Feeling Alone And Unwanted

One of the most serious side effects of Narcissistic treatment or abuse that can be difficult to recover from is an internalized belief that one does not belong, and that one is not likeable or loveable by those who are confident, caring, healthy human beings.

If one takes it apart and analyzes it, the flaw in the logic is revealed.

Confident, caring, healthy human beings, male or female, of any ancestry, do not manipulate with rejection, disrespect, ostracism, shunning, slander, sabotage, neglect, triangulation, hurt, abuse, or abandonment.

Only Controllers, abusers, and Narcissists do those things. 

When these things have been done to a person by controllers over and over, the person can begin to believe that the REASON they are being treated so poorly is because they just aren't worthy enough.

OTHER people are being treated well, so I must not be as good, or as worthy, or as likeable as they are. I am a person whom others don't want around.

But remember it's not just "people" who don't want a person around, or who bully and manipulate them, it's Controlling people.

If and when these beliefs solidify, it can be very difficult to recover from. Every time a new narcissistic or controller person (or group) shows up and does their usual manipulative, cold, or dominating behaviors, the internalized belief can get reinforced.

Even when a person or group is not doing seriously abusive behaviors, one's negative beliefs can still be reinforced just because the other person is aloof, arrogant, emotionally reactive, or oblivious.

People who are narcissistic, controlling, disordered, arrogant, bad-mannered, self-centered, or dealing with their own trauma issues are very numerous in modern culture. So it's almost impossible to avoid interacting with them.

IF the internalized feeling of not being liked, wanted, cared about or worthy was not present, it would be much, much easier to deal with self-centered,  disordered people, and it would be easier to discern those who are dealing with trauma symptoms.

So healing that skewed belief that some Controllers helped to implant is a very important and worthwhile goal. <3 br="">Namaste.
You are quite worthy and loveable by HEALTHY, good, strong people. 

Controllers Are Obstacles In Front Of Your Goals

Having focus on a personal project, mission, goal, and/or task is one of the "happiness" or "contentment factors" for a healthy human being.

This does include playing a personal role in a larger project, mission, goal, or ongoing organization. 

Since this is a significant factor for the health and happiness, confidence and fulfillment of healthy humans, it's also a target for bullies, controllers, and Narcissists.

If they can prevent a person from progressing toward their own goal, they feel powerful, and indeed gain a kind of power over the person.

If they can prevent and block a person from participating and contributing their personal abilities to the larger group, family, project, community or organization, they have successfully sabotaged several things that would have been beneficial, even essential, for that person's well-being, health, and growth, both present and future. 

One of the creepier examples of this is when a controller tries to prevent a parent from caring for their own child, guiding their own child, teaching their own child real values and ethics, and supporting and protecting their child.
Also, trying to prevent a person from caring for or about their spouse or partner, friend, or other relative.
This clearly demonstrates how the desire for control over others has absolutely nothing to do with "making others do the right thing because they don't know any better".

When others stand between you and a personal goal, (POSITIVE goal, that is), a project, mission or task, whether it's caring for your child, rescuing an animal, buying a home, getting a job, singing a song, going to school, building a shed, learning an instrument,  or painting a picture, they are not trying to "help", they are trying to insert themselves in your business in order to get a fix of control, and to block you from progress.

See it for what it is, and go around them. Block them out.
If you have to, go do what you were doing somewhere else, away from them.

You may want to involve them, or to get their approval, because you know that letting Controllers believe they're a part of something you're doing (and getting credit for it, and leading) means they're likely to do less to block you. But that's an illusion, they'll still block you or try to control you, they'll just do it in more of a Passive Aggressive way. Controllers don't comprehend boundaries or respect, so it's inevitable. If they're involved in any way, they WILL try to take control at some point, and if they can't, they'll probably cause damage instead.

Keep your goals, projects, missions, tasks and activities "online", don't shut them down in order to avoid a Controller's consequences. Go around. It does take more effort than if there was no Controller in the way, but take it for what it is, an obstacle on the course.

