner, detailed version).

That they have the peoples' interest at heart being important - the majority of people do, thats why they're the peoples' interests. What sets rulers apart? strength (not necessarily, in fact, usually not, physical strength)

Your three types of rulers are actually examples of two types of rulers, plus a third which i believe that line ^ negates part of and the rest of it is mixed in with the two types.

Type One: "The Original" - Physical rule: This form of ruling is established through simply physical supremacy; this is generally how rule is first established, and it is naturally reasonable. Individual strength is a very short-lived form of rule, as no person can overpower many other people, but then faith and perception come into play. An individual being the strongest of a set of individuals, then, can be the ruler, because he is the best. Then, those people who believe he is the best become an extension of his power, because they add their individual power to his beck and call. This type of rule exists when survival is not something to be assumed but instead to work for. People never believe that their survival would be assured in an anarchy situation, except those are individually strong, so physical safety is a big part of why rulers are allowed.

Basically, faith/perception is not a type of governing, its a natural system that comes into play regardless. God-given right is a belief that they are physically and mentally better suited to rule, based on faith, but a combination of both types of rule.

The second type of rule is Mental/Emotional rule: Once the body is safe, the mind is free to wander, and wander it does. But there are scary things to think about and things that suck to feel.Religion is an example of mental/emotional rule. Scared of death? There's an afterlife. Sad someone's died? Don't worry, they're in a better place. Don't wanna touch on religion too much because its unnecessary, but because most people can't answer these questions or cope with those feelings on their own, they need guidance, and guidance is giving up control of something, ergo a form of rule.

Those are the two elements that form the various styles of rule.

They do need people to rule because those people are psychopaths (as in people strong enough physically and mentally to rule - horrible word, can't repeat it enough lol)

If the ruling body becomes destructive of society, the society will do absolutely nothing about it, until an antisocial (anti-ruling body) hysteric (fanatic) does something (Someone has to say "hey, lets stop the government" and someone has to lead the charge). As you say, if "society is organized enough." It can't be the organization that the governing body uses, because that IS the governing body; it has to be a new organization, which needs to be created, which needs a revolutionary governing body (essentially no one willingly falls into anarchy).

So let me take the stupid words out of the situation, and explain.

1. No structured society aka anarchy
2. Revolutionary creates society which they then rule
3. Ruler governs society.
4. Either
a) another ruler who presides over a stronger society absorbs the society (loops back to 3)
another revolutionary topples the ruler then begins to rule (loops back to 3)
or
c) The government is perfect and no one ever tries to end or change it.

4 is what we want, its an ideal, 2-3 is the process, 1 is what we never want, and why we started the process.

Ruler = psychopath
revolutionary = antisocial hysterics

They aren't quite a dichotomy because one invariably leads to the other unless the perfect solution arises.
Ayako represents the first government (she follows the natural rules of Taker society)
Tachibana represents the first revolutionary, and he becomes the second government.
Reiji is the second revolution, who, like Tachibana before him, believes there is a better way.
In the final chapter of the manga, Reiji has finally become a ruler, a psychopath, a somebody who can do something.
He is now a third government, and he is intending to fight the second government.
Who should win? Up to the reader. Who will win? Nobody will know unless the fight is done.


Misc.
That was Twilight Zone, one of the only two episodes I've ever seen.
Seriously, very sorry about being blunt, It was better before.
I know its not a manga, but my mind was elsewhere.
Interesting psychological manga, not delivered especially well, perhaps not even suited to the manga style, though I think the problem is that it was sold as a shounen manga instead of a very serious social analysis, so at to reach more people but also so as to reach a bunch of people who don't like it.

Just real quick, forgot to add it in - justice, cruelty, yada yada, are all subjective perceptions and therefore dont "apply" to any of the styles or forms of ruling. The most cruel character in the book is physically Reiji's childhood friend or mentally Tachibana's secretary, but they're most definitely not rulers. The most just character is probably the goddess-lady, but she is just that; some sort of invincible godly omniscient story tool.

"Peoples strength has nothing to do with how compassionate or ruthless they are" <- Exactly as you put it.

