Only the insecure seek excuses to judge another as inferior. It's not enlightened wisdom, it's just common sense. People who are truly confident don't think about whether someone has something they don't, or does not have something they have; or if they're stronger or weaker; more or less capable; with or without a title, degree, or position; with or without money; attractive or not attractive. They're not thinking about it, because their mind is focused on being supportive to the people around them and helping each other have a more pleasant day, and on what they're actually doing, what they're actually talking about, what they're working on, what they're learning, and what their goals are.
Advice And Information
Do keep in mind the fable of the blind men and the elephant (click the link) when seeking advice and information about ANYTHING.
No one human being has all of the information, or all of the correct information, and that includes ourselves. So WE can't even know who knows the correct information and who doesn't; our own judgement is only human as well. Even if we think a person is a brilliant expert, it doesn't mean they are, they might be WAY OFF. They might just SEEM like they know what they're doing, or what they're talking about. They might indeed have a "good handle" on the subject, but they won't have ALL of the information about it; the information does not begin and end with that person, even if they are an "expert".
Another person might be much more knowledgeable or capable, but because of our own personal biases and flawed judgment, we dismiss them, ignore them, or simply don't notice them, so we don't give them a listen at all.
And even still, we might not have actually been hearing from ANYONE who knows what they're talking about, OR, we might be hearing different points of view that are ALL VALID, but different from one another.
How do we tell what's "good advice" and what's not, or who's giving it?
We can't really, but it's a conundrum only when we are looking for someone else to follow, instead of neutral information and data.
If I want to find out what the best new car within my budget is on today's market, (or find the very best recipe for Angel Food Cake, or decide on a career path, buy a house, learn about psychology, learn about carpentry, go to college, find a job, learn about the law, learn about dog and cat breeds, get parenting advice, get relationship advice, become "enlightened", learn about a religion, learn about my rights, learn about my government, learn about other cultures, fix my car), I'm going to need to gather information, not look for someone to follow and believe.
It's perfectly natural and there's nothing wrong with "following someone else's lead", or being mentored by a person, or apprenticing with a person. But that's not the same as assuming someone possesses all the information about a given topic or subject, or that they are always accurate, and that I don't need to look to other sources. And there's no blame or judgment needed if someone's information or knowledge isn't "perfect"; if I'm not fixated on "following" a person, then I'm not going to assume that everything they say is the gospel truth, therefore I won't blame or judge them if something they said wasn't complete, or wasn't exactly accurate, or I didn't understand it because of the way they explained it. Again, there is no one alive who's not a mere human, so there's no logical reason to assume that one person is going to know everything about any subject, or to be totally accurate; no one is more of a "god" than me or you.
There ARE, of course, those who purposely give misinformation in order to misdirect or gaslight others, but again, if I'm not assuming they're some kind of super-guru, and I'm going to get information from other sources as well, then I'm already protecting myself from people who do that. Also, if I listen to the points of view of others and not just CERTAIN people, then I'm protecting myself even more. I don't need to buy into anyone else's beliefs or information, I'm simply gathering data and information from different sources that I will then go through myself, without being led this and that way by my own biases about who said what.
So, if I want to find out what the best new car within my budget is on today's market, I will need to learn more about car engines in general myself, so I understand what I'm looking at and hearing. I'm going to need to learn more about the manufacturers themselves, from several sources. I'll need to actually go and look at all different cars, makes and models, read all I can find about them, and make sure I understand what I'm reading before I make a decision.
I can ask people I know, but I'm not going to just believe certain people and dismiss others; I am going to listen to each of them, and remember that they are ALL ALSO just humans with flawed judgment; none of them have ZERO information, and none of them have ALL of the information. The mechanic I ask might not actually know much about the cars on the current market, and he or she might also be "advising" me based on THEIR preferences, and their ASSUMPTIONS about ME, not what I'm actually looking for, or what I need. They also might be giving me lots of accurate information, but I can't know that, because I'M not actually an "expert" myself.
Then the person who looks to me like they would know nothing about cars might actually have the most information, and the most accurate information, so if I don't ask her or him, or if I dismiss what they say because of my own judgment issues, then I'm just making my SELF miss out on helpful information.
It may seem like a fast, logical, and easy way to get good information and advice by judging who to believe and then getting information from them, and dismissing information from others. But that's really just trying to take a shortcut when a shortcut is the last thing you want to take when seeking advice and information.
Also, when we do that, we are more likely to only accept advice and information that we AGREE WITH, and FROM those we already LIKE, admire, or "look up" to. So if we didn't already think of it or it didn't seem "right" to us, we often just leave it behind; we don't consider that it might be information we could learn from.
We are most likely to find the best advice and information for ourselves by listening to as many points of view as we can find, and finding the most information about the subject that we can find. We can also learn about the subject HANDS ON, and in observational point of view, instead of just believing what other people say about it.
As we learn more and more information, we can put ourselves to the action of putting all of that information together, seeing what makes objective sense to the best of our ability at the time, and observing for ourselves what seems to work and what doesn't. We can also leave room and flexibility for changes and additional information that we haven't learned yet.
When we FOLLOW PEOPLE, we are limited by THEIR limits.
When we LISTEN to people without following them, or dismissing them; when we know that information is neutral, no one "owns" it; and when we find out information on our own as well, with our own hands and our own eyes and ears, we can make many more informed decisions and plans for ourselves.
.
No one human being has all of the information, or all of the correct information, and that includes ourselves. So WE can't even know who knows the correct information and who doesn't; our own judgement is only human as well. Even if we think a person is a brilliant expert, it doesn't mean they are, they might be WAY OFF. They might just SEEM like they know what they're doing, or what they're talking about. They might indeed have a "good handle" on the subject, but they won't have ALL of the information about it; the information does not begin and end with that person, even if they are an "expert".
Another person might be much more knowledgeable or capable, but because of our own personal biases and flawed judgment, we dismiss them, ignore them, or simply don't notice them, so we don't give them a listen at all.
And even still, we might not have actually been hearing from ANYONE who knows what they're talking about, OR, we might be hearing different points of view that are ALL VALID, but different from one another.
How do we tell what's "good advice" and what's not, or who's giving it?
We can't really, but it's a conundrum only when we are looking for someone else to follow, instead of neutral information and data.
If I want to find out what the best new car within my budget is on today's market, (or find the very best recipe for Angel Food Cake, or decide on a career path, buy a house, learn about psychology, learn about carpentry, go to college, find a job, learn about the law, learn about dog and cat breeds, get parenting advice, get relationship advice, become "enlightened", learn about a religion, learn about my rights, learn about my government, learn about other cultures, fix my car), I'm going to need to gather information, not look for someone to follow and believe.
It's perfectly natural and there's nothing wrong with "following someone else's lead", or being mentored by a person, or apprenticing with a person. But that's not the same as assuming someone possesses all the information about a given topic or subject, or that they are always accurate, and that I don't need to look to other sources. And there's no blame or judgment needed if someone's information or knowledge isn't "perfect"; if I'm not fixated on "following" a person, then I'm not going to assume that everything they say is the gospel truth, therefore I won't blame or judge them if something they said wasn't complete, or wasn't exactly accurate, or I didn't understand it because of the way they explained it. Again, there is no one alive who's not a mere human, so there's no logical reason to assume that one person is going to know everything about any subject, or to be totally accurate; no one is more of a "god" than me or you.
There ARE, of course, those who purposely give misinformation in order to misdirect or gaslight others, but again, if I'm not assuming they're some kind of super-guru, and I'm going to get information from other sources as well, then I'm already protecting myself from people who do that. Also, if I listen to the points of view of others and not just CERTAIN people, then I'm protecting myself even more. I don't need to buy into anyone else's beliefs or information, I'm simply gathering data and information from different sources that I will then go through myself, without being led this and that way by my own biases about who said what.
So, if I want to find out what the best new car within my budget is on today's market, I will need to learn more about car engines in general myself, so I understand what I'm looking at and hearing. I'm going to need to learn more about the manufacturers themselves, from several sources. I'll need to actually go and look at all different cars, makes and models, read all I can find about them, and make sure I understand what I'm reading before I make a decision.
I can ask people I know, but I'm not going to just believe certain people and dismiss others; I am going to listen to each of them, and remember that they are ALL ALSO just humans with flawed judgment; none of them have ZERO information, and none of them have ALL of the information. The mechanic I ask might not actually know much about the cars on the current market, and he or she might also be "advising" me based on THEIR preferences, and their ASSUMPTIONS about ME, not what I'm actually looking for, or what I need. They also might be giving me lots of accurate information, but I can't know that, because I'M not actually an "expert" myself.
Then the person who looks to me like they would know nothing about cars might actually have the most information, and the most accurate information, so if I don't ask her or him, or if I dismiss what they say because of my own judgment issues, then I'm just making my SELF miss out on helpful information.
It may seem like a fast, logical, and easy way to get good information and advice by judging who to believe and then getting information from them, and dismissing information from others. But that's really just trying to take a shortcut when a shortcut is the last thing you want to take when seeking advice and information.
Also, when we do that, we are more likely to only accept advice and information that we AGREE WITH, and FROM those we already LIKE, admire, or "look up" to. So if we didn't already think of it or it didn't seem "right" to us, we often just leave it behind; we don't consider that it might be information we could learn from.
We are most likely to find the best advice and information for ourselves by listening to as many points of view as we can find, and finding the most information about the subject that we can find. We can also learn about the subject HANDS ON, and in observational point of view, instead of just believing what other people say about it.
As we learn more and more information, we can put ourselves to the action of putting all of that information together, seeing what makes objective sense to the best of our ability at the time, and observing for ourselves what seems to work and what doesn't. We can also leave room and flexibility for changes and additional information that we haven't learned yet.
When we FOLLOW PEOPLE, we are limited by THEIR limits.
When we LISTEN to people without following them, or dismissing them; when we know that information is neutral, no one "owns" it; and when we find out information on our own as well, with our own hands and our own eyes and ears, we can make many more informed decisions and plans for ourselves.
.
I'M THE ONE WHO'S RIGHT!
There is some kind of hilarious habit in the Northeast where if a person disagrees with another person, they seem to think that they now have some kind of "moral high-ground". So then, whomever's Point of View gets proven "correct" (not necessarily with actual evidence)~ they are the "WINNER", and therefore Morally and/or Intellectually Superior to the other person.
And then everyone (I guess) is supposed to then respect the "winner" more than the other person.... even if the only reason they "won" was because the other person got tired of dealing with a bully and walked away.
Which of course leads to people using this kind of thing to bully others, gain false respect (which translates to real money and control), and ALSO leads to people being afraid to speak, question things, express themselves, or disagree.
Everything is about "proving superiority", "displaying superior expertise", "deserving more respect than another", or "gaining moral high-ground" instead of neutral information exchange or just getting things done.
Everything seems to have emotion, projection, and ego attached to it.
Some kind of throw-back to when Puritans settled here?
Or is it from another culture? Or a result of something else?
I wonder how many other cultures are steeped in this habit.
I don't think it's only in the USA, or the Northeast, but it's definitely a "thing" here. It must be prevalent in other areas because a lot of politicians use this successfully to gain a following. Pretty funny to watch. I saw less of it in the South where I used to live, although it did show itself.
And then everyone (I guess) is supposed to then respect the "winner" more than the other person.... even if the only reason they "won" was because the other person got tired of dealing with a bully and walked away.
Which of course leads to people using this kind of thing to bully others, gain false respect (which translates to real money and control), and ALSO leads to people being afraid to speak, question things, express themselves, or disagree.
Everything is about "proving superiority", "displaying superior expertise", "deserving more respect than another", or "gaining moral high-ground" instead of neutral information exchange or just getting things done.
Everything seems to have emotion, projection, and ego attached to it.
Some kind of throw-back to when Puritans settled here?
Or is it from another culture? Or a result of something else?
I wonder how many other cultures are steeped in this habit.
I don't think it's only in the USA, or the Northeast, but it's definitely a "thing" here. It must be prevalent in other areas because a lot of politicians use this successfully to gain a following. Pretty funny to watch. I saw less of it in the South where I used to live, although it did show itself.
Life Lessons We Should All Already Know
Remember these life lessons:
~Only certain people are capable, knowledgeable, wise, and deserve respect.
~We learn how to recognize them by sight, sound, and feeling when we are very young, through the example of those around us.
~Anyone who does not seem like one of those people is not worthy of automatic respect. They have to prove it to us by the standards we set.
