sweetsunray

Please provide the source.

A source that uses "sociopathy" in a current context is a suspect source. Trained experts will use it only in a historical context, for example "what we used to call 'sociopaths'". Some laymen sources are good, and may refer to sociopathy, psychopathy and other personality disorders such as narcissism, histrionic, borderline. These sources usually are meant as a help group for (ex)partners or family members who've been traumatized by (work, family or love) relations with a personality disordered person. These sources do not advocate medical diagnosis, but for the traumatized to learn to keep themselves safe from a group of adults who will be harmful for them, how to deal with ongoing conflicts (divorce proceedings, child custody) and advize on raising a child. The evidence on either side of the argument is out. Some children may end up being raised with warmth and fairness, and love, and still turn out psychopaths. Some risk (grand)children will not be diagnosed. And even some actual diagnosed psychopaths may choose to refrain from doing harm. It's a mixed bag. So, no it's not pre-determined. Regardless, adults remain responsible for their behavior and choices. Psychopaths have cognitive empathic abilities: they know and learn to know the cues if someone else is in pain or harmed. Hence, they know right from wrong. They lack the emotional component to care about it and often narcistically motivated to put their own needs far above someone else's: hence they have no emotional qualms in harming someone else to get what they want in that moment.

Hare's test is the standard test to define it. Though it was created based on prison populations. It's been revised to improve it. But more research needs to be done to define it for psychopaths who do not have an arrest sheet a mile long, such a white border criminals. The disagreement is in the margins, and it's not hard to diagnose. It simply requires specialty training.

Sociapthy is an outdated term. Psychopathy has a genetic factor. There is no doubt about that. But there are hypothesis and efforts and raising methods advized the past few decades to raise a child which might have been burdened with such genetical factors in a manner to increase its empathic abilities. Per definition no child can be diagnozed as a psychopath. Only adults can be.

That's not correct. They do recognize it, but it is not part of the DSMV, because the DSM is meant not just for diagnosis, but diasgnosis for disorders for which they can either hope to develop therapy or treatment, or have some form of therapy. As there is no such hope for psychopathy, it is not part of the DSM. Instead they use ASPD which is defined slightly wider or broader than psychopathy. And so, ASPD diagnosis includes people who would not be diagnozed as psychopaths, and therefore are believed to be treatable. Basically psychopathy isn't in the DSM for the same reason that homosexuality isn't in there. It doesn't mean they don't recognize the existence of it. It means "we can't treat this".

Published my analysis on Haldon last year: https://sweeticeandfiresunray.com/2023/02/20/haldon-the-halfmaester/

If your proposal is that he was treated as the golden child (which goes even beyond the general privilege of being born royal or noble), then I agree. That said: the golden child is usually the closest in personality to the disordered abusive parent.

Not sure yet about Brienne, but George definitely implied at least one trans character with Alleras. I consider Alleras not just as a cross dresser for detection reasons, but is genuinely trans. And I suspect Haldon Halfmaester is a trans character too, who was discovered to have female body functions while training to be a maester. Hence, he was not allowed to become one, despite him being an exemplary maester when it comes to teaching, knowledge and scepticism and denial of magic.

So, he was 12 when Darry died. Add another few years for Dany to retain a Tyroshit accent, and he was 14-15 or even older once Viserys had to start journeying and experiencing more impoverished circumstances. Basically the worst living circumstances were during his young adulthood. Yeah, I don't see the "he was raised badly" either

