Advice For Getting A Job From Asperger's Experts

The Simple 6 Step Blueprint To Getting A Great Job (Plus Little Known Tricks To Creating An Amazing Resume, Nailing The Interview And More)

By the Asperger's Experts!

Those who are in recovery from Trauma and abuse may find this very valuable as well.

CLICK HERE:      VIDEO 1  The Invisible System

                              VIDEO 2 The 6 Step Blueprint

Narcissists Resent Having To Give Or Help

Those with Narcissism typically resent any kind of apparently "obligatory" caregiving, or sharing with another of their time or resources, such as caring for or helping their kids, their partner, adult children, or other relatives or friends. They don't want to do anything that they're not going to get extra credit, praise, or reward for, or anything that they're not going to get immediate payback for.

A Narcissistic parent, for example, will often find it quite an arduous burden to change anything about their own routine or comfort in order to care for their own children or spouse. He or she will likely find it a huge burden to even "go out of their way" at all to make sure a child or spouse gets proper medical treatment for an illness or injury. Supporting a child or spouse in a real way toward their goals or even daily tasks can be very burdensome and even stressful for a Narcissist, because they see no direct reward for themselves in this "sacrifice".(Children of Narcissists who are not favored are often denied resources, denied emotional or other support, blamed and shamed for random things in the household, blamed and shamed for anything that happens to them, and are often rejected or kicked out of the family and home so they don't "cost" the parent any more resources, or be "in the way", or "burdensome" with their unrewarding, unexciting presence.) Narcissistic parents only "support" their kids or spouse if there's something in it for them, like image, reputation, recognition, and credit from others ("there's that Great Mom, Suzy...she's such a Great Mother... or "there's that Super Dad Glen... he's so wonderful...or "Hey there go the parents of that football player kid! or that Dancer kid! or the Class President!"), or if they see the child as a "mini me", so they're precariously living their own lives through the child. If the child's goals don't line up with their own goals for gain for themselves, they will not be supportive of that child, and may even reject, neglect, or abuse him or her.
In many cases, even a "favored/Golden Child" of a Narcissistic parent is neglected, or emotionally, verbally, or physically abused.

Narcissists ONLY do things in order to receive a reward, or only if they can't find a way out of a task or obligation, and they expect to always receive obvious rewards and positive feedback for any and everything they do that could be considered "positive", a "contribution", or for someone else. They often expect reward for NOT doing MEAN, inconsiderate, aggressive, or traitorous things as well, such as NOT cheating, NOT hitting, or NOT going out with their friends instead of coming home. ( "You should be grateful that I'm not one of those ..... who beats their spouse / gets wasted every night / beats their kids / takes their spouse's money / sleeps around... etc.")
They expect to get REWARDED for not behaving like a complete psycho, and they expect their kids, spouse, and others close to them to even put them on a pedestal for their refraining from horrible behaviors. And as if they would EVER do anything like that for their spouse or their kids.

They want all the rewards, understanding, sympathy, empathy, and praise they can get for the smallest things, but GIVING any of that, even for wonderful and great accomplishments or help from others is nearly impossible for them (unless they see a reward in it).

Taking accountability for their own behavior and actions, and especially taking responsibility for a mistake or for doing something wrong does not typically result in a tangible REWARD, so Narcissists tend to RAIL AGAINST doing these things. Anything that does not result in a positive reward is avoided and protested against, and anything that might bring some kind of "negative" result, no matter how trivial the consequence would be, is often RAILED and REBELLED AGAINST with PASSION by a Narcissist.


~~~ I was witness to a problem in a small parking lot where three cars were trying to leave, but they had accidentally blocked one another in. Someone needed to move in order to untie the little knot they had created. One person said to their companion, one of the drivers, "Back your car up, then they'll be able to get out." Not with an attitude or negative tone, it was just a neutrally-toned statement. Their friend, the driver, shot back with a blistering tone "I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT!"

Taking responsibility!
Doing something that needed to be done, just because it needed to be done, regardless of who's "FAULT" something was!
Something so trivial as backing one's car up so another could get out actually caused the person to become RESENTFUL, DEFENSIVE, and ANGRY.
Things that they DEMAND from others and EXPECT from others as a matter of course are all things that Narcissists often have a hard time doing at all, never mind doing them without reward. 

Narcissists may VOLUNTARILY GIVE others or a target a gift, or a favor, but only when THEY INITIATE IT, rarely when the target ASKS for it. Their form of "giving" allows them, in their minds, to remain in control, and still get the rewards of "giving", which includes a reputation of generosity.


Typically, they react to request from others according to WHO is asking, not according to their ability or capability to help, NOR according to the person's severity of need.
In other words, Narcissists would jump at the chance to "help out" a celebrity they liked, such as Brad Pitt, or Snoop Dog, or a "favorite" person they know even if the person was very wealthy, but would most likely RECOIL at fulfilling any request from someone who is NOT famous, wealthy, a local authority or hero figure, or favored by them, such as one of their non-favored children, their partner, or a friend or coworker whom they want to be superior to. Giving help, gifts, or favors to a celebrity, authority figure, or a favored person is an opportunity for the Narcissist to get a reward. Giving help to someone who's not famous, or who they have not put on a pedestal, means the only "reward" they might get is a thank you from this "non-important" person; no worldly recognition, no immediate gratification, no associated fame or notoriety, and no instant payback.

BESIDES, they typically don't like helping others whom they don't favor become LESS insecure, or feel MORE confident, safe, hopeful or successful, (unless the person's success is in their own interest).
That might help give the person more "power" and autonomy, and therefore be less anxious, less dependent, and less powerless.   

A Narcissist will expect praise and positive reward, for instance, for giving a person a compliment about their appearance, or for praising a person for an excellent performance, or for giving them a small gift. They'll expect this reward and credit even if it's one compliment or gift in the middle of a sea of insults and criticisms, as if rewards are supposed to be given out as PAYMENT IN KIND, directly for a specific action, like money for a specific service. 
"I complimented your hair, so you should pay me a reward, regardless of the way I've been treating you all day, all week."
They DO NOT connect their behavior to the overall "bigger picture", they tend to see each of their own actions as completely unrelated, separate incidents, irrelevant to one another.

Narcissists do NOT typically see their behavior as causing "problems" for other people. They tend to see others as causing ALL of their OWN problems, regardless of what they are, and regardless of external events (including their own actions).

In a severe case of Narcissism, for example, a Narcissist could puncture another person's tire with a knife and blame the person for "causing them to do it" by "making them mad".
Or they could KNOW that someone slashed a person's tire, and feel zero empathy, sympathy, or even a bit of pity for the person, blame the person for somehow "causing it" to happen, and then typically insult and criticize the person for "being unprepared" and "irresponsible" for not having a spare, or not being able to change their own tire.
(Because, after all, we all cause the behaviors of others... oh yes and everyone should expect their tires to get slashed on any given day, and be completely prepared for it...)

THEN, that same Narcissist could come back to that person a day or a week later, and act like nothing happened; treating the person like a "friend", and on top of that, fully expect to be REWARDED for treating the person like a "friend".