~Some people can't ever prove that they deserve real respect, because they just can't, they're just not good enough, period.
~People who we know don't deserve automatic respect also don't deserve civil behavior or polite manners. We don't have to listen to anything they say, and it's okay to feel superior to them. We don't need to treat them with good manners or courtesy, whether they're a stranger, a friend, a family member, or a coworker.
~If we're not sure if someone deserves respect or not, and we're not sure if we like them or not, we should find out what their job is, their college degrees are, and listen to what other people say about them. If they don't have an important title or degree, or if someone tells us bad things about them, then it's okay to treat them with disrespect, especially if everyone else does.
~Integrity, civility, politeness, honesty, respect, and good manners are only for people who we think deserve it, and who our friends tell us deserve it.
~Only people who are jealous of us don't like us.
~Only people we like deserve our sympathy, and only people we agree with deserve our respect.
~We can tell everything about what a person is like by the way they look and the way they make us feel.
~The only people who are wise are already famous or have important jobs.
~Almost all people with important jobs and degrees earned them completely on their own with no real help from anyone else, and anyone who does not have an important job or degree is just lazy, crazy, or not as intelligent.
~The way we feel about someone else always represents the way that person really is.
~All people we respect and like are trustworthy, honest, and righteous.
~Rumors and stereotypes are based in fact and reality, unless they're about ourselves or someone we like.
~Learn how to detect b.s. and manipulation from farther away, and learn how to see the bigger picture from farther away as well. Learn the difference between "the forest" and "the trees", and what a "bird's eye view" really looks like, from higher up.
~Learn what sarcasm and irony looks and sounds like.
~Don't be so hard on yourself or on others or take yourself or another so seriously; there are no humans who are more powerful than most of the other creatures on this Earth. Without a weapon, some kind of shield and shelter, and without any clothing, even the largest human is not much more powerful than a baby lamb against most other creatures, and no human can survive without the same basics that any other human must have. There has never been a human who did not need to be cared for by another, for quite some time, in order to survive. There has never been a human who survived infancy who was not influenced by other humans.
~When we take ourselves more seriously than we take others, we're in ego, not reality. When we make lords and gods out of other humans, and try to make still other humans into peasants and morons, we're still in ego. If we're in ego, we're not in reality.
~M.M.Black
~Only certain people are capable, knowledgeable, wise, and deserve respect.
~We learn how to recognize them by sight, sound, and feeling when we are very young, through the example of those around us.
~Anyone who does not seem like one of those people is not worthy of automatic respect. They have to prove it to us by the standards we set.
~Some people can't ever prove that they deserve real respect, because they just can't, they're just not good enough, period.
~People who we know don't deserve automatic respect also don't deserve civil behavior or polite manners. We don't have to listen to anything they say, and it's okay to feel superior to them. We don't need to treat them with good manners or courtesy, whether they're a stranger, a friend, a family member, or a coworker.
~If we're not sure if someone deserves respect or not, and we're not sure if we like them or not, we should find out what their job is, their college degrees are, and listen to what other people say about them. If they don't have an important title or degree, or if someone tells us bad things about them, then it's okay to treat them with disrespect, especially if everyone else does.
~Integrity, civility, politeness, honesty, respect, and good manners are only for people who we think deserve it, and who our friends tell us deserve it.
~Only people who are jealous of us don't like us.
~Only people we like deserve our sympathy, and only people we agree with deserve our respect.
~We can tell everything about what a person is like by the way they look and the way they make us feel.
~The only people who are wise are already famous or have important jobs.
~Almost all people with important jobs and degrees earned them completely on their own with no real help from anyone else, and anyone who does not have an important job or degree is just lazy, crazy, or not as intelligent.
~The way we feel about someone else always represents the way that person really is.
~All people we respect and like are trustworthy, honest, and righteous.
~Rumors and stereotypes are based in fact and reality, unless they're about ourselves or someone we like.
~Learn how to detect b.s. and manipulation from farther away, and learn how to see the bigger picture from farther away as well. Learn the difference between "the forest" and "the trees", and what a "bird's eye view" really looks like, from higher up.
~Learn what sarcasm and irony looks and sounds like.
~Don't be so hard on yourself or on others or take yourself or another so seriously; there are no humans who are more powerful than most of the other creatures on this Earth. Without a weapon, some kind of shield and shelter, and without any clothing, even the largest human is not much more powerful than a baby lamb against most other creatures, and no human can survive without the same basics that any other human must have. There has never been a human who did not need to be cared for by another, for quite some time, in order to survive. There has never been a human who survived infancy who was not influenced by other humans.
~When we take ourselves more seriously than we take others, we're in ego, not reality. When we make lords and gods out of other humans, and try to make still other humans into peasants and morons, we're still in ego. If we're in ego, we're not in reality.
~M.M.Black
Bias Is...
"Bias is like when I can't stand it when one person posts quotes or writings on their FB page, but I think another person is wise and cool when they do the exact same thing.
It's like the way I might "love" all the music, artwork, or poetry of one person, after I know what they look like, their race, and their sex, but I'll criticize or dismiss any creative things that another person does.
When I assume that everything one person says and does is because they're "emotional and reactive", and everything another person says and does is because they're "logical and purposeful".
It's like when one relative "snaps" at people and everyone says "oh they're just in a bad mood because they had a bad day", but another relative says something in a snappy way and everyone says "oh here we go again!"
It's like when I assume that one person would be good at something or knowledgeable about something, and I assume another person wouldn't know anything about it.
It's like when everything one person says and does is witty and funny, but I project " they're just trying to get attention" onto another person.
It's like when I assume that one person couldn't learn or be capable of doing something, but I assume that another person could.
When I don't want to hear original thoughts, observations, or creative works from one person, but I take everything someone else says or does seriously. (If they put their own thoughts into quotes, I might take it seriously, but if they don't, I dismiss it.)
When I don't "like" a person without getting to know them, but I do "like" another person, without getting to know them, either.
Bias is not about the other people, or what they are, who they are, or what they're doing. It's from inside of US.
It's like the way I might "love" all the music, artwork, or poetry of one person, after I know what they look like, their race, and their sex, but I'll criticize or dismiss any creative things that another person does.
When I assume that everything one person says and does is because they're "emotional and reactive", and everything another person says and does is because they're "logical and purposeful".
It's like when one relative "snaps" at people and everyone says "oh they're just in a bad mood because they had a bad day", but another relative says something in a snappy way and everyone says "oh here we go again!"
It's like when I assume that one person would be good at something or knowledgeable about something, and I assume another person wouldn't know anything about it.
It's like when everything one person says and does is witty and funny, but I project " they're just trying to get attention" onto another person.
It's like when I assume that one person couldn't learn or be capable of doing something, but I assume that another person could.
When I don't want to hear original thoughts, observations, or creative works from one person, but I take everything someone else says or does seriously. (If they put their own thoughts into quotes, I might take it seriously, but if they don't, I dismiss it.)
When I don't "like" a person without getting to know them, but I do "like" another person, without getting to know them, either.
Bias is not about the other people, or what they are, who they are, or what they're doing. It's from inside of US.
Rationalization Of Bias
"Bias" saturates modern culture so much that most people don't even know they're looking right at it, or doing it themselves. It seems that there used to be more general awareness and knowledge of what it is, and what it looks and sounds like. But media, politics, and corrupt business practice, education, and government has so thoroughly flooded human's perception for so long now that many people believe that their biases are representative of reality; they don't seem to know the difference anymore between bias, opinion,, speculation, and evidence.
It used to be common knowledge that there was racial bias in employment, government, academia and religion, and age and sex bias as well. People who did it would defend themselves, but most of them knew they were doing it and wouldn't try to rationalize it or pretend it was something else. Now, a huge number of people live life through their biases and don't know that they're doing it, and don't seem to care; they seem to believe their opinions and feelings represent objective reality.
If they deny a job to an overweight Asian man, they won't admit that they didn't hire him because of his race or weight, even to their friends, they'll swear up and down that there was a "real" reason, they'll rationalize it to the hilt, even though his application or resume was the best one. If someone sees the applications and points it out, the employer will keep on defending their "reason", finding all kinds of excuses. Same thing with hiring young people, older people, female people, or whoever they deny.
People do the same thing in most other situations, groups and arenas as well. He didn't deny the short Italian guy the drummer position because he was short or Italian, he turned him down because he just didn't have the "chops"... They didn't block the small Irish woman from taking the firefighter test, there weren't any open spots to fill! (so why waste her time...) (strange how they didn't let her know when there was an open position the following week, but there's a reason for that, too) There was no fix in the talent contest, they really DID like the guy who sang off-key the best! (So what if he's one of the judge's in-laws!) They didn't create a hostile environment for the Indian girl in auto mechanics class, she was just overly sensitive, and didn't really fit in with the other students... (It was her fault, really...) The professor didn't fail the Iranian boy's essay for any other reason than the poor prose and lack of originality! No, really...
When the elementary school teacher turns out to be a man, how many modern parents make up stories about why he picked his profession? When the plumbing company sends a female plumber to a customer's house, how many people pick apart the work she did when she leaves (or while she's trying to do it)? When the blond woman shows up at a "black" church, how many members or clergy treat her with the same Christian welcome they would if a dark-skinned woman showed up? When a person shows up to a rock band audition looking very well-groomed as if they just came from a Wall Street business meeting, what's the odds of them getting accepted, unless they are extremely skilled? When a person shows up to a job interview without the "look" (or color, or gender) that the hiring person has a picture of in their head, what are the chances of them getting the job? What will be the excuse? They didn't smile enough? They didn't shake hands right? They smiled too much, they were too nice~~~ they didn't seem like they could emotionally HANDLE the job...
Since no one seems to know the difference between Bias and reality, both those with bias and targets of bias seem to have no idea what they're looking at, or when it IS happening, and when it's NOT.
"Rationalization of Bias" is the new "Denial"; everyone's doing it, it's the fashion, jump on board!
It used to be common knowledge that there was racial bias in employment, government, academia and religion, and age and sex bias as well. People who did it would defend themselves, but most of them knew they were doing it and wouldn't try to rationalize it or pretend it was something else. Now, a huge number of people live life through their biases and don't know that they're doing it, and don't seem to care; they seem to believe their opinions and feelings represent objective reality.
If they deny a job to an overweight Asian man, they won't admit that they didn't hire him because of his race or weight, even to their friends, they'll swear up and down that there was a "real" reason, they'll rationalize it to the hilt, even though his application or resume was the best one. If someone sees the applications and points it out, the employer will keep on defending their "reason", finding all kinds of excuses. Same thing with hiring young people, older people, female people, or whoever they deny.
People do the same thing in most other situations, groups and arenas as well. He didn't deny the short Italian guy the drummer position because he was short or Italian, he turned him down because he just didn't have the "chops"... They didn't block the small Irish woman from taking the firefighter test, there weren't any open spots to fill! (so why waste her time...) (strange how they didn't let her know when there was an open position the following week, but there's a reason for that, too) There was no fix in the talent contest, they really DID like the guy who sang off-key the best! (So what if he's one of the judge's in-laws!) They didn't create a hostile environment for the Indian girl in auto mechanics class, she was just overly sensitive, and didn't really fit in with the other students... (It was her fault, really...) The professor didn't fail the Iranian boy's essay for any other reason than the poor prose and lack of originality! No, really...
When the elementary school teacher turns out to be a man, how many modern parents make up stories about why he picked his profession? When the plumbing company sends a female plumber to a customer's house, how many people pick apart the work she did when she leaves (or while she's trying to do it)? When the blond woman shows up at a "black" church, how many members or clergy treat her with the same Christian welcome they would if a dark-skinned woman showed up? When a person shows up to a rock band audition looking very well-groomed as if they just came from a Wall Street business meeting, what's the odds of them getting accepted, unless they are extremely skilled? When a person shows up to a job interview without the "look" (or color, or gender) that the hiring person has a picture of in their head, what are the chances of them getting the job? What will be the excuse? They didn't smile enough? They didn't shake hands right? They smiled too much, they were too nice~~~ they didn't seem like they could emotionally HANDLE the job...
Since no one seems to know the difference between Bias and reality, both those with bias and targets of bias seem to have no idea what they're looking at, or when it IS happening, and when it's NOT.
"Rationalization of Bias" is the new "Denial"; everyone's doing it, it's the fashion, jump on board!
Driving Wedges
"Orbiting"
around another person and attaching one's self to another person whom
one admires or wants to be associated with is a common trait of
codependency. This WITH Narcissism or certain other disorders can mean
that the person wants to be the other person's NUMBER ONE "fan", or
"buddy", or groupie, which means they ENVY anyone close to the person.
ESPECIALLY their romantic partner, their child, or close platonic friend.
~
In less severe, more common cases, the codependent person will do things like loosely gossip about their fixation's partner, child, or close friends. They might claim ownership of "understanding" their fixation MORE THAN other people, They may feel that there is a special connection between them, and the other person just doesn't know it yet (that one is pretty common in healthy humans too, especially youths). But they don't usually make a serious impact, or try to make one. They are probably somewhat aware that they have a bit of a fixation, and that those in relationships with the person deserve their basic respect.
In more severe cases, those orbiting the person will try to drive wedges between their fixation and their close relationships. Their goal is to separate their fixation from the other people close to them in their lives, so THEY can be the person (or people) closest to the "admired" person.
Methods and tactics vary, from subtle enticing, such as invitations, business opportunities, tickets to shows or games that DO NOT include the partner/child/close friend (the way people entice a pet with a treat), to snubbing and disdain toward the fixation's significant others/friend, to outright slander and rumor spreading about the fixation's partner/child/friend.
Tactics such as getting the fixation person to "party", drink or do drugs with them are common, especially when the person has slowed down or stopped. Also, flirtation and attempts at seduction are quite common to establish "ownership" over the person. Even setting their fixation up with SOMEONE ELSE, other than their partner, is a known tactic. The goal is not for that new coupling to work out, it's just to get the original pair to break up.
All of these tactics are attempts to break the bond between the person they are fixated on and their significant others/close friend. Then, the codependent Narcissist will feel that they have full access to the person without anyone else "in the way".
~
In less severe, more common cases, the codependent person will do things like loosely gossip about their fixation's partner, child, or close friends. They might claim ownership of "understanding" their fixation MORE THAN other people, They may feel that there is a special connection between them, and the other person just doesn't know it yet (that one is pretty common in healthy humans too, especially youths). But they don't usually make a serious impact, or try to make one. They are probably somewhat aware that they have a bit of a fixation, and that those in relationships with the person deserve their basic respect.
In more severe cases, those orbiting the person will try to drive wedges between their fixation and their close relationships. Their goal is to separate their fixation from the other people close to them in their lives, so THEY can be the person (or people) closest to the "admired" person.
Methods and tactics vary, from subtle enticing, such as invitations, business opportunities, tickets to shows or games that DO NOT include the partner/child/close friend (the way people entice a pet with a treat), to snubbing and disdain toward the fixation's significant others/friend, to outright slander and rumor spreading about the fixation's partner/child/friend.
Tactics such as getting the fixation person to "party", drink or do drugs with them are common, especially when the person has slowed down or stopped. Also, flirtation and attempts at seduction are quite common to establish "ownership" over the person. Even setting their fixation up with SOMEONE ELSE, other than their partner, is a known tactic. The goal is not for that new coupling to work out, it's just to get the original pair to break up.
All of these tactics are attempts to break the bond between the person they are fixated on and their significant others/close friend. Then, the codependent Narcissist will feel that they have full access to the person without anyone else "in the way".
Judgment Filters
If
you have a grudge, envy, or superiority issues toward a person, you're
quite certainly judging everything they do and say through a skewed, extra -negative filter.
If you like, admire, or are attracted toward a person, you're most likely judging what they say and do through a skewed, extra-positive filter.
If you like, admire, or are attracted toward a person, you're most likely judging what they say and do through a skewed, extra-positive filter.
Are You A Good Person or A Bad Person
Placing "value judgment" on everything and everyone can be a sign of a personality disorder, a mental illness, OR it can actually be a LEARNED behavior either from family members, community, or the culture itself. The behavior is used in place of healthy bonding, and is used as a tool of control and manipulation. It is ALSO used as a way to get attention from others, especially in the midst of a dysfunctional group (the only way to get even a small bit of attention is to act a certain way, go along with certain others, or make a big deal out of things one talks about).
Commonly, communities and groups that are heavy with Value Judgers do not produce a lot of success for individuals; only certain individuals may achieve certain levels of success, but others are not supported or encouraged, and therefore the entire group/community does not flourish but often actually withers and becomes more and more chaotic, corrupt, or "depressed", over time.
"Value judgers" are fixated on trying to find "moral high ground", and will use anything at all for this purpose, including things that are actually completely neutral and CAN'T indicate the "moral character" of a person. They will also commonly twist reality to make it appear a certain way so they can place the Value judgment that they want to place on a certain person.
Judging another as "bad" every time the person does not fulfill the judger's wishes or expectations, or when the person does not allow the Judger to insult or control them, is very common. Judging another as "good" when a person flatters them, goes along with them, or gives them gifts is also very common.
"Value judgers" will judge children, the elderly, and anyone else in the same way as they place value judgments on their peers. Many will even include animals. Children do this as a normal developmental stage: The "bad" lion hurt the "good" antelope", but adults who have not outgrown this immature perception of the world (or who have not been guided otherwise) may remain in this stage throughout their lifetimes.
They will judge others and themselves on the most neutral things imaginable, such as the tires on their truck; what time a person goes to bed or gets up in the morning or how much they sleep; their hair cut and hair color; their shoes; their accent, their skin color; their gender; their body art or lack thereof; their bank account (big or small). The flowers in their garden. The car they drive, the job they have, their academic standing, the age they were when they had a child; the child's other parent; the classes they take in school, whether they do sports or not; whether they do music or not; what kind of sports or music.... the brand of jeans they're wearing (or if they don't wear jeans)... their pets, their jewelry, the color of their lipstick, their height and weight;
anything and everything is "fodder" for a Value Judger.
MISTAKES other people seem to have made, and even traumas they have experienced, recent or in the past, are also fodder for Value Judgers. They will try to make literally ANYTHING become "evidence" for their Value Judgments, about whether a person is "good" or "bad", "deserving" or "undeserving", "trustworthy" or "non-trustworthy", "included" or "excluded".
If one's group does this as a matter of daily living, and no one stops it or challenges it, then one would most likely believe that it's just as much a normal part of life as eating and sleeping.
Value Judgers believe that they can "fill in the blanks". Literally what this means is they believe that they KNOW what they DON'T KNOW. And they think one thing ALWAYS MEANS a certain OTHER thing, whatever that might be. They are also quite in the habit of hiding things about themselves that others might place a "negative Value Judgment" on, or being continually defensive of being judged. If one is always judging others, one assumes that others are always judging one's self.
~
*(Sociapathic Value Judgers often DO actually know that they don't know the "real story", but enjoy weaving fiction and getting others to believe them. Most Value Judgers, however, are just living in their imaginations and learned behavior, and don't realize it).
So, the man across the street has a an older car that's dirty and has stuff in it~ what does that MEAN... does it mean he's very busy with his work? That he's a lazy slob? That he's a drug addict? That he's an eccentric genius? That he's a "good person" or a "bad person"?
It means: None of the above, if one is attached to reality. There is zero evidence of any "reason" why his car is dirty and there's stuff in it. It just IS, and why is anyone focusing on it or making a big deal out of it at all?
Why~ because it gives them a rush, it makes them feel clever, it makes them feel bonded together when they talk about him, and it gives them a sense of security, power, and control.
Instead of actually being a "neighbor" to the man and talking TO him, and NOT making completely baseless assumptions about him that have nothing to do with reality, they sit on the couch and look out the window (or on the porch, or walk by in the road) and project their OWN SELVES onto him. The people around him are CHOOSING to do this, they aren't being MADE to do this by some "universal compulsion".
The more people who do this in the neighborhood, the more the neighborhood turns into a big soap opera.
This same thing happens within schools, at workplaces, out in the community, in organizations and clubs, and within families.
"This means he's a good person" and "This means he's a bad person". "That means she's a good person" and "That means she's a bad person". The CRITERIA that value-judgers use is not objective, it's subjective. They often have learned "what's good" and "what's bad" from someone else under the guise of morality. True "morality" is OBJECTIVE, not subjective. In other words, the rules don't change according to who is doing the judging, or who is being JUDGED. True morality is ONLY about life being healthy, free, and positive for every member of the group AND the group as a whole, NOT "only for certain members" of the group, but not others. Anything else is SUBJECTIVE; the "rules" are RE-WRITTEN by whoever is trying to control someone else, or trying to make themselves or someone else appear "Good".
An example we can see every day in this country is when a Police Officer who is a "value judger" pulls one person over but NOT another for speeding on a highway, based on the Officer's own personal biases. Even if the Officer is NOT "profiling" for who to pull over, he or she might be "profiling" for who to LET GO. So we see a full size Dodge Ram fly by us at 85 mph, and they don't get pulled over, but the little red Honda who was going 75 mph gets pulled over and ticketed. Not because the Officer has a thing against little red Hondas, but because he or she is biased FOR people who drive pick-up trucks. Someone has to get pulled over, but it's not going to be who the Officer has bias FOR. This particular officer sees a pick-up truck and thinks "Dad" or "Uncle", or "Brother" or "Self", and either doesn't pull the truck over because he/she fears either disapproval or actual hostility from the driver, or he/she is simply biased and WANTS them to "get away" with speeding.
*(Of COURSE not "all" Police Officers have bias and value judgment issues, there are many who have the ability to be objective and fair, who don't have racism, sexism or "class" issues, and who comprehend and uphold real integrity and what "Protect and Serve" really means, and I for one am very grateful for their strength of character and intelligence, especially in the situations they are in every day.)
For another obvious and common example, if sexual behavior is "bad" when one person does it, then it's exactly the SAME "bad" when another person does it. If John is "sleeping around" and getting called a "Stud", but Gina is getting called a "Slut" for the exact same behavior, then there is ABSOLUTELY an epidemic of "value judgment" going on within the community. And if John and Gina are young people, then the origin of the habit of placing SUBJECTIVE "value judgment" on behaviors and people almost certainly lies on some or many of the adults in the area.
So, is the act of "sleeping around" a bad thing, a good thing, or a neutral thing? Is there something bad about it, and if so, WHAT?
Personally I can list about 5 serious consequences for it off the top of my head WITHOUT casting moral judgment on it one way or the other, and the fact is that they ALL would apply to both Gina AND John, quite equally. And those consequences would apply to any other human who engaged in the behavior, as well as those around them. The difference between the judgment toward Gina then toward John is literally the people doing the judging. From a scientific, physiological, psychological and community-health point of view, neither Gina NOR John "should be" sleeping around; the potential for consequences for themselves AND FOR others is very high, almost guaranteed. Placing different values on the behavior for John or for Gina is a glaring and obvious example of controlling and conditioning BOTH of them, AND an attempt to REWRITE REALITY on the part of the "judgers".
In a group that does not place "Value Judgments", fairness, integrity, neutrality, and a LACK OF UNNECESSARY DRAMA are the order of the day, on a regular basis. No one is trying to prove anything about themselves to others, mistakes are mistakes and not "FAILURES", accomplishments, achievements and ideas are simply recognized and supported, not exaggerated into something HUGE, for good or for ill; individuals get recognized, supported, and treated fairly by one another. Supporting other people is a part of daily life, not finding ways to "judge" others as "bad" or "undeserving", or finding excuses to put certain people up on a pedestal. Drama-free, progress and peace oriented.
Commonly, communities and groups that are heavy with Value Judgers do not produce a lot of success for individuals; only certain individuals may achieve certain levels of success, but others are not supported or encouraged, and therefore the entire group/community does not flourish but often actually withers and becomes more and more chaotic, corrupt, or "depressed", over time.
"Value judgers" are fixated on trying to find "moral high ground", and will use anything at all for this purpose, including things that are actually completely neutral and CAN'T indicate the "moral character" of a person. They will also commonly twist reality to make it appear a certain way so they can place the Value judgment that they want to place on a certain person.
Judging another as "bad" every time the person does not fulfill the judger's wishes or expectations, or when the person does not allow the Judger to insult or control them, is very common. Judging another as "good" when a person flatters them, goes along with them, or gives them gifts is also very common.
"Value judgers" will judge children, the elderly, and anyone else in the same way as they place value judgments on their peers. Many will even include animals. Children do this as a normal developmental stage: The "bad" lion hurt the "good" antelope", but adults who have not outgrown this immature perception of the world (or who have not been guided otherwise) may remain in this stage throughout their lifetimes.
