Boundaries And Judging Others
"Healthy Boundaries" means you don't think others are trying to MAKE you "follow" them, or giving you directives and orders, or claiming to be an Expert or your Superior, or judging you, just because they share their insight, observations, beliefs, experiences, or opinions.
"Boundaries" are part of the function of the healthy, normal "ego", also a part of one's identity and ability to self-care and self-protect. Injuries and weaknesses are often due to neglectful, or abusive, or betraying, sabotaging, judgmental or otherwise dysfunctional behavior toward a person at some point, especially for prolonged periods of time, and even moreso if the experiences were during childhood.
When one's Boundaries are weakened or injured, it can be hard to discern whether another person is being manipulative or not, arrogant or not, straightforward and honest or not, or demanding or not. Trusting the "wrong" person, and rejecting and distrusting a trustworthy person is actually quite common.
That's why "Boundary Healing" is just as important as physical health in one's recovery.
Those who have developed Narcissistic disorder assume that they "already know for sure" who is trustworthy, wise, strong, and healthy, because they believe their own emotional reactions toward others, and interpret them as accurate "information".
However whether a person has Narcissism or not, injured boundaries mean that one's ability to judge others EITHER for good or for ill has been compromised.
So one may be bent on accusing a person who has no hidden agenda of being a "Snake Oil Salesman", or "trying to get attention", or "holier than thou", and another who IS a Charlatan (or Cult Leader, or pathological liar, slanderer, abuser, con artist, thief, etc.)
to be a "Good and Honest, down to earth person".
Because they are not feeling REAL or ACCURATE signals (gut feelings) about other people, nor are they paying attention to what's REALLY going on, how a person REALLY behaves, acts, and speaks. It's common for those with injured or weakened boundaries to make snap judgments about other people, either for good or for ill, and either let them "in" or reject them without getting to know the person at a healthy distance, over a good length of time.
Instead, they're feeling emotional responses to who and what seem familiar and safe, or "intelligent" or "responsible", and also to who and what seem foreign or "other", and also to their own envy, jealousy, resentment, feelings of abandonment, or fear.
They may of course ALSO be responding to things and people around them that actually ARE some sort of threat, however they are very likely to see the threat as being much worse than it actually is.
On the other side of that coin, they are in danger of misinterpreting REAL threats as "safe harbor", due to the "training" they received when their boundaries became injured or weakened in the first place.
"Boundaries" are part of the function of the healthy, normal "ego", also a part of one's identity and ability to self-care and self-protect. Injuries and weaknesses are often due to neglectful, or abusive, or betraying, sabotaging, judgmental or otherwise dysfunctional behavior toward a person at some point, especially for prolonged periods of time, and even moreso if the experiences were during childhood.
When one's Boundaries are weakened or injured, it can be hard to discern whether another person is being manipulative or not, arrogant or not, straightforward and honest or not, or demanding or not. Trusting the "wrong" person, and rejecting and distrusting a trustworthy person is actually quite common.
That's why "Boundary Healing" is just as important as physical health in one's recovery.
Those who have developed Narcissistic disorder assume that they "already know for sure" who is trustworthy, wise, strong, and healthy, because they believe their own emotional reactions toward others, and interpret them as accurate "information".
However whether a person has Narcissism or not, injured boundaries mean that one's ability to judge others EITHER for good or for ill has been compromised.
So one may be bent on accusing a person who has no hidden agenda of being a "Snake Oil Salesman", or "trying to get attention", or "holier than thou", and another who IS a Charlatan (or Cult Leader, or pathological liar, slanderer, abuser, con artist, thief, etc.)
to be a "Good and Honest, down to earth person".
Because they are not feeling REAL or ACCURATE signals (gut feelings) about other people, nor are they paying attention to what's REALLY going on, how a person REALLY behaves, acts, and speaks. It's common for those with injured or weakened boundaries to make snap judgments about other people, either for good or for ill, and either let them "in" or reject them without getting to know the person at a healthy distance, over a good length of time.
Instead, they're feeling emotional responses to who and what seem familiar and safe, or "intelligent" or "responsible", and also to who and what seem foreign or "other", and also to their own envy, jealousy, resentment, feelings of abandonment, or fear.
They may of course ALSO be responding to things and people around them that actually ARE some sort of threat, however they are very likely to see the threat as being much worse than it actually is.
On the other side of that coin, they are in danger of misinterpreting REAL threats as "safe harbor", due to the "training" they received when their boundaries became injured or weakened in the first place.
Control IS Their Motive
Keeping
control over situations, things, and people in their lives is the main
motivation for most people with "Control issues".
Control is the way they manage their lives.
Many who are somewhat aware of their control tendencies seem to believe that their behaviors only affect their own lives, and have no effect on others. But that limited perception is part of their issue, both a cause and an effect.
Their behaviors can vary from seemingly "normal" and healthy to very very kind, and then all the way to very nasty, and everything in between.
The basic, usual reasons for the variations in their level of kindness or nastiness has to do with their current level of how much they feel in control, and what they think it would take to regain control.
Kind of like piloting a boat or a plane.
Adjusting the sails, adjusting the rutter, adjusting the flaps, slowing down or accelerating, steering into the wind.
If they feel like they need to regain control or make an adjustment, they will do something in order to regain it.
That might be something very kind in order to elicit a specific response, or it might be something hidden and manipulative, or it might be something mean, cold, or humiliating in order to "cut a person down" or try to make them feel less confident or autonomous.
Some controllers are purposely vicious, and are fully aware of the harm they cause to others. It's not that they don't care, it's that they like to cause harm.
Others are not all that aware of the effect their behaviors have on others. Even if they have some awareness that some of the things they do are unkind or harmful, they are prone to believe that they don't cause much harm, or ANY harm.