(As if normal, respectful, civil treatment is something that we all get reward and special recognition for.)

(In the case of a sociopathic Narcissist, however, they might be fully aware of the "bigger picture", of their own behavior, and the effects of their behavior. They may be doing it all on purpose. Not all Narcissistic people are sociopaths, not all abusive people are "Narcissists" or sociopaths, and not all sociopaths are "Narcissists". But sociopathic Narcissists can be quite dangerous.)

Message To Counselors, Social Workers, Lawyers, Teachers, Parents And Others

When a patient, client, child, friend, or other is showing signs of emotional distress, is your first reaction to assume that they have caused the majority of their own problems, or that they are in some way deficient, weak, or defective as a human being?

Counselors, doctors, legal professionals, teachers and instructors (especially health and legal workers) should EXPECT a person who is coming in to speak with them to be feeling some sort of elevated emotional state. To judge a person negatively for elevated emotions when they're in a health worker's office, or a legal worker's office, shows a serious lack of awareness.
Assuming that a client, patient, or student is representing the "way they always are" OUTSIDE of a health or legal office, or classroom, is again a serious misjudgment.
People are anxious (most normal people, anyway) who are speaking to a lawyer or legal worker, mental health worker, physician, or social worker. That's not some kind of display of ignorance or weakness, it's a display of NORMALCY.
Only sociopaths are always cool as a cucumber, and if you didn't know that, look it up, it's important.

Patients in a therapist's or doctor's office are OF COURSE going to display some kind of emotions, they think they can TRUST health professionals to be professional, and to remain objective and non-judgmental. People tend to believe that healthcare workers are ON THEIR SIDE, and are trying to help them find solutions, not JUDGE them like anyone "outside" would, so they tend to "bare their souls" because they think they CAN, and even that they're SUPPOSED TO. Healthcare workers who are judgmental and arrogant toward patients and clients who are trusting them with their exposed heart and soul are massively unethical and unprofessional.

Students, both children and young adults especially, tend to believe that Teachers and Instructors are ALSO "on their side", that they're going to be OBJECTIVE toward all students, alert, aware, and caring, like a mentor should be, especially a mentor of youths. Playing favorites, targeting kids who are "annoying", over-disciplining some kids and letting others get away with anything, gossiping about students, giving some extra help and care, and ignoring or picking on others, creating little Hierarchies in one's classroom or SCHOOL, gender and ancestry bias, allowing students to bully others; NONE of that should even be happening. And yet, all of it can be found in nearly any school in many Western cultures, and in other cultures as well. Teachers and instructors who participate in this will often claim a neutral position, or completely deny that it exists. But it's very, very easy to see, and pretty much impossible to hide. The "proof" is the behavior of the students in the school. Difficult homes or not. When the entire school or university faculty, administration, staff, and local governmental and community ties to the school are functioning in a healthy way, it's easy to tell which kids have terrible home lives, trauma issues, or disorders from the kids who don't; they stand out, and they are given as much extra help and care as possible.
But when it's not, it's nearly impossible to tell them apart, and few care to try.


Assumptions lay groundwork for more assumptions. When we make judgments about other people, including children, it's not reality based. It's coming from our own imagination.

When a person shows up at a therapist's or lawyer's office showing apparent signs of anxiety, depression, or signs of some or other emotional or mental illness, if we see that person as that disorder incarnate, we don't see them as a valid human being.
Then, we don't actually try to find out more information, or new information. We only accept and hear that which lines up with our mental PICTURE we have created about who and what the person is. 
And then we treat them accordingly.
Those who don't think they do this may be more susceptible than others to doing this, because they are in denial. Assumption and judgment about other people is a human brain function, everyone does it automatically. (Yes, yes, you know all this already...but knowing it and applying it to one's SELF are two different things.)  Our brains "size up" and summarize other people based on superficial information, so we can get through our OWN life and our day to day activities efficiently. Our brains want to determine QUICKLY who is a threat and who is not a threat. The problem lies in the errors of that process, especially when one's occupation is about directly dealing with other people.

The reason there are so many successful con-artists is because human beings tend to be very over-confident in their ability to judge other people. We often make errors in judgement, such as mistaking a kind, very intelligent person as "incompetent" or "weak", and an arrogant bully as "competent" and "knowledgeable".
Many people are more likely to trust a con-artist or a bully than a person who is actually trustworthy or competent, because our judgment processing is really more for immediate danger rather than judging a person's entire character.

In other words, if we don't find a person intimidating, we tend to START ADDING our own made-up negative judgments about their "weakness of character".
When we add these negative judgments, it's about ourselves, not the other person. We're basically trying to find ways to feel like the person is inferior to us, so we can feel justified in feeling dominant and superior over them.
When we do feel intimidated by another person, like they're some kind of authority figure or expert, we tend to START ADDING our own made-up POSITIVE judgments about the person's character.
After we've made these judgments about a person, we then only accept "information" about them into our brains that corroborates, lines up with, our judgments.

If we see or hear the person doing or saying something that doesn't line up with our judgment of them, we reject the information. If someone else says things about the person that don't line up, we'll probably reject the information. We only want to hear and see "bad stuff" about people who we've judged as bad or weak, and we only want to hear and see "good stuff" about people who we've judged as good or strong.

We tend to cast others in certain "light", and then filter everything they say and do, and everything about them through this light.

What we RARELY do is SUSPEND judgment and assumption about others. We usually judge and assess them upon meeting them, and believe ourselves, clueless about our own ignorance about them.
The more "expert" we perceive ourselves to be, the more we tend to believe our own assumptions, assessments, and judgments.

A signal for ourselves that we are judging a person negatively is when we find ourselves casting shame on them, especially when our occupation or position is in a legal, mentoring, or caretaker role. Shaming others or seeing others in a "shameful" light (people often shake their heads or smirk to express this) is extremely inappropriate in any caregiving, mentoring/teaching, or legal role. One's perception needs to be as objective as possible, and allowing JUDGMENT such as this destroys objectivity, and therefore severely compromises one's ability to perform their REAL job, or be a proper Parent. 

Further, many who have been abuse targets are "hyper-aware" of others judging them.
When a patient, client, (or child) picks up on someone's negative judgment toward them, they will immediately sense this and stop trusting (an accurate reaction). They have learned from experience that those who judge another in a negative light will not remain objective, or be seriously thinking or working in their best interest. 

True professionalism in any field requires objectivity. When a person's occupation deals directly with human beings, then objectivity, civility, respect, and a measure of empathy are required, as does good parenting.

A confusion of "respect" and "civility" with elitism and fear is actually common in this current cultural climate, unfortunately, and speaks to a serious cultural problem with ego-identity and boundary issues. Treating other people with respect and civility is not about the other person, it's about one's OWN values and integrity. Having a habit of assessing others to decide whether they "deserve" one's respect and courtesy is a symptom of boundary, self-acceptance, and identity issues.

Respect and civility have nothing to do with submission, nor do they indicate adulation of another person. Those with healthy boundaries and self-confidence keep their values and integrity intact no matter who they're speaking to or dealing with. They don't have a need to "assess" others as "inferior", for any reason, because they aren't compelled or have a desire to assess anyone as innately SUPERIOR.

