Ad Hominem .
Hate Her For Being Pretty?
Hating it when someone does something that displays skill, talent, or knowledge can be seen in several personality disorders, and also in anxiety disorders and codependency.
When a person does something that displays skill/talent/knowledge, it triggers memories, past and recent, that revolve around receiving attention, credit, and acceptance.
So for example if a child was often ignored and neglected while others praised her older or younger sister for being a wonderful dancer, the child may easily associate abandonment with seeing a person dance well, and may instantly worry that others will compare her to this dancer and see her as less worthy, or betray her.
A child may get compared to other children frequently either by adults, peers, or both, and become conditioned to believe that the only way to get positive attention or recognition is to out-perform others, and so when someone else displays ability or is physically attractive, they are seen as an immediate threat: if they get the positive attention and credit, there won't be any left for the child.
These specific types of association can expand into any type of situation where another person might get attention, credit, praise, or recognition for something they do, or for their appearance, or for their possessions. It's a form of envy, but it's not simply "evil", it's based in past trauma and is more fear-based than just plain greed.
Children often bring these types of associations into adulthood, and may develop serious anxiety issues around the performances and appearances of others, or it can turn into internalized resentment, hatefulness, and narcissism.
When a person does something that displays skill/talent/knowledge, it triggers memories, past and recent, that revolve around receiving attention, credit, and acceptance.
So for example if a child was often ignored and neglected while others praised her older or younger sister for being a wonderful dancer, the child may easily associate abandonment with seeing a person dance well, and may instantly worry that others will compare her to this dancer and see her as less worthy, or betray her.
A child may get compared to other children frequently either by adults, peers, or both, and become conditioned to believe that the only way to get positive attention or recognition is to out-perform others, and so when someone else displays ability or is physically attractive, they are seen as an immediate threat: if they get the positive attention and credit, there won't be any left for the child.
These specific types of association can expand into any type of situation where another person might get attention, credit, praise, or recognition for something they do, or for their appearance, or for their possessions. It's a form of envy, but it's not simply "evil", it's based in past trauma and is more fear-based than just plain greed.
Children often bring these types of associations into adulthood, and may develop serious anxiety issues around the performances and appearances of others, or it can turn into internalized resentment, hatefulness, and narcissism.
Jeff Brown: Ascending With Both Feet On The Ground
Nailed
it. Humans aren't a bunch of different species, there's only one,
unless Sasquatch is alive, and even then we'd have a common ancestor.
Trying to separate "males" from "females" and dishonoring the other sex
is just a childish conditioning that
happens to work really well because it plays on a child's feelings of
shame, ego, and belonging, and also happens to allow certain control
freaks to stay in control. Duh. Divide Us We Fall... how is that not
obvious to people? Quit trying to make men into one thing and women into
another, it's boring and tedious, and it's from Hollywood and control
freak Royalty who made people believe that dominating and destroying
others was "honorable", and that being a martyr was a "virtue". How
about let's grow the heck up.
"The armored man is afraid of his heart, he is afraid of the empowered feminine, he is afraid of surrendering his egoic shield to something deeper, truer, more heartfelt. What he doesn’t realize is that we are inextricably linked, so linked that when he denigrates the feminine, he imprisons and denigrates his own consciousness. There can be no victories at the expense of the Divine Mother. None at all. It is time for a new paradigm, one that honors the wisdom of the feminine, one that soulebrates her courageous willingness to remain receptive, relational, and compassionate in the heart of this still mad world. Armored men- bow before her. Sing her praises, dance in her wisdom and her love. She is the path home."
~Jeff Brown
They Are Weak, I Am Strong
Judging others as emotionally and mentally "weak" is a sign of narcissism, and usually correlates with judging one's self to be very stable, grounded, responsible, and logical, and therefore in no need of self-examination. Unfortunately, these individuals are often the ones most in need of self-review because they are actually hiding from their own past and their own emotions.
Healing is quite possible, but only for those who are willing. They also need to be careful to discern who is actually capable of counseling them. People who suffer from narcissism issues may choose those who exacerbate their symptoms instead of helping them, because they tend to trust and admire only those who they identify as naturally superior, which can mean absolutely anything. They might get lucky and find someone with humility and real wisdom, but they might also follow someone who aspires only to money and reputation, with no real wisdom at all, just because the person makes them feel good, or looks like their image of a wise person.
Healing is quite possible, but only for those who are willing. They also need to be careful to discern who is actually capable of counseling them. People who suffer from narcissism issues may choose those who exacerbate their symptoms instead of helping them, because they tend to trust and admire only those who they identify as naturally superior, which can mean absolutely anything. They might get lucky and find someone with humility and real wisdom, but they might also follow someone who aspires only to money and reputation, with no real wisdom at all, just because the person makes them feel good, or looks like their image of a wise person.
Finding Your Diamond Self
Finding Your Diamond Self: Confident and Empowered!
http://lovein90days.com/finding-your-diamond-self-confident-empowered/
Hipster Sexism; Just As Asinine As All The Other Kinds Of Bigotry
While actually sexist, of course, hipster sexism is different from what
Quart defines as "Classic Sexism." A hipster sexist calls you a bitch
and tells you to shut up but in a funny way, while a classic sexist tells you your rape was God's will without a hint of irony. Both are douchebags, but the hipster sexist is a douchebag in enlightened clothing...
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/hipster-sexism-is-sexist-feminist-magazine-irony-culture-racism-sexism
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/hipster-sexism-is-sexist-feminist-magazine-irony-culture-racism-sexism
Recovery From Narcissism Traits
A lot
of people with other illnesses also have Narcissism traits that go
along with their underlying issues. Including but not limited to PTSD.
These traits and behaviors may serve the purpose of "protecting" the
person's very fragile self from the harsh outside world. However when
the person is in a safe place and is seeking recovery, the Narcissism
traits can keep coming back when they're triggered for any reason, for "good" reasons or for "bad" reasons, and can delay and inhibit recovery a great deal.
It would be very helpful for a person to find a grounded and objective therapist and/or healer to help them along in their recovery. Really, it's a lot to ask from friends, partners, and family to be one's main support in recovery; they are personally connected, and will suffer from the bouts of Narcissistic reactions and behaviors. It's important to have support, and someone to act as a neutral feedback mirror/sounding board outside of one's personal circle (whether one has Narc. traits or not).
It would be very helpful for a person to find a grounded and objective therapist and/or healer to help them along in their recovery. Really, it's a lot to ask from friends, partners, and family to be one's main support in recovery; they are personally connected, and will suffer from the bouts of Narcissistic reactions and behaviors. It's important to have support, and someone to act as a neutral feedback mirror/sounding board outside of one's personal circle (whether one has Narc. traits or not).
Entitlement To Authority
Those with Narcissism traits will inflict their own "rules of conduct" onto others, but will accuse those others of being controlling and rigid for even referring to "rules of conduct", or human social interaction.
Another projection that's related to Narcissistic Injury.
N:
"I'm allowed and entitled to behave rudely according to my moods, emotions, and whims. I'm entitled to dictate what you can talk about. I'm entitled to treat others disrespectfully, and in a condescending and demeaning way....