This is a result of a person feeling powerless and ineffective; they see themselves as having little or no effect on other people's lives, which may be one of the main causes of their control issues and behavior. They may be trying to MAKE others "need" them, or see them as important or capable, because they have a core belief that they are actually unwanted and uncared for.
There is a distinct difference between those who have control issues who are coming from a point of view of Entitled Superiority, Elitism, and Authority Entitlement, and those who are coming from a point of view of feeling powerless, and trying to make sure they don't get left out or left behind.
Both of them cause problems for others, and both of them try to wield control over others, however one is much more dangerous than the other, and consciously aware of the harm they are causing.
(The first is consciously choosing their actions, the second is more often reactive, whether aware or not.)
Analogy:
One is like a cruel child who goes around looking for frogs, birds' nests and bees' nests to destroy, and the other is like a reactive child who kicks at dogs and cats who come near them, kills bees who fly near them, and whacks at mice and snakes in their yard or on their path with a shovel out of fear or anxiety.
The first goes looking for ways to destroy and control, the second does it reactively, usually in their own vicinity.
The second is more likely to see themselves as innocent of wrong doing, and can become very defensive if anything they do is even mentioned. (Again, defensive, which is reactive).
The first is more likely to try to destroy a person who mentions anything they do, not as an emotional reaction so much, but as a strategic, conscious "strike", getting rid of the threat. That's why the first is more dangerous.
Their control issues and behaviors are tied to a belief in their own Entitlement Of Power.
Control is the way they manage their lives.
Many who are somewhat aware of their control tendencies seem to believe that their behaviors only affect their own lives, and have no effect on others. But that limited perception is part of their issue, both a cause and an effect.
Their behaviors can vary from seemingly "normal" and healthy to very very kind, and then all the way to very nasty, and everything in between.
The basic, usual reasons for the variations in their level of kindness or nastiness has to do with their current level of how much they feel in control, and what they think it would take to regain control.
Kind of like piloting a boat or a plane.
Adjusting the sails, adjusting the rutter, adjusting the flaps, slowing down or accelerating, steering into the wind.
If they feel like they need to regain control or make an adjustment, they will do something in order to regain it.
That might be something very kind in order to elicit a specific response, or it might be something hidden and manipulative, or it might be something mean, cold, or humiliating in order to "cut a person down" or try to make them feel less confident or autonomous.
Some controllers are purposely vicious, and are fully aware of the harm they cause to others. It's not that they don't care, it's that they like to cause harm.
Others are not all that aware of the effect their behaviors have on others. Even if they have some awareness that some of the things they do are unkind or harmful, they are prone to believe that they don't cause much harm, or ANY harm.
This is a result of a person feeling powerless and ineffective; they see themselves as having little or no effect on other people's lives, which may be one of the main causes of their control issues and behavior. They may be trying to MAKE others "need" them, or see them as important or capable, because they have a core belief that they are actually unwanted and uncared for.
There is a distinct difference between those who have control issues who are coming from a point of view of Entitled Superiority, Elitism, and Authority Entitlement, and those who are coming from a point of view of feeling powerless, and trying to make sure they don't get left out or left behind.
Both of them cause problems for others, and both of them try to wield control over others, however one is much more dangerous than the other, and consciously aware of the harm they are causing.
(The first is consciously choosing their actions, the second is more often reactive, whether aware or not.)
Analogy:
One is like a cruel child who goes around looking for frogs, birds' nests and bees' nests to destroy, and the other is like a reactive child who kicks at dogs and cats who come near them, kills bees who fly near them, and whacks at mice and snakes in their yard or on their path with a shovel out of fear or anxiety.
The first goes looking for ways to destroy and control, the second does it reactively, usually in their own vicinity.
The second is more likely to see themselves as innocent of wrong doing, and can become very defensive if anything they do is even mentioned. (Again, defensive, which is reactive).
The first is more likely to try to destroy a person who mentions anything they do, not as an emotional reaction so much, but as a strategic, conscious "strike", getting rid of the threat. That's why the first is more dangerous.
Their control issues and behaviors are tied to a belief in their own Entitlement Of Power.
Not Fitting In
Whatever
the general Bias is in your area, if you're not "one of them", whoever
"them" happens to be, then they're probably not going to be supportive
or fair toward you.
And in order to avoid rejection, sabotage, or various forms of attack, (depending on the severity of the dysfunction in the area), then you would need to behave in a submissive, abasing, super-sweet, compliant way, never standing up for yourself or others, never saying anything about anything they do no matter how corrupt, self-serving, incompetent, or cruel. You would have to "kiss a***s" all day in order to remain "accepted".
That is, if you're not "one of them". If you are "one of them", then you would have to do something pretty terrible in order to get rejected.
Picture it like "Royal Blood" and peasants.
If the bias in the region is FOR those of Arab descent and against those of Nigerian descent, then the Arabic descent people will live above reproach, controlling everything, living above laws, rules, and regulations, and the Nigerian descent people will be under a microscope about anything and everything.
If the bias is FOR Italian descent and against Irish descent, then the Italian descent people will create cliques and control everything, and "support their own", regardless of actual rules or laws, and the Irish descent people will be under a microscope about anything and everything they do or say. .
Or, vice versa.
If the bias in the region is FOR males and against females, then everyone (including most of the females) will enable and support males to control everything and run everything, and live above rules, laws, regulations, values, and social graces, but females will be under a microscope, being blocked and judged for everything they do or say. And of course the males in the region are also subject to whatever ancestral bias there is, and other social biases.
If it's a "jock town", then sports people will be treated with normal respect by one another, and they are very likely to treat those who are interested in other things with much less respect.
Etc, etc.
Humans have a huge tendency toward bias and bigotry, much bigger than most (including most scientists) are willing to admit.
A region or smaller group that does not purposely teach and practice strong values about fairness, respecting others, and civility is very likely to fall back into the lower human habits of bias, prejudice, bias-hierarchies and domination-seeking.
