What It Might Be Like For A Person With Schizophrenia

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/06/69318/schizophrenia-simulator-video?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=post#page-1

This is a 2 page article with Anderson Cooper going through an empathy experiment on the first page and Eleanor Longden explaining a lot more on the second page. There's also a "simulator" on the second page. 
Very eye-opening. (Click anywhere)

Separating From A Narcissistic Person: Fear Of The Unknown

One of the reasons it's hard to separate from ANY type of relationship with a Narcissistic person is worry about the AFTERMATH, the fallout.

People who have Narcissism typically try to turn everyone connected to them against a person whom they realize is distancing themselves from them.
They often take ostracism, smearing, and slander to a very dramatic level, especially if they're afraid that the targeted person might tell others what really went on.

So separating from a Narcissistic person doesn't end with separation from the person, like it would with a non-narcissistic person. There will most likely be whole groups of other mutual friends, family, and associates who "shun" the person, and treat the person like they "don't belong" or are "unwanted", because they bought into the N's slander/ smearing/ drama routine.
This smear-and-shun routine directly affects the person's entire life, children, reputation and livelihood.

It might be little comfort to know that only easily-led people, and those who enjoy drama, go along with smear and slander campaigns, but that doesn't fix the actual damage it can cause to a person's life or their children's lives.

By the time a person decides to distance themselves from the N friend, family members, spouse, coworker, or acquaintance, they're at least subconsciously aware that the potential for exaggerated drama is quite high.
Most N's "retaliate" in some way when they feel challenged or rejected in any way, either directly or indirectly, and they tend to immediately devalue and despise anyone who seems to NOT adulate, enable, or follow them.

The point is, the anxiety about distancing one's self from a person with Narcissism is likely to be about MORE than just separating from the person.
It's also about losing a network, group, or community of people, and also certain individuals that one knows the N. will "take with them". And not just losing the people, but also dealing with them "turning", like flying monkeys.

It can be daunting, and the worry and anxiety about it can be hidden from one's conscious awareness, thus holding one back from doing what they need to do, because it seems like "fear of the unknown".

Why Don't They LIKE People Who Aren't Judgmental, Who Are Ethical, Fair, Calm, And Objective

People who care ten times more about their image and ego than other human beings or relationships with others, whether they're a parent, boss, "friend", partner, sibling, cousin, neighbor, coworker, the mail carrier, the president, the vet, the clerk at the drugstore, will reject others very, very quickly and easily.
They have an "eject" button with a hair-trigger.
When anyone who's not a current favorite says or does even the slightest thing that could possibly be taken as some sort of insult or accusation, they'll eject them like a bullet from a gun.

The problem is that they are so hyper-protective of what they have come to believe is their "self", that they destroy positive connections with genuinely caring people with integrity right and left.
It might be compared to the way we might react if someone comes near our very badly sunburned shoulder. "GET AWAY! GET OFF!!! GET THE H. AWAY FROM ME!"

They don't reject people who are focused on gossiping about and blaming OTHER people, because they're pointing and shaming OTHER people.

(If I'm standing next to you, pointing at the girl across the street, I'm not pointing at YOU.) 

So they bond with other gossipers and blamers based on that alone.

If they happen to have some common interest, that's what they'll say the relationship is based on, but the reality is, the bond is based on mutually pointing at, judging, and blaming OTHER people, and therefore AWAY FROM themselves.

They don't LIKE people who look at themselves and self-reflect, and who speak straightforwardly about what's really going on. They don't like it, and they don't like them.
Because people who self-reflect and self-examine, and who are objective observers and solution-oriented, don't have taboo subjects, and don't avoid looking at, talking about, or examining, well, anything.
Being objective means leaving bias, preference, and ego out of it, not taking sides, and not engaging in emotional reactivity that clouds perception, so the objective observer is able to see what they're looking at much more clearly.
In order to actually see what's really there, and what's going on, they'll  look directly at the things that an avoider is often trying to keep covered, either due to shame OR due to self-protection.

Divide And Conquer: Shame Tactics On Little Boys

Narcissist Control Culture:
One of the main brain-washing tactics aimed at little boys in a lot of cultures is shaming them for associating with female children and adults. This starts very young, probably much younger than most people realize.

This is one of the first steps of "divide and conquer".
It's much easier to establish control over boys if they are made to feel weird about identifying with their own mother, or other females in their lives.
If a boy feels this weirdness about the connection with his mother or other females, he is much less likely to believe her, follow her rules, respect her, or pick up her VALUES and ethics.

This little alienation tactic creates a premature rejection/rebellion process in the relationship between a son and a mother, and between the boy and other female role models or peers in his life. The boy ends up feeling humiliated, ashamed, or embarrassed about his bond with  his own mother, and especially his identification with his own mother, and also about any camaraderie with, or admiration for other women or girls in his life.

It is much easier to control and indoctrinate a child with one's personal agenda and skewed values when the child has been alienated from one half of the human population, AND one of his own parents, AND relatives, teachers, and people in the community.
It greatly lowers the chances that the child will be influenced much by their values, ethics, and strengths.

