Capchas
Best one I've seen yet from commenting on The Travelling Hungry Boy's delicious Blogpost:
" occupy suck the "
Actually kind of appropriate, considering the post was regarding dangerously yummy looking Arizonian
Native American Chili Beef Stew...
Fashion Police, Fohawks, Faux Hawks For Helmets
Came across yet another article bashing the way total strangers dress... right, because certain people are entitled to do that, dictate what other people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT wear...
Lol geez LIGHTEN UP! What's the deal with the Fashion Police epidemic? They're the reason why everyone at the mall look like clones...
ROCK ON, FAUXHAWKS!
Excellently hilarious, or "cool", however you want it to be; and even funnier is the fact that it freaks out the Control Freak self-appointed Fashion Police...
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/122_1107_the_fauxhawk_fashion_police/
Excellent Kids, I love these!
I think I'm gonna get one just to wear when I go to the grocery store... wish I was still a teen, but then again what's stopping me?!
Lol geez LIGHTEN UP! What's the deal with the Fashion Police epidemic? They're the reason why everyone at the mall look like clones...
ROCK ON, FAUXHAWKS!
Excellently hilarious, or "cool", however you want it to be; and even funnier is the fact that it freaks out the Control Freak self-appointed Fashion Police...
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/122_1107_the_fauxhawk_fashion_police/
Excellent Kids, I love these!
I think I'm gonna get one just to wear when I go to the grocery store... wish I was still a teen, but then again what's stopping me?!
Awareness About Who and What We Listen To
There is a certain irony in the fact that "the masses" have a "voice" now, via the free internet, and also the fact that this is the wealthiest era in human history, obviously not for all individuals or people, but for humanity as a species. It is the first time in recorded human history that a person who was not raised in a wealthy enough family, or has "class", race, or gender privilege, is freely able to simply PUBLISH whatever is on his or her mind, with very little censure. Throughout human history, only certain people were "allowed" to express their views, their observations, even their scientific discoveries in a public, published way; it has always been under the rule and subject to the approval of whomever was governing the region at the time.
Most of the history we read, religious writings, science, philosophy, even music and art have been nearly all under the control and scrutiny of those who held "authority". So whatever their personal prejudices and biases were, whatever their agendas were, they were reflected by what was published, what was allowed to be published, what passed their personal approval.
Most published works of ANYTHING have been created by males, and only those works were published that passed through the scrutiny of whomever held power, however skewed their perception.
The reasons for both of these facts were about control and power of the "masses", and also about the personal prejudices and issues of those "in power", not about "All Men" believing themselves to be superior. Women have been mostly closed out of being published due to obvious prejudice and certain people's personal issues, but men have also been under just as much control and scrutiny for the most part, and MOST MEN were NOT published, no matter how enlightened, skilled, talented, or smart they were in their interest.
(It's amazing to me, personally, that some of the obviously anti-elitist and anti-sexist teachings from the era of Jesus survived in the 4 written Gospels that Emperor Constantine allowed to be included in the origin of the Christian Bible.)
However, now, in this modern era, this very modern, recent era, for the first time ever, men of any age, any background, any "status", educational level, wealth "status", or ancestry can freely PUBLISH pretty much whatever they want. ANY point of view can be published freely, no matter what the person's personality, mental state, emotional state, or personal prejudices are. A completely psychotic person with extreme prejudices against specific groups or individuals can PUBLISH, and present their work as "factual", as advice, as guidance, as religion, as spiritual guidance, as if they are coming from an experienced, grounded, and "enlightened" point of view, just as freely as a person with years of experience, just as freely as a person who is very fair-minded, aware, experienced, genuinely caring and supportive, or "enlightened". Just as freely as anyone else on the planet. The wealthy and the "connected" are of course more able to PROMOTE what they publish, whether they're psychotic or stable, but literally any person who can access a Wi Fi device can publish whatever they want, for free.
That means we are all exposed to every imaginable personality type in the human species; when we read, listen, or engage with those who publish, we need to keep this in mind. We are no longer in a purely "academic" forum, with only people who have been guided in critical and objective thinking, or only people who understand what "bias" and "prejudice" is, or even only people who maintain basic civility and basic respect for others because they know and understand why it's important, or even what it is. So when we listen, read, or engage with those who publish in this era, remember that they could be coming from, literally, ANY point of view, ANY mental state, ANY bias or emotional disorder. They MIGHT be a person who respects other humans, who is insightful, civil, and cares about people (or animals, or rights), but they also MIGHT be a psychopath, or just completely delusional.
Of course throughout history, many of the published works were ALSO done by delusional, mentally ill, emotionally disordered people, and there has always been serious consequences because of people following along with their "work" and "instruction". There has ALSO always been serious consequences from people MISCONSTRUING the published work of fair-minded, aware, intelligent, stable people. Most religious writings have "inspired" unstable readers and followers to do horrendous, ridiculous things that weren't even CLOSE to what the script was trying to communicate.
So, we have mentally and emotionally compromised individuals throughout history both doing the publishing AND the reading, listening, viewing, and "following". However, this is the first time ever, as far as we know, that any one at all could PUBLISH whatever their point of view is without CENSURE from someone in authority or power. And that means ANYTHING that ANYONE thinks of to publish, either because they're serious or making a joke, can be something we find on a Google Search, or on YouTube. The most prejudiced, skewed, sick, mean person in the world can be creating and publishing their work right now, as we speak, and if we do the right search, we might find it; we aren't going to know that the person is psychotic or has a personality disorder.
