narcissism
Locked
12
12
 
|
Waco
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/waco/s01 I don't know much about Koresh or the Branch Davidians. I remember watching it (and the Ruby Ridge coverage) on TV back then. (I was pretty libertarian back then ... but that was back when the word "libertarian" meant something ... it's a useless word these days. So my understanding of these events was heavily biased by that.) This TV show does a good job, I think, of showing Koresh simply edit out his abuse of the flock while maintaining an air of authenticity in other domains. And the supporting character (Paul Sparks/Steve Schneider) states it explicitly when he says something like "I wish God had chosen someone else" or somesuch ... because Koresh was such a jerk. My conscious attempt to empathize with everyone, in every context, no matter how deplorable it might be, prevents me from accusing someone like Koresh of *rational* manipulation. I tend to think his manipulation of others is the *same* as his manipulation of himself. In programming, we use the term "reflection" or "introspection" to talk about an object manipulating itself in the same way it manipulates other objects (and vice versa). In some circles, it's called "reflexive", which I think is misleading. The idea is that you treat yourself as other or you treat others as yourself. When I hear descriptions of narcissism, this self-other mixing seems absent, which makes all the descriptions of narcissists seem cartoonish and wrong. They portray narcissists as hyper-rational, manipulate others to get what you want, sociopaths [†]. But if all people do a little bit of self-manipulation as well as other-manipulation (and it's the same tools/anatomy that does the manipulation), then narcissists are *not* hyper-rational sociopaths. They can't be if they *feel* hurt by the words of others, insecure, self-important, grandiosity, etc. If they have feelings at all *and* they manipulate their self like they manipulate others, then they can't be these hyper-rational sociopaths. It's either a contradiction or a paradox that needs resolving. We can see this in the DSM 5 _Alternative_ model. The 1st two trait categories (section A, 1-4) are other-centric, whereas the 2nd two are self-centric. Section B's categories seem to flip too, where grandiosity seems self-centric and attention seeking seems to be other-centric. It leaves me wondering if there are really 2, fundamentally different types of narcissism, that driven by an external locus vs. that drive by an internal locus, where the former cares deeply what others think/feel and the latter is totally apathetic to (or denies outright) others' thoughts/feelings. If that's plausible, then former-type narcissists would (as Frank said last week) live horrifying lives, but the latter-types might get a bit frustrated by the complexity of the machine they have to live inside, but could live very happy, solipsistic lives. [†] By "sociopath", I mean something like: someone who doesn't mirror the feelings of others in themselves. Sorry if that's non-standard. I'm using it because I don't have a better word for such a person. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
I think I said that person's with NPD are almost psychotic. I checked with my wife, a very experienced clinician, and she says that is not correct. But she also says that there are not two types. One interesting thing that she said is that her mentor, a training analyst, said that after treating a narcissist for many years you can uncover a severe obsessional personality at which point you have to start again to treat that. That implies a treatment length that only someone like Woody Allen can afford. I'm not saying that he's a malignant narcissist. I am speaking over my head but obviously DSM-V may oversimplify. My wife says that the book I mentioned, "Analysis of the Self" by Kohut is not as good as "Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism" by Otto Kernberg. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 12:12 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: Waco .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Does this quote from Kernberg have to do with your feeling that there are two types of narcissist: In general their relationships with other people are clearly exploitive and sometimes parasitic. It is as if they feel they have the right to control and possess others and to exploit them without guilt feelings--and behind a surface which very often is charming and engaging, one senses coldness and ruthlessness. Very often such patients are considered to be dependent because they need so much tribute and adoration from others but on a deeper level they are completely unable really to depend on anybody because of their deep distrust and depreciation of others. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 12:42 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Sorry for any overemphasis. I was merely *wondering if* there might be 2 types. I was inferring it partly from the Alternate model in the DSM 5 and partly from my own sense that the way people talk about them is contradictory. Your quote from Kernberg only hints at it.