It essentially makes the child mentally and emotionally blind and deaf to their direct influence, because the child is being taught not to respect them, and to see them as "OTHER", that is,  NOT like himself.

The child is quite purposely taught that there are "teams" who are at odds with one another, and that HIS team is the boys and men, and that the OTHER team is the girls and women.

So the child, who will automatically seek an adult to look up to, model, and mimic, like all children do, has little choice but to look up to only men, since he's been taught that girls and women are "OTHER".

IF all of the men that the child is exposed to have integrity, are nurturing, and have good ethics, values, pleasant personalities, patience, emotional strength, good mental health and respect female people, then it wouldn't be much of an issue.

However, the only men the child will be exposed to are members of a Narcissistic community, because that's the only type of community that would humiliate a child about his connection and bonds with his own mother or other females. That means that the odds of the child being exposed to disrespectful, bullying, narcissistic men are very high.

A non-controlling culture does not shame a child for identifying with, or following the values, preferences, and personality of their parent, or of HALF the population. And especially IN ORDER to indoctrinate and "mold" them in a certain pre-conceived form so they'll be more malleable for training and for service as they grow up.     

Nonchalance Or Annoyance Toward Another's Hardship

If it doesn't seem to bother someone who claims to care about you that you are:

Struggling
In danger
Having a serious problem
Being treated unfairly or disrespectfully
Being bullied, slandered, sabotaged
Being manipulated
Lonely
Sad
Anxious
Depressed

~because they behave dismissively, coldly, arrogantly, critically, inconsiderately or cruelly toward you, and especially when you express what you're feeling or dealing with; consider that a Red Flag.

Don't expect much from them at all regarding normal friendship, integrity, human connection, or usual values.
They may even believe themselves "strong" because they ignore YOUR hardships (apparently their wires are crossed about what "strength" means).
Don't expect "love" (of all things).
Don't expect "caring" behavior no matter how much they claim they care. Caring is an action. The word "caring" describes the action, or the person who is doing those actions. It's not a vague adjective like "sweet" or "nice" that describes how a person talks or comes across. 

Unsolicited Advice Is Not "Support"

The basic difference between "unsolicited advice" and "appropriate advice" is pretty simple; if a person doesn't specifically ask "what do you think?" or "what do you think I should do?" then they're not asking for advice.

Solicited advice is when a person asks specifically for it from someone else, like "What should I do?" or "How do I do this?" or "What should I use?"

Typically, a person who asks a specific question is asking for a specific answer, not a lecture on the entire subject as if they're clueless. "What kind of deck screws work best with Tyvek?" is NOT "What's a deck screw? What's Tyvek? How do you build a deck? What's a deck?" (Just answer the question. If you don't know the answer, then say that, don't babble trying to divert the person's attention away from the fact that you don't know the answer.)

Seeking neutral information and advice, but not personal advice, is like when we read a book that someone else wrote, or go on a forum or a weblog, or read a magazine article, or watch a show that gives information or advice. We're voluntarily going there, they're not coming TO US and TELLING US PERSONALLY what to do.

When people post memes, affirmations, information, observations, quotes, advice, news, or political stuff on the internet or on Facebook, that's not unsolicited advice, that's just their own posts.
They might be posting it for advice for themselves; or because it reminded them of a friend; or because they want to express themselves: or because they want to share information; or because they think it's beautiful; or they might be showing their friends or family something they made, like lots of people do every day with their own projects, 

If they posted those affirmations, expressions, or advice on someone else's page in order to "tell them they should be doing this" or "thinking this", that's "unsolicited advice". When they go on someone else's post and make personally directed remarks at the poster, and when they directly "advise" a person (without being asked) who posted a vent, a lament, or an experience, that's unsolicited advice.

~
My friend Steve
~
When my friend is upset about his job because something happened and starts telling me about it, I don't tell him what he "should have done", or what he "should do", or what he "needs to do in the future".
I just listen, and ask questions about what happened, and let him tell me the story, and acknowledge what he says and how he handled it.
That's not MY job, and I'm not HIM, and that's not my life, and I wasn't there.
If I do see something that MIGHT be useful for him that he might not have thought of, I might say something like "Hey I was just thinking, did you ever try doing such and such?"
But I don't go "You really need to be more assertive... faster.. more efficient... less sensitive...get up earlier...etc."

I don't think about what advice I'm going to give him instead of listening to him while he's talking. I listen while he's talking, so I can hear him and comprehend what he's saying.

When he tells me he ate an entire bag of cookies in one sitting, I WILL say "you know that's not good for you, right?" because it's actually a danger to his health.
When he tells me he's talking and driving in severely heavy traffic, I WILL say "just call me later" or "call me when you stop", because I get that he's stressed out so he's probably not thinking clearly, just like I probably wouldn't be in that situation.   

 But when he says it's raining out, I don't go "Oh I hope you took your umbrella with you!" or "Make sure you close your windows!" or "You should stay home in this weather" or "Wear a raincoat" etc etc.

When he says someone is driving him nuts, I don't say "Well this is what you need to do." or "You should be more understanding". or "You need to calm down" or "You need to take a pill".

