Thanks to Ann Althouse for pointing to this video, haven't laughed that hard in several story times~
I AM YOUR FATHER... OR MOTHER... Whichever the case may be...
Hit "Play" first, and then read the article below ~you'll understand.
(Darth Vader)
Nearly every person on the planet has been metaphorically implanted with a little switch in the back of the head that, when flicked or pushed, causes us to feel less like a confident adult who is quite worthy and mentally sound and more like a child, and an inept, socially awkward child to boot.
Nearly all of us have it because most of us were pretty normal kids for most of our youths.That switch was installed by the bigger people around us who had the authority to tell us what to do, and punish us when we did something out of line.
Some humans learn about that switch from a Big Person's perspective, and learn how to flick it at will, or at least try to, so they can use it against us. They use it for all kinds of things.
If I want to create the image of authority around myself, but don't necessarily have the brain power, discipline, or knowledge it takes, I can instead use that switch. Instead of actually being experienced or well-studied, I can just ACT like I am, and treat others like they're NOT.
By cranking up the contrast between myself and others, and pressing on their subconscious, I can create this image pretty quickly. This created image will be MUCH more effective at making people see me as highly intelligent and experienced than the impression I would make from actually being intelligent and experienced, because it plays on people emotions and memories, not on the reality of myself.
All I have to do is throw out a few social signals, subtle ones work best, and walk away.
These social signals can be in person, or from a distance, in direct interaction or seen from afar in media. They can be in the form of appearance, like the way I comb my hair, the jewelry I wear, and the clothing I choose. They can be a facial expression, a vocal tone, the words I use, and body language, Behaviors such as refusing to make eye contact and refusing to acknowledge another person's presence, words, or meaning are very effective. Silent treatments, cold shoulders. puffing up, and condescension; all ways of hitting that switch and building the facade. Another currently popular practice that seems to work is personally insulting other people and/or things, continually making criticisms and complaints about everything and anything (look at that stupid car... look at that ugly dress... look at that hair...what a dumb song...), but since it's been taken way too far so many times it has become generally less effective.
Many who are in the "public eye" use this as a way of convincing the public that they do indeed know MORE than the rest of the population, and therefore should keep their very lucrative jobs because no one else can fill their shoes. From politicians to journalists to radio DJ's, this is a common practice; giving YOU signals that you are (or someone else is) an ignorant idiot, and THEY are the authority on everything; their opinion is as close to "fact" as possible... ("Yes, that's right ~ the ocean is 3.5 % saline, dogs are descendants of wolves, the tax rate in Brooklyn is 18.569% if you're Class 1, and Superman CAN, indeed, beat up Batman. And Jimi Hendrix is the best guitar player, not Jimmy Page... I was right about the other stuff, therefore I'm right about everything I say...")
Simply the act of having a "stern face" or a "stern demeanor" can flick the switch in most humans, it looks a lot like the way Mom or Dad, or the teacher, or the coach looked when they were about to deliver some discipline. Doesn't it...?
What is an actor, a comedian, a blogger, a lawyer, or a radio show host doing with a permanently stern demeanor? What is it that they're so serious about, all the time? Why are they standing, acting, and talking to people like a Mom or Dad, or Officer Flynn, or the elementary school Principal, or an evil Emperor or Queen?
Why? Because, it works.
They behave that way, giving signals to our subconscious, and we humans just believe that they know more than someone else does. If Stephen Hawking, Jane Goodall, and one of these "Image Maker" people were in a room together, talking to us, we would most likely assume that the "Image Maker" person is the "Leader", and the most intelligent person in the group. We would most likely ignore Mr. Hawking and Ms. Goodall, and LISTEN to the "Image Maker", just because they are giving "I AM AN AUTHORITY" signals and the others are not. We don't do fact checking, we don't get to know people first, we just assume that they are an "authority", or intelligent, or NOT, based on the signals they give us.
So that means the most intelligent person on the planet will not be seen as an authority on anything, unless they have some kind of documentation to prove it or someone else in authority saying so, and may even be treated as if they are quite stupid, just because they are not giving "I Am An Authority" signals. And walking right next to them, one of the most obnoxious, self-centered, non-thinking, arrogant wankers on the planet is getting all kinds of attention and followers because he or she knows how to do ONE THING: give "I Am An Authority" signals. And because nearly all of us have that little metaphorical switch, we say "yes yes that person knows what they're talking about... you should listen to them, like we do..."
Of course that is NOT to say that all humans who have been credited with having a clue about something, or being good at something, doesn't deserve it. It's simply that we humans will and do, quite often, FOLLOW one person who does NOT have a clue, and IGNORE another person who DOES, just because of the signals they give or don't give.
Some other people find the humor in this phenomenon too~:)
Nearly every person on the planet has been metaphorically implanted with a little switch in the back of the head that, when flicked or pushed, causes us to feel less like a confident adult who is quite worthy and mentally sound and more like a child, and an inept, socially awkward child to boot.
Nearly all of us have it because most of us were pretty normal kids for most of our youths.That switch was installed by the bigger people around us who had the authority to tell us what to do, and punish us when we did something out of line.
Some humans learn about that switch from a Big Person's perspective, and learn how to flick it at will, or at least try to, so they can use it against us. They use it for all kinds of things.
If I want to create the image of authority around myself, but don't necessarily have the brain power, discipline, or knowledge it takes, I can instead use that switch. Instead of actually being experienced or well-studied, I can just ACT like I am, and treat others like they're NOT.
By cranking up the contrast between myself and others, and pressing on their subconscious, I can create this image pretty quickly. This created image will be MUCH more effective at making people see me as highly intelligent and experienced than the impression I would make from actually being intelligent and experienced, because it plays on people emotions and memories, not on the reality of myself.
All I have to do is throw out a few social signals, subtle ones work best, and walk away.
These social signals can be in person, or from a distance, in direct interaction or seen from afar in media. They can be in the form of appearance, like the way I comb my hair, the jewelry I wear, and the clothing I choose. They can be a facial expression, a vocal tone, the words I use, and body language, Behaviors such as refusing to make eye contact and refusing to acknowledge another person's presence, words, or meaning are very effective. Silent treatments, cold shoulders. puffing up, and condescension; all ways of hitting that switch and building the facade. Another currently popular practice that seems to work is personally insulting other people and/or things, continually making criticisms and complaints about everything and anything (look at that stupid car... look at that ugly dress... look at that hair...what a dumb song...), but since it's been taken way too far so many times it has become generally less effective.
Many who are in the "public eye" use this as a way of convincing the public that they do indeed know MORE than the rest of the population, and therefore should keep their very lucrative jobs because no one else can fill their shoes. From politicians to journalists to radio DJ's, this is a common practice; giving YOU signals that you are (or someone else is) an ignorant idiot, and THEY are the authority on everything; their opinion is as close to "fact" as possible... ("Yes, that's right ~ the ocean is 3.5 % saline, dogs are descendants of wolves, the tax rate in Brooklyn is 18.569% if you're Class 1, and Superman CAN, indeed, beat up Batman. And Jimi Hendrix is the best guitar player, not Jimmy Page... I was right about the other stuff, therefore I'm right about everything I say...")
Simply the act of having a "stern face" or a "stern demeanor" can flick the switch in most humans, it looks a lot like the way Mom or Dad, or the teacher, or the coach looked when they were about to deliver some discipline. Doesn't it...?
What is an actor, a comedian, a blogger, a lawyer, or a radio show host doing with a permanently stern demeanor? What is it that they're so serious about, all the time? Why are they standing, acting, and talking to people like a Mom or Dad, or Officer Flynn, or the elementary school Principal, or an evil Emperor or Queen?
Why? Because, it works.
They behave that way, giving signals to our subconscious, and we humans just believe that they know more than someone else does. If Stephen Hawking, Jane Goodall, and one of these "Image Maker" people were in a room together, talking to us, we would most likely assume that the "Image Maker" person is the "Leader", and the most intelligent person in the group. We would most likely ignore Mr. Hawking and Ms. Goodall, and LISTEN to the "Image Maker", just because they are giving "I AM AN AUTHORITY" signals and the others are not. We don't do fact checking, we don't get to know people first, we just assume that they are an "authority", or intelligent, or NOT, based on the signals they give us.
So that means the most intelligent person on the planet will not be seen as an authority on anything, unless they have some kind of documentation to prove it or someone else in authority saying so, and may even be treated as if they are quite stupid, just because they are not giving "I Am An Authority" signals. And walking right next to them, one of the most obnoxious, self-centered, non-thinking, arrogant wankers on the planet is getting all kinds of attention and followers because he or she knows how to do ONE THING: give "I Am An Authority" signals. And because nearly all of us have that little metaphorical switch, we say "yes yes that person knows what they're talking about... you should listen to them, like we do..."
Of course that is NOT to say that all humans who have been credited with having a clue about something, or being good at something, doesn't deserve it. It's simply that we humans will and do, quite often, FOLLOW one person who does NOT have a clue, and IGNORE another person who DOES, just because of the signals they give or don't give.
Some other people find the humor in this phenomenon too~:)
Which Point Of View
In any society and region, it is common for one race or sex to be seen as "more powerful", or literally to have more power, due to the usual human control desires in the species. Whichever race or sex has acquired more power in a given region is who's in control, and that's what seems NORMAL to the entire society.
(OBVIOUSLY, the race or sex that holds more power changes from region to region. In many regions, controllers oppress their OWN race or sex. This article uses skin color as a demonstration only, not to represent any specific people, region, or era.)
It's "normal", for example, in a region where the race who has more power is dark-skinned, for dark-skinned people to hold most of the government positions, and for dark-skinned people to dominate the business and educational environment, and make most of the budgeting decisions.
They will CONTINUE to hold these positions because of one simple fact: when one human group acquires power, anyone who can identify themselves as a member of that group will usually claim entitlement to that power.
(If light-skinned people had acquired the power in that region, the roles would be reversed. If polka-dotted people acquired the power in that region, then they would be in the "power" position over everyone else. Physical traits including race and sex are the most common identity factors in human power entitlement belief.)
This means that nearly all of the dark-skinned people in that region will feel completely normal and fine with this feeling of entitlement, and won't think twice about the light-skinned people NOT having the same power. Most of the dark-skinned people will feel like getting any job is NORMAL, and if a person is not getting hired they will say that it's because they're not trying hard enough, they're not smart enough, or they don't have what it takes. They don't seem to be able to grasp that they are being given favoritism by the other dark-skinned people who are in the positions of doing the hiring.
Further, and strangely, the light-skinned people will also be "normalized" to dark-skin people having more power, and tend to have BIAS TOWARD dark-skinned people. Because they grew up in this environment, they subconsciously believe the bias to reflect the NATURAL world. So, hiring a dark-skinned person feels like "common sense" to them, especially since everyone else seems to agree. Their doctor is probably dark-skinned, their lawyer, their government representative. They probably would rather hire a dark-skinned person to fix their home and their car. They were raised to see dark-skinned people as having a natural ability to get things done, and light-skinned people to only be able to do certain things. So, they will not believe that another light-skinned person is really that intelligent or that capable, and they will commonly DEFER to a dark-skinned person for just about anything.
In this region, those who are actually more emotionally reactive are the dark-skinned people, because they are more used to getting what they want, and to people listening when they speak. When they don't get what they want easily, or when they feel ignored or insulted, dark-skinned individuals are much more likely to react emotionally and with anger or rage than light-skinned individuals, who are acclimated to more obstacles, or being blocked from getting what they want or need by others, and not being listened to when they speak.
Both dark and light-skinned people in a dark-skinned-biased region will raise their children with the same bias, more or less, and will usually "shush" them if they ask any questions about the disparity, or explain it away. When a light-skinned person has a dark-skinned child, they will commonly invest much more of everything into that child than the other children. When the local school system has obvious bias for the dark-skinned children than the light-skinned children, with more budgeting, more classroom interaction, and more encouragement and attention being given, it is not questioned by either dark or light-skinned parents. The dark-skinned parents of course WANT the bias, and the light-skinned parents are either extremely "normalized" or afraid to speak up about it for fear of rejection or retaliation.
