Great post, Gaius. Seems like having male characteristics - e.g., holding your emotions in check - is bad and having female characteristics - e.g., being sensitive - is good. As men become more feminized, they become more narcissistic. Trannies are the ultimate expression of narcissism, at least after the ubiquitous selfie.
Interesting article. As I am greek I want to explain something about the sympathy/empathy difference: those words are greek in origin. Their meaning in greek(modern as well as ancient) is totaly opposite: sympathy means liking sb and having similar taste and on the other hand empathy means having bad and ill feelings about sb.The usage that english-speaking people have for the word empathy as sth positive is quite perplexing for an english-knowing greek person
Just like hemlines, there are fads and fashions in psychiatry. The current fad diagnoses are bipolar disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder. Twenty years from now they will be out of fashion, and rarely diagnosed, just like hysterical neurosis is out of fashion today (but still with us).
Competing for the title of single biggest social problem facing the west is something different than narcissism. It is self-loathing.
Self-loathing is everywhere, manifests in many different guises and results in social destruction.
Some of the presentations of this pernicious social problems: a woman identifying as a black woman and leading a black organization (Rachel Dolezal); non-Native Americans identifying as Native Americans (Elizabeth Warren is only one variation of this problem); the contagion of people identifying as cats, dogs, and other things they aren't; every carrier of XY DNA who claims to be a woman; body modification persons; and others. Once you define the problem of self-loathing, you can probably think of another type you have experienced. It is so pervasive we see each instance as something different, when it is really of the same psychological fabric.
Persons who hate who they are usually don't sit quietly and rue their existence. They publicly rage about it, often violently. It gives them anguish, but they cannot identify the source of their torment. They can't face the fact of who and what they really are, so they act out. They hate themselves, but they are blind to that they can't bring themselves to recognize that, and this creates an anger inside them which they take out on everyone else.
The Greeks understood the myth of Narcissus differently than the modern understanding. They knew that Narcissus did not recognize the image that he fell in love with was himself. That was the lesson of the myth to them.
Similarly, neither the narcissist nor the self-loather recognizes what they see in the mirror. The narcissist loves it, the self-loather hates it, but neither one understands their real self.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." - Edward Bernays (responsible for changing the word 'propaganda' into 'public relations')
Gaius, you wrote a provocative piece but I'm twisted on whether empathy is involved.
I still find it possible that the reading of emotion is a learned trait. Some people study to be surgeons because of the challenge and thrill, not for their love of humanity. A psychopath can study those he wishes to prey upon, the same way any predator does, but with the enjoyment of a cat.
But I can't fault your argument, so now I'm schitzo on this, which means you were successful at stimulating thought.
I'll be lazy and repeat this on your repost on Larry's page.
I'm good at reading other people's emotional states. I can tell you that I was able to do that as long as my memory goes back. I personnaly don't think it's learned.
This is great. I'm really happy to have come across Gauis (via Larry's page, of course).
One thing I would add to the list of symptoms curiously left out of the DSM's list of narcissistic "traits" is that of telling untruths, of lying in order to get what you want. We could simply say that a narcissist is a selfish, emotionally manipulative liar. That none of that shows up on the list of "traits" is pretty damning.
In my experience, it’s usually lying by omission so as not to get caught out. There is an impression created but then challenged they will deny this through the lack of explicit evidence. Like when Huberman denied having made a commitment to the woman he was undergoing IVF with. She thought they were creating a family together, he said it was only “creating embryos”. That’s what makes no sense. If they have strong emotional needs, why do they drive people away through emotional cruelty and manipulation.?
I am quite late with my comment, having backtracked to this after stumbling over a more recent article of yours - but it reminds me of my own journey to understand human nature, of myself, people I had relations with - and then society. Undoubtedly one needs a model for this - but as you say all models of personality and psychological disorders are descriptive - but not structural, leave alone dynamic - and so there is only a weak link between those two areas. What I stayed with was Jeffery Alan Gray's "Reinforcement sensitivity theory" describing our impulses - supplemented by a home-brew (from various sources) model of cognitive abilities (including consciousness) that interplay with the impulses. This already implies that impulses and abilities, as innate characteristics we start out with, differ quite widely (more closely studied lately as temperament of children) - but it is really their activation (mostly by mimicking/resonance), development (by conditioning/learning), wherein they interact in complex and completely individual ways that define a personality. Now, in this framework empathy is an ability (also amenable to development), whereas goodwill is more of an impulse (quite innate and fundmental, part of Gray's BAS) - and fear/insecurity (also expressing as need) more or less it's complement (related to Gray's FFS and BIS). So a narcissistic person has the ability empathy but is low on the impulses of goodwill - instead high on the complementary fear/insecurity/need. An altruistic person has the impulse of goodwill, whether or not he is high in the ability of empathy - or even intelligent, remembering that some of the most compassionate people are quite simple.