And in order to avoid rejection, sabotage, or various forms of attack, (depending on the severity of the dysfunction in the area), then you would need to behave in a submissive, abasing, super-sweet, compliant way, never standing up for yourself or others, never saying anything about anything they do no matter how corrupt, self-serving, incompetent, or cruel. You would have to "kiss a***s" all day in order to remain "accepted".
That is, if you're not "one of them". If you are "one of them", then you would have to do something pretty terrible in order to get rejected.
Picture it like "Royal Blood" and peasants.
If the bias in the region is FOR those of Arab descent and against those of Nigerian descent, then the Arabic descent people will live above reproach, controlling everything, living above laws, rules, and regulations, and the Nigerian descent people will be under a microscope about anything and everything.
If the bias is FOR Italian descent and against Irish descent, then the Italian descent people will create cliques and control everything, and "support their own", regardless of actual rules or laws, and the Irish descent people will be under a microscope about anything and everything they do or say. .
Or, vice versa.
If the bias in the region is FOR males and against females, then everyone (including most of the females) will enable and support males to control everything and run everything, and live above rules, laws, regulations, values, and social graces, but females will be under a microscope, being blocked and judged for everything they do or say. And of course the males in the region are also subject to whatever ancestral bias there is, and other social biases.
If it's a "jock town", then sports people will be treated with normal respect by one another, and they are very likely to treat those who are interested in other things with much less respect.
Etc, etc.
Humans have a huge tendency toward bias and bigotry, much bigger than most (including most scientists) are willing to admit.
A region or smaller group that does not purposely teach and practice strong values about fairness, respecting others, and civility is very likely to fall back into the lower human habits of bias, prejudice, bias-hierarchies and domination-seeking.
Objective Observation And Healthy Boundaries
"Healthy
boundaries" and having "objectivity" means that one can observe
virtually anything from a detached point of view, (as opposed to
attached), without taking "sides", without casting judgment, without
seeking to be right or someone else to be wrong, just seeing what's
there.
There is no "right" or "wrong" when one looks at a shoe box. It's just a shoe box.
If one has traumatic memories regarding a shoebox, then one may have negative feelings toward any random shoebox.
If one inserts speculation about how the shoebox was made, or whether it was made in a sweatshop, or whether using trees to make cardboard is wrong, or if they think sweatshops are wrong, then they aren't observing the shoebox anymore, they are interjecting speculation, judgment, politics, their own version of morality, and their own opinion.
If I open the shoebox and there's a dead mouse inside, then I will have a harder time keeping judgment out of my observation of the shoebox, I'll be angry that some human closed an animal up in the box and let it die. So I won't be objective anymore, and my ability to observe and understand will be much less clear.
I would need to "regroup" and deal with my feelings in order to regain objectivity.
If I want to find out who did it, then I had better really regain my objectivity, because I will be prone to thinking of a person who I want to blame for it BEFORE I actually find out any real information, and that WILL direct my thought process, I will be more likely to try to find evidence that the person I want to blame is guilty, instead of actually finding out what really happened.
Objectivity is very difficult for humans in general, which is why "scientific method" was created.
It's harder for some than others.
The more ego injury or inflation a person is dealing with, the harder it is for them to be objective.
The harder it is for them to listen to or view information that they don't BELIEVE IN personally, that they don't identify with personally.
(If it doesn't make them feel good, they'll argue about it.)
The more objectively one is able to view and observe things, events, situations, and people around them, the less they try to lay blame, cast shame, control, create "sides", argue, or feel resentment, favoritism, or FEAR.
And therefore the clearer they can observe, the more information they can take in and comprehend, the easier they can hear information and gather information, and the easier it is to choose their actions consciously, instead of reacting emotionally.
There is no "right" or "wrong" when one looks at a shoe box. It's just a shoe box.
If one has traumatic memories regarding a shoebox, then one may have negative feelings toward any random shoebox.
If one inserts speculation about how the shoebox was made, or whether it was made in a sweatshop, or whether using trees to make cardboard is wrong, or if they think sweatshops are wrong, then they aren't observing the shoebox anymore, they are interjecting speculation, judgment, politics, their own version of morality, and their own opinion.
If I open the shoebox and there's a dead mouse inside, then I will have a harder time keeping judgment out of my observation of the shoebox, I'll be angry that some human closed an animal up in the box and let it die. So I won't be objective anymore, and my ability to observe and understand will be much less clear.
I would need to "regroup" and deal with my feelings in order to regain objectivity.
If I want to find out who did it, then I had better really regain my objectivity, because I will be prone to thinking of a person who I want to blame for it BEFORE I actually find out any real information, and that WILL direct my thought process, I will be more likely to try to find evidence that the person I want to blame is guilty, instead of actually finding out what really happened.
Objectivity is very difficult for humans in general, which is why "scientific method" was created.
It's harder for some than others.
The more ego injury or inflation a person is dealing with, the harder it is for them to be objective.
The harder it is for them to listen to or view information that they don't BELIEVE IN personally, that they don't identify with personally.
(If it doesn't make them feel good, they'll argue about it.)
The more objectively one is able to view and observe things, events, situations, and people around them, the less they try to lay blame, cast shame, control, create "sides", argue, or feel resentment, favoritism, or FEAR.
And therefore the clearer they can observe, the more information they can take in and comprehend, the easier they can hear information and gather information, and the easier it is to choose their actions consciously, instead of reacting emotionally.
Separating From Average Narcissistic People
Tip regarding separating from most average Narcissistic people, (other than the stalking or directly abusive):
Simply stop responding, engaging, and giving them positive or negative attention.
You don't need to blatantly ignore them or cold-shoulder them, just stop engaging with them. The point is not to "send them a message", when is the last time you got a message through to a Narcissist?
What will likely happen (except for stalkers/psychopaths) is that they will lose interest in you, because you are not giving them anything.