~Positions of authority are positions, not innate qualities of a human being.
Expertise is about something that is learned and practiced, it does not indicate anything about a person's character.
Academic degrees are accomplishments, but they are not an indication of superior intelligence in comparison to another who does not have the same degree, or equivalent education.
Even having formal education in a certain subject does not mean that one is categorically and automatically more knowledgeable than a person who did not complete a formal education in that subject.
A poor or working class background does not indicate anything at all about a person's intelligence, character, or ability.
A middle-class or wealthy background does not indicate anything at all about a person's intelligence, character, or ability.
A person's hair color, height, weight, ancestry, muscle tone, or facial features also do not indicate anything at all about their intelligence, character, or ability.

These are all assumptions and assessments that many humans project onto others.
Ironically, those who project negative judgments onto other people are usually highly offended when someone does the same thing to THEM. But without objectivity, one cannot see the hypocrisy or silliness.

Everyone wants to be seen in a POSITIVE LIGHT by others, and RESPECTED for all the positive things about their character, their intentions, their motivations, and their accomplishments, and they DO NOT want to be judged in a negative way.
And yet, many, many people do the opposite to OTHERS. 

Professionalism requires objectivity, and keeping one's mind on the job at hand, not on passing judgment on clients, patients, students, children and others.

Addendum:

When a client, patient, student, or child's parent is speculating about or analyzing his or her own situation, behavior, past, or health, or that of their child's, it's not something that they don't have a "right" to do, or are CLUELESS about just because they don't have the same academic background or position as you do. If that's what you think, then either someone told you wrong, or you are trapped in your own identity issues.
When they are trying to figure out the dynamics of a situation or an event, that's not the same thing as BLAMING OTHERS for their own mistakes and behaviors, or as avoiding blame and responsibility. They are PROBABLY EXPECTING YOU to HELP them analyze and figure out the details, because that's part of your JOB.
Your job is not to judge them and diminish them as human beings, making yourself feel like you're above them. Your job needs to be done WITHOUT inserting your own personal, emotional, and ego issues.

We all fall short of objectivity and professionalism from time to time in whatever our job is, but our human frailty is no excuse for not trying to reach this goal every day. 

One's motivations for choosing a career path show up in their job performance.
How a person treats the PEOPLE who they're working with and for shows what they're really about.

Targets Displaying Confidence Can Trigger Rage In A Controller

Controllers are often triggered to rage when a target shows signs of apparent autonomy or confidence, or even calmness, joy, or hope.
Feeling like they have control over a target is tantamount to their feelings of having control of their own life, so a target behaving as if they are not afraid of the controller, as if they see the controller as a peer instead of an authority, or as if they are not living their daily lives according to the controller's wishes, can cause the controller to panic. Standing up for one's self to their disrespect or unfair, unkind treatment will almost certainly trigger anger or panic-rage in a person with Control and domination issues. Especially if one is already seen by the Controller as a "target". Nevertheless, not standing up to them, or remaining within their reach of control, often causes serious depression and anxiety issues, and can lead to serious problems for the targeted person. Finding one or more genuine allies (who don't condescend, manipulate or bully) can help tremendously with the process of healing one's boundaries so one is more able to stand up effectively or leave the situation. (If the only genuine ally one can find is a paid therapist, or someone on a recovery forum, then so be it.)

Provoking, Invoking, and Poking Emotional Reactions In Others: Crazy Making

Those who have certain types of Control issues and Boundary problems may habitually try to provoke emotional responses in other people.
Trying to provoke emotions in others is a common sociopath behavior; of course it's also found in others who have maladaptive social behaviors as well.

Frequently provoking emotions/feelings in a target (such as fear, shame, guilt, self-doubt, worry, anger, sadness, loneliness, humiliation, hope, camaraderie, trust) allows the Controller to predict, manipulate and control the target's behaviors and actions. They'll often provoke one feeling in a target, and then switch to provoking an opposite feeling.

For example "Let's go to the movies and have a nice dinner out tonight!" can provoke hope, trust, camaraderie and joy. Then right before it's time to go, they might start an argument or suddenly have to leave, or they don't feel well so they don't want to or can't go. This takes AWAY the target's good feelings, and replaces them with uncomfortable feelings, such as disappointment, sadness, loneliness, or anger, betrayal and abandonment, especially if this kind of bait and switch happens frequently. So the Controller successfully provoked emotions and feelings in the target with both the suggestion of dinner and a movie, and with taking away dinner and a movie. If the target reacts at all, expressing any 'negative' emotion, the Controller will likely accuse them of being hostile, demanding, whiny, or crazy. Controllers SEEK emotional reactions in targets for various reasons, both for supply and for manipulation.

When a person is in defense mode, they are much more apt to be reactive instead of intentional and confident.

If you scare your cat, for instance, you know what he's going to do, pretty much. If he's relaxed and calm, he's confident and operating of his own volition, making decisions and purposeful actions autonomously. Getting HIS OWN goals and needs met. When he's frightened, he's doing one thing: reacting to his fear. His behavior is predictable, and once he's in fear mode, he's even easier to scare and manipulate further.
A Controller would call a cat that's reacting in fear "crazy" or "psycho".

(Actually you can witness this, literally, on episodes of the show My Cat From Hell, with Jackson Galaxy Saturdays at 8 p.m. on Animal Planet. Many cat owners who ask Jackson to "fix their cat" frequently blame their cat for "erratic" behavior, even when it's extremely obvious that the owners are causing it.)

Getting A "Fix" From Sexism

People who treat members of the opposite sex with disrespect are most likely doing the same thing to members of their own sex.

It may not look the same because they typically use different words, behaviors and methods.


They'll do it to people of other races as well, or the same race.


They'll often do it to anyone who they see as having differences from others, even if THEY HAVE the SAME "different" trait.

They do it to whomever they think they'll get away with doing it to.

It's not a "belief system", no matter what they say, no matter how they try to rationalize their behavior.

It's nothing more than a "fix" they're getting, same as any other drug fix, so they'll get it wherever they can.



There are many mammals who get a charge and a rush out of domination, but Humans are the only ones who make up elaborate excuses to rationalize and justify their behavior.

Humans are the only ones who try to get away with causing harm to others by creating stories and myths. 
but the only ones they're fooling are themselves (ourselves).



There is no other species who has authority or control over Humans.

The stories and excuses that have been spun to rationalize and justify our domination behavior toward one another are intended to fool none other than our own species.

Narcissism, Hierarchy, Scammers: Inability To Accept And Process Information

Not being able to take in, process, and remember new information that does not line up with what's already in their head is one of the cognitive issues that can be seen in humans in general, but is markedly apparent in certain disorders and illnesses, especially with Narcissism.

If their "story" has Stella cast in character as being a person who has little or no experience in something, then they will just keep "writing" her that way, no matter what they see or hear that indicates differently.

If they've cast Stella as (if they think of her as) physically weak and fragile, then when they SEE her landscaping her property, or building a porch onto her house, they CAN'T accept the new information and "rewrite" their character of Stella, because they can't handle the contradictory information.