No one thinks much at all about how their children are being taught the same bias, whether they're dark or light-skinned. The negative impact this makes on all of the children is not studied but ignored, because those who have the power want to keep it, and those who don't are either so acclimated that they believe the power imbalance to be natural, or they don't want to draw negative attention from retaliators for themselves and their children.
In the newspaper and on TV in this region, much more coverage is given to dark-skinned people than light-skinned people, and that includes children and groups. Much more positive language is used when referencing dark-skinned people than light-skinned by most journalists. It is more common for journalists and others to use an excited and enthusiastic TONE when referencing dark-skinned people; both because of their own bias, and because they want to be LIKED and remembered by dark-skinned people.
When someone points out this disparity, they are shouted down. When a dark-skinned person points it out, they are called names in an attempt to humiliate them into silence. When a light-skinned person points it out, they are attacked by both dark and light-skinned people, and called names that reflect blatant contempt and hatred.
In this region, dark-skinned people seem to constantly make demeaning jokes and cruel references about light-skinned people, not only with one another, but in public as well. If anyone points out this practice they are immediately dismissed as "oversensitive" and "hyper reactive"... by BOTH dark and light-skinned people. However! When light-skinned people make any kind of similar demeaning reference about dark-skinned people, they receive huge backlash about how "cruel", "crazy", and "controlling" they are... and that's from both dark and light-skinned people.
The ONLY reason this entire disparity and power imbalance has taken place is because a group of dark-skinned people amassed wealth and weapons a long time ago, and appointed themselves the ones in control of the region. Not ALL dark-skinned people actually have "power" in this area, but they don't fight against the disparity because they MIGHT get power some day, since they ARE dark-skinned, they feel it to be their "birth right". They don't defend their light-skinned coworkers, relatives, or neighbors when they are not treated with fairness or respect, because they kind of WANT things to stay the way they are.
Many want things to stay the way they are because they're afraid of the light-skinned people gaining power; will they retaliate if they gain power? Will they oppress the dark-skinned people? Will they take over?
Many light-skinned people want things to stay the way they are because one of their children is dark-skinned, and they feel that this child brings them power as a parent. They may also not actually want the responsibility that power brings, or they may not want the negative consequences. Some may not want other light-skinned people to achieve much, because it will injure their own ego; they like to think of light-skinned people as a "WE", and "WE can't do this thing or that thing, WE'RE not naturally good at it, WE aren't as clever or as strong as dark-skinned people." So they disparage and help oppress other light-skinned people, even their own family members.
Apply this to any region at all by just changing the groups to what they actually are in that area, it could be race, it could be ancestry within a race, it could be religion or anti-religion, it could be wealth or lack of wealth; it could be sex/gender. It may be more than one of these.
Whichever group believes they are most entitled to power over others in a given region is the group that fights to get and to keep power. And then, whatever group has acquired power is what everyone in the region gets conditioned and acclimated to. No human group has more "natural intelligence" than any other human group, no race and neither sex, and yet the vast majority of societies are controlled by only one group. The only common denominator in all of these regions is the desire for power over others.
A region where there is no power imbalance between groups SHOWS IT, and individuals have no qualms in talking about the subject, there is very little conflict about it, it's a conceptual topic that can be discussed any time without dramatic reactions, defensiveness, or refusal to talk about it, on anyone's part. Regions where there is great power imbalance show it as well, and many or most individuals show a dramatic aversion to talking about it.
M.M.Black
(OBVIOUSLY, the race or sex that holds more power changes from region to region. In many regions, controllers oppress their OWN race or sex. This article uses skin color as a demonstration only, not to represent any specific people, region, or era.)
It's "normal", for example, in a region where the race who has more power is dark-skinned, for dark-skinned people to hold most of the government positions, and for dark-skinned people to dominate the business and educational environment, and make most of the budgeting decisions.
They will CONTINUE to hold these positions because of one simple fact: when one human group acquires power, anyone who can identify themselves as a member of that group will usually claim entitlement to that power.
(If light-skinned people had acquired the power in that region, the roles would be reversed. If polka-dotted people acquired the power in that region, then they would be in the "power" position over everyone else. Physical traits including race and sex are the most common identity factors in human power entitlement belief.)
This means that nearly all of the dark-skinned people in that region will feel completely normal and fine with this feeling of entitlement, and won't think twice about the light-skinned people NOT having the same power. Most of the dark-skinned people will feel like getting any job is NORMAL, and if a person is not getting hired they will say that it's because they're not trying hard enough, they're not smart enough, or they don't have what it takes. They don't seem to be able to grasp that they are being given favoritism by the other dark-skinned people who are in the positions of doing the hiring.
Further, and strangely, the light-skinned people will also be "normalized" to dark-skin people having more power, and tend to have BIAS TOWARD dark-skinned people. Because they grew up in this environment, they subconsciously believe the bias to reflect the NATURAL world. So, hiring a dark-skinned person feels like "common sense" to them, especially since everyone else seems to agree. Their doctor is probably dark-skinned, their lawyer, their government representative. They probably would rather hire a dark-skinned person to fix their home and their car. They were raised to see dark-skinned people as having a natural ability to get things done, and light-skinned people to only be able to do certain things. So, they will not believe that another light-skinned person is really that intelligent or that capable, and they will commonly DEFER to a dark-skinned person for just about anything.
In this region, those who are actually more emotionally reactive are the dark-skinned people, because they are more used to getting what they want, and to people listening when they speak. When they don't get what they want easily, or when they feel ignored or insulted, dark-skinned individuals are much more likely to react emotionally and with anger or rage than light-skinned individuals, who are acclimated to more obstacles, or being blocked from getting what they want or need by others, and not being listened to when they speak.
Both dark and light-skinned people in a dark-skinned-biased region will raise their children with the same bias, more or less, and will usually "shush" them if they ask any questions about the disparity, or explain it away. When a light-skinned person has a dark-skinned child, they will commonly invest much more of everything into that child than the other children. When the local school system has obvious bias for the dark-skinned children than the light-skinned children, with more budgeting, more classroom interaction, and more encouragement and attention being given, it is not questioned by either dark or light-skinned parents. The dark-skinned parents of course WANT the bias, and the light-skinned parents are either extremely "normalized" or afraid to speak up about it for fear of rejection or retaliation.
No one thinks much at all about how their children are being taught the same bias, whether they're dark or light-skinned. The negative impact this makes on all of the children is not studied but ignored, because those who have the power want to keep it, and those who don't are either so acclimated that they believe the power imbalance to be natural, or they don't want to draw negative attention from retaliators for themselves and their children.
In the newspaper and on TV in this region, much more coverage is given to dark-skinned people than light-skinned people, and that includes children and groups. Much more positive language is used when referencing dark-skinned people than light-skinned by most journalists. It is more common for journalists and others to use an excited and enthusiastic TONE when referencing dark-skinned people; both because of their own bias, and because they want to be LIKED and remembered by dark-skinned people.
When someone points out this disparity, they are shouted down. When a dark-skinned person points it out, they are called names in an attempt to humiliate them into silence. When a light-skinned person points it out, they are attacked by both dark and light-skinned people, and called names that reflect blatant contempt and hatred.
In this region, dark-skinned people seem to constantly make demeaning jokes and cruel references about light-skinned people, not only with one another, but in public as well. If anyone points out this practice they are immediately dismissed as "oversensitive" and "hyper reactive"... by BOTH dark and light-skinned people. However! When light-skinned people make any kind of similar demeaning reference about dark-skinned people, they receive huge backlash about how "cruel", "crazy", and "controlling" they are... and that's from both dark and light-skinned people.
The ONLY reason this entire disparity and power imbalance has taken place is because a group of dark-skinned people amassed wealth and weapons a long time ago, and appointed themselves the ones in control of the region. Not ALL dark-skinned people actually have "power" in this area, but they don't fight against the disparity because they MIGHT get power some day, since they ARE dark-skinned, they feel it to be their "birth right". They don't defend their light-skinned coworkers, relatives, or neighbors when they are not treated with fairness or respect, because they kind of WANT things to stay the way they are.
Many want things to stay the way they are because they're afraid of the light-skinned people gaining power; will they retaliate if they gain power? Will they oppress the dark-skinned people? Will they take over?
Many light-skinned people want things to stay the way they are because one of their children is dark-skinned, and they feel that this child brings them power as a parent. They may also not actually want the responsibility that power brings, or they may not want the negative consequences. Some may not want other light-skinned people to achieve much, because it will injure their own ego; they like to think of light-skinned people as a "WE", and "WE can't do this thing or that thing, WE'RE not naturally good at it, WE aren't as clever or as strong as dark-skinned people." So they disparage and help oppress other light-skinned people, even their own family members.
Apply this to any region at all by just changing the groups to what they actually are in that area, it could be race, it could be ancestry within a race, it could be religion or anti-religion, it could be wealth or lack of wealth; it could be sex/gender. It may be more than one of these.
Whichever group believes they are most entitled to power over others in a given region is the group that fights to get and to keep power. And then, whatever group has acquired power is what everyone in the region gets conditioned and acclimated to. No human group has more "natural intelligence" than any other human group, no race and neither sex, and yet the vast majority of societies are controlled by only one group. The only common denominator in all of these regions is the desire for power over others.
A region where there is no power imbalance between groups SHOWS IT, and individuals have no qualms in talking about the subject, there is very little conflict about it, it's a conceptual topic that can be discussed any time without dramatic reactions, defensiveness, or refusal to talk about it, on anyone's part. Regions where there is great power imbalance show it as well, and many or most individuals show a dramatic aversion to talking about it.
M.M.Black
Love
Love is 'inclusive'. Love protects, defends, shelters and cares. Love believes the best, love prefers you. Love never gives up on you, doesn't interrupt you, love listens to you and hears you.
Abuse is 'exclusive'. It fails to protect and defend you. Abuse pretends to care, but doesn't. Abuse does not believe the best in you, but rather, brings out the worst in you. Abuse talks over the top of ...you and doesn't ever really 'hear' you.
Abuse will make sure you are excluded and left out if you don't behave how it wants you to. Abuse is fearful and insecure, threatened by your presence. Abuse maintains a sense of perceived power, by deciding who is worthy to be inside the 'inner circle' and who will be kept out. Abuse withholds information and keeps secrets.
Love is inclusive, and doesn't leave others out, everybody's welcome. Love is secure and firm, love is not afraid. Love celebrates others, (not seeing one as better than another), but enjoying diversity and uniqueness in all people. Love will maintain a sense of privacy as a boundary, but doesn't use secrecy as a weapon.
Abuse will keep you stunted, but Love will cause you to flourish.
CHOOSE LOVE !
~S.E. Castelli
http://simonecastelli.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/around-and-around-and-around-we-go-punishment-and-reward/
Expectations In Relationships; Good Woman, Good Man
Many
people grow up expecting any romantic relationship they have to look a
certain way, and when the person they choose to be with ends up not
filling that expectation, they treat them like they're doing something
bad and wrong. So a woman who has preconceived expectations of what her
boyfriend or husband is "supposed" to be like may fight with, belittle,
and try to shame him for not fulfilling t...he character role in her head.
Classic examples of this in Western culture include a man who does not fix things around the house, or only knows how to fix certain things, a man who's not into the Sports culture, a man who likes to clean or cook, a man who does not make a lot of money, a man who is kind to others outside of the relationship, a man who doesn't try to act "tough" or "run with" other males, or a man who is not obsessed with sex, violence, alcohol, or random rebellion behavior.
A man who has preconceived expectations of what his girlfriend or wife is "supposed" to be like will do the same thing, treating a person as if they're "bad" or "wrong" when they don't fill the character role they hold in their head. Classic examples of this in Western culture are often a woman who doesn't make cooking and cleaning her first priority, a woman who repairs and builds things, a woman who enjoys activities outside the home, a woman who does not defer to other's opinions but treats others as equal persons, a woman who speaks, laughs, and behaves with the same confidence as the men around them. Both men and women who create these roles for others in their minds also often have the way the other person is supposed to look in there as well; their character role they have pictured in their minds is usually pretty fleshed out. Their clothes and their hair is "supposed" to look a certain way, if it doesn't, they're not being a "good person".