So, we need to remember not to "BUY INTO" what we read, what we listen to, or what people advise. We are free, of course, to listen, but we do not EVER need to swallow or buy into their opinion, advice, guidance, or beliefs.
And then there's the matter of participating in commenting and discussion. Anyone who's ever been in a situation with a Narcissistic or psychotic person is probably aware of the problem with engaging personally in any kind of verbal exchange, whether it's in person or on the internet. No boundaries, no conscience, no remorse, no self-control, no awareness means no qualms about verbally attacking a person, smearing their reputation to others, sabotaging them, or trying to establish more of a connection with them than they allow or are willing to do.
Awareness Trumps Fear! :)
Most of the history we read, religious writings, science, philosophy, even music and art have been nearly all under the control and scrutiny of those who held "authority". So whatever their personal prejudices and biases were, whatever their agendas were, they were reflected by what was published, what was allowed to be published, what passed their personal approval.
Most published works of ANYTHING have been created by males, and only those works were published that passed through the scrutiny of whomever held power, however skewed their perception.
The reasons for both of these facts were about control and power of the "masses", and also about the personal prejudices and issues of those "in power", not about "All Men" believing themselves to be superior. Women have been mostly closed out of being published due to obvious prejudice and certain people's personal issues, but men have also been under just as much control and scrutiny for the most part, and MOST MEN were NOT published, no matter how enlightened, skilled, talented, or smart they were in their interest.
(It's amazing to me, personally, that some of the obviously anti-elitist and anti-sexist teachings from the era of Jesus survived in the 4 written Gospels that Emperor Constantine allowed to be included in the origin of the Christian Bible.)
However, now, in this modern era, this very modern, recent era, for the first time ever, men of any age, any background, any "status", educational level, wealth "status", or ancestry can freely PUBLISH pretty much whatever they want. ANY point of view can be published freely, no matter what the person's personality, mental state, emotional state, or personal prejudices are. A completely psychotic person with extreme prejudices against specific groups or individuals can PUBLISH, and present their work as "factual", as advice, as guidance, as religion, as spiritual guidance, as if they are coming from an experienced, grounded, and "enlightened" point of view, just as freely as a person with years of experience, just as freely as a person who is very fair-minded, aware, experienced, genuinely caring and supportive, or "enlightened". Just as freely as anyone else on the planet. The wealthy and the "connected" are of course more able to PROMOTE what they publish, whether they're psychotic or stable, but literally any person who can access a Wi Fi device can publish whatever they want, for free.
That means we are all exposed to every imaginable personality type in the human species; when we read, listen, or engage with those who publish, we need to keep this in mind. We are no longer in a purely "academic" forum, with only people who have been guided in critical and objective thinking, or only people who understand what "bias" and "prejudice" is, or even only people who maintain basic civility and basic respect for others because they know and understand why it's important, or even what it is. So when we listen, read, or engage with those who publish in this era, remember that they could be coming from, literally, ANY point of view, ANY mental state, ANY bias or emotional disorder. They MIGHT be a person who respects other humans, who is insightful, civil, and cares about people (or animals, or rights), but they also MIGHT be a psychopath, or just completely delusional.
Of course throughout history, many of the published works were ALSO done by delusional, mentally ill, emotionally disordered people, and there has always been serious consequences because of people following along with their "work" and "instruction". There has ALSO always been serious consequences from people MISCONSTRUING the published work of fair-minded, aware, intelligent, stable people. Most religious writings have "inspired" unstable readers and followers to do horrendous, ridiculous things that weren't even CLOSE to what the script was trying to communicate.
So, we have mentally and emotionally compromised individuals throughout history both doing the publishing AND the reading, listening, viewing, and "following". However, this is the first time ever, as far as we know, that any one at all could PUBLISH whatever their point of view is without CENSURE from someone in authority or power. And that means ANYTHING that ANYONE thinks of to publish, either because they're serious or making a joke, can be something we find on a Google Search, or on YouTube. The most prejudiced, skewed, sick, mean person in the world can be creating and publishing their work right now, as we speak, and if we do the right search, we might find it; we aren't going to know that the person is psychotic or has a personality disorder.
So, we need to remember not to "BUY INTO" what we read, what we listen to, or what people advise. We are free, of course, to listen, but we do not EVER need to swallow or buy into their opinion, advice, guidance, or beliefs.
And then there's the matter of participating in commenting and discussion. Anyone who's ever been in a situation with a Narcissistic or psychotic person is probably aware of the problem with engaging personally in any kind of verbal exchange, whether it's in person or on the internet. No boundaries, no conscience, no remorse, no self-control, no awareness means no qualms about verbally attacking a person, smearing their reputation to others, sabotaging them, or trying to establish more of a connection with them than they allow or are willing to do.
Awareness Trumps Fear! :)
Be Debt Free Of Burden; Prem Rawat
"The heart begins to fill. Then what happens? You begin to reap those simple fruits of what was sown inside of you a long time ago.
That is when the promise that you made to yourself begins to be fulfilled. That's when it happens.
So... be debt-free. Be debt-free, free of debt, free of burden."
 | |
| River Of Time: Prem Rawat |
INCOMPLETE does not mean INCORRECT
"INCOMPLETE" is not the same as "INCORRECT".
I am amazed nearly every day by this common oversight in logic when I read various articles and comments about articles, especially coming from so many intelligent people.
"I take issue with this article and the author's observations are wrong; the second paragraph doesn't talk about how my race is equally affected!"
"The author completely forgets about the fact that there is another region in this country that's much different from the place talked about in the article."
"Limes are used for this purpose also, the author is wrong in saying that lemons are used."
