Victoria on long-lasting change via meditation and perspective shifts

Author of Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight M.E. Thomas interviews science PhD candidate Victoria about the dramatic change that's happened in her life since the last time they spoke in Part 4 of the series. They speak about why Victoria was the way she was before, how did it feel to be that way, why she thought to do the meditation program, how that changed the way she viewed the world. They also talk about identity, personhood, agency, the desire to control and shifting our desires to control from things that are not within our control to thing that are properly within our control, the difference between direct and indirect control, "timshel" or thou mayest from "East of Eden," love, process vs. outcome orientation, choosing to move from reactionary emotional to thoughtful responses, accountability for choices, personal boundaries, identity hits, ego, and self-expression.

The meditation program Victoria participated in: https://www.innerengineering.com/ 

Covey's "scarcity" vs. "abundance" mentalities: http://franklincoveystephenpearson.blogspot.com/2011/01/abundance-mentality-vs-scarcity.html 

Paul Graham's Keep Your Identity Small: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

Part 1 of this series:  https://youtu.be/EAujim_xKWE  

Part 2 of this series: https://youtu.be/TmL55G9xgVU

Part 3 of this series: https://youtu.be/fnFjkWsKKnk

Part 4 of this series: https://youtu.be/ZJ68szHTOPs

More from Victoria on willpower: https://youtu.be/E-IIJoei_hk 

YouTube Zoom Interview for Lance the Christian Sociopath

 Here's the YouTube description:

Author of Confessions of a Sociopath M.E. Thomas talks with Christian Lance about whether or not a psychopath can be a good Christian and what that might mean, about how the psychopath thinks in very outcome oriented ways (to the point that it might be difficult for them to conceptualize how other people make choices in process oriented ways), about how psychopaths mask and evade detection by pretending to be what people expect of them, etc. 

Arya and Frances Interview Youtube link

Here's the interview with Arya and her ex Frances. From the YouTube description:

Arya (boo of M.E. Thomas) interviews her ex-girlfriend, who was the one who told Arya she might be a sociopath, had Arya read "Confessions of a Sociopath", and sent Arya to meet M.E. They talk about the role of mercy in relationships, the possibility of change, empath/sociopath relations, emotional growth, getting better, strengthening sense of self, kismet, spirituality, personal boundaries, relationship boundaries, etc.

Self Part 2 with Elsa, Eddie, and Ryan

Here is last week's video about the self with our psychopath friend Elsa, my brother and philosophy major Eddie (whose philosophy interest is self but until recently has not been able to identify anything beyond an illusion of self) and empathy Ryan (who has struggled with knowing herself but has tried new techniques to get beyond the surface labels). We talk about the first 1/3 of Bruce Hood's Illusion of Self. If you're interested in that book, here is a list of quotes you might like and if you google specific passages you'll find a Russian cite with the whole book (although I decline to post the link).

UPDATE!!! Time change again, sorry! Elsa interview link and Socio/Empath relationship invitation

Sorry about the timing mix-up for the last one, but see the recording here. Zoom messed up the recording a bit so it's just my head, sorry.

Here's the info for next week, also a Sunday morning in Los Angeles, European Sunday evening because our guests are a psychopath/empath couple, going to be on talking about relationship and other stuff.

M.E. Thomas is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Socio Empath relationship
Time: May 24, 2020 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us04web.zoom.us/j/71812284940

Meeting ID: 718 1228 4940
Password: 2PH7GT

Waking up to Self

I recently stumbled upon this very old comment that I thought was interesting and relevant to current events:

We're born narcs, then our parents starts to exhibit control and dominance. In other words, they are psychopathic towards us. "It is for your own good". This role is later taken over by the society. Collectivism, mores, police and so forth.