I might say "That's gotta be hard", or "How do you deal with that?" or "What happened after that?" or "Do you want to get out of there for a while and come meet me?" or "Hey you want to go get pizza?"

I would not say "You should get out of there and go for a walk".
That's directive and impersonal, it's not supportive, and it's sending the person AWAY, by themselves.
Why would I do that? So I don't have to "deal" with the person myself? I'm too busy.. too tired.. they bore me.. I'd rather watch cartoons...
Why don't I say "Let's go for a walk" or "call me back as soon as you can" instead, offering personal connection?
(Because I don't want to offer personal connection, I want them to go away and stop bothering me...because I don't really care about them all that much, I just pretend to because it makes me seem like a good person and keeps me on their good side....)

~

Advice is not the same as "support".

When a person is dealing with something stressful, the last thing they need is me chiming in with "You should do this" or "Why aren't you doing that", and especially when I'm not even there presently with them, dealing with it alongside them.
If they're obviously extremely stressed out, anxious, or scared, and I can't actually DO anything at the moment to physically help, then sure, I'll try to help them find a solution, but a solution that would work for THEM, not for ME. It MIGHT be something that works for me, but it might not. They're a completely different person in their own life and situation. If I can't help them figure something out quickly, then I'll look for someone else who might be able to help.

Support is being present, listening, and hearing, and helping when appropriate, but not when it's not needed or wanted.
It's sharing one's point of view and experiences from where one is sitting or standing.
It's not looking at another and trying to judge their level of experience, capability, strength, or knowledge compared to one's own, and then treating them like they're less capable.

Support is being there for a person, giving them neutral or positive feedback, "Yes I can see what you mean" or "That's a good idea" or "Yeah that sounds like a good plan" or "you did a good job", or "that makes sense" (because it does, because we actually listened to them while they spoke, or what they wrote).
Or actually being there with them while they carry out ideas and plans.
It's also telling them when a plan looks like the wrong move, but only if it honestly looks like they're endangering or screwing themselves or someone else.
("Hey I was thinking of robbing a bank tomorrow" ..."That's probably not the best idea... how about not doing that so you don't go to prison.")

But always telling them that they're not doing enough, or not doing something right, or "should" be doing something else instead in non-dangerous, non-sabotaging choices, activities, and goals is not supportive, it's just oppositional and controlling.

If what they're doing or saying is NOT harmful to me or someone else, for real, then why am I so concerned about what they're doing or how they're doing it? Am I preventing them from falling off a cliff by criticizing the way they cook spaghetti or wash their socks?

Support is also going to the DMV with a person when they have to renew their registration. It's giving them a ride to the doctor's, and waiting for them, and then maybe going to lunch.
It's helping them with a task or project, and not trying to take over or be the expert.
It's listening to them vent or cry when they're dealing with something difficult or overwhelming. Listening, not talking, not telling them what they "should" do. (We don't even know what it's like to be in their shoes, or all the facets of their situation, why would we think for a minute we know better than they do what they should do? Especially when we keep thinking about what we're going to say, and talking, instead of listening to them tell us about their situation or experiences!)

Support is asking for more information, and then asking again, because we're trying to get a broader and more accurate view of what they're dealing with, or what they experienced.
"So what did you do when the bear came charging toward you?! How did you get away?!"
Not
"You should have... If it was me, I would have... Why didn't you...Next time you should..."

Support is giving a person space and respecting their boundaries.
It's respecting their point of view. It's respecting them as an individual person as important and real as one's self, or anyone else. Support is recognizing their actual experiences, skill, knowledge, and capability, and not trying to diminish them.

"Advice" however is not being there for them or with them. It's about TELLING them something from our own point of view in a personal way. Not just sharing our own experiences, knowledge, or observations in a neutral way, but DIRECTING our own point of view AT them, personally.
It's "This is what I think you should do", NOT "If you need anything call me." (which would be support).
 
Advice is wanted when it's asked for, but the advice giver has a responsibility toward the person who asked.
"Do I really know what I'm talking about? Have I actually done this in my own lifetime? Do I honestly have the experience, knowledge, or skill to be giving advice on this?"

And if one does not have the experience or knowledge, then it's one's responsibility to recognize that and SAY it.

(Those with control or narcissism issues will often NOT admit it, and act like they're an expert even though they have little or no idea; and they'll do that with anything at all from giving directions, to doing a trade, to career or relationship advice.)

"Do I know this person's whole situation? Do I understand this person's point of view, or anything real about this person, such as their past, their experience, their strengths, their traumas, their goals, their aspirations, their abilities?

If they didn't ask for what we "think they should do" specifically, then they probably don't want our opinion in the first place, which is NOT an "insult" to a person who does not have an inflated ego or control issues.

~
Parents and children, (and other adults in a child's life), that's another matter; our responsibility as parents is to guide and mentor our children, and part of their job as children growing up is to rebel against the adults in their life (BOTH girls and boys, not just boys.)
The rebellion process is about unfastening one's identity and decision-making from one's parents in order to become an actual self-reliant adult with inner confidence and self-esteem.
 