"The author obviously has a female-bias and is incorrect in her statistics, she does not mention the fact that men are also abused..."
When a person writes anything at all, or makes any kind of point or observation about anything, OF COURSE it's incomplete! OF COURSE they didn't include every single point, counterpoint, piece of information, point of view, or piece of evidence. There is no work by a human being, EVER, that includes every single facet of a subject, any subject at all.
All each of us can do is share what we see, what we've observed, what we've figured out, what we've noticed specifically, and we can only EFFECTIVELY do that ONE TOPIC AT A TIME.
All each of us can do (ANY of us) is share the VERY LIMITED point of view that we are capable of having as Homo Sapien Sapiens, AND as readers, listeners, and students, it's our responsibility and hopefully, CAPABILITY, to engage with ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME.
There is no document ever, ever written by a human that includes all of the information surrounding that topic or subject, or that states what it does include in COMPLETE ACCURACY.
This expectation of perfection, complete inclusion of every detail that even touches the subject, and incredible, computer-like accuracy is frankly silly, especially since it's not based in any kind of reality.
The person who accuses someone else of being "incorrect" in their observations BECAUSE their article, post, or statement is INCOMPLETE would not ever, ever be able to form a statement, write a paper, document, or article, or express their meaning in a COMPLETE FORM, including every point of view, every fact, every effect, every piece of history surrounding the topic, etc, etc. NEVER MIND the things regarding the topic that aren't actually KNOWN or UNDERSTOOD by any humans.
Seriously. It's ridiculous, very counter productive, and all about ego (the inflated kind), not information exchange or discovery.
I am amazed nearly every day by this common oversight in logic when I read various articles and comments about articles, especially coming from so many intelligent people.
"I take issue with this article and the author's observations are wrong; the second paragraph doesn't talk about how my race is equally affected!"
"The author completely forgets about the fact that there is another region in this country that's much different from the place talked about in the article."
"Limes are used for this purpose also, the author is wrong in saying that lemons are used."
"The author obviously has a female-bias and is incorrect in her statistics, she does not mention the fact that men are also abused..."
When a person writes anything at all, or makes any kind of point or observation about anything, OF COURSE it's incomplete! OF COURSE they didn't include every single point, counterpoint, piece of information, point of view, or piece of evidence. There is no work by a human being, EVER, that includes every single facet of a subject, any subject at all.
All each of us can do is share what we see, what we've observed, what we've figured out, what we've noticed specifically, and we can only EFFECTIVELY do that ONE TOPIC AT A TIME.
All each of us can do (ANY of us) is share the VERY LIMITED point of view that we are capable of having as Homo Sapien Sapiens, AND as readers, listeners, and students, it's our responsibility and hopefully, CAPABILITY, to engage with ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME.
There is no document ever, ever written by a human that includes all of the information surrounding that topic or subject, or that states what it does include in COMPLETE ACCURACY.
This expectation of perfection, complete inclusion of every detail that even touches the subject, and incredible, computer-like accuracy is frankly silly, especially since it's not based in any kind of reality.
The person who accuses someone else of being "incorrect" in their observations BECAUSE their article, post, or statement is INCOMPLETE would not ever, ever be able to form a statement, write a paper, document, or article, or express their meaning in a COMPLETE FORM, including every point of view, every fact, every effect, every piece of history surrounding the topic, etc, etc. NEVER MIND the things regarding the topic that aren't actually KNOWN or UNDERSTOOD by any humans.
Seriously. It's ridiculous, very counter productive, and all about ego (the inflated kind), not information exchange or discovery.
"Program" From Narcissistic Abuse
One
of the programs that can get implemented with control-abuse and
codependent dynamics is very subtle approval-seeking. The program gets
"installed" as part of the core decision-making process.
It looks something like:
"I like this coat, and it fits what I need and want in a coat, I want to buy it"... but then, from underneath, in a quiet voice, "What will so-and-so think, say, and DO if I buy this coat, if I wear this coat, if they see this coat, if they see me wearing this coat, if they know the price of this coat" and "Will they accept me more or less if I wear this coat; what will this coat imply about me; will they think it makes me look stuck-up, rich, poor, classy, low-class, trying too hard". and "what will be the outcome of all factors if I buy this coat", and then, often, "there are too many potential negative consequences for buying this coat, better not buy it right now, maybe another time."
If a Controller likes or approves of the coat purchase, then most of those "worries" can seem to melt away.
This program can be seen in anyone from a "codependent" system, whatever their role in the system is, including "Golden children" and "Controllers". (A Controller might desire and seek approval AND try to control and dominate others at the same time.)
This program can cause an undercurrent of anxiety that can become debilitating, especially when accompanied by similar programs such as social anxiety or agoraphobia.
It can hold a person back from doing absolutely anything without direct or APPARENT approval from others, from speaking during a conversation, to getting a job, to going through the steps to go to college, to actually going to class, to making soup, to buying socks, to maintaining their car.
It looks something like:
"I like this coat, and it fits what I need and want in a coat, I want to buy it"... but then, from underneath, in a quiet voice, "What will so-and-so think, say, and DO if I buy this coat, if I wear this coat, if they see this coat, if they see me wearing this coat, if they know the price of this coat" and "Will they accept me more or less if I wear this coat; what will this coat imply about me; will they think it makes me look stuck-up, rich, poor, classy, low-class, trying too hard". and "what will be the outcome of all factors if I buy this coat", and then, often, "there are too many potential negative consequences for buying this coat, better not buy it right now, maybe another time."
