Narcissistic Communities Don't Support Healthy Relationships

In communities, families, and groups where Narcissism is largely present, healthy relationships are NOT supported by the larger group.
They are more often openly sabotaged due to envy and control being so commonplace and "normalized" in the group.

A couple "in love" in such an environment is often sabotaged by others with all kinds of undermining tactics, for a few reasons that are all about control and power.

The sayings about how there's nothing more attractive than someone who's in a committed relationship shows just how common envy and control are in the human species.
Being more attracted to a person who's "taken" or "wanted" than when they're "single" is all about one's own envy and control issues: "I want what I can't have, I want what other people have got, I'm only interested in something or someone when others want them too; I like to take things and people away from others." 

One of the common behaviors found in groups where Narcissism is present shows this type of envy very clearly~ flirting with, and trying to get sexual attention from, men or women who are IN committed relationships. This is not just "Human Nature" that "everyone does", (sorry kids but no, it's not). This is a POWER display. If Sheila can get Scott to respond sexually to her, she feels like she's "WON" in her competition for "sexy woman" against Scott's wife.
It's not SCOTT she's really after, it's the feeling of "Winning".
If Scott dumps his wife for her, it's nearly guaranteed that she'll do it again with some other couple (she probably does it quite often). (And Scott will probably cheat on her like he did with his wife).
By the same token, John does the same thing as Sheila, trying to "lure" women away from other men with flirtation and the pretense of "genuine caring" and "friendship". Every time he's successful, he feels like he's WON in the competition with the other men that exists in his imagination.
Both John and Sheila are most likely addicted to the feel-good-neurochemicals they produce when they feel like they've "won out" over someone else. Possibly also to sex, which also produces many neurochemicals. Their damaged egos are fed and inflated at the expense of other people.

Other behaviors that are commonplace in groups where Narcissism is present are just as destructive to couples, and frankly even more sinister, because the people involved can easily cover up and rationalize their behavior. 
"Friends" or family members try to separate the couple or destroy the bond between them. They might try to set one of them up with another person (a "hot chick" or a "hot guy"), or encourage them to follow any attraction feelings toward someone else. They will often even try to get a person intoxicated enough so that they're more likely to lose their bearings and go through with infidelity.
So the "friend" or family member is not actually DOING the "cheating", but they're trying to make it happen.
They might try to convince one of the couple that the other one is "no good", or "not good enough for them", a "slut", "stuck-up", or even "out of their league".
They might create false rumors about one of them, hoping that the other will believe them and turn against their partner.
A common tactic is to INVITE ONLY ONE OF THEM to events and celebrations, purposely putting the person in a "double-bind".

If a person seeks support from others in such an environment for their relationship, they are much more likely to receive "advice" telling them to BREAK UP, to "DUMP" their partner, than help or advice with improving their relationship.
(And it's important to note: in environments where Narcissism is present, an abuse target or betrayed partner is often told the opposite: to STAY WITH their abusive or traitorous partner, and even that the abuse or betrayal is "their fault".)

In such Narcissistic environments, a given couple is often treated as if THEIR "couplehood" is childish, or "just sexual", or "puppy love", as if THEY aren't one of the "REAL" couples, the "IMPORTANT" couples.
~IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL.

Keeping control over the person who "belongs" in the group by "getting rid of" the "interloper" who might EXPOSE the CONTROL tactics.

(Scapegoats in a group are often treated this way WHENEVER they are in a relationship, or even a platonic friendship. This is about CONTROL, AND "HIERARCHY".
It doesn't matter WHO the other person is that the Scapegoat has a relationship with, or what they're like. If one pays close attention, they will notice that everything in the Scapegoat's life is treated as if it's not important, not the right decision, not a "real" job or career; not even their pets are treated as if they're "real" by others; their dog or cat is just some stray that they "really should get rid of..." So it's not surprising that their relationships are cast in the same light.)

FAMILIES and relationships between PARENTS AND CHILDREN are ALSO treated in the same way by others.
People in the surrounding group will often try to put wedges between family members, turn children against their own parent, turn cousins against one another, turn siblings against one another.
One family is treated like they're not really "real", and another will be treated like they're "pillars of the community" or of the family.
In such communities and families, one sibling in a family will be treated like "The Responsible, GOOD One", and another will be treated as "The Lazy One" or something else negative.
People are always being compared to one another, LABELED, JUDGED, and then either put on a PEDESTAL, or treated like DIRT.
~In order to keep this extreme dysfunction going, relationships MUST be CONTROLLED, because anyone with a healthy awareness would see through it all and throw a monkey wrench in the manipulation.

This is why the current divorce rate is SO HIGH, why there is so much INFIDELITY, and why there is so much domestic violence and emotional and mental illness.
ALL societies throughout history that saw a serious increase in Narcissism have come apart at the seams in the same way.
The only groups and societies that remain healthy are the ones that have more humility than arrogance, more genuine humor than power and control-mongering, more equality than superiority-seeking, and more supportiveness FROM and TOWARD all members of the group than self-centeredness.

Most Nonsensical Things Ever Heard

#1, Top of the list:   "He earned the right to be arrogant"

Huh?!
So one can "earn the right" to be an over-confident, myopic, un-thinking, self-centered, self- adulating, boorish, control-freak dweeb?! And what exactly is the criteria that must be met? Proficiency in a skill? I can't think of one person I've met over the course of my decades on Earth who doesn't qualify, then; everyone has at least one skill that they're super-proficient at, and often more than one. So let's ALL be ARROGANT, and we can all feel justified in treating every other person we meet like they're some kind of inferior creature, woo hoo! Fun... wonder how long it will take for the whole world to simply EXPLODE.

2. "Love is... never having to say you're sorry."

Do I seriously need to explain this one? If you love someone, and you hurt them, you would be COMPELLED to say you're sorry! If you DON'T actually love them, then you might be more inclined to defend your hurtful actions and behavior, and NOT apologize.
"LOVE" requires empathy, respect toward the other person, the desire for the other person's well-being and happiness, and humility. If one does not care about the protecting another person from harm, including harm, pain, sadness, or humiliation done by one's SELF, then there is no "love".

3. "They brought it on themselves."

When referring to trauma, disaster, or abuse that another person has suffered.
Wow, talk about "victim-blame".
Talk about trying to shirk accountability, trying to avoid blame, shame, and guilt.
Talk about SMUGNESS.
So when terrible things happen to ONE PERSON, it was out of their control, they were a victim.
But when terrible things happen to ANOTHER PERSON, it was "all their fault". 
Even if they're a child who was abused by an older person.
Okay... nice try, it might work in La-La Land, but not in Reality.

"He's Such A Great Guy"... "She's Such A Peach"

Classic "Narcissists" are often the one in the group who everyone talks about being so energetic, so wonderful, so helpful, so 'brilliant', or so responsible.
These kinds of personalities DO exist, but look around the person; how are the people close to them doing? Partner, family, friends.

In person, when they are with their partner, "close friend", or older child, do they seem like "Peas and Carrots", or do they seem more like a Charismatic celebrity and an "Assistant" who is expected to stand back in the shadows?
(Do you go along with it and ignore the supposedly "shy one", or are you equally polite and courteous to BOTH of them?)

How are all of their kids doing? Not just the one who everyone praises, but all of them?
Do they include their kids in their plans, in their activities, or do they consistently leave them out? How much do they actually support their kids emotionally and in their endeavors? Is only one of them doing well?
How do they talk about their kids, or their siblings, or other relatives; do they sound neutral or positive? Or do they seem to be painting a picture of their own child or other relatives as "Losers"? (It's not the same thing as speaking in confidence about abuse, or seeking support for difficult relationships or situations; not even close.)
When they "brag" about their adult kids, are they bragging about their actual child, or are they bragging about their child's SPOUSE?
How is their own spouse? Does he or she seem exuberant, confident, and loved? Do they include their partner in their activities? Or does the "partner" get left on the "sidelines", like an audience member, a servant, or an "outsider"?
If they both have a "Facebook" or other social media, can you tell by the posts on BOTH of their pages that they support one another, or does only one of them seem to be supportive of the other?
Does one of them look very young, and the other seems to be rapidly aging, old for their years? (Especially in the case of parents and adult children.)
Do they frequently brag about themselves, their endeavors, people they know, what they had for breakfast?
Do they often imply that others in their personal lives are failures, or that others in their family are just not "responsible enough", and that's why they have hardship?

We don't REALLY know the people around us; we humans tend to make a lot of assumptions based on very little information, and based on our own feelings.
This person makes ME FEEL GOOD, so therefore I will agree that they're a "good person".
This other person makes me FEEL a little bit uncomfortable for whatever reason, so I will go along with the others treating them with less respect, or even with disrespect.

This human tendency to assume, and to go along with others, is one of the main reasons Narcissists GET control of both small and large groups, and KEEP control.

Narcissists literally USE the energy of others to keep their motors clean and shiny, so they are often the most "charged up" members of any group that they're in. They also stand on the backs of others to get a higher position, and to stay ABOVE everyone else. 