I got entangled with a narcissist on a project and would argue that she manipulated the APPEARANCE of empathy. She was extremely controlling, with no regard whatsoever for my feelings about doing all of the creative work, yet she drew fa contract or herself without my input that imposed a 5-/50 creative split. She did not honor that creative contribution in any way other than whether she would agree to type my ideas or not. It was all about power and control, and any time I tried to express my needs, she would play at being OFFENDED.
Her emotions -- which I had to constantly dodge and "control" by behaving according to her whims (which required reading her mind and forgetting about my own feelings) were hinged entirely on an external locus of control. And it's the external locus of control that is dominating discourse today. Other people are responsible for your "feelings." You are not. This is narcissism writ large.
So it seems to me that the "empathy" factor is an external locus of control empathy, as opposed to what may appear to be "low empathy," internal locus of control. This might apply to myself. Emotions are controlled so as not to upset someone ELSE, along with an ability to recognize how certain behaviors might carry negative effects on OTHERS, while at times behaving as if one's personal feelings should be set aside for the common good. I notice that many people (women mostly) can't handle even discussing subjects that don't bother me at all, subjects that we need to discuss. I have a very high tolerance which may read as "low empathy" but in reality is high empathy because I am trying to understand how to truly fix problems as opposed to hiding from them.
This narcissist I worked with couldn't watch most TV shows because they "upset" her too much, for example. This is masquerading as empathy, but it reads to me as an attempt to control the facade of being "sensitive" and "caring" when in fact, it's an utter lack of curiosity and interest in the outside world and what truly goes on in it.
I’m an old man now but over the years involved in family, organizations, sports and running businesses I recognized Narcissistic behavior years ago but haven’t been articulate enough to describe it as you have. I have, though been adroit enough to recognize narcissists. I’ve always said they can never be completely avoided. My antidote was that there was at least one asshole in every group of people. I used to say it’s part of the original sin. Realizing this phenomena I was able to deal with many turds. If possible fire or eliminate them from the groups. If that doesn’t work publicly expose them. They are a very sneaky lot and prey on a few developing supporters that add to disruption. Like a cancer cut them out. Once exposed you will be surprised by others who thank you for dealing with this crap. They all recognize the Narcissist but are too afraid to deal with them. No one likes public confrontations. Just remember if you see someone as a narcissist and miserable malcontent so does everyone else.
….“A narcissist is a highly emotionally charged person with great and selfish emotional needs, who exploits and manipulates other people to fulfill those needs.”….
I allways thougth it was the tragic result of drowning yourself to death due to your utmost unchecked vanity as per in the greek myth where nobody was either manipulated or exploited, except the subject himself.
Great read, and surprisingly exciting too, and with a cliffhanger no less!
I do have one question for you though. Your explanation of the working of empathy leaves out the mechanism (?) of rational-empathy, which as the name implies, is based on the rational-self, and not the emotional-self, in reading and interpreting emotions and their consequences in others. How do you see this mechanism in the overall picture of empathy?
Very interesting article. What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me. It can explain phenomena I observe in my life and in society at large. Looking forward to your next article.
“...it is difficult to create an explanatory mechanism without primary/biological traits.”
The above was perhaps one of the most important understandings I’ve come to in my HBD journey of understanding.
They say “the poison is in the dose”. I’ve always thought a little narcissism is healthy in all individuals (certainly as opposed to a complete lack of such). What you speak of here would begin at the extreme of the spectrum and at that end, I usually describe such folk as sociopaths or psychopaths. In that, I most often consider narcissism as an associated trait of sociopathic/psychopathic personalities—but I’ve no training in these areas and find them confusing to adequately describe to others. What is not confusing is my interaction with such people. To know them is to hate them and definitely to avoid them. They are soul sucking.
Great post, Gaius. Seems like having male characteristics - e.g., holding your emotions in check - is bad and having female characteristics - e.g., being sensitive - is good. As men become more feminized, they become more narcissistic. Trannies are the ultimate expression of narcissism, at least after the ubiquitous selfie.