Being episodic, myself, I could see how there would not be two *types*, but perhaps two *modes*. 1) defining one's self-esteem based on others' adulation (external locus) and 2) defining one's self-esteem based on some internal urgic homunculus (internal locus). If it's modal, then the same person might display (1) and (2) depending on the time, space, or context, leading to an apparent contradiction in the arching narrative/ephemeris, but resolving it by slicing up into episodes. And if it's a *speed* or rate thing (like fast/slow thinking), then it's plausible that (1) iterates rapidly while (2) iterates slowly. I'll take a look at the Kernberg book. Thanks! On 4/27/20 11:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Does this quote from Kernberg have to do with your feeling that there are two types of narcissist: > > > In general their relationships with other people are clearly exploitive and sometimes parasitic. It is as if they feel they have the right to control and possess others and to exploit them without guilt feelings--and behind a surface which very often is charming and engaging, one senses coldness and ruthlessness. > Very often such patients are considered to be dependent because they need so much tribute and adoration from others but on a deeper level they are completely unable really to depend on anybody because of their deep distrust and depreciation of others. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 12:42 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > I think I said that person's with NPD are almost psychotic. I checked with my wife, a very experienced clinician, and she says that is not correct. But she also says that there are not two types. One interesting thing that she said is that her mentor, a training analyst, said that after treating a narcissist for many years you can uncover a severe obsessional personality at which point you have to start again to treat that. That implies a treatment length that only someone like Woody Allen can afford. I'm not saying that he's a malignant narcissist. > > I am speaking over my head but obviously DSM-V may oversimplify. > > My wife says that the book I mentioned, "Analysis of the Self" by Kohut is not as good as "Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism" by Otto Kernberg. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
The manipulation aspect is interesting. It is true that narcissists manipulate others to do what they want. They know all tricks of marketing, PR and propaganda. In authoritarian systems dictators use propaganda to create some kind of personality cult. Citizens are manipulated to believe that the authoritarian ruler is infallible and irreplaceable (for example for Lukashenko in Belarus or for Putin in Russia). Have you noticed that Trump uses a lot of subjective adjectives in his vocabulary like terrific or tremendous? He is a one-dimensional person. I believe the only dimension he can think of is himself and if something is good or bad for him. He uses subjective adjectives to express his own subjective judgements and to manipulate others. -J. -------- Original message -------- From: uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> Date: 4/27/20 20:13 (GMT+01:00) To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] narcissism https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/waco/s01 I don't know much about Koresh or the Branch Davidians. I remember watching it (and the Ruby Ridge coverage) on TV back then. (I was pretty libertarian back then ... but that was back when the word "libertarian" meant something ... it's a useless word these days. So my understanding of these events was heavily biased by that.) This TV show does a good job, I think, of showing Koresh simply edit out his abuse of the flock while maintaining an air of authenticity in other domains. And the supporting character (Paul Sparks/Steve Schneider) states it explicitly when he says something like "I wish God had chosen someone else" or somesuch ... because Koresh was such a jerk. My conscious attempt to empathize with everyone, in every context, no matter how deplorable it might be, prevents me from accusing someone like Koresh of *rational* manipulation. I tend to think his manipulation of others is the *same* as his manipulation of himself. In programming, we use the term "reflection" or "introspection" to talk about an object manipulating itself in the same way it manipulates other objects (and vice versa). In some circles, it's called "reflexive", which I think is misleading. The idea is that you treat yourself as other or you treat others as yourself. When I hear descriptions of narcissism, this self-other mixing seems absent, which makes all the descriptions of narcissists seem cartoonish and wrong. They portray narcissists as hyper-rational, manipulate others to get what you want, sociopaths [†]. But if all people do a little bit of self-manipulation as well as other-manipulation (and it's the same tools/anatomy that does the manipulation), then narcissists are *not* hyper-rational sociopaths. They can't be if they *feel* hurt by the words of others, insecure, self-important, grandiosity, etc. If they have feelings at all *and* they manipulate their self like they manipulate others, then they can't be these hyper-rational sociopaths. It's either a contradiction or a paradox that needs resolving. We can see this in the DSM 5 _Alternative_ model. The 1st two trait categories (section A, 1-4) are