They will judge others and themselves on the most neutral things imaginable, such as the tires on their truck; what time a person goes to bed or gets up in the morning or how much they sleep; their hair cut and hair color; their shoes; their accent, their skin color; their gender; their body art or lack thereof; their bank account (big or small). The flowers in their garden. The car they drive, the job they have, their academic standing, the age they were when they had a child; the child's other parent; the classes they take in school, whether they do sports or not; whether they do music or not; what kind of sports or music.... the brand of jeans they're wearing (or if they don't wear jeans)... their pets, their jewelry, the color of their lipstick, their height and weight;
anything and everything is "fodder" for a Value Judger.
MISTAKES other people seem to have made, and even traumas they have experienced, recent or in the past, are also fodder for Value Judgers. They will try to make literally ANYTHING become "evidence" for their Value Judgments, about whether a person is "good" or "bad", "deserving" or "undeserving", "trustworthy" or "non-trustworthy", "included" or "excluded".
If one's group does this as a matter of daily living, and no one stops it or challenges it, then one would most likely believe that it's just as much a normal part of life as eating and sleeping.
Value Judgers believe that they can "fill in the blanks". Literally what this means is they believe that they KNOW what they DON'T KNOW. And they think one thing ALWAYS MEANS a certain OTHER thing, whatever that might be. They are also quite in the habit of hiding things about themselves that others might place a "negative Value Judgment" on, or being continually defensive of being judged. If one is always judging others, one assumes that others are always judging one's self.
~
*(Sociapathic Value Judgers often DO actually know that they don't know the "real story", but enjoy weaving fiction and getting others to believe them. Most Value Judgers, however, are just living in their imaginations and learned behavior, and don't realize it).
So, the man across the street has a an older car that's dirty and has stuff in it~ what does that MEAN... does it mean he's very busy with his work? That he's a lazy slob? That he's a drug addict? That he's an eccentric genius? That he's a "good person" or a "bad person"?
It means: None of the above, if one is attached to reality. There is zero evidence of any "reason" why his car is dirty and there's stuff in it. It just IS, and why is anyone focusing on it or making a big deal out of it at all?
Why~ because it gives them a rush, it makes them feel clever, it makes them feel bonded together when they talk about him, and it gives them a sense of security, power, and control.
Instead of actually being a "neighbor" to the man and talking TO him, and NOT making completely baseless assumptions about him that have nothing to do with reality, they sit on the couch and look out the window (or on the porch, or walk by in the road) and project their OWN SELVES onto him. The people around him are CHOOSING to do this, they aren't being MADE to do this by some "universal compulsion".
The more people who do this in the neighborhood, the more the neighborhood turns into a big soap opera.
This same thing happens within schools, at workplaces, out in the community, in organizations and clubs, and within families.
"This means he's a good person" and "This means he's a bad person". "That means she's a good person" and "That means she's a bad person". The CRITERIA that value-judgers use is not objective, it's subjective. They often have learned "what's good" and "what's bad" from someone else under the guise of morality. True "morality" is OBJECTIVE, not subjective. In other words, the rules don't change according to who is doing the judging, or who is being JUDGED. True morality is ONLY about life being healthy, free, and positive for every member of the group AND the group as a whole, NOT "only for certain members" of the group, but not others. Anything else is SUBJECTIVE; the "rules" are RE-WRITTEN by whoever is trying to control someone else, or trying to make themselves or someone else appear "Good".
An example we can see every day in this country is when a Police Officer who is a "value judger" pulls one person over but NOT another for speeding on a highway, based on the Officer's own personal biases. Even if the Officer is NOT "profiling" for who to pull over, he or she might be "profiling" for who to LET GO. So we see a full size Dodge Ram fly by us at 85 mph, and they don't get pulled over, but the little red Honda who was going 75 mph gets pulled over and ticketed. Not because the Officer has a thing against little red Hondas, but because he or she is biased FOR people who drive pick-up trucks. Someone has to get pulled over, but it's not going to be who the Officer has bias FOR. This particular officer sees a pick-up truck and thinks "Dad" or "Uncle", or "Brother" or "Self", and either doesn't pull the truck over because he/she fears either disapproval or actual hostility from the driver, or he/she is simply biased and WANTS them to "get away" with speeding.
*(Of COURSE not "all" Police Officers have bias and value judgment issues, there are many who have the ability to be objective and fair, who don't have racism, sexism or "class" issues, and who comprehend and uphold real integrity and what "Protect and Serve" really means, and I for one am very grateful for their strength of character and intelligence, especially in the situations they are in every day.)
For another obvious and common example, if sexual behavior is "bad" when one person does it, then it's exactly the SAME "bad" when another person does it. If John is "sleeping around" and getting called a "Stud", but Gina is getting called a "Slut" for the exact same behavior, then there is ABSOLUTELY an epidemic of "value judgment" going on within the community. And if John and Gina are young people, then the origin of the habit of placing SUBJECTIVE "value judgment" on behaviors and people almost certainly lies on some or many of the adults in the area.
So, is the act of "sleeping around" a bad thing, a good thing, or a neutral thing? Is there something bad about it, and if so, WHAT?
Personally I can list about 5 serious consequences for it off the top of my head WITHOUT casting moral judgment on it one way or the other, and the fact is that they ALL would apply to both Gina AND John, quite equally. And those consequences would apply to any other human who engaged in the behavior, as well as those around them. The difference between the judgment toward Gina then toward John is literally the people doing the judging. From a scientific, physiological, psychological and community-health point of view, neither Gina NOR John "should be" sleeping around; the potential for consequences for themselves AND FOR others is very high, almost guaranteed. Placing different values on the behavior for John or for Gina is a glaring and obvious example of controlling and conditioning BOTH of them, AND an attempt to REWRITE REALITY on the part of the "judgers".
In a group that does not place "Value Judgments", fairness, integrity, neutrality, and a LACK OF UNNECESSARY DRAMA are the order of the day, on a regular basis. No one is trying to prove anything about themselves to others, mistakes are mistakes and not "FAILURES", accomplishments, achievements and ideas are simply recognized and supported, not exaggerated into something HUGE, for good or for ill; individuals get recognized, supported, and treated fairly by one another. Supporting other people is a part of daily life, not finding ways to "judge" others as "bad" or "undeserving", or finding excuses to put certain people up on a pedestal. Drama-free, progress and peace oriented.
Enlightenment Conundrum
The only ones who are actually interested in learning things from another's point of view, or continuing to learn things that they didn't know, and learning outside the box of their own personal biases, beliefs and conditioning, are those who ALREADY have humility in their hearts.
Humility is the most difficult thing to learn, and is required in order to learn.
(M.M.Black)
Humility is the most difficult thing to learn, and is required in order to learn.
(M.M.Black)
Are You A Wise Elder, or An Enlightened Youth?
There
has never been a generation born on Earth who did not believe they had
much more figured out than their "ignorant elders", or believe they were
superior in wisdom and capability to their "silly youngers". Do that
math. The only resolution is humility plus awareness, which when
combined equals maturity.
Incessant "Advice": Narcissistic Codependent
Codependents with Narcissism are the ones who are constantly forcing "advice" and "help" onto targets with no respect for the real person. They put themselves in the role of "Uber Responsible" and "The One Who Knows", and they put the target in the role of "The Unstable One" "Lazy" "Irresponsible" "Rebellious" and "Loser".
In their minds, everything they do and say is "right", and proves just HOW responsible they are, and that they should receive complete understanding and sympathy for any "mistakes" they make, health issues, or negative events, and nothing a target does is ever good enough, deserves compassion, deserves sympathy or help, or ever shows that they're NOT lazy, unstable, or irresponsible.
Nothing they do is ever seen as a something they should be accountable for, wrong, or sorry for. Basically everything the target does is seen as something they're not doing right, not doing well enough, or is a wrong choice or decision.
They usually have a "back up" circle of people who have similar mindsets, who feed into their image of being "Super Responsible", and who also feed into their projections onto the target. Their circle would consist of people who do the same things as they do; they will also have targets whom they label, will see themselves as super-responsible and above reproach, and will most likely not see themselves as a person who could use some counseling.
They expect MORE "respect" and recognition for their person, resources, feelings, opinions, accomplishments, gestures, and wants than others, and they give LESS "respect" and recognition than others deserve, especially to targets. They will constantly talk about just how wonderful they are and how wonderful other people think they are, and just how terrible and what a burden their targets are.
They commonly like to imagine that they're "smarter" "bigger" and "stronger", and that targets are "dimmer" "little" and "weak". They exaggerate either their own intelligence or their own physical strength and size, or both, and they minimize and shrink the actual intelligence, strength, and size of others, especially targets. They commonly don't gauge any person within the realm of reality; they always see them as much bigger and stronger or much smaller and weaker than they really are, and treat them accordingly.
(This practice helps to brainwash the youth around them into believing themselves to be either much stronger, tougher, and capable, or much weaker, fragile, and incapable, than they actually are.)
They feel REBELLED AGAINST, ignored, and disrespected when a target does not take their advice, no matter what that advice was. But they will NOT take advice from that same person (because a superior always knows more than an inferior...) If a target dares to give THEM advice, or even shares information, they will take it as "disrespect" or as an "ignorant" talking about something they don't know about.
They feel that every little thing they do is proof that they're one of the "good people", one of the "better people", and everything the target does or doesn't do (in their minds) proves that they're NOT "as good", or one of those "inferior" people. So they feel entitled at all times to try to force their opinion, advice, observations, and invade the target's personal space and life.
They are all "one way" so they don't take in any ACTUAL information about the target as a person, they FILTER all information about the target (and themselves, and their circle) so they ONLY acknowledge anything that perpetuates their fantasy that they are super-responsible, deserving, and above, and the target is irresponsible, illogical, unstable, undeserving, and below them.
They have no desire to change because their mindset is a stage from childhood where they found an overall feeling of comfort and control, and they are not about to give that up.
In their minds, everything they do and say is "right", and proves just HOW responsible they are, and that they should receive complete understanding and sympathy for any "mistakes" they make, health issues, or negative events, and nothing a target does is ever good enough, deserves compassion, deserves sympathy or help, or ever shows that they're NOT lazy, unstable, or irresponsible.
Nothing they do is ever seen as a something they should be accountable for, wrong, or sorry for. Basically everything the target does is seen as something they're not doing right, not doing well enough, or is a wrong choice or decision.
They usually have a "back up" circle of people who have similar mindsets, who feed into their image of being "Super Responsible", and who also feed into their projections onto the target. Their circle would consist of people who do the same things as they do; they will also have targets whom they label, will see themselves as super-responsible and above reproach, and will most likely not see themselves as a person who could use some counseling.
They expect MORE "respect" and recognition for their person, resources, feelings, opinions, accomplishments, gestures, and wants than others, and they give LESS "respect" and recognition than others deserve, especially to targets. They will constantly talk about just how wonderful they are and how wonderful other people think they are, and just how terrible and what a burden their targets are.
They commonly like to imagine that they're "smarter" "bigger" and "stronger", and that targets are "dimmer" "little" and "weak". They exaggerate either their own intelligence or their own physical strength and size, or both, and they minimize and shrink the actual intelligence, strength, and size of others, especially targets. They commonly don't gauge any person within the realm of reality; they always see them as much bigger and stronger or much smaller and weaker than they really are, and treat them accordingly.
(This practice helps to brainwash the youth around them into believing themselves to be either much stronger, tougher, and capable, or much weaker, fragile, and incapable, than they actually are.)
They feel REBELLED AGAINST, ignored, and disrespected when a target does not take their advice, no matter what that advice was. But they will NOT take advice from that same person (because a superior always knows more than an inferior...) If a target dares to give THEM advice, or even shares information, they will take it as "disrespect" or as an "ignorant" talking about something they don't know about.
They feel that every little thing they do is proof that they're one of the "good people", one of the "better people", and everything the target does or doesn't do (in their minds) proves that they're NOT "as good", or one of those "inferior" people. So they feel entitled at all times to try to force their opinion, advice, observations, and invade the target's personal space and life.
They are all "one way" so they don't take in any ACTUAL information about the target as a person, they FILTER all information about the target (and themselves, and their circle) so they ONLY acknowledge anything that perpetuates their fantasy that they are super-responsible, deserving, and above, and the target is irresponsible, illogical, unstable, undeserving, and below them.