Interesting article. As I am greek I want to explain something about the sympathy/empathy difference: those words are greek in origin. Their meaning in greek(modern as well as ancient) is totaly opposite: sympathy means liking sb and having similar taste and on the other hand empathy means having bad and ill feelings about sb.The usage that english-speaking people have for the word empathy as sth positive is quite perplexing for an english-knowing greek person
I look forward to seeing where you take this.
Just like hemlines, there are fads and fashions in psychiatry. The current fad diagnoses are bipolar disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder. Twenty years from now they will be out of fashion, and rarely diagnosed, just like hysterical neurosis is out of fashion today (but still with us).
Competing for the title of single biggest social problem facing the west is something different than narcissism. It is self-loathing.
Self-loathing is everywhere, manifests in many different guises and results in social destruction.
Some of the presentations of this pernicious social problems: a woman identifying as a black woman and leading a black organization (Rachel Dolezal); non-Native Americans identifying as Native Americans (Elizabeth Warren is only one variation of this problem); the contagion of people identifying as cats, dogs, and other things they aren't; every carrier of XY DNA who claims to be a woman; body modification persons; and others. Once you define the problem of self-loathing, you can probably think of another type you have experienced. It is so pervasive we see each instance as something different, when it is really of the same psychological fabric.
Persons who hate who they are usually don't sit quietly and rue their existence. They publicly rage about it, often violently. It gives them anguish, but they cannot identify the source of their torment. They can't face the fact of who and what they really are, so they act out. They hate themselves, but they are blind to that they can't bring themselves to recognize that, and this creates an anger inside them which they take out on everyone else.
The Greeks understood the myth of Narcissus differently than the modern understanding. They knew that Narcissus did not recognize the image that he fell in love with was himself. That was the lesson of the myth to them.
Similarly, neither the narcissist nor the self-loather recognizes what they see in the mirror. The narcissist loves it, the self-loather hates it, but neither one understands their real self.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." - Edward Bernays (responsible for changing the word 'propaganda' into 'public relations')
Gaius, you wrote a provocative piece but I'm twisted on whether empathy is involved.
I still find it possible that the reading of emotion is a learned trait. Some people study to be surgeons because of the challenge and thrill, not for their love of humanity. A psychopath can study those he wishes to prey upon, the same way any predator does, but with the enjoyment of a cat.
But I can't fault your argument, so now I'm schitzo on this, which means you were successful at stimulating thought.
I'll be lazy and repeat this on your repost on Larry's page.
I'm good at reading other people's emotional states. I can tell you that I was able to do that as long as my memory goes back. I personnaly don't think it's learned.
This is great. I'm really happy to have come across Gauis (via Larry's page, of course).
One thing I would add to the list of symptoms curiously left out of the DSM's list of narcissistic "traits" is that of telling untruths, of lying in order to get what you want. We could simply say that a narcissist is a selfish, emotionally manipulative liar. That none of that shows up on the list of "traits" is pretty damning.
In my experience, it’s usually lying by omission so as not to get caught out. There is an impression created but then challenged they will deny this through the lack of explicit evidence. Like when Huberman denied having made a commitment to the woman he was undergoing IVF with. She thought they were creating a family together, he said it was only “creating embryos”. That’s what makes no sense. If they have strong emotional needs, why do they drive people away through emotional cruelty and manipulation.?
I am quite late with my comment, having backtracked to this after stumbling over a more recent article of yours - but it reminds me of my own journey to understand human nature, of myself, people I had relations with - and then society. Undoubtedly one needs a model for this - but as you say all models of personality and psychological disorders are descriptive - but not structural, leave alone dynamic - and so there is only a weak link between those two areas. What I stayed with was Jeffery Alan Gray's "Reinforcement sensitivity theory" describing our impulses - supplemented by a home-brew (from various sources) model of cognitive abilities (including consciousness) that interplay with the impulses. This already implies that impulses and abilities, as innate characteristics we start out with, differ quite widely (more closely studied lately as temperament of children) - but it is really their activation (mostly by mimicking/resonance), development (by conditioning/learning), wherein they interact in complex and completely individual ways that define a personality. Now, in this framework empathy is an ability (also amenable to development), whereas goodwill is more of an impulse (quite innate and fundmental, part of Gray's BAS) - and fear/insecurity (also expressing as need) more or less it's complement (related to Gray's FFS and BIS). So a narcissistic person has the ability empathy but is low on the impulses of goodwill - instead high on the complementary fear/insecurity/need. An altruistic person has the impulse of goodwill, whether or not he is high in the ability of empathy - or even intelligent, remembering that some of the most compassionate people are quite simple.