other-centric, whereas the 2nd two are self-centric. Section B's categories seem to flip too, where grandiosity seems self-centric and attention seeking seems to be other-centric. It leaves me wondering if there are really 2, fundamentally different types of narcissism, that driven by an external locus vs. that drive by an internal locus, where the former cares deeply what others think/feel and the latter is totally apathetic to (or denies outright) others' thoughts/feelings. If that's plausible, then former-type narcissists would (as Frank said last week) live horrifying lives, but the latter-types might get a bit frustrated by the complexity of the machine they have to live inside, but could live very happy, solipsistic lives. [†] By "sociopath", I mean something like: someone who doesn't mirror the feelings of others in themselves. Sorry if that's non-standard. I'm using it because I don't have a better word for such a person. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
More on 2 types:
Vulnerable and Grandiose Narcissism Are Differentially Associated With Ability and Trait Emotional Intelligence https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01606/full Vulnerable Vs Grandiose Narcissism: Which Is More Harmful? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201906/vulnerable-vs-grandiose-narcissism-which-is-more-harmful The first article is more credible, I suppose. It seems to my incompetent eye to describe 2 different *subclinical* types. But the second article is more provocative to me because it talks about an *oscillation* in clinical (as opposed to subclinical) NPD, which kindasorta echoes what I tried to say about modes and rates. But what's most interesting, I guess, is that Dunning-Kruger might be at play. Where a narcissist might be incompetent, she might over-estimate her skills (at emotional intelligence as well as whatever else) [†]. The distinction between "trait EI" and "ability EI" is lost on me, however. So I can't quite parse the ending statements of the first paper. I can definitely parse the part about it being an online survey. 8^) [†] We might infer that Trump's narcissism is NOT the problem. It's his sheer incompetence that's the problem. So all this yapping about him being a narcissist might be, at best, wasted breath and, at worst, a red herring distracting from the real problem. On 4/27/20 12:03 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Sorry for any overemphasis. I was merely *wondering if* there might be 2 types. I was inferring it partly from the Alternate model in the DSM 5 and partly from my own sense that the way people talk about them is contradictory. Your quote from Kernberg only hints at it. > > Being episodic, myself, I could see how there would not be two *types*, but perhaps two *modes*. 1) defining one's self-esteem based on others' adulation (external locus) and 2) defining one's self-esteem based on some internal urgic homunculus (internal locus). If it's modal, then the same person might display (1) and (2) depending on the time, space, or context, leading to an apparent contradiction in the arching narrative/ephemeris, but resolving it by slicing up into episodes. And if it's a *speed* or rate thing (like fast/slow thinking), then it's plausible that (1) iterates rapidly while (2) iterates slowly. > > I'll take a look at the Kernberg book. Thanks! > > On 4/27/20 11:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Does this quote from Kernberg have to do with your feeling that there are two types of narcissist: >> >> >> In general their relationships with other people are clearly exploitive and sometimes parasitic. It is as if they feel they have the right to control and possess others and to exploit them without guilt feelings--and behind a surface which very often is charming and engaging, one senses coldness and ruthlessness. >> Very often such patients are considered to be dependent because they need so much tribute and adoration from others but on a deeper level they are completely unable really to depend on anybody because of their deep distrust and depreciation of others. >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 12:42 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> I think I said that person's with NPD are almost psychotic. I checked with my wife, a very experienced clinician, and she says that is not correct. But she also says that there are not two types. One interesting thing that she said is that her mentor, a training analyst, said that after treating a narcissist for many years you can uncover a severe obsessional personality at which point you have to start again to treat that. That implies a treatment length that only someone like Woody Allen can afford. I'm not saying that he's a malignant narcissist. >> >> I am speaking over my head but obviously DSM-V may oversimplify. >> >> My wife says that the book I mentioned, "Analysis of the Self" by Kohut is not as good as "Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism" by Otto Kernberg. > > > -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Trump's incompetence and his malignant narcissism *both* make him dangerous in the position of president. Were you referring to me when you wrote "yapping"? :-) --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:22 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: More on 2 types: .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well, Gil should accuse *me* of yapping, too. So yes, you and me both.
But his narcissism is irrelevant. You may as well claim that his *hair* makes him dangerous. It's irrelevant. What's relevant is his incompetence. My guess is that Obama is a narcissist, too ... anyone who *wants* to be President is probably a narcissist. Your use of "malignant" is loaded and baiting, of course. We could equally say his malignant obesity makes him dangerous. Malignant *anything* is bad. Granted, "malignant narcissism" is jargonal and you might be tempted to argue that it means something different when it qualifies narcissism instead of qualifying, say, tumor. But as soon as you wander into subcultural jargon, you lose the American public and your message is then lost. And that makes it even less relevant. Now, you *could* argue that were he *not* a narcissist, he could learn from his stupid mistakes like querying Birx in front of the nation about injecting disinfectant [†]. But even here, his narcissism simply exacerbates his incompetence. It's the incompetence that's the problem, not the narcissism. [†] This article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167487017306165 makes the case that vulnerable narcissists might be more honest (subject to corrective feedback) than grandiose narcissists because the vulnerable types respond to shame (though not guilt). From that, we might be able to infer that his *type* of narcissism is relevant. I.e. I'd be wrong. His type of narcissism would be an inflection point we could make actionable. On 4/28/20 5:06 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Trump's incompetence and his malignant narcissism *both* make him dangerous in the position of president. > > Were you referring to me when you wrote "yapping"? :-) -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Fellow Yapper, My assumed audience is not the American public thank God. An example of how his narcissism makes him dangerous is his saying the coronavirus will be gone in five days and the related policy positions. His grandiosity is threatened by the prospect of deferring to epidemiologists and virologists. That causes a narcissistic injury. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 6:32 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: Well, Gil should accuse *me* of yapping, too. So yes, you and me both. .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
OK. Well, risking too much repetition, if he were competent, he wouldn't have said that ... and the policies would not have followed ... and he would defer to the experts. Because, as Dunning-Kruger and Zajenkowski et al, and Schröder-Abé et al, seem to point out, competent people have a good handle on their own incompetence, regardless of their narcissism.
On 4/28/20 5:50 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > My assumed audience is not the American public thank God. An example of how his narcissism makes him dangerous is his saying the coronavirus will be gone in five days and the related policy positions. His grandiosity is threatened by the prospect of deferring to epidemiologists and virologists. That causes a narcissistic injury. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
If he weren't narcissistic he would defer to the experts which would mitigate his incompetence. The BS about being sarcastic is a pathetic way to rationalize his failure to defer. Since narcissism is universal adding "malignant" or "pathological" makes a useful distinction. On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 7:13 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: OK. Well, risking too much repetition, if he were competent, he wouldn't have said that ... and the policies would not have followed ... and he would defer to the experts. Because, as Dunning-Kruger and Zajenkowski et al, and Schröder-Abé et al, seem to point out, competent people have a good handle on their own incompetence, regardless of their narcissism. Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Analysis paralysis: Execute plans against these individuals. From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> If he weren't narcissistic he would defer to the experts which would mitigate his incompetence. The BS about being sarcastic is a pathetic way to rationalize his failure to defer.
Since narcissism is universal adding "malignant" or "pathological" makes a useful distinction. On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 7:13 PM uǝlƃ
☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Frank Wimberly .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
It may look like analysis paralysis when one party simply restates their position with no more evidence each time. (Am not! Are too! Am not! ;^) But for my part, teasing out whether the narcissism is something we can actually use or not *is* an attempt to formulate plans of action.
The question is, do you take actions based on some unprofessional diagnosis-at-a-distance? Or do you take actions based on the clear evidence that even a Trump supporter can agree with [†]. There's a slim chance that the media, the House, DNC/Biden, and groups like the rule-of-law-republicans could leverage the administrations incompetence in targeting everyday Trump supporters, perhaps even well enough to carry any decisions that made it to the SCOTUS. With what little reading I've done, I'm leaning toward the idea that the narcissism rhetoric isn't actionable in any way. It might work for Fauci and Birx to keep their jobs long enough to mitigate the damage. (Though I agree with the argument that if everyone enables a narcissist it does more damage than explicit interpersonal countering of all their grandiose mechanisms.) But it seems useless for any larger, collective action. All the actionable rhetoric lies in targeting the incompetence. Beyond partisanship, it's simply true. The admin is incompetent in *many* domains. And all the narcissism rhetoric does is make the rhetor look partisan. [†] I think we've almost lost the chance to act on these "reopen protests". We could have come out ahead of the morons and argued for reopening in a *competent* way, emphasizing the 3 milestones: curve downturn, enough testing, contact tracing. Each of these could have been customized for context (e.g. in places like here in Olympia, where our hospitals are nowhere near overwhelmed, our curve's been headed down for awhile, etc.). But we've insisted on tight lockdowns *regardless* of context. Even if tight lockdowns are, in an ideal world, the right thing to do, we *could* have gotten out ahead of the morons and their protests. On 4/28/20 6:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Analysis paralysis: Execute plans against these individuals. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< [†] I think we've almost lost the chance to act on these "reopen protests". We could have come out ahead of the morons and argued for reopening in a *competent* way, emphasizing the 3 milestones: curve downturn, enough testing, contact tracing. Each of these could have been customized for context (e.g. in places like here in Olympia, where our hospitals are nowhere near overwhelmed, our curve's been headed down for awhile, etc.). But we've insisted on tight lockdowns *regardless* of context. Even if tight lockdowns are, in an ideal world, the right thing to do, we *could* have gotten out ahead of the morons and their protests. > If the death rates in the less populated parts of the country exceeded metropolitan areas, that might start to erode support. I think it would have to get to the point that death outcomes were friends and family for everyone in those areas. I don't think that is a plausible outcome. I agree it is probably better to open the less densely-populated states, even if the protocol is clumsy. Marcus .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
I believe that this
article (or a very similar one) was posted here a couple of years
ago: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/14/the-most-narcissistic-u-s-presidents/
I have a hard time
agreeing with Glen's premise (as I understand it) that the
narcissism is not the problem, but rather the incompetence. On
the other hand, I don't know that the real problem is (in this
case, 45s) narcissism in itself, but the fact that we (by
commission or omission or incompetence or personal narcissism) put
him (and have kept him) at the apex of US (free world?) political
power. Perhaps it is legitimate to say that narcissism and
incompetence aggravate one another. The (2013) Pew study
puts LBJ and Teddy Roosevelt (~1.6) at the highest Narcissism
Index and JFK and Bill Clinton about half of that (.8) and Ronald
Reagan just above 0.0 and Adams, Truman, Washington, Carter, and
Eisenhower just below. I was surprised that the list wasn't
more skewed toward narcissism but not that it has increased of
late... as if the feedback loop of broadcast media reinforces
narcissism as a selection criteria for presidential aspirants and
presidential contest winners. I DO think that JFK
represents a possible support for Glen's implication that
competence can mitigate or operate in spite of narcissism. Or at
least many consider JFK to have been highly effective at pursuing
the best interest of the people of the USA. My intuition and anecdotal experience suggests that narcissism is a huge risk when involved in power, and for it to be mitigated, there needs to be a balance of competence and goodwill for it not to generally be a problem for everyone influenced by their power. Is goodwill compatible with narcissism... the DSM definition includes "lack of empathy"... on the surface, it appears that goodwill requires empathy... but perhaps it is more complex? Here is an interesting blog-entry that seems to be a little more thorough/thoughtful about narcissism than average. - Steve On 4/28/20 7:27 PM, Frank Wimberly
wrote:
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
> Waco > https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/waco/s01 I declined to respond to Glen's originating post on this topic until I had more time/background. We finally watched the limited series the last two nights and it brought back a lot of memories of that era to both Mary and myself. We had the opportunity to discuss both our contemporary understanding of characters like Koresh and his followers (and the ATF/FBI characters as-depicted and the families of, and locals in nearby Waco) as well as our memories of how we responded to it as it unfolded (through the lens of popular media and discussion). I felt that the show (and probably the two books it was derived from, written by the FBI negotiator and by one of the more sympathetic characters/members of the Davidians) had some barely hidden agendas... while I'm willing to believe that egos and personalities and incompetence and systemic flaws were key to how the ATF/FBI (mis)handled the scene right up through it's tragic conclusion and aftermath, I didn't take every detail to be unbiased and accurate. > I don't know much about Koresh or the Branch Davidians. I remember watching it (and the Ruby Ridge coverage) on TV back then. (I was pretty libertarian back then ... but that was back when the word "libertarian" meant something ... it's a useless word these days. So my understanding of these events was heavily biased by that.) This TV show does a good job, I think, of showing Koresh simply edit out his abuse of the flock while maintaining an air of authenticity in other domains. And the supporting character (Paul Sparks/Steve Schneider) states it explicitly when he says something like "I wish God had chosen someone else" or somesuch ... because Koresh was such a jerk. I don't know much about Koresh (or his Davidians or the Ruby Ridge family or ... players) either... and I agree that this depiction showed well a tension between his "abuse" and "authenticity". I have NO embedding in the kinds of belief systems that Koresh and his followers came from (and went far beyond), so my first-order response to the lot of them was not very sympathetic. Mary was raised Catholic and did not leave that fold until she divorced in her early 40's. She still has some momentum from that embedding which makes it easier for her to be sympathetic with the underlying tropes of belief in a personal creator/savior and in scripture, even though I would say all of those are now vacant in her active current consciousness. > My conscious attempt to empathize with everyone, in every context, no matter how deplorable it might be, prevents me from accusing someone like Koresh of *rational* manipulation. I share that conscious attempt, or even instinctual bias. I don't *want to believe* people are that fundamentally different/bad/flawed than I want to believe that I am. I know myself to have operated with *rational* manipulation, but it usually grows up out of the fertile soil of *unconscious* manipulation... simply seeking to optimize some personal rewards/satisfaction vector with limited awareness of the results on others (especially those far from me socially/geographically). > I tend to think his manipulation of others is the *same* as his manipulation of himself. In programming, we use the term "reflection" or "introspection" to talk about an object manipulating itself in the same way it manipulates other objects (and vice versa). In some circles, it's called "reflexive", which I think is misleading. The idea is that you treat yourself as other or you treat others as yourself. As I understand your point here, it is perhaps the *only* or *most fundamental* thing which keeps me in line consciously. I do have natural empathy that is rooted in my vertebrate/mammalian/primate/hominid genetics as well as that which was nurtured by my family and communities of origin. But as I became (trained to be?) more rational, my own narcissistic pursuits transformed to become more *intentional* and possibly more pathological. A lot of what probably comes across as bald "virtue signalling" in my posts here is me trying to remind myself that I *can* (and should?) work consciously to balance that out. If left to my own instincts and learned habits in this (manic hypercapitalist, ultra-individualistic) society, I might well behave in a very selfish manner at every opportunity. It also triggered memories of how the well-publicized Jonestown and Heaven's Gate cult suicides unfolded... though I *do* believe the Waco account that says theirs was NOT a mass-suicide. The nature of cult-belief/following/extremity was the point. > When I hear descriptions of narcissism, this self-other mixing seems absent, which makes all the descriptions of narcissists seem cartoonish and wrong. They portray narcissists as hyper-rational, manipulate others to get what you want, sociopaths [†]. I think these are the extrema (edge/corner cases) that we like to focus on because it makes for good storytelling. > But if all people do a little bit of self-manipulation as well as other-manipulation (and it's the same tools/anatomy that does the manipulation), then narcissists are *not* hyper-rational sociopaths. They can't be if they *feel* hurt by the words of others, insecure, self-important, grandiosity, etc. If they have feelings at all *and* they manipulate their self like they manipulate others, then they can't be these hyper-rational sociopaths. It's either a contradiction or a paradox that needs resolving. I believe this way of framing it... but when faced with someone whose narcissism builds a strong (albeit fragile) ego-shell which impinges on my own (hopefully equally strong, but in a more durable way) it is easy to forget this and react as if they are hyper-rational sociopaths. (which engenders an awareness that the biggest risk in these contests is to "become one's enemy") In Sun Tzu's wisdom, there is a place for this... but getting caught in it seems to be what keeps us there. > We can see this in the DSM 5 _Alternative_ model. The 1st two trait categories (section A, 1-4) are other-centric, whereas the 2nd two are self-centric. Section B's categories seem to flip too, where grandiosity seems self-centric and attention seeking seems to be other-centric. It leaves me wondering if there are really 2, fundamentally different types of narcissism, that driven by an external locus vs. that drive by an internal locus, where the former cares deeply what others think/feel and the latter is totally apathetic to (or denies outright) others' thoughts/feelings. If that's plausible, then former-type narcissists would (as Frank said last week) live horrifying lives, but the latter-types might get a bit frustrated by the complexity of the machine they have to live inside, but could live very happy, solipsistic lives. I think your previous invocation of "modes of being" are apt here. I suspect we all have our (minor? trivial? well-managed? well-hidden?) episodes of all of these features of narcissism. Just after we hit a lucky shot (pick your sport) or make a killer-prediction (stock market, news, personal business decision, etc.) we may feel a rush of grandiosity. After a particular embarrassing faux-pas, we may feel acutely judged and defend it with some posturing or rapid change-of-topic. I would suggest that if we are *healthy* (whatever that means) that these are passing episodes which we compartmentalize more than rationalize... too much rationalization can layer those ego-preserving/enhancing habits deeper into our selves. Some of my earliest/strongest memories involved some kind of acute embarrassment or abrupt awareness of my own vulnerability (even if not observed by others). To the extent I am aware of those moments and keep them somewhat walled off as exceptional moments rather than internalizing them as (ambiguous?) proof of my ultimate entitled powerfulness or my abject victimhood, I feel like I can use them to understand myself and the world I live in better, rather than slip into (yet more of) a fantasy that protects/supports my ego. Mumble > [†] By "sociopath", I mean something like: someone who doesn't mirror the feelings of others in themselves. Sorry if that's non-standard. I'm using it because I don't have a better word for such a person. > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Just FYI, you *forced* me to take another stupid personality test... I couldn't resist the link on that blog entry. It says I'm a good match for either INFP or INTP. At first, I was going to say there's no way in hell anyone would ever call me a "healer". But, then again, I got my first copy of the DSM (IV) from a therapist who worked mostly with the Hopi after discussing how I might use the DSM entries as the "genetic material" to build artificial personalities. He commented that that exercise was "good medicine". But, no. I reject INFP. Pffft.