They have no desire to change because their mindset is a stage from childhood where they found an overall feeling of comfort and control, and they are not about to give that up.
Taking You Seriously, Red Flag
~If I am not one of the people you take seriously, why on earth would you think that you're one of the people I take seriously?
Flags that happen so often in modern culture that most of us don't even realize it's going on:
They tell a story about themselves, you listen. They share their observations, you listen, making sounds and gestures of acknowledgment. They vent their frustrations, laments, ills, you listen. They tell the "story" about their morning, their ride to work, the conversation with their cat, their child, their mother, their neighbor, the mailman, you listen, nod, smile, and give feedback.
They talk, even if it's cutting into the time that something else is going on (work, meeting, dinner, going home, movie, school, someone else talking, break time, anything)
... YOU start to talk, and SUDDENLY it's "time to start work" or "time to go inside" or "time to listen to the speaker" or "listen to the show" or "pay attention" or "take this seriously".
There is ALWAYS time for them to tell THEIR stories (or certain other people), but there is amazingly NEVER time for you to tell YOUR stories.
This is so common in a dysfunctional culture because it is a "Hierarchy" display. Those who are not hierarchy and status-minded may not realize what's going on (for years). Whoever is a higher-status-monkey in the primate group gets to talk, and everyone listens to them when they talk, no matter what they're talking about or what they're saying, and whoever has been cast in a "lower status" position in the primate group gets ignored and dismissed, no matter what they're talking about or what they're saying. This practice actually serves to KEEP the monkey-hierarchy intact, because the only people who usually talk about the fact that the hierarchy exists, or that it's unfair, immature, and ridiculous, ARE those who have been put in "lower status" positions, so they get dismissed and even belittled when they speak AUTOMATICALLY. ~~~ If a person who has been designated as a "higher status" in the primate group starts pointing out the immaturity of the hierarchy, they will usually get attacked and will be targeted to be reassigned as "lower status" (so people will automatically stop listening to them speak.)
Narcissists are usually fixated on "hierarchy", and live their lives trying to be one of the "higher status" members within any group that they're part of. ("Higher status" does NOT necessarily mean "Leadership positions", although it can. It mostly means being seen as "one of the better people", one of the people that gets sympathy, positive attention, some form of group-consensus "respect". Higher Status means one gets sympathy instead of judgment and shame for transgressions or mistakes, it means that one gets listened to, praised, and remembered instead of ignored, criticized, and forgotten, it means that others in the group feel that they are "supposed to" give the person a certain amount of "respect" and be nice to them. It also means that one is allowed to display domination signals toward certain others, like ignoring them when they speak, treating them without respect, or talking about them behind their back, without consequence from other group members.)
Flags that happen so often in modern culture that most of us don't even realize it's going on:
They tell a story about themselves, you listen. They share their observations, you listen, making sounds and gestures of acknowledgment. They vent their frustrations, laments, ills, you listen. They tell the "story" about their morning, their ride to work, the conversation with their cat, their child, their mother, their neighbor, the mailman, you listen, nod, smile, and give feedback.
They talk, even if it's cutting into the time that something else is going on (work, meeting, dinner, going home, movie, school, someone else talking, break time, anything)
... YOU start to talk, and SUDDENLY it's "time to start work" or "time to go inside" or "time to listen to the speaker" or "listen to the show" or "pay attention" or "take this seriously".
There is ALWAYS time for them to tell THEIR stories (or certain other people), but there is amazingly NEVER time for you to tell YOUR stories.
This is so common in a dysfunctional culture because it is a "Hierarchy" display. Those who are not hierarchy and status-minded may not realize what's going on (for years). Whoever is a higher-status-monkey in the primate group gets to talk, and everyone listens to them when they talk, no matter what they're talking about or what they're saying, and whoever has been cast in a "lower status" position in the primate group gets ignored and dismissed, no matter what they're talking about or what they're saying. This practice actually serves to KEEP the monkey-hierarchy intact, because the only people who usually talk about the fact that the hierarchy exists, or that it's unfair, immature, and ridiculous, ARE those who have been put in "lower status" positions, so they get dismissed and even belittled when they speak AUTOMATICALLY. ~~~ If a person who has been designated as a "higher status" in the primate group starts pointing out the immaturity of the hierarchy, they will usually get attacked and will be targeted to be reassigned as "lower status" (so people will automatically stop listening to them speak.)
Narcissists are usually fixated on "hierarchy", and live their lives trying to be one of the "higher status" members within any group that they're part of. ("Higher status" does NOT necessarily mean "Leadership positions", although it can. It mostly means being seen as "one of the better people", one of the people that gets sympathy, positive attention, some form of group-consensus "respect". Higher Status means one gets sympathy instead of judgment and shame for transgressions or mistakes, it means that one gets listened to, praised, and remembered instead of ignored, criticized, and forgotten, it means that others in the group feel that they are "supposed to" give the person a certain amount of "respect" and be nice to them. It also means that one is allowed to display domination signals toward certain others, like ignoring them when they speak, treating them without respect, or talking about them behind their back, without consequence from other group members.)
Healthy Boundaries
What "Healthy Boundaries" are can be hard to describe in a literal sense. Some compare them to a fence around each person, others may call it a personal energy barrier, perhaps a membrane, or an invisible skin. However, since our personal boundary is invisible, it seems to be simpler to describe what we feel and look like when our boundary is healthy.
Having "healthy boundaries" means I can listen to someone else talk about their problems or their frustrations without assuming they are asking for my advice or help, or that they need it, or that I know anything that they don't already know.
If they have healthy boundaries, their motive behind telling me their problems or frustrations will not be to "compel" me or "guilt" me into giving them help or advice.
~
"Healthy boundaries" means I don't go in someone else's living space, bedroom, car, or any other space without their permission, and they don't go in any of mine without my permission. It means I knock on a closed door and wait for permission before entering, and I expect the same from others.
~
It means I expect my person, body, time, schedule, space, plans, intentions, and possessions to be fully respected, and that I treat others the same.
~
It means that I know the difference between my FEELINGS and my ACTIONS and behavior, and expect that others know the difference as well.
~
It means that I can and do listen to another person's point of view, beliefs, and experiences respectfully. And I expect the same from others.
~
It means that I can and do listen to others without feeling like they're trying to make me "follow" them, and without becoming indoctrinated if I agree with or like some of the things they say.
It means that I can and do listen to others without feeling like they're trying to make me "follow" them, and without becoming indoctrinated if I agree with or like some of the things they say.
~
It means that I don't try to make others follow me, and I don't get upset if they don't follow or believe everything I say; and I'm not worried about hurting their feelings or angering them because I don't "follow" them.
~
~
It means that I CAN "Follow" someone else's Lead respectfully, without rebelling against them, trying to take over, or trying to challenge their "position", and I expect the same from others when it's my turn to lead.
~
It means I know the difference between "Leading" and "Dictating" or "Controlling", and I know the difference between "Following" and "Being Controlled or Dominated".
It means I know the difference between "Leading" and "Dictating" or "Controlling", and I know the difference between "Following" and "Being Controlled or Dominated".
~
It means I don't take everything personally, or think everything that everyone says and does is about me. If there is a time that I suspect something IS personal or against me, I don't hesitate to find out in a respectful manner what's going on.
It means I don't take everything personally, or think everything that everyone says and does is about me. If there is a time that I suspect something IS personal or against me, I don't hesitate to find out in a respectful manner what's going on.
~
It means I look forward to meeting my own goals, and that I genuinely want others I know in my life to be happy, healthy, confident, and successful.
I don't feel envious or superior to others.
I know what "A rising tide lifts all ships" means.
~
It means I communicate at all times, honestly and directly as much as possible, with the intention of INFORMATION EXCHANGE, with real respect and courtesy. I don't only communicate respectfully toward CERTAIN people, and NOT toward OTHERS.
It means I communicate at all times, honestly and directly as much as possible, with the intention of INFORMATION EXCHANGE, with real respect and courtesy. I don't only communicate respectfully toward CERTAIN people, and NOT toward OTHERS.
And I expect the same courtesy and respect toward myself from other people.
~
It means I don't "judge" others by my presumptions, by their appearance, by what others have said about them, by my prejudices and biases, by their reputation or titles, by their associates, nor even by their manner and speech. It takes much more than any of these superficial things to know anything worth knowing about another person, and a good deal of time.
~
It means I don't "judge" others by my presumptions, by their appearance, by what others have said about them, by my prejudices and biases, by their reputation or titles, by their associates, nor even by their manner and speech. It takes much more than any of these superficial things to know anything worth knowing about another person, and a good deal of time.
And I expect the same toward myself from others.
~
It means if I have not come to know a person over a good deal of time and have come to truly trust them to some degree, that I don't allow them "in", to have access to my person, my space, and my life.
~
It means if I have not come to know a person over a good deal of time and have come to truly trust them to some degree, that I don't allow them "in", to have access to my person, my space, and my life.
And I expect the same from others.
~
It means using the same manners and respectful treatment toward every person, not using extra respectful manners toward one person and less respectful manners toward another. My manners and values come from ME, not from others; if I shake hands and show respect to the first man, I will do exactly the same toward his brother, toward his wife, his son, toward his daughter, and friend.
~
It means using the same manners and respectful treatment toward every person, not using extra respectful manners toward one person and less respectful manners toward another. My manners and values come from ME, not from others; if I shake hands and show respect to the first man, I will do exactly the same toward his brother, toward his wife, his son, toward his daughter, and friend.
And I expect the same toward myself and my associates from others.
~
It means I can handle it when someone does not agree with me, or doesn't want to do something that I want to do, or doesn't like the same things I like, or is busy doing something that doesn't include me.
~
It means I know the difference between someone who disagrees with me, and someone who COUNTERS or INSULTS me.
~
It means I am not afraid to actively observe whether it is myself being "needy", "demanding" or "controlling" toward another person, or the other person being "controlling" or disrespectful toward ME.
~
It means that I stand up for myself, or stand up for others who are being treated unfairly or with disrespect.
~
It means that I know and expect that I will be treated with disrespect by other people as a matter of course, and that I don't need to either allow it, or to fly into a rage.
~
It means that I care for myself, protect myself, believe in and trust myself, allow for all kinds of mistakes and misjudgments, forgive myself, cheer for myself, account for my actions, and love myself, and I also do these things for others in my life.
~
It means that I am aware of my own DIGNITY, and aware of the DIGNITY of other people, those I know personally and those I don't.
~
It means I can handle it when someone does not agree with me, or doesn't want to do something that I want to do, or doesn't like the same things I like, or is busy doing something that doesn't include me.
~
It means I know the difference between someone who disagrees with me, and someone who COUNTERS or INSULTS me.
~
It means I am not afraid to actively observe whether it is myself being "needy", "demanding" or "controlling" toward another person, or the other person being "controlling" or disrespectful toward ME.
~
It means that I stand up for myself, or stand up for others who are being treated unfairly or with disrespect.
~
It means that I know and expect that I will be treated with disrespect by other people as a matter of course, and that I don't need to either allow it, or to fly into a rage.
~
It means that I care for myself, protect myself, believe in and trust myself, allow for all kinds of mistakes and misjudgments, forgive myself, cheer for myself, account for my actions, and love myself, and I also do these things for others in my life.
~
It means that I am aware of my own DIGNITY, and aware of the DIGNITY of other people, those I know personally and those I don't.
And I know the difference between DIGNITY and ego, control, and arrogance.
~
It means I feel secure, and so do not feel the need to dominate others, dismiss or invalidate others, condescend to others, judge others, exclude others, slander others, hurt others, or try to control others.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, hope and self-esteem are present as a matter of daily regular life. Shame, guilt, anxiety, regret, anger or depression are occasional visitors, but they don't stay.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, "ego" does not take over, I don't feel like I need to prove myself to others, or show others that I'm good enough, tough enough, smart enough, or better than them.
~
It means I feel secure, and so do not feel the need to dominate others, dismiss or invalidate others, condescend to others, judge others, exclude others, slander others, hurt others, or try to control others.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, hope and self-esteem are present as a matter of daily regular life. Shame, guilt, anxiety, regret, anger or depression are occasional visitors, but they don't stay.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, "ego" does not take over, I don't feel like I need to prove myself to others, or show others that I'm good enough, tough enough, smart enough, or better than them.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, I don't feel like I need a "posse" or a "clique" to "back me up", and I don't feel compelled to try to create factions or spread negativity about others.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, I don't need "us against them" to feel like I'm worthy or like I belong. I don't try to put other people or myself into groups and categories, and I don't waste my time or energy judging others or seeking excuses to judge someone as "inferior" to myself.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, I am not stuck; I feel truly free to be who I am, express myself without hostility, aggression, or ego, free to learn and improve myself, and free to respect, encourage, and care about others.