You're a dry well.
You're a stone in a remote field somewhere.
Narcissists only "like" people and connect with people who give them something they want, even if it's seemingly negative.
They will now be getting from engaging with you:
No adrenaline rush, no feeling of domination, no challenge, no other supply.
You are now giving them:
No ego-feeding, no caretaking, no catering. no argument, no anxiety reaction, no drama, no praise, no positive or negative feedback.
When they invite you to a party (so they can leave you out of conversation, say something humiliating to you in front of others, change the date or time, or expect you to clean),
just say you have something else to do that day.
And watch yourself to make sure you don't feel guilt or shame, or anxiety about not going.
(Remember the old joke about needing to wash one's hair?)
When they strike up a conversation with you so they can argue with whatever you say, just agree with whatever they say, don't vocalize any of your own opinions or knowledge, and then excuse yourself gracefully. (If you make it look like you're leaving because they're getting on your nerves, that will give them a twinge of supply.)
When they invite you "out" (so they can look "better" than you, or use you as "bait", or leave you out, or leave you behind, or act superior) don't go, have something else (boring) to do, or be tired.
When they change plans and times on you, let them, and then you can't go.
When they are obviously trying to get your praise or attention, give them a polite acknowledgement, but nothing more.
Yes it can feel like arrogance and coldness, but it's not, it's simply not engaging with a person who is trying to provoke you to react and give them something.
If they are not Narcissistic, then you haven't done damage to the relationship, and they will not abandon or discard you (or fly into some kind of tantrum).
If they are Narcissistic, then they'll drift away like there was never any relationship between you, like they barely knew you, and you'll be free from dealing with them.
Most average narcissistic people get bored with people who don't cater to them, or who they can't make react, or who doesn't "challenge" them.
When narcissists are bored with a person, they seek another source of supply.
Simply stop responding, engaging, and giving them positive or negative attention.
You don't need to blatantly ignore them or cold-shoulder them, just stop engaging with them. The point is not to "send them a message", when is the last time you got a message through to a Narcissist?
What will likely happen (except for stalkers/psychopaths) is that they will lose interest in you, because you are not giving them anything.
You're a dry well.
You're a stone in a remote field somewhere.
Narcissists only "like" people and connect with people who give them something they want, even if it's seemingly negative.
They will now be getting from engaging with you:
No adrenaline rush, no feeling of domination, no challenge, no other supply.
You are now giving them:
No ego-feeding, no caretaking, no catering. no argument, no anxiety reaction, no drama, no praise, no positive or negative feedback.
When they invite you to a party (so they can leave you out of conversation, say something humiliating to you in front of others, change the date or time, or expect you to clean),
just say you have something else to do that day.
And watch yourself to make sure you don't feel guilt or shame, or anxiety about not going.
(Remember the old joke about needing to wash one's hair?)
When they strike up a conversation with you so they can argue with whatever you say, just agree with whatever they say, don't vocalize any of your own opinions or knowledge, and then excuse yourself gracefully. (If you make it look like you're leaving because they're getting on your nerves, that will give them a twinge of supply.)
When they invite you "out" (so they can look "better" than you, or use you as "bait", or leave you out, or leave you behind, or act superior) don't go, have something else (boring) to do, or be tired.
When they change plans and times on you, let them, and then you can't go.
When they are obviously trying to get your praise or attention, give them a polite acknowledgement, but nothing more.
Yes it can feel like arrogance and coldness, but it's not, it's simply not engaging with a person who is trying to provoke you to react and give them something.
If they are not Narcissistic, then you haven't done damage to the relationship, and they will not abandon or discard you (or fly into some kind of tantrum).
If they are Narcissistic, then they'll drift away like there was never any relationship between you, like they barely knew you, and you'll be free from dealing with them.
Most average narcissistic people get bored with people who don't cater to them, or who they can't make react, or who doesn't "challenge" them.
When narcissists are bored with a person, they seek another source of supply.
Consumer Alert: Girls And Boys Clothing
If
you don't understand "Gender Role Conditioning", or believe it, just go
to Wal Mart, or any clothing store, and look at the shorts for little
boys, and then stroll over to the girls dept. and look at the shorts
made for them (all by people you don't know).
Look at the length of the shorts and the quality.
You really think that little boys and little girls are designing those shorts? Or making them? Or putting them in the stores? You really think that's THEIR "natural preference" because of their gender, and if adults didn't dress OTHER little boys and girls in those same clothes, that they would still want to wear them?
Please.
Now that you noticed the difference in the shorts that are available for people to buy, and that people put on their children whether the kids like them or not, and in a lot of cases whether the clothes are appropriate or not for age, weather, or where they're wearing them, go look at the difference in quality of shirts, pants, and underwear, and long underwear. Look at the difference in COATS. Look at the difference between men's flannel shirts and women's flannel shirts. In the make and quality of dress clothes.
Look at the prices while you're at it. Why is the same brand of shirt or pants a different quality between male and female "styles", and why the price difference?
It's all for the same reasons.
AND SO, if men and boys are SO MUCH TOUGHER, then WHY do they seem to need MUCH WARMER CLOTHES than women and girls do, for the same climate?
Oh right... because girls and women don't go outside... or work... yeah that's it... lol.
Watch some more television.
Oh while you're at it, go see if you can find steel-toed boots in the men's section, you know the boots that people wear to PROTECT their toes because they don't want to get hurt... (owie!) ~ now go look to see if you can find them in the women's shoe department, how many are there? Because there should be MORE, since women are so fragile and need more protection...don't they?
This is NOT the "fault" of the men or the boys or the women or the girls who are wearing the clothes, they aren't the ones making them and distributing them.
But we CAN be aware of what we are BUYING, and what we are dressing our children in.
What are we putting on our kids, and WHY?
Look at the length of the shorts and the quality.