Provoking Emotional Reactions

Those with control issues, whatever their possible "diagnosis", often try to incite emotions in those around them for various reasons.

Most people are aware of the "Charismatic Leader" who tries to get people to follow them by provoking emotional reactions. This is commonly seen in Political Activists, Career Politicians, and Religious leaders, and always has been. It can also be seen in modern Television "personalities" and other media, including music.

When a person has control over another person's emotional reactions, they have control of the PERSON. Politicians know this, and so do Advertising professionals. The only way to keep people voting for you, interested in watching you or listening to you, and buying your product is to get them to be EMOTIONALLY reactive, emotionally invested.

Politicians know that an EASY way to get people to FOLLOW THEM is to get them to DISLIKE their opponent.

Humans in general seek to BELONG to a "Team", and many will do pretty much anything to feel like they belong to a "Team", including HATING and trying to destroy someone else. Politicians have been well aware of this for centuries, and have been USING it to convince people that they "deserve power".

People tend to NOT LOOK at what "their guy" is really doing when they're pointing the finger at the "other guy".

This is easier to understand when we're talking about Politicians, because most of them are people we don't know personally, on a larger stage.

However, people who have Control issues use these same Political maneuvers in their PERSONAL lives, in business, in school, in the community, in their Religion, and even in their own families.

We tend to DENY that this is going on when we're in the middle of it, whether we're the Controller or whether we're being controlled, or both. Admitting that it's happening can be frightening, so most people just deny and come up with ways to cover it up. We humans don't want to admit that we are being manipulated anymore than we want to admit we are doing the manipulation.

If and when we admitted that manipulation was going on, it would mean exposing that everything is not "perfect", everything is not "as it seems", everyone is not "innocent", and that can be very difficult to bear for many, especially those who have built their lives around the belief that they themselves are "perfectly innocent", and that the other people in their lives are "perfectly innocent".

However, true Humility gives us clearer vision; it reveals that there ARE NO "perfect" people; that's just Reality. So creating factions and covering up manipulation and ego is kind of silly; there aren't any groups of people who are "The Innocent Ones", free from Sin or Pride.
When we can come to terms, and to Peace with these facts, it's much easier to look at our OWN "flaws" and faults, and then it's much easier to see when someone else is manipulating, without becoming emotionally reactive and judgmental, and without jumping to "condemnation".

Get Back In The Game

Only a fool for a Coach, Doctor, or Parent would make a child or an adult player "get back in the game" with an injury, before they've healed and gone through rehabilitation.
It would be ridiculous to expect a person to be able to perform with an injury in the same way as they would without an injury.

Everyone knows that. Well, almost everyone.

So, why does it seem so difficult for so many people, including so-called "professionals", to apply this to people who have suffered any kind of mental or emotional injury?
The brain is a BODY PART... it needs to be healed and rehabilitated properly in order to function in a healthy way after injury, just like any other body part. The BRAIN happens to be the organ that governs and performs mental processing, intellect, memory, and emotional processing, AS WELL AS motor control and the involuntary nervous system. All of these things are interconnected, which is really pretty obvious.

Judging a person negatively for not being able to function "up to par" when they've been through emotional or mental trauma is just, frankly, silly. (That would include family abuse, death of a loved one, divorce, displacement, disaster, school and neighborhood bullying, any kind of sexual assault, and any other kind of assault OR trauma.)
ALL humans are susceptible to mental and emotional trauma that needs to be healed in order for the person to function to their own ability, no different from the rest of their body parts.

The brain is the most complex and the most delicate organ in the body, and the one that absolutely has to be functioning in order for the rest of the body to function; why on Earth do people so often behave as if it's the LEAST important?!?

What Do Narcissists Want For Others

What do Narcissists want for others?

It depends very much on the severity of the individual's Narcissism.

For example your cousin John who believes himself to be superior to you in physical ability and/or intellect might want you to be happy in your life, in the way that "lower creatures" such as yourself are able to manage... he's Narcissistic, obviously, but he doesn't wish you actual harm or hardship.
His Narcissism displays might mostly consist of always talking about himself, trying to keep the spotlight on himself in most situations, bragging about himself, and getting annoyed or resentful when others are the ones talking or "being funny", or getting attention or recognition. 
If he likes thinking of himself as a "Good Person", or if he thought he was going to get recognition or reward for it, he might even help you in a time of need. (Although probably not without some kind of insult toward you; that's usually the minimum price of asking for help from family and "friends" with Narcissism).

However, your cousin Sharon might have a higher level of Narcissism than your cousin John. She doesn't randomly wish HARM on you, but she judges you for everything you do that she doesn't like or agree with, she actively seeks excuses to judge you as "flawed" (so she can feel "superior"; even the color of your new car is "wrong" and hers is "better"...). She may like to spread her "observations" and opinions about you around town, and has zero remorse for the damage she does to your reputation. BUT, if a tree were to fall on your house, she would honestly be worried about you, call 911, and give you some kind of assistance. (Of course she'll probably tell everyone she can about how much she helped you, but at least she helped you.)

Then there's your coworker Jake, who has a higher level of Narcissism than Sharon. Jake tells everyone at the office that the reason you were out of work was because you were DRUNK, and you fell out of the tree and smashed through the roof of your house. He even adds more to the story, that you were also cheating on your partner when it happened with so-and-so. You've never done anything AT ALL unfair or hurtful to Jake, but here he is, spreading complete fiction about you at your place of work that paint you in a very nasty light. Of course, Jake KNOWS that there are OTHER people with Narcissism at your business who will JUMP RIGHT ON THAT RUMOR WAGON, who LOVE to participate in the TRASHING of other people's reputations.
JAKE is "plugged into" the often invisible network of narcissistic people at your work and in the community; he knows what he can get away with, he knows how FAR he can go with causing harm to others, and he knows WHO will go along with his behavior.
He also knows who NOT TO TARGET, and WHY, and WHO he can GET AWAY WITH TARGETING, because of the personal ENVY ISSUES of other people, and the illusion of "social hierarchy" in the business and and the community.
~Jake's goals are not about destroying other people, really; to him, that's just "collateral damage". Jake's goals are about GETTING ATTENTION and SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE FOR HIMSELF, and he doesn't care that it's at other people's expense. Jake would not actually DO something like make a tree fall on your house (therefore he thinks he's "innocent"). He takes the OPPORTUNITY that he sees from the fallen tree incident, and uses it for his own "gain".

Going further down the dark path of Narcissism, we start seeing more and more self-serving behavior, more and more harm (and kinds of harm) done to others, more and more blame, negative judgment, and projection on others, more emotional REACTIVITY, more SELF-preservation, more DENIAL, and less and less FORETHOUGHT about one's behavior or consequences for that behavior, less and less responsibility-taking for one's actions, less and less humility, self-awareness, guilt, or remorse.

So while Jake the coworker does seem to have the disorder of Narcissism, his sister and brother are even more Narcissistic than he is, and they display psychotic behavior, such as physically abusing their children. When they were younger, Jake's brother molested him; his sister allowed it, chose not to tell anyone, and actually blamed Jake for it, just because it made her feel powerful. Both Jake's brother and sister allowed their friends to bully and assault Jake. They all grew up watching their father attack their mother verbally and sometimes physically, and he often verbally abused the three of them. The ONLY TIME their father gave any of them "credit" or "approval" was when they did something FOR HIM, or when the boys did something their father said was "MANLY" (like beating on another child, or racing motorcycles, or shooting guns.) Jake's sister ONLY received his "approval" when she SERVED HIM, as if she was his hand-servant, and not his child. Jake's mother sometimes competed with Jake's sister for his "approval" as well, as if they were "rivals" instead of mother and child, and she also often went along with his brainwashing of his sons to FEEL WORTHY ONLY WHEN HE GAVE HIS "APPROVAL", mostly because she was conditioned herself to believe that "gender roles" are real, and to fear her husband's "wrath"~ especially when she saw that no one around was standing up for her or with her against his abuse.
(Many parents who end up as co-parents with an abuser fear that the abuser will hurt the CHILDREN in order to retaliate against them, and become frozen, afraid to do anything that might "provoke" the other parent.)
~Although there were plenty of other adults around, at school, in the community, in their family, no one stood up for Jake or his siblings, no one tried to intervene, no one tried to help their mother, no one helped those kids, except for one relative who was immediately SLANDERED, so no one in the community would listen to or believe her.
Jake and his siblings all learned their Narcissism from their FRONT ROW SEAT of watching their father AND the other people all around them who obviously turned a "blind eye" to what was going on.
Now, Jake and his siblings only feel "normal", "okay", or "good" when they're getting extra attention, or when they're displaying "DOMINATION" toward another person.

However: The difference between Jake and his siblings is INTENTION.
While Jake DOES CAUSE other people damage, he's actually oblivious to it; his only thought is about getting attention and approval for HIMSELF. 
Jake's siblings, however, actively and purposely DO THINGS TO OTHER PEOPLE whom they envy or resent; Jake's siblings would CAUSE a tree to fall on someone's house, with the goal of causing them physical damage. And then they would spread rumors about the person on top of it.