They can't think "Oh, I was quite wrong in my assumptions about Stella, I should not have judged her like that, I was not right or correct." Because the REASON they thought of Stella as weak and fragile was about THEIR OWN identity and insecurity issues. It had nothing to do with Stella, or with reality.
Making Stella weak allowed them to feel STRONG in comparison to her: "I might not be the Hulk, or even the strongest person in my family, but there's a person that I'm stronger than."

Instead, they will try to delete the new information, or try to rationalize HOW "weak, fragile Stella" is able to do this "difficult" work. Their ensuing behaviors as a result of their attempts at deleting, denying, and rationalizing may include:

~ Avoid Stella, and avoid seeing her do these things
~ Treat Stella like she must be horribly exhausted and overtaxed, and "out of her depth"
~ Try to take over Stella's projects
~ Criticize and "critique" everything Stella is doing or has done
~ Keep trying to "advise" Stella, as if she knows much less about these things than they do
~ Talk about Stella behind her back, implying that she's grandiose or unstable (she's not following the "character" they wrote for her, so she must be crazy or bad)

Often they will find some "reason" that they don't LIKE HER anymore, so they'll have an excuse not to be around her very much. A person with Narcissism may have a tantrum and wildly reject Stella, creating a new story in their heads about Stella being a terrible person, so they can give themselves (and others) an excuse about tearing her down and rejecting her.

People with Narcissism issues feel emotional pain when someone in their cast of characters shows that they are not the person they were "written" as, because it's a blow to their already wounded and weakened ego identity (boundaries). A person who is "supposed to be" someone who is LESSER than the N. is supposed to ACT that way, or they're WRECKING the N's world, where the N. uses them to compare themselves to.

If they're not lesser, weaker, less capable, less intelligent, less "worthy" than the N., then they are ruining the N's SELF-IMAGE.

The average Narcissist's self-image, identity, and self-worth is based on how they COMPARE to OTHER PEOPLE.
Without other people to compare themselves to, they don't know who or what they ARE. They NEED others to be either someone who is greater than them so they can follow them, OR someone who is lesser than them so they can feel like they're MORE than that person. Narcissists DO NOT want these "characters" to change, because they are basing their identity and worth on who and what they are in comparison to others.

They NEED to have HEROES, "important people" with titles, power, and prestige to be in the world, so that they can keep their imagined "Hierarchy" alive. (Mostly people they don't know personally). They'll often refer to these "important people" as if they are above other human beings and therefore smarter, better,  more capable, more WORTHY, more everything, and especially "above" targets whom they're trying to diminish.

AND they NEED to have people in their lives whom they have cast as "inferiors" in whatever way they can come up with, because that's the only way they can feel like they have worth or value as a person.

It's all a construct of the imagination.

There are, however, sociopathic Narcissists who are quite aware that these "Hierarchies" that people create are not real, but they perpetuate them and encourage them purposely in order to USE them for manipulation purposes. A good example of that is the SCAMS on the internet, the "Catfish" who have been exposed on some talk shows, scamming people out of thousands of dollars. Also the SCAMS on Craigslist out of other countries, such as the fake ads for home rentals. These are sociopathic Narcissists using people's own beliefs in hierarchy to manipulate them. 
They're also common on dating sites, and on other social media. 

Crazy-Making Double-Standards

Little, subtle crazy-making behaviors keep others in the loop of those with control issues.
Double-standards are part of daily life with those who have control issues. "Social rules" are one way for them, but different for someone else, and different for each target.

So Scott, the Controller, doesn't call home when he's going to be late, and sometimes doesn't come home until after midnight. Everyone is supposed to be "understanding" about that, and assume that Scott is late because he had something IMPORTANT to do; a "legitimate reason" for being late. No one is allowed to question why he was late, or why he didn't call. Which is perfectly fine if he held up that same standard for everyone else, but he doesn't. Scott wants his autonomy respected, as well as his person and his intentions, he wants to be seen and treated as someone who deserves full respect. BUT, he does NOT treat OTHERS that way. Megan, his sister, and Julie, his wife, are apparently under DIFFERENT "RULES" than Scott, even though they are both adults.

Scott becomes angry and upset when Julie doesn't come home, or when she doesn't call. He tries to cast shame on Julie for this, as if being late or not calling home means she's a Bad Person, or means she's Doing Something Bad while she's out, and that she doesn't CARE about him.

Scott also lays blame and shame on his sister when she doesn't come home until late, and when she doesn't call.

Scott seems oblivious to his Double Standard about coming home late or calling.
Apparently in his mind, there are two separate worlds:
Scott World, where there's nothing wrong with staying out late and not calling; and Julie and Megan World, where if you stay out late or don't call, you're doing something wrong and bad, and hurting the people who "care about you".

Really though, Scott wants to be the Leader of the group, the Important One in the group, the Parental Figure (as if the others are children), and some kind of Authority Figure.
Scott thinks that people who are "Leaders" and "Authorities" are not beholden to rules, or to social consideration. He thinks that if he's being the "Leader", then he gets to MAKE "rules" for others, and "enforce" them, and "punish" others for not following them, but that those rules are not for HIM to follow.  

That's what Scott thinks "Leaders" and "Authority Figures" get to do; make and enforce rules, but they don't have to follow them.

Scott thinks that when Julie and Megan don't follow Scott World "rules", that they are DISRESPECTING him, and treating him badly. He honestly can not comprehend that they are all on EQUAL footing, that no one is "above" or "below", that there is no "Hierarchy". He really thinks he's the "Leader", and that therefore he's ENTITLED to privilege and being outside the rules, and that he has the RIGHT to boss them around and cast shame on them for doing exactly the same things that he does.

Self-Promotion, Worldly Success, Narcissists

One of the ways many Narcissists achieve apparent worldly success in various endeavors is with self-promotion. A lot of it.

Without a filter, and without humility, self-awareness, or a sense of genuine dignity, along with a rather grand view of one's self, many who are classically Narcissistic rather enjoy promoting themselves, frequently announcing their achievements: big, small, miniscule, or made-up, and talking at length about how they did this lovely thing today for whosit, and that sweet thing for someone else, and that self-sacrificing thing.
When they're doing business, whatever it is, they are always the first, second, fourth, and last to tell others how great, skilled, experienced, talented, and trustworthy they are. They have no problem plastering their name and face all over the place, no matter what their business, skill, experience, or talent actually is.

"I am the best, I am the most wonderful. You should like me, you should believe me, you should agree that I'm great, and that I deserve your recognition, money, friendship, and trust."

Since they do it so much, and since people are highly suggestible, they tend to achieve more success than not with their blatant self-promotion. Once they've got someone invested, that person will defend them to anyone who sees through them.

People are much more likely to DEFEND and SUPPORT a Narcissist/Controller than to defend or support a NON-Narcissist who is just trying to succeed, or even just trying to do something "good".

Because: Narcissists manipulate people to rally for them, and non-Narcissists don't.


If you're struggling to find your own success, Narcissists have a whole bag of "tricks" that are used to achieve success, both socially and in business. Not all of them are unethical, cruel, or immoral, so with healthy boundaries intact, one may find some useful snippets of self-presentation or advertising in that bag. Just be careful about getting your head stuck in it ~:)  .

http://www.copyblogger.com/shameless-self-promotion/

Arrested Development, Childhood Stages

Codependent people who also have Narcissism issues can be stuck in the childhood stage before one learns that the world does NOT actually revolve around one's self. If they have not matured past this stage for whatever reason, then they can't "know better", much more than a child at that development stage would.

So if you are a person in their personal life, they probably see you as a person who "should be" giving to them, supporting them, praising them, and helping them on a ONE WAY basis, the same as a child expects all of that from the adults in their life.

The child expects their parent to come to their school concert and watch them, clap for them, and give them encouragement and support, which is normal and healthy, and if the parents DON'T do these things, then the child will probably experience unpleasant or even scary feelings, and may also feel angry toward their parent.
BUT~ the child does not think about supporting, encouraging, or helping their PARENT with his or her activities, tasks, and goals in the same way.
Part of growing up is learning about being supportive, but "MUTUAL SUPPORT" that one would find between PEERS of the same age is not and should not be expected in a Parent/child relationship.

The Parent is expected to help and support the child a lot more than the other way around in a healthy functioning family. It's mostly ONE WAY.
Over time, the parent guides the child about being supportive of others, both by teaching and by MODELING the behavior. (Timmy learns about gift-giving, and why we give gifts, by his parents' behavior toward him and toward one another, and also from being directly shown and taught about it, like talking about what present he's going to give his sister for her birthday, and helping to pick out a card and gift for his Mom or Dad.)


Think about what Timmy is being "taught" if his parents behave otherwise.
If Dad goes golfing on his Sister's birthday and misses the party, or makes fun of women while picking a Valentine's Day card with Timmy for Timmy's mother, or if his Mom constantly criticizes, corrects, and puts down his Sister and his Dad, or if his Dad doesn't show up for Timmy's School Play after promising he would be there.
What is Timmy being taught when his birthday party is a huge celebration, but his Sister is given a minimal acknowledgment every year for hers. Or, vice versa.
Or if one parent gets big acknowlegement and recognition for various things, big celebrations for birthdays and Holidays, but the other does not. 
So if a child gets stuck for whatever reason in this childhood developmental stage and carries it into physical adulthood, where he or she sees others as people who should be supportive, helpful, and praising toward them, (and often "let them" be "The Boss", like they're still playing pretend games of "Soldiers", "Cowboys", "Rock Star", "Office", or "Tea Party"), but NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, then they are probably showing Narcissistic behaviors and traits.

YOU have to help ME, YOU should be supportive and understanding of ME, YOU should tolerate MY behaviors, YOU should PRAISE ME and give ME recognition and acknowledgement, YOU should LISTEN TO ME, YOU should treat me with RESPECT, YOU should come when I call you...
BUT...
I DO NOT 'HAVE TO' DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

I don't WANT to do them, and I don't feel like you're important enough to deserve them, anyway.
You are here FOR ME, I'm not here "FOR YOU".

And I get to be The Boss. Because this is MY game, not yours.

I'm the one who is important, not you, so I get to be the boss over you, and I get all the support, praise, sympathy, attention, recognition, and rewards, both from other people and from you. You don't get any, because you're not an important person. I am.

If you played "Lone Ranger" with them, they would probably think that you SEE THEM as "The Lone Ranger", because he's the BOSS and the "star" of the show.
You can be Tonto if THEY ALLOW you to, he's a sidekick but he's pretty cool... or they might tell you that you can't be Tonto, that you have to be the random "maiden in distress" or "scared shopkeeper under attack".

Childhood Developmental Delay.
They're still back there, and they may not know it.
One can not be more mature than one is.

Abusers And Targets Have In Common: Weakened Boundaries

Injured or weakened boundaries is something that both abuse targets and abusers have in common.
That's often the thing people mistake for "kindred spirit".

~Someone who has similar injuries as I do, therefore they must "get" me, "get" what it's like to be targeted with abusive behavior and prejudice, "get" where I'm coming from and my point of view, and respect me as a valid human being.

Having injured or weakened boundaries does not mean anything at all about a person's character, core personality, values, biases, motives, brain function, or point of view.

But that's something that most people seem to learn the hard way, given that few are actually taught or guided about these issues while growing up.

In fact, many adults in many cultures and communities will deny that it even exists, and will often put the blame for abusive, bullying, or prejudice behavior on the targets instead of the perpetrators. They actually teach targets to blame themselves for other people's ill treatment toward them, and to sympathize instead with bullies, controllers, and perpetrators.
They often even encourage a reaction of "compassion", empathy, and extra tolerance for them, far above and beyond their "compassion" for targets and victims.

One can witness this in action by watching the way many male trauma-victims are treated BEFORE and AFTER their trauma experience. For example, a male fire-fighter first-responder to the Twin Towers tragedy was treated with great bias, as a walking "hero", being given the "privilege treatment" on a regular basis  BEFORE he experienced PTSD symptoms. But AFTER he started displaying them, others around him stopped giving him the "Hero/Great Guy" treatment, and started treated him like an "annoying whiner with Victim-mentality".
Those people included his own "friends" and family members.  

One can witness this in many Veteran's hospitals. Men who were treated as "Heroes" and given the "Great Guy" treatment by their community are often treated with amazing disrespect and disdain when they seek treatment for PTSD or other problems they're experiencing, not only by the people around them generally, but also by many Hospital staff members, never mind the government or insurance companies. 

This REJECTING OF and TURNING ON those who have experienced trauma, who show symptoms of the effects of trauma, or even who are known to have been targeted/victimized by abuse, sabotage, or BIAS and PREJUDICE (racism, sexism, etc) has been going on in our species for centuries.
It is modeled and passed down from generation to generation, all over the world, possibly in nearly every culture and country.

The ILL EFFECTS of this behavior can be seen very clearly in our world, both on a large scale and a personal scale. People actually TEACH other people to sympathize with and allow bullies and controllers to treat others with bias and contempt, and allow them to get their way, and gain power and resources.

A large part of this is basic Chimpanzee behavior, where members of the troupe allow bullying and aggressive behavior because they don't know any better. They grew up that way, so they don't do anything to change it.

Bonobos, also Chimpanzees, do NOT allow aggression or bullying, and live peacefully.
Studies have shown that a Chimpanzees placed in Bonobo society will adapt and learn their peaceful, non-aggressive, non-bullying, minimal "hierarchy" social behaviors.

Dr. Phil, Helping Or Hurting Society

One of the reasons I like to watch Dr. Phil is because the show helps illustrate and demonstrate the differences in various disorders and illnesses.
While I personally don't like the fact that human beings are put on display for the world to see and to judge, especially since it's international television (their reputations are forever altered), this also demonstrates some very important things:

First, the show has been on for several years, a rational adult would know that their "dirty laundry" is going to be aired, and that there's a possibility that their "laundry" is going to look even dirtier on the show, but they voluntarily go on the show anyway.