You really think that little boys and little girls are designing those shorts? Or making them? Or putting them in the stores? You really think that's THEIR "natural preference" because of their gender, and if adults didn't dress OTHER little boys and girls in those same clothes, that they would still want to wear them?
Please.
Now that you noticed the difference in the shorts that are available for people to buy, and that people put on their children whether the kids like them or not, and in a lot of cases whether the clothes are appropriate or not for age, weather, or where they're wearing them, go look at the difference in quality of shirts, pants, and underwear, and long underwear. Look at the difference in COATS. Look at the difference between men's flannel shirts and women's flannel shirts. In the make and quality of dress clothes.
Look at the prices while you're at it. Why is the same brand of shirt or pants a different quality between male and female "styles", and why the price difference?
It's all for the same reasons.
AND SO, if men and boys are SO MUCH TOUGHER, then WHY do they seem to need MUCH WARMER CLOTHES than women and girls do, for the same climate?
Oh right... because girls and women don't go outside... or work... yeah that's it... lol.
Watch some more television.
Oh while you're at it, go see if you can find steel-toed boots in the men's section, you know the boots that people wear to PROTECT their toes because they don't want to get hurt... (owie!) ~ now go look to see if you can find them in the women's shoe department, how many are there? Because there should be MORE, since women are so fragile and need more protection...don't they?
This is NOT the "fault" of the men or the boys or the women or the girls who are wearing the clothes, they aren't the ones making them and distributing them.
But we CAN be aware of what we are BUYING, and what we are dressing our children in.
What are we putting on our kids, and WHY?
The Impression You Give May Not Be The One They Get
The
"impression" you are giving to those who are on a higher level of
awareness, who have functional empathy and abstract reasoning ability,
is not at all the same as the "impression" that those with a lower level
of awareness, emotional maturity, empathy function, or reasoning
ability are getting of you.
You don't look the same to everyone who's meeting you or looking at you, and in many cases, not even close to the same.
And in most cases, even those with clearer perception don't see you exactly as you see yourself. They can't, it's not really possible, even if they are a highly aware and mature individual; they only know a couple of things that they can see, or think they can see. They would need time to get to know you and learn more about you, just like you would need to learn about them.
For those who are less aware and mature, they are looking at you through a stack of thick filters in their own mind.
Bias for or against people who look like you,
prejudice for or against your gender or race,
assumptions and stereotypes about you because of your height, or your weight, your build,
your hair color and the way it's styled,
your clothing,
your accent or speech pattern,
etc. ad infinitum.
It is very possible that they are comparing you to various characters from television, film, music, CARTOONS, politics, history, childhood, etc., and trying to find one that matches your looks (in their mind.)
People do this a lot, but those with mental illness are more likely to believe that your personality is JUST LIKE the character or person they think you resemble. So if you remind them of a girl they couldn't stand in school, you must be "just like that girl". If you remind them of a certain Aunt who was afraid of dogs, YOU must also be afraid of dogs.
If you remind them of a nude-magazine model, well, that can get not so funny very quickly.
The less maturity, reasoning ability, clarity of perception and functional empathy (not sympathy) a person has, the more they are likely to judge others in all kinds of left-field, imagination-based, tales-from-childhood ways, and so are not going to even be able to see you for "who you are".
Further, they are much more likely to believe that they know "all about you" from a few superficial traits, or from hearsay, or from hearing you speak, or seeing your posts online. Or even from your car, your shoes, or your job, or people they saw you speaking with.
However those who DO have higher reasoning ability, empathy function, clarity, and emotional maturity are much more likely to see you closer to who you really are, and to treat you with civility, manners, and respect.
So if someone treats you poorly for "no reason", (nothing you did that was inconsiderate, manipulative, or aggressive...for real...)
it's probably because of their own limited perception and discernment and reasoning ability.
When you find yourself dealing with a person who has some sort of authority over you, or poses a direct threat, and this limitation seems to be the case, it's probably best not to let on that you think they're limited in perception; just keep it as peaceful and calm as you are able so you can figure out how to get away from them as quickly and unscathed as possible.
(Those who have limited perception toward others, with limited maturity, are also more likely to be histrionic, volatile, and reactive.)
You don't look the same to everyone who's meeting you or looking at you, and in many cases, not even close to the same.
And in most cases, even those with clearer perception don't see you exactly as you see yourself. They can't, it's not really possible, even if they are a highly aware and mature individual; they only know a couple of things that they can see, or think they can see. They would need time to get to know you and learn more about you, just like you would need to learn about them.
For those who are less aware and mature, they are looking at you through a stack of thick filters in their own mind.
Bias for or against people who look like you,
prejudice for or against your gender or race,
assumptions and stereotypes about you because of your height, or your weight, your build,
your hair color and the way it's styled,
your clothing,
your accent or speech pattern,
etc. ad infinitum.
It is very possible that they are comparing you to various characters from television, film, music, CARTOONS, politics, history, childhood, etc., and trying to find one that matches your looks (in their mind.)
People do this a lot, but those with mental illness are more likely to believe that your personality is JUST LIKE the character or person they think you resemble. So if you remind them of a girl they couldn't stand in school, you must be "just like that girl". If you remind them of a certain Aunt who was afraid of dogs, YOU must also be afraid of dogs.
If you remind them of a nude-magazine model, well, that can get not so funny very quickly.
The less maturity, reasoning ability, clarity of perception and functional empathy (not sympathy) a person has, the more they are likely to judge others in all kinds of left-field, imagination-based, tales-from-childhood ways, and so are not going to even be able to see you for "who you are".
Further, they are much more likely to believe that they know "all about you" from a few superficial traits, or from hearsay, or from hearing you speak, or seeing your posts online. Or even from your car, your shoes, or your job, or people they saw you speaking with.
However those who DO have higher reasoning ability, empathy function, clarity, and emotional maturity are much more likely to see you closer to who you really are, and to treat you with civility, manners, and respect.
So if someone treats you poorly for "no reason", (nothing you did that was inconsiderate, manipulative, or aggressive...for real...)
it's probably because of their own limited perception and discernment and reasoning ability.
When you find yourself dealing with a person who has some sort of authority over you, or poses a direct threat, and this limitation seems to be the case, it's probably best not to let on that you think they're limited in perception; just keep it as peaceful and calm as you are able so you can figure out how to get away from them as quickly and unscathed as possible.
(Those who have limited perception toward others, with limited maturity, are also more likely to be histrionic, volatile, and reactive.)
She Deserves To Get Picked On?
Narcissists tend to see those who are treated as less important or less valuable as "deserving it" because they are somehow intrinsically less valuable human beings.
This perception fuels their belief in their own superiority.
In order to have superior people (like themselves), there has to be inferior people in order to make "superiority" valid ~
(like that woman over there, or that boy in the other room, or that girl at the store, or that man outside. Or those people from that other country or town, or political party, or religion. Or anyone of that other sex. Or anyone who's shorter, or thinner, or heavier, or older, or younger. Or like their sister, or their cousin, or their neighbor, or their uncle, or their nephew, or their niece, or their coworker, or that customer.).
Which is why they tend to become enraged or devastated when they themselves are treated with any sort of lack of attention, adulation, or acceptance. They are suddenly being treated as one of those "less valuable people", instead of one of the "valuable people".
It contradicts their self-image and identity.
Narcissists NEED to feel superior to someone else in order to feel worthy. Many believe that everyone else also needs to feel superior in order to feel worthy, and so they think everyone is competing for superiority, and that anyone who doesn't achieve "superiority" (in their imagined world) are envious or jealous of those who have.
(What defines "superior" depends on the individual person's beliefs and perceptions;
one N. might think that a certain level of wealth indicates "superiority" over others,
while another might see being "tall and good looking" as "superiority",
another might see being "small" and good-looking as "superiority",
another might see having dark hair as "superiority",
another might see being "athletic" as "superiority",
another may see being considered "NOT attractive" as "superiority", another might see having large shoulders as "superiority",
another might see being a certain sex as "superiority",
for another it might be what kind of car a person owns,
or how many,
or their house or neighborhood,
a club they belong to,
the job they have or that they belong to a union,
the political party they belong to,
a sport they participate in (or just watch),
having children,
not having children,
being married,
not being married,
their spouse's job, title, or looks,
the high school or college they went to,
or their level of education,
or what FIELD they're educated in,
or that they DON'T have a college or a graduate degree,
or what religion they belong to,
or that they don't belong to a religion,
or having a certain skill or knowledge,
having a certain ancestry,
or just being themselves and therefore better than anyone,
It can LITERALLY be ANYTHING.
ANYTHING WHATSOEVER can cause a Narcissist to feel that they are superior to others because they possess this specific object or trait.
~
They may or may not be aware of this need, and will almost certainly adamantly deny that it's true. However their behavior reveals their underlying perceptions and motives:
When someone near them or with them is treated with disrespect, rudeness, unfairness, disdain, backstabbing, or bullying, what do they do? (Especially if they themselves are being treated with courtesy or respect by the same people or person who are disrespecting the other person?)
Do they allow it, go along with it, act like nothing is happening, pretend not to notice, or even worse, join in?
Or do they acknowledge that the other person is being treated poorly?
~And then perhaps either show solidarity with the person, even in a subtle way, refuse to engage with the disrespectful person, or leave, or say something out loud; do they do any of those things?
(Or are they apparently getting an ego buzz out of being treated better than someone else?)
Actions AND words reveal the underlying motives and feelings of a person with Narcissism.
This perception fuels their belief in their own superiority.
In order to have superior people (like themselves), there has to be inferior people in order to make "superiority" valid ~
(like that woman over there, or that boy in the other room, or that girl at the store, or that man outside. Or those people from that other country or town, or political party, or religion. Or anyone of that other sex. Or anyone who's shorter, or thinner, or heavier, or older, or younger. Or like their sister, or their cousin, or their neighbor, or their uncle, or their nephew, or their niece, or their coworker, or that customer.).
Which is why they tend to become enraged or devastated when they themselves are treated with any sort of lack of attention, adulation, or acceptance. They are suddenly being treated as one of those "less valuable people", instead of one of the "valuable people".
It contradicts their self-image and identity.
Narcissists NEED to feel superior to someone else in order to feel worthy. Many believe that everyone else also needs to feel superior in order to feel worthy, and so they think everyone is competing for superiority, and that anyone who doesn't achieve "superiority" (in their imagined world) are envious or jealous of those who have.
(What defines "superior" depends on the individual person's beliefs and perceptions;
one N. might think that a certain level of wealth indicates "superiority" over others,
while another might see being "tall and good looking" as "superiority",
another might see being "small" and good-looking as "superiority",
another might see having dark hair as "superiority",
another might see being "athletic" as "superiority",
another may see being considered "NOT attractive" as "superiority", another might see having large shoulders as "superiority",
another might see being a certain sex as "superiority",
for another it might be what kind of car a person owns,
or how many,
or their house or neighborhood,
a club they belong to,
the job they have or that they belong to a union,
the political party they belong to,
a sport they participate in (or just watch),
having children,
not having children,
being married,
not being married,
their spouse's job, title, or looks,
the high school or college they went to,
or their level of education,
or what FIELD they're educated in,
or that they DON'T have a college or a graduate degree,
or what religion they belong to,
or that they don't belong to a religion,
or having a certain skill or knowledge,
having a certain ancestry,
or just being themselves and therefore better than anyone,
It can LITERALLY be ANYTHING.
ANYTHING WHATSOEVER can cause a Narcissist to feel that they are superior to others because they possess this specific object or trait.