So JAKE does cause damage to others, but he doesn't think about it or plan it, or even wish it. However his siblings DO THINK ABOUT IT, WISH IT, AND PLAN IT.
Jake's siblings are actually more dangerous Narcissists.


A person's level of "Narcissism" is mostly dictated by their desire for personal gain, the severity of their addiction to their "SUPPLY", and their individual lack of empathy ability.

"Empathy" is an actual Brain function needed in comprehension and processing about what's going on in the world, so when it's compromised, it's a disability.>>> (Saying that a lack of empathy is a "disability" is NOT the same as saying "we should let them get away with what they do". That's two separate things.)

"Supply" can be anything at all that makes a person with Narcissism "feel good", that gives them a "rush", that makes them feel "worthy", or "powerful", liked, or accepted.

ALL Narcissists are ADDICTS. They use all kinds of things for "SUPPLY" to get their "fix" from.
It can be anything at all; a Narcissist can be "Clean And Sober" in the traditional sense, but be terribly addicted to their own Neurochemicals and "feel-good" Hormones.
Such as: the adrenaline rush that most people get from receiving recognition and/or praise. Narcissists can be ADDICTED to that specific rush, and will seek to be "recognized" for something "great" about themselves whenever they get the chance.
For instance, a coworker who has exactly the same job as you might walk around making announcements about what they accomplished all day, trying to get others to give them "recognition" and praise for it, even though all of these "accomplishments" are just PART OF THE JOB, same job that you do every day, all day, that you don't ever make a big deal about.
 
Another person might GROOM and DRESS and COIF themselves "to the nines" whenever they get the chance, for the goal of seeking to gain RECOGNITION for how HANDSOME or BEAUTIFUL or "SEXY" they are, from whomever they can get it from.
They will often PUT DOWN others who they're afraid might be seen as "attractive".
Many who are addicted to attention, approval, and/or sexual attention from the opposite sex do this
(or the same sex, if they're homosexual).

Another might walk around trying to DISPLAY their PHYSICAL STRENGTH all the time, trying to get other people to NOTICE and give them RECOGNITION for their "superior physique" or "superior strength".
They will often imply that others are physically weak, frail, or out of shape.
(This one is also often used by those who are addicted to sexual approval and attention).

They may constantly try to display their "SUPERIOR SKILL" in something in order to gain RECOGNITION for it (ANYTHING, from playing Flamenco guitar to landscaping, to dealing Craps, to skateboarding, to frosting cakes), and will imply that others "don't know what they're doing".

Whatever will get them what they want is what a Narcissist will USE.
~So, if they find that they can't get enough recognition for being a Superior Violinist, they might try something else, like Body-Building or breast implants.
Or, they might try TRASHING other Violinists, with the goal of being the only one left with a good reputation. 
A surefire way to get SOME KIND of "recognition" is to self-deprecate. Putting one's self down, making fun of one's self, calling one's self a "LOSER" is an easy way to get a mixture of PITY, TRUST, and "Camaraderie" from others.
Another pretty sure way to get SOME KIND of "recognition" is to claim physical illness and chronic pain. Hypochondria and frequently announcing illnesses and injuries is a very common way that humans get attention they crave, whether they're really a "Narcissist" or not.  Narcissists who use this as a way to get attention may take it to an extreme level, gaining control over others in the process.

(Narcissists will ALSO accuse others of BEING Narcissists as a way to trash or slander them; for example they may accuse a talented Violinist of being arrogant or a "diva", or accuse a person who is shy or has low-self-esteem of "just trying to make people feel sorry for them", or accuse a person who is actually sick or injured of "just trying to get attention".)

Most (not all) Narcissists are either consciously or intuitively aware that when humans in a group BUY INTO (believe) the IMAGE that the Narcissist is trying to paint of themselves, they will treat them accordingly.
SO, when the people in a community BELIEVE the portrayal that the Narcissist is an "Expert Carpenter", for example, they will TREAT the Narcissist like he DESERVES MORE MONEY and MORE CREDIT. Because of the successfully projected IMAGE, the Narcissist can now charge customers very HIGH PRICES, REGARDLESS of his ACTUAL CARPENTRY SKILL.
They have BOUGHT THE "ADVERTISING", so now they BELIEVE IT, and they will GO ALONG with all the rest of his UTTER BULLSH**. (This is how CULTS are created, large and small ones.)

Most Narcissists are aware that it's not very difficult to FOOL PEOPLE into believing whatever they want about themselves, and about other people as well.
***The more inflated a person's ego is about their own "logic" ability, the easier the mark. Superiority complexes always cause blindness to one's own flaws.
So, while the Narcissist is painting HIMSELF as an "Expert Carpenter" and a "Wonderful, Trustworthy Guy", he paints OTHER people as "Hacks", as "Wanna-Be's", as "Con-Artists", as "Morally Corrupt".

So, a Narcissist's addiction to RECOGNITION can be accompanied by an addiction to the REWARDS FOR THAT RECOGNITION, such as money, privilege, popularity, and "power".

The MORE SEVERE a Narcissist's addiction to their preferred "Supply" is, the harder they will try to get it.
And the LESS EMPATHY the individual Narcissist has, organically or learned, the less they will care about "collateral damage" in obtaining that "Supply". 

For a basic and simple example of how this works, picture a punk who robs an elderly couple in the street, knocking them down and taking their money. The

  

Imperfectly Perfect < 3

"Remember, in order to receive love, you must give it to yourself first, unconditionally. This means learning to accept that no one, nothing, is perfect. We are each perfectly imperfect and beautiful in our own way. Don't allow another's opinion of you define who you are. Those who judge are, in essence, judging themselves, looking for a scapegoat, and usually extremely insecure within themselves. The Divine created you, and you are exactly who you are meant to be in every moment. Hug yourself daily!"

~Lady Autumn Star

Control Issues: Gender And Sex "Roles" and Expectations

Which person has the control, identity, and ego issues?

The woman who does construction work?

Or the woman who thinks that a woman who does construction is "trying to act tough" or
"trying to be something she's not"?

It's not a trick question, and deep down, you already know the answer.


Who's got the control, identity, and ego issues?

The man who wants to be a hair dresser?

Or the man who judges a man who wants to be a hair dresser as "weird" or "gay"?

Again, not a trick question, and you already know the answer.


When we Humans have problems with insecurity, we often try to categorize people into groups and sub-groups, and then DICTATE "RULES" and EXPECTATIONS for the people WE PUT into these groups of our OWN MAKING.

This practice of putting people into CATEGORIES gives US an excuse to feel like WE are a "member" of one of these GROUPS, and NOT a member of ANOTHER group.

So if we make a group called "Whites", for example, then we can claim to be a MEMBER of the group of "Whites", OR we can claim that we're NOT a MEMBER of this group, depending on our personal agenda.

If we want to claim that we are a categorically "GOOD and INNOCENT PERSON", then what we will do is say that "White People are BAD" and that WE ARE NOT WHITE, therefore we are "GOOD".
OR, we may do the opposite, and say that "White People are GOOD", and since WE are White, then we are categorically "GOOD".

It doesn't matter HOW we label the GROUPS WE CREATE, or HOW we separate people into these groups.
What matters is that we DO IT.
We don't seem to be AWARE of this behavior, or WHY we do it.
But deep down, we ARE aware, and we know damn well why we do it. We do it because:
WE WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF A GROUP.
WE WANT TO "BELONG".
WE WANT TO GAIN IDENTITY FROM A GROUP THAT'S BIGGER THAN JUST OURSELVES ALONE,
AND WE USUALLY WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF A GROUP THAT'S "SUPERIOR" TO OTHER GROUPS IN SOME WAY, SO WE CAN CLAIM THAT WE ARE SUPERIOR.


SINCE HUMANS ARE ALL THE SAME SPECIES, IN ORDER TO DO THIS, WE HAVE TO SEPARATE OURSELVES INTO SUB-GROUPS.

IF THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE SPECIES OF LIVING HUMANS, EACH SPECIES WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE SATISFIED WITH AN IDENTITY AS THE "SUPERIOR SPECIES", AND WOULD NOT SEPARATE THEMSELVES INTO SUB-GROUPS NEARLY AS MUCH. 
For example, if Neanderthals were still around, then Homo Sapiens (us) would be more likely to make THEM into the "Other" or "Lesser/Less Worthy" Group, instead of putting so much EFFORT into making Sub-Groups out of our own species.

BUT, alas, there is only ONE species of Human on the planet right now, and that is "Homo Sapien Sapien". So to satisfy the apparent need for identifying one's self as somehow SUPERIOR to others, Homo Sapiens separate themselves into SUB GROUPS, and then create all kinds of fictional or exaggerated DIFFERENCES between each group.
(This may be a general Primate issue, similar behavior can be seen in other primates as well. Click here for Japanese Macaques making Elite Cliques, and Chimpanzees making Tribal warfare.)