Fully agree. Imo he was an agent of Varys as much as Taena Merryweather was. Aurane did not "flee" either. He managed to get Cersei to agree to put all the new dromonds on the Blackwater, the day before she got arrested. He was already preparing to steal those ships. At the small council Aurane pretty much does what Varys usually does: present very relevant news about Illyrio's plot, but disguised as gossip and it gets dismissed. He claims that he heard men talk around the docks of the Golden contract breaking their contract, and being hired by Stannis to sail for Westeros. And he also begins to say something about those same docks wth queer talk from men of the east about dragons. The breaking of the contract by the GC is the talk at harbors, and speculation... but absolutely none ever include the GC sailing for Westeros, not until they are about to actually sail and then Jorah Mormont relates it to Tyrion as "some exiled lord hiring the GC to sail for Westeros". The small council chapter is also very ironic, because it first is Cersei meeting with Qyburn and how he "knows things" and "knowing who everybody is" is his job, yadiyada... And Cersei goes to the small council meeting thinking "see it was just money to pay informants that was Varys' trick" and that Varys is replaceable. But then Aurane brings up the making of a war fleet, Orton Merryweather suggests making an alliance with the new king of the Ironborn. They wonder what the fees would be, and Cersei thinks to herself "grrr, Varys would know such a thing". And then Aurane drops some info on the GC plans around the same time basically that Illyrio informs Tyrion about the GC and why they're going to Volantis. When Cersei sees him at the wedding of Tommen and Margaery, she thinks "the first time she saw him". The first time she saw Aurane was the fealty swearing scene in the throne room after the Battle of the Blackwater, which we have from Sansa's POV. I've analysed the scene where those captured at the Blackwater must bend the knee to Joffrey in aCoK. The scene is kicked off by a reference to a "turning of the coin", then the list of names start, including one Lord Varner with a "shattered knee". That's one of those symbolic things George does: have a man with a physical shattered knee swear fealty aka "bend the knee" (which is not something he can do). We also have a reference of Ser Willum, Josua and Elyas (Tad William's fantasy series) in that paragraph (not only rivalry but reference to lies), and a "scrapesword" which is a good anology for the GC: beneath the gold, the bitter steel. But you need to scrape off the gold first. Aurane's name is actually a French female name and its meaning is "golden", from the Latin root "aurum". And after the list of those who "bent the knee" (but aren't truly loyal), we get the scene of two men defying Joffrey. The first is basically an anonymous "bastard" ("a bastard of a Florent or some other"). And we can figure out why a bastard is the first to deny Joffrey. Right before his denial, Sansa explains to us that those who swear fealty will get their lands and rights restored. Guess what a bastard does not have? And Aurane is specifically referred to as Aurane, the bastard of Driftmark shortly before that. Imo Aurane was going to do as the anonymous bastard was going to do, defy Joffrey. But Varys convinced him before the throne room scene not to do this and presented him an alternative (at the time, Illyrio and Varys believed Dany and her three young dragons had left Qarth for Pentos, being picked up by Illyrio's three cogs). And Varys knew what buttons to push with Aurane, because of Rennifer Longwaters claims about his ancestry which he brings up whenever he can. Not only was his ancestral mother a Targaryen princess, she was also half Velaryon (through Danaera Velaryon), but his ancestral father was Alyn Oakenfist Velaryon, the bastard Alyn of Hull, who put "Loyal" on his brother's grave. As Rugen, Varys would have heard Rennifer's tale, would have looked up those historical characters and therefore knows what a bastard Waters of house Velaryon's sensitivities. Hence the "other side of Rugen's coin" points to Aurane. It's not just that Aurane sails off with the war fleet just as Cersei is arrested, but also near to the moment when the Golden Company will be dumped on the Stepstones wth elephants.

Viserys claimed the assassins were the Usurper's. If there were any, they weren't. Dany knows why the sorrowful man was hired. But yeah, he may have been threatened or told to leave because of trouble he caused: like demanding or threatening or insulting his hosts or someone else important for not gfting him an army. You know just entitled and obnoxious.

The first 5 years he lives in Braavos in comfort Dany makes a comparison to Viserys when in Qarth, having to "beg" people for ships and armies. Doran confirms Viserys and Dany were guests with the archon of Tyrosh (he wanted to send Arianne there as cupbearer to meet Viserys), and Dany's Valyrian has a Tyroshi accent, indicating they lived with the archon for long enough to have her acquire a permanent Tyroshi accent. All in all, this mostly is comparable to noblemen and royalty who fled France or the Soviet Union after the respective revolutions. Yes, "begging" for stuff none of their hosts are interested in gifting, and "impoverished" in comparison to the prior privileged life, but nothing like "smallfolk". The last few years seemed more of an issue, but it all points to Viserys' attitude just making it more of a pain and trouble than an entertainment gain to have him at home for the merchant princes or archons, or other powerful men with no interest in Westeros like Illyrio has. We know for a certainty that Robert never ordered an assassination until the one when Dany's pregnant.