Even if there is more than one "version" of the appearance, there will still be obvious similarities between the versions. (For instance a thin Irish woman or a very thin Nigerian woman; the requirement is still "thin". A tall Polish man or a tall Indian man, the requirement is still "tall".)
Those who have preconceived expectations for other people will judge them by how close they match to this character role. They won't be interested in getting to know the person and therefore can not have a genuine relationship with the person. When the person fulfills the role, they are approved of; when they don't because of perfectly normal or even GOOD things, they will be rejected and discarded.
This same character role issue can be seen in other relationships as well, including parents and children (both ways), other family members, friendships, employees, communities, pretty much anything that involves humans. It can be seen on a global scale with citizens of governments (political leaders, presidents and dictators who have this character role issue), religions, and other organizations.
Those with "character role expectations" of others don't care much about another's personhood, their real talents, strengths, or experiences, they have already created their "profile" FOR them. No matter how "good" the other person actually is, no matter what they actually do, they will be judged only on how close they come to filling the role of the character they have been cast in by the other person.
Classic examples of this in Western culture include a man who does not fix things around the house, or only knows how to fix certain things, a man who's not into the Sports culture, a man who likes to clean or cook, a man who does not make a lot of money, a man who is kind to others outside of the relationship, a man who doesn't try to act "tough" or "run with" other males, or a man who is not obsessed with sex, violence, alcohol, or random rebellion behavior.
A man who has preconceived expectations of what his girlfriend or wife is "supposed" to be like will do the same thing, treating a person as if they're "bad" or "wrong" when they don't fill the character role they hold in their head. Classic examples of this in Western culture are often a woman who doesn't make cooking and cleaning her first priority, a woman who repairs and builds things, a woman who enjoys activities outside the home, a woman who does not defer to other's opinions but treats others as equal persons, a woman who speaks, laughs, and behaves with the same confidence as the men around them. Both men and women who create these roles for others in their minds also often have the way the other person is supposed to look in there as well; their character role they have pictured in their minds is usually pretty fleshed out. Their clothes and their hair is "supposed" to look a certain way, if it doesn't, they're not being a "good person".
Even if there is more than one "version" of the appearance, there will still be obvious similarities between the versions. (For instance a thin Irish woman or a very thin Nigerian woman; the requirement is still "thin". A tall Polish man or a tall Indian man, the requirement is still "tall".)
Those who have preconceived expectations for other people will judge them by how close they match to this character role. They won't be interested in getting to know the person and therefore can not have a genuine relationship with the person. When the person fulfills the role, they are approved of; when they don't because of perfectly normal or even GOOD things, they will be rejected and discarded.
This same character role issue can be seen in other relationships as well, including parents and children (both ways), other family members, friendships, employees, communities, pretty much anything that involves humans. It can be seen on a global scale with citizens of governments (political leaders, presidents and dictators who have this character role issue), religions, and other organizations.
Those with "character role expectations" of others don't care much about another's personhood, their real talents, strengths, or experiences, they have already created their "profile" FOR them. No matter how "good" the other person actually is, no matter what they actually do, they will be judged only on how close they come to filling the role of the character they have been cast in by the other person.
Camaraderie With The Opposite Sex
People
who think of the opposite sex as "other", and only think of members of
their own sex as "camarades" can have a harder time with romantic
relationships, and human relations in general. Some who don't have much
experience with real friendship with the opposite sex due to however
they happened to grow up may not realize that they have more
similarities than differences, and that they're human ...beings
with the same vast array of emotions, perspectives, experiences,
aspirations, strengths and weaknesses, fears and intelligences as their
own sex. One may have this perspective from just an absence of peer
friendship and regularly shared activities with the opposite sex. They
may have had a sister or brother, but were raised to think of one
another as very different "species" due to their parents' cultural
issues. They may have not had an opposite sex sibling, and the adults in
the area inside or outside of the home may have separated girls and boys purposely, creating groups,
teams, and clubs that excluded the other sex. (And taught that this is required and try to justify it with all kinds of rationalizing, but have never actually tried anything different.) Many adults even actively
"teach" children skewed perceptions about the opposite sex, and convey
that ethics and integrity don't apply in the same way to "them" as it
does to "our kind".
One is not going to have a healthy, respectful, reliable, supportive and fun relationship with a person who thinks of them as "Other", as "not my kind".
One is not going to have a healthy, respectful, reliable, supportive and fun relationship with a person who thinks of them as "Other", as "not my kind".
Can Straight Men Identify WIth Female Protagonists?
Found this fascinating, I'm sure you will too, click here:
Straight men: Can you think of a female protagonist you identified with?
Straight men: Can you think of a female protagonist you identified with?
Do Break
Let us grow out of our desire to be
the one who knows more,
the one who feels more,
the one who has experienced the most.
Let us grow past our craving to be
the one who is cared for more than the other,
the one who is elevated more than the other.
the one who is given more understanding
and compassion than the other.
Let us grow beyond our need
to be seen as long suffering
to be known as persecuted
to be thought of as more deserving.
Let us grow stronger than our fervor
for status
for wealth
for comfort
for notoriety
Let us break out of our own heavy, coarse shells
so that we may see from above ourselves,
and all of our earthly counterparts,
and take in the unfettered, wild glory
that is the human spirit.
M.M.Black
the one who knows more,
the one who feels more,
the one who has experienced the most.
Let us grow past our craving to be
the one who is cared for more than the other,
the one who is elevated more than the other.
the one who is given more understanding
and compassion than the other.
Let us grow beyond our need
to be seen as long suffering
to be known as persecuted
to be thought of as more deserving.
Let us grow stronger than our fervor
for status
for wealth
for comfort
for notoriety
Let us break out of our own heavy, coarse shells
so that we may see from above ourselves,
and all of our earthly counterparts,
and take in the unfettered, wild glory
that is the human spirit.
M.M.Black
Disagreement Vs. Attack
Easily turning on others who they disagree with or who disagree with them, who intimidate them, or who inadvertently scratch their pride is a common behavior seen in those with BPD, NPD, and other disorders that have hyper-defensiveness as a trait. Trauma, or prolonged trauma, can bring this on, PTSD sufferers may feel unsafe around those who don't seem to be an ally, even if the person is actually neutral or well-meaning. This is not their "fault", it's an effect that can heal when the person is surrounded with consistent allies over time who don't retraumatize them and invalidate them.
People are either "on my side" or "not on my side", either "for me" or "against me". There is little or no middle ground, no room for negotiation or tolerance for other points of view. "Not agreeing with me means they are putting me down and attacking me."
A person who has a different perspective or who disagrees can express themselves politely, with the other person's well-being in mind. A person who gets off the topic and insults and attacks the other person is not disagreeing, they are insulting and attacking.
The confusion between the two (disagreeing vs. personal insult or attack) seems to be the crux of the heightened emotional reaction and hostility.
Disagreement is a civil, polite exchange regarding points of view about a topic that don't seem to match, there is nothing personal or hostile about it until one person makes it that way by focusing on the other person (you're dumb for thinking this, you're crazy, you're unstable, you aren't a good writer, you think I'm dumb because you don't agree with me, you don't care about me/you're stupid if you don't abandon your point of view for mine) instead of the topic. A polite disagreement also listens to the other person, and looks at the subject as much as they are able from the other person's point of view, and then discusses the differences in the points of view.
In many, even most, polite disagreements, after seeing the subject from the other person's viewpoint, both participants often change their original point of view and incorporate some points from the other that they didn't see before. This civil and interesting information exchange is how civilization and progress is made, and positive connections are formed and maintained.
Insulting is a bully tactic, used by the person who turns the discussion into a competition for domination instead of a pleasant exchange of information.
Some people are so used to using discussion and debate as a sparring challenge instead of information exchange that they don't realize that not everyone does that.
People are either "on my side" or "not on my side", either "for me" or "against me". There is little or no middle ground, no room for negotiation or tolerance for other points of view. "Not agreeing with me means they are putting me down and attacking me."
A person who has a different perspective or who disagrees can express themselves politely, with the other person's well-being in mind. A person who gets off the topic and insults and attacks the other person is not disagreeing, they are insulting and attacking.
The confusion between the two (disagreeing vs. personal insult or attack) seems to be the crux of the heightened emotional reaction and hostility.
Disagreement is a civil, polite exchange regarding points of view about a topic that don't seem to match, there is nothing personal or hostile about it until one person makes it that way by focusing on the other person (you're dumb for thinking this, you're crazy, you're unstable, you aren't a good writer, you think I'm dumb because you don't agree with me, you don't care about me/you're stupid if you don't abandon your point of view for mine) instead of the topic. A polite disagreement also listens to the other person, and looks at the subject as much as they are able from the other person's point of view, and then discusses the differences in the points of view.
In many, even most, polite disagreements, after seeing the subject from the other person's viewpoint, both participants often change their original point of view and incorporate some points from the other that they didn't see before. This civil and interesting information exchange is how civilization and progress is made, and positive connections are formed and maintained.
Insulting is a bully tactic, used by the person who turns the discussion into a competition for domination instead of a pleasant exchange of information.
Some people are so used to using discussion and debate as a sparring challenge instead of information exchange that they don't realize that not everyone does that.
Accurate Feedback Is Essential For Mental Health
Feedback from others is essential to human mental and emotional health.
You say "How's the weather?" I say "It's sunny." I am acknowledging that you spoke. I am acknowledging that I heard you speak. And I am acknowledging WHAT you said, and that you communicated clearly, and said something normal and acceptable, not weird or disjointed, or inappropriate.
My answer is genuine, it's actually sunny, and my answer is not colored with any kind of drama.
This is good for both of our brains. With those two short sentences, we measured and weighed our own mental processing, our ability to gather information, to exchange information, and to ask for, give, and receive accurate information. The information was compared to visible reality, and found to be accurate. The entire short process confirmed both of our sense of realness, both of our capabilities, and that we are both seeing the same reality.
Neutral feedback is required for a child to develop the ability to perceive the world, others, and him or herself. It is an important part of human interaction in both youth and adulthood. Positive and negative feedback are also important for learning and building skills and confidence, and learning about others and ourselves.
The DENIAL of feedback, and the denial of neutral and positive feedback, are tools that narcissists use often. They will deny neutral feedback, such as simply not responding when someone else speaks, or changing the subject instead of conversing about the topic that someone else brought up. Refusing to make eye contact, refusing to respond directly to a statement or question, refusing to speak to a person standing in front of them are all tactics Narcissists use to turn the target "invisible". (Since turning a person "invisible" is not possible, this is further evidence of magical thinking that Narcissists tend to display. Refusing to acknowledge a person's presence does not change their status as a human being either.)
When a person is frequently denied neutral feedback because they have relationships with Narcissists in various forms, they can develop serious effects. Dissociation can be one of these effects. Diminished effectiveness where one does not feel very motivated to accomplish anything, or one loses the belief that they will be able to learn or perform a task. Markedly lowered self-esteem and self-confidence.
(You walk into a hardware store with a friend, and the clerk comes over but only speaks to your friend, and only answers questions your friend asks. You walk into a party, and your date or friend shakes hands with everyone and says hello, but does not introduce you, and his/her friends don't acknowledge you're even there. You are in a classroom setting and the teacher always talks to another student, back and forth, but when you speak the teacher acts like he/she didn't hear anything. You ask your brother or sister a question, and they just keep watching television, they don't even flinch. You tell a story about something that happened to you, and they respond with "So I saw my friend Scott today." You tell them a huge revelation you discovered about something, and they respond with "It's going to rain tomorrow." You go through a serious trauma, but they behave as if nothing happened, not even mentioning it or asking how you are. You accomplish something very good, difficult, or important, but they behave as if you didn't do anything at all, as if your accomplish does not exist.)
Giving feedback that should be neutral or positive, tinged with shame, implied guilt, implied disapproval, condescension or aggression is another tool that abusers, manipulators and controllers often use. This can have the effect on a target of feeling small, feeling childlike, feeling WRONG, even though nothing "wrong" was done; feeling like a "bad" or "scummy" person, like a "loser", or like a LOWER STATUS person than the person giving the tinged feedback.