But already as children, most people give up. They give up their true desires and personality, and then start to create something, which most aren't. They define themselves by their creation. "I am lawyer"... Not you're not. you have studies laws, because you had to get a fcking living and salary. And you probably picked something you suspected would maximize income per effort. And deep down we all know it. It is just so hard, and often impossible, to find an alternative escape from that fact and from the "dominators". So if someone comes around and remind "you" of reality, "you" become frustrated, because "you" had forgotten about being "arrested", being "under control". You had accepted it, and even developed the Stockholm syndrome. You were doin fine till someone reminded you that it is all just bullshit. So you fight. You have to keep the false ego in place. Even though you know it is false. Because, in reality, alternatives are very few. One of them is suicide. And some people opt for that. Others need a very bright mind. Most people don't have that.

I have learned that parents, in my society, are allowed to do to their children, what a grown up would be imprisoned for years for doing. And I just had to ask why it is like that ? Well, I think I have touched some possible answer to it in my first paragraph.

Weird World

The nature of who you are

From a reader:

I felt it appropriate to pass some praise your way about your book. I must admit I haven't finished the book, but have found the sections I've read so far explain more about the way I think than any discussion with another human I've ever had.

I'm a student at University and don't have many years of history to draw on but upon reading your book I found myself internally matching my experiences to yours and looking for any obvious connections, and I have to say I don't think any other person has quite achieved being able to explain what it's like in my mind. The egocentric writing style exactly how I would approach a book explaining my experiences that could be considered dark or disconnected from normal human emotion.

Your mention of the gaze of a sociopath was an interesting point to me. I've had numerous individuals inform me about the creepy, cold and intriguing nature of my stare during conversation. And then when you mentioned boredom I totally understood what was meant. I find myself avoiding boredom because boredom is my idea of hell. I make it my life goal to do things that allow me to avoid boredom. I find being bored only leads me to want to be more deceitful and underhanded in nature, which risks my social standing with people. A thing that has benefits for me!

The discussion of games, and the use of manipulation because it is merely a tool are things I've said and used many a time to aid my success in different endeavours. I was recently called callous and cold for informing my friends that a friendship is defined by how useful someone is to me and how useful I am to them, a lack of use on either part indicates the termination of a friendship. Throughout relationships I've found it hard to relate to the other person's feelings, and have turned to infidelity numerous times and haven't experienced guilt from the act. I always felt my desire is my priority, and that if one person isn't interested then I must solve the problem myself.

Violence has been a part of my history that I hideaway the most, for it's the section I feel that normal people will be the most disgusted and terrified of. Not all because of things I've done, but also because of the ideas of things I wanted to do to someone in anger. But stopped myself because it would hinder me more than benefit me. I don't recall ever stopping myself because of a thought about the other person. For the life and existence of the other person is of little interest to me. And your early discussion of morality where you highlight the line 'survival of the fittest'. This is a line I use commonly to describe the nature of how humans should live their lives. I'm of the firm idea in my mind that survival of the fittest is how we got here, and if it manages to allow for the evolution of humans it can damn well allow for the further evolution into greater successes. And there within your book, I could see someone understanding my argument.

These few things are what cause me to have to mask my inner self around everyone. But it is your book that made me realise specifically the nature of the person I am. I spend my days passing off lies about my personal life and experiences to remain grounded with in a group, constantly keeping a watchful eye on the others around me to see if their term of use has expired. But within this email to you I feel I've been more unshielded than I've been to close friends. It is because you have opened my eyes that I must thank you. I wish there was more of a community where discussion of these experiences could be held, my curiosity is now piqued. There is so much more I could say but I feel it matters not to the message of this email.