So as parents, we have the responsibility of "teaching them to fly", which means the difficult task of knowing what to say, when to say it, being there for support but not suffocating them, being there to advise but not condescend, being there to mentor but not be a critical ninny. Teaching them to fly without knocking them out of the nest so they break their wings from the fall, and without flapping their wings FOR them as if they aren't capable, thereby never actually letting them learn how to fly.  
~

However with other adults, we are not their parents. They are not "in our charge", nor are we their "authority".  
Being respectfully supportive of others makes the world go 'round and the sun come out, but being self-appointed advisors, being condescending, shaming, critical, accusatory and controlling makes the world grind to a screeching halt and makes everything dreary and grey.

Relationships: Supportive Or Sabotaging?

Questions to ask one's self:

Do I support, help, or align with the goals, endeavors, and dreams of my partner? Of my children? Of other family members? Of my close friends?

Or do I ignore them, invalidate them, criticize them, or try to block them so I can be in control?

Is my partner, or are other family members or close friends supportive of my goals, endeavors, and dreams?
Or do they ignore me, criticize me, invalidate me, sabotage me, try to block me, or try to control?

When I have an idea, a plan, or a goal, do they take it seriously?
Do they ever go along with my ideas or plans?
Do they follow through when they say they'll help or support?
Do they support me, or NOT support me?

How do I behave toward them when they have an idea, plan or goal?

How do they treat me when I have a problem or issue?
How do I treat them?
Is there support, understanding, care, or compassion?
Or is there instead criticism, belittling, blame, defensiveness, countering, or attack?

"It's an awesome feeling when someone has your back."
~L. Concidine

Critics But Not Supporters: Narcissists

If a Narcissist is watching what you do, whether it's cleaning, doing a creative project, studying, or doing what you do for a career or a living, they will RARELY make any comments in a supportive or encouraging way, but they will be QUICK to criticize, correct, or accuse.

They will readily say or imply negative things about what you do, but rarely positive ones.

If they say anything at all, that is.
(Commenting on something you're doing might make it become real...)

The only reason a Narcissist says positive, encouraging things to another person is for a specific purpose: trying to gain brownie points, trying to impress the person, gain their trust, make points with someone else nearby, or because they want the person to keep performing and making them money.

Narcissists Have To Be The Boss

Narcissists are NOT concerned about you, your well being, or the relationship between you. They are ONLY concerned for themselves, their comfort, their gain, their reputation, their stuff, avoiding blame and consequences, and avoiding obligation.

They are NOT concerned about you, that's why they rarely do anything that looks, feels, or sounds like "caring". They will only do occasional acts that are their OWN idea in order to prove that they do care, but NOT anything that was YOUR idea. They'll typically do anything they can to avoid doing anything YOU suggest, request, instruct, or ask for, and that includes big things, little things, important things, trivial things, from going on vacation to going to a movie, from going to a counselor to baking a birthday cake, from (you) going back to school to trying Nutrisystem, from painting your bedroom to building an addition, from putting a band together to going camping, from cooking a five course meal to serving ice cream.

It doesn't matter WHAT IT IS, if YOU suggest it, they will probably avoid doing it, or helping you do it, or allowing you to do it. If they fulfilled your request or agreed to your suggestion at first, they will almost certainly become more and more agitated as time goes by, and especially if there is any process or instruction required.
After the first or second time fulfilling something you requested, they can actually become depressed. whether it's a big thing or a little thing, because their frustration and humiliation level will be so high from not getting to be IN CHARGE of you. You are supposed to serve, assist, applaud, praise, support, follow, admire, wait for, sympathize, change, and be there for THEM, not the other way around. 

~
Those who have Control Issues FIRST decide whether a person is "above them" or "below them" before they interact with them. (Before, not after).
If a person is "above them", in their mind, it's because they admire or adulate them; they have chosen the person as someone to put on a pedestal and "look up to". So they will follow them, believe them, and seek their approval. They will follow their instructions and commands willingly, and appear to be a humble, easy-going person who is full of respect for others.

If they've decided that a person is "below" them, (or closer to equal with them, which means almost equal but not quite), they HAVE TO BE THE BOSS AT ALL TIMES.

Even if they try to FAKE IT to save face or to condescend temporarily, they will not be able to do it for very long, and will become agitated. 

They CAN NOT abide or allow the person to know something they don't, or to be more capable in something, or to lead them or instruct them in any way. They CAN NOT allow the person to be well-liked (or more liked) by others. They CAN NOT allow the person to receive RESPECT or recognition from others, and they certainly are not going to GIVE the person respect or recognition.
The person is their inferior, in their imagination, and therefore they are entitled to be their superior.    

