Denial and Letting Go

"Denial" is not just pretending something didn't happen, but also the refusal to let it go.
We can be "in denial" about ourselves AND about things that happened to other people, and things about other people.

When we're in denial, we are trying to throw something away, bury it, so we don't have to actually DEAL with it. That means we didn't do anything with it, and we're not letting it go, we're holding on to it.

For example a person may be in denial about their own alcohol use; they are avoiding the subject altogether, even with themselves. They're allowing their brain to pretend it's a "non-issue", because if they acknowledge it, then they'll have to LOOK at it, and feel the emotions that they've been avoiding, and then probably have to make bigger life changes. They would have to deal with why they're using alcohol in the first place, which is probably what they're really avoiding.
If it's because they don't know how to deal with a painful relationship, then acknowledging the alcohol use would mean they would have to also acknowledge that they're in a painful relationship, and therefore might need to either end the relationship, or work on themselves and come to grips with the fact that their partner is not the sole "problem". In order to "let it go", they would first need to admit that it exists.

A person can also be in denial about bad things that happened to other people, or good things about other people. Ironically, people who are in denial are usually the ones lecturing others to "Let It Go!" What they're really saying is "I can't handle it, I don't want to deal with it, cover it over with sand, blot it out so I don't have to look at it." Being in denial about something that happened to someone else means WE are the ones who aren't "letting it go", not the person who's talking about it and trying to deal with it.

When we refuse to acknowledge and let go of something that happened to someone in our circle, we are helping to delay their recovery, and thwart their resolution.
It's like hiding a piece of rotten food that they're trying to find and throw away. THEY want to find it and get rid of it, but we're hiding it, pretending it doesn't exist. In the meantime because we refuse to acknowledge it and bring it out into the light of day, it's growing more and more rotten, fermenting, stinking up the whole house. We keep denying it, and the other person keeps bringing it up, trying to find the source of the smell.

What do we do then? We BLAME the person for it! We continue our denial by refusing to acknowledge that we are the ones who refuse to let it go, who refuse to bring it into the light. We conveniently "FORGET" how the fruit went rotten in the first place, and that WE were the ones who hid it.
And then we still refuse to admit that we're holding onto it, and keep blaming the person who's trying to find it and deal with it, so the stench gets worse and worse until the person finally just gives up and LEAVES. Then we say something like "They just didn't want to deal with their own problems... that's why they left, they're so self-centered."

The human capacity for denial can be truly astounding.

We can also be in denial about the good qualities, skills, talents, and accomplishments of both ourselves and others.
Why would we do this? Simply because they don't fit in with the story we've created for ourselves to live in.

If Sarah has written her story so that Jeff is the best mechanic in town, then John can't be. and definitely not Susan. In Sarah's story, only men can be mechanics, not women, because that would mess up the other story lines. Like how the reason Sarah can't fix her own car is because she's a woman. If SUSAN can do it, then that storyline would have to be rewritten, and it can't be, because Sarah has it tied in with the rest of her story. Like why she needs Jeff, why Jeff is an important person, and why she went to college to be a teacher. (She doesn't like kids, she wanted to teach because she wrote in her story that women are naturally good teachers, and that if you're a teacher then that makes you a good person, and also that women "have to" do certain kinds of jobs because they "CAN'T" do the other kinds of jobs that men do.)
That's Sarah's STORY, not reality, and she does not want to have to rewrite any of it, because that would mess up the whole fantasy.

When others around Sarah write similar stories to hers (because they grew up inside of other people's similar stories), they compare them and confirm with each other that they're "true" and "correct". So when something or someone comes along that CONTRADICTS how they've written their stories, they try to delete the information, shut it down, bury it, or reject the PERSON. Because it's much easier, THEY believe, to deny information that doesn't jive with their story, than to deal with it in a mature way, and risk having their stories exposed.

To put it simply, anything that doesn't match the story is thrown out. Deleted. Yes, our brains DO "write" our reality, and constantly edit it. Our brains do it continuously, whether we believe it or not. When we blink, for instance, our brains fill in the blank spot from when our eyes were closed, and we think we didn't miss anything. When we hear something we don't think is true, we usually forget it immediately, even if it WAS true. If we didn't fool ourselves into believing that we're actually safe on this planet that whips around the sun (a giant fireball) in the middle of space, with debris whizzing toward us constantly, we would probably never leave the house, or not have enough confidence to build a house in the first place.

So when we don't want a certain person to be GOOD at something, or get CREDIT or RECOGNITION for something, or be knowledgeable about, skilled at, or experienced in something, it's because it would mess up OUR OWN fictional story line about OURSELVES.

It's the same reason we deny bad things that happened to them, or when we deny things about ourselves. If we acknowledged them, brought them into the light, and let them go, we would be giving up "control" over our own fictional story lines about ourselves, and that is terrifying to some people. Without their fictional story line, they fear they'll be accountable, held responsible, have to do more work, or might not keep getting the respect and credit they're used to getting. So they will do pretty much anything, mental somersaults, in order to keep their story line going, and not let anything "mess it up", like actual reality.

So the next time we catch ourselves telling someone "why don't you just let it go?!" we may want to remember the rotten fruit we've hidden under our bed or in our closet. When we tell someone else to "let it go", we're really telling them to stop bringing it up so we don't have to deal with it ourselves, and admit that it's true. WE are the ones who "won't let it go", because we don't want to admit that we're holding it and hiding it in the first place.

Narcissists And Children

An adult with Narcissism who has direct access to a child can wreak havoc on the child's self-esteem, on confidence in her or his own abilities, and on the child's belief in his or her own ability to LEARN and achieve.
An adult with Narcissism who has direct access to a child can wreak havoc on a child's belief that he or she is a good person, and on the feeling that he or she belongs, or deserves to be a member of the group at all, either the small groups the child is a part of (including family), or larger groups, such as sports, dance, or music lesson groups, classes or school in general, the community in general, the child's/ family church, synagogue or other religious gathering group, or the larger human family group.
Narcissistic adults tend to treat children like objects that are there to be judged, as open targets for criticism, as burdens on their lifestyle and resources, as unpaid servants, and as objects to use for their own agendas.

The level of psychosis an individual Narcissist is afflicted with is what dictates the level of abuse or neglect they inflict on children. Some Narcissists are abusive "only" verbally and emotionally, while those with more severe psychosis may wantonly sabotage, gaslight, terrorize, slander, or physically abuse a child. 

Narcissists are not always who we think they are, and they are quite often who we think they are NOT. 
Honest observation of others and ourselves, and open communication are the required tools to discern Narcissists from non-Narcissists. It's very difficult because most humans in modern culture are conditioned during childhood to turn a blind eye to it, and to buy into the glossy, or "responsible", or good-person facade that Narcissists tend to use as an image.

Threat Of Ejection and Rejection As A Control Weapon

A favorite weapon of Narcissistic controllers is implying that a target is not contributing enough, and therefore they don't "deserve" to be safe in a home, be included or welcome in their family, or be accepted in a friendship circle.
~
This is a control tool. It's not how healthy families function, and it's definitely not "love".
~
"Punishing" others with the threat of being ejected from SHELTER, ACCEPTANCE, or SAFETY is a serious and flagrant power issue, and can cause huge upheaval and trauma for a target.
~
This is a common practice seen in parents, other "caregivers" (including foster parents), employers, and also platonic "friends" who suffer from Narcissism.
~
The Narcissist uses this weapon with ZERO remorse, and ZERO care about where the person would go, if they have another place to stay, or if they have any resources or support.
~
A Non-Narcissist who needs to change a living situation because of genuine issues, like they need other to contribute more rent, or work more hours, or do more of something in order to sustain the situation, would NOT use threats like that, OR EVER cut straight to actually "ejecting" a person with no remorse, or giving them time to prepare.
Even if a person within the household, family, friendship circle or workplace was behaving in dysfunctional, gluttonous, or abusive ways, unless their behavior was a serious threat, they would be spoken to about it long before there was any reference to "kicking them out", rejecting them, or firing them.
~
Ejection and rejection are LAST RESORTS in healthy human groups, relationships, and situations; they are not "go-to" tools that one pulls out of the arsenal every time one feels overwhelmed, rejected, unappreciated, lonely, upset, or angry.
~
Those with N.P.D. will actually reject and shun a person just because their "plans changed", mood swings and bad feelings don't even have to enter the picture. They might blame the person who's being rejected FOR the rejection, and it might even LOOK like a mood swing to lend credibility, but that's just to divert blame and accountability off of themselves.

Narcissists Get BORED

And yes, they DO blow people off when they get bored, no matter what the actual situation or relationship is.

If you're talking about something that's upsetting you for "too long", and they're hungry, the N's stomach is going to "win"; it won't even occur to them to ask you if you want to eat with them.

They want to get AWAY from you, because they're BORED with you and your "problems", or just bored because they aren't doing something THEY want to do.

It doesn't matter if you're upset about breaking a nail, or upset about the death of your parent. When they're bored, they're GONE, doing something else.