(You say "Can you help me with this box?" They say "What are you trying to do with THAT?" or "Put it down, you're gonna hurt yourself!" You say "I'm going for a ride" they say "Oh really? And where are you going?!" or "Oh are you going to see your boyfrieeeend?" or "Sure you are... " You say "I'm going to take this class in sociology" they say "Why would you want to take THAT?" or "That's stupid, that won't get you anywhere." or "Don't you think it might be too hard?" You say "Did you read the poem I wrote?" they say "I don't have time!" or "I'm not into that silly stuff!" or "Why do you write that stuff, you think you're gonna be famous?")
Receiving anti-feedback consistently can cause anxiety, depression, and loneliness, and may cause other problems as well. Anti-feedback such as arguing with everything you say, putting down everything you say, insulting you, attacking and diminishing you and whatever you say. This is may be a habit learned in childhood from an adult who did this to them or to someone around them. Countering is also control tactic, as well as mismatching. The person may be trying to control you, or may be trying to maintain autonomy, staving off the perceived control they think you are trying to assert over THEM.
(You say "Kangaroos are so cute" they say "No they're not! They're aggressive and will tear you apart!" You say "Let's go to McDonald's" they say "no, let's go to Burger King instead." or "I don't feel like going out." You say "This guy was mean to me in the store" they say "I'm sure he wasn't mean, you're just overreacting, he was probably just doing his job." You say "They did a piece on sexism in the workplace on 20/20, it was really interesting~" they say "Is that all you ever talk about?" or "Oh that stupid show?" or "There's no such thing as sexism!")
Giving skewed feedback is a common manipulation, bullying, and control tactic. This is one of the most powerful weapons in the controller's arsenal, used by the most diabolical political oppressors to schoolyard bullies. This is when a person treats you like you don't know what you're doing when you actually do; you don't know what you're talking about; you're not doing a good job or you're not talented enough to do something well even though you are. They may give false instruction and information just to throw you off. This can also go the other way, you may be told you are doing a wonderful job when you really are simply getting by, or that you look stunning when you really look terrible, or that you are doing something correctly when you're not. Giving false positive feedback can be for manipulation purposes (they don't tell you that your hair is frizzed out because they want others to think less of you) or because the person is biased toward you,, or because they want your approval, or they may not know what they're talking about and are trying to cover it up.
(You are fixing your car, they keep correcting everything you do even though you're already doing it right. You cook a fantastic gourmet meal, they don't acknowledge anything positive about it but do criticize a couple of things, and talk about how their friend is a gourmet Chef at the Ritz. You're learning how to play guitar, the teacher gives you only critical feedback, never neutral or positive. During a group discussion, every time you participate, someone talks over you or disagrees with you. You race dirt bikes, but every time you get on the track they give positive feedback to the other racers but only criticize you, even though you are one of the best racers on the track. You do very well in a class, ace the exam, but the Professor implies that you're "not cut out" for this field. You are an experienced musician, but they proceed to explain to you what the frets on a guitar are. You are an experienced carpenter, but they proceed to explain to you how to use a framing square, or that drills have many different sized bits.)
Skewed feedback is also a sign of magical thinking, they may believe that if they keep treating a person like they're incapable, it will make their wish come true.
Feedback from others and from our environment is how our human brain calibrates itself.
Throwing a tennis ball against a wall and catching it gives us feedback; we are getting information about the ball, the wall, our body and our ability to catch. We are also reconfirming that all of these things are real. If we threw the ball and it did not bounce back, it would mean that either the ball was not there, or the wall was not there, or that we imagined throwing it. This is neutral feedback, and we need it to stay mentally healthy. We also need accurate feedback from other humans that mirrors REALITY.
So when someone treats us as if we aren't capable of something, such as throwing the ball and catching it, they are not mirroring reality. When someone treats us as if throwing the ball and catching it is shameful, or stupid, or causing harm, they are not mirroring reality either. When they catch the ball and throw it AT us, they are being dramatic and not mirroring reality. When they speak to us as if we are NOT and never were throwing any ball, they are still not mirroring reality.
If we don't realize they are giving us "wrong" feedback, we can suffer many effects from the paradox they have created in our subconscious. WE know we're throwing the ball and catching it when it bounces off the wall, and that it's a completely neutral activity, but they are behaving as if that's not what's happening. So our mind must then CHOOSE between them and us. When we care about someone or respect them, we don't usually want to make that choice because it's painful. But after we figure it out, we can then restore our sense of reality, and heal from the confusion.
You say "How's the weather?" I say "It's sunny." I am acknowledging that you spoke. I am acknowledging that I heard you speak. And I am acknowledging WHAT you said, and that you communicated clearly, and said something normal and acceptable, not weird or disjointed, or inappropriate.
My answer is genuine, it's actually sunny, and my answer is not colored with any kind of drama.
This is good for both of our brains. With those two short sentences, we measured and weighed our own mental processing, our ability to gather information, to exchange information, and to ask for, give, and receive accurate information. The information was compared to visible reality, and found to be accurate. The entire short process confirmed both of our sense of realness, both of our capabilities, and that we are both seeing the same reality.
Neutral feedback is required for a child to develop the ability to perceive the world, others, and him or herself. It is an important part of human interaction in both youth and adulthood. Positive and negative feedback are also important for learning and building skills and confidence, and learning about others and ourselves.
The DENIAL of feedback, and the denial of neutral and positive feedback, are tools that narcissists use often. They will deny neutral feedback, such as simply not responding when someone else speaks, or changing the subject instead of conversing about the topic that someone else brought up. Refusing to make eye contact, refusing to respond directly to a statement or question, refusing to speak to a person standing in front of them are all tactics Narcissists use to turn the target "invisible". (Since turning a person "invisible" is not possible, this is further evidence of magical thinking that Narcissists tend to display. Refusing to acknowledge a person's presence does not change their status as a human being either.)
When a person is frequently denied neutral feedback because they have relationships with Narcissists in various forms, they can develop serious effects. Dissociation can be one of these effects. Diminished effectiveness where one does not feel very motivated to accomplish anything, or one loses the belief that they will be able to learn or perform a task. Markedly lowered self-esteem and self-confidence.
(You walk into a hardware store with a friend, and the clerk comes over but only speaks to your friend, and only answers questions your friend asks. You walk into a party, and your date or friend shakes hands with everyone and says hello, but does not introduce you, and his/her friends don't acknowledge you're even there. You are in a classroom setting and the teacher always talks to another student, back and forth, but when you speak the teacher acts like he/she didn't hear anything. You ask your brother or sister a question, and they just keep watching television, they don't even flinch. You tell a story about something that happened to you, and they respond with "So I saw my friend Scott today." You tell them a huge revelation you discovered about something, and they respond with "It's going to rain tomorrow." You go through a serious trauma, but they behave as if nothing happened, not even mentioning it or asking how you are. You accomplish something very good, difficult, or important, but they behave as if you didn't do anything at all, as if your accomplish does not exist.)
Giving feedback that should be neutral or positive, tinged with shame, implied guilt, implied disapproval, condescension or aggression is another tool that abusers, manipulators and controllers often use. This can have the effect on a target of feeling small, feeling childlike, feeling WRONG, even though nothing "wrong" was done; feeling like a "bad" or "scummy" person, like a "loser", or like a LOWER STATUS person than the person giving the tinged feedback.
(You say "Can you help me with this box?" They say "What are you trying to do with THAT?" or "Put it down, you're gonna hurt yourself!" You say "I'm going for a ride" they say "Oh really? And where are you going?!" or "Oh are you going to see your boyfrieeeend?" or "Sure you are... " You say "I'm going to take this class in sociology" they say "Why would you want to take THAT?" or "That's stupid, that won't get you anywhere." or "Don't you think it might be too hard?" You say "Did you read the poem I wrote?" they say "I don't have time!" or "I'm not into that silly stuff!" or "Why do you write that stuff, you think you're gonna be famous?")
Receiving anti-feedback consistently can cause anxiety, depression, and loneliness, and may cause other problems as well. Anti-feedback such as arguing with everything you say, putting down everything you say, insulting you, attacking and diminishing you and whatever you say. This is may be a habit learned in childhood from an adult who did this to them or to someone around them. Countering is also control tactic, as well as mismatching. The person may be trying to control you, or may be trying to maintain autonomy, staving off the perceived control they think you are trying to assert over THEM.
(You say "Kangaroos are so cute" they say "No they're not! They're aggressive and will tear you apart!" You say "Let's go to McDonald's" they say "no, let's go to Burger King instead." or "I don't feel like going out." You say "This guy was mean to me in the store" they say "I'm sure he wasn't mean, you're just overreacting, he was probably just doing his job." You say "They did a piece on sexism in the workplace on 20/20, it was really interesting~" they say "Is that all you ever talk about?" or "Oh that stupid show?" or "There's no such thing as sexism!")
Giving skewed feedback is a common manipulation, bullying, and control tactic. This is one of the most powerful weapons in the controller's arsenal, used by the most diabolical political oppressors to schoolyard bullies. This is when a person treats you like you don't know what you're doing when you actually do; you don't know what you're talking about; you're not doing a good job or you're not talented enough to do something well even though you are. They may give false instruction and information just to throw you off. This can also go the other way, you may be told you are doing a wonderful job when you really are simply getting by, or that you look stunning when you really look terrible, or that you are doing something correctly when you're not. Giving false positive feedback can be for manipulation purposes (they don't tell you that your hair is frizzed out because they want others to think less of you) or because the person is biased toward you,, or because they want your approval, or they may not know what they're talking about and are trying to cover it up.
(You are fixing your car, they keep correcting everything you do even though you're already doing it right. You cook a fantastic gourmet meal, they don't acknowledge anything positive about it but do criticize a couple of things, and talk about how their friend is a gourmet Chef at the Ritz. You're learning how to play guitar, the teacher gives you only critical feedback, never neutral or positive. During a group discussion, every time you participate, someone talks over you or disagrees with you. You race dirt bikes, but every time you get on the track they give positive feedback to the other racers but only criticize you, even though you are one of the best racers on the track. You do very well in a class, ace the exam, but the Professor implies that you're "not cut out" for this field. You are an experienced musician, but they proceed to explain to you what the frets on a guitar are. You are an experienced carpenter, but they proceed to explain to you how to use a framing square, or that drills have many different sized bits.)
Skewed feedback is also a sign of magical thinking, they may believe that if they keep treating a person like they're incapable, it will make their wish come true.
Feedback from others and from our environment is how our human brain calibrates itself.
Throwing a tennis ball against a wall and catching it gives us feedback; we are getting information about the ball, the wall, our body and our ability to catch. We are also reconfirming that all of these things are real. If we threw the ball and it did not bounce back, it would mean that either the ball was not there, or the wall was not there, or that we imagined throwing it. This is neutral feedback, and we need it to stay mentally healthy. We also need accurate feedback from other humans that mirrors REALITY.
So when someone treats us as if we aren't capable of something, such as throwing the ball and catching it, they are not mirroring reality. When someone treats us as if throwing the ball and catching it is shameful, or stupid, or causing harm, they are not mirroring reality either. When they catch the ball and throw it AT us, they are being dramatic and not mirroring reality. When they speak to us as if we are NOT and never were throwing any ball, they are still not mirroring reality.
If we don't realize they are giving us "wrong" feedback, we can suffer many effects from the paradox they have created in our subconscious. WE know we're throwing the ball and catching it when it bounces off the wall, and that it's a completely neutral activity, but they are behaving as if that's not what's happening. So our mind must then CHOOSE between them and us. When we care about someone or respect them, we don't usually want to make that choice because it's painful. But after we figure it out, we can then restore our sense of reality, and heal from the confusion.
Social Anxiety and Narcissism
Focusing on other people, judging their actions, what they're doing and saying, is a common narcissistic-human trait. Instead of simply seeing and accepting others for who and what they are, the narcissist "assesses" them. The person gets placed as either "above" or "below", sometimes "equal" to the Narcissist but rarely. Those who are "above" match certain markers for "authority figure" that developed in childhood and adolescence. If a person doesn't show those markers, (often height, sex, size, ancestry, wealth, but also usually include many less obvious, smaller markers like facial features, voice, and clothing) then they are automatically NOT "above", and therefore must be "below".
