What is the single biggest social problem facing the West now? Well, there are many problems, all serious. However, if I were to pick one I would say narcissism. Why would I say that? That takes some explaining, to say the least. I will attempt to do that in this article and others which will follow. The scope of the subject is such that for proper understanding it must be split into parts. This article provides a preamble of sorts, the next one will discuss what narcissism probably is (the mechanism behind it), and the third will discuss the consequences in a wider context. Perhaps there will even be more than three articles – I don’t know at this point in time. This article is a bit long, and a bit dry, but to make it easier to read I have added liberal amounts of sarcasm for readers’ enjoyment.
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).
"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.
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.
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.?
….“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.
Too soon to know where you are headed in terms of the source mechanism for this behavioral pattern, but below is something I wrote previously that may be helpful to you as additional perspective.
Nature and nurture.
Nature is your DNA; it’s the hand you’ve been dealt by virtue of genetics. Nurture is the programming you receive post-birth that gets hardwired during the years when your brain doubles in size. Language is an obvious example. Religious inculcation is largely about instilling local and effective wisdom. Same for broader cultural traditions that have proven to “work” in your community.
And for most of our history, nurture was the province of local influences; family, church, schools, and civic leadership figures. Then broadcast radio and television invaded home life and introduced an entirely new form of indoctrination that has come to augment traditional nurturing. Fast-forward to the internet and smart phone revolutions and external nurturing indoctrination has now become supercharged and overwhelming.
At first it was advertisers that commandeered these new communications platforms and the goal was simply higher profits. However, seeing this success story, nefarious bad actors (think people like George Soros) seized upon this phenomenon to exert directed control over this programming and have changed the species fundamentally.
We are at a dangerous crossroads in our evolutionary development. If we continue as is, colony collapse is unavoidable. A course change is therefore imperative. And there is a smart way to go about it that results in the highest probability of success.
I look forward to your series. Though I have a pet theory too: the main problem is the all-pervasive belief in objective (thus secular) reality principally due to reductionist materialism (aka scientism) - the belief that only physical matter is real so anything not physical is not real (and beneath contempt).
It's not actually that different a perspective since both theories come down to positing a mistaken view as the issue. Also, you could shave narcissism down a tad to egoism, being self-obsessed, overly self-referential. Too much emphasis on 'this' and not enough awareness of 'not-this' or 'that', also self not other.
In brain terms a la Iain McGilchrest ("The Matter with Things"), it is over-emphasis on left brain (which is mainly representational and concept-laden, seeing parts rather than wholes) versus right brain (which sees larger contexts, wholes rather than parts).
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).
"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.
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.
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.?
….“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.
Too soon to know where you are headed in terms of the source mechanism for this behavioral pattern, but below is something I wrote previously that may be helpful to you as additional perspective.
Nature and nurture.
Nature is your DNA; it’s the hand you’ve been dealt by virtue of genetics. Nurture is the programming you receive post-birth that gets hardwired during the years when your brain doubles in size. Language is an obvious example. Religious inculcation is largely about instilling local and effective wisdom. Same for broader cultural traditions that have proven to “work” in your community.
And for most of our history, nurture was the province of local influences; family, church, schools, and civic leadership figures. Then broadcast radio and television invaded home life and introduced an entirely new form of indoctrination that has come to augment traditional nurturing. Fast-forward to the internet and smart phone revolutions and external nurturing indoctrination has now become supercharged and overwhelming.
At first it was advertisers that commandeered these new communications platforms and the goal was simply higher profits. However, seeing this success story, nefarious bad actors (think people like George Soros) seized upon this phenomenon to exert directed control over this programming and have changed the species fundamentally.
We are at a dangerous crossroads in our evolutionary development. If we continue as is, colony collapse is unavoidable. A course change is therefore imperative. And there is a smart way to go about it that results in the highest probability of success.
I look forward to your series. Though I have a pet theory too: the main problem is the all-pervasive belief in objective (thus secular) reality principally due to reductionist materialism (aka scientism) - the belief that only physical matter is real so anything not physical is not real (and beneath contempt).
https://ashleyschowes.substack.com/p/article-70-the-invisible-gorilla ; subtitle: The blinding effect of reductionist materialism
(Fun .gif in 30 seconds demonstrating left-brain induced cognitive blindness: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/MotionBlindnessf.gif/450px-MotionBlindnessf.gif )
It's not actually that different a perspective since both theories come down to positing a mistaken view as the issue. Also, you could shave narcissism down a tad to egoism, being self-obsessed, overly self-referential. Too much emphasis on 'this' and not enough awareness of 'not-this' or 'that', also self not other.
In brain terms a la Iain McGilchrest ("The Matter with Things"), it is over-emphasis on left brain (which is mainly representational and concept-laden, seeing parts rather than wholes) versus right brain (which sees larger contexts, wholes rather than parts).
Anyway, looking forward to more.
Re "Also, you could shave narcissism down a tad ..." Agree. Just look at the classical images of Narcissus. A picture is worth a thousand words.