[crimsonalucard1]

Glad you didn't get voted down.

People, by nature, have one dimensional views about a world that is in actuality multi-dimensional and highly complex.

Humans evolved this way in order to navigate the complexity of the world as quick decisions and judgements aid more in survival than best decisions made at the expense of haste.

It takes a lot of effort and luck to exit our biases and see that even a murderer, child molester, pedophile, rapist, racist, dictator etc. have multiple dimensions.

Not condoning crimes, but honestly I can relate to how someone like Dennis Rodman can chill with Kim Jong Il or even Hitler if he was still alive, but I'm not sure how people in general will react to what I just said and how far above their own biases they can pull themselves.

I guess we'll see with the karma, I used some extreme vocabulary in the sentences above. I think if the OP used the word "Unabomber" instead of "Kaczynski" people would be less forgiving as my initial reaction to his post was positive simply because I didn't recall who "Kaczynski" was...

[rolph]

re garding the CIA comment, there are core values that are exactly opposite of what was stated.

Candor is a fundamental quality for any CIA associate you should be upfront and open about what you want and expect.

Recognition of the potential for positive contribution by any and all people, some volunteer this willingly, some must be managed into such a contribution or placed in a context that creates positive results from seemingly negative actions.

[crimsonalucard1]

Can dor is a stark contrast to skills it takes to be successful in the field of espionage and deception.

A person who is truly honest and open will fail to be a spy as he will reveal the true nature of his intentions way too easily. To succeed against foreign opposition you must be deceptive. To be deceptive means you cannot have candor. If the CIA requires candor as a fundamental quality of any associate then that means they require associates to have qualities that set them up for total failure.

Instead the unstated but obvious conclusion that can support two seemingly contrasting requirements to be a successful agent is this:

What the CIA truly values are people who are good at deceiving the organization itself into thinking they are honest and have candor.

Honestly, I don't think anything I said in this post is true.