Identity

A sociopath-leaning reader asked, "How are you able to determine your true self? Your true interests, your true you and not just a collection of identities you've worn?" My answer:

Good question. I guess I don't really expect there to be some underlying true me. I am partly my experiences. I am even more so my thoughts. I see my identity as being more a formula, less the numbers that get plugged in, and especially not the result of the formula. I am the way I perceive the world, the way I choose what I decide. Does that work for you? I know it's nice to think that you are someone or something definable. I call this the Harry Potter syndrome, people who want more than anything else to have some strange white bearded old man show up to their door and say -- don't worry, there's a reason why you are different, it's because you're a wizard, and not only are you a wizard, but you're a celebrity. Don't we all wish that we had that sort of defining purpose to our life. But we don't, I'm afraid. And those people that aren't like us are largely just amalgamations themselves. Or maybe you believe this: "People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates." Thomas Szasz

Reader's response:

I appreciate your well-reasoned response. Your example of the Harry Potter syndrome is right-on. I have always been unable to really grasp the Western culture, and especially American culture, desperate need to be succinctly defined, for their need to be truly unique, and their love of the ostentatious. For a while I thought my problem with the "masks" was that I never felt like their was a significant purpose and I have never been able to believe in a god or the other supernatural, though I did play the religious role quite well when I was a wee one.

Free won't

In doing some research on the sociopath's supposed lack of impulse control, I stumbled upon this article from Scientific American (found in full here), which questions the popular conception that we make a conscious choice then act on that choice (i.e. free will). The abstract:

Most of us have a sense that our everyday actions are controlled by an intention that precedes the action: I decide to turn on the light, then flip the switch. But experiments don't consistently support this notion. Some psychologists believe that our sense of intention and purpose is constructed by the brain after the action takes place. Others disagree. The authors discuss ingenious experiments that probe this question, along with bizarre phenomena, such as "alien-hand syndrome," where brain damage leaves patients struggling with actions they cannot control.

The experiments:



Another experiment suggests even more strongly that our sensation of control is largely imaginary:

In one such experiment . . . two participants worked together to move a cursor over objects on a computer screen. One of the participants served as a confederate of the experimenter, but the experimental subject never knew this. The genuine subject heard words over a set of headphones that related to particular objects on the screen. For example, a subject might hear the word "swan" while moving the cursor over a picture of a swan. Unbeknownst to the subject, all of the movement of the cursor came from the confederate. The results showed that, when the relevant word was presented 1 to 5 seconds prior to the action, subjects reported feeling that they had acted intentionally to make the movement. In other words, they had experienced will. When the word was presented 30 seconds prior to the action or 1 second after it, however, there was no false feeling of willing the action. The authors argued that this experiment provided clear evidence that the human brain constructs feelings of causal agency after an action has taken place. It could be that a proper temporal order between intentions, actions and consequences triggers the brain—after the fact—to feel a sense of control.

This type of self deception is perhaps seen best in sufferers of alien hand syndrome, who often rationalize the behavior after the fact, "fool[ing] themselves that the actions they performed were indeed intentional" although "patients are not aware of what they are going to do until after the action has been made." Interestingly, schizophrenics, who frequently "describe an external agent as causing their actions, thoughts, speech or emotions," may largely suffer from an inability to delude themselves into believing that they are acting on their own intentions like "normal" people do.

We are not slaves to impulse, however. The literature suggests that rather than experience free will, we instead experience "free won't," or the ability to avoid acting on the impulse, possibly with the aid of the dorsal fronto-medial cortex, as explained in this article.

The idea of decisions being unconscious impulses that we either reject or make our own raises interesting issues for sociopaths with alleged impulse control problems, but raises even more issues for neurotypicals and the role that a sense of control plays in how they define themselves:

More than a matter of simply turning on a switch, this feeling of control over actions might even contribute to a conscious sense of self. In other words, I am because I control my actions. The question is: How do we go from mundane, everyday actions—like turning on a light—to developing a sense of self as a causal agent?

You are what you eat

I am very impressionable. I am so impressionable that the self that I call mine seems to be no more than a hodgepodge collection of everything I have thought, everything i have experienced, everyone I have been around. I used to be very reckless in my youth with what I did, what I chose, what I thought. I wanted to try everything and everyone, wanted to know what else was out there in the world. Everything I did changed me, though, for better or for worse. I didn't realize it at the time, and didn't really realize the extent of it until relatively recently. That thought has made me more circumspect.

I feel like this must be true of non sociopaths as well, but maybe to a lesser extent. Maybe they just don't acknowledge the inherent fluidity of the self? It's interesting to me to think that my body is made up of everything that I have eaten. There is literally nothing about my body that I haven't ingested at one time or another -- not my brain, not my heart, not my lungs, not my eyes or teeth... it's weird thinking that I am made up of cheeseburgers.

People want to know why sociopaths have a hard time letting go sometimes. Some of it may be the thrill of the hunt, the sting of defeat, or vindictiveness. I think for me it is mainly because everyone that has ever been close to me has become a part of me. Like that Paul Young song, every time they go away, they literally take a piece of me with them.

Sociopath quote: self

"People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates."

Thomas Szasz

Narcissists vs. Sociopaths (part 2)

(cont.):


A few points:

Narcissists are addicted to admiration.  Despite looking down on everyone else, they crave admiration from others. They fish for compliments. They strive to accomplish things to win the admiration of others.

Sociopaths don't need admiration from others. They crave power.

Shame is the uncomfortable perception that one's "self" is bad, and doesn't live up to a societal standard. E.g. you steal something because you want it. You don't feel guilt because you don't think your stealing was bad (you have a different sort of conscience than normal people). Then you get caught. If you feel uncomfortably exposed, that feeling is called shame. Sociopaths don't feel shame. Narcissists feel shame very often, but may be completely ignorant that they are feeling shame.

Narcissists are generally unaware of their thoughts, feelings, how others perceive them, etc. To stay comfortable, they deceive themselves about their shortcomings, by ignoring their own constant thoughts of inadequacy, and ignoring any resulting feelings of shame.

Sociopaths know that they don't have strong emotions. They know they fake emotions to fit in. They don't care about the feelings of others, so they don't feel shame.

Narcissists make great cult leaders. Many founders of businesses (e.g. Steve Jobs, Bernie Madoff) are narcissts or malignant. They will generally explain that they are on a quest to change the world for the better.

Sociopaths = flexible sense of self

In response to this post, the following question from a reader:

What's up Me. I'd really love to know where you get your information from regarding the sociopath's flexible sense of self. I haven't come across any other material on sociopathology that describes this undefined underlying personality structure you talk about. I'd like to do some more reading about it.

Thanks again for the blog. It's been most illuminating.

My response:

You answered your own question before I got the chance to respond. As you have probably seen in your own research, the concept of a sociopath having an extremely flexible sense of self is not entirely original to me, but you were probably unable to find it stated outright (at least I have not been able to find such a clear statement) in any of the scientific literature. That shouldn't be surprising, though. The literature on sociopaths is quite terrible and almost always fear-mongering. Psychologists studying sociopathy focus on the symptoms rather than the underlying causes.Tthere is some work being done mapping brains of sociopaths, and that has revealed that the brain of a sociopath does in fact work in ways different than an empath's brain. Still, though, scientists seem more concerned with defining the characteristics of a sociopath based anecdotally on what a sociopath is not, e.g. how a sociopath differs from an empath behaviorally, rather than studying the sociopath for what he is -- a different human variant. This is the common complaint of the neurodiversity movement: stop seeing our variations from normal human behavior as symptoms of a defect, and start acknowledging that we have a separate but equal system of thought and survival.

But back to your question. I got my information from piecing together seemingly disparate elements of the literature on sociopaths in a way that conformed with my own personal experience . Psychologists see traits like "inability to conform to social norms," "lack of conscience," "chameleon-esque," "masked," "charming," "undetectable," and "versatility" and think that it is a hodgepodge of unrelated characteristics. They understand the "what," but they don't understand the "how." As you mentioned in your most recent comment, I believe the "how," the origin of many of our observed behaviors, is that we don't have a rigid sense of self, a characteristic that I believe you correctly label as one of the sociopath's defining characteristics, and if I may add, perhaps the predominant defining characteristic.

I'm glad you enjoy the blog. I enjoy your comments. And do let us all know if you find anything written on the sociopath's flexible sense of self.