Monkey See Monkey Do: Bias For One Sex Is Learned

Bias for one sex or the other, and against one sex or the other, is generally learned by watching the way people treat one another during childhood, especially in our immediate families, but also in the larger community. Then when a person grows up, they generally judge the sex they are biased FOR through rose-colored glasses, assuming and projecting positive capability, motives, and character onto them. They tend to judge the sex they learned to be biased against through a cloud of negativity and self-righteousness, as if the members of that sex automatically deserve to be under a microscope and on trial.

Humans do the same thing with race and ancestry. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it's bias for or against another person's sex or race, or even age group.

Humans will do this regarding ancestry traits within their own race as well.

Those who we are biased FOR (either as a member of a group or as an individual) we "make way for", give more resources, respect, time, and positive attention to, willingly and respectfully assist them, recognize and honor their achievements, accomplishments, and character, and tend to believe in their capability, intelligence, and wisdom without making them "prove it". We also tend to believe them without double-checking their facts or doubting their motives. 

Those who we are biased AGAINST we tend to treat in the opposite way, whether we're biased against them as members of a certain group, or as an individual.
We'll nonchalantly or directly block them, dismiss them, argue with them, try to prove them wrong, and ignore them. We'll ignore, dismiss, and criticize their achievements and goals, and apply negative motives to them. We'll say negative things about them instead of positive things in conversation. We'll treat them as if they are incapable, inexperienced, weak, stupid, silly, or crazy. We'll deny them resources, even sabotage their progress and goals, and refuse to make effort for them like we do with those whom we are biased FOR.   

Whatever biases are common in a local community and culture, Narcissists will capitalize on. Some of them believe stereotypes and cultural prejudices are real, while sociopaths will use them in order to manipulate and oppress whether they believe them or not.

(Narcissists figure out quickly who's a** to kiss in order to get accepted and get ahead, and who it's okay to treat with disrespect because everyone else is bigoted against them or scapegoating them too. Many also seem to intuitively know that in each crowd there are different biases, so while in one crowd, everyone is biased against black men, in the next crowd everyone is biased against Hispanic women, and in the next it's white men, and in the next it's blond-ancestry women, and so on. A sociopathic Narcissist will morph into whatever crowd they're in, and find a way to be a member of the "in crowd" within that group, adapting the group's bully, bigot, and bias behaviors.)

Good Vs. Evil

Remember that Evil is as evil does.
It will always try to rationalize and justify, and it will try to make itself appear to be "good", "knowledgeable", "strong", "straightforward", and "important".

But it is revealed not in words nor appearance, but in actions; in what it's actually doing.

Good is also revealed in actions, and in cause and effect; not in description, intention, nor appearance. 

Evil likes to make itself into judge, jury, and prison guard, because it's a way to control others that appears "righteous".

Good wants to find solutions and plans that are of mutual benefit for all, while preserving the freedom and dignity of the individual.

Evil wants to own, control, or destroy places, things, and people.  Good does not.

The reason it seems that evil "always wins" is because evil is driven, obsessively, to "own", control, or destroy, and will destroy whatever is in the way of its "goal", like a charging rhino across a field of bunny rabbits. Evil doesn't care what or who it stomps, it just wants, and figures out ways to get what it wants.

Good is much stronger than evil, it's just not driven, obsessive, or destructive by nature.

Is He or She The "Right One"?

"Is my partner really Mr. or Ms. Right?"

You've won Powerball, but in order to collect you have to break up with your spouse or partner, (no fake-outs allowed where you get back together later in secret), what would you do?

What if THEY won Powerball and had the same requirement, what would they do?

If the answer for either of you is "break up, collect the money, it's a once in a lifetime shot", then you're not "in love", and you're probably not the right person for each other.
Seems like there should more to this story, but there's really not.

Humility Vs. Supremacy

Humility and Supremacy are opposites of one another.

