Saturday, May 4, 2013

Self-medication

I've been thinking recently about things that have helped me without me intending or even realizing it. I'll give you an example of what I mean. I used to watch the television show House. He would always ask the person if there was anything about their life that changed. Sometimes the change was a healthier change, like stop drinking so much. But a frequent plot point of the show was that the patient had been unwittingly self-medicating an underlying condition, so when there was a lifestyle change (even to a seemingly more healthy habit), that triggered a flare up of the underlying condition.

There are a lot of things that, albeit indirectly, have helped me immensely in terms of maintaining decent mental health and behavior control:

  • I'm a musician. I didn't choose to be a musician. Music did not initially appeal to me, nor did I have a natural talent for it. At one point I wanted to stop music studies to focus on other things that I was better at. My parents refused. I went through the motions for a couple more years until I finally achieved a level of fluency that allowed me to understand and later communicate musically, connecting with people in an unmediated way that I had never experienced in normal social interactions. I have since studied music seriously, which was probably the first hard thing I made myself do. I learned a lot then about my limitations and how to incentivize myself or trick myself into doing things I normally would not. I still play. The abstract logic of music is very good for my mental health and the social aspect of music makes me be nicer to people. Music, to me, is humanity's most redeeming feature and has made me interested in the stability of the human race because a destabilized society means no more music generation. 
  • I have a low sugar diet. A lot of food makes me sick, so I mainly eat the same things over and over again, mostly protein and fiber. This also happens to be the most stable diet for mental health -- no sugar spikes, no twinkie-defense, no need.
  • Being a woman. I've never really had my megalomaniac fantasies indulged that much because I'm a woman. Men do not consider women a viable threat and women often look down on other women. So even though I felt like I could do absolutely anything, I never had anyone echoing that sentiment, which has forced me to be a little more realistic than I otherwise may have been. Also experiencing hormal swings has taught me that I can feel things that aren't real (emotional hallucinations). And girls are sort of evil with each other, so I could get my kicks through emotional manipulation and not through other riskier behavior.
  • Being Mormon. Yes, there is the moral code, but I think some of the more important things about growing up Mormon for me were the endless primary lessons trying to get us to understand our emotions, the emotions of other people (e.g. he hit me, which made me mad, so I hit him back, and now he's sad). and that we can control our emotions ("turn your frown upside down"). I got the sort of "this is a happy face, this other one is a frowny face" explicit emotional instruction that I feel is largely lacking in a lot of formal education nowadays, with our focus on mathematics and reading. And I had to learn to interact with all ages, races, and backgrounds of people.
  • Writing in a journal. My religion encouraged it and my narcissism wanted to document the early life of a genius (actual entries in my childhood journal). The side benefit was that it forced me to contemplate who I was and to realize some of the consequences of my behavior.
  • Being smart. There are an infinite number of ways this has affected my life, but for now let me just say that being perceived as being smart allowed me to get away with all sorts of things I otherwise would not have. Teachers gave me the benefit of the doubt, even when I was caught redhanded. I was given all of the social goodwill of a "good kid" simply because I scored so well on tests. 
There are other things that I feel lucky for -- a middle class upbringing with its de-emphasis on material goods, self-interested neglectful parents who largely left me alone, a superficial but straightforward culture which largely prized surface attributes and accomplishments that made it easy for me to mimic, and being a middle child who benefited from watching the failures of older siblings and was in a prime position to be a powerbroker, both between siblings and between parents and children.  

So when people ask me things like how do I maintain my life like I do, I don't know. The answer is complicated. I don't really expect people to learn a musical instrument or convert to Mormonism. But I don't know what else to say besides, it couldn't hurt?

Friday, May 3, 2013

Free will = not what you think it is

This is an interesting lecture from philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris about how the common conception of free will is not scientifically supported. Specifically he debunks two assumptions on the popular conception of free will: (1) we are each free to think and act differently than we did in the past ("you became a police man, but you could have become a firefighter") and (2) we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions, i.e. we feel like we want to do something so we do that thing. The problem with these assumptions is that "Everything that could possibly constitute your will is either the product of a long chain of prior causes, so you're not responsible for them, or it's the product of randomness, and you're not responsible for that, obviously, or it's some combination of the two."


He has an interesting analogy at the beginning about a man sleeping in a park and getting his face bitten off by an alligator versus a man with the axe. The result is the same, but people hate the man and not the crocodile because wWhat else is a crocodile going to do, coming upon you napping in the park" whereas a man is allegedly in control of his actions.

Another interesting assertion: "Most people imagine that a belief in free will is necessary for morality. . . . The difference between happiness and suffering exists without free will." Still, there are a lot of interesting implications for morality. At 46:00 he talks about how we can make reasonable distinctions between premeditated and impulsive crime given that free will doesn't exist. punishment, morality, etc.

"In specific cases we have already changed our view of evil. Whenever we see the cause of someone's behavior, when we see for instance that a murderer had a brain tumor . . . so as to explain his violent impulses, that person suddenly becomes a victim of biology. Our moral intuitions shift utterly. Now I'm arguing that a brain tumor is just a special case of physical events giving rise to thoughts and actions. If we fully understood the neurophysiology of any murderer's brain, it would be as exculpatory as finding a tumor in it. If we could see how the wrong genes were being relentlessly transcribed, if we could see how his early life experience had sculpted the micro structure in his brain in just such a way as to give rise to violent impulses, the whole conception of placing blame on him would erode."

Thursday, May 2, 2013

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.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

What you can learn from sociopaths (part 1)

From a reader on his experiences with sociopaths ("they let me fool myself") the seeming contradictions of a sociopath, narcissist,-lites, and other gems:


Early on in my life I could spot sociopaths but I didn't know how to qualify them.  There was some discomfort on their parts that I was on to them but they let me fool myself.  They figured out my interpretation of their behavior and then allowed me to think what I wanted to think.  

One can spot the sociopath by their strange lack of vulnerability, the absence of committal statements and their propensity to linger in a group long enough to politic.  These qualities all in one person seemed like a contradiction to me.  It's a contradiction because non-committers show some anxiety and sociopaths do not.   Lingerers are become increasingly committal as the increased time with the group increases their comfort but sociopaths do not commit even when they are supposed to be comfortable.  

I don't consider myself a sociopath but I can appreciate and empathize with their realistic approach to life.  You see I grew up with the exact opposite.  My parent is a narcissist.  It didn't take long for me to learn that as long as the narcissist is receiving his narcissistic supply he will delude himself. Sound familiar? The neurotypical, as long as he is receiving societal approval and validation will delude himself as well.  The average person is a narcissist-lite. 

The realistic aspect of the sociopath is that he understands human nature and coldly uses it to his advantage.  The practical part of the sociopath is that he casts the widest possible social net to influence the greatest number of people - all the while preventing opposition-opposition which would undermine all his hard work.  The authentic part of the sociopath is that he knows what he wants and isn't afraid to get it.  The only difference is the sociopaths authenticity is that it is harmful for him to divulge it. 

The sociopaths authenticity is an impediment when revealed. The sociopath creates rapport without ever divulging his/her "authenticity." Divulging this authenticity is social suicide for the sociopath since society does not accept people that lack empathy and refuse to play by the "rules."  From my observation, however, the sociopath is more authentic a being than both the narcissist and the average neurotypical person.  At least the sociopath is in touch with who he is.  He is someone that knows what he wants and will do whatever it takes to get it.  He is strongly in touch with his desires of the moment. He is not afraid to acknowledge them and is not afraid to risk failure in order to obtain them.  

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The lure of seduction/rape

I discovered why/when i get the urge to seduce. There are two necessary elements for me: (1) the target is susceptible to seduction, and (2) the target has power over me. If those two requirements are met, I will nearly always feel the urge to seduce. If just one of those elements is present, I might think about it once or twice, but the seduction never holds my interest.

Perhaps this is somewhat related: I think I also discovered why someone might rape (I didn't rape anyone, just a dream). The lure of rape is fuzzier to me than the lure of seduction, but there is also an issue of power. The victim is actively rejecting you. The act of rape negates this rejection, denies the victim even that small control over you.

The downside to rape, though, is that the focus is all on the rejection. In fact, rejection is necessary for rape -- if there was no element of rejection, there would be no reason or opportunity to rape. To be a habitual rapist then, you would have to either be rejected all the time (real rejection), or be so insecure and paranoid to think that people would reject you all the time (perceived rejection). Neither way sounds appealing, or even easy to accomplish. Do habitual rapists seek out rejection or provoke it, just to create the opportunity? I'm much too narcissistic to be courting rejection all the time like that. I don't see why anyone else would do it either unless they had a masochistic streak. In any case, I would never do it myself, it's black magic. But now I can sort of see why others do.
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.