They feel entitled to judge other people's "performances" in whatever they're doing, also to judge how other people look, and how they carry themselves, and what their emotional landscape is. The will assess an entire person by what they're wearing, their gender, their hair, or their car, or how "clean" their home or car is. Narcissists seem to believe that assessing others this way, based on the most superficial things possible, is accurate and clever.
They even feel entitled to judge a person's interests, hobbies, and what they choose to work at, believing that they know what the person "SHOULD" be doing based on what the narcissist thinks he or she has assessed about the person. They feel entitled to lead other adults around, "guide" them in every detail, criticize anything they do and say (nothing is off limits), as if they have appointed themselves the Head Teacher of the other adults who they have appointed as children. The feeling of being OVER others, similar to the way teachers and parents are "over" children, is how Narcissists view the world. Everything is a hierarchy, and they view themselves as at or near the top. Often they had practice at this growing up; some were even encouraged by narcissistic adults..
This is one of the reasons why Narcissists can seem to have social anxiety. While a non-narc with social anxiety does not want to go deal with people who may act like bullies or act dismissively or disrespectfully toward them, the Narcissist is also anxious about going to different places, but their anxiety is about not being recognized as the COOLEST person there, or the most Expert, or the most liked, or the Star, or the LEADER. Further, this may be one of the main reasons why non-narcs hook up with narcissists. The two different forms of social anxiety often seem exactly alike. When a person has been denied recognition, acceptance and respect by others over and over because there are so many bullies and cliques around, they can of course develop social anxiety. (Any Narcissists around them will say that they are narcissistic, expecting SPECIAL treatment and recognition ABOVE others; this is their denial of treating the person with disrespect.) So when this person meets another person who seems to understand what they've been dealing with, someone who seems to "GET IT", naturally they may see them as a kindred spirit. It is only over time that one slowly becomes aware of the difference between the social anxieties. The non-narc is angry about being denied recognition and acceptance as just a regular person, as one of the normal members of the community, and treated with the same respect as others. The non-narc is angry that their actual achievements are being dismissed or demeaned, and that they are being ignored and invalidated when they speak. The non-narc is angry about being treated like LESS than the rest of the group, and rightfully so.
The Narcissist, on the other hand, turns out to be angry because he or she is not getting recognized for being ABOVE the other members of the group. While the non-narc is angry because his or her real talent and capability is being dismissed and ignored, the Narcissist is angry because his or her talents and abilities are not being elevated and worshipped.
The Narcissist is angry and anxious because he or she is not being crowned King or Queen of the prom. The non-narc is angry and anxious because the kids at the prom are mean.
Stage and screen are wonderful places to witness this distinction. Take an Acting Class for example. The non-narcs in the class want to learn about improving their acting skills, and are happy about being in a group of people who might be kindred spirits, who they can have fun with and relate to.
Well if the class has too many narcissists in it, then the class will degenerate into a bully session, with the narcs competing with each other to be the STAR OF THE CLASS. They will PROJECT this onto the NON-narcs in the class as well, so any non-narc who is naturally talented or skilled will become an instant target. The narcissists in the class will do anything to make this talented person STOP, including bullying, name-calling, criticism, and ostracism. The narcissists will often resort to creating factions within the class, trying to make this talented non-narc feel intimidated, small, and left out. Time and practice teach bullies that they can indeed have an impact on others.
On the other hand if the class is filled with non-narcs, and there is only one or two, then the Narcissists will automatically feel left out, dismissed, and ignored because they are not being treated by everyone as the Star of the class, the Acting Expert, ABOVE and BEYOND the rest of the class. The Narcissists will also call any non-narc who shows talent and skill (or physical beauty) a "Prima Dona", and accuse them of wanting special treatment. Just another bully tactic. The narcissist is trying to either make the person back down and stop showing their talent, or get others in the class to turn on the person, or both. But the point is, the Narcissist can have social anxiety about this class just like the person who is being bullied, but for different reasons. If these two met outside of the class, before it started, they might bond because of their shared social anxiety.
They feel entitled to judge other people's "performances" in whatever they're doing, also to judge how other people look, and how they carry themselves, and what their emotional landscape is. The will assess an entire person by what they're wearing, their gender, their hair, or their car, or how "clean" their home or car is. Narcissists seem to believe that assessing others this way, based on the most superficial things possible, is accurate and clever.
They even feel entitled to judge a person's interests, hobbies, and what they choose to work at, believing that they know what the person "SHOULD" be doing based on what the narcissist thinks he or she has assessed about the person. They feel entitled to lead other adults around, "guide" them in every detail, criticize anything they do and say (nothing is off limits), as if they have appointed themselves the Head Teacher of the other adults who they have appointed as children. The feeling of being OVER others, similar to the way teachers and parents are "over" children, is how Narcissists view the world. Everything is a hierarchy, and they view themselves as at or near the top. Often they had practice at this growing up; some were even encouraged by narcissistic adults..
This is one of the reasons why Narcissists can seem to have social anxiety. While a non-narc with social anxiety does not want to go deal with people who may act like bullies or act dismissively or disrespectfully toward them, the Narcissist is also anxious about going to different places, but their anxiety is about not being recognized as the COOLEST person there, or the most Expert, or the most liked, or the Star, or the LEADER. Further, this may be one of the main reasons why non-narcs hook up with narcissists. The two different forms of social anxiety often seem exactly alike. When a person has been denied recognition, acceptance and respect by others over and over because there are so many bullies and cliques around, they can of course develop social anxiety. (Any Narcissists around them will say that they are narcissistic, expecting SPECIAL treatment and recognition ABOVE others; this is their denial of treating the person with disrespect.) So when this person meets another person who seems to understand what they've been dealing with, someone who seems to "GET IT", naturally they may see them as a kindred spirit. It is only over time that one slowly becomes aware of the difference between the social anxieties. The non-narc is angry about being denied recognition and acceptance as just a regular person, as one of the normal members of the community, and treated with the same respect as others. The non-narc is angry that their actual achievements are being dismissed or demeaned, and that they are being ignored and invalidated when they speak. The non-narc is angry about being treated like LESS than the rest of the group, and rightfully so.
The Narcissist, on the other hand, turns out to be angry because he or she is not getting recognized for being ABOVE the other members of the group. While the non-narc is angry because his or her real talent and capability is being dismissed and ignored, the Narcissist is angry because his or her talents and abilities are not being elevated and worshipped.
The Narcissist is angry and anxious because he or she is not being crowned King or Queen of the prom. The non-narc is angry and anxious because the kids at the prom are mean.
Stage and screen are wonderful places to witness this distinction. Take an Acting Class for example. The non-narcs in the class want to learn about improving their acting skills, and are happy about being in a group of people who might be kindred spirits, who they can have fun with and relate to.
Well if the class has too many narcissists in it, then the class will degenerate into a bully session, with the narcs competing with each other to be the STAR OF THE CLASS. They will PROJECT this onto the NON-narcs in the class as well, so any non-narc who is naturally talented or skilled will become an instant target. The narcissists in the class will do anything to make this talented person STOP, including bullying, name-calling, criticism, and ostracism. The narcissists will often resort to creating factions within the class, trying to make this talented non-narc feel intimidated, small, and left out. Time and practice teach bullies that they can indeed have an impact on others.
On the other hand if the class is filled with non-narcs, and there is only one or two, then the Narcissists will automatically feel left out, dismissed, and ignored because they are not being treated by everyone as the Star of the class, the Acting Expert, ABOVE and BEYOND the rest of the class. The Narcissists will also call any non-narc who shows talent and skill (or physical beauty) a "Prima Dona", and accuse them of wanting special treatment. Just another bully tactic. The narcissist is trying to either make the person back down and stop showing their talent, or get others in the class to turn on the person, or both. But the point is, the Narcissist can have social anxiety about this class just like the person who is being bullied, but for different reasons. If these two met outside of the class, before it started, they might bond because of their shared social anxiety.
Silent Treatments, Smear Campaigns, and Rejection
Getting
ostracized from the group is a real fear for a primate that is based on
actual survival. Humans are Great Apes (Hominidae), just like the
others; Chimpanzees and Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans, and we all
live in social groups. These groups are our protection, we work together
to keep alert for all manner of dangers, and we work together for
resources like food and water. We protect one another
from predators, and from violence within the group. Humans evolved in
the natural world surrounded by the same dangers as the other apes,
requiring the same resources and protection. Over time we figured out
fire and weapons, and that gave us some freedom as individuals, we could
survive away from the group for some time, but it's much more difficult
and much more dangerous, most of us have remained grouped with other
humans, relying on the relative protection and resources that a group
provides. We also rely on the social and intellectual interactions
within the group for our mental and emotional well-being, which is a
very large part of who and what Great Apes are, how we're built.
When a member of one of these social groups becomes unacceptable to the others because of severe and erratic behavior, he or she is shunned, driven out and away by either the leader or the whole group. When a member gets separated from the group, he or she is very vulnerable to predators, the elements, and other dangers. Especially in youth, all Great Apes are very vulnerable, and seem to instinctively cling to the group, they don't stray far. Individuals from one tribe or clan are not necessarily welcomed in another, and may be driven out into dangerous territory, sometimes killed, or simply unaccepted, and therefore unprotected, ignored, and not allowed to share resources.
Being shunned, being unaccepted, losing approval of others in the group can mean serious survival consequences for any group animal, but especially animals without horns, claws, and large teeth. We can't fly and we can't swim fast, nor can we run fast compared to most predators. We don't have thick fur, either. Great Apes can "run" and/or climb, but that's about it; only humans make weapons like spears, bows or knives, but if we don't have one in our hand at the time, that point is moot. We need the acceptance of our group in order to survive on Planet Earth, especially if we have young ones to care for, and when we are young ones ourselves, or sick, injured, or weakened.
So when another member displays shunning behavior toward us, such as cold shoulders, silent treatment, ignoring, invalidating, rejection, humiliation, and smearing (getting the group to reject us), our subconscious knows that we are in actual danger. And we are also at risk for losing our intellectual and emotional stimulation that we need for our mental health and well being.
Even if we choose to live alone on the side of a mountain, there is a huge difference between being able to go back to human groups when we want to, and being ostracized by those human groups. A human who has been shunned does not receive resources or assistance, is often kept from getting his or her own resources, and is much more likely to be mistreated by members of the group.
So when we have a serious emotional reaction to people who display shunning behavior, we're not crazy, we're human.
When a member of one of these social groups becomes unacceptable to the others because of severe and erratic behavior, he or she is shunned, driven out and away by either the leader or the whole group. When a member gets separated from the group, he or she is very vulnerable to predators, the elements, and other dangers. Especially in youth, all Great Apes are very vulnerable, and seem to instinctively cling to the group, they don't stray far. Individuals from one tribe or clan are not necessarily welcomed in another, and may be driven out into dangerous territory, sometimes killed, or simply unaccepted, and therefore unprotected, ignored, and not allowed to share resources.
Being shunned, being unaccepted, losing approval of others in the group can mean serious survival consequences for any group animal, but especially animals without horns, claws, and large teeth. We can't fly and we can't swim fast, nor can we run fast compared to most predators. We don't have thick fur, either. Great Apes can "run" and/or climb, but that's about it; only humans make weapons like spears, bows or knives, but if we don't have one in our hand at the time, that point is moot. We need the acceptance of our group in order to survive on Planet Earth, especially if we have young ones to care for, and when we are young ones ourselves, or sick, injured, or weakened.
So when another member displays shunning behavior toward us, such as cold shoulders, silent treatment, ignoring, invalidating, rejection, humiliation, and smearing (getting the group to reject us), our subconscious knows that we are in actual danger. And we are also at risk for losing our intellectual and emotional stimulation that we need for our mental health and well being.
Even if we choose to live alone on the side of a mountain, there is a huge difference between being able to go back to human groups when we want to, and being ostracized by those human groups. A human who has been shunned does not receive resources or assistance, is often kept from getting his or her own resources, and is much more likely to be mistreated by members of the group.
So when we have a serious emotional reaction to people who display shunning behavior, we're not crazy, we're human.