If a Controller likes or approves of the coat purchase, then most of those "worries" can seem to melt away.
This program can be seen in anyone from a "codependent" system, whatever their role in the system is, including "Golden children" and "Controllers". (A Controller might desire and seek approval AND try to control and dominate others at the same time.)
This program can cause an undercurrent of anxiety that can become debilitating, especially when accompanied by similar programs such as social anxiety or agoraphobia.
It can hold a person back from doing absolutely anything without direct or APPARENT approval from others, from speaking during a conversation, to getting a job, to going through the steps to go to college, to actually going to class, to making soup, to buying socks, to maintaining their car.
Ego: Good or Bad?
A
common effect of narcissistic conditioning is believing that "ego" is
bad. Not everyone gets affected in this way, but many do.
"Ego" is simply a kind of energetic version of our "skin" and our "self", connected with our boundaries. It can be healthy or unhealthy, but it's just a part of how we're made. Those with serious control issues will often send the message in various ways, over and over, that a target's ego is bad, that it's "inflated", that the target is arrogant/stuck-up/aggressive and has too much ego. However, this is the kind of thing that one might say to an actual control-freak who is wreaking havoc and creating serious problems, not a message one sends to a child, or to a loved one. Even if a child WAS displaying "inflated ego" issues (although it's usually just childhood confidence and boundary development misconstrued by adults), the remedy is more guidance, not disparagement.
When a person is targeted to strip them of their ego, they are being violated, and when a person is targeted for conditioning so that they believe their own ego is "bad", like a disease or a deformity, that's brainwashing and abuse.
Controllers of course want targets to be ego-less, because they can control and violate them much more easily. There's no barrier. Also, without ego, we tend to "let ourselves go", meaning we don't focus on keeping ourselves "shiny", so other people don't notice us as much, are less attracted, and so we receive less attention, and therefore less support, automatically.
The definition of the word "ego" has been skewed by popular culture in a way that implies automatic negativity, but it's not, it's just a part of being a human being. We're supposed to have an ego. It doesn't make us good or bad.
Narcissists channel their energy and focus into their ego and image, but not their character underneath. When one channels energy into one's real life, self, relationship with others, and learning, with humility, one's ego develops along with healthy boundaries. Anyone's ego can become inflated, but that's just something that happens to us as humans, we learn and we grow, and our ego becomes healthier.
Like M&M's, in a simplistic way: The candy shell as the ego is supposed to be there, without it the chocolate is vulnerable and melts easily; you can't just carry them around, they would get squished. But the core of the candy is the chocolate. Without that, it's just an empty shell. The M&M is a piece of chocolate, first, and around that chocolate is the candy shell. So without the shell it's still an M&M, but it's vulnerable.
If M&M's did not put chocolate inside those candy shells, and put all of their energy into only the shells, maybe made them flourescent or added sparkles, we would still see them as really neato M&M's, but we would have no idea there was no chocolate inside. Until we bought them, brought them home, and started eating them.
So what's "wrong" is when the ego is the thing that the person is putting all of their energy and focus into, not when the ego is present and exists. A healthy ego, like the shell of an M&M, doesn't DO anything negative to anyone else, it protects what's inside, makes it okay to travel around, and it likes to keep itself "up", clean, colorful, and shiny. With a clear "m" stamp ~ it's okay to be happy about that, and it's healthy; we're SUPPOSED TO maintain ourselves and let that be part of our confidence. When the ego and shell becomes our focal point to where we ignore and forget about what's inside, then it's unhealthy.
But the shell on the M&M, and the ego on a human, is perfectly healthy, it's supposed to be there, and it's important to keep it healthy.
"Ego" is simply a kind of energetic version of our "skin" and our "self", connected with our boundaries. It can be healthy or unhealthy, but it's just a part of how we're made. Those with serious control issues will often send the message in various ways, over and over, that a target's ego is bad, that it's "inflated", that the target is arrogant/stuck-up/aggressive and has too much ego. However, this is the kind of thing that one might say to an actual control-freak who is wreaking havoc and creating serious problems, not a message one sends to a child, or to a loved one. Even if a child WAS displaying "inflated ego" issues (although it's usually just childhood confidence and boundary development misconstrued by adults), the remedy is more guidance, not disparagement.
When a person is targeted to strip them of their ego, they are being violated, and when a person is targeted for conditioning so that they believe their own ego is "bad", like a disease or a deformity, that's brainwashing and abuse.
Controllers of course want targets to be ego-less, because they can control and violate them much more easily. There's no barrier. Also, without ego, we tend to "let ourselves go", meaning we don't focus on keeping ourselves "shiny", so other people don't notice us as much, are less attracted, and so we receive less attention, and therefore less support, automatically.
The definition of the word "ego" has been skewed by popular culture in a way that implies automatic negativity, but it's not, it's just a part of being a human being. We're supposed to have an ego. It doesn't make us good or bad.
Narcissists channel their energy and focus into their ego and image, but not their character underneath. When one channels energy into one's real life, self, relationship with others, and learning, with humility, one's ego develops along with healthy boundaries. Anyone's ego can become inflated, but that's just something that happens to us as humans, we learn and we grow, and our ego becomes healthier.
Like M&M's, in a simplistic way: The candy shell as the ego is supposed to be there, without it the chocolate is vulnerable and melts easily; you can't just carry them around, they would get squished. But the core of the candy is the chocolate. Without that, it's just an empty shell. The M&M is a piece of chocolate, first, and around that chocolate is the candy shell. So without the shell it's still an M&M, but it's vulnerable.