Taking what you need at any cost is Courage or Bravery if its done personally, Smarts if you take it with the least cost, Cruel, if you accrue too much cost, and greed, if you take too much. Its all about perception.

[truepurple]

Strength of will, and being a psychopath have nothing to do with each other, whether talking about the comics definition of psychopath, or real life. One can be a weak willed psycopath, or strong willed, but not a psychopath.

The actual definition of psychopath is what the goddess-like lady describes when talking to Reiji - Strong people who take control of various aspects of life from others to make life easier.

I disagree, my take on the comics definition is:

Someone who is more concerned about self preservation over everything else, and lacks morale compunction to hold them back.

Using your definition, a "anti-social hysteric", someone who has concern for other people and willing to help others despite their own self (which is my take on the definition of the word according to the comic) - Could be considered a "psychopath" at the same time. Say a strong person who takes control of a building in order to set up a shelter for indigents and people barely getting by, despite the fact that this makes the strong person a target for gangs in the area who don't appreciate the disruption of their control. This strength is being used to take control of various aspects of life to make life easier, but only your definition would make this person a "psychopath". The comic would clearly call said person "anti-social hysteric"

FYI Real life definition of psychopath:
" is a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, compulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle" (cut/paste from wiki)

But then you contradict yourself by saying various things that you summarize with this-

Ruler = psychopath
revolutionary = antisocial hysterics

The definition of ruler as "psychopath", would not necessarily fit with your previous definition of "- Strong people who take control of various aspects of life from others to make life easier."

And the definition of a revolutionary is that of someone trying to effect great change by strength- If you are a strong person taking control of various aspects of life, you are a revolutionary, and thus apparently both "psychopath" and "antisocial hysteric" at the same time, since the definitions given that you say revolutionaries are "antisocial hysterics" but use a definition that fits what a revolutionary is, to mean a "psychopath". Someone trying to overthrow a democracy and replace it with a monarchy or autocracy they would rule, would be by definition, a revolutionary. In short, I think your definitions suck and are not accurate to the comic.

Also, the sister, who the comic has clearly labeled as a "psychopath", is not any kind of ruler at all, and could not be considered one in any way, shape, or form. Nor has she made any effort to gain any kind of rulership.

Edited by truepurple, 30 December 2012 - 11:50 PM.

[AlterReality]

‘You ‘re taking the wrong people ‘s opinions from within the manga. In this manga, the author put a “god ‘s hand “ character, a character with an inexplicable existence and no true plot connections. Angel chick. Angel chick therefore speaks the truth of the manga, because there could be no possible reason for her to be wrong; she only exists to neutrally tell facts, as she points out. ‘

‘In CH27 she reveals the truths of the manga. You ‘ll notice she uses ruler and psychopath interchangeably ‘
‘First half, esp. pages 4 and 9, are important. ‘
‘ ‘
‘All the words in the definition of psychopath are also used to describe rulers - no coincidence. The quote “The only good ruler is someone who doesn ‘t want to rule “ - why? because they are representative of the society rather than being psychopaths. Its impossible, btw. ‘
‘ ‘
‘ ‘
I know my use of strong-willed and weak-willed are poor term choices, I mean them in terms of morality. A strong belief in personal morals V. a weak belief in personal morals. And weak isn ‘t bad, 99% have a to some extent a weak belief in personal morals because they like living.

Strong-willed as in “do what they want, and take responsibility for their actions “
Weak-willed as in “won ‘t do what they want, because they don ‘t want to face the consequences “

In the base sense, “social “ refers to the natural laws, winner take all, that type of thing later. society has new rules added to it
The four possible combinations of people with some sort of power are then:
Morally strong psychopaths - Ayako (see below, she <em>is </em>a ruler), Tachibana, Reiji at the end, Rulers
Morally weak psychopaths (who don ‘t fight for what they believe in, although they ‘re okay with fighting) - Rich-chick. All she cares about is those kids, but she doesn ‘t protect them, even with the vast resources she could make available to herself and her own superpowers, because she doesn ‘t believe in what she believes in strong enough. Because these types have beliefs they feel are right but don ‘t support those beliefs (beliefs including “I should get hot chicks cuz im amazing, “ so that the word belief isnt misleading), and because they will never accept the beliefs of others, they might become sociopaths who cause tragedies.
Morally strong anti-social hysterics- people who don ‘t believe in fighting others, and believe so to the extent that they won ‘t be ruled by those who fight (psychopaths/rulers) - These people isolate themselves. If they make a community with other people of the same type, they will be crushed whenever some psychopath feels like crushing them (tinkers in WoT). If these people don ‘t believe they ‘re able to isolate themselves from the morals, they can be tragic suicides or martyrs.
Morally weak anti-social hysterics - people

I never said an anti-social hysteric is someone who has concern for other people, I said they NEED other people. This is because 1-man revolutions are impossible at this point.

Someone being an anti-social hysteric and a psychopath at the same time is one of my points. They are two sides to a coin. However you look at the relationship is dependant upon where you stand. A psychopath is just someone who is selfish and will fight for what they want. They have basic needs, so they live with morally weak anti-social hysterias who fill those needs in return for protection. Thats how a psychopath is a ruler. Then, someone doesn ‘t like being ruled by the psychopath (for a reason other than that they dont like fighting), but wants the society to stay intact, will challenge the leader for the role as leader. If they fight mano-a-mano like lions, winner becomes ruler, and the person who doesn ‘t like being ruled wins, they become the ruler. During the course of these events, to the people in the society, the person who didn ‘t like being ruled is a revolutionary (didn ‘t like form of rule = anti-social + wanted to change it = hysteric), then when he wins he becomes the new ruler, the new psychopath. But, that means he was a psychopath all along, right? Yes. So he ‘s both.

when you are gaining the rule, you are an anti-social hysteric, a revolutionary.
When you win, you are a psychopath, a ruler.

What these people actually are, are “people selfish enough to want power and willing to fight for it “. Thats what rulers are, that ‘s what revolutionaries are.

Sister is the ruler of Reijiville in the beginning, then when Reiji (very temporarily takes control) turns her in Tachibana quickly establishes himself as the ruler of Reijiville (population: 1). Then Reiji realizes that he doesn ‘t like having Tachibana rule him, and so he goes away, and becomes the ruler of Reijiville himself. If he could ‘ve left with his sister, she would probably have been his ruler again, but since he didnt have her he had to step it up.

What Tachibana and Reiji both say they ideally wanted, but couldn ‘t make possible, was to overturn the natural laws of people taking what they want (Takers), and tear down any forms of rule. They wanted a world where anarchy presided but everybody lived happy lives. Tachibana couldn ‘t do that, so he settled for a society. Upon Reiji ‘s return, he kills people, showing that he couldn ‘t reach that ideal either. In the end they ‘re the same, and the author invites you to choose your side (even though he doesn ‘t give Reiji ‘s side, to show that we ‘re the ones living in Tachibana ‘s society, and when a Reiji comes along, what are we going to choose to do? If we believe in our current society, Reiji will be trying to kill us. If we believe there could be a better way, and that better way is Reiji, then we can side with him, and will probably die if he fails (unless Tachibana wants us back).


Quote
Say a strong person who takes control of a building in order to set up a shelter for indigents and people barely getting by, despite the fact that this makes the strong person a target for gangs in the area who don ‘t appreciate the disruption of their control. This strength is being used to take control of various aspects of life to make life easier
‘

To the view of the gangleader, strong person is another psychopath.
To the view of whoever was originally occupying the building, strong person is an anti-social hysteric (revolutionary) (they can choose to side with him, or leave (which includes dying)).
To the view of the indigents and people barely getting by who are following the strong person, he is a psychopath (ruler).
If some indigent people were already in the building, they fall into the 2nd category.
To the view of the strong person himself, he is first an anti-social hysteric, then if he keeps his rule he will find out that he is ruling them, and therefore a psychopath.

Edited by AlterReality, 24 February 2013 - 09:51 AM.