Call it A.D.D. if you want, they probably will... (You can tell it's NOT "A.D.D." when they talk at length about themselves, without any trouble staying on topic, and without seeming to have anything pressing to do.)

When they get bored visiting their child, partner, or other relative or close friend in the hospital, they're outta there.
When they get bored in an important ceremony or tradition, they're out the door.

When they get bored while doing their agreed upon job, paid or unpaid, they don't "keep at it" anyway, they "ditch" it.
When they get bored watching their children's school play, they'll either start talking to someone about something irrelevant to the play, get on their cell phone, or "duck out for a minute"...
If they find their children's soccer games boring, they might not even show up at all.

When they get "bored" with being in a relationship with one person, they FIND SOMEONE ELSE. When they get bored with the new person, they either try to go back to the old one, or they again find someone else.

To a Narcissist, "Boredom" equals "Time to blow off whatever I was doing, EVEN IF it will hurt someone, even if I'm leaving someone in a lurch, even if I'm getting paid, even if it will destroy my marriage, even if it will cause my children pain or trauma, even if I'm under contract, even if I am being relied upon by someone who is in serious need of support or care."

To be sure, if YOU get bored doing something that THEY want you to do, even if it's watching a documentary of "Historic Football Passes", or five sitcoms in a row, or listening to them for an hour straight talk about their golf club or knitting circle (that you of course don't belong to because you weren't invited), or about their past operations, illnesses, injuries, or accomplishments, they will EXPECT YOU to be FASCINATED, or to stay with them, keep doing whatever it is, or listening to them no matter WHAT ELSE you need to do.

It's just another one of those "The world revolves around ME, but definitely NOT YOU" behaviors that Narcissists live their life doing.

Remember that a lot of humans only see, basically, in two dimensions; things, people, and even concepts and ideas look more like cardboard cut-outs to them.
Things, people, and ideas don't appear to have MORE to them than what they see at first glance. 
That isn't to say that they literally see things as line drawings, or as "flat objects" floating in space, it's referring to a lack of ability to understand that there is much more to anyone and anything than one can see.

So when they see a person, whatever their EYES see is all they think is there, just like a cardboard cut-out. Their brains do not wonder ABOUT the person, what more there is to the person, because they don't think there IS any more to the person. They believe they know all about the person from what their eyes see, and also from what they themselves FEEL when they see the person. That's all there is, there just ain't no more.

They will do a similar thing when assessing a person's facial expressions, body language, and speech sounds. They believe they are correct about whatever they think the person is expressing, regardless if it's even CLOSE. It doesn't occur to them that they might be misinterpreting the person's expression, or reading it completely WRONG.
If they see or hear something the person does or says that they want to read as "ignorant", "stupid", "mean", or "crazy", they'll just assume they're RIGHT.
And if see or hear another person's social signals as "contemplative", "authoritative", "intelligent", or "in control", they'll just assume they're right about THAT, too.

Basically they just go by their presumptions about "who" and "what" a person is, and then they interpret everything the person does and says through that.

If someone tells them something about the person, they tend to just BELIEVE IT, for the same reasons. No wondering, no doubting, just immediate belief. No filtering anything through "values", "morals", or "ETHICS", no paying attention to their own biases or reviewing their own beliefs. No paying attention to their emotional reactions, or double-checking their motives.

No wondering "Is that even true?"
or "Why does this person seem to want me to LOSE RESPECT FOR this other person?"
or "Am I participating in hatefulness or gossip? Is this right?"
or "Why do I think I know ALL ABOUT another person without actually spending a LOT of time WITH that person?"
or "Am I reading this correctly?"
or "Did I interpret that right?"
or "Do I really know enough information to make a judgment?"

It doesn't seem to register that they would be very upset if people thought about them in such superficial, diminishing, demeaning, judgmental, presumptuous ways.

Nope, none of that. Just going along with whatever, just believing their own cloudy vision, their own assumptions, their own reactive emotions, their own envy, resentfulness, and also their own desires.
There just ain't no more, it's just not there.
~
So when a very large, "tough looking" man with dark skin turns out to NOT be a sports freak, but works for a Florist making bouquets and loves Chopin, and has three cats (instead of what, pit bulls, perhaps) they don't like it. Because they already thought they "knew" all about him, and now his reality is clashing with theirs. So they don't make friends with him, and they doubt his sincerity. They don't give him credit or respect for the things he does, they don't help his reputation, but they do tend to HINDER his reputation and make little sarcastic implications about him.

They don't like HIM because THEY were WRONG.

PLUS, they're envious of him, because he does not live within the same parameters that THEY live in. He's a "free agent" who doesn't seem to care about what other people "expect", and he doesn't seem to care what they think of him.
(And they also know that those qualities are attractive to those of the opposite sex that favor independent thinking and creativity over codependent conformity, so they're jealous, too.)

Maybe one or two of them will start cruel rumors about him in order to make themselves feel "good"... and make sure OTHER PEOPLE DON'T LIKE HIM. Not because he's a bad person, but because they don't want others to know that he's a good person.
~
When a very small, light-skinned, light haired woman turns out NOT to be a fragile waif who's most arduous task is sweeping a floor, or to be a submissive cheerleader who's greatest joy is baking cookies for "her MEN" to enjoy during their sports events (during which she reads all by herself, not minding at all that she's been excluded from her own husband's social life),
but she ACTUALLY fixes cars, runs earth-moving equipment, and works on airplanes and flies them, they FREAK OUT.
Some will find her "extra attractive", and will act like NO OTHER FEMALE HUMAN has EVER done any of those things... she's the ONLY ONE, EVER... OR, they'll do the same as with the large dark-skinned man, they will reject HER as a person, because she didn't fit into THEIR imaginary expectations of her.

Either way, she's a FREAK OF NATURE, as far as their concerned, either to be captured and owned, or to be suspicious of and despised.

In both cases, the large dark-skinned man, and the small, light-skinned and haired woman, the surprised reactions of other people were based SOLELY on the fact that they DID NOT THINK BEYOND the two-dimensional, cardboard-cutouts they had in their heads of them. They did not WAIT TO FIND OUT about either of them, they just ASSUMED that they knew all about them based on nothing more than their appearances.

No matter HOW MANY TIMES "Don't judge a book by its cover" is repeated, humans who only see in two dimensions and believe whatever they see and hear WILL NOT learn what it means. They can't, it's just not there. (That's why they fall prey to advertising and buy so easily and completely into politics and television shows. )
~

It might be hard to fathom, but this two-dimensional thinking is NOT limited to only the diagnosed "mentally ill", or those who have apparent "lower IQs". There are two-dimensional thinkers in every walk of life, and in very high positions of authority, and who have Ivy League degrees.
~
They don't see a sculpture and see the inspiration of the artist, or what the work is attempting to convey. It may not occur to them about the effort and skill the artist put into the work, or why they would even DO it. They just see it as "pretty, ugly, or boring", they only relate to it with "I like it" or "I don't like it", and maybe something about whether the sculptor was a man or a woman, or what ancestry they were. (That matters to them in a big way, usually; if the artist was a man, and they're male-biased, then the work is "genius"; if it was a woman, then that same work is "silly" or "not really that good", or "not as good as so-and-so's".
They'll think the same way regarding any bias they have, if they're female-biased, then it would be the opposite, and if they're ancestry biased, then it's a Great Work Of Art if the sculptor was the "correct" ancestry; if not, the same work will be criticized.)
~

Even harder to fathom, perhaps; a person can be a "brilliant" artist, musician, songwriter, scientist, doctor, healer, psychiatrist, inventor, veterinarian, healthcare worker, teacher, lawyer, coach/instructor, 'leader' in government/ social issues/ religion or spirituality, and yet be a "two dimensional thinker".

Having awareness of the bigger picture, or even the fact that there IS a bigger picture, or that there is MORE to the picture, is apparently NOT a requirement to achieve 'success' in this human realm, even if it SEEMS to be a requirement for one's specific occupation.

Two-dimensional thinkers don't know and don't care that there's more than they can see, or that they might not be seeing what's really there, or that they're interpreting someone or something incorrectly.

Self-Examination For Abuse Targets

One of the really difficult things to deal with for those who are recovering is one's own "issues". Being inside of an abusive, unsafe situation, group, or community actually makes it UNSAFE to explore one's own personality or issues, because there's someone right there to pounce on them, inflate them, and use them against the person. So when we are INSIDE of an abusive situation, or dealing with people who are aggressive, hostile, and controlling, our subconscious often knows not to go exploring into that side of recovery, no matter how much we want to, or a therapist wants us to.
Protecting ourselves from abuse and a hostile environment automatically takes precedence over self-examination (you're not going to self-examine while, say, trying to get away from a mountain lion. It's no different when the hostiles are human).
So while it's definitely part of recovery to discover ourselves, our 'issues", our "flaws", even N. traits that we might have, it's a very important part, we might not be really able to do that while we're feeling unsafe. Even if we're "safe and sound" at the moment, roof over our head, kids are safe, food to eat, we can still not feel safe enough to come to terms with certain things about ourselves, and that's okay. No one should be hammering a person to self-examine, especially if they're dealing with a crisis situation, or haven't had a chance to recover from the ordeal. Of COURSE you have flaws, every person on Earth does. Some of them might turn out to surprise you completely. So when you're feeling safe again, and you'll know when that is, you can then start to explore yourself without your subconscious shutting it down in order to switch on the "protection" mode. Many of us absolutely have "N" traits, some behaviors; it's not just "okay" because we've been targeted, but it's not something we can really do much about unless we're in a SAFE environment, not feeling pressured, bullied, or threatened by manipulation and abuse. And a target having one, or two, or a hundred N traits does not make it justifiable in the least for someone to treat them abusively, or manipulatively, so don't believe that having "flaws" gives ANYONE some kind of 'reason' to behave abusively. That's insane, and actually another Narcissist Entitlement.
So go don't be HARD on yourself with self-examination, especially when you're dealing directly with aggressive people and unsafe environments, try not to be one of the people who are causing you undue stress by "beating yourself up" for not recovering fast enough. It's much easier in a relatively safe situation to do self-examination and self-improvement. It's true we do learn a lot from hardship, and that can be a great and wonderful thing. And we also learn from that hardship once we feel safe. 

Incentive Equals Focus.. what's your agenda, really?

If the incentive for a person to do a job is money, then obtaining money will be their focus,
If the incentive for a person to do a job is fame, then fame will be their focus.
If a person's incentive for doing a job is a good reputation (for social or career advancement reasons), then their reputation will be their focus.
~
This means that their main focus will not be the job itself, or the point of doing the job, or the well-being of the people around them. That will be secondary, or for a Narcissist, not even on the radar.
~
This can be applied to ANY FIELD, and any task, any interest, and any occupation.
~
Whatever a person's real focus is, that's what everything else will be tailored to.
~
A poignant example that most of us have dealt with (especially those working in the field alongside them) are medical doctors who's reasons for becoming a doctor was NOT because of a desire to heal people or help them stay well, but because it would make them "important", or because they thought it would make them rich.
These are the doctors who found out the hard way that it's not all fun and games and getting to walk around like the actors on ER, or being the "boss" of everyone, or getting to be the "important one" in the family or community. Since their reasons for becoming medical doctors had not much at all to do with caring about PEOPLE, they have very little motivation to treat their patients with professionalism or even actual medical care; they're just not interested; they passed the tests and did what they had to to get through school, get their license, and get hired.

If they happen to do well in school, then others will often ASSUME that becoming a Doctor was their "Passion", but the truth is a person can be really good at something they don't actually care about.  We tend to assume that our talent, skill, and passions align, but it just seems that way. What really happens is that we pursue what we're interested in. In these cases, the interest they were pursuing was filling their bank account and garnering a certain reputation for themselves, NOT "healing people".

Their presence in the medical community makes everything much more difficult for those doctors who are ACTUALLY "passionate" about caring for and healing people. They create more problems and obstacles than they fix, and that affects everyone, patients and the (genuine) medical community alike. They're "wolves in sheep's clothing", basically.

Every field imaginable attracts people who's interests are NOT about the actual job, or the people or animals it serves, but about the MONEY, the reputation, or the power they think they'll get. 
Name a field, name a government agency, name a religion, name a civil rights group, a non-profit group, any occupation at all, and you will find lots of workers in that field who are there ONLY for money, reputation, or "power".
NOT for the job, task, or position itself.

That includes psychiatry, education, social work, music, art, government agencies, medical care, military, healing arts, anything at all. The position a person works in, or their career, is NOT an indicator of the "kind of person" they are.

People tend to understand this concept more clearly when we're referring to organized crime, street gangs, and motorcycle clubs; most people are aware that many members join only because they're seeking to create a reputation for themselves or get rich, so they'll do things that are unethical or criminal in order to get what they want, because that's all they care about. But those people cause trouble even in those types of groups as well. If that's ALL a person cares about, they don't care who they step on to get it.

This is also found, rampantly, in social clubs, arts groups, community organizations, religious groups and organizations, and obviously local businesses and government.

Of the more tragic places it's found, besides healthcare, are education,  non-profit organizations, DMR (dept. of mental retardation) and DCYS (state children's social services). Those who are in need, who don't have a "voice", and who aren't in the position to stand up for themselves are at the most risk of becoming prey of those who are in the field for their own gain, be it monetary, reputation, or social status and acceptance.

Those who are in the education field for their own reputation, agenda, and paycheck are not interested first in the students, or the student's well-being.
They will step on certain students and help other students in order to further their own reputation, agenda, and comfort.
They will maintain the status quo when it helps them, and try to destroy it when it's not helping their personal agenda.
They tend to create factions, and participate in smear campaigns and gossip.
They tend to see families and parents of the students as "ignorant" or the "enemy".
They tend to contribute to the zeitgeist of accepted bullying in a school, instead of helping to diminish it. 
They tend to openly participate in faction-oriented politics.
Their focus and interests are on themselves, their personal interests, and their personal agendas, and NOT on the students.
Helping CERTAIN students that one LIKES does NOT make up for ignoring or stepping on other students due to one's personal issues.  

Co-Parenting WIth A Narcissist

"Co parenting" with a Narcissist means that our kids get their control issues, arrogance, assumptions and manipulations shoved down their throats.
So they might be really, really NOT be into hearing any discipline or advice from the OTHER parent.
The Narcissist might be doing the OTHER thing where they do anything to make the child (adult child included) LIKE THEM BETTER by giving the kids certain things, especially things that we would not allow them to have for their own safety and health, and well being.
So, since the Narcissist is "more fun" to be with (even if it's just brief periods of time when they're not acting mean or cold), and that "more fun" person is painting us in a ridiculously terrible light, of course our kids are going to be affected by that.

Kids don't know what's going on, and they're not SUPPOSED to know. They're not "supposed to" be dealing with this crap at all.
~
Before we go beating ourselves down about hooking up with a Narcissist who's messing with our kids' heads, though, remember that we didn't create the Narcissist, who they are, or what they do. Unless we're a Narc. ourselves, if we had insight into the way they would act down the road, especially toward our kids, we would have ran in the other direction, fast.
We don't have to feel horrible about our mistake in choice of partner, our misread; that just adds to the vortex of pain, it puts more energy into the dark spots instead of the Light spots.

Our kids are dealing with the Narcissists in a different way than we are, and they are directly affected. Sometimes, regardless of their outward behavior, our kids have insight that we can learn from.

The best thing we can do for our kids besides obviously protecting them as much as possible from Narc. behavior is healing ourselves, finding who we are again. Put yourself in their shoes; how would I want my own Mom or Dad to be? Let their recovery and development be their own, the thing they need most since they don't have a whole family of healthy relatives, is to have at least ONE who they can identify with and follow their lead. Kids need someone to follow, someone's footprints to walk in. It can't be the Narcs', so it has to be us.

Buying Into Politics

The lifeblood of a Political career is that your constituents buy into the belief that you and your Party are the "good guys" and the other Party are the "bad guys". Then they all focus on the "bad things" the other party is doing, and completely ignore, or make excuses for, what you're really doing. It's typical Narc. manipulation, no different than Narc. manipulation found in personal life or business, just less direct and so less obvious.
So is casting shame on a target (the other party; individuals who belong to the other party).
Without these tactics, humans lose interest and don't follow or vote because they don't feel like they're personally involved. Inciting emotion in voters about each party is the only thing that keeps them in office, especially in such a dysfunctional society.
If you believe that politicians from both sides of the aisle aren't doing this on purpose, think again. They want your votes, so they're trying to get your "loyalty", so they create a "good guy" image of themselves, and smear the other party. Just like Narcissists do in regular life. It's POLITICS, it's not reality.

You will find these same tactics in advertisements. Remember the Coke vs. Pepsi commercials? Give us a break, it's soda pop... let's create RIVALRY between people who like Coke, and people who like Pepsi... And how many people fell for that?!

You'll find the same tactics being used over and over by those whose jobs and careers depend on Public Opinion and Loyalty. Like comedians and journalists, and talk show hosts on television, especially those who regularly commentate on politics, "social issues", and government. They are careful to stay in line with who their audience THINKS they are, because that's where the money is. Lose the audience by saying the "wrong thing", lose your paycheck. It's that simple. If you think they're "Super Rebels" and actually always speak their real mind, think again, they all have writers, producers, and sponsors. And teleprompters.

Look at Major League Sports! Keeping "rivalry" going keeps people buying tickets and feeling loyal to "their team"; it doesn't seem to phase them that team members are being paid huge money to be there, they're not volunteers, they're not "loyal" just because they're so faithful to the team. They get HIRED, they get TRADED, they're not there on that team of their own volition. If Major League Sports didn't pay well, most of those players would be doing something else for a living. If another team offered them more money, they would FLY LIKE THE WIND. Rivalry between "teams" is part of the illusion of the game. They're not GLADIATORS who are fighting for their LIVES, or the lives of their families. They're not soldiers who are fighting for their fans... it's not real, it's a show.

Same as Politics.
All those who hold Office in a country should have the same main interest in mind: the well being of and respect for ALL of the citizens, NOT just the ones who vote for THEM, or who AGREE with them. That's what Narcissists do. 
And that responsibility falls on every citizen as well in a free country. When we stop listening to and trying to understand the Point of View of those in other parties, we have lost our main objective, and our focus. We have willingly become a "nation divided", and that's how Narcissists take over: Divide and Conquer.

It's tried and true, it's been done a thousand times before in governments, and countless times in personal relationships.

Playing "Leader"

Another very common Controller/Narcissist behavior:
Putting themselves in the "Lead" position in any situation, and especially when the situation already had a "Leader".
~
~Taking over another person's project, big or small. 

~Acting like an idea someone else had was their own, and taking over the "planning" and "delegation".

~Taking the "lead" after being asked to assist.

~Making themselves out to be an Expert when someone asks their opinion, or just a question (not just answering the question).

~Inserting themselves in a person's project or task when NOT being asked to assist (more severely, trying to take over the task or project without even being asked to assist).

~Standing and watching as a self-assigned "Supervisor" while someone else is doing something, and volunteering advice and criticism.

~Taking it upon themselves to "assist" total strangers who did not ask for assistance, in a tone that implies the stranger is NOT CAPABLE of the task they're doing.

~Giving orders, delegating tasks, and implying that someone is "forgetting something", or is about to make a mistake, in someone else's project, plan, or idea, just for the purpose of giving themselves a feeling of "Leadership" over others.

These are all domination display behaviors.
Many primates and other animals get a chemical reward from the feeling of domination, and will try to get a "fix" from that chemical whenever they can.
And, since those who are addicted to this chemical reward are addicts, they may become very agitated, even angry, sometimes enraged, if one does not ALLOW them to get their fix.

The behavior is often learned from an older family member, but could also be learned from outside the family.
The behavior suggests that the person was not taught how to treat others with respect, or why they should be treated with respect, or what that looks like.

OR, the person may have been taught by someone outside the family that their values were "wrong", and that they should be more controlling and domineering toward certain others, and that it's perfectly okay to "get off" on the feeling it brings.
(Which can easily lead to a person getting hooked on that chemical reward fix from domination.)

It also suggests that the person may have been taught that only certain people should be treated with respect (whatever that might mean in that circle), but that it's fine to assert "control" or "leadership" over others, or that it's fine to rebel against the "Lead" of those certain others.
 
Therefore, the person feels perfectly ENTITLED to assert control and domination over certain people, as if there's nothing at all wrong with it, and if a person protests, then that person is the one doing something "wrong"; besides, the person is blocking their fix.

To be clear, for example, in a culture where one sex is treated with less respect than the other, BOTH sexes will treat that sex with less respect than the other. So people from BOTH sexes will often try to take over the projects or rebel against the "Lead" of people of the one sex, but not the other. They were BOTH taught through modeling from adults that it's fine to assert control over one type of person, and get the chemical reward from domination, but to allow control and accept leadership FROM another type of person.

They can also get a neurochemical reward from following and being lead by certain types of people, so they're getting a chemical fix BOTH from dominating one type of person, and ALSO from FOLLOWING another type of person.

And since this is usually a cultural behavior, they give themselves yet ANOTHER chemical fix from following the CROWD, doing a behavior that's accepted by others and therefore being accepted in the group.

Just because someone gets a rush from domination and tries to do it a lot does NOT mean they are CAPABLE of LEADERSHIP, or MORE CAPABLE, experienced, talented, informed, or intelligent than the person or people they are trying to "Lead".

In conclusion, those who try to assert control and Leadership over others when they were not invited to do so are probably seeking a neurochemical reward, either because they think they're "doing the right thing", or purely from the rush they get directly from dominating others. Those who rebel against the assigned Leadership of others are quite often also seeking a similar chemical reward. Those who FOLLOW and accept Leadership from one type of person (but not another) are also most likely seeking a chemical reward. A "fix". So, anyone who gets in the way of their fix is not going to be taken kindly to.
Be prepared; bucking cultural stereotypes and "hierarchy" behaviors means messing with addicts who don't know they're addicts.

And yes, we are all susceptible, because we are all human. It doesn't make it "okay" or "right" just because we're all susceptible; we're all susceptible to viruses and infection as well.

Narcissism Flag: "Me Too!"

Flag For Envy, Resentment, and Narcissism:

(It's not what you think.)

When a person talks about themselves in a positive way, like if someone mentions a subject and the person says "I do that too" or "I went to school for that" or "I used to do that for a living", or "I used to work there/go to school there", or something of that nature,
and the RESPONSE they get is:
+++
SILENCE
SUBJECT CHANGE
RIDICULE
DOUBTING
Implication that they're "making it up"
COUNTERING
+++
All of these indicate that the person responding to their "me too!" holds a fixed image of the person in their mind, and that this "something" they're saying "me too" about is thought of as "ABOVE" this person's ability, experience, and/or status.

Them: "My Uncle is a contractor, he's working on a remodel job out in Middletown right now."
Target: "Oh that's interesting, what kind of remodel job? I used to do remodeling too~"
Them: "Oh well he's been doing it for 25 years..."

Yup, the person talking was not just sharing information, they were bragging about their Uncle because they thought it would make them appear in important in some way, AND they assumed the Target was not a person who would be capable of doing such a (masculine? difficult?) job as remodeling, and so would be impressed. "I used to do remodeling too" was not in the script. Now they're annoyed because their goal, albeit very short-term, was spoiled.
Also, the fact that the Target did remodeling wrecks the whole premise of remodeling being "masculine" or "difficult", and/or it also wrecks the whole assumption that the Target was incapable.
So now... the Target Must Be Punished.. ... ... ... for ruining the bragging session... ... ... ...

When a person is bragging and you say "Me Too!" you're wrecking it!!! (whaaaa!) You're supposed to just be impressed or feel intimidated, not be all happy about finding a new colleague, peer, or kindred spirit!

It can also indicate that another Narcissist has gossiped about the target, and so when the target speaks, the target is doubted or dismissed. But either way, whether the dismissive person is acting of their own volition, or if they have bought into implications from a Gossip, this is a Flag about THEM.
Do not trust a person who treats you like a "silly child" who "exaggerates" or "makes things up" when you say positive things about yourself, especially if you know you're not a braggart.

There is a HUGE difference between the narcissistic behavior of diverting conversation and subject back to one's self, and saying "Oh me too!" when someone else makes mention of something. Like, you meet a person at a friend's house and they start talking about how their brother has Asperger's syndrome, and you say "Oh my niece has it also!" That's not diverting the discussion back to yourself, that's NORMAL HUMAN communicating.
Now if you kept cutting the person off and going on and on about your niece, instead of listening to them say what they were going to say, THAT would be diverting the conversation back to one's self. It's not even close to the same thing.
In a "healthy" conversation, it would be more like "Oh my niece has it also" and the other person would say something like "Oh no kidding." and then they would keep telling what they were telling, and you would listen and hear them talk, and then there would be discussion about dealing with it (no gossip, just information exchange about Asperger's and life with Asperger's, with luck you've found a new ally for your niece and so has the other person.)

It's easy to tell that a person was not just sharing information and talking WITH others by the way they react when someone else says "Me too".
People who are bragging either about themselves or someone they're associated with DON'T LIKE IT when someone else says "Me too".
They weren't seeking a "kindred spirit", and they weren't "sharing information", they were playing King/Queen of the Hill"
Trying to display some kind of uniqueness, specialness, something that makes them better, or "just as good", depending on the individual.

People who aren't trying to display "better than you" or "as good as you" don't feel anything negative at all when someone says "Me Too!"
(unless the person is actually a Narc and does it all the time no matter what, but that's the other side of this coin.)
No, people who are genuinely sharing INFORMATION, or just talking about something they did, they're working on, or someone else did or is working on are either slightly pleased or very pleased when someone says "Me too!" because for Non-Narcissists, kindred spirits are a positive thing. Someone who gets what I'm talking about; someone else who does this interesting or cool thing; someone else who understands.

Is it "them", or is it "me" who's being self-centered...?

Test this:
How much do they listen to you at all? What kinds of things do they listen to you about, and what kinds of things do they seem uninterested in? Time them talking, and time them listening.
What do they talk about? Whom do they talk about?
Do they seem interested in details of your projects, work, or interests? Or are they just glossing vaguely over 'how you're doing', and then dive into details about themselves and about OTHER people they know (probably who you don't know very well, or even who THEY don't know very well, or at all).
Pay attention to how much they talk about themselves and gloat about others they know, and compare it to how much time they seem to tolerate YOU referring to yourself, your life, your accomplishments, and your experience.

Narcissists will brag about OTHER people in order to "show you up", show that they're attached to IMPORTANT people doing important things, and that you're NOT... and that THEIR friends, family, and associates are more important than YOU, more talented than YOU, more intelligent than YOU, more accomplished, more educated, more famous, more wealthy, more good looking, with bigger breasts or pectoral muscles.... fuller lips... bigger ~ .. truck....  etc ad nauseum...

Narcissists will even use family members as someone to boast about, TO OTHER family members, AS IF they're not related to the target also... (selective memory...)

The point is, the intention and goal is to send the message that YOU ARE NOT VALID, YOU ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT, and THEY ARE MORE IMPORTANT,
but....
they want to do it in a way that appears to be just normal, regular conversation
(so they don't get CAUGHT, and so it seems more valid; if they get noticed it will wreck it.
So, notice it! )

Objectivity In Recovery and Healing

Healing and recovery is ten times more important, maybe 100, maybe 1000, times more important than fully understanding why people end up being abusive.
But understanding some of the "why's" helps US in that healing and recovery.
~
Emotional attachment is one of the biggest things that can keep us stuck in the circle.

That includes all of the emotions such as ANGER and FEAR.
It also includes things like disgust, disdain, and hatred.

Humans have emotions, we're supposed to, it's a brain/body function. Emotions are attached to our experiences, memories, and thoughts. However since we ARE Human, we DO have the ability, the capability, to look at any situation objectively. Having empathy actually HELPS this ability.

Narcissists do NOT have this ability because they lack empathy; they are welded to their emotions; whatever they FEEL, they think is a FACTUAL representation of reality.

NON-Narcissists DO have the ability to separate emotions from experiences, situations, observations, and thoughts.

Experiencing trauma can hinder this ability, even seem to block it. One of the symptoms of PTSD is triggered emotions that are attached to certain memories, so that can be a hindrance. But we are resilient creatures and the brain can and does HEAL, so that's not necessarily a "permanent" condition.

Objectivity is absolutely one of our abilities as a functioning human being. We might need to practice it more, but we're capable.

Objectivity is NOT the same as pity, sympathy, compassion, or coldness. It is all by itself in definition. It sees what's there without anything else attached to it. No anger, no empathy, no pity, no caring, no hate, no resentment, no sympathy, no desire. It's observation WITHOUT emotion, intention, or bias, not WITH certain emotions or intentions.

When we learn to do a new task, we might be excited or intrigued, maybe anxious; when we've gotten proficient at it we feel proud, when we've done it many times, we might feel like we're "one of the people who do this task"; by the time we've done it a hundred times, we tend to have become objective about it, it's just something that exists, that we do.
Then perhaps when we get to about 150, we're not objective anymore because we're starting to get sick of it. 300 times, now we're really sick of it, by 400 we're getting frustrated, by 700 we're angry, by 1000 we've become resigned to it and can become objective again...

Humans have a hard time with objectivity, that's why they (we) invented "Scientific Method". We CAN do it, it's just hard, but it's the only way we can find real things out instead of just believing our own reactions and filters. That's not a "weakness", it's just how we're built.

When one goes into an Animal Shelter, one sees all kinds of dogs and cats. Some of them are very sweet and cuddly, some of them are indifferent and maybe sick of humans, some of them are excited and active, and some of them are vicious. When the veterinarian comes in to give them vaccines, or when they're brought in to be treated, the vet doesn't just treat the ones she likes, she treats them all the same (unless she has a specific personality disorder, that is.)
If you were to pick out a PET, then picking out the vicious dog or cat would be silly, especially if you have kids.
You're STILL being "objective", you're making a decision based on facts and reality, and projected outcomes based on those facts.
You don't have to HATE or even DISLIKE the vicious dogs or cats to decide you aren't going to bring them home.
But your decision might not change even if you weren't being objective, you might still pick the same sweet kitty cat based on your emotions instead of on reality.
However, what if you weren't YOU, but you were someone with some kind of aggression complex? Who gets a thrill out of owning vicious dogs? (makes them feel powerful by association, like they're the dog...because they own the dog...) What if this person HAS KIDS, or has elderly parents living with them? What if this person's kids have friends in and out of the house? Now objectivity is extremely important, because if this person "goes with emotion" in choosing a dog, it's going to be a vicious one. "Nice dogs" are for "wimpy people", apparently... (eye roll emoticon).
If the person was objective, they would be able to step OUTSIDE of their own emotional reactions, whims, and judgments, and NOT GET the vicious dog and expose their children and the neighborhood children and their elderly parents to it every single day. Objectivity would mean they can make a choice about which dog to adopt WITHOUT their own personal emotions and issues coloring their decision; they would definitely get a "Nice" dog if they were able to be objective.

Without objectivity, this person would adopt the VICIOUS dog, not the "nice" dog.

Because the person would be looking at all of the dogs through a limited emotional filter.
Not assessing the situation from a "bird's eye view".

Objectivity helps us to understand, so that we can know what's going on, and what to work on, and why.

Blinded By The Shaving Cream

Seriously, how is it possible that so many humans embrace prejudice, or pretend it's not happening, or dive under into the murky, suffocating depths of "That's the way things just are!"

Really?

How?!

It's like not noticing a giant zit in the middle of your own forehead.

Or ignoring the cougar staring at you from the neighbor's yard.

"Lalala, if I don't look at it, it doesn't exist!"

Ignoring the meth lab next door... and we all know people do that, so apparently it's the same thing. 

Prejudice, Superiority Complexes, the desire for Domination and the act of accepting and submitting to Domination (in order to stay in the comfort of the group and not get picked on, ostracized, or killed) are just the result of a few monkey traits in Homo Sapiens, and these traits are shared with our close cousins, the Chimpanzees, whether any of us likes it or not.

If we were as evolved as we think we are, the stupid, stupid issues we "deal with" that cause us SO MUCH STRESS just wouldn't exist. And that would look like: NO ONE feels superior or supreme, EVERYONE is accepted, NO ONE tries to hurt others, or act out like a toddler, NO WARS would exist, and we would all be unhappy only because of really big things that are ACTUALLY beyond our control, like Earthquakes and disease and accidents.

Some days it's almost funny...

Fearing Consequences: Double Binds

Targets of "Narc. abuse" often feel like they've lost themselves because they were conditioned to fear consequence from controllers.

What we do, as human animals, when there's a threat in the area:
We stop doing what we're doing and freeze, like deer, like cats, rabbits, and like dogs and wolves; like most land mammals, and other animals as well. We freeze and assess the situation with all of our senses; that's one of the main reasons our senses exist.

So we switch our focus from whatever we were doing to the threat. It's a survival mechanism that's kept us and other animals alive for eons.

Since we are humans with complex brains, some of us learn very early, either subconsciously or consciously, that humans respond to other humans this way also.

When we're in this response, our subconscious has taken over, we are not fully "conscious" and purposeful. We are no longer "Pro Active", we are REACTIVE.

We freeze and wait to see what's going to happen. We wait for a signal, a sign, a movement, in order to react with either fight or flight. Humans more often choose "flight", unless our subconscious believes that the threat is not a real danger.

When we are in a double-edged situation, where we receive consequences EITHER WAY, whether we run or stay and fight, we are in a "Double Bind". This is when our survival reaction switches to another mode: Submission. We submit to the situation we're in, because it's the best option for survival. We'll figure out how to get out of it later, but for now, whatever we try to do will give us a consequence, so we stay put.

Horses and elephants have been "trained" this way.

This submission response is not the LAST resort-reaction, but it means the situation is dire; we feel trapped in place, it's a "no-win" situation. If we fight back we'll receive serious consequences, and if we run away we'll receive serious consequences; the best option really is at this moment to stay in the situation and try to just humor and go along with the "threat".

Kind of like giving a grizzly bear your backpack because you don't think you can outrun it. You fight the bear, you're done, if you run away, it will catch you, and besides there's another bear on the path. Best option: give the bear what it wants, your food. All of your food. Every crumb, and hope that the bear becomes satiated or distracted so you can slip away. Talk sweetly to the bear, get it to calm down, try to get it to stop freaking out, and give it something it likes so it will stop focusing on YOU.

So you get a moment and casually slip away while the bear is chewing on your backpack, trying to open all the pockets. But you know it can smell you, track you, you are on its mind. Now you are not only something to chase, but you are the bearer of the food.

From now on, as long as you've got food to give the bear, it might not attack you.

So do you have any food left? Ahh yes in your jacket, some power bars and some trail mix.

So you run, as fast as you can, somehow get past the second bear, but the first bear catches up with you. So you try to climb a tree high enough so the bear can't reach you, and you take one of the power bars, break it in half, and throw it as far as you can. The bear doesn't notice it... You wave the other half so the bear can smell it, and you throw it near the other one. It works, the bear runs after it.

Now: Do you stay in the tree, or do you run? If you stay there you'll probably die, but then again the bear might get bored after a long while and wander away. But then again the bear can probably knock you out of the tree. But... then again, that's not the only Grizzly around here, when the others smell you and your food, they'll come. Another double bind: stay in the tree, or run?

You're exhausted by now, but you BETTER NOT eat any of that food, you have to save it to give to the bear. And if the bear sees you eating it, it will probably freak out and try to climb the tree or knock it down, or make a racket so the other bears hear; that's supposed to be BEAR FOOD.
Better to hide it in your jacket until you're going to give it to the bear.

Your food is no longer yours, you are giving it to the bear to keep it from attacking you. You do nothing at all except focus on keeping the bear calm and happy. You wait for a safe spot to make your move, but does it ever come? You wait for the bear to get agitated again because if you don't give it food and keep it calm, it will come after you. You worry that your food will run out and then the bear will come after you.
This is survival, and it's how Narcissistic abuse and Codependency works in a general analogy. After a while the dynamic between the bear and you, and the other bears in the area as well, becomes normalized, and is incorporated into your subconscious belief system. "The most important thing is keeping the bear calm, and avoiding drawing negative attention from other bears. Fighting the bear is too dangerous, running away is too dangerous, and dealing with the other bears is too dangerous. This is my only option until I can find a way out."
But that way out never comes, because you are waiting for the bear to make the decision. The fear, anxiety, and fatigue has worn you down, and now your getting too cold, and the sun is going down. You're subconsciously giving up, and resigning yourself to this fate. You sit in the tree, in a kind of strange camaraderie/truce with the bear on the ground below you, (but not really camaraderie). Darkness is closing in and you figure you're going to just be here for the rest of your time on Earth. You can see what's going to happen; either you'll fall asleep and fall, and either break something or the bear will eat you, or both. Or you'll run out of food and the bear will freak out and climb the tree, or knock it down, and eat you. Or you'll freeze to death, sitting in this tree. Or a pack of Grizzlies will join the one bear and knock the tree down.

This is "resignation", and losing yourself. You no longer feel like there are any viable options that will result in you having a real life again, even realistically surviving. ]

The resignation that you feel is a combination of the double-bind submission reaction, and your fatigue and exhaustion.

It's not actual reality; you don't actually know what's going to happen, and you are probably assessing your own capability and strength as lower than it really is, because we do that when we're exhausted to convince ourselves to rest.

There are many other things that could happen. The most likely scenario will be that the bear gets tired of standing there and goes looking for food somewhere else before you fall out of the tree or freeze. You could stay there till the sun comes up, or you could climb down when the bear wanders away and get out of there. You'll be scared, sure, of course. But keep paying attention to the trees around you in case you have to climb one again quickly. If you have to stay in a tree till the sun comes up, then so be it, in the morning there might be another human who hears you and helps you get away. You are probably much stronger than you think, and there are many scenarios for the future that you didn't think of. That doesn't mean there's no threat, it does mean that there are things we didn't think of, people we haven't met yet, and events we can't foresee that could change the situation. When we get stuck in place, we lose hope, so we stay there and assume there's not going to be a way out, but there will be, and there is.

God Complex

One of the stranger things seen often in Narcissism is putting human beings in the place of a deity. Seeing certain humans as god-like, or as actual gods. And therefore seeing other humans as lesser creatures in comparison.
This may be directly connected to the delusional, fantastical perception of the world and of themselves that Narcissists tend to have. Again, normal childhood stages that got stuck, and then internalized into part of their belief system.

So if Elvis is god, or Jimi Hendrix, or the mayor, or the pastor, or Buddha, or their Tai Chi sensei, or the Football coach, or one of their relatives, then what does that make other people, like their kids, their partner, other relatives, anyone else?

Then they have to decide whether they themselves are one of those god-people, or if they aren't.

If they decide that they are, then all the world is under their subjection, and they have entitlement to the throne of supremacy. (God complex).

If they decide that they are NOT, for whatever reason, maybe they're more aware, or aware of consequences others might impose on them for acting like a god, then they associate themselves with these god-people instead.

Either way, everyone else is just a lowly creature (in the N's mind) who should be in awe and worship of these god-people... and if they're not, they're just ignorant, crazy, dumb, or jealous...

Why Narcissists Hate

The reason the Narcissist "hates" a person is because they think the person made them feel badly.
People with Narcissism (not necessarily all sociopaths, not necessarily all psychopaths) typically live life through their egos, and don't know it. So when something happens that causes them to feel any "negative" feeling, or when they feel embarrassed because they feel caught or accused, their "negative" feelings trigger defensive rage.
Not unlike many very young children.

When they feel anything "negative", they look immediately for something external, outside of themselves, to blame. It can't be themselves, because that would mean they are not impermeable, and not perfect, and not "above" others. Even if no one knew they accepted responsibility for something "wrong", THEY would know, and they would have to pass it through their ego. Since they've made their ego into a solid shield, any responsibility they try to take for their own actions or feelings bounces off, it can't get in. It's a barrier against even themselves.

They can dismantle it from the inside, but they would need the "key", and in order for them to get the "key" they would first need to understand that they've turned their ego into a shield in the first place, and that would mean feeling like they did something "wrong". Conundrum. Irony.

Since that's been their protection for so long, they may not want to entertain the thought, at all, of dismantling it. Only they can do it, another person can't make them. It's their free will.

Their shield protects them from feeling real things, especially guilt, remorse, regret, loss, and shame, and fear.

In most cases, at some point in their lives, or several points, those feelings were associated with terrible humiliation, abandonment, terror, and/or physical abuse. Their young minds looked around for people who did not seem to receive consequences from other people, who appeared to live "above" the reproach of others, who were for some reason apparently on a higher rung among humans.

That's who they wanted to become, one of the people who didn't get humiliated or attacked, so they emulated them in every way possible, mimicked them as much as they could. They knew that if they BECAME one of those people, and then if they were ACCEPTED by those people, and especially if others FEARED them enough to believe that they were a "BOSS PERSON", they would never need to be afraid of those feelings again.

And they would get everything those people got: "Respect", admiration, positions of control and power over others, service from others, sympathy from others, praise and applause from others, "LOVE" from others (what they think is love).

Since a person with Narcissism did not learn how to make respectful, healthy, polite connections with others, how a relationship is built and what it's built WITH, they did not learn that demanding love or loyalty is a futile exercise and only serves to push people away.

Since a person with Narcissism did not learn that there is no such thing as "the better people" and "the lower people", just like there's no Easter Bunny, they cling to the fantasy that they are one of the "better people", and they constantly categorize and recategorize others to be in one group or the other, so their relationships are based on whether they've categorized a person in the "better people" group or the "lower people" group, and that can change from day to day. They don't know it's not a real thing (like the Easter Bunny).

A lot of children go through stages of what appears to be "Narcissism", but adults who end up with traits of the disorder did not mature past those stages for one reason or another. People can get "stuck" in childhood developmental stages for many reasons, most often from trauma of some kind.

Sometimes trauma doesn't look like trauma at all.

Your Point Of View

No matter how enlightened and wise one feels, or is, one can not escape the reality that all thoughts, feelings, and observations are limited and from only our own point of view. No matter how hard we try, how much we empathize, how objective, intelligent, or how psychic we are, we can not see the world through anyone else's eyes, hear with anyone else's ears, or feel with anyone else's heart. But that's fine, and a proper thing, because we have something wonderful called 'communication'. When we begin to listen to one another genuinely, we can then hear what they hear, see what they see, and feel what they feel, or at least as much as they tell us. That's the best we've got, and it's enough if it's used well.

Red Flag to Narcissistic Injury

A glaring, bright red, waving "flag" that a person has suffered a "Narcissistic Injury" is attacking another person with criticism about what they seem to be interested in or talking about.

"Is that all you ever do?"

"Is that all you ever talk about?"

"Why are you so fixated on that?"

"You seem to know way too much about that."

"Who are you trying to BE, anyway?"

"What are you trying to accomplish, anyway?"

"Don't you think you're a little obsessed?"

"It's all you ever talk about."

"You are obviously trying to work out deep-seated issues of your own or you wouldn't care so much about it."

"Why don't you just let it go?!"

Why is this a flag? 
Because people only react this way to things that make them uncomfortable.

A person who is a physicist is not given much flak about talking about physics often. Either other people like it, admire it, or they find it confusing or boring, but it's rare that they feel much emotional reaction about it.The only people that might actually try to demean or criticize a physicist in this way are the ones who would take the physicist's interest as a "personal affront", and who would that be? Possibly a person who abhors science, or who is envious and resentful of those they see as "smart". Maybe another physicist who envies the first physicist's ability. Maybe a family member who wants to spend more personal time with the physicist, but that's not really about the interest itself, it would be about the time spent in really relating and connecting.

In the same vein, a carpenter is not given much flak about focusing on their work, or talking about their job, or talking about their trade a lot. People will often initiate conversation about carpentry with them, and in fact might do that MORE than the carpenter would like.

A medical physician might spend the better part of every day talking about health and medicine, and no one seems to have any issue at all with it, except for maybe her husband who just wants to spend more time with her away from work.

A musician (a well-liked and socially accepted musician) could practically wear his instruments as clothing, make musical references to practically everything, tell "glory stories" at every opportunity, and people would say things about him in a positive, admiring way like "He's so into music" or "He lives and breathes music" or "He's such a cool guy" or "He sees everything through music".

***Depending on the regional prejudices and cultural illness, in many areas if a musician who happened to be female behaved in exactly the same way, with no variation, no drug use or any other "deviant" behavior, she would not receive admiration or encouragement, but quite the opposite; she might be treated as if she is obsessed and unstable, even mentally ill. 

So when people are COMFORTABLE with another person's focus of interest, even if the person seems obsessive about it, they will allow it, accept it, even encourage and praise them for it.
When they are UNCOMFORTABLE with another person's focus of interest, they will frequently imply that the person is "obsessed", "fixated", "messed up", anything negative they can think of to try to discredit and demean the person, thereby demeaning their focus of interest. If they get lucky, their hostile, childish bullying and dismissiveness might even convince the person to abandon their interest.

People who feel uncomfortable about another person's focus of study, work, and interest will often even initiate a conversation with them, trying to "trap" them into talking about their focus just so they can have an excuse to say something like "That's all you ever talk about!" The term "baiting" applies to this little set-up, and it is a bully tactic designed to humiliate and demean the person.

When a person is uncomfortable with another person's focus of interest, whether it's work, study, or a hobby, it's a direct reflection of their own FEELINGS.

The fact that they feel uncomfortable says ZERO about the reality of the other person or the interest.
Being uncomfortable with the fact that someone collects weapons feels pretty much the same as discomfort that a man is a daycare worker or a woman is an auto mechanic.

Feelings are not a reflection of the outside world, but a reflection of one's own inside world. So if I'm uncomfortable about my neighbor's apparent passion for ficus trees, that reflects ME, not my neighbor; what is my issue with Ficus trees? Do I only like it when certain races of people have Ficus trees, and my neighbor doesn't fit? Do I associate an interest in trees with only one sex, and my neighbor is the other? Do I have a negative association from childhood with Ficus trees? Do I have other control issues and believe that everyone on my street should have only the same plants and trees as I have? Maybe we should call a neighborhood conference and make a committee... I'll oversee it...

So what's the deal with people who try to "call a person out" on the motive and reasons behind their interest and focus? The deal is that it's much, much more about THEM and THEIR ISSUES than about the person they're trying to criticize. They must be feeling that the person's focus is a threat to them in some way, or they wouldn't even notice it, and even if they did, they wouldn't criticize it.

I can already hear the retorts... "But if my neighbor is collecting guns and bombs and weapons of mass destruction, then I have a right to be uncomfortable and upset!"
Well, of course you do! Just as much as I have a right to be upset about my neighbor's Ficus tree fixation (which is not a fixation, I just call it that to demean them, and it gets me a laugh at their expense...)

There is a very big difference between collecting weapons and being psychotic.

There is a very big difference between really liking Ficus trees, and being perversely obsessed with them, or carving them into weapons.

There is a very big difference between being a real teacher, and being a politically affiliated "right fighter" Narcissist who feels a very unhealthy ownership toward children, and a feeling of entitlement to special privilege because of one's job. A teacher without a job is just an out of work regular human being, just like everyone else; a genuine teacher educates from a place of humility and compassion, not from a high and mighty place of supremacy, entitlement, and judgment.

There is a very big difference between a person who is concerned for another's well-being, and a person who is trying to shut another person down because of their own discomfort, fear of change, fear of losing control over others, or fear of being exposed.





 

Examples Of Narcissistic Injury

To talk theoretically about a topic is all good, but seeing it in action can be the line that connects the dots between theory and understanding it in real life. This page is a collection of examples of Narcissistic Injury, from other's witness and from the author's experience. This list will grow over time to include more examples as they're reported, to shed more light for all of us.

(If something seems out of place, that's okay, no names are used here, and human error is always present where humans are present (although Narcissists would disagree!) so corrections are expected and embraced. 
Not disrespectful criticism or control behavior; actual suggestions for correction. 
Very different things.)

"Narcissistic Injury"
It's like feeling deeply insulted, humiliated, because someone didn't acknowledge a person's greatness, superiority, perfectness, fabulous-ness, saintliness, genius-ness, guru-ness, 'natural entitlement' to special treatment or authority.

Narcissistic Injury is about feeling that their CHARACTER has been questioned,
that their AUTHORITY has been rebelled against,
that their EXPERTISE has been ignored and dismissed,
that their MANLINESS or their WOMANLINESS has been insulted or challenged,
that their DESERVED SUPERIORITY has been violated,
that their ENTITLEMENT has been attacked,
that they are being SEEN AS JUST A REGULAR PERSON who's NOT ABOVE OTHERS.

It is IMPORTANT TO NOTE that most Narcissists BELIEVE, generally, that there REALLY ARE people who are superior to others, naturally.
They believe that there is a REAL hierarchy, based on innate supremacy and innate inferiority.
They SEE OTHERS, certain others, as being SUPERIOR, so therefore when they don't get to be one of those superior people, they feel like they're being cast out from that group, where the safety, warmth, love, recognition, and resources are.

 A few examples of Narcissistic Injury I have personally witnessed (or caused), or others have personally witnessed or caused:

While in a group of friends, one was doing tricks with his bicycle; he slipped on the curb and fell down; he was scraped but not injured, I chuckled sympathetically (as did others, just as when any of us goofed~), he threw his bicycle at me.

In an office setting, a female supervisor kept getting into a foul mood every time the good-looking male Fed-Ex delivery man showed up. I finally asked why she didn't like him, if he had done something wrong; she answered: "I don't know what you're talking about." The following day it happened again, and I overheard her (talking too loudly) to the manager about how one of the clerks always flirts so much with him, and how she thinks she's "all that". (For the record, I didn't witness any flirting, the clerk could be considered an "attractive woman", but she was just the person who was supposed to take deliveries.)

At a job site with my remodeling/carpentry contracting business, the homeowner had hired a local cabinet maker who was a friend of hers. When the homeowner introduced me as the contractor and remodeler, he actually laughed in my face, I thought "wow, issues?" But during the week, someone kept doing little things to sabotage my workspace; at one point someone had carefully stuck several razor blades into the cardboard of my boxes of screws, so if someone reached for them without looking they would get seriously injured.
(Narcissistic Injury: Apparently his identity as a "man" was insulted because a small female (with blond hair) was "being" a Contractor/carpenter, so he actually felt entitled to retaliate for this perceived "insult".)

I met a very famous music producer whom I didn't recognize, and carried on a conversation with. When he realized I didn't know who he was, he said something about my "ignorance" and stalked away.

When an acquaintance of mine attended a concert, she was quite angry and offended that the performer, whom she admired and "followed", did not come out to greet her.

When another acquaintance kept changing plans and telling me at the last minute, and refused to answer his phone when I tried to call about the schedule, I finally mentioned that I didn't like the practice and if he would please be more clear with scheduling; he flew into a rage that lasted for three days.

When I walked in on another person  trashing me to someone else, even though I said nothing at all (I wasn't surprised, I knew she did that) she flew into a rage that lasted for two days. She also revved up the trashing to anyone who would listen.

When I displayed surprise, anger, and hurt about a really outlandish, awful rumor about me that had been circulating apparently for over 20 years, not in person but in an email message; the person who told me about the rumor was offended and upset that I was upset...

When I stood up to a condescending, disrespectful manager at a local supply store where I was a regular Contractor customer. He tried to "retaliate" by demeaning me in the front of the store, loudly. (I called the main office, he was reprimanded, never condescended to me again, but I stopped buying from that store.)

One of the very worst experiences I've personally had with Narcissistic Injury was in the hospital, on the day that the Oncologist told my father that there were was no more time, that he was going to die from his illness and that was that.
First of all, the manner that my father was spoken to for months, not only by this oncologist but by other "health professionals" as well was astoundingly rude, vague, and demeaning; one general practitioner directly insulted his "fitness" when he went in with a hernia after a long round of "chemotherapy", telling him he should do crunches, and that his other patients were in much better shape. Another one made fun of his use of the word "Palpate", and then tweaked his cheek like he would a small child, put his arm around him and said in a shockingly condescending voice "Now, you just enjoy the time you have left."
But the most obvious, horrific Narcissistic Injury RAGE attack display occurred on that day when the Oncologist, with his team (posse) told my father that he was going to die. I had been encouraging my Dad to seek out alternatives, at least explore them, but he was not comfortable with that, so I didn't try to force it, I respected his decisions, of course. There were HIS decisions, HIS life, not mine. After the doctor informed him of the dire news, I asked him if he might want to speak to a certain research and care team in another state, and he agreed, saying it couldn't hurt at this point, and let's try. So, naively, I asked one of the interns on the Oncologist's team (posse) if he had any knowledge of this other place, thinking I was speaking to a fellow science person. His response was dismissive and rude, and he was obviously trying to get away from me. I persisted for just a moment, and he started DEFENDING his posse leader, the Oncologist... as if my inquiry about this other place was a direct and mean INSULT, and of course that was MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than my father's LIFE....  I walked away, obviously angry, and went back into my father's room; the intern followed me and started defending himself IN MY FATHER'S ROOM. After a few minutes, he must have caught himself, and slowed down, even apologized a little. Then he saw his posse leader in the hallway with the rest of the posse, and offered to go ask him if he'd ever heard of the place and if he knows anything... so, again, naively... I followed him into the hallway, expecting for some reason the Oncologist to behave like an adult, especially in light of the death sentence he just issued my father. But instead what I received was a RANT, insulting me and defending his expertise, in the middle of the hallway, in front of the nurse's station.
Tragically the very next day, this brilliant Oncologist administered very heavy chemotherapy to my father's weakened body, he refused to even speak about it. I did not have power of attorney so I couldn't stop it, and I think my father had given up, he didn't say anything. Immediately, his arm swelled up like a balloon, and he lost lucidity; they kept giving it to him for three days, in spite of that; he never returned to his healthy mental state and died two weeks later.

A woman decided to replace the back door on her house. She mentioned it to her husband the way anyone would mention a project to a friend; he immediately went to the store without her to buy a new door, and spent the next day putting it in (without her). (She didn't say anything, she was used to his compulsive and disrespectful behaviors.) When she went to paint it, he stood behind her, criticizing every move she made; how she prepared the door, how she opened the can, how she mixed the paint, what kind of brushes she was using, and how she applied the paint. 

The singer from a local band (A) was working at a job with another local singer (B). Every time a new person would come around, singer A would tell them all about her band and her wonderful voice, and would never mention singer B at all. One day singer A was in another room, and someone mentioned to singer B that she had a wonderful voice; singer A ran into the room and physically stepped between them, and started telling the person about her own band, her vast experience, and her singing voice.

Three couples at a restaurant for a social luncheon. Every time one of the women spoke, one of the other women would talk over her. It happened so much that she stopped talking. When she asked her husband what time it was, the woman next to him again immediately spoke to him, getting his attention away from his wife. When he realized what was going on, he turned toward his wife and away from the others, at which point the two women began throwing him compliments. They did it so much that their husbands couldn't help but notice; they started talking only to each other and whining about their wives. The only two people at the table not participating in the childish social games was the targeted couple, they got up and left, and the other two couples gossiped about them when they were gone. (When the two couples called them for another outing, they politely declined.)

An artist had a roommate (long time acquaintance) who liked to do crafts but was not serious with "fine art". The artist didn't know that the roommate envied him, so he did not think of protecting his artwork or his work space from the roommate. At the end of one particularly difficult project, the artist set up the work so that it would dry and "set", and left a note for the roommate so they would know why it was left out. When the artist got home from work, the artwork had been stacked together and put into a corner, completely ruined; the roommate told the artist "I had to clean up the mess".
On a later occasion, the artist had a sculpture in progress on a desk in a private room; when the artist came home one night, the roommate had laid clothing over the sculpture and destroyed it.

A man wanted to get his girlfriend a keepsake gift to show her he loved her, he picked out a charm bracelet that he thought was beautiful, and more importantly seemed to be something she would like. When he gave her the box, she shook it and laughed, "What the heck is this?" and then opened it and exclaimed "Seriously, what IS this?! Am I supposed to wear this in public?"

A woman was sitting on work break, eating her lunch; a coworker who found her attractive got around to asking her to get coffee. She didn't know it was supposed to be a "date", especially since the invitation was so informal. When the day came, she had to cancel because she had to give someone a ride to an appointment. At work the next day, the coworker refused to speak to her, and even behaved in a hostile way; she had no idea why.

A pair of parents gave their child advice about everything, all the time, about everything she did, from how she should wear her hair to what kind of pants look good on her, to which friends she should have, to what kind of car she should drive, what she should take in college, how to cut her food, how to tie her shoes better, what color nail polish she should wear, how she is sitting in her chair, how long she should sleep and what time she should get up in the morning, well into adulthood. They gave her advice, constantly, and criticism disguised as advice, but not actual assistance, and no recognition or credit for anything she did on her own.
Any advice she refused to follow was seen as outright rebellion, laziness, and ingratitude, and the parents told all of their family and friends about what a burden she was. 

Every time a wife tried to talk to her husband about their relationship, he would shut down, shut her out, yell at her, criticize her, leave, break up with her, or fly into a rage. He literally could not emotionally handle the implication that he was not perfect, and that he was responsible for half of the relationship, or that she was a "real person" who could walk away at any moment for any reason.

Popularity: Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

The less "popular" you are, the less you have to deal with others trying to suck you into their dynamics. In order to be successful in business, a person does not need to be popular socially, and in fact, social popularity can slow a person's business success down, unless the person's "business" is politics or corrupt practices, then social popularity is intrinsic to their "success". But that kind of social popularity is fake anyway, politicians and corrupt business people (cons) need to create a facade that people "like" so that they can get voter support and/or hide what they're doing, respectively. (Not implying that all politicians are corrupt, some are and some aren't, but they all need voter support to keep their jobs, either way.)

As far as musicians, actors, and artists go, having "social popularity" is what it looks like when they have a following, but it's not actually what it is. Liking a person's music, artwork, or sports performance is not the same thing as liking the PERSON, although many confuse the two. "Popularity" is essential to the career of an artist or musician because of how humans follow one another. When a band gets played on the radio, or promoted with posters in a store, or featured on a national talk show, the impression that others get is that lots of people ALREADY LIKE them, lots of people ALREADY KNOW about them. So then it's not only "okay" to like them too, but it's also en vogue. The current trend. I get to be one of the cool kids if I like that band too.

There are many people who don't pay attention to music at all (or go to a movie, or go to an art show, or follow sports) unless they see others doing it, listening to it, and liking it, so that zeitgeist of "popularity" is essential to getting people to want to pay for your song, your movie, your art show, or see you play live.
"If others don't seem to like you, then why should I take you seriously, plus I don't want to be the only one who likes you and risk getting seen as "weird". I want to be part of the "in crowd"
(which includes the "in crowd" who calls themselves freaks and outcasts. If they have a "crowd" at all, they're not outcasts, they just have their own clique that the other clique doesn't accept, and so on. Notice that they reject people who don't fit in with them just as quickly.).

Many popular musicians and artists, actors and writers, and sports stars as well, even politicians and CEO's avoid much genuine social contact with their "fans" (or employees), because of one very poignant reason: MANY humans will stop being a "fan" when they make a personal connection with the star they follow, because the "star" suddenly becomes "JUST" a regular human being to them, and that's not what they want; they want to follow a "higher" kind of person, not just some old dumb every day "Joe" or "Jane". (The awareness that there's no such thing as a "higher human" is often absent.)
Meet and Greets are not real social connections, they're Meet and Greets; the person is on their best behavior, and they almost always have a manager or friend nearby to help them out. When we "meet" someone at a a "Meet and Greet", we're not "getting to know them" as a person, and they aren't "getting to know" us. To expect or demand them to remember us, or like us, is unrealistic and dramatic on our part.

Having a clique following for an artist or musician is important for career survival in a dysfunctional environment; the more dysfunctional, the more important the clique thing is, because so many people are trying to find somewhere they fit in, where they can have the power to reject those who don't. And they will often use following musicians or artists for that purpose.
"WE" all get it, "WE" are of like minds, "THEY" don't get it, "THEY" aren't like "US".
(Works until someone says or does something that bruises someone's ego, then a new sub-clique gets formed; "WE" REALLY get it, "THEY" are poseurs. or "WE" are in touch with reality, "THEY" are in la-la land.)   ~ The ironic thing about fandom is that a very

If we actually have a large number of "friends", they had better be very healthy emotionally and mentally, because if they're not, then we are subjecting ourselves to direct connection with unhealthy behaviors and motives, which usually include some form of manipulation. (Human beings tend to go right to manipulation, domination, and/or hostility when we're emotionally or mentally compromised, not unlike other animals.)

The fewer actual "friends" we have who we're closely tied to, the less risk we are putting ourselves in. Humans tend to reject those who don't fit in with their own emotional wants and needs, who don't "rub them the right way", so the more people we are tied closely to, the more we might find ourselves trying to fit in with their social expectations and points of view, in order to avoid rejection. We can become internally focused, without being aware of it, on making sure we fit in with our social group, whether it's family or platonic, in order to avoid rejection. THEREFORE, we will do and NOT DO certain things that we would have done otherwise to build our career, or to follow our interests.

It is very common for people to sacrifice, hide, and bury large parts of themselves that are quite healthy and positive in order to fit in with one's social group or family, in order to avoid rejection or other consequences.

So the fewer people we are intimately connected with, the less we put ourselves at risk for falling prey to our own human tendencies. We don't have to shut out the world, not at all; we just need to be aware of who we are connecting closely with, and aware of their  emotions, reactions, and behaviors, and doubly aware of our own. Are we doing what we want and need to do to, or are we doing more things that are really about making sure others like us and accept us in our social group?

"Real" friends (or family or partners) who are emotionally and mentally healthy would WANT us to meet our personal goals in life and career, whether it's getting a minimum wage job, attending community college, learning to play guitar, writing a book, going to Oxford, becoming a doctor, publishing a hit song, buying another car, or going sailing. They would be supportive of us, not trying to delay us, or trying to make us feel bad, shameful, or guilty, not trying to make us feel like we're doing something beyond our ability, or just to get attention. These kind of social connections are generally hard to come by. So, it is in our own best interest, and the best interest of our children, that we choose our close social connections carefully.