If M&M's did not put chocolate inside those candy shells, and put all of their energy into only the shells, maybe made them flourescent or added sparkles, we would still see them as really neato M&M's, but we would have no idea there was no chocolate inside. Until we bought them, brought them home, and started eating them.
So what's "wrong" is when the ego is the thing that the person is putting all of their energy and focus into, not when the ego is present and exists. A healthy ego, like the shell of an M&M, doesn't DO anything negative to anyone else, it protects what's inside, makes it okay to travel around, and it likes to keep itself "up", clean, colorful, and shiny. With a clear "m" stamp ~ it's okay to be happy about that, and it's healthy; we're SUPPOSED TO maintain ourselves and let that be part of our confidence. When the ego and shell becomes our focal point to where we ignore and forget about what's inside, then it's unhealthy.
But the shell on the M&M, and the ego on a human, is perfectly healthy, it's supposed to be there, and it's important to keep it healthy.
Defensive Behavior On Purpose
"Being
defensive" is a learned way of getting out of lots of things. It's also
used to force one's point of view, or force getting one's way. When one
behaves defensively, then one is implying that they are the one who is
under fire and being treated unfairly. Reality doesn't matter if the
behavior itself works, and it does work, quite often.
Children who develop this habit often learned it directly from watching someone else, a parent or other older person, even a sibling or neighbor. They also learned that people do get away with using it as a control tool in many circles, with many individuals.
Children learn that it can be used for all kinds of purposes, pretty much anything, if those around them allow it or fall for it. If they use it successfully during childhood, and are not reprimanded for it or guided away from it, they will often continue to use it in adulthood.
When there are several people in a group who use defensiveness for control purposes, they will often defend one another. They're really defending the behavior itself, not the person, and this can be seen when they throw the person they were just defending last week under the bus to defend themselves.
Humans tend to automatically align themselves with whoever is acting "defensively", REGARDLESS of facts and reality, and this automatic behavior increases dramatically when the person is like THEMSELVES in some way. The similarity can be anything at all, from being a fan of the same sports team, to being on the same "rung" of the ladder at their company, to being the same sex, same race, similar height, ancestry, FIELD of work or study, wealth or poverty status, even being from the same town, wearing similar clothing, anything at all that says "that person is like me".
Humans also tend to consider themselves "understanding" and "objective" when they align themselves with a person who is behaving defensively; they give themselves a 'reward' for it, and feel like a 'good person'. However the fact that they didn't actually view the events or situation objectively, from ALL sides equally, without bias, doesn't seem to enter their minds.
Behaving defensively is a learned behavior, usually from childhood, that a fair number of people use for control purposes.
Children who develop this habit often learned it directly from watching someone else, a parent or other older person, even a sibling or neighbor. They also learned that people do get away with using it as a control tool in many circles, with many individuals.
Children learn that it can be used for all kinds of purposes, pretty much anything, if those around them allow it or fall for it. If they use it successfully during childhood, and are not reprimanded for it or guided away from it, they will often continue to use it in adulthood.
When there are several people in a group who use defensiveness for control purposes, they will often defend one another. They're really defending the behavior itself, not the person, and this can be seen when they throw the person they were just defending last week under the bus to defend themselves.
Humans tend to automatically align themselves with whoever is acting "defensively", REGARDLESS of facts and reality, and this automatic behavior increases dramatically when the person is like THEMSELVES in some way. The similarity can be anything at all, from being a fan of the same sports team, to being on the same "rung" of the ladder at their company, to being the same sex, same race, similar height, ancestry, FIELD of work or study, wealth or poverty status, even being from the same town, wearing similar clothing, anything at all that says "that person is like me".
Humans also tend to consider themselves "understanding" and "objective" when they align themselves with a person who is behaving defensively; they give themselves a 'reward' for it, and feel like a 'good person'. However the fact that they didn't actually view the events or situation objectively, from ALL sides equally, without bias, doesn't seem to enter their minds.
Behaving defensively is a learned behavior, usually from childhood, that a fair number of people use for control purposes.
Narcissism And Lying
Yes,
most Narcissists lie habitually, about pretty much anything and anyone,
for serious reasons and for very petty reasons. N's who do this may
constantly make things up about themselves and about other people in
order to manipulate whatever situation they're in, so it's in their
favor. Tiny things or very big things, no thing and nobody is "immune".
They will imply nasty things about others, even their "loved ones', that aren't true, just to gain sympathy and attention from others. They'll exaggerate or make up illnesses and injuries, completely re-write conversations they had with others and then tell someone the "edited" version, they'll simply fabricate parts of their past, their present, and their future, and about OTHERS as well. Most N's will lie TO or ABOUT anyone, and anything, in order to make things the way the want them, and to put themselves in a "good light".
It does appear that many are actually delusional: they believe the lies they make up; their brains create a different version of reality, and they believe it, and then speak and behave accordingly.
Sometimes they get caught when they've gone "too far" with outlandish rumors, or get tangled in too many opposing fibs, or trash the "wrong" person, but often they stay undetected because:
While they're lying, they're acting as innocent, as well-informed, as injured, ill, and compromised, or as victimized as possible. A very large number of people fall for the act, hook line and sinker.
In most cases they did develop this habit as an unhealthy coping skill during childhood, so it's often deeply seated.
It's important to note: When one FEELS innocent and above reproach, it's much easier to convey the image of genuine innocence, and it's much easier to understand why they would feel defensive.
~
Regarding the people who fall for the act: It's one thing to fall for the facade another person is trying convey about themselves;
it's another thing entirely to go along willfully with slander and gossip, whether it's serious or seemingly trivial, about someone else.
They will imply nasty things about others, even their "loved ones', that aren't true, just to gain sympathy and attention from others. They'll exaggerate or make up illnesses and injuries, completely re-write conversations they had with others and then tell someone the "edited" version, they'll simply fabricate parts of their past, their present, and their future, and about OTHERS as well. Most N's will lie TO or ABOUT anyone, and anything, in order to make things the way the want them, and to put themselves in a "good light".
It does appear that many are actually delusional: they believe the lies they make up; their brains create a different version of reality, and they believe it, and then speak and behave accordingly.
Sometimes they get caught when they've gone "too far" with outlandish rumors, or get tangled in too many opposing fibs, or trash the "wrong" person, but often they stay undetected because:
While they're lying, they're acting as innocent, as well-informed, as injured, ill, and compromised, or as victimized as possible. A very large number of people fall for the act, hook line and sinker.
In most cases they did develop this habit as an unhealthy coping skill during childhood, so it's often deeply seated.
It's important to note: When one FEELS innocent and above reproach, it's much easier to convey the image of genuine innocence, and it's much easier to understand why they would feel defensive.
~
Regarding the people who fall for the act: It's one thing to fall for the facade another person is trying convey about themselves;
it's another thing entirely to go along willfully with slander and gossip, whether it's serious or seemingly trivial, about someone else.
Primates and Sexist/Sexual Aggression
Primates and sexist/sexual aggression
Scientific American The Science Of Sexism
There has never been an observed case of male sexual coercion in this species (Bonobos) despite the fact that males are still somewhat larger than females.
Chimpanzee females are largely isolated from one another, but bonobo females come to one another’s aid.
"An important aspect of primate sexual coercion that shouldn’t be ignored is where it doesn’t exist and why. Bonobos are as closely related to us as chimpanzees are since we shared a common ancestor with both between four and six million years ago and the two species later diverged from each other only about a million years ago. There has never been an observed case of male sexual coercion in this species despite the fact that males are still somewhat larger than females.
A unique aspect of bonobo society is that they are a female-dominated species thanks to the network of support that exists between bonobo females. Chimpanzee females are largely isolated from one another, but bonobo females come to one another’s aid. While there may be genetic differences that account for the lack of sexual coercion in bonobos, one important factor is the different environment that promotes these cooperative networks and limits the usefulness of male coercion (see my interview with Frans de Waal for more on this topic). Male bonobos mate more frequently by gaining support from these female networks rather than using sexual coercion as can be found in chimpanzees. Males grow up with this “culture” and observe the older males in their troop emphasize grooming over aggression and then adapt their own behavior in order to maximize their reproductive success.
But bonobos aren’t the only ones. To illustrate how powerful the influence of culture can be for primate societies consider the most extreme example of a sexually coercive species: savanna baboons. Male baboons have been known to viciously maul a female that has rejected their advances and the level of male aggression is strongly correlated with their mating success. However, in a unique natural experiment Stanford primatologist Robert Sapolsky observed what developed when the largest and most aggressive males died out in a group known as Forest Troop (because they were feeding at the contaminated dump site of a Western safari lodge). In the intervening years Forest Group developed a culture in which kindness was rewarded more than aggression and adolescent males who migrated into the troop adopted this culture themselves. As Sapolsky related in his essay “A Natural History of Peace” for the journal Foreign Affairs
FULL POST
Scientific American The Science Of Sexism
There has never been an observed case of male sexual coercion in this species (Bonobos) despite the fact that males are still somewhat larger than females.
Chimpanzee females are largely isolated from one another, but bonobo females come to one another’s aid.
"An important aspect of primate sexual coercion that shouldn’t be ignored is where it doesn’t exist and why. Bonobos are as closely related to us as chimpanzees are since we shared a common ancestor with both between four and six million years ago and the two species later diverged from each other only about a million years ago. There has never been an observed case of male sexual coercion in this species despite the fact that males are still somewhat larger than females.
A unique aspect of bonobo society is that they are a female-dominated species thanks to the network of support that exists between bonobo females. Chimpanzee females are largely isolated from one another, but bonobo females come to one another’s aid. While there may be genetic differences that account for the lack of sexual coercion in bonobos, one important factor is the different environment that promotes these cooperative networks and limits the usefulness of male coercion (see my interview with Frans de Waal for more on this topic). Male bonobos mate more frequently by gaining support from these female networks rather than using sexual coercion as can be found in chimpanzees. Males grow up with this “culture” and observe the older males in their troop emphasize grooming over aggression and then adapt their own behavior in order to maximize their reproductive success.
But bonobos aren’t the only ones. To illustrate how powerful the influence of culture can be for primate societies consider the most extreme example of a sexually coercive species: savanna baboons. Male baboons have been known to viciously maul a female that has rejected their advances and the level of male aggression is strongly correlated with their mating success. However, in a unique natural experiment Stanford primatologist Robert Sapolsky observed what developed when the largest and most aggressive males died out in a group known as Forest Troop (because they were feeding at the contaminated dump site of a Western safari lodge). In the intervening years Forest Group developed a culture in which kindness was rewarded more than aggression and adolescent males who migrated into the troop adopted this culture themselves. As Sapolsky related in his essay “A Natural History of Peace” for the journal Foreign Affairs
FULL POST
Naturally Human
Altruism, empathy, compassion, fairness, and even small self-sacrifice for others do not appear to be simply natural human traits, but rather enlightened understanding and learning of what it really takes to maintain the mental, physical, and emotional health of people in a relationship, family, group and community. The more 'enlightened' individuals seen in a particular group, the better the quality of life is apparent for all members, and the less understanding and 'enlightenment', the less success the members of the group will find in various areas of life. Human beings tend to sink to the lowest common denominator, not float to the highest. We are heavier than air, water, and understanding, not lighter. We're dense, and that's our greatest weakness.
