Friday, September 5, 2014

Narcissists in the news

Have no clue whether he actually is a narcissist or not, but from Jezebel, one man's response to being rejected on Tinder:


It reminded me of this recent comment regarding narcissism:

A malignant Narc believes their own lies. They don't have a compartmentalized brain like a sociopath. They also have a single personality unlike a sociopath's mirror constructs. Narcs NEED the ego feeding. Sociopaths don't really. Narcs attach to their sources of feeding they will not leave a source before finding another one. A sociopath can walk away at any time. 

A sociopath understands that they are other. That there is a degree of separation between themselves and the reset of humanity. A narc is enmeshed. Nothing is separate from them. A sociopath becomes a mirror, we recognize that to fit in we must become a mirror of those around us.. The Narc thinks that they ARE the mirror. That everyone and everything is a reflection of their godlike self. They can't even understand why someone else would like a different food than they would. If they hate peas all people should hate peas. They will then try and make you eat peas and enjoy them because obviously you are defective if you do not.

Example: Sociopath meets a person who thinks the sky is green who has something they desire. They agree the sky is green.
Narc decides the sky is green. No one on the planet and no amount of scientific proof will get them to admit they are wrong. Ever. They will keep telling people the sky is green and try to make everyone else think the sky is green too. They can NEVER be wrong. 

Just a few differences. There are many similarities but these are some of the most basic differences.

I think this is right but there is something more to it, I think. The narcissist believes his own lies yes, but the sociopath sort of does as well. I think maybe the more telling distinction is between a sociopath's cavalier/casual/convenience-based attachment to believing or acting upon his personal reality versus a narcissist's insistent/aggressive/self-righteous/prescriptive/judgmental attachment to his personal reality. In other words, a sociopath may, in some finite period of time (a day, a week, a decade), believe his own lies. But he has no real need or desire to defend that reality to the death against conscientious objectors, because it ultimately doesn't mean much to him (no real sense of identity, and thus ego is a moving target). In contrast, the narcissist is very firmly attached to concepts like being "right" or "wrong" or "better" or "superior" to others. He is not only strongly invested in believing that those terms can not only be validly applied to sort everyone out on a spectrum of human worth, he also believes that his yardstick is the only criterion worth measuring with. Sociopath not so much. Sociopath understands that so much of rating anything is a matter of personal preference. Something might be true in this moment and not true in the next. Consequently, the sociopath may ultimately seem more reasonable, whereas the narcissist is more a bully because not only will he force you to acknowledge your place on this fixed relative hierarchy of value, he will make you acknowledge his infinite wisdom and judgment in making the assessment. If that makes any sense?

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

A comprehensive beginner's guide to becoming a sociopath

Because I can no longer find this available online, and because so many people ask for it:

Sociopathy. The word makes "good" people cringe. It is a very real syndrome that affects young and old. In general there are ten real symptoms:
  1. Not learning from experience.
  2. No sense of responsibility.
  3. Inability to form meaningful relationships.
  4. Inability to control impulses.
  5. Lack of moral sense.
  6. Chronically antisocial behavior.
  7. No change in behavior after punishment.
  8. Emotional immaturity.
  9. Lack of guilt.
  10. Self-centeredness.
   If you are a sociopath you probably don't know it, but if you want to be a sociopath and have fun unlike all the other blockheads in the world, then this is the recipe for you. 

   There is a general trend in the symptoms listed above, carelessness. There is a surefire way to disassociate yourself from feelings, which includes guilt. Can you think of what emotion and feeling has done for you? Nothing is what I am thinking. So here it is, without further ado, you own personal guide to becoming God. This means being totally free of emotion and feeling, unless you desire them. You will no longer associate certain actions with certain feelings so you will be able to do anything you want and not feel a damn thing, if you elect to. You can steal, lie, cheat, fight, hurt, and you won't think twice. There is a great balance that must be emphasized before we can start the program. Although the whole point of being a sociopath is to not feel guilt, sadness, or hurt, you will also be stripped of 'positive' feelings and often times actions that usually resulted in happiness will be replaced with anger and then normal bad emotion actions will become happiness producing instead. So if you are squeamish or don't desire a sadomasochist view on life, don't read on. 

   Here's the ten day beginners guide; start on a Monday for the best and fastest results. 