Humility is about knowing that one is not omnipotent, a god, a deity, all-knowing and above others.
It allows one to learn, and to appreciate and view the world and other people as they really are, without casting personal bias, assumptions, projections, or judgments, which block one's clear perception. 

Supremacy is about believing that one is innately superior. Since it is a belief, it must be continually reinforced and reaffirmed with evidence proving that it is so. When we need to reinforce a belief by gathering evidence to prove that it's true, that means we are not just sitting in a neutral position, allowing it to prove itself.

The moon proves its own existence every night, and so do the stars, and the sun, and the rain. We don't need to do anything to prove they are there, they just show up and show themselves. What we BELIEVE about them, however, is that which we favor to be true, but isn't necessarily, and so we seek evidence to prove that our belief is correct to others, and to ourselves.

There used to be a common belief that the sun, planets, and stars rotate around the Earth, like the moon does.  There were many who held positions of authority who wanted it to be true, and there were all kinds of "papers" written by "scholars" who insisted that it was scientific fact, complete with explanations of WHY it was so. They could not prove it, they just wanted it to be true, probably because it made them FEEL a certain way to believe that they were the center of the Universe, the most important thing. They wanted it so much that they exiled or even killed people who said otherwise.

In modern times, many humans have shown and proved that only the moon rotates around the Earth, but the Earth rotates around the sun, along with the other planets in our solar system, and the stars are very far away "suns" with solar systems of their own, in a larger galaxy, and so on.  

Belief needs to be reinforced over and over. Reality does not need reinforcement, it simply shows up. So when a person feels defensive about their belief being true or not, it's usually because subconsciously they know there isn't really indisputable proof that it's true or real.


There is a common belief throughout the world that there are giant hominids in the wilderness; "Yeti", "Sasquatch", "Bigfoot", the "Abominable Snowman" are names that have been given to this mysterious, elusive creature.

Does it exist, or does it not? Is it real, is it living, is it out there? Or is it a myth?


What we have is evidence that is not rock-solid because it could have been faked, many eye-witness accounts which can't be used as "proof", footage that could have been faked, and legends that go way back. All of this proves zero, zilch, nada. There is no solid proof that the Yeti DOES exist, NOR is there proof that it DOES NOT exist.

And yet, there are people who are adamant believers that the Yeti exists, and there are people who adamantly believe that it DOES NOT exist.


Without proof either way, it's all the same. Believes and skeptics are in the same boat; it's all about BELIEF. So, the "believers" tend to try to gather anything they can find to prove that they're right, and "skeptics" try to gather anything they can find to prove that THEY are right.

It's all futile. There is no way to prove that the Yeti DOES NOT exist, nor is there solid evidence to prove that it does.


On the day that someone can gather enough evidence to proves that the Yeti is really out there, believing that it exists, or NOT believing that it exists, is still all just BELIEF. It's not "fact".

And so it goes with everything else. If one wants to believe in Supremacy, then one will keep trying to gather evidence to reinforce the belief. But if one has humility, then "Supremacy" is moot. It either proves itself, or it doesn't; if it proved itself, it wouldn't need to be reinforced, shown, or proven. Just like the moon, the sun, and the stars. No one would be wondering if it was true or not, and no one would be trying to prove it. 

Why Does Everything Suck... No Rocket Science Required

The more integrity in a community, the more confident, capable, ethical and strong each member feels and behaves, no matter their age, sex, financial or marital status, level of education, or job. Progress, humility, gratitude and good friendships and relationships come easy and are not taken for granted, no one gets trampled; individuals don't have to fit in to a cookie cutter mold in order to be treated with decency by others. They are supported to rise closer to their real potentials without pomp or extra effort; not just certain people, but all of them.

The less integrity in a community, the less confident many are, and the more arrogant and unethical others behave.
True integrity, genuine ethics, self-control, fairness, and empathy (not the same as sympathy or pity) purposely practiced by all members of a community, or at least most, regardless of their financial status, are the requirements for  real civilization.

