Well I don't outright physically harm others ( such as with my fists, fights, weapons, etc )

I don't though seem to have a problem urging others to engage in dangerous behavior that could cause them physical harm.

This is essentially a throwaway account but I've decided to continue to use it till it gets banned into oblivion.

Ycombinator themselves still have the IP address though, and I'm not bothering with Tor and VPNs for its usage, so I could be held accountable should I admit to anything illegal.

There is nothing I am doing that I know of that is outright illegal, but I do believe that some of the things I am involved with do in turn cause probable harm to others. ( of their own accord )

I unfortunately can't give the concrete examples that cause me to believe what I've said, as it would both lead to telling more about myself than I wish, and also expose me to even greater criticism.

I'll give one example that I think is fairly common: I have no issue verbally abusing others, especially in a workplace scenario. I was, in fact, encouraged to do so during my time at Amazon. Anything for the results.

Cussing someone out to their face in front of others, berating them very strongly telling them that their work is absolute garbage is something I have done on occasion and feel almost zero guilt about. I feel they deserve it.

The trouble is that I feel this notion of "other people deserve to suffer" for the majority of humans. I personally dislike crushing bugs... but the idea of a human being harmed somewhat pleases me because intellectually I think humans deserve mostly to suffer.

I have seen personality studies that have detection for people attempting to fool the study in the following ways:

1. Answering too extreme to any particular known "psychological profile" will throw flags. Unless you are trying to manipulate your answers, generally you won't perfectly match any particular profile. I do though account for this when I answer psych tests by diversifying my answers and not being perfect in my manipulation of the test.

2. The same question is asked in multiple ways to see if a person will answer it different ways when asked from a different perspective. This is an attempt to detect the person "spinning" their answer based on the way it is asked. It is pretty easy to spot these questions though, at least within a single session of questions, so I usually notice these and attempt not to answer them in a conflicting way.

3. Questions are asked that are overly personal or probe to traumatic areas. I've had shrinks attempt to goad me into overly emotion reactions when I am carefully answering questions in the way I want to present myself. The best way to combat this is to intentionally believe in a particular set of emotional responses and to not attempt to hide any emotions. One cannot completely suppress whatever emotions you have, therefore you can only really be deceptive well about things you don't feel emotional about. Fortunately, over time one will tend to believe and experience the feelings that you act like you have. Eg: If you feign love for someone, it isn't that hard for it to appear entirely real, and you do feel it to some degree even if you know it "isn't real". The trouble here is feigning too intense reactions in an attempt to live up to the "real portrayal" of the emotion. Example: The person you love is belittled by someone and you react angrily defending the person you "love". Those faking will tend to go overboard with the reaction.

We wish to cast humans into profiles, sort of like applying stereotypes to people. This will seem to work and make some statistical sense out of how people act, but it fails terribly at the corner cases.

People are internally as complex as we can possibly imagine.

The tests and analyses given tend to work for specific debilitation. They do not work for intentional malfeasance. If you are "healthy" for a general psychological perspective, you can simply choose to be a dark person for no particularly good reason other than deciding to be.

I'll admit that one typically chooses to be dark due to the experiences you have in life. Do you, though, know all of the traumatic experiences a person has had that you meet? How could you possibly? Supposing you knew, must we assume automatically that many traumatic experiences absolutely cause continuing problems in life?

This reminds me of a question I had early in life on a test to work in a retail sales position. The question was "would you steal or borrow $5 from the register", followed by "$1", then "10 cents". I of course dutifully answered "I would never steal or borrow any amount".

The trouble with my answer is that it is not a human answer. Most normal humans beings, if we answer such a question truthfully, would not care at all about borrowing 10 cents. Depending on the job and the amount of money, $1 also would be meaningless.

The amount that it becomes acceptable to "fudge" increases as you deal with larger amounts of goods and money. You begin to realize that small amounts really are irrelevant and not worth thinking about too hard. This is normal healthy behavior.

A person who is a stickler and insists that no amount of money can ever be borrowed/stolen... watch out. Such a person is dangerous.