"But YOU are NOT permitted to do any of these things, especially to ME. You are also not permitted to stand up to me about the way I treat you or others, because I am entitled to behave in any way that I please. You are challenging my authority, privilege and control over you when you stand up to the way I treat you and speak to you.
"Everything I do and say has a "reason" behind it that is 'innocent', valid, and irrefutable, but everything you do and say must be passed through MY approval, and if I'm not comfortable with it, I will feel entitled to shut you down.
"I am entitled to act and speak of my own volition with no self-checking or feedback from anyone all of the time; you are not, you must be approved of by me, as well as others."
Narcissists feel like they are in the "grown up", "elder", "authority" and "expert" group, and that they get to dictate who is NOT. And, whoever they decide is NOT gets dictated to, judged, punished, and expected to serve and submit to their "authority".
Another projection that's related to Narcissistic Injury.
N:
"I'm allowed and entitled to behave rudely according to my moods, emotions, and whims. I'm entitled to dictate what you can talk about. I'm entitled to treat others disrespectfully, and in a condescending and demeaning way....
"But YOU are NOT permitted to do any of these things, especially to ME. You are also not permitted to stand up to me about the way I treat you or others, because I am entitled to behave in any way that I please. You are challenging my authority, privilege and control over you when you stand up to the way I treat you and speak to you.
"Everything I do and say has a "reason" behind it that is 'innocent', valid, and irrefutable, but everything you do and say must be passed through MY approval, and if I'm not comfortable with it, I will feel entitled to shut you down.
"I am entitled to act and speak of my own volition with no self-checking or feedback from anyone all of the time; you are not, you must be approved of by me, as well as others."
Narcissists feel like they are in the "grown up", "elder", "authority" and "expert" group, and that they get to dictate who is NOT. And, whoever they decide is NOT gets dictated to, judged, punished, and expected to serve and submit to their "authority".
More Male Narcissists?
There are more male adult Narcissists than female in modern society for SOCIAL reasons, not simply because of biology.
If the reason was biological, then the social dynamics and belief systems would be a lot more similar from region to region, group to group, and family to family, in much more specific ways. Needing oxygen, needing water, needing food, and needing shelter and warmth are universal. Social beliefs and sex "roles" are not, because they're not biological; we make them up. And then we use biology as a way to rationalize (attach reasons to) our made-up stories.
For example, being protective of the dignity of a woman seems to be swept aside in sexist cultures, but protecting the dignity of a man is considered a "virtue".
The reputation of a man regarding business, ability, achievement and skill is held up by others as "important", but is often diminished and simply ignored when the person is a woman.
It's just conditioning; it's not about reality; it's how we're taught to think from one generation to the next, and from the influence of one culture or another, or from "offshoots" and subgroups of cultures.
Superstition and made-up stories also play a very large role in sexism and gender issues.
It doesn't make logical sense at all, and indeed the imbalance creates serious dysfunction in the culture, which directly affects the children and throws a large wrench in the forward progress of quality of life for all citizens.
It is absolutely more acceptable in most human groups, but not ALL, for people to treat a woman or girl dismissively, disrespectfully, than a man or boy. It is more acceptable in most human groups to micro-judge and "assess" girls and women for everything, from the way they look, to the way they dress, to the way they talk, what they do for a living, what they're interested in, and what they talk ABOUT, than to micro-judge and assess men and boys.
It is more acceptable in most human groups for people to feel entitled to dictate and tut-tut what a girl or woman "should" or "should not be" doing, in pretty much any area of life, from clothing to daily chores, to hobbies, skills, career, and life in general, and even what they're talking about, than to dictate such wheedling, control-freak details to boys and men.
It is more acceptable in most human groups for people to behave immaturely and childishly toward women than toward men, and women are expected to just "take it" and "deal with it", or they are chastised (the way children chastise one another) for being "too sensitive". Men, on the other hand, (in general), are actually more protected by those same people from insult, humiliation, disrespect, betrayal, and rebellion.
So it's actually women who are LESS protected and helped in most societies, and men who are MORE protected and helped. Not the other way around. It may SEEM like it's the other way around, but when we actually look at real statistics and listen to real facts and real experiences, it's quite evident what the reality of the situation is.
(The fact that so many people will have an emotionally defensive reaction toward the previous paragraph DEMONSTRATES that we keep it "close to our chest" and take it personally, which means we are NOT objective and factual about the subject. We're covering something up.)
Boys witness this large disparity as they grow up, and are of course affected by it. To be a member of the group who does NOT get wheedled, micro-judged and micro-managed by others can feel like one's own group does not DESERVE this micro-management and demeaning treatment because they're so much greater and better, but that the other group DOES, because they're so much lesser and worse.
To exacerbate this further, boys are usually directly taught that they are entitled to be the "boss" and the "leader" over any females whom they're connected to in any way, and that the REASON for this is because men are superior in many ways to women, physically and mentally. These "reasons" are implied to be biological "truths", and are not to be questioned or challenged...
When adults teach children that their group is superior to another group, and then give them "reasons", it's not hard to understand why the children would believe it, and internalize it, make it a part of their identity.
The group that is being conditioned to be the "inferior" group is being taught also to believe that this is all true, even while they're being taught at the same time that it doesn't EXIST, that it's "ALL IN THEIR HEADS".
In racist cultures and groups ,the exact same method is used to condition one group to believe in their own "natural superiority", and to condition the other group to accept being the "inferior" group, thereby mentally conditioning one group to feel entitled to lord over the other, and conditioning the other group to allow it and go along with it.
Both groups, whether it's the two sexes that are being conditioned or two races, will be given "reasons" to explain the imbalance, and most humans will actually just buy into it, because they were raised inside of the fictional zeitgeist.
Amazingly, human groups that have been oppressed by other groups will STILL produce individuals who seek to be included in a "supreme" group. These individuals apparently learned nothing from being on the RECEIVING end of oppression, and now seek to be recognized as a member of a "superior" group, so now THEY can be one of the people who boss other people around.
~
(Imbalance, when not corrected, causes a domino effect, a "ripple effect", and even collapse. Basic physics. If one's goal is REALLY to keep a cart upright, (cart representing human life; society, family, relationship, community, education, government, business, science, "progress"), moving, and functioning properly, then one must make sure to keep the wheels in balance with one another, so they hold up the rest of the cart and roll properly. If one of the wheels is larger, then there is more weight on the smaller wheel because the weight shifts to the lower side of the load, and the whole cart is off balance, ready to topple. The large wheel is carrying LESS weight, not MORE weight, so one can see why a person would want to BE the "larger wheel" instead of the smaller wheel if those are the only two choices; you get to carry LESS real weight, but be more visible, and you appear to be the stronger wheel to those who don't understand basic physics.) The cart topples toward the side of the smaller wheel, or the smaller wheel breaks under the load. and everyone blames the smaller wheel for being "too weak", when what was really happening was that the bigger wheel was throwing off the center of gravity in the cart load, shifting more weight to the smaller wheel. A balanced cart that would get its load safely and efficiently from point A to point B would have the same sized wheels on each side, and both would be carrying the weight equally, in a cooperative fashion. That doesn't mean that the "small wheel" needs to be replaced with a "big wheel" so now there's two "big wheels"... it means, metaphorically, that we as human beings need to quit BEING "small wheels" and "big wheels" that compete for false credit, and who try to shift weight and blame on one another.
