Showing posts with label famous narcissists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label famous narcissists. Show all posts

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Famous Narcissists: Ernest Hemingway?

From a NY Times article, referencing Ernest Hemingway's intermittent way of getting back to good writing in his bloated later years:

Yet Hemingway was not a healthy man during the latter phases in his life. He was drunk much of the time; he often began drinking at breakfast and his brother counted 17 Scotch-and-sodas in a day. His wives complained that he was sporadic about bathing. He was obsessed with his weight and recorded it on the wall of his house.

He could be lively and funny, the organizer of exciting adventures. But he could also be depressed, combative and demoralized. His ego overflowed. F. Scott Fitzgerald, who endured a psychological crisis at about the same time, observed that Hemingway “is quite as nervously broken down as I am, but it manifests itself in different ways. His inclination is toward megalomania and mine toward melancholy.”

Even as a young man Hemingway exaggerated his (already prodigious) exploits in order to establish his manliness. When he was older his prima donna proclivities could make him, as one visiting photographer put it, “crazy,” “drunk” and “berserk.”

He was a prisoner of his own celebrity. He’d become famous at 25 and by middle age he was often just playing at being Ernest Hemingway. The poet David Whyte has written that work “is a place you can lose yourself more easily perhaps than finding yourself … losing all sense of our own voice, our own contribution and conversation.” Hemingway seems to have lost track of his own authentic voice in the midst of the public persona he’d created.

His misogyny was also like a cancer that ate out his insides. He was an extremely sensitive man, who suffered much from the merest slights, but was also an extremely dominating, cruel and self-indulgent one, who judged his wives harshly, slapped them when angry and forced them to bear all the known forms of disloyalty.

By this time, much of his writing rang false. Reviewer after reviewer said he had destroyed his own talent. His former mentor Gertrude Stein said he was a coward.

I went to a presentation today by someone that appeared to be a narcissist. He was old, and his mannerisms both betrayed pomposity and a deep insecurity and concern for whether he was being perceived as some great scholar or intellect. He combined an odd amount of name dropping with an awkward obsequiousness to the people who invited him to speak, calling one of them by the wrong name at one point in a case of trying to hard to endear himself and fumbling in the effort. But narcissists don't irritate me anymore. And I don't want to say I feel sorry for them, because I feel like that's it's own form of both (my) pride and (their) offense. But sociopaths and narcissists are an interesting comparison because both live empty lives, but the sociopath tends to embrace his with a nihilistic glee while the narcissist is afraid of his, like to look the shadow in the eye would cause him to lose all hope for a happy life. Just ramblings. 

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Out for blood

Our friendly narcissist correspondent reader shared this article about Lance Armstrong. I thought the reporters action oddly paralleled that of what I've seen from a lot of people who have been burned by sociopaths. Worth reading in its entirety, here is main thrust of the reporter's reactions:

What I wanted was to find him slumped in his uneasy chair, naked nails on the wall, haircut in his hands, not even a poodle by his side.

I wanted someone who was sorry -- sorry for what he'd done, sorry for what was next, sorry to be stuck in his new, sorry life.

But that's not what I found.

Lance Armstrong is happy. In fact, he looks better at 42 than I've ever seen him, less gaunt in the face, thicker in the chest, bluer in the eyes. I found a man sitting in his den, surrounded by his seven Tour de France chalices, his 3-year-old, Olivia, on his lap, kissing him and laughing.

Really pissed me off.

I came to see ruins, not joy. I came to see a man ruined for lying to me for 14 years -- and letting me pass those lies on to you. Ruined for lying to everybody. And not just lying to the world, but lying angrily, lying recklessly and leaving good people wrecked in his lies.

It wasn't enough he'd been stripped of his seven wins, not enough that, so far, he'd lost half his estimated $120 million fortune to lawsuits, had to sell homes, his jet, lost every single endorsement (another $150 million), his earning capacity, and his association with the very foundation he started and built, Livestrong-- with two more lawsuits to go.

Yet here he was telling me he was "at peace" with it. I didn't want him at peace. I wanted him in pieces.
***
"People are going to call bulls--- on this, but I've never been happier. Never been happier with myself or my family. My kids suffer no bullying at school. Nobody says anything to them. They're doing great. Anna and I are extremely happy and content. It's true."

As I left, I thought about my motives for coming at all.

If a man has suffered the loss of more than half his wealth and 100 percent of his reputation, how much more blood should I want? I felt a little shame in coming at all.

As I come to the end of my sportswriting career, I wonder whether I need to make peace, too. Peace with the athletes who thrilled me, then disgusted me. Pete Rose, Ben Johnson, Mark McGwire, Marion Jones, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong. Peace with letting myself be thrilled, and then fooled, time and again. Why carry it as I go? And if Armstrong is over it, why aren't I? "You've got to live life no matter what's going on," Anna says. "Cancer teaches you that. Life isn't going to wait."

So I forgive Lance Armstrong for all the lies, though he's not asking for my forgiveness. And maybe I forgive myself for letting myself be lied to in the first place. And I thank him for the hope he still gives the millions who still believe in him, though I'm not one of them.

I like that the reporter was aware that a lot of his negative feelings were his own pride being hurt because he was duped, but you wonder what did he expect?.The reporter thinks he is somehow special that he would be treated differently than everyone else in the world? (For a better reaction to Lance Armstrong, see Matthew McConaughey.) And maybe part of me has a hard time taking sports seriously, but it also reminds me of this quote from Eleanor Roosevelt "you have been honest with yourself and those around you"? Really? Because I think word on the street is that Eleanor Roosevelt was a closeted gay woman in a sham marriage as someone's beard, which may or may not constitute fraud on the entire American people. But we aren't pissed at her, I guess because she didn't hurt hundreds of other cyclists who would have placed slightly higher than they otherwise did (although, again in weighing pros and cons fashion, Armstrong arguably did more to benefit cycling as a whole by raising awareness and popularizing it than he ever hurt it as a whole or hurt individual cyclists, even in the aggregate.)

Our narcissist reader's thoughts:

When narcissists like Lance stop caring about being admired, they change in a fundamental way.

Before his striving was focused on winning and getting away with it - securing as much admiration as he could. Now he's probably focused on helping his kids, staying on good terms with his wife and managing his investments. That is, more utilitarian concerns. If you offered Lance enough money, he might star in a porn film to benefit cancer victims, because he'd think, "well, my reputation is worth nothing now, but we can turn my celebrity into money for cancer victims, so let's go!"

He is probably still noticeably psychopathic. If Lance thinks, "that was a good day", and you ask him why, it is probably because he ate some nice food, had a big orgasm and made a lot of money in the market. That is, thrilling. He might not remember days as the one where he had a deep emotional conversation with his partner, someone opened a door for him and he felt gratitude or he took a walk and felt wonderment and awe that he is alive, has legs that work, eyes and a mind that sees, etc.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Breaking Bad: Is Walter White a Sociopath?

AMC's hit show, "Breaking Bad" returns this Sunday and some are asking "How Walter White Found His Inner Sociopath".  The show details the exploits of a chemistry teacher turned meth kingpin who finds his hands getting dirtier and dirtier until he seems to lose most of his humanity. Or does he? A.O. Scott writes for the NY Times:

In truth, though, his development over five seasons has been less a shocking transformation than a series of confirmations. Mr. Gilligan’s busy and inventive narrative machinery has provided plenty of cleverly executed surprises, but these have all served to reveal the Walter White who was there all along. The sides of his personality — sociopath and family man, scientist and killer, rational being and creature of impulse, entrepreneur and loser — are not necessarily as contradictory as we might have supposed.
***
Walter may have wanted us to believe — and may, at moments, have convinced himself — that he was a decent man driven by desperate circumstances to do terrible things, but that notion was either wishful thinking or tactical deceit. Viewed as a whole, in optimal binge conditions, with the blinds pulled down and the pizza boxes and chicken wrappers piling up around the couch, “Breaking Bad” reveals itself as the story of a man mastering his vocation and fighting to claim his rightful place in the world. 

But is he really a sociopath? He is great at lying. That's probably one of the most entertaining parts about the show. He is amazing at coming up with an answer that fits the facts, like a sort of WebMD for excuses that fit the symptoms perfectly yet innocuously. Where did all of this cash come from? He has a gambling problem. Why did his wife just have an emotional breakdown? She was having an affair and her lover is in the hospital. He is the master of deflection and playing upon not just people's emotions, but especially their expectations about him (as a loser, but ultimately harmless) and the world (that bad people are not your friends, relatives, and neighbors but people who seem "off" to you).

However, I don't think he is a sociopath. He may act like how one expects a sociopath to act (ruthless, disloyal, power hungry), but his motivations seem all wrong. If he was a sociopath, why does he constantly cling to an image that he's a good dad/husband/friend making the most of a bad situation? From the NY Times:

Walter is almost as good at self-justification as he is at cooking meth, and over the course of the series, he has not hesitated to give high-minded reasons for his lowest actions. In his own mind, he remains a righteous figure, an apostle of family values, free enterprise and scientific progress. 

For instance:

Walt: "When we do what we do for good reasons, then we've got nothing to worry about. And there's no better reason than family."

Here he extends his typical self-justification to his wife:

Walt: Skyler, you can't beat yourself up over this thing. Please. You didn't set out to hurt anybody. You made a mistake and things got out of control. But you did what you had to do to protect your family. And I'm sorry, but that doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you a human being. 

Skyler: Stop it, Walt. Just stop. I don't need to hear any of your bullshit rationales.

And an incredibly insensitive and oblivious moment of self-absorption:

Walt: So how are you feeling? 

Jesse: Okay, I guess. Broke it off with Andrea. I had to. She's gonna tell Brock. I'm still gonna take care of the rent and stuff. It's the right thing to do, but, you know-- 

Walt: (interrupting) I meant this. (gestures behind) How are you feeling about the money?

And finally the over the top but insincere display of emotions and taking huge offense when the sincerity is questioned:

Walt: I am just as upset as you are. 

Jesse: Are you? 

Walt: Really? How can you say that to me? Jesus! I mean, I'm the one who's the father here. What, do I have to curl up in a ball in tears in front of you? 

Walt in all of his self-centeredness clearly thinks that not only do his ends justify any means he chooses, but it's clear that this process of justification is important to him. If he were a sociopath, why he would care at all? As a corporate executive put it upon seeing Walt and his team balk at killing two innocent witnesses, "I thought you guys were professionals." But there's hardly anything professional about them. Despite being extremely clever and calculating (he fakes an emotional breakdown in his brother-in-law's DEA office to tap his phone), he seems like a prototypical narcissist who lets his emotions rule him, particularly his feeling that his talents were never truly appreciated and so he is finally going to make them realize that he is a force to be reckoned with. A sociopath would not care what people thought of him, as long as he was getting and doing what he wanted to get/do.

Walter White is also a great example of why I don't value people's "good" intentions--because they're incredibly subjective, often misplaced, and sometimes used to justify horrible atrocities. People never feel that they have done anything wrong as long as their intentions were not malicious. It reminds me of this recent comment from a reader:

Intentions don't matter. Hitler's intentions were good. What are good intentions? It depends who you're talking to. If you talk to the chicken just before you kill it and tell it "Hey chicken, my intentions are good, I don't want to be misunderstood, I'm just gonna eat you and share you with my family."

And also from this NY Times review of Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion:

Traits we evolved in a dispersed world, like tribalism and righteousness, have become dangerously maladaptive in an era of rapid globalization. A pure scientist would let us purge these traits from the gene pool by fighting and killing one another. But Haidt wants to spare us this fate. He seeks a world in which “fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means.” To achieve this goal, he asks us to understand and overcome our instincts. He appeals to a power capable of circumspection, reflection and reform.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Q&As (part 4)

(last one)

You believe that ambiguous sexuality is one of the best identifying traits of a sociopath, relying on it more than any other one trait to form your own opinion about who is and isn’t a sociopath. Why?

For whatever reason there are sociopath “wannabes” out there. They tell their stories to highlight how cold they are. I frequently use ambiguous sexuality as a litmus test with these types to determine whether or not they are legitimate. If they freak out at the mere suggestion, as so many “normal” men do, I usually conclude they’re poseurs. A sociopath would not find their ego threatened by the suggestion that they are gay; in fact, that might be one of the least offensive things a true sociopath would ever be accused of in his life! They don’t have a strong identity of being straight, and don’t share the common moral assumption that homosexuality is sin.

What do you believe is the most important message of your book?

Sociopaths should not have to justify their very existence amongst other equally flawed examples of humanity, but if they did, there are some legitimate reasons to think they’re not as bad as they are made out to be. Also, child sociopaths perhaps best illustrate the fact that people don’t ask to be sociopaths. Sociopaths are not going away, so it is in society’s best interest to find a way to live with and benefit from them.

Are sociopaths capable of having healthy relationships with non-sociopaths?

Yes. I have relationships with non-sociopaths. It’s not for everyone, and particularly not for the faint hearted. A relationship with a sociopath seems to work best if you are either not sensitive or are extremely sensitive, enough to empathize enough with even a self-centered sociopath. As a friend put it, “it’s like owning an exotic pet.”

People often ask you if you think certain celebrities are sociopaths. Why do you consider it unlikely that they are?

Celebrities are much more likely to be narcissistic rather than sociopathic. Sociopaths don’t like to be center stage. They’re much more likely to be the producer than the actor, the vice-president or chief of staff than the President. Sociopaths prefer to operate undetected, pulling the strings from behind the curtain. Center stage would bring too much scrutiny, which is dangerous when you’re trying to hide so much.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Famous sociopaths: Ada Lovelace?

I know just a little about Ada Lovelace (daughter of Lord Byron, famous female 19th century scientist), but I was pleased to read this ruthlessly flattering assessment of herself, written to her mother at the age of 26:


Dearest Mama,

I must tell you what my opinion of my own mind and powers is exactly—the result of a most accurate study of myself with a view to my future plans during many months. I believe myself to possess a most singular combination of qualities exactly fitted to make me preeminently a discoverer of the hidden realities of nature.
***
Firstly: owing to some peculiarity in my nervous system, I have perceptions of some things, which no one else has—or at least very few, if any. This faculty may be designated in me as a singular tact, or some might say an intuitive perception of hidden things—that is of things hidden from eyes, ears, and the ordinary senses…This alone would advantage me little, in the discovery line, but there is, secondly, my immense reasoning faculties. Thirdly: my concentrative faculty, by which I mean the power not only of throwing my whole energy and existence into whatever I choose, but also bringing to bear on any one subject or idea a vast apparatus from all sorts of apparently irrelevant and extraneous sources. I can throw rays from every quarter of the universe into one vast focus.

Now these three powers (I cannot resist the wickedness of calling them my discovering or scientific trinity) are a vast apparatus put into my power by Providence; and it rests with me by a proper course during the next twenty years to make the engine what I please. But haste, or a restless ambition, would quite ruin the whole.

I also find myself not able to resist wickedness sometimes. And they do say that sociopathy is genetic.

In all seriousness, I am often told that one of my most prominent sociopathic traits is megalomania. But I can't help the feeling that at least some of it is actually justified...

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Narcissists in the news: cocaine and hookers

From a reader on narcissists in business schools, Lance Armstrong, and Jordan Belfort:

The author of the book on how to get ahead in business explains that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with business schools training narcissists to take over companies. His point: what's good for the business school (donations) isn't necessarily good for the shareholders (share price) - but c'est la vie.

Dr. Pfeffer has incredible amounts of equanimity. Very zen, very sociopath.

Here's a nice piece on Lance Armstrong. If you look at the blatant cheating Lance did - the sort where he was totally open with guys "in the circle" about it - I think it makes him seem like a malignant narcissist or psychopath. That is, he was completely OK with cheating in an organized, ambitious, aggressive way. The fact that it was "unfair" or against the rules was completely immaterial. That illustrates that ridiculous "compartmentalization" thing that empathy-challenged do:


Lance Armstrong and Jordan Belfort have a lot in common:

"A pioneer in promoting office bonding activities, Belfort thought it would improve morale if staff were encouraged to have sex with each other whenever they could, even under the desks. There were mid-afternoon "coffee breaks" with a troupe of hookers in the office car park. One office junior agreed to have her hair shaved off on the trading floor in return for $5,000 for a breast job."

That's typical malignant narcissist thinking, "I like cocaine and hookers, and my workers seem to like them too, so let's have a cocaine-and-hookers bonus program."


I especially like that last example. I once worked tangentially for a company that was a start-up, run by a narcissist, with an almost identical cocaine and hookers incentive program. Another narcissist example is Charlie Sheen.

Do sociopaths do this too? Cocaine and hookers? If not I wonder why not. Maybe because sociopaths are more interested in seducing minds than piling up more bodies? And my mind seems amped up and unstable enough as it is without messing around with it with something like cocaine. But to a narcissist it might make them narcissist feel more godlike? Validate their own feelings of superiority, at least while they're high? Are there any sociopaths out there that are into cocaine and hookers?

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Famous narcissist? Mary Roach

A friend sent me this. Obviously it's hilarious, but it's also a really good example of what if feels like watching a narcissist at work (to all of your narcissist readers that this blog apparently attracts?). There's something so blatantly ridiculous about the way they act and how disconnected they are from reality.




Mary is absolutely immune to criticism and when confronted with the truth about her singing, she immediately assumes that her critic has a personal issue with her that is driving the criticism as opposed to merely stating the obvious truth. One of the more obvious narcissist qualities is that when the judges start playing with her, she doesn't fight it or immediately defend herself but plays along. She wants it to seem like she is in on any joke that they might be having and even if the joke is at her expense she would rather have the attention (even negative) than cede the spotlight. When they give her the goodbye, she keeps the conversation going, although it means rehashing their worst criticism of her. She also feels compelled to turn the tables and judge them for their appearances, as being smaller, thinner, prettier, and "hot." She doesn't need to criticize them necessarily -- it is enough that they seem interested in her assessment of them. Of course they did not ask her for her opinions on them, but she manages to misunderstand a direct question and act as if she has some unique vision that warrants sharing.

It's so funny to watch this because I know someone who acts exactly this way, even down to the little awkward mannerisms, especially the shrug at 4:50. The world is just not ready enough to appreciate their talents, but ain't no thing. These people can't be kept down for long by haters.
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.