These sub-groups that Humans CREATE are given various "innate" traits, behaviors, interests, limitations, and even emotions, motives, and agendas by those who create and maintain the story.


When a member of a Sub-group DOES NOT CONFORM to the group, they are frequently treated as if they're some kind of "weirdo" or "freak", or EVEN as if they're MENTALLY ILL.


Obviously, with REJECTION of "members" who don't CONFORM on such a severe level, the creation of sub-groups must be directly attached to the Human Ego, which is widely known and accepted to be rather large and overwhelming.


What does this sub-grouping look like?

A valid question.
Most adults know EXACTLY what this sub-grouping of Human Beings looks like, and since so many adults go along with it, they also often pretend that they don't know anything about it.
(This is called "Denial", when a person is trying to hide something that they don't want exposed because it's attached to their ego and identity.)

Another thing that many adults who create and maintain these Sub-Groups often do is try to RATIONALIZE them, claiming that the differences are "biological".

It's not difficult to "flush out" adults who are protecting their ego-identity in this way, and don't actually BELIEVE that the sub-groups are REAL; 
all one has to do is notice how they claim STRENGTH and POSITIVE TRAITS for THEIR  OWN SUB-GROUP, and WEAKNESS and NEGATIVE TRAITS for OTHER SUB-GROUPS.
Then, point that fact out, and watch them become argumentative, dismissive, flustered, frustrated, angry, and even enraged.


MOST Sub-Groups are based on physical body differences, simply because it's the easiest way to divide people into groups. 
THEN, after the people are divided into these groups, the Group-creators will place all kinds of labels on the members of each group, USUALLY POSITIVE LABELS for their own group, and NEGATIVE LABELS for other groups. HOWEVER, whichever Sub-Group has been holding "power" and "control" in a given region will often be given MORE POSITIVE TRAITS by most of the population, and Sub-Groups that have been literally oppressed in the same region will be given MORE NEGATIVE TRAITS by most of the population, INCLUDING members of THAT Sub-Group.
(For example, studies have been conducted asking both men and women about who would make a better President, a man or a woman, BOTH men and women described more leadership and positive traits in women than in men, BUT THEN THOSE SAME men and women said that they would VOTE FOR A MAN over any woman.)

Some examples of common Sub-Groups that Humans often create, perpetuate, elevate,
place status or supremacy upon,
place inferiority upon,
and use to claim victimhood, innocence, intelligence, status, entitlement, and strength:

Black People
Brown People
White People
Yellow People
Red People

Men
Women

Boys
Girls

Wealthy
Middle Class
Poor

Tall 
Short
Average Height

Unattractive
Good-Looking
Average Looking

Old
Middle Aged
Young
Teen
Elderly
Child

Religious
Non-Religious

Sophisticated
Ignorant

The Privileged
The Oppressed

White Collar
Blue Collar

Union Members
Non-Union 

Athletic 
Non-Athletic

Physically Weak/
Physically Strong/

Academic
Non-Academic


Heterosexuals ("straight")
Homosexuals ("gay")

Democrat
Republican
(Any Political Party)
Right Wing
Left Wing
Conservative
Liberal
(Note: most of the Pol. Parties, and also descriptive labels such as "Liberal" or "Conservative" seem to have completely lost their actual definitions and original platforms, due possibly to the influence of mass media and/or social media. For example many people call themselves "Liberal" who have no idea what "Liberal" actually means: Being open to hearing other points of view; an ACTUAL "Liberal" would want to hear all points of view about a topic, and gather as many opinions from as many sources as possible, INCLUDING "Right Wingers" and "conservatives", so they would have as much information as possible BEFORE making a decision or a "stand" about something; and even after they have made a decision, they would STILL WANT to hear more view points from more sources as they come up. A true "Liberal" would not want MORE Federal government control, they would want LESS.) 



Humans will separate these Sub-Groups into even SMALLER Sub-Groups, and then claim or deny membership:
For example:

Homosexuals:


Gay (homosexual males):

Lesbians (homosexual females)


(THEN)
Homosexual males:
"queer", "flaming", "effeminate", etc.
OR
"macho", "masculine",
OR
"androgynous"

Homosexual females:
"girly", "feminine",
OR
"dyke", "butch"
OR
"androgynous"
(Not a complete list, there are many more mostly demeaning labels stamped on people by BOTH heterosexual group-creators AND homosexual group-creators.)

ALL RACIAL GROUPS have been divided into Sub-group upon Sub-group upon Sub-group throughout the eras and generations, and have also been re-categorized, re-grouped, and cross-grouped countless times. This seems to go amazingly unnoticed and ignored for the most part, most likely because of the same Human desire to be a member of a "special group". 

What's your "race", for example?
But... what is your ancestry?
But wait... what ancestry is your mother's family, and what is your father's?
Why do people of the same race have different colored hair and eyes?
But... what is the ancestry of your mother's mother, vs. your mother's father?
And how about your father's father and your father's mother?
And each of their parents? NOW what's the "Ancestry"?
What country was your great, great grandmother on your mother's side born in?
How about your great, great, great grandfather? On your father's side?

When does the "ANCESTRY" become "REAL"; when do we just decide to start pretending that it's somehow "pure"?

What will really bake a Sub-Grouper's Noodle is finding out that there's NO SUCH THING AS "RACE"...

(What they'll most likely do is immediately deny this scientific claim, and continue to argue that "yes, yes there IS a such thing as race!")

Being Supportive, Or Trying To "Fix" Other People

How do we know whether we're being supportive of another person because it's the right and healthy thing to do, or if we are actually a person with the control issue of trying to "fix" people?

There IS a difference, and the difference is pretty significant. 

Often, those who are supportive of others either personally or professionally (or both) are accused of wanting to "fix" people, but is it really true? Or is it a projection from the accuser?
In other words, who's "issue" is it really, the person being accused of being a "fixer", or the the person who is doing the accusing?

One way to take a better look at one's own motives is to break things down to a simple, factual level, and take the emotional reactions out of those facts. 

Here are some questions we can ask:

What exactly is our relationship* with the person who we are being supportive toward? 
Are they a family member? A close friend? A romantic partner? A neighbor?
If they are a person who is part of our personal life, then it is completely appropriate to be supportive toward them on a personal level.
It's also appropriate to be supportive of a person who is a client, a patient, or a total stranger, as long as we are aware of how much support we can actually "afford" to give, and/or what is appropriate in a professional relationship.
Healthy boundaries are essential in making these decisions, drawing these "lines", and standing by one's own decisions and values.
(Taking time off from scheduled work, for example, to drive someone to the mall is clearly inappropriate, as is giving someone money that one needed to pay their utility bill. But taking time off of work to drive one's child to the doctor is absolutely appropriate, and should be expected.)

*Being supportive to a family member, partner, or close friend when they are experiencing hardship, trauma, or physical or mental illness is also appropriate, important, and usually much needed.
This is not "fixing", this is being a healthy member of a functional family group or society. Only those who don't know the difference between "support" and "codependency", OR those with Narcissism issues would see healthy and appropriate supportiveness toward another person as "unhealthy".


When we are being "supportive" of another person, do we RESPECT that person as a human being? Or do we think of that person as "lesser" than ourselves, defective, lower status, ignorant, incapable, less important?
People who like to "fix" others tend to see other people as either "superior" or "inferior", and often choose those whom they think they can lord over to "FIX".
Basically, they think "if this person was smarter, or neater, or tougher, more like ME, they'd be a lot 'better', like ME."
They tend to IGNORE or TWIST the person's character, strengths, accomplishments, intelligence, and abilities in order to make the person FIT INTO A SMALLER BOX in their mind, so they can maintain their view of the person being "inferior".
If this is you, then some self-reflection may be in order.

HOW do we give support to the other person?
Are we actually "supportive", or are we really just seeking an opportunity to feel dominant?
Do we give them advice when they ASK for it, or do we just give them advice because it makes us feel smart or superior?
Do we know the difference between respectful support and condescension, insult, or control?
Do we try to sabotage their AUTONOMY and SELF-CONFIDENCE by trying to force our "support" on them?
Do we INSULT them, BELITTLE them, or JUDGE them when they aren't following our "advice"?
Do we TAKE AWAY our "support" in order to "punish them"?
Do we GIVE THEM THINGS only when they DON'T ASK, but we DENY THEIR REQUESTS  when they DO ASK?
Do we tend to "suggest" things FOR them, but don't want to hear any "suggestions" FROM them? 
When they don't ask for it, do we ASK THEM if they want to hear our insight?
Do we know how to respectfully share our point of view when they don't ask for it, but WITHOUT judgment or condescension?
Do we ASSUME that OUR POINT OF VIEW is ALWAYS CORRECT and COMPLETE, and that theirs is ALWAYS "OFF", "WRONG", or "INCOMPLETE"?
Can we take "NO" for an answer from them, or do we get OFFENDED when they say "no"?
Do we GIVE THEM ASSISTANCE, SUPPORT, or HELP as long as they "know their place" (as in, 'lower' than ourselves)?