OCD and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)
How Are PTSD and OCD Connected?
In addition to PTSD, people who have experienced a traumatic life event may also be more likely to develop symptoms of OCD. In fact, it has been shown that the severity of a person's OCD symptoms is connected to the number of traumatic events they have experienced in their lifetime.http://ptsd.about.com/od/relatedconditions/a/OCD_PTSD.htm
Why Certain People Get Targeted More Than Others
Why are there more abuse and bully victims of one sex than the other, one class or the other, one body type or another, or one ancestry, skin or hair color than another in a given area?
If a target's physical body and appearance matches local prejudices, then the odds are much greater that they will be targeted in the first place, and that the targeting will keep going as long as the person remains in the local area. Because people who target others ONLY STOP if they think they'll receive CONSEQUENCES for it from OTHERS.
(Because people who target others are immature, for the most part; they only do things or don't do things based on reward and consequence.)
This can be witnessed clearly in regions where certain prejudices such as white against black are now considered immoral, but other prejudices such as anti-white or anti-female go unchecked, and therefore there is no fear of consequences for behaving with such prejudice and immaturity.
For example, a local Firefighter's organization may be making sure that there is no racial bias in the entry process, but sex and height bias is still present, because no one is giving out social consequences for it. So now all races are represented in the Firefighter's organization, and everyone feels like they're being "morally correct", but the fact that all of the races of humans there are taller males is completely ignored, and everyone pretends they don't notice. If and when someone points it out, it will be either denied or rationalized, (something like "these are simply the people who passed the entry test, there's no bias going on") but there will be no fact-checking or real, objective review of the entry process or surrounding factors. There will be no objective investigation into local biases, or into the possibility of a "hostile environment" that keeps certain people from even trying to take the entry tests.
There will be no objectivity, period. Because no one FEARS CONSEQUENCES for their prejudices.
If a target's physical body and appearance matches local prejudices, then the odds are much greater that they will be targeted in the first place, and that the targeting will keep going as long as the person remains in the local area. Because people who target others ONLY STOP if they think they'll receive CONSEQUENCES for it from OTHERS.
(Because people who target others are immature, for the most part; they only do things or don't do things based on reward and consequence.)
This can be witnessed clearly in regions where certain prejudices such as white against black are now considered immoral, but other prejudices such as anti-white or anti-female go unchecked, and therefore there is no fear of consequences for behaving with such prejudice and immaturity.
For example, a local Firefighter's organization may be making sure that there is no racial bias in the entry process, but sex and height bias is still present, because no one is giving out social consequences for it. So now all races are represented in the Firefighter's organization, and everyone feels like they're being "morally correct", but the fact that all of the races of humans there are taller males is completely ignored, and everyone pretends they don't notice. If and when someone points it out, it will be either denied or rationalized, (something like "these are simply the people who passed the entry test, there's no bias going on") but there will be no fact-checking or real, objective review of the entry process or surrounding factors. There will be no objective investigation into local biases, or into the possibility of a "hostile environment" that keeps certain people from even trying to take the entry tests.
There will be no objectivity, period. Because no one FEARS CONSEQUENCES for their prejudices.
Fantasy Life: "Good People" and "Bad People"
The rejection of another person's reality is a symptom of being used to living in fantasy about one's own life.
If a person needs to believe certain things about their life, themselves, and others in order to feel like a valuable person, then those beliefs and the stories that they are built upon can not be challenged.
A common fantasy that many people share is that they are one of the people who are above reproach, and are higher in 'natural status' than others around them. This allows them to believe that they are naturally more logical, more grounded, more responsible, and more emotionally stable than certain others whom they have designated as lower status than themselves. This allows them to believe that they are entitled to privilege, care, love, understanding, sympathy, resources OVER others. It also encourages them to believe they are entitled to have authority over those who are not included in their elite "good person" group.
This common fantasy is usually shared with one or more people in the person's life, and in fact they have likely actually adapted the fantasy from others who already live in it.
One of the behaviors that is nearly always visible when this fantasy is present is the labeling of others in negative ways. Projected "bad character" is placed on others in a blanket way, and projected "good character" is placed on themselves, and those within the shared fantasy.
Labels that categorize others in a blanket way as "bad people" such as "unstable", "loser", "emotional", "hostile", "lazy", "slut", "whackjob", "right-fighter", "naive", "self-centered", "stuck-up", etc are simply methods of ignoring and covering up events and details of reality, and casting the person in a bad light. If a person is upset about something that happened to them, then categorizing them as a "nutjob" is a way to have an excuse to ignore and invalidate them. This comes in very handy when a person is upset about something that someone else did TO them; the offender's actions get minimized, twisted completely, or even deleted, they never have to account for what they did, and as an added benefit, they even get to look like the "victim" of the other person, instead of the reality of it being the other way around.
Labels that categorize themselves and others who share their fantasy as "good people" such as "compassionate", "helpful", "hard worker", "responsible", "smart", "sweet", "generous", "down to earth", are also ways of clothing a person in a blanket judgment to keep the fantasy alive, and to keep their transgressions and not so nice motives hidden. If a person is labeled as "good people", then any sins they commit that are SEEN will be automatically painted as innocent mistakes, or unintentional, or because of stress.