Second, if a rational adult is aware of this and goes on anyway, there must be a really good reason for it; why are so many people so desperate to get proper "help" that they would go on international television and tell the whole world their problems?

Third, if so many people are doing this and even fighting to get on the show, then there is either:

A huge national crisis of very poor boundaries and self-esteem;

a huge national crisis of getting a charge out of throwing others under the bus in front of other people;

a huge national crisis of substance abuse, addiction, and drug-influenced thinking;

a huge national crisis of hierarchy-creation, where people make some people "HEROES" and practically worship them, and make other people either "losers" or "villains" so they have an excuse to reject and disrespect them;

a huge national crisis of basic narcissism (not knowing how, or CARING about how to treat other people, nurture relationships, care for or about children, respect and care for others, or maintain family ties);

a huge national crisis of a complete breakdown in all things related to emotional health, mental health, the judicial system, and the healthcare system;

A huge national breakdown of normal human maturation processes (adults guiding children to become mature, happy, genuinely confident (not arrogant) adults who respect other people and know what ethics and integrity are, and why they're important).

WHY would so many people allow all of their "dirty laundry" to be aired on Television in front of millions of people, never mind Dr. Phil's audience with the oohing, ahhing, laughing at them, and shaking their heads in judgment.

They are either OBLIVIOUS to it, and to the potential damage to their own reputations, because they have deeper disorder issues than is being aired on the show, OR they are SO DESPERATE to get COMPETENT HELP that they would go on the show in front of millions of people.

Why would a rational adult be so desperate if "competent help" or support  (even just HEALTHY SUPPORT from friends or family), was available to them in their own area?

Well, they wouldn't be.    

There's a lot that can be learned from watching Dr. Phil, whether one agrees with the show, or with him, or not.

There's also a lot that can be learned about ourselves while watching the show by monitoring our own reactions to guests on the show, and to Dr. Phil himself.
For example we can monitor our habit of judging and "assessing" other human beings ~ our own level of arrogance and judgmentalness.

We can monitor our own tendency to categorically VALUE or DEVALUE others based on whether we AGREE with them or not (such as: Dr. Phil is an "okay guy" because we liked and agreed with his assessments, or Dr. Phil is a "Great Guy" because we like how he "tells it like it is" and because he's a large man with broad shoulders;
or Dr. Phil is a "hack" because we didn't agree with a couple of things he said, OR because we're envious of his success and position;
or Dr. Phil is a "Great Guy" (or a 'jerk") because he reminds us of a teacher, coach, uncle, or other man we have known;
or Dr. Phil is "cool" and a "great guy" because he sometimes insults and condescends to certain guests on the show, especially when HIS BIAS lines up with our OWN BIAS.)

REALITY is that Dr. Phil is a human being, and that he has talents, skills, knowledge, accomplishments, and a human brain that has emotions and perceptions, most likely the normal human desire for success and achievement, and human "flaws", just like everyone else. He has not shown signs of mental illness or personality disorder, and frankly he's pretty "aware", imo, considering he grew up in a region known for male bias, classism, prejudice, and gender role issues, and he's a large male who quite likely has been treated by others his whole adult life with either contempt or hero-worship. His parents probably played a large role in his upbringing, but his choices of occupation, focus, values, and his behaviors are his alone.

Sometimes I completely agree with him, sometimes I think he missed something very important, and sometimes I want to wing my shoe at the television because I can see some bias showing. But then I remember that this is a television show, that people are on there voluntarily, and that he has done quite a lot of good, for individuals and for awareness in general.

He doesn't just have guests on there and leave them hanging, he actually does a lot of work and is very generous about using his connections and resources to get them help (that they were not able to get elsewhere).
He's not God, he's not anything more than a human like myself and everyone else, so he's going to screw up and miss things, just like everyone else. But he's not running one of those "reality TV" shows or an Extreme Dysfunction "Talk Show". He, along with his wife Robin, have probably raised more awareness specifically about abuse, dysfunction, and the breakdown of the mental health system and other "systems" than anyone, because of the focus and the success of the show.  

So is he my "Hero"? Do I think he can walk on water? Nope. Do I respect him as a human being? Yes. Do I disagree with him sometimes, even often? Yes. Does that mean I think he's a "hack", incompetent, or just in it for the money and fame? Nope.
I respect him as a human being, and as a person who has real experience, knowledge, skill, and a passion for helping people and our world in general. He shows that he does seek real information more than he makes assumptions and jumps to conclusions, which is absolutely essential for any competent psychologist, counselor, or forensics professional. Maybe most importantly for me, a person who obviously genuinely cares about and respects his family, as far as I can tell from where I sit. I DO NOT know him personally, I have zero experience with him on a personal level, as far as I know it could all be an act for TV, or it could ALL be genuine, perhaps their family ties are even better than they look.

In summation, I personally see the Dr. Phil show as being more of a positive contribution to our current society than a negative one, as it stands, and from what I can see from my own view point.     

Some Signs That Someone Might Have Narcissism

Some of the first things one may notice when a person in their life has some level of Narcissism may include:

a "strong" presence that's often mistaken for healthy confidence or even physical strength;

a feeling in one's self of being in the presence of an "authority figure", like a parent, teacher, or manager;

a feeling of not being taken seriously, or believed;

a feeling of being judged, or found lacking or lesser;

not being able to "get a word in", or not being replied to, answered, or acknowledged after speaking;

feeling defensive against the person's condescension;

dealing with continuous criticism, corrections, and unsolicited, unrequested advice or "help";

getting continually advised, taught, and told about things that one knows about or is quite well-versed in;

having a feeling that one is being judged critically for appearance, grooming, attractiveness, and cleanliness;

feeling like the person keeps competing against you, one-upping you, trying to "prove" that you're "not all that" or that they ARE;

knowing that mutually agreed upon plans or invitations are likely not going to be kept intact or followed through;

having a feeling of either being "too rich" or "too poor" when around the person;

having to explain something several times because the person can not seem to absorb or comprehend what you're saying, and may even argue with you about something they can't know anything about (such as your own medical benefits, or what the electrician said earlier only to you).

feeling like one is getting pelted continuously with small pebbles, or dragged around on the ground, but not clearly knowing why;

feelings that seem to suddenly change (and that's not part of one's usual personality profile) from feeling comfortable, accepted, and liked to a foreboding feeling that rejection or abandonment is coming;

vague sense of worrying that one is being tricked, manipulated, or being laughed at behind one's back;

sense of walking on eggshells: an intuitive sense that one needs to be extra, extra careful about what they talk about because it seems like the person might be easily upset, offended, embarrassed, and possibly enraged;

strange feeling of anxiety that feels like something from childhood having to do with shame or doing something wrong, but there is nothing real that one has actually done "wrong'; 

having a feeling of being targeted for humiliation and put-downs, but perhaps not being able to pin down exactly why;

feeling of anxiety or a kind of shame when talking to other people who may or may not already be friends;

general feeling of being "not good enough";

having a general feeling of loneliness, being left out or left behind, even depression or serious anxiety issues that may or may not seem related to real events.