Day 1:

WAKE UP EXTREMELY EARLY, this will allow you to be groggy enough not to care on your own.

Good act 1: Go and buy 40 dollars in groceries for your local homeless man. It will fuck with his head so bad. This action is called 'Rampant Altruism".

Bad Act 1: Find the nicest luxury car at your work and vandalize it.

You are set for the day. Make sure not to think twice about anything you've done today.

Day 2:

Wake up earlier than the day before and play VERY loud music. This works on many levels, but you can't count it as a bad action.

Good Act 1: While on the hustle to work drive very slowly and let everyone in, don't get mad or stressed.

Bad Act 1: Go to a coffee shop and sit down, order the most difficult drink to make and keep changing your mind about it, then don't pay for anything and when she looks at you just say, 'ah never mind', then start muttering and swearing to yourself barely audible, but definitely call her a 'slut' or 'bitch'. Leave and slam things on your way out.

Good Act 2: Go to the Library. Find the most frumpish looking mid 20's girl and start flirting with her heavily. Leave and come back and bring her flowers, real nice ones, then give her someone else number when she asks for it. This will destroy her.

Bad Act 2: Hopefully it will be garbage day, but if it isn't find one of those huge dumpsters and spread trash all over the street. Break as much glass as you can.

Ok, you are getting into the swing of things. It is important not to dwell or celebrate about anything you did today, this is very important.

Day 3:

You can wake up normally, but don't eat breakfast, don't drink coffee.

Bad Act 1: Drive fast, mean, and flip off as many people as you can on your way to work. Make as many people start off with bad days, especially to women. If people follow you just keep driving till they can't anymore, but always flipping them off.

Good act 1: Bring Coffee and Donuts for everyone but just set them down and don't allow people the time to thank you or offer to pay you back or whatever, say as little as possible.

Bad Act 2: Find that dog that is always barking in your neighborhood while the owner is away, and terrorize the shit out of the dog, hit it with a stick if you want to, just make it pissed off. Make it meaner than shit and just leave.

Good act 2: Give 20 dollars to the cash register person and ask them for change in quarters, then right in front of them put each coin individually into the collection jars, it's especially good if there are people waiting.

Bad Act 3: This one is a wild card, but here is something you can do that will help you later. Get dressed up as White trash as you can, get yourself real dirty and roll in stuff if possible, then go to the Big 5 or other sporting good store. While you are there, just look at the guns with a sort of 'far away look', shaking and twitching. Deny help as many times as you can, but stay in one spot the whole time. Then after nearly half an hour, go up to the asst supervisor and plead for help, use 'fuck' and 'Jesus Christ' as many times as you can while you purchase an air rifle and huge amounts of pellets and BB's. Speed in the parking lot, flip off someone if possible. When you get home, get acquainted with your "lil' boom stick", make sure you aim is good, this will be important later.

Good act 3: Buy a pizza and bring it to the bookstore and say 'you know, this pizza guy just gave this to me and I already ate, would you take it?" if they accept it great, but if they don't just go and give it to another establishment, don't accept money and stay as little time as possible.

Don't sleep this night, read as much philosophy or propoganda'ish material as possible, the internet is great for that shit. Drink a lot of tea.

Day 4:

Hopefully you didn't sleep, but if you did make sure you got up early and promptly. Go and take a run, a long one, so that you are exhausted when you get back. Don't shower and don't shave.

Bad Act 1: Go to the store, but before hand fill your pockets with random trinkets, the weirder the better. Buy something like 4 grapes or one Tab soda, or something else really random. Then when it's time to pay, look at her for a second and then start rummaging through your pockets, act really worried. Then pull out one of the trinkets and offer her a trade for whatever it is you are purchasing. Keep going and ask her to call her manager, say 'man, I really need this but all I have are these guitar picks', he will not give in and you shouldn't either, get frustrated and finally pull out your check book, when she asks for your drivers license be reluctant and say that you don't have one, she will be damn angry and they will have probably asked you to leave several times, do it but call them a bunch of racist Nazi's. Everyone will wonder what is happening and you have to keep up the yelling all the way to the car.

Good act 1: Go to the coffee shop you visited on Day 2 and order a medium latte with heavy cream if possible. Pay for it with a 20 and just walk away when she tries to give you back the money. She will try in vain to get your attention, don't give in to her, and just walk out ignoring everyone.

Bad Act 2: Show up extremely late to work and walk in scowling at everyone, don't answer any questions, just mutter and look only at your feet. Everyone will be worried but you won't answer any questions. If your manager starts talking to you change the mood totally, be happy, but after he leaves continue snapping at everyone. Leave early from work if possible. Just shrug your shoulders if asked why you are late, but don't answer the 'are you ok?' type questions, people will be very concerned. Go home and shower.

Good act 2: Buy a bunch of flowers and hand them to the most beautiful woman you see. Don't say anything more than 'will you accept these?" Make sure you are very abrupt when you walk away and don't turn around for ANY reason. Don't do it if her boyfriend or husband is right there.

Bad Act 3: Buy a can of red Krylon Spray paint. When it is Dark go and Spray paint something awful on a wall that you pass everyday, make sure it is just fucking rude and mean, something that people will gawk at and be pissed off, something that would even piss off you.

Good act 3: Go to a bar, sit next to a semi-attractive girl. Do not make any come ons, pretend for a second that sex would actually make you ill and pretend you hate it, this will help you out. Talk about everything besides sex. Buy her many drinks, don't ask for her number and don't give you hers even if she asks. If she comes on to you, just look really surprised and even be offended, this will be a good time to leave.

Bad Act 4: Use your handy dandy pellet rifle and roam the streets of your neighborhood shooting out streetlights, car windows, or another building windows. DO NOT shoot at houses or anywhere where you could draw attention to yourself, be careful but make sure you have made visible damage.

   Ok, this is the right amount of good/bad actions you should be doing on a daily basis. Hopefully with the oscillation of emotions from the different actions you should start to feel numb about them. You are on the right start. 

   This weekend will be an important step: Your focus will be on reversing emotions. 

   You must take any action that would normally cause you pain or sadness and tell yourself how good it feels. You need to do your good actions as if they are actually doing harm to those you do them for. You will also start to associate the different actions. 

Over the next 3 days you should accomplish:
  • Shoot one bird and be happy about it, go to the Dog Pound, find the cutest puppy and regard it as evil.
  • Steal something and justify it.
  • Cook a large meal for someone less fortunate, then later drink a bottle of castor oil and force vomit over a large plate of food at a restaurant.
  • If you see someone at a bus stop, offer him or her a ride, they usually won't accept but ask until it happens. Pretend you hate the person in the car internally, but be SUPER polite to them, even go outside and open their door. Then when they get out and you drive away, tell them to fuck themselves.
  • Drink heavily, very heavily. Then go to a park and talk to children, the parents will freak.
  • Just start picking up trash in a public park, don't answer any questions. Donate blood as well.
  • Slap yourself, cut yourself, hurt yourself, but regard it as 'masturbation', trick yourself into enjoying it.
  • Watch your favorite movie four times in one day.
   Hopefully you should now realize that feelings or emotions are not directly associated to actions. With this knowledge you now have the ability to do things without feeling anything. You know you are detached from feelings if you do the same action twice with feeling both good and bad feelings about it. Then when you do it the third time, you feel nothing. You will no longer have a value of "good/bad". Everything will just be things, you will have an open mind. The important thing is to still continue to do both good and evil actions. 

Day 8:

This is Monday; you will notice that even though you have had the weirdest week of your entire life, you feel recharged but nothing more. You don't feel bad or good or even in between, you just don't feel. Live your day normally, but you notice that you don't care as you once did. Everything seems easier to deal with and is no longer stressful. Go out to eat tonight and don't tip your waiter. Give a homeless man the tip that you were going to give to the waiter.

Day 9:

Go to a bookstore and pick a fairly well known classic and sit there and read it for as long as the store is open. It will be you and the closing clerk there alone. Hopefully it is a women, tell her that you can't pay for the book but you love it so much. Give her your watch as collateral. Order a huge amount of flowers for her but when you come in to pay for the book and collect your watch be surprised about the flowers. Persists that you did not buy them but you really appreciate her kindness about the book. If she asks for your information or suggests that you should go out sometime, just look disgusted and walk away. On the way home that night pull up next to someone walking, start pretending to get directions but when they start insult them repeatedly and threaten their life. Drive away fast.

Day 10:

Don't go to work, call in sick if you have to. Drink tea ALL DAY. