Toilet thoughts: Thought experiment

ConcubusBunny

Chaotic lewd enby bunny. They/them
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
261
Points
83
images (77).jpeg

Mad scientist enby
hello my guys, gals and enby pals.
So, I got myself a thought experiment for you all.
And for this thought experiment to go more smoothly I'm gonna need you to suspend your disbelief on psychopaths.
Pretend the only thing that you know about them is that they have little to no emotions, they don't know how to process someone with one and killing or abandoning their friends isn't an option for them, everything you learned about them is washed away from you memories. Good? Great! Onto the experiment.
subject A or A= the psychopath has a hard time understanding people with emotions and fails to relate to them.
subject B or B= Insecure about their power and is A's best friend.
Subject C or C= afraid of seen as weak.
Subject D or D= Afraid of not being good enough.
Subject E or E= Afraid of them messing things up and making everyone think that they are in capable.
Subject F or F= spouse of A and a little insecure of how their spouse and the rest of their friends view their capabilities and skills.

Subjects B-F have to escape the town to where subject A is training because of [redacted].
so A suggest that B-F stay a while before they have to move.
A few hour later D saves a civilian running from a monster which A promptly kills without even batting an eye, the others are greatly disturbed by this unwarranted and unusual show of ruthlessness by A.
A explains that that it'd be bad if someone in town found out about them and admits to have killed a lot of people behind their backs on the off chance that they might mess up and get themselves in trouble.
B-F are all rightfully upset by A not even deeming them the respect of knowing about A's actions.
A not seeing the problem waves away their concerns not paying too much mind to the fire they lit.
As time went on A gets more and more hostility from the B-F, A pulls F aside and asks what up. F explains their grievance... A is confused, they can't understand why B-F are so upset. F explains that by doing so you showed that the rest aren't good enough to do stuff on their own in their eyes, A sees this more as them thinking A finds them irrelevant and more than hurt feelings and how to mend that.
A calls a meeting before they all have to leave and explains that they don't find their skills inadequate or their them less than that they just wanted to reduce any risk of something bad happening to them.
B-F understand but A could still feel that they are upset by the tone of their voice and body language, but not really sure what to do or how they can fix their relationship.

Alright I need to be more specific on my goals here,
here goes I want with the info given above alone and nothing else your thoughts on the A-F's thought process and how A's actions affects B-F

I want your thoughts on A's understanding on the situation as well as the actions of B-F afterwards in this scenario.
Hopefully this time you'll have a better understanding and remember what I said about the psychopath, please don't hang on it or bother too much about just accept as is and give me your answer.
 
Last edited:

TotallyHuman

It's good to be home.
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
3,995
Points
183
It's troublesome to tell those alphabet people apart. Otherwise, why would A have a spouse if they don't have emotions? I mean, there are plenty of plausible reasons for everyone behaving the way they do, but the context in which things are going on is important. For example, if I were anybody from B to E, I wouldn't let my vulnerabilities show. If I were A, I wouldn't care about what B to F felt. If I were F, I wouldn't be A's spouse.
Gladly, I'm none of those things, maybe
 

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
I can't see A surviving this. In any movie, that sort of character would be killed off for the sake of karma. Either a monster would get them, or the others would be too disturbed and resentful to trust them. They might just end up leaving in the night without A, or they might actively eliminate them to prevent A from killing them first. This is especially true since you seem to have given all of them except A the same flaw, insecurity. All of them would be thinking something along the lines of, "When A turns against me, I won't be able to survive." The only answer is to gang up on A.

Outside that, you have an obvious preference for A. The other characters are there to make A look 'good'. They are being treated like children that need to be instructed in how to survive by A.

Lastly, assuming A just entirely lacks emotions, they would act logically, not brutally. Being evil for the lols is as far from rational as you can get. Even if A can't feel the same way other people do, it's easy to recognize the effects those emotions have on B-F. Not being able to understand them just wouldn't happen. A would understand, and either take different actions, or do their best to justify their actions, or prevent them from being discovered.

Well, that's how it looks with this overly simplified 'thought experiment'.
 

ConcubusBunny

Chaotic lewd enby bunny. They/them
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
261
Points
83
It's troublesome to tell those alphabet people apart. Otherwise, why would A have a spouse if they don't have emotions? I mean, there are plenty of plausible reasons for everyone behaving the way they do, but the context in which things are going on is important. For example, if I were anybody from B to E, I wouldn't let my vulnerabilities show. If I were A, I wouldn't care about what B to F felt. If I were F, I wouldn't be A's spouse.
Gladly, I'm none of those things, maybe
For simplicity pretend love doesn't need emotions, so F and A are very much in love.
B-F didn't let their vulnerabilities slip, A just realized that they are all pissed at them but doesn't know why.
And A does care for B-F, being emotionless doesn't give you a pass for being a dick.

I can't see A surviving this. In any movie, that sort of character would be killed off for the sake of karma. Either a monster would get them, or the others would be too disturbed and resentful to trust them. They might just end up leaving in the night without A, or they might actively eliminate them to prevent A from killing them first. This is especially true since you seem to have given all of them except A the same flaw, insecurity. All of them would be thinking something along the lines of, "When A turns against me, I won't be able to survive." The only answer is to gang up on A.

Outside that, you have an obvious preference for A. The other characters are there to make A look 'good'. They are being treated like children that need to be instructed in how to survive by A.

Lastly, assuming A just entirely lacks emotions, they would act logically, not brutally. Being evil for the lols is as far from rational as you can get. Even if A can't feel the same way other people do, it's easy to recognize the effects those emotions have on B-F. Not being able to understand them just wouldn't happen. A would understand, and either take different actions, or do their best to justify their actions, or prevent them from being discovered.

Well, that's how it looks with this overly simplified 'thought experiment'.
Okay first off what did I tell you about forgetting everything you thought you about psychopaths?
Given the context of A being a psychopath I thought it was clear that A had a hard time dealing with others.
B-F would never kill A because A was trying protect them A wouldn't just turn around and murder B-F and B-F wouldn't abandon A.

Lastly A didn't kill for shits and giggles there was a clear reason why they did it, also A can't understand something that they could never experience, to them emotions just have people irrational thoughts, that's the only way A can interpret it, they can't fix something if they don't know or understand why it's broken.
 
Last edited:

ConcubusBunny

Chaotic lewd enby bunny. They/them
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
261
Points
83
I gotta be honest, chief. My eyes glazed over in the first paragraph. Something about psychopaths? I dont care, just kill them all.
There's no murdering here, the psychopath doesn't kill manipulate their friends.
 

Plantorsomething

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
196
Points
83
View attachment 10030
Mad scientist enby
hello my guys, gals and enby pals.
So, I got myself a thought experiment for you all.
And for this thought experiment to go more smoothly I'm gonna need you to suspend your disbelief on psychopaths.
Pretend the only thing that you know about them is that they have little to no emotions and they don't know how to process someone with one, everything you learned about them is washed away from you memories. Good? Great! Onto the experiment.
subject A or A= the psychopath has a hard time understanding people with emotions and fails to relate to them.
subject B or B= Insecure about their power.
Subject C or C= afraid of seen as weak.
Subject D or D= Afraid of not being good enough.
Subject E or E= Afraid of them messing things up and making everyone think that they are in capable.
Subject F or F= spouse of A and a little insecure of how their spouse and the rest of their friends view their capabilities and skills.

Subjects B-F have to escape the town to where subject A is training because of [redacted].
so A suggest that B-F stay a while before they have to move.
A few hour later D saves a civilian running from a monster which A promptly kills without even batting an eye, the others are greatly disturbed by this unwarranted and unusual show of ruthlessness by A.
A explains that that it'd be bad if someone in town found out about them and admits to have killed a lot of people behind their backs on the off chance that they might mess up and get themselves in trouble.
B-F are all rightfully upset by A not even deeming them the respect of knowing about A's actions.
A not seeing the problem waves away their concerns not paying too much mind to the fire they lit.
As time went on A gets more and more hostility from the B-F, A pulls F aside and asks what up. F explains their grievance... A is confused, they can't understand why B-F are so upset. F explains that by doing so you showed that the rest aren't good enough to do stuff on their own in their eyes, A sees this more as them thinking A finds them irrelevant and more than hurt feelings and how to mend that.
A calls a meeting before they all have to leave and explains that they don't find their skills inadequate or their them less than that they just wanted to reduce any risk of something bad happening to them.
B-F understand but A could still feel that they are upset by the tone of their voice and body language, but not really sure what to do or how they can fix their relationship.
Give me your thoughts on this I want to know how people will view and remember what I said about suspending your disbelief.
If I was A, I’d explain the concept with evolutionary and numerical and logical sense, so that they could all see without a doubt that it is most benificial for them all to remain together despite their skill gap.
If A finds them to be logically useless, that’s fine too. Then he’d grab or abandon his wife and just leave because here is no point in staying with the group.
If you want him to have a moderate attachment to the group, but still keep this dynamic, I heavily suggest Alexithymia instead of psychopathy.
Actually, what you’ve described details alexithymia much better than psychopathy from what I know. Psychopaths would easily understand all of this stuff, just not care. Alexithymes more often than not can’t understand.
 

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
forgetting everything you thought you about psychopaths?
Given the context of A being a psychopath
These statements contradict each other. You said 'forget the context' and then 'remember the context?' You defined A as someone who lacks emotions. That was the only context I used.
B-F would never kill A because A was trying protect them A wouldn't just turn around and murder B-F and B-F wouldn't abandon A.
Is there any reason to believe that? A just ruthlessly killed someone in front of them. ALL of them are insecure. The very first thing they would think, hearing A's reason for murder, is 'What if I mess up and endanger A's objective? I'll definitely be killed.' Not to mention, do none of them feel guilty that people are dying for their sake, or do they all lack emotions as well?
also A can't understand something that they could never experience, to them emotions just have people irrational thoughts, that's the only way A can interpret it, they can't fix something if they don't know or understand why it's broken.
You don't have to experience something to understand it, though that helps. Just by living, A should have experienced people being emotional and have at least a vague understanding of the most basic human traits. Killing=bad. Lying=bad. Lack of remorse=bad. Even if they don't feel it, they should understand.
There's no murdering here,
There is murdering here. A has already murdered one person in front of witnesses, and confessed to murdering several more offscreen.

There's absolutely no reason to assume A won't kill the others given the information they have. The only reason they wouldn't be suspicious is Plot Armor. Finding out your friend/lover is a murderer is enough to challenge your entire perception of them.

If there is a valid reason for them to just accept that, you haven't shared it.
 

ConcubusBunny

Chaotic lewd enby bunny. They/them
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
261
Points
83
If I was A, I’d explain the concept with evolutionary and numerical and logical sense, so that they could all see without a doubt that it is most benificial for them all to remain together despite their skill gap.
If A finds them to be logically useless, that’s fine too. Then he’d grab or abandon his wife and just leave because here is no point in staying with the group.
If you want him to have a moderate attachment to the group, but still keep this dynamic, I heavily suggest Alexithymia instead of psychopathy.
Actually, what you’ve described details alexithymia much better than psychopathy from what I know. Psychopaths would easily understand all of this stuff, just not care. Alexithymes more often than not can’t understand.
Okay, first A would never find them useless and even if they were also A is there to be closer to them their skill gap has nothing to with A's reasoning also no the A stays a psychopath.
These statements contradict each other. You said 'forget the context' and then 'remember the context?' You defined A as someone who lacks emotions. That was the only context I used.

Is there any reason to believe that? A just ruthlessly killed someone in front of them. ALL of them are insecure. The very first thing they would think, hearing A's reason for murder, is 'What if I mess up and endanger A's objective? I'll definitely be killed.' Not to mention, do none of them feel guilty that people are dying for their sake, or do they all lack emotions as well?

You don't have to experience something to understand it, though that helps. Just by living, A should have experienced people being emotional and have at least a vague understanding of the most basic human traits. Killing=bad. Lying=bad. Lack of remorse=bad. Even if they don't feel it, they should understand.

There is murdering here. A has already murdered one person in front of witnesses, and confessed to murdering several more offscreen.

There's absolutely no reason to assume A won't kill the others given the information they have. The only reason they wouldn't be suspicious is Plot Armor. Finding out your friend/lover is a murderer is enough to challenge your entire perception of them.

If there is a valid reason for them to just accept that, you haven't shared it.
For your understanding A and the others have messed up multiple times but A never saw the use in Killing them, cause murdering them never even crossed their mind.
As for the plot armor bit, they're all murders, they aren't upset by why they killed but more on the the method they used to secure their safety.
I was actually hoping someone to point out the flaws in A's thought coupled with the unavoidable misunderstanding that both A and B-F but for some reason you're all hung up on if A will murder their friends, when that's not even part of the possibilities I put there.
 
Last edited:

Viator

Wandering Moon that conceals the tide
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
198
Points
83
A and F's relationship should be clarified further. (I am going to label A as him and F as her for ease of writing. But gender doesn't matter.) I am assuming F finds A attractive, simply because those who cannot read emotion, often appear confident, (because they act based on their own reasoning without others emotional Hang-Ups.) and therefore fell for them.

If F is insecure about her skills this is likely because she feels if she is not good enough for her partner he might leave her. His apparent confidence makes her doubt herself. As for B, if B was insecure about their power, they would resent A for the casual display of power without emotional attachment. With that explained, it's likely that F when confronted with the fact that A killed people for their protection. While being offended at the act, would secretly doubt herself. Is she just not strong enough? She may just double-down on the belief that her spouse is right in protecting them. Even if it disturbs her. B on the other-hand might be jealous of such a display of power. Even if they outwardly accept that it was done for their sake, they would have a harder time letting it go. This is because subconsciously they would harbor a resentment. So the relationship might be repaired, but they would be wary. C-D can easily be pulled to A's side. As their insecurities lend to them being more accepting of A's terrible acts. They're insecurities make it easier for them to believe him to soothe themselves. E on the other hand would question more at the wrongness of it, and might be more allied with B.

All A might have to do, to fix the relationship with F is go through motion of things that have soothed her in the past. This might give her the confidence that nothing has changed with A and it's her problem for not being supportive. I don't see a good way to fix things with B at least not completely. Outwardly everything might be fine. But that insecurity with power makes them see A as a threat.
 
Last edited:

ConcubusBunny

Chaotic lewd enby bunny. They/them
Joined
Feb 10, 2020
Messages
261
Points
83
A and F's relationship should be clarified further. (I am going to label A as him and F as her for ease of writing. But gender doesn't matter.) I am assuming F finds A attractive, simply because those who cannot read emotion, often appear confident, (because they act based on their own reasoning without others emotional Hang-Ups.) and therefore fell for them.

If F is insecure about her skills this is likely because she feels if she is not good enough for her partner he might leave her. His apparent confidence makes her doubt herself. As for B, if B was insecure about their power, they would resent A for the casual display of power without emotional attachment. With that explained, it's likely that F when confronted with the fact that A killed people for their protection. While being offended at the act, would secretly doubt herself. Is she just not strong enough? She may just double-down on the belief that her spouse is right in protecting them. Even if it disturbs her. B on the other-hand might be jealous of such a display of power. Even if they outwardly accept that it was done for their sake, they would have a harder time letting it go. This is because subconsciously they would harbor a resentment. So the relationship might be repaired, but they would be wary. C-D can easily be pulled to A's side. As their insecurities lend to them being more accepting of A's terrible acts. They're insecurities make it easier for them to believe him to soothe themselves. E on the other hand would question more at the wrongness of it, and might be more allied with B.

All A might have to do, to fix the relationship with F is go through motion of things that have soothed her in the past. This might give her the confidence that nothing has changed with A and it's her problem for not being supportive. I don't see a good way to fix things with B at least not completely. Outwardly everything might be fine. But that insecurity with power makes them see A as a threat.
Whoa, you did it! The thing I was longing for and you, beautiful user you!
Also I should've put that B is A's best friend. B would understand more than anyone else, but still feel like shit and try to boost their confidence down the line.
C,B & D would mostly do as you theorized.
A and F's love on the other hand isn't about how good the other one looks but more of how they treat each other.
A being the emotionless brick that could never understand anyone and F being friends with other psychopaths and understanding their troubles faster than F ever would.
Don't worry too much about not having this info prior I actually did this to see how people react to the info given above, the results were less than satisfactory.
 

Viator

Wandering Moon that conceals the tide
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
198
Points
83
Whoa, you did it! The thing I was longing for and you, beautiful user you!
Also I should've put that B is A's best friend. B would understand more than anyone else, but still feel like shit and try to boost their confidence down the line.
C,B & D would mostly do as you theorized.
A and F's love on the other hand isn't about how good the other one looks but more of how they treat each other.
A being the emotionless brick that could never understand anyone and F being friends with other psychopaths and understanding their troubles faster than F ever would.
Don't worry too much about not having this info prior I actually did this to see how people react to the info given above, the results were less than satisfactory.
Lol well thank you.

I noticed you didn't mention E so I will explain my reasoning there a little further. (I kind of glossed over it.) E is afraid to mess up. This means that while they likely feel like some of what A has done is their fault, E is more hyper-aware of consequences for messing up, or killing people. This makes them feel partially responsible, but also motivates a distance between themselves and A because they fear the consequences for killing.
 

Zirrboy

Fueled by anger
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
1,135
Points
153
Why do you tell me something is something... only to say it's not?

If "they have little to no emotions and they don't know how to process someone with one" is supposed to be the only statement you make about A, why add the "psychopath" in the full expectation that people will misunderstand?

It's like I told you to imagine something as green, then added that everything but mint is wrong.


Forum interest in your novel is by no means lacking, but towards getting more useful feedback, clearer questions can be extremely helpful.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2021
Messages
91
Points
18
So, let me get this straight, F picks her husband, BCDEA, up from the bus station where he wandered while off his meds. On the way out to a restraunt for dinner, the couple encounters Victim being chased by Monster for Reasons. DEBCA kills Monster like it's simple while F comforts Victim, then ABCDE kills Victim in F's arms because, "Nobody can know about us." BCDEA and F are aghast. F, terrified, tries to convince ABCDE that A doesn't have to work so hard to protect themself. ADCEB descends into inner chaos.
 
Top