Gossip, Slander, And Following The Crowd

Gossip: Monkey see, monkey do.

Remember that most people (including ourselves) tend to follow the "lead" of other people around them. For example the way people are moving in a crowd. If we look at the way people dress from era to era, and listen to the way they talk from generation to generation and region to region, it becomes pretty clear just how much we follow other people's leads. Even subtle body movements in a small group will be mimicked by others; it's nothing to be ashamed of, it's just how we are. "Monkey see, Monkey do".

Whatever is 'acceptable', apparently, for foolish, irresponsible, destructive, or rude behavior in any given group is because someone is "leading" and others are following; it's "okay" to drink one glass of wine with lunch, but if you drink two, you're doing something bad... while in another group, they're all having two glasses, but NOT THREE...no no, never three... And in yet another group, they're all smoking marijuana, but they don't smoke cigarettes.. and in another, they smoke cigarettes and drink, but they don't smoke marijuana... etc., you get the idea.

Whatever is "acceptable" Social behavior also goes the same way of following. Mark tells jokes that are demeaning to Polish people, and we all follow his lead. But when Sal tells a joke that's demeaning to French people, we all get offended.
Mark is recognized in the group as a "leader", a "cool kid", and Sal is not. The key words are "WE ALL". When Sarah tells mean blond-haired-ancestry jokes, we are all expected to accept it, including the blond people. But when Henry tells jokes about African-ancestry-people, everyone gets offended. Again, Sarah is a "leader" in the group, and Henry is not "cool enough". But there is a day that Sarah tells a joke that demeans Native Americans, and everyone is expected to laugh, and most of them do.

SO IT GOES with Gossip and "Smear Campaigns". People go along with them because the group they're in already accepts gossip and slander, because they are following someone's lead. Those who are accepted as "Leaders" or "cool kids" can slander and gossip till the cows come home, and people in the group will just go along with it, not questioning, not stopping it, usually exacerbating it like the game "Telephone".
But if one of the people in the group who are not one of the "Cool Kids" started gossiping or smearing someone, they'd probably ignore him, or defend the person he's talking about.
They'll also ignore him or argue with him if he's talking about something "bad" that someone REALLY DID.

People tend to mimic the way others TREAT OTHER PEOPLE as well. So if Jane starts talking over Cheryl, others will talk over Cheryl as well. If Jerry tends to treat Luke with disrespect, others in the group will often follow his lead. If Sharon and John treat Jeffery like he's some kind of "Leader" who deserves extra respect for some reason, others in the group are likely to follow their lead.

Humans mimic and follow others, especially those whom they consider having equal or higher "status" than themselves.
They tend to purposely ignore and counter those who they are trying to make into "lower status" members of the group.

Obviously, some do this behavior more (much more) than others, and some do it much less than others.

"Getting Off" On Putting Others Down

Getting a "fix" from casting shame, disrespect, and blame on others is common for those with entitlement issues, especially when accompanied by insecurity.

Often a person with these issues will cast shame onto whole groups of people, like ALL of the members of the group are "bad".
Such as "all MEN", or "all WOMEN", or all members of one race, country, or religion.

Usually, (but not always), they cast "bad" onto a group that they don't include themselves in.

They often group people into sub-categories also, such as not just "all women", but all white women, or all brunette-haired-white women, or all tall brunette white women, or all brunette white women of a certain country or region.
Or all Northerners, all Southerners, or all upper management, or all banking employees, etc. (People who do this will make groups and categories out of anything, especially when they're seeking to cast others as "bad" so they can feel "good", "righteous", or "innocent".)

~Most people will seem quite oblivious to all the good things that you do and have done, but when it comes to finding a chink in your armor where their criticism might get in, they're suddenly paying close attention.

Victim Blame

"Victim Blame" doesn't just mean blaming the victim.
It also means sympathizing with the perpetrator, instead of the victim.

Anti-Abortion (my shiny butt)

Wondering:
Do all adults who are "Anti-abortion" voluntarily and willingly support, or at least happily help support babies and children who are born to mothers who can't support their children by themselves?
You can't have one without the other. It's not even about morality, it's about REality.

If you're going to demand that babies are not aborted, then you need to be one of the people who actually CARE about those babies, and those mothers as well. 
If the only reason you protest abortion is to cast shame and blame on other people, but you don't really give a crap about those babies, children, or mothers on a real level, then it's nothing more than hypocrisy.

Fathers who don't support their own children, or the mothers of their children, really don't have much of a leg to stand on either way.
And really, neither do family members of those mothers who are unwilling to be supportive.
Neither does anyone else who's not willing to help REALLY SUPPORT babies and children.

If you're anti-child support, or anti-welfare, or anti-female, or anti-females-getting-equal education, pay,  opportunity and respect, or you can't stand children, or you only "like" certain kinds of children (or humans), then sit down and shut up about it, you're NOT one of the people who are HELPING to support and raise babies and children.
Unless you're one of the few who are literally DIRECTLY helping to support babies and children, and their mothers, with your own money and time. Are you one of them? If you are, awesome, if you're not, zip it.

People who really want abortion to stop, for real, not just who get off on blabbering on and on about who's it and what's it and who's RIGHT...,
need to be part of the solution, not part of the cause of the problem.




(I was a younger mother once, and I can tell you that the "support" I received was pitiful, especially from all the establishments that everyone assumes HELP young mothers and children. The church, the "state" agencies, planned parenthood, even most of the nurses in the hospital where my baby was born (Yale) were ridiculous in their ANTI-supportiveness.

...Maybe if they knew I had family ties there, they wouldn't have been so cavalier or snotty... lol... then again...)

And no, I'm not "pro-abortion", but I AM PRO-SUPPORTING BABIES AND CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS. The "programs" that we do have frankly SUCK, they're like vortexes of shame and dysfunction.

And I know VERY FEW PEOPLE who say they're Anti-Abortion, who don't COMPLAIN about welfare, or try to cast SHAME on young mothers, unwed mothers, or single mothers, and even fewer who don't COMPLAIN about CHILD SUPPORT.
I also DO KNOW a few single FATHERS who also get the bum's rush treatment when it comes to helping them SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN.

Romantic Love And Narcissism

In "romantic relationships", Narcissists are much more concerned with keep their "options open" than with actually building a relationship with another person. If they commit to one person, that's like blowing off all the future possible "hot babes", "scores", or even "possible soul mates".
After they think they've "hooked" a mate, they aren't going to be doing any more courting ritual stuff, showing affection, going out of their way for their partner, or even showing basic respect, courtesy, or consideration.
Holidays are probably going to be disappointing and painful after they don't feel like they need to "capture" you anymore.
There won't be anymore wonderful "dates" or romantic weekends.
There won't be great friendship anymore, or mutual admiration, or dreaming plans for the future together.
When the "relationship" starts to really go sour, you'll probably notice it and try to repair it, try to get them to communicate with you about what they're really feeling and thinking, help them if they seem depressed or frustrated, try to make things better.