If the reason was biological, then the social dynamics and belief systems would be a lot more similar from region to region, group to group, and family to family, in much more specific ways. Needing oxygen, needing water, needing food, and needing shelter and warmth are universal. Social beliefs and sex "roles" are not, because they're not biological; we make them up. And then we use biology as a way to rationalize (attach reasons to) our made-up stories.
For example, being protective of the dignity of a woman seems to be swept aside in sexist cultures, but protecting the dignity of a man is considered a "virtue".
The reputation of a man regarding business, ability, achievement and skill is held up by others as "important", but is often diminished and simply ignored when the person is a woman.
It's just conditioning; it's not about reality; it's how we're taught to think from one generation to the next, and from the influence of one culture or another, or from "offshoots" and subgroups of cultures.
Superstition and made-up stories also play a very large role in sexism and gender issues.
It doesn't make logical sense at all, and indeed the imbalance creates serious dysfunction in the culture, which directly affects the children and throws a large wrench in the forward progress of quality of life for all citizens.
It is absolutely more acceptable in most human groups, but not ALL, for people to treat a woman or girl dismissively, disrespectfully, than a man or boy. It is more acceptable in most human groups to micro-judge and "assess" girls and women for everything, from the way they look, to the way they dress, to the way they talk, what they do for a living, what they're interested in, and what they talk ABOUT, than to micro-judge and assess men and boys.
It is more acceptable in most human groups for people to feel entitled to dictate and tut-tut what a girl or woman "should" or "should not be" doing, in pretty much any area of life, from clothing to daily chores, to hobbies, skills, career, and life in general, and even what they're talking about, than to dictate such wheedling, control-freak details to boys and men.
It is more acceptable in most human groups for people to behave immaturely and childishly toward women than toward men, and women are expected to just "take it" and "deal with it", or they are chastised (the way children chastise one another) for being "too sensitive". Men, on the other hand, (in general), are actually more protected by those same people from insult, humiliation, disrespect, betrayal, and rebellion.
So it's actually women who are LESS protected and helped in most societies, and men who are MORE protected and helped. Not the other way around. It may SEEM like it's the other way around, but when we actually look at real statistics and listen to real facts and real experiences, it's quite evident what the reality of the situation is.
(The fact that so many people will have an emotionally defensive reaction toward the previous paragraph DEMONSTRATES that we keep it "close to our chest" and take it personally, which means we are NOT objective and factual about the subject. We're covering something up.)
Boys witness this large disparity as they grow up, and are of course affected by it. To be a member of the group who does NOT get wheedled, micro-judged and micro-managed by others can feel like one's own group does not DESERVE this micro-management and demeaning treatment because they're so much greater and better, but that the other group DOES, because they're so much lesser and worse.
To exacerbate this further, boys are usually directly taught that they are entitled to be the "boss" and the "leader" over any females whom they're connected to in any way, and that the REASON for this is because men are superior in many ways to women, physically and mentally. These "reasons" are implied to be biological "truths", and are not to be questioned or challenged...
When adults teach children that their group is superior to another group, and then give them "reasons", it's not hard to understand why the children would believe it, and internalize it, make it a part of their identity.
The group that is being conditioned to be the "inferior" group is being taught also to believe that this is all true, even while they're being taught at the same time that it doesn't EXIST, that it's "ALL IN THEIR HEADS".
In racist cultures and groups ,the exact same method is used to condition one group to believe in their own "natural superiority", and to condition the other group to accept being the "inferior" group, thereby mentally conditioning one group to feel entitled to lord over the other, and conditioning the other group to allow it and go along with it.
Both groups, whether it's the two sexes that are being conditioned or two races, will be given "reasons" to explain the imbalance, and most humans will actually just buy into it, because they were raised inside of the fictional zeitgeist.
Amazingly, human groups that have been oppressed by other groups will STILL produce individuals who seek to be included in a "supreme" group. These individuals apparently learned nothing from being on the RECEIVING end of oppression, and now seek to be recognized as a member of a "superior" group, so now THEY can be one of the people who boss other people around.
~
(Imbalance, when not corrected, causes a domino effect, a "ripple effect", and even collapse. Basic physics. If one's goal is REALLY to keep a cart upright, (cart representing human life; society, family, relationship, community, education, government, business, science, "progress"), moving, and functioning properly, then one must make sure to keep the wheels in balance with one another, so they hold up the rest of the cart and roll properly. If one of the wheels is larger, then there is more weight on the smaller wheel because the weight shifts to the lower side of the load, and the whole cart is off balance, ready to topple. The large wheel is carrying LESS weight, not MORE weight, so one can see why a person would want to BE the "larger wheel" instead of the smaller wheel if those are the only two choices; you get to carry LESS real weight, but be more visible, and you appear to be the stronger wheel to those who don't understand basic physics.) The cart topples toward the side of the smaller wheel, or the smaller wheel breaks under the load. and everyone blames the smaller wheel for being "too weak", when what was really happening was that the bigger wheel was throwing off the center of gravity in the cart load, shifting more weight to the smaller wheel. A balanced cart that would get its load safely and efficiently from point A to point B would have the same sized wheels on each side, and both would be carrying the weight equally, in a cooperative fashion. That doesn't mean that the "small wheel" needs to be replaced with a "big wheel" so now there's two "big wheels"... it means, metaphorically, that we as human beings need to quit BEING "small wheels" and "big wheels" that compete for false credit, and who try to shift weight and blame on one another.
Denial and Letting Go
"Denial" is not just pretending something didn't happen, but also the refusal to let it go.
We can be "in denial" about ourselves AND about things that happened to other people, and things about other people.
When we're in denial, we are trying to throw something away, bury it, so we don't have to actually DEAL with it. That means we didn't do anything with it, and we're not letting it go, we're holding on to it.
For example a person may be in denial about their own alcohol use; they are avoiding the subject altogether, even with themselves. They're allowing their brain to pretend it's a "non-issue", because if they acknowledge it, then they'll have to LOOK at it, and feel the emotions that they've been avoiding, and then probably have to make bigger life changes. They would have to deal with why they're using alcohol in the first place, which is probably what they're really avoiding.
If it's because they don't know how to deal with a painful relationship, then acknowledging the alcohol use would mean they would have to also acknowledge that they're in a painful relationship, and therefore might need to either end the relationship, or work on themselves and come to grips with the fact that their partner is not the sole "problem". In order to "let it go", they would first need to admit that it exists.
A person can also be in denial about bad things that happened to other people, or good things about other people. Ironically, people who are in denial are usually the ones lecturing others to "Let It Go!" What they're really saying is "I can't handle it, I don't want to deal with it, cover it over with sand, blot it out so I don't have to look at it." Being in denial about something that happened to someone else means WE are the ones who aren't "letting it go", not the person who's talking about it and trying to deal with it.
When we refuse to acknowledge and let go of something that happened to someone in our circle, we are helping to delay their recovery, and thwart their resolution.