~
"Boundaries" or "Our Personal Boundary" is much like the organ known as skin. We are born with it like we are born with skin. It is a barrier that when healthy is bouncy and semi-permeable, just like skin, but it's not visible to the eyes. Some compare it to what's known as the "Aura". When both our Boundary and our skin is healthy, we can feel things that bump into us, but most of those things don't cause serious injury or great pain; we can walk past and through various kinds of weather, terrain, people, animals, and even things and people that are unkind and unpleasant, and we can survive places and situations that are quite harsh.
When our boundary becomes weakened or injured, our ego tends to take over and do all kinds of things to "protect" us until our boundary heals again, much like we would go out of our way to protect a patch of skin that was injured from the outside world. Pricker bushes become like knives to unhealthy and raw skin, and immature words and behaviors become like serious attacks to weakened or injured boundaries. Healing from serious injury or illness is much slower and more painful with both weakened skin and weakened boundaries, so being serious about caring for them is of tantamount importance.
When my boundaries are healthy, I don't need "us against them" to feel like I'm worthy or like I belong. I don't try to put other people or myself into groups and categories, and I don't waste my time or energy judging others or seeking excuses to judge someone as "inferior" to myself.
~
When my boundaries are healthy, I am not stuck; I feel truly free to be who I am, express myself without hostility, aggression, or ego, free to learn and improve myself, and free to respect, encourage, and care about others.
~
"Boundaries" or "Our Personal Boundary" is much like the organ known as skin. We are born with it like we are born with skin. It is a barrier that when healthy is bouncy and semi-permeable, just like skin, but it's not visible to the eyes. Some compare it to what's known as the "Aura". When both our Boundary and our skin is healthy, we can feel things that bump into us, but most of those things don't cause serious injury or great pain; we can walk past and through various kinds of weather, terrain, people, animals, and even things and people that are unkind and unpleasant, and we can survive places and situations that are quite harsh.
When our boundary becomes weakened or injured, our ego tends to take over and do all kinds of things to "protect" us until our boundary heals again, much like we would go out of our way to protect a patch of skin that was injured from the outside world. Pricker bushes become like knives to unhealthy and raw skin, and immature words and behaviors become like serious attacks to weakened or injured boundaries. Healing from serious injury or illness is much slower and more painful with both weakened skin and weakened boundaries, so being serious about caring for them is of tantamount importance.
Caring and healing our personal boundary or boundaries can be compared to healing other parts of our body, we need to learn, nourish, protect, and give it time and space. Skin won't heal by continually exposing it to harsh conditions, germs, burns, or injury, and the same is true with our personal boundary, which incorporates our mental, emotional, and spiritual health as well as our physical health.
Both our skin and our boundary need to heal so we can move about our world freely and confidently, and experience the pleasant feelings of hope, joy, and self-respect.
Who Do You Choose To Learn From
"Affirmations",
these quotes that we share, were not usually spoken or written by
someone who were fed candies by servants or fairies on the fluffy parlor
settee all the days of their lives, and so know nothing of what they
speak. If we choose only to listen to those whom we have already chosen
to listen to, we will learn nothing that we don't already know.
Laughter Actually IS Good Medicine
Laughter is one of those things that a person who feels healthy and happy does often, and the same person will often do less and less when things are not going well. The irony is that laughter itself is part of keeping a person healthy.
When I don't feel well or am in a state of fatigue, I tend to NOT take the supplements or do the exercise or care for myself like I do when I'm feeling well. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
So when I'm anxious or depressed because of something (or someone), I laugh less and less.
Also, when I'm around bullies and controllers, my tendency is to keep my laughter shut down in order to avoid their negative attention. Controllers don't like it when people laugh at anything outside of their control and approval, and they also tend not to like it when targets laugh out loud, because it's a confidence and even a dominance display (primates). (Further, a person with certain serious disorder might get triggered when a person around them laughs; it could mean something sinister to them.)
Also, maybe I'm working or learning something and am very focused for prolonged lengths of time. While this can be necessary and even a good thing, it can cause us to set aside our laughter.
So for many different reasons, I laugh less. The less I laugh, the less I laugh, and then I just don't laugh much at all. If it lasts a long enough time, laughter itself might become annoying to me. Other people laughing, comedies on TV or at the movies, quips and wit from people around me, they all become annoying, even anger-causing, and I don't even realize why. I USED to laugh a lot, I must have been immature at the time?... No, that's not it. I probably WAS immature, but that's not why I used to laugh so much and stopped later. And while there are a lot of people who "laugh" because of meanness, insecurity and bully issues they have, that's not the only kind of laughter there is, not by a long shot.
Laughter is like those vitamins that I forget to take when I need them most. I don't feel like taking them because I don't feel good. But when I don't feel good, that's when I need them most! My body needs those supplements, they're not "extra", above and beyond what my body needs. They're part of what keeps me functioning and healthy.
Laughter is the same, it KEEPS me healthy, it's not just a RESULT of being healthy. I do forget this frequently when I'm fatigued or seriously stressed, just like I forget my vitamins. Then the cycle starts and I have to heal myself again enough to remember TO LAUGH because it's GOOD for me! :)
When I don't feel well or am in a state of fatigue, I tend to NOT take the supplements or do the exercise or care for myself like I do when I'm feeling well. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
So when I'm anxious or depressed because of something (or someone), I laugh less and less.
Also, when I'm around bullies and controllers, my tendency is to keep my laughter shut down in order to avoid their negative attention. Controllers don't like it when people laugh at anything outside of their control and approval, and they also tend not to like it when targets laugh out loud, because it's a confidence and even a dominance display (primates). (Further, a person with certain serious disorder might get triggered when a person around them laughs; it could mean something sinister to them.)
Also, maybe I'm working or learning something and am very focused for prolonged lengths of time. While this can be necessary and even a good thing, it can cause us to set aside our laughter.
So for many different reasons, I laugh less. The less I laugh, the less I laugh, and then I just don't laugh much at all. If it lasts a long enough time, laughter itself might become annoying to me. Other people laughing, comedies on TV or at the movies, quips and wit from people around me, they all become annoying, even anger-causing, and I don't even realize why. I USED to laugh a lot, I must have been immature at the time?... No, that's not it. I probably WAS immature, but that's not why I used to laugh so much and stopped later. And while there are a lot of people who "laugh" because of meanness, insecurity and bully issues they have, that's not the only kind of laughter there is, not by a long shot.
Laughter is like those vitamins that I forget to take when I need them most. I don't feel like taking them because I don't feel good. But when I don't feel good, that's when I need them most! My body needs those supplements, they're not "extra", above and beyond what my body needs. They're part of what keeps me functioning and healthy.
Laughter is the same, it KEEPS me healthy, it's not just a RESULT of being healthy. I do forget this frequently when I'm fatigued or seriously stressed, just like I forget my vitamins. Then the cycle starts and I have to heal myself again enough to remember TO LAUGH because it's GOOD for me! :)
Feeling Like Life Sucks And There's No Way To Make It Better
Depression, anxiety, darkness, greyness, crappiness, dead-end job, no future, no life, etc.
People who grow up around abusive and Narcissistic people often end up feeling like "losers", or like life itself is just one big gerbil wheel with no real way off.
All of those feelings are just that; feelings, perception, outlook, and the more dismal the people around a person are, the more dismal the person probably going to feel.
Narcissists project things onto other people, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not, either way it's usually nerve-wracking and anxiety-producing.
A Narcissistic parent for example might project anxiety onto their child, they might project "inability to make good choices" onto their child, they often project a "everything is terrible" attitude onto their child, and living with them can be a daily stress, so much that one internalizes all this stress and just forgets that it's coming FROM outside one's self. Children (and adult children) are supposed to have family they can talk to and feel heard, supported, wanted and normal, but Narcissistic family members DON'T DO THIS. Everything is a judgment, a worry, a failure, it's all ruined, it's not good enough, you're not good enough, look what you DID, Oh my GOSH OH MY GOSH OH MY GOSH!!!! Children of Narcissists are often depressed and severely anxious, because that's what Narcissistic parents and other family members PUT ON THE CHILD, instead of "love, light, peace, and guidance". Instead of grounding a child for doing something wrong and keeping it enforced, the Narc. parent will shaaaaaame the child and make the child feel like they're no longer worthy of the "good people" in the family... Everything is emotional and dramatic, and wound up tight like a rubber band, all the time, and children internalize it, of course; children internalize what their parents and family members project onto them. They also internalize what the community projects onto them, so a person can have effects of Narc. abuse even if their parents and family were "healthy". Politicians do the same thing to get people to vote for them.
So, there are lots of people projecting "Ohhhh NOOO Everything is so bad" or "You're not good enough, and we're all losers" or "Only certain people can be happy, you have to be rich to be a good person and be happy, otherwise life is TOO HARD and AWFUL and you should be depressed and a workaholic, or you should drink beer every single day to COPE with the HARDSHIP of LIFE"
onto kids and adults.
We each are living our OWN lives, if we want our life to be happy, we can STOP LISTENING to people who like misery and anxiety!
Get rid of extraneous baggage like other people's misery-mindedness, including one's own behaviors that aren't "above board", they cause STRESS to one's SELF. The straighter we fly, the less baggage is weighing us down. It might take some effort and a little while to find one's path, but that's okay, you're not going anywhere. You're in this life and miserable, or you're in this same life and not so miserable, you have a lot more power over that than you might realize.
"All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well", ~Julian of Norwich
Competition And Oppression Are Two Different Things
There is a very big difference between "competition" and "oppression".
~
Oppressors will always say that what's happening is not oppression; one can not stop oppression by showing oppressors that what they're doing is wrong, or trying to convince them to look at and change what they're doing.
Only the oppressed, and also those who are not targets of oppressors, can or will change it. It is very rare for an oppressor to change.
(The latter group has the greatest ability and potential to affect change, but they are often oblivious, arrogant/callous, or hesitant or fearful to do anything that might draw the negative attention of oppressors.)
~
Competition is like the four fingers on the hand, next to one another, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, competing for which can hit the keys of a piano the fastest. Whichever is fastest is fastest, and so gets chosen to play the fast parts. If another finger becomes faster than that one eventually, then the task/honor will go to that one.
Oppression is like the thumb, pressing down on the fingers from above. The fingers that are left free are the only ones that will be able to show how fast they can play. The others are being held down by the thumb, so even if they would have won, they can't win, because they were prevented from competing in the first place. Over time, the fingers that are free to play get faster and better at playing the piano keys because they are able to do it, to learn and practice, and the fingers that are being held down lose their strength and ability. Eventually, the thumb might let go, but by then there will be a visible and obvious difference between the ability of the fingers that were held down, and the ability of the fingers that were not held down. It will be "said" by the hand that the reason for the difference is simply because of "natural ability" and lack thereof.
~
Competition is fair and healthy, where participants treat others with equal and neutral respect, and welcome anyone and everyone who wants to participate. Everyone treats everyone else with integrity, respect, and ethics. Personal preferences, jealousy, envy, disdain or ego do not sully or influence treatment of others; there are no factions, exclusions, or cliques; there are no personal vendettas, triangulations, or secret sabotages. Such as in a race, all are open and welcome to enter, none are turned away or treated like they aren't wanted, aren't liked, aren't capable, or aren't respected (treatment of others is NEUTRAL, in other words WITH common civility, and without dramatic positives, negatives, or ignoring). MATURE people compete fairly, honestly, and openly, without ill intent or hidden agenda.
Oppression is about preventing certain people from competing in the first place with all kinds of ploys:
~taking their resources and keeping them or giving them to others
~blocking their path in various ways,
~smearing them individually or as a group so other people will be unwelcoming and judgmental toward them automatically, so they'll receive unfair and prejudice treatment
~telling them it's not something they would like or want to do,
telling them it's too dangerous, telling them they're not capable
~filling them with anxiety about competing
~attacking them with social hostility (or direct threats) if they do enter the competition, treating them WITHOUT the same integrity, ethics, and manners that others are treated with (hoping it will make them quit). (Hostile environments)
~gaslighting (trying to make them believe they aren't mentally stable or capable by doing things behind their back)
~Actual sabotage; destruction of their possessions, taking their possessions, giving their possessions away, taking away or preventing them from having tools of self-defense, causing them harm.