I'm strongly attracted to the idea that presentation of enough narcissism to end up diagnosed with NPD would involve oscillation between grandiocity and vulnerability. I would push back against the word "oscillation" because that implies periodicity and an insensitivity to context. So interactive *modes* would be better. The Schröder-Abé and Fatfouta article makes an interesting distinction between shame and guilt: "Both include a negative evaluation, yet a key distinction lies in the differential involvement of the self (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). While shame focuses on the entire self (e.g., 'Why did _I_ do that?'), guilt focuses on a specific act or behavior of the self ('Why did I _do that_?')." [emphasis is theirs] I'm not competent to understand how deep the 2 [sub]types of narcissism might extend. But it fits my intuition that even the most extreme case would be adaptive to surroundings. Even if robust to shame and guilt, an extreme grandiose must at least get frustrated when their context keeps providing negative feedback. On 4/29/20 10:33 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I think your previous invocation of "modes of being" are apt here. I > suspect we all have our (minor? trivial? well-managed? well-hidden?) > episodes of all of these features of narcissism. Just after we hit a > lucky shot (pick your sport) or make a killer-prediction (stock market, > news, personal business decision, etc.) we may feel a rush of > grandiosity. After a particular embarrassing faux-pas, we may feel > acutely judged and defend it with some posturing or rapid > change-of-topic. I would suggest that if we are *healthy* (whatever > that means) that these are passing episodes which we compartmentalize > more than rationalize... too much rationalization can layer those > ego-preserving/enhancing habits deeper into our selves. > > Some of my earliest/strongest memories involved some kind of acute > embarrassment or abrupt awareness of my own vulnerability (even if not > observed by others). To the extent I am aware of those moments and keep > them somewhat walled off as exceptional moments rather than > internalizing them as (ambiguous?) proof of my ultimate entitled > powerfulness or my abject victimhood, I feel like I can use them to > understand myself and the world I live in better, rather than slip into > (yet more of) a fantasy that protects/supports my ego. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
I reject INFP. Pffft.
Reminds me when I said to a young woman that astrology is rubbish. She asked what my birthday was and I said May 1. She said, "Taurus! Of course!" --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Trump clearly gets frustrated by that very thing. I know, "So what?" By the way, regarding the subtypes of narcissism: They are distinguished by severity of symptoms rather than differences in the basic dynamic, which are the same. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 12:11 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: Just FYI, you *forced* me to take another stupid personality test... I couldn't resist the link on that blog entry. It says I'm a good match for either INFP or INTP. At first, I was going to say there's no way in hell anyone would ever call me a "healer". But, then again, I got my first copy of the DSM (IV) from a therapist who worked mostly with the Hopi after discussing how I might use the DSM entries as the "genetic material" to build artificial personalities. He commented that that exercise was "good medicine". But, no. I reject INFP. Pffft. .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
The evidence presented in Shröder-Abé et al does not support that. I worry about the authority with which you assert such things. At the very least, your lack of supporting evidence *prevents* me from doing any homework on my own that might support what you're saying. Everything I'm finding disagrees with you. Help me out, here.
On 4/29/20 11:23 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > By the way, regarding the subtypes of narcissism: They are distinguished by severity of symptoms rather than differences in the basic dynamic, which are the same. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |