Ad hominem

I was arguing with a friend about Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning). My friend did not think that Manning was a "hero" but rather that she was a tragic example of being so messed up by her transgender identity that she ruined her life by leaking all of that government information. It was hard not to think that my friend was just using Manning's trangender identity as an excuse to write her off and downplay her efforts.

People love to write other people off based on personal characteristics. I was reading an article about "journalese" (the jargon of journalists) that defined the word "coffers" as "Where organisations of which we disapprove keep money." Another recent article about someone the journalist clearly did not like described the subject's "dilapidated Victorian home," his "appearance more akin to Coronation Street’s hapless cafe owner Roy Cropper than a cutting-edge satirist," his "battered Toyota vehicle," and his "gap-toothed" maw.

We call these ad hominem arguments and they work because of our reductionist desire to simplify the world and people into clear cut categories of good and bad, troubled or heroes. From Wikipedia:

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to be all good or tending to be all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.

Under this reasoning, of course we can't believe that Private Manning acted in what she considered the best interests of her country -- how could she when she was in the midst of a gender identity crisis? Similarly, Edward Snowden seems simply too "weird" or unpredictable to be a hero.

What is particularly self-defeating about this type of thinking is that it suggests that certain types of people are not capable of certain actions. Transgendered people cannot be patriots. Eccentric people cannot be acting in what they think is the greater good. Ugly people cannot have good or important or at least legitimately controversial ideas. Disabled people cannot be commander in chief. Sociopaths cannot do pro-social things? The more we know about people's personal lives via social networking and the eternal memory of the internet, the easier it will be for us as a society to get tripped up in these fallacies. But the truth is that we can never predict people's behavior, especially not based on their appearance or their feelings about their gender, or how eloquently they're able to articulate their beliefs. And we can never know someone's true motivations. All we know and all we can see is what they say and do. So why can't we judge those things based on their own intrinsic merits, without also "considering the source"?

The hard way

I've realized recently that I go through cycles of liking to do things the easy way or the hard way. I almost quit music in secondary school (I wasn't particularly talented), but I ended up majoring in it at university because it was the most challenging thing that I could be doing at the time and I enjoyed the thought of turning a weakness into a strength. I eventually tired of the struggle so when I left music I chose law because I did well on the law school admission test, so I figured I was well suited for it. At that point in my life, I didn't want to bother with my weaknesses, only capitalize on my strengths. Since then I've alternated between focusing on either my weakness or strengths, maybe every few years or so.

Most understand the appeal of the easy way, but doing things the hard way has its own value (and Thoreau?). The Swedes understand this. Although most Swedes have access to some sort of cottage or summer home, many of these homes intentionally do not have indoor plumbing, an attempt to be closer to nature. I spent some time there with a friend and she much preferred cooking up a porridge on the side of the road with a camp stove, or a soup on the deck of a ferry, to anything remotely more convenient. Even though my visit was on the tail end of summer in the chilly Arctic Circle, she insisted that part of the experience of any trip was to sleep outside whenever possible. We would go days without using a normal toilet, much less shower. I was sometimes tempted to put my foot down and insist that we take advantage of modern amenities and conveniences for a change, but I didn't. And even though I have been on much more comfortable and more exotic trips, this one has remained my favorite I think largely because it required struggle. It required me to be resourceful and more actively engaged in every moment of the trip, whereas waking up in crisp hotel sheets and stumbling down the hall to a buffet breakfast required no thought at all. The former meant living every minute and the latter invited passivity and complacency, it's own sort of (worse) struggle.

When I first started writing the blog, it was in an effort to understand why my life seemed to self-destruct every few years. I thought maybe finding the reason why might keep it from happening again, but I seem to like to struggle. There's something rewarding about doing things the hard way, at least for now. And as artist Chuck Close said:

Get yourself in trouble. If you get yourself in trouble, you don’t have the answers. And if you don’t have the answers, your solution will more likely be personal because no one else’s solutions will seem appropriate. You’ll have to come up with your own. It's always wrong before it's right.” 

What you can learn from sociopaths (part 2)

Continued from the same reader, on the inauthenticity of neurotypicals, the downside of constantly looking to some uncertain future rather than living in the moment, the folly of "setting goals" for oneself, how empath wishful-thinking is a sociopath's playground, how the empath feeds the sociopath his lines, the impermeability of authentic empaths, and what you can learn from sociopaths:


The average neurotypical person is not in touch with his primal desires.  He is not authentic.  Instead he is concerned with some future benchmark that will bring in societal approval. This constant looking to the future prevents a realistic assessment and experience of the moment.  Instead the average neurotypical is constantly attempting to adjust and improve his character to something that will garner a legacy, social proof and close relationships.  Look at Facebook and see how many people are making plans for 5 years from now.  Then look at how they quote a famous philosopher whose words they have just read.  They haven't dwelled on these ideas long enough to comprehend them, let alone internalize them, and yet they think that by merely stating something that they will make it so.  Then before they are one step forward into living that quote they are quoting someone else.  

It's a character issue, average people constantly adjust their character in a Kentucky windage manner(also resembling the narcissist, albeit less extreme) leaving their authenticity just as muddled as before.  They lack a single-minded focus.  They are not in touch with their character because they don't know what it should be.  They are concerned with the future condition of their character and the acclaim that it will garner.  They are not concerned with where it is right now.  They don't know what it is because they see character as something to optimize.  They don't see it as something that just is--something that grows slowly, methodically and subconsciously through habit.  And since they are not interested in where their character is at present they are unlikely to figure out exactly what they truly feel or how they truly are at any given moment.  The average neurotypical thinks he can just wish a new and better character into existence. No wonder team-building workshops and self improvement seminars are always booked.  This wishfulness and lack of present-mindedness opens up weaknesses in the average person.  These weaknesses are ripe for the sociopath with his single-minded drive to exploit.

Character exists in the present, is personal and isn't subject to the reactions of others.  Socially brave/adept neurotypicals know this secret and so do sociopaths.  

The sociopath uses this character flux against the neurotypical and easily permeates the guard.  The sociopath can easily establish a strong rapport.  They just compliment the neurotypical on his/her latent gifts, brilliant opinions, great personality, groundedness, and his/her level-headed approach to life (which the sociopath also claims to share).  This validation of "I like you because I'm like you" feeds the social-proof need of the neurotypical.  The neurotypical leaves the interaction with the sociopath feeling better understood and more validated.  To improve the high the sociopath gave him the neurotypical doesn't apply a scientific eye to what just happened.  Looking at the rapport realistically would make it lose some of its wonder. This lack of realism accompanied with desire for more validation makes him drop his guard to the sociopath.  Once charmed the neurotypical will telegraph what he wants to hear before he asks.  The sociopath can just sit back and be coached into the right lines.

If the average person had more authenticity and a stronger sense of self than he wouldn't be as easily placated with the praise and agreement of the sociopath.

Outgoing authentic neurotypicals, or even cantankerous Clint Eastwood-types are not easily impressed by agreement and outside validation. Authentic neurotypicals are adept neurotypicals. I have great respect for them. They are confident and have the sociopath's level of calm.  They are authentic both inside and outside.  This manifests itself when they are not gun-shy on opinions (the way a sociopath is).  Their opinions are uniquely their own and not solely a means to impress.  In turn this means when they say something they validate themselves through consistency within themselves.  Adept people validate themselves through consistency and authenticity.  These kind of people become comfortable enough in conversation to take strong stances and open themselves up to argument and rejection. They let others know where they stand regardless of the chances for rejection.  This authenticity is a commodity to them and it works best when they project it.  They make what they think strongly apparent to others.  They project honesty, authenticity their personal brand into the environment. They attract strong allies and make it clear that dissenters, and sociopaths, should stay out of their way.  

So neurotypicals can say what they will of the sociopath's mask but at least the sociopath is internally consistent and that is something they should learn.

Character (part 1)

I have gotten a little bit of flack about the idea of a "sociopath code," that it is too Dexter-Hollywood, and that no real sociopath had a "code" that they live by. Ok, fair enough. The term "code" is maybe a little misleading in this context.

But there are a lot of reasons to have some sort of standard why you conduct yourself. Here's what a recent commenter had to say about the utility of having such a standard :

You said, "The only code that’s worth having or that I respect is becoming the best in whatever you decided to do." 

When you can't feel empathy for other people it makes it easy to manipulate and hurt them for whatever reason you see fit. I was taught my code by my grandfather, at an early age after many years of violent and manipulative behaviors. I knew the differences between right and wrong, I just didn't care because I never felt them. He taught me to use those abilities to protect the people who are close to me and that being able to do those things for my own immediate selfish reasons was the lazy way to react, and in the long run would not allow me to do what I wanted to do in the first place. 

It took several years before I understood what he meant. Not until after a few issues with the court system. It made me completely powerless; I could no longer do what I wanted. Afterward when I returned to school a friend of mine got into a fight. He had done something to provoke it and felt so bad about it that he couldn't defend himself, he just took the beating. A few days later they crossed paths in the hallway and my friend got sucker punched and didn't defend himself again, he couldn't he still felt bad. I stepped in for him and after slamming the guys head between and open locker and its door several times was promptly sent back to my 10x10.

The judge was impressed that I had thought about somebody else for a change instead of only myself and gave me no time. What he didn’t know was that I really was only thinking about myself he only saw the ‘good’ that I had done. In his eyes, I stood up to a bully for a friend who couldn’t defend himself. Personally I didn’t see it that way, he pissed ME off, disrespected MY friend and was going to take whatever punishment I gave him as a consequence. 

When I returned to school again, I had a different mindset, a code to base my behaviors on if you will. I still live my life based on that code to this day. I learned that appearing to be in the service of others who feel they cannot defend or stand up for themselves brings more long term opportunities for me. Who wants to sit in jail, where is the fun in that?