I know you didn't, and your claim was strictly speaking correct, but could be easily misunderstood. I was just adding nuance by pointing out that while having experienced or witness abuse as a child is a factor, the majority of abuse victims do not become abusers. This means it's not just nurture, but also partially nature, which makes sense since certain disorders linked to abusive behavior have genetical components. So, let's say we have an abusive parent with a genetically tied disorder and three children, you probably end up with two normal empathic abused children who do not become abusive as an adult, while the third may have the relevant passed on genes from the abusive parent (nature) and the witnessed or experienced abuse ends up amplifying that (nurture). Whereas good healthy parenting might have nurtured the third child to deal with the genetical limitations better, and even expand limited empathical abilities. So, you're both right: Viserys inherited some stuff of his father that Rhaegar and Dany didn't, and this put him at a disadvantage to deal with life, but he was also nurtured by his father to be abusive and then his shitty life as a child and young teen only aggrevated it. Now, I do think Viserys' shitty life is to be taken with some grain of salt. It was more like Dany's experience in Qarth when she lives in Xaro's palace. They were guests with merchant princes, with none of them providing true stabilty let alone material support for an invasion of Westeros. Viserys was like Xalabar in the Free Cities: an interesting guest to introduce to your other guests as entertainment, but nobody caring about his royal aspirations in his far away home. And sometimes, they stayed too long and became viable puppets for political intrigue only related to the Free City's political games, like Xalabar is a convenient victim of Cersei's plot to bring Margaery down.

A claim that needs far more nuance. Self-reported experience of child abuse is 6 times higher with adult abusers than the base population. But also the majority of those who have experienced abuse as a child do not become abusers themselves as adults, and only a minority (30%) become abusers themselves.

Oh, so now you conveniently twist "enjoyment" into "being happy" because I brought up an example that doesn't fit your narrow perception on sadism. Framing an entire massacre of two houses, includng children as a "lesson" to the rest of Westeros comes down to denial. Because you're putting up a straw man argument here. I didn't deny Tywin has daddy issues. I pointed out that the way he deals with it is born from his personality, rather than the daddy ssue itself. That Sam and Tywin are two polar opposite personalities. Just like the daddy issue was not the reason that made Sam squeamish about blood or make him prefer books. Wrong! He wrote it as a backdrop to expose Tywin's personality, because Tywin pretty much provoked the Tarbeck rebellion, etc by making demands of them while he wasn't even lord and defied his father's decisions. He wrote it to expose Tywin for the mass murderer he is, not as some sympathy story. The whole sordid story only ever made me think even worse of Tywin. Another straw man. I never said "I dunno". If you have to try and win a discussion with straw men, your arguments are weak indeed. I already pointed out where the hatred stems from, and it predates from Tywin resigning from being Hand, long predates Rhaegar's defeat. His hatred existed long before he ever made up his mind that he would see Aerys Targaryen dead.

But Stannis did not "change his mind" based on Davos' counsel. Davos simply had a good letter to read to show there was a far more pressing problem than whether he should be executed for smuggling Edric out or not. Davos would not have smuggled Edric out if he was not convinced that Mel would get what she wanted. Mel didn't say it was the only way to defeat the Other and cold dead things. She said that with burning Edric Storm she could make one of the dragon statues of Dragonstone come alive, so that Stannis would have a dragon to conquer the Iron Throne. Stannis is angry and flabbergasted still that Cortnay Penrose could believe Stannis would ever harm his bastard nephew. Two chapters later he is ready to execute Davos for making sure that Edric Storm could not be burned by Mel. Yes, that contrast in just two chapters goes beyond Mel arguing her point to Stannis and him thinking this. It is about something he never believed himself to be capable of two chapters before and then he goes along with it. And yes, in George prior writing that is a sign of some mental pressure being applied. It does affact Stannis, because he wears the sword. He did not ignore Mel's wishes whenever he wanted - see Edric Storm. And no, "blood and soul" is not a ruse, since that is evident from Mel's experience when the real Rattleshirt burns. A man's blood and soul are being burned and she experiences it partially from a distance. She is relieved Jon killed him, because that severed the blood & soul link, and ended her own pain experience

Agreed. It's just how he writes. He would never ever write any character saying literally "Yes, Stannis knows about it". Because it's just not a natural thing to say or come up in a situation. It comes pretty close to breaking the 4th Wall. Joffrey saying he knows Valyrian steel is the closest to saying such a thing. George writes it as implied, because it enriches rereads even though you already "Rattleshirt's" true identity, and because it's more natural. To Mel it's logical that Stannis knows: so she gives the most natural sounding declaration To Mance it's logical that Stannis knows: so he hints that the king made the right choice For Stannis it's logical that he knows: so he sort of jokes and is mighty pleased with himself of gifting "Rattleshirt" to Jon. He behaves as someone who's in on the joke. And Jon would logically assume Stannis knows as well. So the 4 characters involved or knowing about it, never question whether Stannis knows or not, and thus behave and say natural things that imply Stannis knows, without explicitly spelling it out, because the sole reason to spell it out would be for the benefit of the reader, which is basically breaking the 4th Wall.