I got entangled with a narcissist on a project and would argue that she manipulated the APPEARANCE of empathy. She was extremely controlling, with no regard whatsoever for my feelings about doing all of the creative work, yet she drew fa contract or herself without my input that imposed a 5-/50 creative split. She did not honor that creative contribution in any way other than whether she would agree to type my ideas or not. It was all about power and control, and any time I tried to express my needs, she would play at being OFFENDED.
Her emotions -- which I had to constantly dodge and "control" by behaving according to her whims (which required reading her mind and forgetting about my own feelings) were hinged entirely on an external locus of control. And it's the external locus of control that is dominating discourse today. Other people are responsible for your "feelings." You are not. This is narcissism writ large.
So it seems to me that the "empathy" factor is an external locus of control empathy, as opposed to what may appear to be "low empathy," internal locus of control. This might apply to myself. Emotions are controlled so as not to upset someone ELSE, along with an ability to recognize how certain behaviors might carry negative effects on OTHERS, while at times behaving as if one's personal feelings should be set aside for the common good. I notice that many people (women mostly) can't handle even discussing subjects that don't bother me at all, subjects that we need to discuss. I have a very high tolerance which may read as "low empathy" but in reality is high empathy because I am trying to understand how to truly fix problems as opposed to hiding from them.
This narcissist I worked with couldn't watch most TV shows because they "upset" her too much, for example. This is masquerading as empathy, but it reads to me as an attempt to control the facade of being "sensitive" and "caring" when in fact, it's an utter lack of curiosity and interest in the outside world and what truly goes on in it.
I’m an old man now but over the years involved in family, organizations, sports and running businesses I recognized Narcissistic behavior years ago but haven’t been articulate enough to describe it as you have. I have, though been adroit enough to recognize narcissists. I’ve always said they can never be completely avoided. My antidote was that there was at least one asshole in every group of people. I used to say it’s part of the original sin. Realizing this phenomena I was able to deal with many turds. If possible fire or eliminate them from the groups. If that doesn’t work publicly expose them. They are a very sneaky lot and prey on a few developing supporters that add to disruption. Like a cancer cut them out. Once exposed you will be surprised by others who thank you for dealing with this crap. They all recognize the Narcissist but are too afraid to deal with them. No one likes public confrontations. Just remember if you see someone as a narcissist and miserable malcontent so does everyone else.
….“A narcissist is a highly emotionally charged person with great and selfish emotional needs, who exploits and manipulates other people to fulfill those needs.”….
I allways thougth it was the tragic result of drowning yourself to death due to your utmost unchecked vanity as per in the greek myth where nobody was either manipulated or exploited, except the subject himself.
Thank you for a very interesting read.
Great read, and surprisingly exciting too, and with a cliffhanger no less!
I do have one question for you though. Your explanation of the working of empathy leaves out the mechanism (?) of rational-empathy, which as the name implies, is based on the rational-self, and not the emotional-self, in reading and interpreting emotions and their consequences in others. How do you see this mechanism in the overall picture of empathy?
Thank you for the comment (that applies to all of you!)
As a matter of fact, I have a piece planned on this issue - which is in my opinion an important one.
I'm glad to hear it, and await it with feverish anticipation, (damn your cliff-hanger!).
Interesting post, many thanks for this. Look forward to the next instalment…
Very interesting article. What you're saying makes a lot of sense to me. It can explain phenomena I observe in my life and in society at large. Looking forward to your next article.
Looking forward to future posts on this subject.
“...it is difficult to create an explanatory mechanism without primary/biological traits.”
The above was perhaps one of the most important understandings I’ve come to in my HBD journey of understanding.
They say “the poison is in the dose”. I’ve always thought a little narcissism is healthy in all individuals (certainly as opposed to a complete lack of such). What you speak of here would begin at the extreme of the spectrum and at that end, I usually describe such folk as sociopaths or psychopaths. In that, I most often consider narcissism as an associated trait of sociopathic/psychopathic personalities—but I’ve no training in these areas and find them confusing to adequately describe to others. What is not confusing is my interaction with such people. To know them is to hate them and definitely to avoid them. They are soul sucking.