It's a mad mad world

One of the reasons why I like the 1960's era television show "Mad Men" is the way it exposes humanity's hubris. Humankind has a tendency to look down upon the follies of previous generations, rarely questioning which follies they will be known for in the near future. I love the gasps as "Mad Men" characters drink cocktails while visibly pregnant, a mother sits in the front seat of a car with an infant in her arms and no seat belt, or children play with dry cleaner bags over their heads. I gasp too. I think of fetal alcohol syndrome, the strength of a mother's grip vs. the velocity of a baby in a forward car collision, and how easily small children could become disoriented while suffocating. I don't have any moral reactions to these behaviors, but I am not used to seeing them in these "enlightened" times.

These anachronisms are fun, but I think the most striking thing about setting the program in the recent past is that the despite our progenitors stupidity about certain things, they were every bit as vigilant as we are now about their particular causes. Their causes seem foreign to us -- "T zones," careerism, machismo, communists -- but I think we can related to fact that they're choking on these artificial restraints on their behavior and beliefs just as much as their toddlers were choking on plastic bags. Maybe part of us realizes that in another 30 years we'll be laughing at people using cell phones (brain cancer) and think it's odd that our pets didn't have legal rights (why don't they?), but that doesn't keep most people from remaining blissfully unaware of the tenuous foundations on which their fragile lives rest. It's amazing to me how effective for most people a suburban white picket fence is at keeping out life's demons. Not like I'm much better. Instead of the picket fence, I choose to keep my demons on more of a large, open ranch, figuratively speaking, but I understand that it is basically a matter of preference.

Conversation with a reader: loyalty (part 2)

M.E.: So in your case, giving him a hard time about not meeting your needs increased the cost side of the cost/benefit equation.

Reader: If you mean that I eventually cost him more than I benefited him, yes.

M.E.: And you seemed to be set enough on things being that way that to him it seemed like it was going to be a constant deficit. That's the thing with sociopaths, they're fine with running into the red for a little while, particularly depending on the amount of equity already in the relationship, but if they sense something is going to run into the red indefinitely, they would rather just break things off then lose their entire investment. It's like choosing to amputate an infected limb before it spreads to vital organs. I was like that with one of my friends. Her dad had terminal cancer. She is super emotional, sort of self destructive, as a rule, and the smartest person I know personally.

Reader: But she asked you for too much?

M.E.: In a way yes, in other ways no. She never really asked; I just became. I'm flexible enough that I could become whatever it was that she needed, or what I thought she needed. It's hard to know when to stop, you know? You think that you can be whatever they need you to be, and that if the person is important enough to you, you should do so. But it is not cost free to you.

Reader: It's the same for empaths.

M.E.: Exactly! You can't indefinitely wear a mask that is so foreign to the way you typically are, a mask of extreme compassion or selflessness. So the costs of the relationship go up, and the benefits go down because she is depressed all the time and you're not getting what you used to get, very interesting conversations, a check on your own bad behavior, superior advice in all things including fashion. You run many months into the red and there still seems to be no improvement. It will tear you up inside. It's too much, too much force to try to put on your psyche.

Reader: And is there a way to talk about what used to be good about the relationship so that you two can go back to that?

M.E.: Yeah, there are always ways to go back, sunk costs, right? They’re ignored.

Reader: So will you get back in touch with your friend eventually?

M.E.: Ah, we're friends now. She picks all of my best clothing items. We didn't speak for a while, though. I was the one who asked for that, not speaking, that is. I think that hurt her a lot. She has a fear of being abandoned.

Reader: Of course it hurt her.

M.E.: Which is why I postponed it for so long, but it was literally making me crazy. I mean, I don't really have any boundaries. It's really hard to be put in a situation in which boundaries are necessary.

Reader: You probably did the right thing, by taking space.

M.E.: Yeah, maybe. It was really hard. I think it bothered me more that I had failed than that I had failed her, you know? I have such a healthy self-image, then something like this comes along. That's when you start feeling like you really are defective, like something is seriously wrong with you. You start believing that no matter how hard you try to do better in the future, this will keep happening over and over in your life like some sort of sick déjà vu. That's when life really starts to seem meaningless.

Conversation with a reader: loyalty (part 1)

Excerpts from an IM conversation with a reader:

M.E.: It's hard being in any sort of relationship with a sociopath

Reader: It makes me wonder what is the best relationship for a sociopath. I wonder why socios don't pair up more.

M.E.: Probably not enough glue to keep them together. There are times when I question pursuing even some of my most enduring and meaningful relationships, family and friends. Empaths can't ignore sunk costs, typically. If they've poured so much into a relationship, they feel the urge to keep investing even if the costs exceed the benefits. That makes them poor entrepreneurs (or great ones!), but good in relationships because they’re not just willing but wanting to stick through things when they get tough.

Reader: The attachment/bond added to the investment keeps them around...

M.E.: Exactly. Sociopaths don't feel that pull. Not as strongly, at least. I am constantly asking myself, “Is this relationship or plan of action providing more to me than I am giving to it?”

Reader: But I thought sociopaths could be extremely loyal

M.E.: Yes, they can be very loyal. There will typically always be some level of interaction at which it is worth pursuing a relationship.

Reader: Ah, so they're loyal when the relationship is clearly rewarding.

M.E.: Well, maybe instead of best friends they could be good friends, like downsizing, or going on a little hiatus. I think that most people’s experience with sociopaths is that they want to eventually come back and maintain some sort of contact. Just because they ignore the sunk costs does not mean they go so far as to ignore the investment/equity that is already there.

Socio-economics

A pair of researchers recently put the “socio” back into in socio-economically disadvantaged. The study is the first to identify a specific gene associated with psychopathic traits in youth, a gene related to variances in how serotonin is processed in the brain. The twist is that this gene only seems to produce psychopathic traits in those children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds.

The researchers focused on sociopathic traits, rather than diagnosing the youths. The characteristics they were looking for include: “tend to be less attached to others, even if they have relationships with them. They are less reactive to emotional things in the lab. They are charming and grandiose at times. They’re better at conning and manipulating others, and they have low levels of empathy and remorse. For example, these folks tend to have less anxiety and are less prone to depression, qualities that might be useful in dangerous or unstable environments. In most cases, their cognitive abilities are also intact.”

The research showed that kids with one variety of a serotonin transporter gene are more likely to show psychopathic traits if they are also raised in a lower socio-economic environment. (Previous studies have shown that people with psychopathic traits typically have more brain serotonin than their peers.)

These children reportedly exhibited less empathy, they were more prone to arrogance and deceitfulness and were less emotionally responsive to negative events than their peers. In contrast, youth with the [same gene] who also had high socioeconomic status scored very low on psychopathic traits suggesting that the long allele is susceptible to socioeconomic environment, for better or for worse.

Yet another reason to be nervous when your car breaks down in a bad neighborhood.

The meaning of life (part 2)

I have the same problem as everyone else here (and anywhere) with boredom, delusions of grandeur, and an over acquaintance with feelings of emptiness and meaningless. I have chided deluded souls before about their Harry Potter syndrome, i.e. wishing that instead of ordinary they were powerful and indispensable, but that is me as well. I tend to deal with it in three ways: (1) try to ignore those feelings as being delusions, (2) try to justify those feelings as being accurate representations of reality by convincing myself that I really am special, and most recently (3) indulging them through religious devotion.

My religion is very self-empowering. I'm basically being told that I'm the equivalent of a superhero all the time -- not just a child of God but a leader amongst the chosen people. This narrative comports well with my delusions of self-grandeur, so it seems authentic to me. I feel like the demigods from the classics. It doesn't bother me at all that my powers come with restrictions or requirements, which I adhere to because the magic doesn't work without them. Am I deluded? Maybe. Am I happier this way than not? I think so. It simplifies things and keeps me out of trouble. I enjoy the ritual and the "spiritual high." Any sort of self denial I do has a tantric, pleasurable quality to it, at least most of the time. Because I am doing good things instead of bad, I feel like the universe should smile on me. I'm not constantly looking over my shoulder.

This last bit is a particularly good consequence. I am terrified that I am going to live to be 120. I know I could always kill myself, but I haven't had the fortitude and strength of conviction to do it thus far, who knows if I would even be physically able to do it then. I want to make sure that whatever I am doing in my life is sustainable, or easily retractable, or at the very least untraceable. Writing the blog violates that rule a little bit, but I guess there is such thing as being too careful. I'm particularly paranoid about the internet's ability to record things for all eternity. Shelley ridicules Ozymandias (“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”) while standing in front of the crumbled ruins of his "works," but now even the commonest of common men in the developed world will be immortal via Google's aggressive cache projects. There are a thousand things I can think of off-hand that I would rather not have immortalized.

But this long, rambling justification for the way I live reminds me of my closeted gay friend who works a nightmarish expat job for the money, is paranoid about touching public door handles, has two regular maids who don't know about the other just so neither thinks he is as unkempt as he is, spends the little free time he has sleeping or on role-playing games, and is secretly enamored with his straight best friend. I know my life seems equally ridiculous to the casual observer. Maybe that's why no one really talks about the meaning of life -- they have already found out what works for them, but are just too ashamed to discuss the sordid details.