Without them, we have what we have now. Chaos, self-righteousness, power-tripping, fear-mongering, and martyr-complexes all over the place.

All it would take to cure our current societal ailments is a little effort toward self-control and maturity.

How Do Adults In Your Community Or Family Treat The Kids

Here's a clue about the world we live in now.. in healthy, happy, well-rounded societies (that aren't inundated with control mongers), regardless of average income, it's typical for children to connect with and remain connected with friends and acquaintances of their parents, and extended family, and be able to rely on them for solid guidance, friendship, and support.
  
In antisocial control freak societies, you see the opposite of that quite often.

Adults don't make connections with other people's children as a "normal" thing, or stay connected to them, or have any idea how to mentor them.
Many don't even do that with their own.
Or they ONLY treat certain children decently whom they include in a chosen "clique", and judge other children negatively who don't "fit in", even children who are in their family, or local circles, groups, or community.

They put the burden of finding adult support, connections, and mentors on the children, as if the children have to "prove" that they're "good enough" to warrant attention or (proper) guidance from adults, or friendship and acceptance.

Adults in such groups may triangulate KIDS, gossip and spread rumors ABOUT children, or about kids' parents, and will often ostracize and reject KIDS from their cliques, and encourage the kids in their family to do the same.
(Instead of teaching them NOT to create cliques, gossip, single out, bully, and ostracize... through guidance, and modeling mature adult behavior, which includes caring about children).
    
So adults MIGHT show acceptance or approval toward a couple of kids who fit a certain mold that they LIKE, (usually who remind them of themselves), but that's it; the rest of the children get treated like 'rugrats, like they're just walking annoyances that cost resources and time, and get underfoot.

Also, many parents in these types of communities typically don't make an effort to connect with other families for reasons of "family" (as opposed to reasons of shared substance use or other adult-only "common interests"). And they don't LIKE IT when their kids make normal connections with actually-responsible, kid-friendly adult friends, or with adults who actually WOULD be a mentor to them; not because they're "worried about the adult's behavior" but because of jealousy or insecurity.
     (These same parents will often allow another blatantly irresponsible adult to be in contact with their kids, just because the person is one of their "buddies", but NOT a person with real integrity or the ability to mentor... the kid might LIKE them, and then what? The kid might learn how to see through B.S... wouldn't want that...)
      Before going blaming the parents for all of it, can't get off so easy. It actually does take the village to raise a child. It doesn't take a village if one lives in the woods, with no other human contact, because that's all the child is going to experience. But if the child is going to be raised in a "village", then the "village" the child comes in contact with IS already involved in raising and influencing that child, whether they like it or not. When they treat the child poorly, shun the child, bully the child, or treat the child's parent poorly, they are affecting the child directly.
It doesn't take "Mr. or Ms. Perfect" or "Mr. or Ms. Community Leader"  to be a positive (as opposed to negative) influence on children, it just takes not being a self-centered jerk, and having consideration and respect (including self-respect).
Having and displaying basic decency, fairness, and manners, and keep the ridiculous sexism to a minimum for the benefit of both boys and girls.
Favoring one over the other does neither any favors, it just instigates superiority and inferiority complexes, and causes them problems in adulthood when they're trying to deal with others in society, have good relationships, and lead happy lives. 

("Children" are still "children" when they're teens, legally till they're 21, they aren't grown up just because they look adult-like. And they're still young adults in their 20s, they're not experienced, life-worn older people who could possibly know what they haven't learned yet. Adult responsibility doesn't just STOP when kids don't look little anymore.)

Addendum: There is a very big difference between infantalizing young people and guiding/mentoring them.

in·fan·til·ize

[in-fuhn-tl-ahyz, -tahy-lahyz, in-fan-tl-ahyz] 

verb (used with object), in·fan·til·ized, in·fan·til·iz·ing.

1.

to keep in or reduce to an infantile state.

2.

to treat or regard as infantile or immature.

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.