~Preventing them from learning and practicing in the first place so they won't have a chance to become proficient like others have, using various methods
~Lying about the reasons they can't or shouldn't learn, practice, or compete
Shame is the common first weapon of choice used to keep people from speaking, acting, or standing up about or against oppression and oppressors. Ironically, even members of an oppressed group will use shame to silence other group members.
A common behavior used against a person to prevent or stop them from speaking about or against unfairness, abuse, and oppression, and used as an excuse to cause them different kinds of harm is:
Implying or directly accusing that a person (and those like them) is/are unstable, unclean, physically weak and incapable, a liar, corrupt, unworthy, less intelligent, illogical, unable to learn, uncaring, self-centered, has hidden agendas, has hidden secret power, should be feared.
Oppression can be seen in many, many seemingly "normal" areas in modern culture.
Oppression is almost always explained away, rationalized, and made excuses for as if whatever is going on is the "Natural Way Things Are".
Oppression is often done against entire groups of people, and the groups of people are usually categorized by physical traits.
Frequently, individuals from an "oppressed group" will get their identity turned around and actually assist in oppressing others from their own group. This gives them a feeling of freedom and some control and autonomy; they are usually unaware of their actions or motives.
Some members of an oppressed group may "fight back" by trying to "oppress the oppressors". History shows that there have always been "OPPRESSORS", and WHO is oppressing WHOM changes and flip flops like a grilled sandwich being flipped in a pan.
The motives behind oppression are supremacy, control, and entitlement.
CONTRARY to pop culture, there is not one group that is ALWAYS in the "oppressor" position, and another group that is ALWAYS in the "oppressed" position. INDIVIDUAL humans CHOOSE to oppress, and oppressors can be found in EVERY RACE, and both sexes, and often toward their OWN race or their OWN sex. Individuals of EVERY race and both sexes have at one time or another been oppressed by others throughout human history.
Small groups (like businesses, families, organizations, communities and schools) are often seen to oppress individuals within the group, based on all kind of excuses, but the real reasons behind it are consistent: desire for "superiority" over others, desire to take the resources of another, desire for popularity, control, credit, and power, desire for the feeling (neurochemical reward) of domination and/or supremacy, desire for acceptance by supposed superiors, desire for admiration and special treatment.
Oppression is alive and well, and happens to a lot more people, many more "kinds" of people, and in a lot more places than most people talk about. Dismissing it as "silly" or "not real", or "not serious" is common, and helps to keep it going.
As a basic reference picture:
"Competition" is like a cook-off where everyone is welcome to participate, all are given the same ingredients, tools, time, and recipe; all of the kitchen areas are the same and in good working order. All have had the same time and space to practice and learn, and all have received the same encouragement and resources.
They are competing fairly, side by side, with their focus on their cooking and the prize.
"Oppression" is like a cook-off where it is advertised that everyone is welcome to participate, but really, only certain people have been given ALL of the required ingredients and proper tools. Some print-outs of the recipe were given with half the page missing, some stoves don't work properly, kitchen areas are all different, some are harder to get around in and have very little counter space, dull knives. Those running the contest treat certain people who show up with welcoming, happy, warm greetings and help them get ready, but others they treat with obvious disrespect, cold shoulders, and condescension. Only certain people have been given time, space, or tools to learn and practice, and only certain people have been given encouragement or coaching.
In the first fair contest, those running it and judging it are NEUTRAL, they are there to only put on the contest and make sure every contestant is treated fairly, in the SAME manner, with the SAME rules and the SAME tools, the same opportunities to learn and practice beforehand.
In the second unfair contest, those running it and judging it are NOT NEUTRAL; they DISCOURAGE some people from participating and ENCOURAGE other certain people. If they can get away with it, they will make the entry rules EXCLUSIVE, so only certain people can enter the cook-off at all, and others will be prevented from even entering. Anyone who gets in the contest who they don't like and don't want will not be given the same proper tools or ingredients as others. If those contestants manage to make what they were given work anyway, there will be more sabotage. The goal will be to prevent them from winning, and also from showing their ability at all, mainly so they don't gain respect from others. and of course so they don't get resources or win the prize.
Oppressors would feel that: better than sabotaging contestants in the cook-off is to prevent them from entering the cook-off in the first place.
If they can convince the individual AND the people around them that they wouldn't be capable or worthy of cooking this "important" and "difficult" recipe, and that they aren't welcome or wanted in the cooking circles anyway, then they have met their goals.
People tend to think of the extremes of Oppression, like threats, fists, whips, chains, weapons, and dungeons, but those are used when the oppressed group doesn't go along, or appears that they won't go along with the original attempts at oppression. Those are used to make people go along with it, and provoke survival-fear in them. Oppression is much easier and less obvious when people are conditioned not to stand up for fairness because the "oppressor" is content in being in control.
~
Oppressors will always say that what's happening is not oppression; one can not stop oppression by showing oppressors that what they're doing is wrong, or trying to convince them to look at and change what they're doing.
Only the oppressed, and also those who are not targets of oppressors, can or will change it. It is very rare for an oppressor to change.
(The latter group has the greatest ability and potential to affect change, but they are often oblivious, arrogant/callous, or hesitant or fearful to do anything that might draw the negative attention of oppressors.)
~
Competition is like the four fingers on the hand, next to one another, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, competing for which can hit the keys of a piano the fastest. Whichever is fastest is fastest, and so gets chosen to play the fast parts. If another finger becomes faster than that one eventually, then the task/honor will go to that one.
Oppression is like the thumb, pressing down on the fingers from above. The fingers that are left free are the only ones that will be able to show how fast they can play. The others are being held down by the thumb, so even if they would have won, they can't win, because they were prevented from competing in the first place. Over time, the fingers that are free to play get faster and better at playing the piano keys because they are able to do it, to learn and practice, and the fingers that are being held down lose their strength and ability. Eventually, the thumb might let go, but by then there will be a visible and obvious difference between the ability of the fingers that were held down, and the ability of the fingers that were not held down. It will be "said" by the hand that the reason for the difference is simply because of "natural ability" and lack thereof.
~
Competition is fair and healthy, where participants treat others with equal and neutral respect, and welcome anyone and everyone who wants to participate. Everyone treats everyone else with integrity, respect, and ethics. Personal preferences, jealousy, envy, disdain or ego do not sully or influence treatment of others; there are no factions, exclusions, or cliques; there are no personal vendettas, triangulations, or secret sabotages. Such as in a race, all are open and welcome to enter, none are turned away or treated like they aren't wanted, aren't liked, aren't capable, or aren't respected (treatment of others is NEUTRAL, in other words WITH common civility, and without dramatic positives, negatives, or ignoring). MATURE people compete fairly, honestly, and openly, without ill intent or hidden agenda.
Oppression is about preventing certain people from competing in the first place with all kinds of ploys:
~taking their resources and keeping them or giving them to others
~blocking their path in various ways,
~smearing them individually or as a group so other people will be unwelcoming and judgmental toward them automatically, so they'll receive unfair and prejudice treatment
~telling them it's not something they would like or want to do,
telling them it's too dangerous, telling them they're not capable
~filling them with anxiety about competing
~attacking them with social hostility (or direct threats) if they do enter the competition, treating them WITHOUT the same integrity, ethics, and manners that others are treated with (hoping it will make them quit). (Hostile environments)
~gaslighting (trying to make them believe they aren't mentally stable or capable by doing things behind their back)
~Actual sabotage; destruction of their possessions, taking their possessions, giving their possessions away, taking away or preventing them from having tools of self-defense, causing them harm.
~Preventing them from learning and practicing in the first place so they won't have a chance to become proficient like others have, using various methods
~Lying about the reasons they can't or shouldn't learn, practice, or compete
Shame is the common first weapon of choice used to keep people from speaking, acting, or standing up about or against oppression and oppressors. Ironically, even members of an oppressed group will use shame to silence other group members.
A common behavior used against a person to prevent or stop them from speaking about or against unfairness, abuse, and oppression, and used as an excuse to cause them different kinds of harm is:
Implying or directly accusing that a person (and those like them) is/are unstable, unclean, physically weak and incapable, a liar, corrupt, unworthy, less intelligent, illogical, unable to learn, uncaring, self-centered, has hidden agendas, has hidden secret power, should be feared.
Oppression can be seen in many, many seemingly "normal" areas in modern culture.
Oppression is almost always explained away, rationalized, and made excuses for as if whatever is going on is the "Natural Way Things Are".
Oppression is often done against entire groups of people, and the groups of people are usually categorized by physical traits.
Frequently, individuals from an "oppressed group" will get their identity turned around and actually assist in oppressing others from their own group. This gives them a feeling of freedom and some control and autonomy; they are usually unaware of their actions or motives.
Some members of an oppressed group may "fight back" by trying to "oppress the oppressors". History shows that there have always been "OPPRESSORS", and WHO is oppressing WHOM changes and flip flops like a grilled sandwich being flipped in a pan.
The motives behind oppression are supremacy, control, and entitlement.
CONTRARY to pop culture, there is not one group that is ALWAYS in the "oppressor" position, and another group that is ALWAYS in the "oppressed" position. INDIVIDUAL humans CHOOSE to oppress, and oppressors can be found in EVERY RACE, and both sexes, and often toward their OWN race or their OWN sex. Individuals of EVERY race and both sexes have at one time or another been oppressed by others throughout human history.
Small groups (like businesses, families, organizations, communities and schools) are often seen to oppress individuals within the group, based on all kind of excuses, but the real reasons behind it are consistent: desire for "superiority" over others, desire to take the resources of another, desire for popularity, control, credit, and power, desire for the feeling (neurochemical reward) of domination and/or supremacy, desire for acceptance by supposed superiors, desire for admiration and special treatment.
Oppression is alive and well, and happens to a lot more people, many more "kinds" of people, and in a lot more places than most people talk about. Dismissing it as "silly" or "not real", or "not serious" is common, and helps to keep it going.
As a basic reference picture:
"Competition" is like a cook-off where everyone is welcome to participate, all are given the same ingredients, tools, time, and recipe; all of the kitchen areas are the same and in good working order. All have had the same time and space to practice and learn, and all have received the same encouragement and resources.
They are competing fairly, side by side, with their focus on their cooking and the prize.
"Oppression" is like a cook-off where it is advertised that everyone is welcome to participate, but really, only certain people have been given ALL of the required ingredients and proper tools. Some print-outs of the recipe were given with half the page missing, some stoves don't work properly, kitchen areas are all different, some are harder to get around in and have very little counter space, dull knives. Those running the contest treat certain people who show up with welcoming, happy, warm greetings and help them get ready, but others they treat with obvious disrespect, cold shoulders, and condescension. Only certain people have been given time, space, or tools to learn and practice, and only certain people have been given encouragement or coaching.
In the first fair contest, those running it and judging it are NEUTRAL, they are there to only put on the contest and make sure every contestant is treated fairly, in the SAME manner, with the SAME rules and the SAME tools, the same opportunities to learn and practice beforehand.
In the second unfair contest, those running it and judging it are NOT NEUTRAL; they DISCOURAGE some people from participating and ENCOURAGE other certain people. If they can get away with it, they will make the entry rules EXCLUSIVE, so only certain people can enter the cook-off at all, and others will be prevented from even entering. Anyone who gets in the contest who they don't like and don't want will not be given the same proper tools or ingredients as others. If those contestants manage to make what they were given work anyway, there will be more sabotage. The goal will be to prevent them from winning, and also from showing their ability at all, mainly so they don't gain respect from others. and of course so they don't get resources or win the prize.
Oppressors would feel that: better than sabotaging contestants in the cook-off is to prevent them from entering the cook-off in the first place.
If they can convince the individual AND the people around them that they wouldn't be capable or worthy of cooking this "important" and "difficult" recipe, and that they aren't welcome or wanted in the cooking circles anyway, then they have met their goals.
People tend to think of the extremes of Oppression, like threats, fists, whips, chains, weapons, and dungeons, but those are used when the oppressed group doesn't go along, or appears that they won't go along with the original attempts at oppression. Those are used to make people go along with it, and provoke survival-fear in them. Oppression is much easier and less obvious when people are conditioned not to stand up for fairness because the "oppressor" is content in being in control.