Gun Nuts Vs. Responsible Gun Ownership

The difference between responsible gun ownership and a "gun nut" is VAST:

By Karen B.
"The ex-N (ex partner) was a person who was a very "passionate" hunter and also a rabid gun enthusiast. Over time, I found both of his "hobbies" very disturbing. He loved to kill ("hunt") animals/birds and he loved his guns. He was obsessed. He spent practically all of his spare time on these two "hobbies," and when I expressed concern about this, he told me that guns and "gun culture" was his passion in life. To which I responded that people/human beings (uh, like me) have feelings and guns don't have feelings. To which he responded that his guns have feelings. I was appalled. He was serious, although later, he said he was just joking, of course. He looked down on me because I refused to have anything to do with guns or hunting, and I told him once that I could/would never shoot a deer unless it was for my survival. He actually looked down on me for this! I think that his guns, and shooting and killing (uh, excuse me, he would remind me that it is "hunting," a sport, a time-honored pastime, a culture) animals made him feel very powerful and manly, and he derived a sick pleasure -- I mean, real pleasure -- from shooting and killing animals, just as he derived pleasure from hurting (in a non-physical way), deceiving, dominating, manipulating, controlling, frightening, lying to and "getting one over on" people he used and abused. And I think that he would have derived the same sort of pleasure from physically harming the people he hated, had he been able to get away with this. I think in his mind, animals and people had no feelings, and they were there for his pleasure, and he felt entitled to do to them whatever gave him pleasure or amusement. Side note: As you wrote above, he hated cats...loved dogs. And said that men shouldn't like cats because cats were feminine and not manly pets to have. Yet, I also saw the way he treated dogs, which was not gentle "discipline," but rather rough domination and intimidation when one did something he didn't think they should do.

War On Women: Male Bias, Right Wing

People have been accusing the "Right" of anti-female bias for a few decades now, and also of racism.

Personally I think that's hilarious.
The only people I've ever met who did NOT have male bias or anti-female bias were not "Right" OR "Left".

And when you think about it, that makes sense. People who identify themselves with a political party, and who take sides, are prone to taking sides in other things as well. They have to be on a "team", and they want to be a member of the "better team".
So they pick the team that they relate with and claim that their team is the best team, and the other team is the crappy team.

That's what they do with the sexes. They have to make one sex "better" than the other, they can't just be respectful and objective about BOTH sexes.
They'll ignore and put down people from one sex, (the other "team"), and hold people of the other sex (their "team") up on a high pedestal, following them, listening to them, admiring them, praising them, applauding them, lauding them, honoring them, sympathizing with them, wanting to be "like" them, putting them in charge of things, trusting them for not very good reasons to lead them solely based on their sex (their "team"). 

Then they wonder why the world is so messed up...

Teams mean competition, and competition means competing until one team "wins" and the other "loses".

If we want RESOLUTION, then pitting people against each other is like running to the wrong goalpost to score a point. Who would do that?!

They Don't Really Like You, Accept It At Face Value

Narc. abuse training includes believing what someone SAYS, and ignoring what they DO.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is an aspect of this training. It's been going on for a very long time in the human species.

So when someone tells you they love you, care about you, has your back, respects you, has your best interest and well-being in mind, you (I, we) want to believe it, so we do.

When they don't show up, make promises and change them, avoid talking about anything directly, or when they counter, invalidate, insult, triangulate, or generally treat you like they couldn't care much less about you if they tried, or like they don't like you (me, us), you (I, we) rationalize their actions and try to make them into something that they're not, or make excuses for them so we don't have to accept the truth that's staring us right in the face.

"Maybe he or she is busy... preoccupied... depressed.. anxious...afraid of commitment...emotionally wounded...intimidated...stressed out..."

or "Maybe I'm being too forward...
too straightforward...intense...nerdy...caring...making them back off..."

Reality is, however, that when we connect with someone in a genuine way, the connection is mutual. They don't invade our boundaries, put us down, abuse us, or blow us off anymore than we do that to them. They wouldn't lie about their feelings, they wouldn't try to avoid us, they wouldn't triangulate with other people against us, and they would be mutually supportive.

That's what a REAL connection looks like. You wouldn't have to chase them around to spend time with you, do things with you, talk to you, treat you with normal respect and consideration, or protect yourself from their invalidation, criticism, put-downs, or control.

If they're treating you like they don't really like you, take it at face value. They probably don't.
Why not? Who cares. They probably don't like chocolate or kittens or shooting stars or salamanders or games or boats or hugs or Carol Burnett or Christmas snow or Looney Tunes or S'Mores or fire flies either.

Ego, Confidence and Skill Vs. Coping Mechanisms

All "normal" humans have "ego". The ego protects the person and the "self", it protects itself, and the person protects their own ego. It's our shield, our boundaries, and it's directly connected to our "identity".
When it's healthy, it helps us protect ourselves, it helps us get around and function in the world, believe in our own abilities, feel and respond to signals and messages from our body, care for ourselves, build our sense of identity and self, and interact with other people.
When it's been weakened or damaged, and especially when the injury has not been cared for, it becomes swollen like any other wound, and much more sensitive.
Like a wound or a severe burn on the skin, it swells up, becomes painful to the touch, and opens us up to invasion from the outside world. We automatically protect a wound from touch or further damage, but if we don't treat it properly, it becomes infected and can make us very sick, or worse; and if it does heal without proper treatment, there is likely to be a lot of scar tissue, or a permanent disability such as with unset broken bones.