It's like hiding a piece of rotten food that they're trying to find and throw away. THEY want to find it and get rid of it, but we're hiding it, pretending it doesn't exist. In the meantime because we refuse to acknowledge it and bring it out into the light of day, it's growing more and more rotten, fermenting, stinking up the whole house. We keep denying it, and the other person keeps bringing it up, trying to find the source of the smell.
What do we do then? We BLAME the person for it! We continue our denial by refusing to acknowledge that we are the ones who refuse to let it go, who refuse to bring it into the light. We conveniently "FORGET" how the fruit went rotten in the first place, and that WE were the ones who hid it.
And then we still refuse to admit that we're holding onto it, and keep blaming the person who's trying to find it and deal with it, so the stench gets worse and worse until the person finally just gives up and LEAVES. Then we say something like "They just didn't want to deal with their own problems... that's why they left, they're so self-centered."
The human capacity for denial can be truly astounding.
We can also be in denial about the good qualities, skills, talents, and accomplishments of both ourselves and others.
Why would we do this? Simply because they don't fit in with the story we've created for ourselves to live in.
If Sarah has written her story so that Jeff is the best mechanic in town, then John can't be. and definitely not Susan. In Sarah's story, only men can be mechanics, not women, because that would mess up the other story lines. Like how the reason Sarah can't fix her own car is because she's a woman. If SUSAN can do it, then that storyline would have to be rewritten, and it can't be, because Sarah has it tied in with the rest of her story. Like why she needs Jeff, why Jeff is an important person, and why she went to college to be a teacher. (She doesn't like kids, she wanted to teach because she wrote in her story that women are naturally good teachers, and that if you're a teacher then that makes you a good person, and also that women "have to" do certain kinds of jobs because they "CAN'T" do the other kinds of jobs that men do.)
That's Sarah's STORY, not reality, and she does not want to have to rewrite any of it, because that would mess up the whole fantasy.
When others around Sarah write similar stories to hers (because they grew up inside of other people's similar stories), they compare them and confirm with each other that they're "true" and "correct". So when something or someone comes along that CONTRADICTS how they've written their stories, they try to delete the information, shut it down, bury it, or reject the PERSON. Because it's much easier, THEY believe, to deny information that doesn't jive with their story, than to deal with it in a mature way, and risk having their stories exposed.
To put it simply, anything that doesn't match the story is thrown out. Deleted. Yes, our brains DO "write" our reality, and constantly edit it. Our brains do it continuously, whether we believe it or not. When we blink, for instance, our brains fill in the blank spot from when our eyes were closed, and we think we didn't miss anything. When we hear something we don't think is true, we usually forget it immediately, even if it WAS true. If we didn't fool ourselves into believing that we're actually safe on this planet that whips around the sun (a giant fireball) in the middle of space, with debris whizzing toward us constantly, we would probably never leave the house, or not have enough confidence to build a house in the first place.
So when we don't want a certain person to be GOOD at something, or get CREDIT or RECOGNITION for something, or be knowledgeable about, skilled at, or experienced in something, it's because it would mess up OUR OWN fictional story line about OURSELVES.
It's the same reason we deny bad things that happened to them, or when we deny things about ourselves. If we acknowledged them, brought them into the light, and let them go, we would be giving up "control" over our own fictional story lines about ourselves, and that is terrifying to some people. Without their fictional story line, they fear they'll be accountable, held responsible, have to do more work, or might not keep getting the respect and credit they're used to getting. So they will do pretty much anything, mental somersaults, in order to keep their story line going, and not let anything "mess it up", like actual reality.
So the next time we catch ourselves telling someone "why don't you just let it go?!" we may want to remember the rotten fruit we've hidden under our bed or in our closet. When we tell someone else to "let it go", we're really telling them to stop bringing it up so we don't have to deal with it ourselves, and admit that it's true. WE are the ones who "won't let it go", because we don't want to admit that we're holding it and hiding it in the first place.
We can be "in denial" about ourselves AND about things that happened to other people, and things about other people.
When we're in denial, we are trying to throw something away, bury it, so we don't have to actually DEAL with it. That means we didn't do anything with it, and we're not letting it go, we're holding on to it.
For example a person may be in denial about their own alcohol use; they are avoiding the subject altogether, even with themselves. They're allowing their brain to pretend it's a "non-issue", because if they acknowledge it, then they'll have to LOOK at it, and feel the emotions that they've been avoiding, and then probably have to make bigger life changes. They would have to deal with why they're using alcohol in the first place, which is probably what they're really avoiding.
If it's because they don't know how to deal with a painful relationship, then acknowledging the alcohol use would mean they would have to also acknowledge that they're in a painful relationship, and therefore might need to either end the relationship, or work on themselves and come to grips with the fact that their partner is not the sole "problem". In order to "let it go", they would first need to admit that it exists.
A person can also be in denial about bad things that happened to other people, or good things about other people. Ironically, people who are in denial are usually the ones lecturing others to "Let It Go!" What they're really saying is "I can't handle it, I don't want to deal with it, cover it over with sand, blot it out so I don't have to look at it." Being in denial about something that happened to someone else means WE are the ones who aren't "letting it go", not the person who's talking about it and trying to deal with it.
When we refuse to acknowledge and let go of something that happened to someone in our circle, we are helping to delay their recovery, and thwart their resolution.
It's like hiding a piece of rotten food that they're trying to find and throw away. THEY want to find it and get rid of it, but we're hiding it, pretending it doesn't exist. In the meantime because we refuse to acknowledge it and bring it out into the light of day, it's growing more and more rotten, fermenting, stinking up the whole house. We keep denying it, and the other person keeps bringing it up, trying to find the source of the smell.
What do we do then? We BLAME the person for it! We continue our denial by refusing to acknowledge that we are the ones who refuse to let it go, who refuse to bring it into the light. We conveniently "FORGET" how the fruit went rotten in the first place, and that WE were the ones who hid it.
And then we still refuse to admit that we're holding onto it, and keep blaming the person who's trying to find it and deal with it, so the stench gets worse and worse until the person finally just gives up and LEAVES. Then we say something like "They just didn't want to deal with their own problems... that's why they left, they're so self-centered."
The human capacity for denial can be truly astounding.
We can also be in denial about the good qualities, skills, talents, and accomplishments of both ourselves and others.
Why would we do this? Simply because they don't fit in with the story we've created for ourselves to live in.
If Sarah has written her story so that Jeff is the best mechanic in town, then John can't be. and definitely not Susan. In Sarah's story, only men can be mechanics, not women, because that would mess up the other story lines. Like how the reason Sarah can't fix her own car is because she's a woman. If SUSAN can do it, then that storyline would have to be rewritten, and it can't be, because Sarah has it tied in with the rest of her story. Like why she needs Jeff, why Jeff is an important person, and why she went to college to be a teacher. (She doesn't like kids, she wanted to teach because she wrote in her story that women are naturally good teachers, and that if you're a teacher then that makes you a good person, and also that women "have to" do certain kinds of jobs because they "CAN'T" do the other kinds of jobs that men do.)
That's Sarah's STORY, not reality, and she does not want to have to rewrite any of it, because that would mess up the whole fantasy.