But they're not going to cooperate...
because...
they're NOT actually INVESTED IN IT.
They don't really WANT to be in a committed relationship.
Not just with YOU, with ANYONE.

Sure they were infatuated with you, probably, at first, but while you were going along with the process of relationship building and emotional bonding, THEY were going through an entirely different process: DEVALUATION.

Romantic relationships for people with Narcissism are usually not "REAL" to them. They're a passing fancy, a burst of excitement, an EVENT, a phase, something they experienced, something they achieved.

Picture it like a thrill-seeker's expeditions.
A person who climbs mountains doesn't keep climbing the same mountain, and they don't usually decide to LIVE on one particular mountain. Their "rush" is from climbing NEW mountains. Once you're done with one, you're onto the next one.

A base-jumper doesn't keep jumping off the same bridge or cliff. They see different sites as challenges to be "overcome". Once they've achieved a jump off a certain bridge, they're already planning the next one.

THIS is how Narcissists see "romantic relationships".
NOT like non-narcissists do.
No, they never really loved you, not like you wanted them to, not like you thought.
They probably loved the rush from the infatuation, and loved the excitement from being with you for a while. But that's not "love" between two people, it's not a BOND.

A race-car driver doesn't "love" the track she's on. She LOVES RACING. She loves the THRILL of racing. Each race is a NEW conquest, a new challenge, a new thrill.

A rock climber doesn't LOVE one rock and move in, and live there, and stop going rock-climbing because he's found the "ultimate rock" and there are no others that could ever measure up, so why bother. No, that's not what he's doing, he's not LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO CALL HOME. He's looking for the RUSH he gets from climbing new rocks and cliff faces.. That means he doesn't WANT TO STAY in one place, even the best site he's ever climbed. He WANTS TO get that RUSH, and he can only get it when he explores NEW rock faces.
 It's about HIM, about HIS RUSH, NOT the rock face.

Narcissists are addicted to RUSH, and to "reward" ~ they don't build relationships, and they can't, really. Sadly.

Judging You For Worthiness

Assessing others to be "worthy" of their acceptance and their approval is common in those who believe they have natural entitlement and superiority.
They see themselves as one of the members of the "higher minded", "cool", "intellectual", or physically superior crowd, and are therefore entitled to do such judging and assessing.
This can come from actually having Narcissism, but it can also come from growing up in an area where people separate themselves and others into sub-groups, and places more supposed STATUS on one group than another.

Kids learn what's around them, they don't have any other point of view. So if the "jocks" are getting put on pedestals in a kid's community, that's what seems normal to a kid. If it's only male "jocks" who are given this "status", then that's what the kid is going to think is REAL, like that's really how things ARE in "Life".
This kid will likely then either feel like "one of the important people" if she's accepted into the group, or she'll feel like she's one of the "rejects" if she's not accepted.
The kids IN the group will likely feel like they ARE "more important", because that's what everyone else (i.e. certain adults around them) are telling them and showing them, so of course they're going to believe that they're the ones who have the "power" to ASSESS and JUDGE other people's "worth", and believe that their "worth" is the highest.

Kids usually believe what they're told and what they're shown about ANY sub-group like that in the larger group. If it's only Hispanic male jocks who are getting the "higher status" treatment in the school or community (or families), then the kids IN the group will probably believe that those kids really ARE "better", more important, or superior to others, and OTHER KIDS will ALSO likely buy into it, and will probably want to BE one of them, or want ACCEPTANCE from them, OR resent them.
No different if the kids who are getting the "higher status" treatment are Caucasian-descent male jocks, African-descent male jocks, or Asian-descent male jocks.
Make the "higher status" sub-group female jocks, and that's who the kids will think is REALLY "higher status".
Make them Asian female jocks.
Give only the Basketball Team, but not the Swim Team, that "Higher Status" treatment. The other kids both on and off the team will likely buy into it.
Make the sub-group the male-only Science Club, and that's who will be the "most worthy" and "most high-status" group; that's who will buy into their own superiority, and who other kids will want to be accepted by, or who they'll resent.
Make the sub-group the female-only Astronomy Club, and that's who will be the "most worthy" and "high status".
ETC!!!

Change the "High Status" group to ANY sub-group, any age, either sex, any ancestry, and the kids who grow up around it will BELIEVE it.
That's why people don't just reject organized crime groups and gangs in their community. The adults behaved AS IF the members of those groups were "important", and so the kids of course bought into that, it's what they were shown.

EVERY region, every country, every area, every community, and even every family perpetuates the MYTH of "who is important" and "who is more worthy", and for the most part, the communities follow right along in those footsteps, because that's what they saw while they were growing up.

SO, it's not strange that some adults believe that they're naturally superior and more worthy, and that other adults buy into it and allow them to BE "superior", JUDGE others for "worthiness", and have easy access to more power. privilege, and resources. The kids from both sides of this imbalance were TAUGHT and SHOWN these things by adults while they were growing up.  

Inciting Hatred With Accusations Of Bigotry

When a person is talking about racism, and you are listening to them, do you assume that their goal is altruistic and innocent, or do you double-check that?

What is their real goal?
Are they trying to invoke FEELINGS, or are they reviewing actual information in an objective manner, looking at the whole picture, looking at different points of view, seeking causes and solutions?

What are they REALLY trying to accomplish?

And the same can be said for those who are talking about ANY kind of bigotry.
Some Men's rights groups try to incite hatred in order to get people to join them and follow them.
So do some Feminist groups.
So do some Gay Rights groups.
So do Left Wingers and Right Wingers...   
Some "civil rights" groups do it, some religious groups do it...
The MEDIA THRIVES on it.
Many songwriters do it, and so do many artists.
Even some "support groups" do it, especially on the internet.
Political candidates of every color, both sexes, and every background do it every day.

What is the REAL GOAL?

Those who look to INCITE FEELINGS of "US AGAINST THEM", of disdain, disgust, TEAMS, and especially Hatred, are doing it for a self-serving reason. They WANT SOMETHING.
They want you to join their team, or they want you to give them money, or they want you to vote for them, or they want you to help destroy others (so they can "win" and get power and control).

When you join a team of HATERS, you're not joining a positive cause. You're joining a negative agenda.

You aren't on a "team", you're being allowed to participate AS LONG AS YOU AGREE WITH THEM.

No one cares about YOUR POINT OF VIEW or OPINIONS in such a group, they ONLY CARE THAT YOU ARE ALIGNED WITH THEIRS.
The moment you disagree with their "line" is the moment you are cast out.


Haters hate. Haters like to incite others to hate. Haters don't care about anyone's point of view but their own. Haters don't care about anyone but themselves, no matter how much they SAY they care and PRETEND they care, they're full of shite.
Haters hate, and that's pretty much all they do, and a lot of them want to MAKE MONEY from it.

Advertisers and politicians have known for centuries that it's much easier to get people to follow you when they're joining in a "hate" campaign AGAINST someone else, than getting them to follow you because they genuinely agree with you and support your ideas.


(Remember "Coke VS. Pepsi"? They were both in on that. Worked like a charm.)