When the healthy egos of children are harassed, attacked, neglected, and improperly cared for by those around them, they tend to become self-protective, and don't learn the difference between healthy self-confidence and a swollen or scarred ego. They'll figure out ways to COPE and SURVIVE in the hostile environment they're living in instead of growing in a healthy way.

For example and illustration, a child who is abandoned in the woods with nothing must learn how to survive by trial and error, and may not make it without dealing with starvation, serious illness, injury, or attack from predators. The child has to figure out ways to survive everything they encounter all on their own, by trial and error, with no learned knowledge or skill about anything. How would the child know which berries to eat and which to avoid? How to find clean water? How to deal with illness? How to make clothes or shelter? How to stay warm? How to fight off predators, or hide from them? He or she wouldn't know that the tree bark right in front of them has aspirin in it to fight a fever or pain, or that one flower is edible and medicinal, but another is not, or how to make or use a bow and arrow, or how to start a fire or what to use, or how to make clothing, or what to use, or not to drink any water they find, or why not, or how to filter it, etc.. How would they figure each of these things out on their own? They wouldn't. They would figure some things out if they survived long enough, but much of it needs to be taught by someone else, who also learned from someone before them, and so on.

But another child abandoned with nothing, but who was given guidance and taught about the woods, how to find and prepare food, how to stay safe and warm, and how to deal with predators and attackers has a much, much better chance of survival, but not only survival; the child has a good chance of "mastering" his or her environment, and building a good life.

The first child's ego and self would be focused on the survival of the physical organism, coping and trying to figure out ways to survive, scared a lot of the time, worried the rest of the time, rarely feeling anything like peace, hope, contentment, or optimism for the future. The child's focus would be in survival mode more of the time than not, which means the child's entire person and health is under constant stress. The child is likely to develop hyper-defensiveness issues as well that stay with them even when the environment is safe. The child is likely to develop a fixed focus on the outside world, mostly limited to what seems like "danger" that needs to be avoided or attacked, and what is attainable and useable for their own survival. 

But the second abandoned child's ego and self would be focused on mastering survival skills that he or she already has, because he or she wouldn't have to be constantly trying to figure it out and living in fear and anxiety. The child would be USING skills and knowledge already learned, and building upon them, which help to build healthy confidence, self, and identity. It also means the child would be building THINGS, such as a shelter, cooking areas and utensils, weapons, clothing, and anything else he or she thinks of, and therefore creating a "home" and a "sanctuary".

Take What You Need And Leave The Rest

"Take what you need and leave the rest".
That's an A.A. phrase, and it means "If you don't like or agree with the person speaking (in an AA meeting, or anywhere else), keep it to yourself, keep quiet, don't interrupt, and don't insert drama. Respect their turn to speak, and hear what they have to say with your grown-up ears, and your grown-up manners.
If they don't respect YOUR turn to speak, or your POV or experiences, that's a completely different issue, that's THEIR behavior, not yours.
You don't have to hang out with them or invite them to your home, or even talk to them. But listen to what they have to say, learn what you can even if it's just a little, take that with you, and leave the rest behind. You don't have to like or agree with a person to learn things from them or from their experiences, or even from their personality or issues.
Listening to a person has absolutely nothing to do with giving them authority over you, giving them sympathy, believing whatever they say, or following them. Those are all separate things, and they're each your own choice."

That's where healthy boundaries come in.

"War Of The Sexes"

Narcissists Are Limited

Typically there are certain things that a person who has Narcissism literally can not do.

Depending on the individual, these things can and may or may not include:

Compulsion and reaction control. A person who has Narcissism often has poor compulsion and emotional reaction control, but so do many non-Narcissists. The difference is that a non-N. can admit it, even if it takes a while, and can see it for what it is. A Narcissist will usually rationalize, defend, and try to justify any and all behaviors, no matter what they are.

Tell the difference between one's own opinions, feelings, bias, beliefs, and point of view, and objective reality. Narcissists typically think that if they believe something is so, then it actually IS "so".
"The rose is beautiful" or "Roses are ugly" is the same to them as "The rose is red" or "The rose is a flower".

Think logically and calmly, without prejudice, resentment, emotion or histrionics clouding their thoughts.

Depending on the individual, empathy. People who have Narcissism may be able to empathize, but their interpretations of the feelings and experiences of others are often way off, and are frequently more like assumptions based in a biased "picture" of the other person.

Understand respect and boundaries. Those who are Narcissistic typically feel entitled to all kinds of liberties, indignities, possession and control over others, and the closer a person is to them, the more they tend to feel entitled to disrespect, invade, boss, and criticize them.

Understand that gender roles and other types of character roles are made-up, or why they would be made up. It's common for Narcissists to embrace any kind of bias against either sex, and instead of questioning biases, stereotypes and prejudices, defend them adamantly.

Understand why triangulation, playing favorites, gossip and backstabbing is destructive or wrong.

Understand why manipulation is wrong.

Understand why micromanaging and criticizing another person is wrong.

Comprehend simple and straightforward communication.

Understand what the big deal is about being respectful, considerate, or compassionate toward other people.

Comprehend the difference between "respect" and "fear", or "respect" and "adulation", or "respect" and "hero-worship", or "respect" and "sexual attraction".