~
They may or may not be aware of this need, and will almost certainly adamantly deny that it's true. However their behavior reveals their underlying perceptions and motives:
When someone near them or with them is treated with disrespect, rudeness, unfairness, disdain, backstabbing, or bullying, what do they do? (Especially if they themselves are being treated with courtesy or respect by the same people or person who are disrespecting the other person?)
Do they allow it, go along with it, act like nothing is happening, pretend not to notice, or even worse, join in?
Or do they acknowledge that the other person is being treated poorly?
~And then perhaps either show solidarity with the person, even in a subtle way, refuse to engage with the disrespectful person, or leave, or say something out loud; do they do any of those things?
(Or are they apparently getting an ego buzz out of being treated better than someone else?)
Actions AND words reveal the underlying motives and feelings of a person with Narcissism.
Narcissists Can Have Kindred Spirits, Sort Of
"Kindred Spirits"...
Narcissists tend to LIKE other Narcissists.
Not for the same reasons non-narcissists like other people, but for their own reasons. They can be superior to others together, help one another to rationalize and justify their poor treatment of other people, give one another positive reinforcement, and help each other with various activities and agendas.
They can often be seen creating cliques and factions with one another, and conspiring against common scapegoat targets.
Sick?
Very.
(Give it enough time and they will eventually turn on one another when there's no one they can target together.)
On the other side of this coin, if they don't like a particular fellow Narcissist, they tend to DESPISE them, and compete with them directly in all sorts of ways.
The targeted person is like a scapegoat, except that the Narcissist considers them to be "on equal footing", a "peer", a "worthy opponent", a "fair fight"...
They get a very big charge out of the drama of targeting a scapegoat, attacking a person and/or their reputation, wielding control over another human being, and from "competing" with a "nemesis".
The charge from the drama is a neurochemical cocktail that gives them a "rush", and makes them feel powerful. (Possibly similar to the reported "high" from cocaine or cocaine by-products, or amphetamines, which explains the addictive behaviors to this "rush".)
(Having a "nemesis" means you're very important...apparently...even more important than when you consider yourself superior to another person.)
Narcissists tend to LIKE other Narcissists.
Not for the same reasons non-narcissists like other people, but for their own reasons. They can be superior to others together, help one another to rationalize and justify their poor treatment of other people, give one another positive reinforcement, and help each other with various activities and agendas.
They can often be seen creating cliques and factions with one another, and conspiring against common scapegoat targets.
Sick?
Very.
(Give it enough time and they will eventually turn on one another when there's no one they can target together.)
On the other side of this coin, if they don't like a particular fellow Narcissist, they tend to DESPISE them, and compete with them directly in all sorts of ways.
The targeted person is like a scapegoat, except that the Narcissist considers them to be "on equal footing", a "peer", a "worthy opponent", a "fair fight"...
They get a very big charge out of the drama of targeting a scapegoat, attacking a person and/or their reputation, wielding control over another human being, and from "competing" with a "nemesis".
The charge from the drama is a neurochemical cocktail that gives them a "rush", and makes them feel powerful. (Possibly similar to the reported "high" from cocaine or cocaine by-products, or amphetamines, which explains the addictive behaviors to this "rush".)
(Having a "nemesis" means you're very important...apparently...even more important than when you consider yourself superior to another person.)
Always Offended, Always Accusing
Constantly being "offended" by something another person has done or said, frequently expressing doubts and questioning another person's real meaning, motives, or agenda, having ongoing suspicions toward another person (especially with no proof or real evidence) about betrayal, agenda, ostracizing, gossiping, triangulation, disrespect or abandonment is actually a symptom of paranoia, which may or may not a part of a Narcissistic disorder.
Having occasional doubts or suspicions is not necessarily "paranoid", it's normal human. We know from experience that people aren't always on the level, and can do crappy things, even sometimes unconsciously.
However, a person who does NOT have paranoia or a disorder is keen to find out if their suspicions are founded or not. They will often seek to find out what's true, false, or hidden. They will happily accept evidence that shows their suspicions were incorrect about a person, and will experience a feeling of relief.
If however they find out their suspicions were correct, their focus will be on protecting themselves and getting out of the mess they find themselves in, not so much on the other person; not on retaliation and revenge.
They will also often accept a genuine admission, apology, or amends, but - if they don't want to, or if there is no forthcoming apology or amends, they will simply separate themselves from the person without much ado. They won't keep the same connection with the person, nor will they make an effort to try to stay connected to the person either with positive or negative intentions.
~
~
A person who does have paranoia or a related disorder does NOT accept evidence about their suspicions being incorrect, because that's not really their main focus. Their main focus tends to actually be a desire to feel "vindication". (This may be a loop they're stuck on from something in their past with a real person who betrayed them, abandoned them, or hurt them.)
So evidence that the other (current) person has no agenda means they have no excuse to be angry at the person, or resent them, or try to dominate them. That's not what they're looking for, so they ignore the evidence.
When they find that there is evidence to show that their suspicions WERE accurate, or even if there's a grain of truth but not entirely correct, they will typically ramp up their efforts to dominate and "punish" the person. This is what they wanted, an excuse they can use to justify their desire to go after the person whom they've targeted.
Importantly, they will ALSO OFTEN ramp up their efforts to "punish" the person WITHOUT evidence or proof of "guilt", often CREATING false stories and motives in order to "justify" their poor treatment of the person.
This behavior has been seen over and over and over throughout human history coming from "officials" who unfortunately had positions of power in spite of their mental illness; well known larger scale examples of which are the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the American "witch trials", Jesus Christ's trial and crucifixion, persecution of women in general and of certain men in many countries, persecution for religious beliefs in many countries, and slavery throughout human history.
("Persecution" is a word that describes this behavior, as well as "scapegoating", "smearing", and "oppression".)