I notice you are completely ignoring Stannis agreeing to burn Edric Storm. Thank you for bringing up Mel being in pain and bleeding while the real Rattleshirt burns. Sure, that's because of a "glamor" not because the real Rattleshirt is connected to her with "blood and soul" somehow. Weird that FM consider "glamors" but a parlor trick and not a powerful magic, when it can make the glamorer bleed and be in pain when the one being glamored is in pain, but it stops when he's dead (not when his glamor is done) ETA: Mel says "blood and soul", not ""blood, mind and soul" So, your point is that Mel says being bound blood and soul as a ruse to explain gifting a ruby to Rattleshirt, with Stannis right there, so he wouldn't figure out Rattleshirt ain't glamored? Sounds like a bad ruse to say to Stannis either way. Stannis knows a ruby means glamoring. He knows his sword is glamored. That's why he mocks it himself to Davos at some point and is embarrassed when someone like Aemon and Samwell ask to have a closer look. If he isn't under Mel's mental pressure influence because of the Ruby, he now just hears something that should question carrying that sword with a huge ruby in it around. And thirdly, ruse or true, it absolutely paints Rattleshirt as a prisoner all of a sudden: bodily by Stannis who gifts him to Jon and as soul by Mel. But Rattleshirt wasn't a prisoner before this war meeting to be bodily gifted to someone else. He was a wildling ally like the Magnar. And then for some weird reason, Stannis "changed his mind" and decided to make him a prisoner again body and soul to be gifted physically from one jailer to another, but not the Magnar, because Stannis apparently is a whimsickal fickle mind all of his own. And you're trying to tell me that my conclusions are contradictory?

He does this solely with Rattleshirt, not for example the new Magnar. There's a discrepance between what he does with "Rattleshirt" and the Magnar, though he promised both the same. You are either misrepresenting my claim or misunderstanding it. I never claimed the ruby gives an absolute mental mindpower over someone else. Not even Mel claims that. The reason for this is that George only gives such a mental power over other humans with the Others and their wights, who are dead. But George preserves free will otherwise in anyone who's mind is not broken. So, yes Mance and Stannis still have free will. I think of the ruby's effect as a feeling of mental pressure that can wear someone down over time. Davos notices how much Stannis looks more and more worn out, the longer he stays around Mel, even though she stops making shadowbabies. And this is at a time he's not starving in a crofter's village amidst a snowstorm. And yes, Mel was having success with Stannis when it came to sacrificing Edric Storm. The sole reason he was not sacrificed was because Davos smuggled him out. And yet, when first Davos returned from the Blackwater, Stannis was still upset that Cortnay Penrose could ever believe he would harm the boy. Meanwhile Mance mentions how the ruby annoys him, and renders some itching burning sensation, which is why he tries to pry it loose with a knife (especially as a man of the Free Folk). So, the mental pressure is comparable to a chronic ache imo. Anyone who has bouts of chronic pain such as migraine or nerve pain or low back pain, etc will get that it wears you out, not just physically but mentally. As for Mel being a liar: the best lies have truth in them.

The comments about failing to seek alliances is strategically sound. But I think there is a cultural and historical aspect to this: Dorne wasn't part of the 7K until little over a century ago, and that via intermarriage to a Targ king and a Targ marrying into House Martell. The Reach and Stormlands always had hostile feelings towards Dorne. Elia and Oberyn's mother tried to form some type of alliance with the Lannisters of the Westerlands, but Tywin Lannister rebuffed that. Meanwhile, the Riverlands, Vale and North are physically remote to them. In other words, they were isolated for centuries, even after becoming part of the 7K. This imo explains why it never truly occurs to Doran to try and form an alliance with anyone else but a Targ.