Gossip And Slander
Slander is a weapon wielded by those who are seeking to hurt another. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is not some kind of warning to others about a person, especially since it's rarely even true. I have heard gossipers try to justify it, saying "there is always a basis in truth in rumors", which is of course pure cowshit; slander is nearly always based on something "normal" and innocent about a person that has been twisted, embellished, and completely fictionalized into something far removed from the "truth". Yes, you did go to the grocery store yesterday, that's true... but the rest of the story about WHY you went, and what you did there, was pure lies, It took elaborate ridiculous fiction, which the creator thoroughly enjoyed weaving, to turn it into something negative about you. This is how slander is created. A habitual fiction-weaver with envy toward you saw you at the store, and their envy coupled with their rich and very active fantasy life resulted in a Tall Tale. They then tell others their Tall Tale, which gets them attention, which they like, and paints you as some kind of bad person, which they also like.
The real fact is that you went to the grocery store... (dah dah dahhh..) and bought some food... and put it in your car... and went home. You may have even eaten some of it when you got there...
Ever notice that murderers and rapists were not targets of gossip and slander in their community? When locals are interviewed about them, everyone says that they were either "nice" or "quiet", that they either liked them or didn't know much about them. The reason they weren't being slandered is because no one envied them. People who are actually doing something wrong or heinous are usually very good at stroking the egos of gossips. So there's goes that excuse that slander is for warning others about a person's character. It's a crock of horse dookey. Slander is a weapon, that's all. The person people should be wondering about is the one spreading negative implications about others.
There is no reason to slander, gossip, or spread negative rumors about another person other than trying to hurt them. It results in people treating them differently, shunning, isolation, and turning them into a target. Slander can turn a person's life from forward looking, happy and thriving into a mess of obstacles and darkness, while one by one people who have heard these rumors and were too cowardly or lazy to think twice before buying into them begin to treat the target in a weird, creepy way, like the person is no longer "one of us". Opportunities for education, work, and networking disappear one by one as the rumors spread and people distance themselves from the person.
People don't just shun the target of slander because they believe the rumors, they also do it because of their self-centered compulsion to protect their comfort over the life and well-being of another human being. They're afraid that if they don't go along with the crowd, they'll be next. And since they don't stand up for the person being slandered today, they may well be next, because no one is doing anything to stop this train wreck. Communities, families, and organizations that are rife with gossip are also rife with depression and other mental illnesses.
Everyone knows how cruel slander is, that's why they do it. If it happened to them they would have a spastic meltdown, but most people who slander seem to have convinced themselves that they are so wonderful that no one would ever do it to them. Unfortunately for them, the truth about slander is that it has nothing to do with the targeted person, and everything to do with the person talking. So all it takes is for someone to be envious of them for any reason, even if that reason is something ridiculously petty, and Presto! instant target!
I don't like it being done to me, so I don't do it to others, even those who I know for a fact have slandered me, because that's what my values are. I hold "not trying to hurt others" high on my priority list.
There is no excuse or legitimate defense for it, none whatsoever.
If we want to protect children from bad people, we should teach them about their own boundaries and how to look out for themselves and their friends and loved ones. Don't teach them to backstab others by modeling the behavior. Don't be one of the people that children have to learn to protect themselves FROM.
It is not some kind of warning to others about a person, especially since it's rarely even true. I have heard gossipers try to justify it, saying "there is always a basis in truth in rumors", which is of course pure cowshit; slander is nearly always based on something "normal" and innocent about a person that has been twisted, embellished, and completely fictionalized into something far removed from the "truth". Yes, you did go to the grocery store yesterday, that's true... but the rest of the story about WHY you went, and what you did there, was pure lies, It took elaborate ridiculous fiction, which the creator thoroughly enjoyed weaving, to turn it into something negative about you. This is how slander is created. A habitual fiction-weaver with envy toward you saw you at the store, and their envy coupled with their rich and very active fantasy life resulted in a Tall Tale. They then tell others their Tall Tale, which gets them attention, which they like, and paints you as some kind of bad person, which they also like.
The real fact is that you went to the grocery store... (dah dah dahhh..) and bought some food... and put it in your car... and went home. You may have even eaten some of it when you got there...
Ever notice that murderers and rapists were not targets of gossip and slander in their community? When locals are interviewed about them, everyone says that they were either "nice" or "quiet", that they either liked them or didn't know much about them. The reason they weren't being slandered is because no one envied them. People who are actually doing something wrong or heinous are usually very good at stroking the egos of gossips. So there's goes that excuse that slander is for warning others about a person's character. It's a crock of horse dookey. Slander is a weapon, that's all. The person people should be wondering about is the one spreading negative implications about others.
There is no reason to slander, gossip, or spread negative rumors about another person other than trying to hurt them. It results in people treating them differently, shunning, isolation, and turning them into a target. Slander can turn a person's life from forward looking, happy and thriving into a mess of obstacles and darkness, while one by one people who have heard these rumors and were too cowardly or lazy to think twice before buying into them begin to treat the target in a weird, creepy way, like the person is no longer "one of us". Opportunities for education, work, and networking disappear one by one as the rumors spread and people distance themselves from the person.
People don't just shun the target of slander because they believe the rumors, they also do it because of their self-centered compulsion to protect their comfort over the life and well-being of another human being. They're afraid that if they don't go along with the crowd, they'll be next. And since they don't stand up for the person being slandered today, they may well be next, because no one is doing anything to stop this train wreck. Communities, families, and organizations that are rife with gossip are also rife with depression and other mental illnesses.
Everyone knows how cruel slander is, that's why they do it. If it happened to them they would have a spastic meltdown, but most people who slander seem to have convinced themselves that they are so wonderful that no one would ever do it to them. Unfortunately for them, the truth about slander is that it has nothing to do with the targeted person, and everything to do with the person talking. So all it takes is for someone to be envious of them for any reason, even if that reason is something ridiculously petty, and Presto! instant target!
I don't like it being done to me, so I don't do it to others, even those who I know for a fact have slandered me, because that's what my values are. I hold "not trying to hurt others" high on my priority list.
There is no excuse or legitimate defense for it, none whatsoever.
If we want to protect children from bad people, we should teach them about their own boundaries and how to look out for themselves and their friends and loved ones. Don't teach them to backstab others by modeling the behavior. Don't be one of the people that children have to learn to protect themselves FROM.
Mood Swings And Controllers
When a
controlling person is "triggered", their feelings are often more
intense than non-controllers, and because of this they are often
channeled to only a few emotions. (This is similar to what can happen in
those with trauma, but is mainly limited to "fight or flight" or
abandonment triggers.)
So when a controller is stimulated to feel confidence due to a fun day with friends, positive attention from a person they find attractive, compliments, or an accomplishment or award, their confident feeling can quickly become intense and morph into arrogance. This mood change will often result in behavioral change, such as talking down at a target as if they are a burdensome hanger-on who is taking up space, time, and resources.
When this feeling has dissipated, they might realize to some degree that they behaved arrogantly, and worry about the consequences they might receive. They might give gifts or act very nice to the target in order to "erase" how they acted. This is not the same as an apology or making amends, but they might not know this, they may have been raised this way.
That worry about consequences for their behavior, or judgment from the other person, or loss of respect from the other person, can also be a trigger. So instead of giving gifts to "erase" their previous behavior, they might instead try to exert more control over the target with hostility, condescension, or shame and blame talking. This is also an attempt to "erase" their previous behavior by asserting their "superior status", and to justify their "right" to behave however they like toward others.
A controller can be triggered by anything external that stimulates their emotions to go "up" or "down". From their point of view, like everyone, it's just how they feel, they may not realize that there is a difference between being triggered and feelings. When someone compliments your good looks, it can feel wonderful, and can elevate your self-esteem for a while, you might feel a bounce in your step. If you're a controller or narcissist, however, when someone compliments your good looks, it can stimulate a different reaction, such as feeling like recognition for being the MOST good looking, for being ABOVE other men or women in general; a confirmation of unique superiority and therefore entitlement over others.
On the other hand, if someone treats you impolitely or disrespectfully, you might feel annoyed, agitated, even angry, in proportion to what the person did or said, and who the person is to you, and it might color your mood for a while and dent your self-esteem. You might want to be alone, or you might need to vent to a friend or reach out for support.
A controller or narcissist, on the other hand, may react in several different ways, depending on what they were thinking about the other person at the time, and depending on their mood at the time. For example if the person was an attractive cashier, the controller may have been seeking flirtatious attention from the person, and if the person simply did their job politely but didn't flirt, a narcissist will often perceive their behavior as disrespectful. The attractive cashier did not give the narcissist what they wanted and expected: acknowledgment of their unique beauty or charisma, and reciprocal attraction. So, he or she feels rejected, humiliated, and dismissed.
Another person in a different store might actually really be dismissive and disrespectful toward the Narcissist, but it might go unnoticed because they aren't interested in this particular person's acknowledgment of their attractiveness or supremacy. So it doesn't trigger them, they might not even see it.
But when they are triggered to feel defensive because they perceived disrespect, whether it was real or not, their emotional reaction can be seemingly more intense than the situation seems to call for. So the attractive cashier just doing their job politely, or the coworker who does not reciprocate attraction to them (but treats them with normal, friendly respect) may elicit much more intense emotional reactions, anger, rage, or hate, than someone else's blatant disrespect toward them.
So predicting what will trigger a controller or narcissist may not be obvious; they are reacting much more to their internal dialogue than actual external events.
So when a controller feels anger from an event at work or at a store, that anger is often channeled back to the usual targets. They feel humiliated from the cashier's lack of special treatment, but they don't connect their mood change to that event, or they don't want to. Even if they vent about it, they will not say "I feel angry" or "I felt humiliated". What they will do, however, is treat their designated targets with disrespect. Suddenly the controller is on the phone calling a target, talking down to them as if they're a burdensome child who did a shameful thing, or failed to do something important... or making demands and giving instructions... again...
To controllers and Narcissists, targets are like the punching bag in the basement that people set up to channel their anger and vent their stress. When something happens to change their mood, they rarely vent about it, talk about it with a friend or counselor, observe themselves, or analyze what actually caused their mood change, for good or ill. They "act out", and they usually channel this acting out to the safe person who they've designated as a Target. In order to KEEP this Target, they need to exert control and entitlement over them so they won't leave. Some will give gifts, gestures of friendship and approval, ego stroking, or fake sweetness to get the Target to stay. Some will amp up their blame and shame casting, trying to "prove" that the Target is not a good person, who should hang their head in shame and admit they are a lower person who should be very grateful for the controller (and their family and friends) allowing them to be in their lives. Some will try threats to make the Target fear leaving, physical, financial or social threats, and often include rejection and abandonment. Some will use both. If the Target does not respond to these attempts at maintaining control over them, the controller will often become very angry and fearful. They can be overwhelmed with intense feelings, but without the ability to detach from the situation and observe what's happening they can feel smothered by their own emotions, and will of course blame the Target for causing them. To add to this, when the Target backs away from them to avoid their hostile treatment, the controller can perceive this as abandonment. Without the ability to detach and observe, they can not see the situation from the outside, and therefore will probably continue to see the Target as the cause of all of the bad feelings for the rest of their lives*.
( Suicidal ideation should not be taken lightly and should be immediately reported to a therapist or doctor, no matter what the person's behavior has been.)
*A sociopath controller/narcissist may be able to see the situation just fine and may know full well what emotions are from what; they may know clearly that they're angry because their Target is leaving them, and know full well WHY the Target is trying to get away from them. Like a cat and mouse, a lion and an antelope; their emotions are more limited to getting off on the belief that they're superior creatures, and getting off on domination. But most controllers/narcissists are not that diabolical or clear, they're mostly reacting to their own emotions and don't know that life could be any other way.
So when a controller is stimulated to feel confidence due to a fun day with friends, positive attention from a person they find attractive, compliments, or an accomplishment or award, their confident feeling can quickly become intense and morph into arrogance. This mood change will often result in behavioral change, such as talking down at a target as if they are a burdensome hanger-on who is taking up space, time, and resources.
When this feeling has dissipated, they might realize to some degree that they behaved arrogantly, and worry about the consequences they might receive. They might give gifts or act very nice to the target in order to "erase" how they acted. This is not the same as an apology or making amends, but they might not know this, they may have been raised this way.
That worry about consequences for their behavior, or judgment from the other person, or loss of respect from the other person, can also be a trigger. So instead of giving gifts to "erase" their previous behavior, they might instead try to exert more control over the target with hostility, condescension, or shame and blame talking. This is also an attempt to "erase" their previous behavior by asserting their "superior status", and to justify their "right" to behave however they like toward others.
A controller can be triggered by anything external that stimulates their emotions to go "up" or "down". From their point of view, like everyone, it's just how they feel, they may not realize that there is a difference between being triggered and feelings. When someone compliments your good looks, it can feel wonderful, and can elevate your self-esteem for a while, you might feel a bounce in your step. If you're a controller or narcissist, however, when someone compliments your good looks, it can stimulate a different reaction, such as feeling like recognition for being the MOST good looking, for being ABOVE other men or women in general; a confirmation of unique superiority and therefore entitlement over others.
On the other hand, if someone treats you impolitely or disrespectfully, you might feel annoyed, agitated, even angry, in proportion to what the person did or said, and who the person is to you, and it might color your mood for a while and dent your self-esteem. You might want to be alone, or you might need to vent to a friend or reach out for support.
A controller or narcissist, on the other hand, may react in several different ways, depending on what they were thinking about the other person at the time, and depending on their mood at the time. For example if the person was an attractive cashier, the controller may have been seeking flirtatious attention from the person, and if the person simply did their job politely but didn't flirt, a narcissist will often perceive their behavior as disrespectful. The attractive cashier did not give the narcissist what they wanted and expected: acknowledgment of their unique beauty or charisma, and reciprocal attraction. So, he or she feels rejected, humiliated, and dismissed.
Another person in a different store might actually really be dismissive and disrespectful toward the Narcissist, but it might go unnoticed because they aren't interested in this particular person's acknowledgment of their attractiveness or supremacy. So it doesn't trigger them, they might not even see it.
But when they are triggered to feel defensive because they perceived disrespect, whether it was real or not, their emotional reaction can be seemingly more intense than the situation seems to call for. So the attractive cashier just doing their job politely, or the coworker who does not reciprocate attraction to them (but treats them with normal, friendly respect) may elicit much more intense emotional reactions, anger, rage, or hate, than someone else's blatant disrespect toward them.
So predicting what will trigger a controller or narcissist may not be obvious; they are reacting much more to their internal dialogue than actual external events.
So when a controller feels anger from an event at work or at a store, that anger is often channeled back to the usual targets. They feel humiliated from the cashier's lack of special treatment, but they don't connect their mood change to that event, or they don't want to. Even if they vent about it, they will not say "I feel angry" or "I felt humiliated". What they will do, however, is treat their designated targets with disrespect. Suddenly the controller is on the phone calling a target, talking down to them as if they're a burdensome child who did a shameful thing, or failed to do something important... or making demands and giving instructions... again...
To controllers and Narcissists, targets are like the punching bag in the basement that people set up to channel their anger and vent their stress. When something happens to change their mood, they rarely vent about it, talk about it with a friend or counselor, observe themselves, or analyze what actually caused their mood change, for good or ill. They "act out", and they usually channel this acting out to the safe person who they've designated as a Target. In order to KEEP this Target, they need to exert control and entitlement over them so they won't leave. Some will give gifts, gestures of friendship and approval, ego stroking, or fake sweetness to get the Target to stay. Some will amp up their blame and shame casting, trying to "prove" that the Target is not a good person, who should hang their head in shame and admit they are a lower person who should be very grateful for the controller (and their family and friends) allowing them to be in their lives. Some will try threats to make the Target fear leaving, physical, financial or social threats, and often include rejection and abandonment. Some will use both. If the Target does not respond to these attempts at maintaining control over them, the controller will often become very angry and fearful. They can be overwhelmed with intense feelings, but without the ability to detach from the situation and observe what's happening they can feel smothered by their own emotions, and will of course blame the Target for causing them. To add to this, when the Target backs away from them to avoid their hostile treatment, the controller can perceive this as abandonment. Without the ability to detach and observe, they can not see the situation from the outside, and therefore will probably continue to see the Target as the cause of all of the bad feelings for the rest of their lives*.
( Suicidal ideation should not be taken lightly and should be immediately reported to a therapist or doctor, no matter what the person's behavior has been.)
*A sociopath controller/narcissist may be able to see the situation just fine and may know full well what emotions are from what; they may know clearly that they're angry because their Target is leaving them, and know full well WHY the Target is trying to get away from them. Like a cat and mouse, a lion and an antelope; their emotions are more limited to getting off on the belief that they're superior creatures, and getting off on domination. But most controllers/narcissists are not that diabolical or clear, they're mostly reacting to their own emotions and don't know that life could be any other way.
PLEASE
STOP talking and writing about things that annoy ME, and that I'm not interested in...
If I don't like it, then I don't want you to be interested in it, study it, talk about it, or write about it. (Is that how the song goes?)
I dictate what you are interested in and what you do with your own time, not you.
Why do you take yourself so seriously, anyway? Only I am supposed to be taken seriously, by anyone, including you. Well, me, and people I agree with, and people I think are cool.
What do you think this is, the United States of America?
The 21st Century?
Why do you have it in your little head that you should be allowed to have your own thoughts, as if you're worthy of that somehow? Come ooooon! Give it up already! You're nothing! You're crazy! You're nutso, and melodramatic, and everyone agrees with me!
(So what about the people who say they respect you, what you talk about and write about, they're not real people who actually matter... they're not part of my crowd, so they can't be right.)
If I don't like it, then I don't want you to be interested in it, study it, talk about it, or write about it. (Is that how the song goes?)
I dictate what you are interested in and what you do with your own time, not you.
Why do you take yourself so seriously, anyway? Only I am supposed to be taken seriously, by anyone, including you. Well, me, and people I agree with, and people I think are cool.
What do you think this is, the United States of America?
The 21st Century?
Why do you have it in your little head that you should be allowed to have your own thoughts, as if you're worthy of that somehow? Come ooooon! Give it up already! You're nothing! You're crazy! You're nutso, and melodramatic, and everyone agrees with me!
(So what about the people who say they respect you, what you talk about and write about, they're not real people who actually matter... they're not part of my crowd, so they can't be right.)
OH EM GEE ENTITLEMENT
The belief that I am entitled to talk down, condescend, threaten, belittle, insult, and make demands and commands to another but they are not "allowed" to do the same is called "ridiculous entitlement mentality". It's usually taught by arrogant, incredibly immature dork(s) modeling the behavior. People who actually believe they're superior because they did not grow out of this stage in adolescence (a process of finding one's autonomy) will raise their children this way.
So their developmental delay becomes their unfortunate children's experience of what it means to be an adult human. Much like a child who has a drug dealer for a parent will come to think of drug dealing as part of the "normal" world that he or she expects to have as a part of life as an adult. The child who has a Sports star for a parent will also come to think of being a Sports star as just how the adult world is. They can't know that their parent's modeling is NOT "the world", because that's their whole experience. So if a son has a father who teaches him that males are innately "better" or "above" females, naturally, he is quite likely to adapt his father's mentality. Same with daughters, same with any other trait like ancestry, race, and religion. Anyone who actually thinks of the opposite sex as naturally "LESS", or other races, nationalities, or financial statuses as naturally "LESS", was 100% certainly exposed to one or more adults who modeled this entitlement, high and mighty mentality. So they think it's reality, just as much as the majority of humans used to believe that spontaneous infection was real. (Now only a really large number believe in it...)
So their developmental delay becomes their unfortunate children's experience of what it means to be an adult human. Much like a child who has a drug dealer for a parent will come to think of drug dealing as part of the "normal" world that he or she expects to have as a part of life as an adult. The child who has a Sports star for a parent will also come to think of being a Sports star as just how the adult world is. They can't know that their parent's modeling is NOT "the world", because that's their whole experience. So if a son has a father who teaches him that males are innately "better" or "above" females, naturally, he is quite likely to adapt his father's mentality. Same with daughters, same with any other trait like ancestry, race, and religion. Anyone who actually thinks of the opposite sex as naturally "LESS", or other races, nationalities, or financial statuses as naturally "LESS", was 100% certainly exposed to one or more adults who modeled this entitlement, high and mighty mentality. So they think it's reality, just as much as the majority of humans used to believe that spontaneous infection was real. (Now only a really large number believe in it...)
Monkey
For pity's sake what is this disgusting, nauseating obsession with trying to brainwash youth into believing that male and female humans are different species, and one superior to the other? Get over your monkey selves already!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo9riZYUpTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo9riZYUpTw
Hostile Communities Vs. Safe Communities
The safer a region is, the less anxiety all individuals have about going about their day alone.
The more hostile and unsafe a region is, the more individuals will seek company in their activities.
So in a safe community, you will see single individuals of all sizes, appearances, and both sexes, going to places and participating in activities, holding all kinds of jobs, performing all kinds of creativity, learning and doing all kinds of tasks.
In a hostile and unsafe community and region, you will see people paired and grouped, usually separated by race, sex, and background, even appearance, clothing, and age. Those who don't have someone with them when they are doing something are often seen as "weird" or "strange" in hostile communities, for example a woman alone at a movie, bar, or restaurant in such a community is often whispered about, as is a man who walks his dog in the park alone. Much like the child who eats alone in the school cafeteria is picked on if there are bullies in the school. If there were no bullies, no one would pick on the child at all, and no one would ostracize the child either.
In hostile and unsafe communities, people often judge others negatively in sexist and racist ways.
In a safe community, jobs and activities rarely exclude members of a sex or race. In an unsafe community, it is the "norm" to exclude members of a sex or race in jobs, tasks, activities and groups.
Local high schools, public service departments, businesses, local churches, clubs, and local sports can be used as a barometer. Is there really diversity, or do people just pretend there's diversity, but actually group themselves and their children together by sex, race, financials and ancestry? How common is it for kids to feel left out? How high is the graduation rate? How much do adults separate youth based on gender? How high is the drug use, the crime, the domestic abuse, and the prostitution? How high is the overall success rate of the individuals in the community, not just certain members of certain groups? How much nepotism is there, and how much sex bias and race bias is there in employment and business hierarchy?
The more hostile and unsafe a region is, the more individuals will seek company in their activities.
So in a safe community, you will see single individuals of all sizes, appearances, and both sexes, going to places and participating in activities, holding all kinds of jobs, performing all kinds of creativity, learning and doing all kinds of tasks.
In a hostile and unsafe community and region, you will see people paired and grouped, usually separated by race, sex, and background, even appearance, clothing, and age. Those who don't have someone with them when they are doing something are often seen as "weird" or "strange" in hostile communities, for example a woman alone at a movie, bar, or restaurant in such a community is often whispered about, as is a man who walks his dog in the park alone. Much like the child who eats alone in the school cafeteria is picked on if there are bullies in the school. If there were no bullies, no one would pick on the child at all, and no one would ostracize the child either.
In hostile and unsafe communities, people often judge others negatively in sexist and racist ways.
In a safe community, jobs and activities rarely exclude members of a sex or race. In an unsafe community, it is the "norm" to exclude members of a sex or race in jobs, tasks, activities and groups.
Local high schools, public service departments, businesses, local churches, clubs, and local sports can be used as a barometer. Is there really diversity, or do people just pretend there's diversity, but actually group themselves and their children together by sex, race, financials and ancestry? How common is it for kids to feel left out? How high is the graduation rate? How much do adults separate youth based on gender? How high is the drug use, the crime, the domestic abuse, and the prostitution? How high is the overall success rate of the individuals in the community, not just certain members of certain groups? How much nepotism is there, and how much sex bias and race bias is there in employment and business hierarchy?
Winning!
We look for chemical rewards from our brains and bodies; all of us do. Some of us are less aware of this, some are more aware. The human system is built this way just like most other creatures. We differ, however, in which chemical rewards we seek, according to our own unique experiences, our own past, and our own physiology. For example I love the chemical reward I get from seeing a good science fiction movie or reading a great book ("great" from my own POV, of course.) I love the chemical reward I get from being on the water, being around animals, from music, from creativity, and from positive interaction with other people, especially friendly discussion, teaming and cooperating to do a project, sharing points of view, shared fun activities, and humor. I can trace that all back to my early childhood; it's a combination of the way I was born (my own physiological brain and system) AND the interactions of my childhood that were positive.