Understand the difference between a romantic relationship and a solely sexual relationship.

Comprehend that there is no "natural human hierarchy" based on a person's social "power", or lack thereof. Chimpanzees of course still have hierarchies, but they are a primitive species in a primitive environment.

Reciprocate normal, every-day mutual exchange in relationships.

Follow someone else's lead (whom they don't designate as a "Leader Type" person).

Assist another person without condescension: trying to give lots of advice, or trying to take control.

Understand why humans need positive interaction with other humans.

Refrain from lying when they feel even slightly "backed into a corner".

Refrain from blaming other people for anything and everything.

Understand why mentoring and kindness to girls and boys is so important, or why it's important to NEVER reject or ostracize a child.

"Connect" with another human being on a genuine level; all connections must be modified to fit the N's comfort, expectations, and ego.

GUN CONTROL? CAR CONTROL! Right To Bear Arms And Drive Cars Vs. Gun Nuts And Bad Drivers

Of course you'd be "anti-gun" if you've never been exposed to what responsible and normal gun ownership looks like.

If the only gun ownership you've ever seen is either in the news or on Crime shows, or by people around you who only own guns because they think it makes them cool or tough, then that's what you might think gun ownership is about.

That's not what the "right to bear arms" is talking about, not at all.
The right to bear arms is talking about RESPONSIBLE citizens having a right to bear arms. Like your very sane and responsible grandparents (or maybe someone else's.) It's not about people who think guns are toys, or use them for crimes, or use them as status symbols or to scare other people.

Those people should NOT own guns, but they're usually the ones who want them the most.

Just like CARS and MOTORCYCLES and other power-engine vehicles.

That's like saying you can't own a car because so many people drive them like idiots, literally killing other people on the road with them every single day, and using them to commit all manner of crimes.
YOU don't drive like an idiot, and YOU'RE not a criminal, so you should keep your license and your car. I don't think you're going to smash into me with your car, or drive through my house, or use your car to rob a bank, transport drugs, or traffic human slaves.
So since you're not using it for CRIME or to hurt people (like other people do), you should keep your license and your car.
It's not really a RIGHT to own a car, like the right to bear arms; it's a privilege, but it's your right to own property, and it's your right even if I don't LIKE you having a car because I think it's dangerous for you to have one.


Do you weave in and out of traffic, drive fast, ride other cars' bumpers, bring aggression and hostility to the road, act like you "own" the road, think you're the "best driver" on the road, endanger other people, ignore traffic laws, cut people off, or use your vehicle for criminal behavior?
If you said "yes" to any of the above, I want you off the road, you're a direct danger to all the other people on the road, as sure as you're pointing a loaded gun but saying "Oh I'm not really gonna shoot it."

I'm personally much more terrified of people who drive cars on the same road as me than most of the people I know who own guns.
An irresponsible owner of either one is a danger to everyone around them.

Who's with me for CAR CONTROL?
NOT joking.
If you're taking Gun Control seriously, then you should take Car Control a lot more seriously.
A LOT MORE violent criminals own cars and endanger others with them every day than own guns.
It's not even a "Right", and it should already be regulated much more strictly than it is.

The only reason it's NOT is because those who like to regulate and control things don't want to have restrictions put on THEM about irresponsible vehicle usage and ownership.   

Why The World Is Screwed Up... And Why It Always Has Been

The world is screwed up because Humans generally are extremely dramatic, very over-confident, don't know how to separate their intellect and actions from their emotions,  desire control, power, attention and recognition (praise), tend toward narcissism (caring about one's gain, comfort, and control over the well-being of others), and are just not very bright altogether. 
That's all there is.
It's not complicated.

Destruction is obviously stupid, hostility and aggression belong in a cage not walking around on the street or in homes or in government or business, killing other humans in order to gain territory, or for any other excuse  is obviously stupid and sick, enslaving other humans is idiotic, cruel and sick, rape shouldn't even exist, abusing other humans whether they're children or adults is obviously sick and twisted, extortion is obviously narcissistic, manipulation is obviously wrong, gossip and slander and libel are obviously wrong for a multitude of reasons, and yet humans do ALL THESE THINGS ALL THE TIME to other people.
NOT EVERYONE DOES THESE THINGS, but more than will admit to it, and still others will even defend these behaviors and actions, like there's nothing wrong with them.

Find people who have inner integrity if you want a real friend or someone genuine to talk to who doesn't have agendas or prejudices against whatever you are (sex, race, height, color, nationality etc etc), they're few and far between but they're worth looking and waiting for. 

Making One's Self An Obstacle: Narcissism

Narcissist behavior that can also be found in immature adults who don't really have the disorder, or otherwise mentally/emotionally ill people:

~Making it difficult for a person to get even simple tasks done:
creating extra steps, extra obstacles, extra hardship, extra drama, and even giving wrong or incomplete information or instruction.
~Inserting themselves in between a person and their goal, so the person has to go through them to get what they need or reach their goal. Making themselves an obstacle.
~Then projecting blame onto the person for not being able to get the task done, not getting it done quickly, or not doing what they need to in order to get past the extra obstacles.
~Getting angry at the person when they don't follow wrong information or instructions, or when they get past the extra obstacles, or when they get the task done another way.
~Projecting negative judgments on the person for being insistent that the N. does their job, or does it correctly, or stops putting obstacles in their way, or treats them with respect, or leaves them alone so they can do it properly.