What are WE getting out of being supportive toward the person?
Are we honestly doing it because it's the right and healthy thing to do, or are we doing it because it makes us feel like a "good person", or like we're in control, or like we don't have any "problems" compared to them? Are we trying to "prove" that we're worthy or a "good person" either to others or to ourselves? Are we trying to get "points" from someone? 
If these questions hit home, then some re-examining of our motives and priorities may be in order, and helpful for both the other person and ourselves.


Are we being supportive of a person because we have nothing else to do?
Then really, we're using the person to make ourselves feel better, to alleviate boredom or loneliness. ~HOWEVER, this is not necessarily a reason to simply STOP being supportive toward someone; being supportive toward someone who actually NEEDS IT is never BAD or DUMB, even if we're only doing it to improve our own lives. There are MANY, MANY people in the world who don't have ANYONE to be supportive toward them at all, so look around and weigh the pros and cons for the OTHER person as well as yourself.
If you abruptly remove your support, will you leave them in a lurch?

Are we giving support in order to GET something from the other person?
For example, do we offer them the use of our car, but only when WE want something from the store? Do we invite them over for coffee to "talk", and while they're visiting, we try to get them to fix our sink, or a hole in the wall, or the computer?
Do we feign support toward them in order to gain their companionship, their associations, their approval, their assistance, or physical things like access to their possessions, or sexual contact?
Do we ever just BE SUPPORTIVE of them without trying to get something FROM them?
Clearly, this needs no further explanation.

Do we "support" a person, and then spread rumors and gossip about them behind their back?
 
Do we know the difference between "venting"/ seeking support for ourselves, and GOSSIP?
We all need support at one time or another, and when we're being supportive of others, we may need extra support in order to sort things out and keep ourselves and our boundaries healthy. We may also want to gather more support for the other person from others who respect and care about them.
Reaching out for this support is completely appropriate, however when we talk about someone we are supposedly "helping" with contempt, with the intention of getting others to feel SORRY FOR US, or trying to turn others AGAINST the person, this is NOT "reaching out for support", this is gossip, slander, manipulation, and backstabbing. 

Are we allowing another person to take, judge, or rule over our possessions, our resources, our time, and our personal space, or dictate what our decisions should be? Do we have a HARD TIME SAYING "NO" when it's appropriate to say "NO"? By the time we DO say "NO", or stand up for ourselves, are we feeling some kind of rage or resentment?
(Like when we can't really afford to go to a certain restaurant, and the other person is not offering to pay? Or when someone TELLS us what The Plans for the weekend are, instead of asking or inviting? Or when someone bosses us around, or criticizes us? )
This is "Codependency", not "supportiveness". If this rings a bell for you, please click the link and read, and even if it doesn't ring a bell, it's worth reading for any human being who lives with or around other human beings. We Humans are highly susceptible to Codependency just because of the the fact that we're "social animals".

Do we like to be the one who is giving advice or support, but we get resentful or feel "controlled" or "emasculated" whenever someone suggests anything, or doesn't completely agree with us, or doesn't allow us to "run the show"? Do we have to be the one with the "information", do we often "correct" people when they talk, do we tend to claim that our own preferences and opinions are the right ones (like which pizza parlor is the best one in town, or what the best route is to the highway)?
This is also a sign of "Codependency", and it might also be a sign of something else along with it. These feelings of defensiveness, reactivity, and needing to be seen as the "knowledgeable" or "experienced one" show that a person is only comfortable when they feel like they have Control, and like they are trying to be an "authority" over others. This means the person will RESENT anyone whom they are trying to be an "authority" over, who does not ALLOW them to be. A person with these kind of issues is not actually able to be "supportive" of another person, because they will immediately see anyone who needs support as a lower person, and as a target for their "authority".



BEING SUPPORTIVE TOWARD OTHERS is absolutely appropriate, and essential for a family, group, community, or society to function in a healthy manner. 
A big part of being a member of a healthy family or group is knowing and understanding what  healthy and genuine support looks like, when we are either RECEIVING IT or GIVING iT. 
ALL humans need support and help from others at many different points in their lives, for many different reasons. It doesn't mean a person is "weak" or a "loser", unless we want to call EVERY HUMAN who ever LIVED a "loser", which definitely would NOT be in the category of "healthy". 

When we're genuinely supportive toward others, we are respectful, we are courteous, we behave appropriately, and we don't keep a TALLY, or try to "rank" another as "lesser" than ourselves. We aren't giving support in order to GET something, like credit, recognition, a feeling of supremacy, sympathy, quid pro quo, access, or "reward". We don't give more than we can honestly afford as a rule, either emotionally or materially, so we don't end up feeling resentful.

When we're receiving support in a healthy way, we don't feel ENTITLED to MORE support than others, we don't make DEMANDS on people who are giving their support, nor do we feel like "Losers" when someone is giving us assistance, because we don't think of other people as "lower" than us. We don't criticize those giving us genuine support, nor do we behave with hostility, arrogance, or manipulation toward them. 



When our BOUNDARIES are healthy, it is easier to tell the difference between healthy and genuine support, and unhealthy, codependent or manipulative "support", both from others, and from ourselves.

Codependency + Narcissism = Crazy Making

Codependency is not a rare occurrence in the human species, and it's definitely not limited to family members of Alcoholics or drug users.

When one has a person in their life who has both Codependency enmeshment and Narcissism, one can end up living in a vortex, a virtual cauldron of control, emotional reaction, demands, assumptions, shame, and passive-aggressive behavior.

"If you don't know what's wrong, I'm not going to tell you" is a classic control/shame line that's been repeated in comedy acts for a long time. But when the person in your life is steeped in both Codependency and Narcissism (not as rare as you might think), then that line will probably not even be SPOKEN, it will be ACTED OUT.

You will suddenly feel like you were hit with some kind of invisible and deafeningly silent ICE STORM, or you will be subjected to enduring a HURRICANE of hostility displays, similar to a Chimpanzee who's trying to display "power"; sometimes it's BOTH.   

But you won't know WHY.


Sometimes the only way you find out that the person is "mad at you" is when you realize they've "RETALIATED" against you in some sneaky or terrible way.


Sometimes the only indication that they've "retaliated" that you get is a weird display of sudden COLDNESS from other people around you (because the Narcissist has slandered you, and the people allowed them to), or you're overcome with a strange feeling of confusion when you suddenly can't find your possessions, things seem to be going terribly wrong for no reason, or your things suddenly seem to be "broken" or not working properly (because the Narcissist has sabotaged or gaslighted you). Perhaps the Narcissist is just nowhere to be found, or has stood you up, or has made sure you were EXCLUDED from a family gathering or ceremony, or a celebration, or some social event.

Did you actually do something "WRONG"??
Who knows!?
Narcissists go completely by their FEELINGS, all the time; they don't double-check their feelings with actual EVENTS, nor do they communicate with others, nor do they doubt for one minute that ALL of their feelings are completely accurate representations of REALITY.

If a person with Narcissism FEELS "offended", "abandoned", "betrayed", "disrespected", or "insulted", then they ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IT TO BE SO, and the next thing that happens is that they will BLAME SOMEONE for it.
When they've targeted a person for this blame, the next thing they will do is "PUNISH" them for whatever it is they feel.

It would require HUMILITY to double-check their feelings with reality, which Narcissists don't have.
It would require RESPECT for others to communicate with another person in order to gather more information about what apparently happened, which Narcissists don't have.
It would require RESPECT for others, TRUE SELF-CONFIDENCE, and HUMILITY not to make sweeping assumptions, snap judgments, shaming judgments, or initiate or believe gossip and slander; Narcissists lack all three.

And it would require EMPATHY to refrain from trying to cause another person to "suffer" in "retaliation", which Narcissists don't have.

Combine this Narcissism with Codependency enmeshment, and you have a Narcissist who is continuously feeling abandoned, rejected, insulted, and disrespected, regardless of REALITY, and therefore constantly "PUNISHING" others with whatever controls and retaliations cross their mind, with no remorse and no regard for the damage and pain they cause.

This combination means they feel entitled to force "care" on another person, whom they don't actually care about or respect. They often give "advice" and pontificate at their target in order to satisfy their own desire to feel in control, and like they're a "caregiver". This person will give condescending "advice" to a Brain Surgeon about how important it is to get good grades in college, or about how one must pay attention to their hygiene if they want to ever be in the medical field. This person will become very angry at the object of their "caregiving" when the person does not accept their forced "care", "advice", control, or criticism. (They will call criticism "constructive criticism" in order to get away with it.)

This person may physically try to "herd" another person to go here or there,
~block them from leaving a place or a room;
~physically try to control and manipulate another person's movements (take them by the hand, arm, shoulder, waist, neck~ and "lead", "push", or drag them),
~"TAKE OVER" the work, task, or project another person is doing, often literally taking it out of their hands;
~approach others, even total strangers, and try to "take over" what they're doing, forcing their "assistance" on them, as if the person is extremely weak, fragile, clumsy, or stupid and desperately needs their help...
~feel completely entitled to speak to others with unbridled condescension, as if they are clueless, or a very young child, 
~speak to another person with SHAMING condescension (often disguised as "advice"), as if they are SCOLDING a young child for teasing a hornet's nest; and apparently feel perfectly entitled to do so.

Female Humans Are Not Child-Versions Of Adults

Sorry, kids, but adults are adults, whether they're male or female.

Men are men, whether they're tall or short, heavy or thin, broad-shouldered or thin-framed, square-jawed or small-jawed.
No male human needs to "prove" that they're a "man"... unless the person who is wondering is apparently a MORON.
A male is a male because they were formed that way at conception by Chromosomes.
They didn't TURN THEMSELVES into males.
It was completely beyond their control, or their CHOICE.


And by the same token, females are females, they're not "TRYING" to be females, they're not some kind of "VERSION" of human that didn't quite "make it" to being a male...
Females are SUPPOSED to be females... it's how we keep HUMANS alive on the planet.

Females are not some kind of "LESSER" human, and NO female is some kind of "lesser" female... duh...

UNLESS... we could propose some kind of LAW that prohibits a Human from claiming their SEX, unless they meet CERTAIN CRITERIA.

So, ALL MALES need to be at least 6 feet, 4 inches tall, and all of their body proportions and sizes of body parts MUST fit the standards that the law states (parameters must be met). Hair must be shoulder-length and full, and eyes, nose, and mouth must be symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing in a specified manner. Musculature MUST meet certain standards.

If ALL parameters are not met, then the Human cannot claim "Male" status, and must remain genderless.

Parameters for females also must be met; no female can be OVER the height of 5 feet and 4 inches. ALL body parts must be proportionate according to the stated law.

If ALL parameters for either sex are not met, then the person can not claim gender, NOR can the person claim ADULT STATUS.

Sounds fair to me! How about it... No? Isn't that the way it's already done?

He's Such A Great Guy! She's The Sweetest Lady! Narcissists Are Great At Image Making

People with Narcissism issues tend to pay much more attention to those outside of their personal family than inside. They may be known as "good listeners" or "lovely people" or "sweet and generous" or "heroes" or "very responsible" outside of their marriage or their household, but don't have patience, time, or resources to listen to, validate, or help the people closest to them. They may even appear to "fight for what's right" out in the world, but treat their family members, partner, or children like burdens, like servants, like warts on their skin, like they're the "lowest" people they know. A Narcissist who would cross the country to help put out forest fires or rescue someone they barely know would be hard-pressed to cross the street to genuinely help or show care toward someone "close" to them. "Helping others" or "Being a good person" is all about being SEEN and GETTING CREDIT and GETTING RECOGNITION for a person with Narcissism, not about actually helping or caring.

Narcissists actually COMPETE WITH their own family members, spouse, children, and close friends for recognition, resources, credit, "love", and image, which is the exact opposite of "healthy".
So they are always trying to make themselves "LOOK GOOD" to those outside of their family or close friends, and "LOOK BETTER" than the people "close" to them.
A Narcissistic mother who has a physically attractive daughter, or a talented or intelligent daughter, will feel THREATENED, not proud, as if they were two children in a fourth grade class instead of mother and daughter. And so an N. mother will do things that an envious child might do to another child who she was envious of, like spread rumors and gossip, triangulate, "steal" the daughters friends, present herself as the "GOOD ONE" of the two to others any way she can, compete with her for male attention, etc.
Of course a Narcissistic "best friend" would also do these things for the same (or similar) reasons, but it's not as traumatic when the N. is a platonic peer compared to a parent or spouse, although the trauma can still be quite devastating and cause real damage.

Whatever the relationship is "supposed to be", the Narcissist doesn't change; they see other people as either a way to GAIN for themselves, OR as a THREAT to themselves.
People who are close to them especially are seen as either someone to CONTROL, or someone who is TRYING TO control them. Narcissists do not come out of "competition mode".
Everything is a competition. Everything is "who's in charge", or "proving who's better", "proving who's smarter", "proving who's a better person", "proving who DESERVES recognition, privilege, or resources", or a DISPLAY of "how great" they are.
That's what THEY"RE doing, so they think that's what EVERYONE ELSE is doing too.

(If they think you're attractive, you must be MAKING YOURSELF ATTRACTIVE ON PURPOSE... because you think you're "so great" or because you're trying to MANIPULATE other people by apparently creating your own face and body.........
unless they're still in the "valuation phase", then your physical attractiveness means that you're "Above others"....... but that will only last until they find someone else who they think is more attractive, or until you stand up for yourself or for someone else, or have some kind of "need" ... or "opinion" ...)

On Academic Arrogance

On Academic Arrogance
(Elmer John Thiessen)

The know-it-all attitude of the undergraduate student at a university; the willingness to expound at great lengths on any and every subject on the part of the graduate student; the confident airs put on by the college or university professor – all of these are examples of academic arrogance. Academic arrogance is unfortunately all too common, and is enhanced, no doubt, by the attitude that persists in our society that the university-educated person or the educated professional are somehow superior to those who have received only a high-school education.
Arrogance is of course everybody’s problem... (Click for the full article)



ElmerJohnThiessen's article on Academic Arrogance is really about Human arrogance in general, which all arrogance of course really is; we humans can take ANYTHING and use it as a "status symbol".
It's just a one of those Hairless-Chimpanzee things, (sorry, but it's true.. ooohhhooohhhooohh).
ElmerJohnThiessen's point of view is from a Christian perspective, however arrogance is the same whether one is Christian or otherwise. Very well said, in my opinion, which may be humble, or not.

Who Has Point-Of-View Bias

Who Has Point-Of-View Bias?
Practically everyone.

Some people have more POV bias than others, however, and some have less.

Point-of-view-bias is about how we see things from our OWN point of view, combined with our ability, or LACK of ability, to see things from someone else's point of view.
Stephen King is a world-famous writer of fiction, mostly horror, and in my humble opinion, exceptionally talented at writing from many different points of view. If his character is a very large man who grew up on a Bayou in the deep American South, for example, he is able to effectively and believably write from that character's point of view, as if he is "standing in that man's shoes". As if Stephen King was actually able, for a time, to BE that person, and express how that man sees the world, what he thinks, and what he feels.
If his character is a small, young woman from the Midwest who grew up in a poor household, he seems to be able to transport himself, again, so that he is "standing in that woman's shoes", as if he is writing from HER point of view, expressing how she sees the world, and what she thinks, and what she feels.

Stephen King seems to be a very rare talent; there are precious few writers who seem to be able to suspend their own point of view in order to write so effectively from the POV of the opposite sex, or from the POV of a person of a different race, age, class, ancestry, or region. He may not get it 100% perfect all of the time, but his average is pretty impressive.

Most people, writers or not, seem to fall short of Stephen King's talent for objectivity and for transporting themselves to someone else's point of view.
There are countless tales, stories, poems, tomes, and modern films and shows, as well as Advertisements, and also songs and "musicals", that reflect the BIASED POV of the writer/author. When the writer is purposely expressing a certain POV because the story or character is specifically written that way, then the flow is not interrupted or skewed; it's appropriate. But when they are purporting to be of a NEUTRAL, HUMAN point of view, but are actually writing as if all "humans" are male, or white, or black, or Baby Boomers, or Hispanic, etc. etc., then the flow is interrupted and cock-eyed for EVERYONE EXCEPT those who share the writer's personal BIAS. 

There have also been years, decades, even centuries of non-fiction texts (science, religion, philosophy) written in quite biased POV, that have been touted as "Neutral", "Neutrally Human", or even "Scientific". 
For an easy and obvious example, the "big three" Religions all have texts that are written quite obviously in male AND male-biased point of view. Much of the texts are written as if "Human beings" are MALE, and females are "other", instead of BOTH males and females being considered "People" in the same way.

When a person with a BIASED POINT OF VIEW says or writes the words "WE" or "US", they are NOT referring to ALL of the people who are also in their group. They are ONLY referring to the people who they think of as being JUST LIKE THEMSELVES, usually in a physical way.

A person who lives in BIASED POINT OF VIEW often has skewed beliefs about other people. For example, it's common for women who have female-biased-POV to believe that ONLY WOMEN share their array of feelings, interests, fears and motives. They may believe that ONLY WOMEN really care about children, or they may believe that ONLY WOMEN JUST LIKE THEMSELVES really care about children. They might actually believe that no MEN could ever really appreciate Romance, or gentleness, or deep emotional bonds with other people. They might actually believe that men would not BE ABLE TO LEARN HOW to really take care of other people, or how to keep a house clean, or perhaps other things such as how it feels to be treated badly or abused by other people.

Males who have BIASED POINT OF VIEW might actually believe, for instance,  that women and girls don't have the capacity to feel the rush of adrenaline that one would get from going fast on a bike or in a car, or that only MALES are ABLE to learn and understand what it's like to be proud of learning how to rebuild an engine or play a guitar. There have been male-biased writings that imply that ONLY BOYS and MEN can UNDERSTAND the bond between humans and dogs, or the feeling of ultimate FREEDOM that one can find being "one with Nature" or "in the Wild", or that "finding one's fortune" or seeking success is only something that MALES even think about. 

It's easy to find writings of all kinds that are written in blatantly biased Point of view. Rock music, for example, is LOADED with male-biased point of view, and that's very unfortunate, since the "movement" of Rock Music had purported to be about Personal Freedom for PEOPLE, not just freedom (or privilege, or the freedom to denigrate others) for ONE GROUP of people, and NOT for another group. Many girls and women who were musicians and fans of Rock music find out the very difficult, spirit-crushing way that there is a huge amount of ANTI-FEMALE and female-exploiting and belittling material in many Rock songs, and in the world of "Rock music" in general.

Racially biased POV is rampant as well in all kinds of writings, art, music, and non-fiction texts, from all points of the globe, from nearly all ancestries and all "colors".

Biased Point Of View is very common in humans; see how many Native American Tribal names mean "The People" or something that implies "The Real People". That's a common phenomenon to find ALL OVER the Earth, throughout the Human Species. "Only those who are like ME are the 'real people'."

Humans will OFTEN see others as either "Like ME", or "Not Like ME", and therefore "US" or "THEM", and they'll use nearly ANYTHING AT ALL as identification for that purpose. So "US" might be those of the same SEX as they are, or those of the same ancestry, or those of the same HEIGHT, or who went to the same SCHOOL, or who have the same academic degree, or who LIKE THE SAME SPORTS TEAM, or THE SAME BAND, or who LIKE DOGS, or who DON'T LIKE CATS, ....etc. etc. etc.... etc........  

It's much less "jarring" or emotionally damaging to individuals when they are aware BEFORE HAND that something is being presented or carried out in a certain BIASED POV, or that the people in a certain GROUP are all in a BIASED POV. For example, before trying to join a local "club" like the Masons, one usually finds out that they are "male-only" membership, and therefore a female does not try to join, and subsequently get humiliated. Or the "Ladies Auxiliary" is aptly named; a young man is warned off just by the name itself, and will probably not think of including himself in the group.
For an example of the potentially quite damaging kind of BIAS that people COVER UP and present as NON-BIAS:
In America, MANY, MANY Public Schools STILL implement budgeting, classes, and extra-curricular programs that are very biased toward one RACE or one SEX, or toward BOTH one race and one sex, depending on the region. These are PUBLIC SCHOOLS, so many children are under the very-American assumption that the ADULTS in their town actually care about each of them EQUALLY and GENUINELY, and unfortunately many of their parents are also under this very naive assumption as well.
So when the children find themselves a student in a school where there is blatant BIAS AGAINST THEM and FOR OTHER KIDS because of their race, ancestry, or sex, after having been told that it was all "fair" and "non-biased",  they can really suffer some serious emotional trauma. These children have been blindsided in a very harsh way; no one told them that they would be treated as if they didn't MATTER, as if they are unimportant and even "in the way" to the adults whom they expected fairness and REAL education from. After all, it's Public School, which means all of the adult citizens in the town, especially property owners, PAY FOR IT. Therefore, all of the students should expect equal, fair, and supportive educational experience. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW THAT THEY ATTEND. 
 
Biased Point of View in human beings is extremely common, but that doesn't mean there's "nothing wrong with it" , just because it's so common. It's Biased Point of View that is responsible for the actions that have OPPRESSED and ENSLAVED various peoples around the world from the beginning of recorded history.    

Personal Attacks Vs. Intelligent Discussion: Go-To-Weapons For Insecure Bullies

ad hominem

"You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird."
~(Logical Fallacies)

Making People Smaller, Weaker, and Unimportant

Making People Smaller, Weaker, and Unimportant is one of the Narcissist's main life hobbies, and one of the ways they get through life and get things they want.
Emotionally healthy people don't need to try to make others into something "lesser" in order to makes themselves look "greater" or "worthy", they operate with what's REALLY THERE.

So if an emotionally healthy person is in a Dance Class with an exceptionally talented dancer, they simply accept the person's exceptional talent and give credit where it's due. Even if they feel an occasion twinge of jealousy or envy (and it would only be an occasional twinge), they wouldn't ACT on it, and they would recognize it for what it is; their OWN insecurity issues. An emotionally healthy person is likely to be inspired by the other dancer and try to learn from their skill or their passion.

For an emotionally healthy person, that very talented dancer's ability would be kept separate from the dancer's personality and social behavior, they wouldn't see them as one and the same. They wouldn't try to pin "arrogance" or "snottiness" on the dancer when it doesn't exist, just because they feel intimidated or out-shined. By the same token, they would not EXCUSE arrogant or bullish behavior from that dancer either, just because the person is so talented, or because they think they're "cool".
The fellow dancer's ability would not be ENMESHED in the healthy person's mind with the fellow dancer's personality and behavior. 

However if a Narcissist is in a Dance Class with an exceptionally talented dancer, they would make everything about it personal. Narcissists are not capable of neutrality, OR real student-hood, or professionalism. They LEAD with their EMOTIONS, and their actions and behaviors are DICTATED BY their emotional reactions, which rarely or never include "empathy".
A fellow dancer with exceptional talent (or apparent physical attractiveness, wealth, or 'status') means the Narcissist will EITHER try to be the dancer's "buddy", OR they will try to DIMINISH the dancer somehow.
There will be NO neutrality.

The only reason a Narcissist would not engage in either trying to buddy up to the person or trying to diminish the person would be FEAR of consequence. If the fear factor is small or absent, then the "games" WILL commence.  

So the Narcissist might try to create a situation where they just "happen" to end up alone with the fellow dancer, or they just happen to be there when the fellow dancer needs assistance or emotional support, or they might even sabotage the fellow dancer so they can be the one to stick up for them or "rescue" them; all ploys to try to get the dancer to trust them or bond with them.
OR,
The Narcissist might devalue them from the get-go and insult them, humiliate them, counter everything they say, make fun of their dancing or appearance, and also try to get others to believe in their devaluation of the fellow dancer.
The most common go-to manipulation is to spread a belief that the targeted person is a morally "bad person", and not NEARLY as "nice" or "honest" or "genuine" as they seem.

One of the favorite smear campaigns against either female or male targets is telling others that the target person said something BAD about them. "She said you were too fat to dance." or "He called you a slut." or "I didn't like what she said about you..." ... ...
Implying that the target has insulted or attacked another person behind their back is probably the most common way that manipulators successfully turn people against a chosen target, or against one another.
~Narcissists will even purposely set a target up during conversation, trying to get them to say something that they can use against them later - either about themselves or about someone else. For instance the N. might "lead" the target about how Nancy said this or that and is a terrible friend, goading the target to agree with them for as long as it takes; when the target finally says something like "Okay I guess you're right, I guess Nancy is a jerk..." that's all they need; they'll go back and tell Nancy that the target was talking "smack" about her and called her a jerk.
WHY would a person go through all that setting up and goading, when they could have simply told a bold-faced LIE? ~Because most people with Narcissism are usually obsessed with JUSTIFYING everything they do, so they need excuses for the things they do. They can't FEEL "innocent" without having an excuse to justify whatever it was they did.
It sounds "juvenile" because it IS "juvenile".

Some favorite smears against male targets might be about how arrogant he is, and how he thinks he's "so great". Other favorite made-up smears against males may include "He's lazy", "He's a thief", "He's a drunk", or "He has a serious gambling habit, and spends more at the track than on his family", or "He's bad news", "He's not 'manly'", "He's light in the loafers", "He can't fix anything".

It has to be something that others in that particular group will react to negatively.

So if the whole group smokes pot, for instance, saying that the guy smokes pot and is therefore "bad" is not going to work. It has to be something that they'll all JUDGE him for negatively, so most of the time a Narcissist has to MAKE SOMETHING UP that's PURE FICTION or EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED (such as turning his occasional lottery ticket purchases or his occasional casino visit into a "serious gambling problem").
It's important to note that accusing a man of being sexually promiscuous (slutty, whorish) does not seem to work in smear campaigns, nor does telling everyone he cheats on his wife, OR that he has a problem with anger or rage, especially against women. That's because our cultures are male-biased and anti-female biased, so a man who is sexually promiscuous does not get a "whore" label slapped on him, a man who cheats on his wife is often give a "pass" because, after all... "he's just a man, he can't help it"(so much for males being the superior sex)... and anger and rage have been implanted in the cultural mind as "privileges" of males, especially against women. (Until, that is, one of them rages at a person who's doing the slandering, and then all of a sudden it's a serious issue.) 

However, things that people DO LIKE to judge men negatively for (such as "not being manly enough") work rather quickly and easily for smearing purposes.
Men who are single are targeted much more frequently than men who are married, because men who are married appear to have more of a support network, and appear to be more supported by the community. Narcissists are much more likely to target people who appear to have less of a support system.

Some of the favorite "go-to" made-up smears that people like to direct at female targets include "She's so stuck-up", "She thinks she's all that", "She thinks she's better", "She thinks she's so smart", "She's a 'Diva'".
Also, "She's a slut/whore - she 'sleeps around'", "She sleeps with other people's husbands", "She drinks", "She does drugs", "She's bad news".
"She's an angry person", "She's unstable", "She's ditzy", "She's crazy", "She's a bitch", "She's a bitch to her mother", "She's a drain on her family".
"She's a bad mother", "She's a bad wife", "She's a bad cook",
"She doesn't take care of herself", "She's ugly", "She's fat", "She has bad taste"
"She talks too much", "She's opinionated"
"She thinks she's tough"
"She thinks she can do what MEN do"

There are more smears that work very easily against women because more people are biased against women in the current era, and actually welcome the chance to single out, diminish, or sabotage women whom they envy, resent, or are jealous of.

(For example if you were to take a male political candidate and a female political candidate, both of whom were equally "hated" by a certain group of people, the specific SMEARS the group would use to diminish each of them would be tailored to their GENDER, they would NOT really be about what each person really DID or DIDN'T DO. So the female candidate would be called names like "bitch" and smeared with sexually oriented smears like "slut" and "whore", and the male candidate would be called names like "asshole" and "snake oil salesman". People tend to try to SKEWER females more severely, regardless of the actual events or behaviors, because of their own deep-seated personal issues.
If a person WITHOUT prejudice were to express anger or even hate toward both a male and female candidate, they would not use terms that imply the person's gender (or race, or hair color, or anything else about the person's body) ).
People who are riddled with prejudice focus on things ABOUT people like their sex, race, looks, ancestry, or religion, and call names and pigeon-hole people; people who are not riddled with prejudice are only focused on what a person actually said or did (REALLY said or did) without skewing, diminishing, or inflating any of it.

It's also important to note that Smear Campaigns don't work unless others participate.

Taking Sides: Woody Allen

"Who's Side Are You On?" Ever notice that most people assume that there always has to be "sides"?

In any discussion or "debate" between any groups of humans regarding bullying, abuse, or unfair treatment, those who are actually also bullies will always take whatever stance serves THEM personally.

For example with this "Woody Allen Debate" going on now, those who are biased for Woody Allen because they like him or identify with him in some way (same age, same sex, similar disposition, similar ancestry, etc.) will most likely automatically "take his SIDE".

And whoever does NOT like him for whatever reason (even if they don't know him personally) will probably either side AGAINST him and say he's guilty, or they'll just be indifferent and ignore the whole thing completely.

Those who are biased against Mia Farrow for whatever personal issues they have will of course say she's making up the allegations of abuse toward Dylan, or making a bigger deal out of it than it is.

ALSO, those who are biased FOR abusers in general, usually because THEY are also abusers and bullies and that's how they get what they want in life, will side adamantly AGAINST Mia Farrow, and against the allegations, and typically say that she's completely making it all up, and that Dylan was too.

REALITY is that no one who wasn't actually THERE can say either way what the "truth" is, so taking a SIDE for or against anyone in this case is simply about one's OWN personal issues, biases, and identity. There are no human beings on the planet other than Dylan Allen and Woody Allen who know for sure what happened and what didn't happen.

The media and followers of the media who are "taking sides" are just doing the thing they always do, making a frenzy out of something serious, and making very serious judgments about something they have no way of knowing any factual information about, just so they can be part of the "gang" to VILIFY either Woody, Mia, or Dylan.
And if they're doing it to people they don't even KNOW, you can imagine how severely they do it to the people who are in their own lives.

Reading, or Just Skimming Articles And Blogs?

There is a common form of arrogance that has seen exponential growth in modern times; most people who are afflicted like to call it "A.D.D."

But it's not "A.D.D.", it's just plain old arrogance, combined with a good dose of presumptuousness, and a rather large dash of laziness.

We glance at a headline, and maybe skim the first paragraph, and actually tell ourselves we've read and digested the entire article. And then, very confidently, we loudly and exuberantly express our oh so very educated opinion about the article... and often AT the author of the article... that we didn't.actually.read.   We skimmed it, we glanced at it, we already HAD a biased opinion BEFORE we glanced at it, which of course will not be changed or swayed, especially since we didn't.actually.read.the.article.
If we're feeling ambitious or we want to keep up in a discussion about the topic later, we might read through a couple more paragraphs. But the whole article? Who does that?

I'll tell you who does that; people who live in reality-land, who don't have delusions of believing that they somehow possess a Super Power of thoroughly reading and comprehending an entire article AND the writer's point of view just by glancing at a few of the words, and looking at the author's PICTURE.

I would love to see actors doing Shakespeare on Broadway doing that with their script, or film actors on a very expensive shoot...
"What do you mean that's the wrong line? I read the first part! It must be right!"

Or a musician in the Philharmonic Orchestra who only pays attention to the first page of a piece, and throws the rest on the floor... "I'm a Virtuoso! I don't need to actually LOOK at the music! I can just automatically play it after glancing at the first page!"

Or one of the physicists at Cern who only read the title and the first paragraph of the experiment they're about to perform... because of their excruciating genius, they just psychically absorb the rest of the paper without having to actually READ it..

How about if we allow all medical students to obtain their degrees and licenses because they got the first part of their exams right? Sign me up...

I think maybe we could resolve it all by allowing Police Officers to train for about a week, and then graduate them and issue them service weapons because they SAY they "get it", and put them on the street. How about that? That might be fun...

Why People Target A Person For "Scapegoating"

A "Scapegoat" is a term for a person who has been singled out in a family or other group who others tend to "pick on" and judge more harshly than everyone else.
The difference between an "abuse target" and a "Scapegoat" is simply that more than one person has jumped on the bandwagon of targeting an individual; usually most or all of the members of the group are either participating in "dumping on" the person, and those who are not actively participating are also probably not standing up for the person against the malicious treatment, either.

They are the first to get blamed when something has been misplaced or lost, or when something goes wrong. The Scapegoat receives more negative judgment, and less understanding and support than everyone else.
When the members of the group focus on something the Scapegoat has done, or is doing, they tend to seek excuses to criticize, and to paint whatever the Scapegoat is doing in a bad light, no matter what it is.
They are BLAMED for things that happen to them that are beyond their control, and they are BLAMED when they are the victim or target of another person.
Scapegoats are usually blocked from the resources, help, and support that others in the group expect to receive as a matter of course, and probably take for granted.
The Scapegoat is the person who is flagrantly gossiped about and slandered, with others trying to DESTROY their reputation instead of PROTECTING it.
They are often purposely left out of group gatherings, group decisions, and group celebrations.
They are often blatantly and flagrantly LIED about, in order to make them look bad to others and keep the targeting going both within and outside the group, and as far-reaching outside of the group as possible.

The reasons behind Scapegoating are all based in a deep lack of maturity in the members of the group.
The primary motivator for singling out a member of one's OWN family or group, and making them into some kind of "Pariah", is usually envy, or its cousin, jealousy.

Envy is when a person feels contempt and resentment for another person because they have something they want, such as good looks, talent, apparent love or an apparently comfortable life, or a nice car.

Jealousy is when a person feels something like anger or resentment regarding their relationship with someone else.

But in some cases it can also stem from a compulsion to bully, whereas an individual simply gets a charge out of doing mean things to another person because it makes them feel powerful, it makes them feel like they've "won" in some way, and gives them a little "rush".
Scapegoats only really exist in family or group systems that lack strong ethics and integrity.
MOST families and groups will completely deny it when they have Scapegoated one of their members, and will rationalize their behavior, fully blaming the target. This denial alone clearly shows that the members of the group are unwilling and unable to be accountable for their own behavior and actions.


The reasons that people pick one person to Scapegoat and not another are all very petty, and again, all based in a lack of maturity.

Scapegoats are usually a person who seems to be either unwilling or incapable of retaliating.

For example a child who was frequently sick may be targeted because they seem weak and unable to fight back.

Or a small or thin person who no one in the group is physically afraid of at first glance, and whom they know has higher values than to physically attack another person in retaliation.

A person who others don't fear retaliation from because they have a high degree of integrity.

A person who others in the group envy because of any number of "assets", such as looks, talent, ability, skill, money, success, potential success, or even a charismatic or CARING personality.

A person who others in the group are jealous of because another "favorite" or "authority" member of the group has a close or special relationship with them.

A person who others in the group envy because they seem well-liked or well-loved in general.
It's important to understand that some people can ENVY absolutely anyone and anything, for any reason, and children are actually prone to envy and jealousy because part of their very survival is about the adults and older kids around them genuinely caring about them, and giving them needed resources and help.

People who have Narcissism will try and Scapegoat any person who is not already a "chosen favorite", who NEEDS anything specific from them, and who they have any envy or jealousy toward.