I, however, personally, do NOT get a positive chemical reward from completion of accomplishments, or showing them, or talking about them. That's not a goal I have automatically because of a chemical reward like many people do. I'm not seeking a good feeling from completing a project, or getting to my goal, or telling people about things I've done, because it doesn't really give me that. I like DOING the thing on my way to the goal, and being in the journey and the project, but the end of it, and announcing it, does not compel me.
Also probably from childhood experiences; I do remember getting good grades and getting more negative attention for them than positive. The same thing with performances as a child in both music and dance. Winning contests and awards also got me more negative attention than positive. Often it got me very negative attention; ridicule, shame, bullying, and ostracism. Even when there were a couple of members of my family saying "good job" about something, there were often much louder voices saying mean things, or making obvious overtures that I should be ashamed of myself for being the least bit proud of my accomplishments or confident in my abilities.
So I may actually have developed an aversion to reaching a goal due to the chemical anti- rewards my system has given me in association with accomplishment, and with others knowing about my accomplishments, or others seeing me doing something.
When we have negative associations with something, we create a virtual electric fence for ourselves. Our subconscious is protecting us from negative experiences or danger. It learned from past experiences: "When you get an A, you will get made fun of and threatened by other kids" which is much more imprinting on the subconscious than a pat on the head from a relative. It IS what happens, it IS reality, the subconscious knows this even if people are saying "no it's not true... you should be happy that you got an A."
When you are trying to learn how to skateboard, your brain learns that every time you take it out in the driveway or down to the school parking lot, you will get made fun and physically bullied. It has learned that when you take your skateboard out to practice, someone will push you down or take your skateboard, and at the very least they will sit there and make fun of you loudly, interfering with your concentration and ability to learn. Your BRAIN has learned this, even if when you get home the adults say "Oh just ignore them" or "You need to get thicker skin." (That family member would have done a heck of a lot more for you if they had simply come down to the school parking lot with you and spent time with you while you learned to skateboard. The brats probably wouldn't even have come around then.) So on top of your brain learning that every time you take out the skateboard you will be bullied, your brain also learns that no one is going to stand by you against bullies so you can actually learn.
After that "lesson" is learned, your subconscious says "Put that back" whenever you go to take the skateboard out. If you don't listen, you probably become anxious. This is the anti-reward, your brain saying "No! This is not good! Don't go there!"
We can also develop chemical reward associations from doing things that are both positive and destructive. The neurochemical response from "winning" can be addictive for many humans. When this addiction happens, a person may bypass his or her own values in order to get this reward, not unlike a hit of some other drug. The person learns that if they dominate another person in some way, they will receive a neurochemical reward.
The less-aware person often takes themselves very seriously in seeking this reward, because they often believe that the feeling they are getting is based in the EXTERNAL world. In other words: "If I win this game, I will be more important." or "If I win this argument, I will continue to be an important person." They don't realize the feeling of importance they are getting is from their OWN brain, not from the WORLD.
Of course when one or two people pat this person on the back for whatever they did, it reaffirms their belief that it's the world that's giving them this reward feeling, not their own system.
This neurochemical reward system is one of the reasons why we often keep behaving in destructive ways even though we can see that something is not right.
Winning and domination over others is one of the most common neurochemical response addictions in the world, in the human species. It can be seen in other species as well, very clearly, however humans seem to be the only ones who destroy their own group with this addiction. Chimpanzees, our closest relative, do make war with one another and kill one another, and they attack others in their own tribe as well, but not like humans do. Bonobos, however, who are also called "Pygmy Chimpanzees", do not do this like Chimps or humans; they are adamant about peace-keeping, but they do this by substituting one reward for another: physical contact.
When a human is addicted to the neurochemical reward from winning and domination over others, he or she often seeks out ways to stimulate the chemical reward, to the exclusion of other things in life and the well-being of others, and of themselves.
They might try to make as much money as possible, or have the best work or sales record, they might be fixated on rising to the top of a company, organization, or field by any means.
They might find themselves in serious arguments with others frequently; starting a conflict or arguing with another person is a common way to try to "win", and therefore receive the neurochemical reward.
Denying the requests of others habitually is also a way to "win" and get the reward.
So is putting others down and judging them as "bad"; this is another way to feel like the "winner".
Joining a clique that excludes others based on physical differences is another way to get the "winning" reward. (No girls allowed, no Caucasians allowed, no fat or short people allowed, etc.)
Politicians USE people's addictions to this neuro reward to convince them to join their party (Their party is the "Good Person's Party..." better than the people from the other parties... )
Changing plans frequently and canceling them is another way; "I lead always, you follow always" will produce the Winning reward.
Haggling is another common way to receive this neurochemical reward.
Unfortunately cheating, conning, and tricking others also produces this neurochemical high.
Winning games and contests (ANY; sports, cards, music contests, spelling bees, chess, lotto, video games, etc) is an obvious way to receive this neurochemical reward, and does not tread on ethics unless it becomes an addiction that leads to cheating, lying, stealing, exclusion of race or sex, sabotage, prejudice, and bullying.
(We see this every day, sadly.)
Criticizing others for pretty much anything produces this chemical reward, that's why there are so many people who criticize others with no regard for the impact it has on the person or the person's life, and often the criticism has no basis in reality or fact.
Throughout history "conquerors" have displayed massive addiction-behavior to the neurochemical rewards they receive from dominating other humans. Obviously destroying others does not improve the world, but that's what they would use as an excuse to do the thing that gave them their fix. It's still going on today, of course, all over the world, from large countries to small towns, to organizations, religions, anti-religions, and businesses.
Neurochemical rewards and un-rewards are a fact of life and science for we human beings, and most other creatures, so when we learn about them, especially our own, we can have more genuine autonomy and control over our own lives.
I, however, personally, do NOT get a positive chemical reward from completion of accomplishments, or showing them, or talking about them. That's not a goal I have automatically because of a chemical reward like many people do. I'm not seeking a good feeling from completing a project, or getting to my goal, or telling people about things I've done, because it doesn't really give me that. I like DOING the thing on my way to the goal, and being in the journey and the project, but the end of it, and announcing it, does not compel me.
Also probably from childhood experiences; I do remember getting good grades and getting more negative attention for them than positive. The same thing with performances as a child in both music and dance. Winning contests and awards also got me more negative attention than positive. Often it got me very negative attention; ridicule, shame, bullying, and ostracism. Even when there were a couple of members of my family saying "good job" about something, there were often much louder voices saying mean things, or making obvious overtures that I should be ashamed of myself for being the least bit proud of my accomplishments or confident in my abilities.
So I may actually have developed an aversion to reaching a goal due to the chemical anti- rewards my system has given me in association with accomplishment, and with others knowing about my accomplishments, or others seeing me doing something.
When we have negative associations with something, we create a virtual electric fence for ourselves. Our subconscious is protecting us from negative experiences or danger. It learned from past experiences: "When you get an A, you will get made fun of and threatened by other kids" which is much more imprinting on the subconscious than a pat on the head from a relative. It IS what happens, it IS reality, the subconscious knows this even if people are saying "no it's not true... you should be happy that you got an A."
When you are trying to learn how to skateboard, your brain learns that every time you take it out in the driveway or down to the school parking lot, you will get made fun and physically bullied. It has learned that when you take your skateboard out to practice, someone will push you down or take your skateboard, and at the very least they will sit there and make fun of you loudly, interfering with your concentration and ability to learn. Your BRAIN has learned this, even if when you get home the adults say "Oh just ignore them" or "You need to get thicker skin." (That family member would have done a heck of a lot more for you if they had simply come down to the school parking lot with you and spent time with you while you learned to skateboard. The brats probably wouldn't even have come around then.) So on top of your brain learning that every time you take out the skateboard you will be bullied, your brain also learns that no one is going to stand by you against bullies so you can actually learn.
After that "lesson" is learned, your subconscious says "Put that back" whenever you go to take the skateboard out. If you don't listen, you probably become anxious. This is the anti-reward, your brain saying "No! This is not good! Don't go there!"
We can also develop chemical reward associations from doing things that are both positive and destructive. The neurochemical response from "winning" can be addictive for many humans. When this addiction happens, a person may bypass his or her own values in order to get this reward, not unlike a hit of some other drug. The person learns that if they dominate another person in some way, they will receive a neurochemical reward.
The less-aware person often takes themselves very seriously in seeking this reward, because they often believe that the feeling they are getting is based in the EXTERNAL world. In other words: "If I win this game, I will be more important." or "If I win this argument, I will continue to be an important person." They don't realize the feeling of importance they are getting is from their OWN brain, not from the WORLD.
Of course when one or two people pat this person on the back for whatever they did, it reaffirms their belief that it's the world that's giving them this reward feeling, not their own system.
This neurochemical reward system is one of the reasons why we often keep behaving in destructive ways even though we can see that something is not right.
Winning and domination over others is one of the most common neurochemical response addictions in the world, in the human species. It can be seen in other species as well, very clearly, however humans seem to be the only ones who destroy their own group with this addiction. Chimpanzees, our closest relative, do make war with one another and kill one another, and they attack others in their own tribe as well, but not like humans do. Bonobos, however, who are also called "Pygmy Chimpanzees", do not do this like Chimps or humans; they are adamant about peace-keeping, but they do this by substituting one reward for another: physical contact.
When a human is addicted to the neurochemical reward from winning and domination over others, he or she often seeks out ways to stimulate the chemical reward, to the exclusion of other things in life and the well-being of others, and of themselves.
They might try to make as much money as possible, or have the best work or sales record, they might be fixated on rising to the top of a company, organization, or field by any means.
They might find themselves in serious arguments with others frequently; starting a conflict or arguing with another person is a common way to try to "win", and therefore receive the neurochemical reward.
Denying the requests of others habitually is also a way to "win" and get the reward.
So is putting others down and judging them as "bad"; this is another way to feel like the "winner".
Joining a clique that excludes others based on physical differences is another way to get the "winning" reward. (No girls allowed, no Caucasians allowed, no fat or short people allowed, etc.)
Politicians USE people's addictions to this neuro reward to convince them to join their party (Their party is the "Good Person's Party..." better than the people from the other parties... )
Changing plans frequently and canceling them is another way; "I lead always, you follow always" will produce the Winning reward.
Haggling is another common way to receive this neurochemical reward.
Unfortunately cheating, conning, and tricking others also produces this neurochemical high.
Winning games and contests (ANY; sports, cards, music contests, spelling bees, chess, lotto, video games, etc) is an obvious way to receive this neurochemical reward, and does not tread on ethics unless it becomes an addiction that leads to cheating, lying, stealing, exclusion of race or sex, sabotage, prejudice, and bullying.
(We see this every day, sadly.)
Criticizing others for pretty much anything produces this chemical reward, that's why there are so many people who criticize others with no regard for the impact it has on the person or the person's life, and often the criticism has no basis in reality or fact.
Throughout history "conquerors" have displayed massive addiction-behavior to the neurochemical rewards they receive from dominating other humans. Obviously destroying others does not improve the world, but that's what they would use as an excuse to do the thing that gave them their fix. It's still going on today, of course, all over the world, from large countries to small towns, to organizations, religions, anti-religions, and businesses.
Neurochemical rewards and un-rewards are a fact of life and science for we human beings, and most other creatures, so when we learn about them, especially our own, we can have more genuine autonomy and control over our own lives.
Secret Key
(Not So Secret, Just Not So Easy To Hold On To All The Time)
Life is good when you are in a state of Gratitude. It feels so good to be Grateful, for there is complete contentment and no perception of lack. The more Grateful You are, the more reasons the universe keeps giving You to feel even more good! In short, it's all good! Be Grateful!
~Denise Pinto Chenier
Life is good when you are in a state of Gratitude. It feels so good to be Grateful, for there is complete contentment and no perception of lack. The more Grateful You are, the more reasons the universe keeps giving You to feel even more good! In short, it's all good! Be Grateful!
~Denise Pinto Chenier
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)