Unfortunately there seems to be more and more people in the workforce and government who behave this way. Making one's self an obstacle is a common form of control, and it's also a way to be "involved" with other people, get attention, and create an image of "importance" for one's self. It's also a way to make money, or to collect a paycheck; making one's self a "middle man".

~If I can just go to the shed and get my lawnmower, I don't "need" someone to get it FOR me.
If I know how to check the oil and fill the tank, I don't need someone to do that FOR me.
If I can go get the oil and gas myself, I don't need someone to get it FOR me.
And that means someone else will NOT have the opportunity to give me wrong information about any of those things so when they're not around, I won't be able to do it myself.
Nor will they have control over any of those things, so they won't be able to keep any of them from me when I need them.

But if they can make themselves a "middle man" between me and my lawnmower, then they have all kinds of control over the lawnmower and my use of the lawnmower, and WHEN I can use it, and they're likely to tell me how and then try to charge me for that advice. And they can easily collect some sort of price from me either directly or in a hidden way because they know I need the lawnmower. I might just give up and pay them to mow the lawn altogether just to avoid the stress.

Scolders, Condescenders, Judgers And Advisors

A LOT of people in the current culture have developed a social habit of finding fault with others and judging them, and then feeling entitled to shake their finger at them, criticize them, give them unsolicited "advice", make all kinds of belittling assumptions about them, condescend to them and treat them like a lesser being.

It seems to exacerbate the growing Narcissistic culture by leaps and bounds, but it's not a new human behavior. It's been around for centuries, and always shows up in cultures that have both wealth and turmoil.

This behavior appears to be learned from older generations when they are disciplining youth, but it seems to get misinterpreted and exaggerated when mis-learned by youngsters as a social dominance weapon. 

~~~

FOR EXAMPLE: Little Gerald sees Grandmother shaking her finger at his sister Margaret, scolding her for wearing her play clothes to school.

Instead of Gerald interpreting this scene as a lesson for himself and his sister about wearing certain clothing for certain things, what he takes away from it is:

"Scolding" is a way to make another person feel smaller.
"Scolding" is a way to dominate another person.
Margaret is a person who he might get away with doing this to, because Grandma had done it to her.
Margaret is a girl, therefore "Scolding" might be a way to dominate girls, not sure about boys.
"Scolding" others is a way to BE one of the 'authority people' like Grandma.

So Gerald DOES try it on Margaret, and gets away with it, in other words he doesn't get disciplined by adults for it.
It made him feel good even though Margaret didn't take him seriously, and now he thinks he can automatically be one of the adults, or an "authority person" just by SCOLDING other people.

Gerald needs to have an EXCUSE to SCOLD other people so he can get the feeling he likes, so he watches and learns how.

He finds out that SOME people get scolded MORE than others for no real reason, and if he picks on them, no one will stop him. Even better (for him), they might LIKE IT that he's doing it to that particular person, because everyone seems to be trying to put this person down for some reason. 

He also learns how to CREATE EXCUSES to SCOLD other people by finding "flaws" in their behavior, their appearance, their choices, their friends, their pets, their car, their job, their skills, their opinions, their preferences, their diet, their pets, their children, their interests...or any mistakes they might have made, or by simply just making things up out of THIN AIR.  

Gerald mostly only responds to people in order to counter them, criticize them, or give them "advice" which he likes to call "tough love" (because it's always oppositional, condescending, and sarcastic, and usually completely irrelevant.)

Gerald learned from some other "Scolders" along the way that saying things like "I call it like I see it" or "That's the way the cookie crumbles" or "I don't sugar coat" makes him sound like he's being "truthful" or "wise" for some reason, diverting and covering up what he's really doing (bullying).

Gerald's main motive is just to get that feeling of being one of the "authority people" like Grandma, and like his parents, teachers, and coach, and like the owner of the store his parents shop at, and like some other adult relatives, and like the parents of some of his friends. He also would like to be an "authority person" like some of the people on TV and in movies. 

As Gerald gets older, he notices that some men do this "scolding" to women, so he takes a try at it himself. He tries it often just to see how far he can go, and if anyone will stop him. He learns that some women actually seem to respond to him as if he really IS an "authority person", just because of the way he treats them (poorly, disrespectfully), and that some men like him and think he's "cool" because of this behavior.

He also discovers that some people see what he's trying to do, so he avoids them or tries to make them go away somehow. He knows he doesn't LIKE people who don't think he's some kind of naturally privileged "authority person" who deserves "extra respect".

(Ironically... Gerald meets a woman he's attracted to who has also become a "Scolder", "Advisor", and "Condescender"... and falls madly in love because she looks like a movie star he had a crush on in second grade... they scold one another into the sunset, and luckily never have any children before they end up pulling one another over a cliff, arguing about who's FAULT it was, all the way to the bottom.)