When others around Sarah write similar stories to hers (because they grew up inside of other people's similar stories), they compare them and confirm with each other that they're "true" and "correct". So when something or someone comes along that CONTRADICTS how they've written their stories, they try to delete the information, shut it down, bury it, or reject the PERSON. Because it's much easier, THEY believe, to deny information that doesn't jive with their story, than to deal with it in a mature way, and risk having their stories exposed.
To put it simply, anything that doesn't match the story is thrown out. Deleted. Yes, our brains DO "write" our reality, and constantly edit it. Our brains do it continuously, whether we believe it or not. When we blink, for instance, our brains fill in the blank spot from when our eyes were closed, and we think we didn't miss anything. When we hear something we don't think is true, we usually forget it immediately, even if it WAS true. If we didn't fool ourselves into believing that we're actually safe on this planet that whips around the sun (a giant fireball) in the middle of space, with debris whizzing toward us constantly, we would probably never leave the house, or not have enough confidence to build a house in the first place.
So when we don't want a certain person to be GOOD at something, or get CREDIT or RECOGNITION for something, or be knowledgeable about, skilled at, or experienced in something, it's because it would mess up OUR OWN fictional story line about OURSELVES.
It's the same reason we deny bad things that happened to them, or when we deny things about ourselves. If we acknowledged them, brought them into the light, and let them go, we would be giving up "control" over our own fictional story lines about ourselves, and that is terrifying to some people. Without their fictional story line, they fear they'll be accountable, held responsible, have to do more work, or might not keep getting the respect and credit they're used to getting. So they will do pretty much anything, mental somersaults, in order to keep their story line going, and not let anything "mess it up", like actual reality.
So the next time we catch ourselves telling someone "why don't you just let it go?!" we may want to remember the rotten fruit we've hidden under our bed or in our closet. When we tell someone else to "let it go", we're really telling them to stop bringing it up so we don't have to deal with it ourselves, and admit that it's true. WE are the ones who "won't let it go", because we don't want to admit that we're holding it and hiding it in the first place.
Narcissists And Children
An
adult with Narcissism who has direct access to a child can wreak havoc
on the child's self-esteem, on confidence in her or his own abilities,
and on the child's belief in his or her own ability to LEARN and
achieve.
An adult with Narcissism who has direct access to a child can wreak havoc on a child's belief that he or she is a good person, and on the feeling that he or she belongs, or deserves to be a member of the group at all, either the small groups the child is a part of (including family), or larger groups, such as sports, dance, or music lesson groups, classes or school in general, the community in general, the child's/ family church, synagogue or other religious gathering group, or the larger human family group.
Narcissistic adults tend to treat children like objects that are there to be judged, as open targets for criticism, as burdens on their lifestyle and resources, as unpaid servants, and as objects to use for their own agendas.
The level of psychosis an individual Narcissist is afflicted with is what dictates the level of abuse or neglect they inflict on children. Some Narcissists are abusive "only" verbally and emotionally, while those with more severe psychosis may wantonly sabotage, gaslight, terrorize, slander, or physically abuse a child.
Narcissists are not always who we think they are, and they are quite often who we think they are NOT.
Honest observation of others and ourselves, and open communication are the required tools to discern Narcissists from non-Narcissists. It's very difficult because most humans in modern culture are conditioned during childhood to turn a blind eye to it, and to buy into the glossy, or "responsible", or good-person facade that Narcissists tend to use as an image.
An adult with Narcissism who has direct access to a child can wreak havoc on a child's belief that he or she is a good person, and on the feeling that he or she belongs, or deserves to be a member of the group at all, either the small groups the child is a part of (including family), or larger groups, such as sports, dance, or music lesson groups, classes or school in general, the community in general, the child's/ family church, synagogue or other religious gathering group, or the larger human family group.
Narcissistic adults tend to treat children like objects that are there to be judged, as open targets for criticism, as burdens on their lifestyle and resources, as unpaid servants, and as objects to use for their own agendas.
The level of psychosis an individual Narcissist is afflicted with is what dictates the level of abuse or neglect they inflict on children. Some Narcissists are abusive "only" verbally and emotionally, while those with more severe psychosis may wantonly sabotage, gaslight, terrorize, slander, or physically abuse a child.
Narcissists are not always who we think they are, and they are quite often who we think they are NOT.
Honest observation of others and ourselves, and open communication are the required tools to discern Narcissists from non-Narcissists. It's very difficult because most humans in modern culture are conditioned during childhood to turn a blind eye to it, and to buy into the glossy, or "responsible", or good-person facade that Narcissists tend to use as an image.
Remember
that a lot of humans only see, basically, in two dimensions; things, people, and
even concepts and ideas look more like cardboard cut-outs to them.
Things, people, and ideas don't appear to have MORE to them than what they see at first glance.
That isn't to say that they literally see things as line drawings, or as "flat objects" floating in space, it's referring to a lack of ability to understand that there is much more to anyone and anything than one can see.
So when they see a person, whatever their EYES see is all they think is there, just like a cardboard cut-out. Their brains do not wonder ABOUT the person, what more there is to the person, because they don't think there IS any more to the person. They believe they know all about the person from what their eyes see, and also from what they themselves FEEL when they see the person. That's all there is, there just ain't no more.
They will do a similar thing when assessing a person's facial expressions, body language, and speech sounds. They believe they are correct about whatever they think the person is expressing, regardless if it's even CLOSE. It doesn't occur to them that they might be misinterpreting the person's expression, or reading it completely WRONG.
If they see or hear something the person does or says that they want to read as "ignorant", "stupid", "mean", or "crazy", they'll just assume they're RIGHT.
And if see or hear another person's social signals as "contemplative", "authoritative", "intelligent", or "in control", they'll just assume they're right about THAT, too.
Basically they just go by their presumptions about "who" and "what" a person is, and then they interpret everything the person does and says through that.
If someone tells them something about the person, they tend to just BELIEVE IT, for the same reasons. No wondering, no doubting, just immediate belief. No filtering anything through "values", "morals", or "ETHICS", no paying attention to their own biases or reviewing their own beliefs. No paying attention to their emotional reactions, or double-checking their motives.
No wondering "Is that even true?"
or "Why does this person seem to want me to LOSE RESPECT FOR this other person?"
or "Am I participating in hatefulness or gossip? Is this right?"
or "Why do I think I know ALL ABOUT another person without actually spending a LOT of time WITH that person?"
or "Am I reading this correctly?"
or "Did I interpret that right?"
or "Do I really know enough information to make a judgment?"
It doesn't seem to register that they would be very upset if people thought about them in such superficial, diminishing, demeaning, judgmental, presumptuous ways.
Nope, none of that. Just going along with whatever, just believing their own cloudy vision, their own assumptions, their own reactive emotions, their own envy, resentfulness, and also their own desires.
There just ain't no more, it's just not there.
~
So when a very large, "tough looking" man with dark skin turns out to NOT be a sports freak, but works for a Florist making bouquets and loves Chopin, and has three cats (instead of what, pit bulls, perhaps) they don't like it. Because they already thought they "knew" all about him, and now his reality is clashing with theirs. So they don't make friends with him, and they doubt his sincerity. They don't give him credit or respect for the things he does, they don't help his reputation, but they do tend to HINDER his reputation and make little sarcastic implications about him.
They don't like HIM because THEY were WRONG.
PLUS, they're envious of him, because he does not live within the same parameters that THEY live in. He's a "free agent" who doesn't seem to care about what other people "expect", and he doesn't seem to care what they think of him.
(And they also know that those qualities are attractive to those of the opposite sex that favor independent thinking and creativity over codependent conformity, so they're jealous, too.)
Maybe one or two of them will start cruel rumors about him in order to make themselves feel "good"... and make sure OTHER PEOPLE DON'T LIKE HIM. Not because he's a bad person, but because they don't want others to know that he's a good person.
~
When a very small, light-skinned, light haired woman turns out NOT to be a fragile waif who's most arduous task is sweeping a floor, or to be a submissive cheerleader who's greatest joy is baking cookies for "her MEN" to enjoy during their sports events (during which she reads all by herself, not minding at all that she's been excluded from her own husband's social life),
but she ACTUALLY fixes cars, runs earth-moving equipment, and works on airplanes and flies them, they FREAK OUT.
Some will find her "extra attractive", and will act like NO OTHER FEMALE HUMAN has EVER done any of those things... she's the ONLY ONE, EVER... OR, they'll do the same as with the large dark-skinned man, they will reject HER as a person, because she didn't fit into THEIR imaginary expectations of her.
Either way, she's a FREAK OF NATURE, as far as their concerned, either to be captured and owned, or to be suspicious of and despised.
In both cases, the large dark-skinned man, and the small, light-skinned and haired woman, the surprised reactions of other people were based SOLELY on the fact that they DID NOT THINK BEYOND the two-dimensional, cardboard-cutouts they had in their heads of them. They did not WAIT TO FIND OUT about either of them, they just ASSUMED that they knew all about them based on nothing more than their appearances.
No matter HOW MANY TIMES "Don't judge a book by its cover" is repeated, humans who only see in two dimensions and believe whatever they see and hear WILL NOT learn what it means. They can't, it's just not there. (That's why they fall prey to advertising and buy so easily and completely into politics and television shows. )
~
It might be hard to fathom, but this two-dimensional thinking is NOT limited to only the diagnosed "mentally ill", or those who have apparent "lower IQs". There are two-dimensional thinkers in every walk of life, and in very high positions of authority, and who have Ivy League degrees.
~
They don't see a sculpture and see the inspiration of the artist, or what the work is attempting to convey. It may not occur to them about the effort and skill the artist put into the work, or why they would even DO it. They just see it as "pretty, ugly, or boring", they only relate to it with "I like it" or "I don't like it", and maybe something about whether the sculptor was a man or a woman, or what ancestry they were. (That matters to them in a big way, usually; if the artist was a man, and they're male-biased, then the work is "genius"; if it was a woman, then that same work is "silly" or "not really that good", or "not as good as so-and-so's".
They'll think the same way regarding any bias they have, if they're female-biased, then it would be the opposite, and if they're ancestry biased, then it's a Great Work Of Art if the sculptor was the "correct" ancestry; if not, the same work will be criticized.)
~
Even harder to fathom, perhaps; a person can be a "brilliant" artist, musician, songwriter, scientist, doctor, healer, psychiatrist, inventor, veterinarian, healthcare worker, teacher, lawyer, coach/instructor, 'leader' in government/ social issues/ religion or spirituality, and yet be a "two dimensional thinker".
Having awareness of the bigger picture, or even the fact that there IS a bigger picture, or that there is MORE to the picture, is apparently NOT a requirement to achieve 'success' in this human realm, even if it SEEMS to be a requirement for one's specific occupation.
Two-dimensional thinkers don't know and don't care that there's more than they can see, or that they might not be seeing what's really there, or that they're interpreting someone or something incorrectly.
Things, people, and ideas don't appear to have MORE to them than what they see at first glance.
That isn't to say that they literally see things as line drawings, or as "flat objects" floating in space, it's referring to a lack of ability to understand that there is much more to anyone and anything than one can see.
So when they see a person, whatever their EYES see is all they think is there, just like a cardboard cut-out. Their brains do not wonder ABOUT the person, what more there is to the person, because they don't think there IS any more to the person. They believe they know all about the person from what their eyes see, and also from what they themselves FEEL when they see the person. That's all there is, there just ain't no more.
They will do a similar thing when assessing a person's facial expressions, body language, and speech sounds. They believe they are correct about whatever they think the person is expressing, regardless if it's even CLOSE. It doesn't occur to them that they might be misinterpreting the person's expression, or reading it completely WRONG.
If they see or hear something the person does or says that they want to read as "ignorant", "stupid", "mean", or "crazy", they'll just assume they're RIGHT.
And if see or hear another person's social signals as "contemplative", "authoritative", "intelligent", or "in control", they'll just assume they're right about THAT, too.
Basically they just go by their presumptions about "who" and "what" a person is, and then they interpret everything the person does and says through that.
If someone tells them something about the person, they tend to just BELIEVE IT, for the same reasons. No wondering, no doubting, just immediate belief. No filtering anything through "values", "morals", or "ETHICS", no paying attention to their own biases or reviewing their own beliefs. No paying attention to their emotional reactions, or double-checking their motives.
No wondering "Is that even true?"
or "Why does this person seem to want me to LOSE RESPECT FOR this other person?"
or "Am I participating in hatefulness or gossip? Is this right?"
or "Why do I think I know ALL ABOUT another person without actually spending a LOT of time WITH that person?"
or "Am I reading this correctly?"
or "Did I interpret that right?"
or "Do I really know enough information to make a judgment?"
It doesn't seem to register that they would be very upset if people thought about them in such superficial, diminishing, demeaning, judgmental, presumptuous ways.
Nope, none of that. Just going along with whatever, just believing their own cloudy vision, their own assumptions, their own reactive emotions, their own envy, resentfulness, and also their own desires.
There just ain't no more, it's just not there.
~
So when a very large, "tough looking" man with dark skin turns out to NOT be a sports freak, but works for a Florist making bouquets and loves Chopin, and has three cats (instead of what, pit bulls, perhaps) they don't like it. Because they already thought they "knew" all about him, and now his reality is clashing with theirs. So they don't make friends with him, and they doubt his sincerity. They don't give him credit or respect for the things he does, they don't help his reputation, but they do tend to HINDER his reputation and make little sarcastic implications about him.
They don't like HIM because THEY were WRONG.
PLUS, they're envious of him, because he does not live within the same parameters that THEY live in. He's a "free agent" who doesn't seem to care about what other people "expect", and he doesn't seem to care what they think of him.
(And they also know that those qualities are attractive to those of the opposite sex that favor independent thinking and creativity over codependent conformity, so they're jealous, too.)
Maybe one or two of them will start cruel rumors about him in order to make themselves feel "good"... and make sure OTHER PEOPLE DON'T LIKE HIM. Not because he's a bad person, but because they don't want others to know that he's a good person.
~
When a very small, light-skinned, light haired woman turns out NOT to be a fragile waif who's most arduous task is sweeping a floor, or to be a submissive cheerleader who's greatest joy is baking cookies for "her MEN" to enjoy during their sports events (during which she reads all by herself, not minding at all that she's been excluded from her own husband's social life),
but she ACTUALLY fixes cars, runs earth-moving equipment, and works on airplanes and flies them, they FREAK OUT.
Some will find her "extra attractive", and will act like NO OTHER FEMALE HUMAN has EVER done any of those things... she's the ONLY ONE, EVER... OR, they'll do the same as with the large dark-skinned man, they will reject HER as a person, because she didn't fit into THEIR imaginary expectations of her.
Either way, she's a FREAK OF NATURE, as far as their concerned, either to be captured and owned, or to be suspicious of and despised.
In both cases, the large dark-skinned man, and the small, light-skinned and haired woman, the surprised reactions of other people were based SOLELY on the fact that they DID NOT THINK BEYOND the two-dimensional, cardboard-cutouts they had in their heads of them. They did not WAIT TO FIND OUT about either of them, they just ASSUMED that they knew all about them based on nothing more than their appearances.
No matter HOW MANY TIMES "Don't judge a book by its cover" is repeated, humans who only see in two dimensions and believe whatever they see and hear WILL NOT learn what it means. They can't, it's just not there. (That's why they fall prey to advertising and buy so easily and completely into politics and television shows. )
~
It might be hard to fathom, but this two-dimensional thinking is NOT limited to only the diagnosed "mentally ill", or those who have apparent "lower IQs". There are two-dimensional thinkers in every walk of life, and in very high positions of authority, and who have Ivy League degrees.
~
They don't see a sculpture and see the inspiration of the artist, or what the work is attempting to convey. It may not occur to them about the effort and skill the artist put into the work, or why they would even DO it. They just see it as "pretty, ugly, or boring", they only relate to it with "I like it" or "I don't like it", and maybe something about whether the sculptor was a man or a woman, or what ancestry they were. (That matters to them in a big way, usually; if the artist was a man, and they're male-biased, then the work is "genius"; if it was a woman, then that same work is "silly" or "not really that good", or "not as good as so-and-so's".
They'll think the same way regarding any bias they have, if they're female-biased, then it would be the opposite, and if they're ancestry biased, then it's a Great Work Of Art if the sculptor was the "correct" ancestry; if not, the same work will be criticized.)
~
Even harder to fathom, perhaps; a person can be a "brilliant" artist, musician, songwriter, scientist, doctor, healer, psychiatrist, inventor, veterinarian, healthcare worker, teacher, lawyer, coach/instructor, 'leader' in government/ social issues/ religion or spirituality, and yet be a "two dimensional thinker".
Having awareness of the bigger picture, or even the fact that there IS a bigger picture, or that there is MORE to the picture, is apparently NOT a requirement to achieve 'success' in this human realm, even if it SEEMS to be a requirement for one's specific occupation.
Two-dimensional thinkers don't know and don't care that there's more than they can see, or that they might not be seeing what's really there, or that they're interpreting someone or something incorrectly.
Self-Examination For Abuse Targets
One
of the really difficult things to deal with for those who are recovering
is one's own "issues". Being inside of an abusive, unsafe situation,
group, or community actually makes it UNSAFE to explore one's own
personality or issues, because there's someone right there to pounce on
them, inflate them, and use them against the person. So when we are
INSIDE of an abusive situation, or dealing with people
who are aggressive, hostile, and controlling, our subconscious often
knows not to go exploring into that side of recovery, no matter how much
we want to, or a therapist wants us to.
Protecting ourselves from abuse and a hostile environment automatically takes precedence over self-examination (you're not going to self-examine while, say, trying to get away from a mountain lion. It's no different when the hostiles are human).
So while it's definitely part of recovery to discover ourselves, our 'issues", our "flaws", even N. traits that we might have, it's a very important part, we might not be really able to do that while we're feeling unsafe. Even if we're "safe and sound" at the moment, roof over our head, kids are safe, food to eat, we can still not feel safe enough to come to terms with certain things about ourselves, and that's okay. No one should be hammering a person to self-examine, especially if they're dealing with a crisis situation, or haven't had a chance to recover from the ordeal. Of COURSE you have flaws, every person on Earth does. Some of them might turn out to surprise you completely. So when you're feeling safe again, and you'll know when that is, you can then start to explore yourself without your subconscious shutting it down in order to switch on the "protection" mode. Many of us absolutely have "N" traits, some behaviors; it's not just "okay" because we've been targeted, but it's not something we can really do much about unless we're in a SAFE environment, not feeling pressured, bullied, or threatened by manipulation and abuse. And a target having one, or two, or a hundred N traits does not make it justifiable in the least for someone to treat them abusively, or manipulatively, so don't believe that having "flaws" gives ANYONE some kind of 'reason' to behave abusively. That's insane, and actually another Narcissist Entitlement.
So go don't be HARD on yourself with self-examination, especially when you're dealing directly with aggressive people and unsafe environments, try not to be one of the people who are causing you undue stress by "beating yourself up" for not recovering fast enough. It's much easier in a relatively safe situation to do self-examination and self-improvement. It's true we do learn a lot from hardship, and that can be a great and wonderful thing. And we also learn from that hardship once we feel safe.
Protecting ourselves from abuse and a hostile environment automatically takes precedence over self-examination (you're not going to self-examine while, say, trying to get away from a mountain lion. It's no different when the hostiles are human).
So while it's definitely part of recovery to discover ourselves, our 'issues", our "flaws", even N. traits that we might have, it's a very important part, we might not be really able to do that while we're feeling unsafe. Even if we're "safe and sound" at the moment, roof over our head, kids are safe, food to eat, we can still not feel safe enough to come to terms with certain things about ourselves, and that's okay. No one should be hammering a person to self-examine, especially if they're dealing with a crisis situation, or haven't had a chance to recover from the ordeal. Of COURSE you have flaws, every person on Earth does. Some of them might turn out to surprise you completely. So when you're feeling safe again, and you'll know when that is, you can then start to explore yourself without your subconscious shutting it down in order to switch on the "protection" mode. Many of us absolutely have "N" traits, some behaviors; it's not just "okay" because we've been targeted, but it's not something we can really do much about unless we're in a SAFE environment, not feeling pressured, bullied, or threatened by manipulation and abuse. And a target having one, or two, or a hundred N traits does not make it justifiable in the least for someone to treat them abusively, or manipulatively, so don't believe that having "flaws" gives ANYONE some kind of 'reason' to behave abusively. That's insane, and actually another Narcissist Entitlement.
So go don't be HARD on yourself with self-examination, especially when you're dealing directly with aggressive people and unsafe environments, try not to be one of the people who are causing you undue stress by "beating yourself up" for not recovering fast enough. It's much easier in a relatively safe situation to do self-examination and self-improvement. It's true we do learn a lot from hardship, and that can be a great and wonderful thing. And we also learn from that hardship once we feel safe.
Incentive Equals Focus.. what's your agenda, really?
If the incentive for a person to do a job is money, then obtaining money will be their focus,
If the incentive for a person to do a job is fame, then fame will be their focus.
If a person's incentive for doing a job is a good reputation (for social or career advancement reasons), then their reputation will be their focus.
~
This means that their main focus will not be the job itself, or the point of doing the job, or the well-being of the people around them. That will be secondary, or for a Narcissist, not even on the radar.
~
This can be applied to ANY FIELD, and any task, any interest, and any occupation.