Why You Think You Can't Learn That (Before You Even Try)
Attaching importance, danger, and anxiety:
Making a big deal out of things is part and parcel to the human ego, so the bigger/more inflated/damaged the ego, the more the person will do it.
Because of this, younger people often get the impression from older people that many things are much, much more difficult to learn or to do than they really are; that certain kinds of people or certain individuals are much more "important" than others, and that methods, ideas, beliefs and stereotypes are absolutes that are engraved in stone. It can also cause dramatic envy issues, where people compete for "importance", attention, credit, and position.
On one hand, a young person can believe that something is too hard for them to learn how to do, or too scary or dangerous to even try. Many around them in such groups will encourage these beliefs, because it keeps that young person as a "less important" person, which means that other people are automatically"more important". On the other hand, another young person can make a goal out of "becoming" one of these "very important people" that do "very important" or "very difficult" things. So in the same family or community, one child may be afraid to even try to learn to play the piano because people are making it out to be such an extremely difficult skill for just an "average person" to learn, and another child will set out to become a Piano Player Person because of the same people painting Piano Players as "Smart/Very Talented/Important People". In the same group, another child will hide their piano-playing ability because people around the child project the assumption onto them that the child is ONLY playing the Piano to get attention and LOOK IMPORTANT.
So one kid is afraid to try to play Piano because people imply that it's so hard (too hard for "normal" people, or for that child), another child is doing it ONLY BECAUSE people imply that only smart or important people can play the Piano, and yet another child is hiding their ability to play because people accuse the child of only doing it to LOOK smart, cool, or important. So the child who ends up getting recognized for playing the piano out of the three of them is not the one with the natural ability, or the one who finds it fascinating, but the one who really is only doing it to get attention. And that's part of the cycle: that child will project his or her own motives onto others in the future, and assume that others with love for music or natural talent are actually only playing music to get attention (like he/she is). The child does not know that everyone's motive for playing music is not the same, and may not ever learn that. So, those who play music with that person in the future will find themselves in an ego/power struggle. If that person becomes a teacher, he or she will compete with his/her own students, and project his/her own motivations onto them. That means the student with a very high natural ability OR fascination for music will be treated by this teacher as if they have an inflated ego and are trying to steal the "spotlight". The student who has an interest in learning piano will need to overcome the projections and implications that it will be "too hard" for them to do; many people don't get over this hurdle. And even if they do get over it at first enough to learn how, they still will have to keep pushing past more projections (you're only doing it for attention/you're not that good/you're not important enough to be a REAL piano player/you think you're better than other people) as time goes on and their ability improves.
~
If one applies this template to other fields of work and study, one can start to unravel some of the dynamics within.
There are, for example, a lot of carpenters out there who don't actually enjoy woodworking or building, and many who aren't even good at it, but who are only doing it because they were led to believe that it's a "man's" job, and that if you do carpentry, it proves that you are a "man", or "clever", or "important", or "tough". Also because it's an easy way to make money if people believe you can do it.
There is a very big difference between a person who does carpentry because they are fascinated by it and talented at it, and a person who is really doing it because they want others to recognize them as "masculine", "capable", or "important", or just to make money. Like any other field or interest, the person who does it because they're genuinely "into" carpentry does not make a big deal out of how HARD it is or how DANGEROUS it is or how TOUGH a person has to be; they're not focused on OTHER PEOPLE (or their own image), they're focused on the CARPENTRY. But a person who is doing it to "prove" or "show" something is quite focused on other people. If they are trying to show that they're "Masculine" by being a carpenter, then they'll hate it when a woman shows up doing the same job. They may also hate it if a smaller man shows up, or a child, because it would wreck the image altogether of "I can do this because I'm so masculine". Turning carpentry into a BIG DEAL gives the impression that only PEOPLE who are a "Big Deal" would be able to do it. So anyone who's NOT doing it is not a "Big Deal" person, and wouldn't be able to do it even if they tried. A small man, woman, or younger person doing the same job messes that all up, so they are kept out of the field if at all possible by creating a "hostile environment".
ONLY IN DYSFUNCTIONAL GROUPS are "hostile environments" allowed to remain or flourish.
This is not a male-only phenomenon at all, but it does seem to be more prevalent in anything that people try to label as "male", from cooking on the grill to video games to Poker to comic books to Physics. In fact, it seems to work SO well that people will purposely label something "male" just to attach the image so females will hesitate to join or learn, mostly for worry of having to deal with a "hostile environment".
It of course works quite well the other way also; labeling something "female" will cause conditioned boys and men to avoid it so they don't get identified with it by their peers or by older males.
Making things a bigger deal than they are and attaching labels to them keeps people from learning how to do things, from doing certain things, from going out into the world, and from pursuing and expanding their interests. It's a very effective Control tactic.
Making a big deal out of things is part and parcel to the human ego, so the bigger/more inflated/damaged the ego, the more the person will do it.
Because of this, younger people often get the impression from older people that many things are much, much more difficult to learn or to do than they really are; that certain kinds of people or certain individuals are much more "important" than others, and that methods, ideas, beliefs and stereotypes are absolutes that are engraved in stone. It can also cause dramatic envy issues, where people compete for "importance", attention, credit, and position.
On one hand, a young person can believe that something is too hard for them to learn how to do, or too scary or dangerous to even try. Many around them in such groups will encourage these beliefs, because it keeps that young person as a "less important" person, which means that other people are automatically"more important". On the other hand, another young person can make a goal out of "becoming" one of these "very important people" that do "very important" or "very difficult" things. So in the same family or community, one child may be afraid to even try to learn to play the piano because people are making it out to be such an extremely difficult skill for just an "average person" to learn, and another child will set out to become a Piano Player Person because of the same people painting Piano Players as "Smart/Very Talented/Important People". In the same group, another child will hide their piano-playing ability because people around the child project the assumption onto them that the child is ONLY playing the Piano to get attention and LOOK IMPORTANT.
So one kid is afraid to try to play Piano because people imply that it's so hard (too hard for "normal" people, or for that child), another child is doing it ONLY BECAUSE people imply that only smart or important people can play the Piano, and yet another child is hiding their ability to play because people accuse the child of only doing it to LOOK smart, cool, or important. So the child who ends up getting recognized for playing the piano out of the three of them is not the one with the natural ability, or the one who finds it fascinating, but the one who really is only doing it to get attention. And that's part of the cycle: that child will project his or her own motives onto others in the future, and assume that others with love for music or natural talent are actually only playing music to get attention (like he/she is). The child does not know that everyone's motive for playing music is not the same, and may not ever learn that. So, those who play music with that person in the future will find themselves in an ego/power struggle. If that person becomes a teacher, he or she will compete with his/her own students, and project his/her own motivations onto them. That means the student with a very high natural ability OR fascination for music will be treated by this teacher as if they have an inflated ego and are trying to steal the "spotlight". The student who has an interest in learning piano will need to overcome the projections and implications that it will be "too hard" for them to do; many people don't get over this hurdle. And even if they do get over it at first enough to learn how, they still will have to keep pushing past more projections (you're only doing it for attention/you're not that good/you're not important enough to be a REAL piano player/you think you're better than other people) as time goes on and their ability improves.
~
If one applies this template to other fields of work and study, one can start to unravel some of the dynamics within.
There are, for example, a lot of carpenters out there who don't actually enjoy woodworking or building, and many who aren't even good at it, but who are only doing it because they were led to believe that it's a "man's" job, and that if you do carpentry, it proves that you are a "man", or "clever", or "important", or "tough". Also because it's an easy way to make money if people believe you can do it.
There is a very big difference between a person who does carpentry because they are fascinated by it and talented at it, and a person who is really doing it because they want others to recognize them as "masculine", "capable", or "important", or just to make money. Like any other field or interest, the person who does it because they're genuinely "into" carpentry does not make a big deal out of how HARD it is or how DANGEROUS it is or how TOUGH a person has to be; they're not focused on OTHER PEOPLE (or their own image), they're focused on the CARPENTRY. But a person who is doing it to "prove" or "show" something is quite focused on other people. If they are trying to show that they're "Masculine" by being a carpenter, then they'll hate it when a woman shows up doing the same job. They may also hate it if a smaller man shows up, or a child, because it would wreck the image altogether of "I can do this because I'm so masculine". Turning carpentry into a BIG DEAL gives the impression that only PEOPLE who are a "Big Deal" would be able to do it. So anyone who's NOT doing it is not a "Big Deal" person, and wouldn't be able to do it even if they tried. A small man, woman, or younger person doing the same job messes that all up, so they are kept out of the field if at all possible by creating a "hostile environment".
ONLY IN DYSFUNCTIONAL GROUPS are "hostile environments" allowed to remain or flourish.
This is not a male-only phenomenon at all, but it does seem to be more prevalent in anything that people try to label as "male", from cooking on the grill to video games to Poker to comic books to Physics. In fact, it seems to work SO well that people will purposely label something "male" just to attach the image so females will hesitate to join or learn, mostly for worry of having to deal with a "hostile environment".
It of course works quite well the other way also; labeling something "female" will cause conditioned boys and men to avoid it so they don't get identified with it by their peers or by older males.
Making things a bigger deal than they are and attaching labels to them keeps people from learning how to do things, from doing certain things, from going out into the world, and from pursuing and expanding their interests. It's a very effective Control tactic.
Anti Authority Irony
Traits
of Borderline Pers. Disorder that seemsto be very, very common among
adults in this current cultural era, (with or without BPD diagnosis),
are being hyper-defensive and automatically rebellious against anyone
who seems to have even the slightest hint of "authority". Even an air of
confidence from a peer can set off this "rebellion". Many who exhibit
this trait seem appear to feel entitled and quite self-righteous in "knocking someone off their high horse".
The criteria used to discern whether a person is arrogant or vain is often extremely superficial and not evidence of anything untoward at all; sometimes even being construed completely reversed (a person who is genuinely humble and gracious may be misconstrued as the most arrogant and self-centered in the group).
For example the woman at work who sits quietly at her desk, who is not outspoken or boastful, is polite to everyone who speaks to her, and who is the sole caregiver for a disabled relative when she's not at work is perceived and painted as "that stuck-up lady".
Often, a person showing signs of confidence, conviction, knowledge, skill, experience, creativity, strength or happiness is construed as being "stuck up", arrogant, a know-it-all or a "show off". After such labels have been stamped on them, the labels serve as a justification to treat them with disrespect or even abuse.
This developmental stage can be seen in certain times during childhood development, when a young person is feeling insecure about their own worth, capability, and potential. When a person stays in this stage for any number of reasons, they can become an adult who continually seeks others who they think need to be "knocked down a few notches" or "put in their place", or "owned".
This feeling of a very high, almost magical ability to discern haughtiness and agenda in others is ironic.
When acted on, this can become behavior that can manifest as very unhealthy interactions with others, such as bullying or other forms of domination, slander, triangulation, gaslighting, even sabotage.
Western culture at large seems to show a significant increase in these traits in the adult population over the last couple of decades, and seems to be increasing instead of decreasing.
The criteria used to discern whether a person is arrogant or vain is often extremely superficial and not evidence of anything untoward at all; sometimes even being construed completely reversed (a person who is genuinely humble and gracious may be misconstrued as the most arrogant and self-centered in the group).
For example the woman at work who sits quietly at her desk, who is not outspoken or boastful, is polite to everyone who speaks to her, and who is the sole caregiver for a disabled relative when she's not at work is perceived and painted as "that stuck-up lady".
Often, a person showing signs of confidence, conviction, knowledge, skill, experience, creativity, strength or happiness is construed as being "stuck up", arrogant, a know-it-all or a "show off". After such labels have been stamped on them, the labels serve as a justification to treat them with disrespect or even abuse.
This developmental stage can be seen in certain times during childhood development, when a young person is feeling insecure about their own worth, capability, and potential. When a person stays in this stage for any number of reasons, they can become an adult who continually seeks others who they think need to be "knocked down a few notches" or "put in their place", or "owned".
This feeling of a very high, almost magical ability to discern haughtiness and agenda in others is ironic.
When acted on, this can become behavior that can manifest as very unhealthy interactions with others, such as bullying or other forms of domination, slander, triangulation, gaslighting, even sabotage.
Western culture at large seems to show a significant increase in these traits in the adult population over the last couple of decades, and seems to be increasing instead of decreasing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)