He makes quite clear in his section introductions in Dreamsons that he wouldn't even write sci-fi stories full of technical minutae about the boiling temperature of water in space

I think we disagree on that. He did need men he trusted in other castles. And Pyp did afford himself liberties in talking dissent, just because Jon wasn't a fellow NW-man anymore but LC. So, he wasn't much help at CB. Jon needed someone on the counsel to have some weight against Bowen Marsh' thickness. Aemon could have been a voice of reason that Bowen Marsh would have to respect. And Sam knows how to be a go between and smoothen things out. Though I do think it was smart of Jon to pick his future maester himself, rather than depend on whomever else the Citadel would send. The issue of course is that the NW just doesn't have many good people left amongst the officers.

Joffrey was over the moon with the stories on how Robb was killed. Joffrey wasn't a spectator at the red wedding. If that does not make sense to you, take it up with George. Mass murder and absolute cruelty is not "teaching a lesson". That's just a post-rationalisation label. Mass murder and absolute cruelty means Tywin enjoys mass murder and absolute cruelty, and actually points at Tywin not believing that someone he perceives as having slighted or insulted him can learn. They're a lost cause to him, which is why he doesn't mind seeing them dead or see them destroyed. No, I don't. A lot of people have daddy issues. But not everybody goes the length that Tywin does. It's not the daddy issues that cause him to be a mass murderer. It's his personality, and the daddy issues are but the catalyst that were the excuse to implement it on. It's similar to Cersei's case. Cersei uses particular slights (that did happen) as excuses to rationalize her brutality and hostility, but her narcissistic personality is prone to see anything as a slight anyway and any rejection would lead to narcissistic injury, which in a narcissist will lead to a deep hatred and anger. We all get seriously rejected in life and deeply disappointed, not getting what we desire or hoped for or expected or was promised to us. It's part of life. And yes it does hurt. So much sometimes that even normal empathic people get the breath knocked out of them for months or years, resulting in jadedness, retreat or even cynicism. But a healthy individual will be focused on learning to emotionally deal with the risk of rejection and will come to realize that even if they were rejected as a person, another person has a right to their own dreams and desires and that we may just not be that for someone else. That in fact, a lot of the rejection is not personal at all, but the natural result of an incompatibility. A narcissist like Cersei cannot learn this. They're stuck on it, and they are prone to see slights and rejection in people's words or behavior when there isn't even none intended. Hence, a particular rejection in her past is not the cause of her pathology, merely the excuse to externalize it. A similar idea can be linked to Tywin. He was prone to see rejection, not getting his way, etc as something deeply personal, instead of being able to put that into perspective. He would have done so even if he had a perfect amiable relation to his father. To drive my point home: Sam has serious daddy issues. It does not make him into a young man wanting to kill any man who ever insulted him. I mention Sam, because the first thought that will come to your mind is "yeah, but Sam is different". Yes, that is exactly the point! Sam is an entirely different person who naturally responds different to slights and namecalling, etc. So, it's not the daddy issues or the insults, but the personality. It's not about rationality, but about irrational hatred and resentment. See, you're recognizing that Tywin made choices based on his emotions and feelings towards someone, not because he is rational.

Exactly. Cersei enjoys the story of Loras' wounding a lot. She wasn't present on Dragonstone, and didn't even need to see him. Joffrey was super duper enjoying the tales of the red wedding. He wasn't present. Lannister sadists can enjoy brutal murder of a target without witnessing it

I said any "lesson" that goes beyond the general "I'm ruthless" to a general audience. These are the general "I'm rutless" lessons Tarbecks and Reynes: they weren't any left alive to learn Red Wedding: Robb and thousands of his armies not left alive to learn The Riverlanders after kidnapping of Tyrion: lots of smallfolk and young lords. It also didn't teach Robb a lesson, because he captured Jaime for it ... Anyhow I call bull on your "teaching a lesson" rule. He's just a mass abusive jerk who lashes out and then does some "post-rationalisation". Because hatred is not rational, and a dead Rhaegar does not take the slight away of the girl (whom he thought no better than a bride for Tyrion) ended up being Rhaegar's bride. And well Kevan's thoughts over Cersei and Rhaegar in his epilogue decades later, despite knowing the worst of Cersei, indicate what Tywin's beliefs would have been - if Rhaegar had only wed Cersei then there wouldn't have been Robert's Rebellion. "It's all Aerys's and Elia's fault"