Those who have severe paranoia (delusional) often don't really have an agenda, they actually believe their suspicions and imaginings: they're "stuck" on a feeling of suspicion of betrayal, or believing that another person is out to get them, or is trying to hurt them, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. (They often can be found to have been betrayed, neglected, or abused in their past as well, but they are less aware of the difference between their own thoughts and feelings, and reality.)
They may not even be aware that they are making stories up in their minds about what others are doing, and what others' motives, feelings, intentions, and thoughts are.
Those with certain disorders that may include apparent paranoia may be looking for "reasons" to validate their feelings of suspicion or resentment, or "reasons" to cast judgment and blame on the other person, or an excuse to retaliate against or ostracize a person.
It's not about what REALLY going on, that's not what they're interested in. They are focused on seeking ways to validate and justify their feelings, real or imaginary, and excuses to treat the other person poorly.
~
~
~
Those with Narcissism, whether they have paranoia or not, often accuse others of "paranoia" in order to paint them as exaggerators or liars. They are not that difficult to spot because they don't have compassion for the person in mind when they say it; in other words they are not stating an observation about the person's health, and having concern for the person, which a non-narcissist would have if they realized another person was displaying signs of mental illness, actual "paranoia".
(Using a mental illness as an accusation, like the person is "bad" for having it, or as if the person CAN "help it" but refuses to, as if they're "using it" as a way to get attention or an easy life, is a common Narcissist behavior. I have personally witnessed this numerous times coming from family members of autistic people, friends and acquaintances of those with mental, emotional, or neurological issues such as anxiety, depression, bipolar, bpd, PTSD or OCD, and from PAID "caregivers" of mentally disabled children and adults. ~ If you can imagine an adult person saying "he exaggerates his Down Syndrome issues in order to get attention, just ignore him.")
Paranoia Disorder
Having occasional doubts or suspicions is not necessarily "paranoid", it's normal human. We know from experience that people aren't always on the level, and can do crappy things, even sometimes unconsciously.
However, a person who does NOT have paranoia or a disorder is keen to find out if their suspicions are founded or not. They will often seek to find out what's true, false, or hidden. They will happily accept evidence that shows their suspicions were incorrect about a person, and will experience a feeling of relief.
If however they find out their suspicions were correct, their focus will be on protecting themselves and getting out of the mess they find themselves in, not so much on the other person; not on retaliation and revenge.
They will also often accept a genuine admission, apology, or amends, but - if they don't want to, or if there is no forthcoming apology or amends, they will simply separate themselves from the person without much ado. They won't keep the same connection with the person, nor will they make an effort to try to stay connected to the person either with positive or negative intentions.
~
~
A person who does have paranoia or a related disorder does NOT accept evidence about their suspicions being incorrect, because that's not really their main focus. Their main focus tends to actually be a desire to feel "vindication". (This may be a loop they're stuck on from something in their past with a real person who betrayed them, abandoned them, or hurt them.)
So evidence that the other (current) person has no agenda means they have no excuse to be angry at the person, or resent them, or try to dominate them. That's not what they're looking for, so they ignore the evidence.
When they find that there is evidence to show that their suspicions WERE accurate, or even if there's a grain of truth but not entirely correct, they will typically ramp up their efforts to dominate and "punish" the person. This is what they wanted, an excuse they can use to justify their desire to go after the person whom they've targeted.
Importantly, they will ALSO OFTEN ramp up their efforts to "punish" the person WITHOUT evidence or proof of "guilt", often CREATING false stories and motives in order to "justify" their poor treatment of the person.
This behavior has been seen over and over and over throughout human history coming from "officials" who unfortunately had positions of power in spite of their mental illness; well known larger scale examples of which are the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the American "witch trials", Jesus Christ's trial and crucifixion, persecution of women in general and of certain men in many countries, persecution for religious beliefs in many countries, and slavery throughout human history.
("Persecution" is a word that describes this behavior, as well as "scapegoating", "smearing", and "oppression".)
Those who have severe paranoia (delusional) often don't really have an agenda, they actually believe their suspicions and imaginings: they're "stuck" on a feeling of suspicion of betrayal, or believing that another person is out to get them, or is trying to hurt them, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. (They often can be found to have been betrayed, neglected, or abused in their past as well, but they are less aware of the difference between their own thoughts and feelings, and reality.)
They may not even be aware that they are making stories up in their minds about what others are doing, and what others' motives, feelings, intentions, and thoughts are.
Those with certain disorders that may include apparent paranoia may be looking for "reasons" to validate their feelings of suspicion or resentment, or "reasons" to cast judgment and blame on the other person, or an excuse to retaliate against or ostracize a person.
It's not about what REALLY going on, that's not what they're interested in. They are focused on seeking ways to validate and justify their feelings, real or imaginary, and excuses to treat the other person poorly.
~
~
~
Those with Narcissism, whether they have paranoia or not, often accuse others of "paranoia" in order to paint them as exaggerators or liars. They are not that difficult to spot because they don't have compassion for the person in mind when they say it; in other words they are not stating an observation about the person's health, and having concern for the person, which a non-narcissist would have if they realized another person was displaying signs of mental illness, actual "paranoia".
(Using a mental illness as an accusation, like the person is "bad" for having it, or as if the person CAN "help it" but refuses to, as if they're "using it" as a way to get attention or an easy life, is a common Narcissist behavior. I have personally witnessed this numerous times coming from family members of autistic people, friends and acquaintances of those with mental, emotional, or neurological issues such as anxiety, depression, bipolar, bpd, PTSD or OCD, and from PAID "caregivers" of mentally disabled children and adults. ~ If you can imagine an adult person saying "he exaggerates his Down Syndrome issues in order to get attention, just ignore him.")
Paranoia Disorder
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
n-tl-ahyz, -tahy-lahyz, in-fan-tl-ahyz]
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)