People who live in and with this common fantasy can be heard using descriptive terms about other people frequently, INSTEAD of reviewing actual events in order to understand what really happened. They don't WANT to hear what happened, they don't WANT to talk about details, and they don't WANT to know all sides or points of view. They are ONLY concerned with keeping their fantasy alive of who is in the "good person/entitled person" group and who is not, which means reality is not welcome, because it would destroy the fantasy.
The importance of keeping the fantasy going and keeping one's self in the "good person" group can actually mean the difference between having access to resources, care, and normal living, and being ostracized from the person's family and community, because these fantasies are usually originated and carried by others who actually hold real control, power, and resources. When the fantasy is SHARED, then others are also invested in it, so when someone does NOT perpetuate the fantasy and begins to actually LOOK at real events, they are an immediate THREAT. They will often be quickly rallied against and ejected from the group with prejudice. If a person stands up FOR a person who has been treated unfairly or badly by those in the "good person" group, they will usually be quickly rallied against and rejected, and RE-CATEGORIZED and RE-LABELED in the "bad person" group.
When a person does anything at all, real or IMAGINARY, that leads to them being ejected from the "good person/entitled person" group, they will then be re-categorized as NOT "one of the good/entitled people", and therefore will be blocked from resources, denied care, sympathy, and support, will be denied recognition and credit for anything they do, and will be blocked, sabotaged, countered, and invalidated at every turn. Nothing they say from that day forward will be heard or taken seriously by anyone in the "good person/entitled person" group.
The fantasy is actually a shared consensus that is kept alive BY these changes in "membership". If there is no one to reject, then there's no more fantasy, and the pain of reality starts to creep in. Those who live in this fantasy may not KNOW that there is another way to live that doesn't cause so much drama and harm to people, but it's also possible that they do know, and don't care, because the fantasy seems to work better for them than real life.
If a person needs to believe certain things about their life, themselves, and others in order to feel like a valuable person, then those beliefs and the stories that they are built upon can not be challenged.
A common fantasy that many people share is that they are one of the people who are above reproach, and are higher in 'natural status' than others around them. This allows them to believe that they are naturally more logical, more grounded, more responsible, and more emotionally stable than certain others whom they have designated as lower status than themselves. This allows them to believe that they are entitled to privilege, care, love, understanding, sympathy, resources OVER others. It also encourages them to believe they are entitled to have authority over those who are not included in their elite "good person" group.
This common fantasy is usually shared with one or more people in the person's life, and in fact they have likely actually adapted the fantasy from others who already live in it.
One of the behaviors that is nearly always visible when this fantasy is present is the labeling of others in negative ways. Projected "bad character" is placed on others in a blanket way, and projected "good character" is placed on themselves, and those within the shared fantasy.
Labels that categorize others in a blanket way as "bad people" such as "unstable", "loser", "emotional", "hostile", "lazy", "slut", "whackjob", "right-fighter", "naive", "self-centered", "stuck-up", etc are simply methods of ignoring and covering up events and details of reality, and casting the person in a bad light. If a person is upset about something that happened to them, then categorizing them as a "nutjob" is a way to have an excuse to ignore and invalidate them. This comes in very handy when a person is upset about something that someone else did TO them; the offender's actions get minimized, twisted completely, or even deleted, they never have to account for what they did, and as an added benefit, they even get to look like the "victim" of the other person, instead of the reality of it being the other way around.
Labels that categorize themselves and others who share their fantasy as "good people" such as "compassionate", "helpful", "hard worker", "responsible", "smart", "sweet", "generous", "down to earth", are also ways of clothing a person in a blanket judgment to keep the fantasy alive, and to keep their transgressions and not so nice motives hidden. If a person is labeled as "good people", then any sins they commit that are SEEN will be automatically painted as innocent mistakes, or unintentional, or because of stress.
People who live in and with this common fantasy can be heard using descriptive terms about other people frequently, INSTEAD of reviewing actual events in order to understand what really happened. They don't WANT to hear what happened, they don't WANT to talk about details, and they don't WANT to know all sides or points of view. They are ONLY concerned with keeping their fantasy alive of who is in the "good person/entitled person" group and who is not, which means reality is not welcome, because it would destroy the fantasy.
The importance of keeping the fantasy going and keeping one's self in the "good person" group can actually mean the difference between having access to resources, care, and normal living, and being ostracized from the person's family and community, because these fantasies are usually originated and carried by others who actually hold real control, power, and resources. When the fantasy is SHARED, then others are also invested in it, so when someone does NOT perpetuate the fantasy and begins to actually LOOK at real events, they are an immediate THREAT. They will often be quickly rallied against and ejected from the group with prejudice. If a person stands up FOR a person who has been treated unfairly or badly by those in the "good person" group, they will usually be quickly rallied against and rejected, and RE-CATEGORIZED and RE-LABELED in the "bad person" group.
When a person does anything at all, real or IMAGINARY, that leads to them being ejected from the "good person/entitled person" group, they will then be re-categorized as NOT "one of the good/entitled people", and therefore will be blocked from resources, denied care, sympathy, and support, will be denied recognition and credit for anything they do, and will be blocked, sabotaged, countered, and invalidated at every turn. Nothing they say from that day forward will be heard or taken seriously by anyone in the "good person/entitled person" group.
The fantasy is actually a shared consensus that is kept alive BY these changes in "membership". If there is no one to reject, then there's no more fantasy, and the pain of reality starts to creep in. Those who live in this fantasy may not KNOW that there is another way to live that doesn't cause so much drama and harm to people, but it's also possible that they do know, and don't care, because the fantasy seems to work better for them than real life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)