~
Whatever a person's real focus is, that's what everything else will be tailored to.
~
A poignant example that most of us have dealt with (especially those working in the field alongside them) are medical doctors who's reasons for becoming a doctor was NOT because of a desire to heal people or help them stay well, but because it would make them "important", or because they thought it would make them rich.
These are the doctors who found out the hard way that it's not all fun and games and getting to walk around like the actors on ER, or being the "boss" of everyone, or getting to be the "important one" in the family or community. Since their reasons for becoming medical doctors had not much at all to do with caring about PEOPLE, they have very little motivation to treat their patients with professionalism or even actual medical care; they're just not interested; they passed the tests and did what they had to to get through school, get their license, and get hired.
If they happen to do well in school, then others will often ASSUME that becoming a Doctor was their "Passion", but the truth is a person can be really good at something they don't actually care about. We tend to assume that our talent, skill, and passions align, but it just seems that way. What really happens is that we pursue what we're interested in. In these cases, the interest they were pursuing was filling their bank account and garnering a certain reputation for themselves, NOT "healing people".
Their presence in the medical community makes everything much more difficult for those doctors who are ACTUALLY "passionate" about caring for and healing people. They create more problems and obstacles than they fix, and that affects everyone, patients and the (genuine) medical community alike. They're "wolves in sheep's clothing", basically.
Every field imaginable attracts people who's interests are NOT about the actual job, or the people or animals it serves, but about the MONEY, the reputation, or the power they think they'll get.
Name a field, name a government agency, name a religion, name a civil rights group, a non-profit group, any occupation at all, and you will find lots of workers in that field who are there ONLY for money, reputation, or "power".
NOT for the job, task, or position itself.
That includes psychiatry, education, social work, music, art, government agencies, medical care, military, healing arts, anything at all. The position a person works in, or their career, is NOT an indicator of the "kind of person" they are.
People tend to understand this concept more clearly when we're referring to organized crime, street gangs, and motorcycle clubs; most people are aware that many members join only because they're seeking to create a reputation for themselves or get rich, so they'll do things that are unethical or criminal in order to get what they want, because that's all they care about. But those people cause trouble even in those types of groups as well. If that's ALL a person cares about, they don't care who they step on to get it.
This is also found, rampantly, in social clubs, arts groups, community organizations, religious groups and organizations, and obviously local businesses and government.
Of the more tragic places it's found, besides healthcare, are education, non-profit organizations, DMR (dept. of mental retardation) and DCYS (state children's social services). Those who are in need, who don't have a "voice", and who aren't in the position to stand up for themselves are at the most risk of becoming prey of those who are in the field for their own gain, be it monetary, reputation, or social status and acceptance.
Those who are in the education field for their own reputation, agenda, and paycheck are not interested first in the students, or the student's well-being.
They will step on certain students and help other students in order to further their own reputation, agenda, and comfort.
They will maintain the status quo when it helps them, and try to destroy it when it's not helping their personal agenda.
They tend to create factions, and participate in smear campaigns and gossip.
They tend to see families and parents of the students as "ignorant" or the "enemy".
They tend to contribute to the zeitgeist of accepted bullying in a school, instead of helping to diminish it.
They tend to openly participate in faction-oriented politics.
Their focus and interests are on themselves, their personal interests, and their personal agendas, and NOT on the students.
Helping CERTAIN students that one LIKES does NOT make up for ignoring or stepping on other students due to one's personal issues.
If the incentive for a person to do a job is fame, then fame will be their focus.
If a person's incentive for doing a job is a good reputation (for social or career advancement reasons), then their reputation will be their focus.
~
This means that their main focus will not be the job itself, or the point of doing the job, or the well-being of the people around them. That will be secondary, or for a Narcissist, not even on the radar.
~
This can be applied to ANY FIELD, and any task, any interest, and any occupation.
~
Whatever a person's real focus is, that's what everything else will be tailored to.
~
A poignant example that most of us have dealt with (especially those working in the field alongside them) are medical doctors who's reasons for becoming a doctor was NOT because of a desire to heal people or help them stay well, but because it would make them "important", or because they thought it would make them rich.
These are the doctors who found out the hard way that it's not all fun and games and getting to walk around like the actors on ER, or being the "boss" of everyone, or getting to be the "important one" in the family or community. Since their reasons for becoming medical doctors had not much at all to do with caring about PEOPLE, they have very little motivation to treat their patients with professionalism or even actual medical care; they're just not interested; they passed the tests and did what they had to to get through school, get their license, and get hired.
If they happen to do well in school, then others will often ASSUME that becoming a Doctor was their "Passion", but the truth is a person can be really good at something they don't actually care about. We tend to assume that our talent, skill, and passions align, but it just seems that way. What really happens is that we pursue what we're interested in. In these cases, the interest they were pursuing was filling their bank account and garnering a certain reputation for themselves, NOT "healing people".
Their presence in the medical community makes everything much more difficult for those doctors who are ACTUALLY "passionate" about caring for and healing people. They create more problems and obstacles than they fix, and that affects everyone, patients and the (genuine) medical community alike. They're "wolves in sheep's clothing", basically.
Every field imaginable attracts people who's interests are NOT about the actual job, or the people or animals it serves, but about the MONEY, the reputation, or the power they think they'll get.
Name a field, name a government agency, name a religion, name a civil rights group, a non-profit group, any occupation at all, and you will find lots of workers in that field who are there ONLY for money, reputation, or "power".
NOT for the job, task, or position itself.
That includes psychiatry, education, social work, music, art, government agencies, medical care, military, healing arts, anything at all. The position a person works in, or their career, is NOT an indicator of the "kind of person" they are.
People tend to understand this concept more clearly when we're referring to organized crime, street gangs, and motorcycle clubs; most people are aware that many members join only because they're seeking to create a reputation for themselves or get rich, so they'll do things that are unethical or criminal in order to get what they want, because that's all they care about. But those people cause trouble even in those types of groups as well. If that's ALL a person cares about, they don't care who they step on to get it.
This is also found, rampantly, in social clubs, arts groups, community organizations, religious groups and organizations, and obviously local businesses and government.
Of the more tragic places it's found, besides healthcare, are education, non-profit organizations, DMR (dept. of mental retardation) and DCYS (state children's social services). Those who are in need, who don't have a "voice", and who aren't in the position to stand up for themselves are at the most risk of becoming prey of those who are in the field for their own gain, be it monetary, reputation, or social status and acceptance.
Those who are in the education field for their own reputation, agenda, and paycheck are not interested first in the students, or the student's well-being.
They will step on certain students and help other students in order to further their own reputation, agenda, and comfort.
They will maintain the status quo when it helps them, and try to destroy it when it's not helping their personal agenda.
They tend to create factions, and participate in smear campaigns and gossip.
They tend to see families and parents of the students as "ignorant" or the "enemy".
They tend to contribute to the zeitgeist of accepted bullying in a school, instead of helping to diminish it.
They tend to openly participate in faction-oriented politics.
Their focus and interests are on themselves, their personal interests, and their personal agendas, and NOT on the students.
Helping CERTAIN students that one LIKES does NOT make up for ignoring or stepping on other students due to one's personal issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)