What a wonderful piece, with one final criteria/cautionary that I would add to follow-up, which was probably inferred if not directly stated: Authenticity. As we know, mimicking and modeling the mode/appearance of these useful tools without the subject’s thoughts, feelings, intents, or actions truly being genuine, can be used as a weapon by the most duplicitous and insidious fraudster-con-men/women to deceive others. How can we then discern the difference? My advice has always been to try and observe patterns of how the subject treats/interacts with others ‘weaker’ than themselves (ie: less attractive, intelligent, wealthy, confident, popular, etc.) when they have nothing of value to gain (other than an emotional currency exchange, perhaps) and aren’t aware they’re being watched. That way, a pattern of authenticity will inevitably emerge showing the subject’s genuine humanity, or lack thereof. Just my 2-coppers, no more valid or reliable than one middle aged man’s lifetime of meandering experience with both high functioning and dysfunctional romantic and platonic partnerships.
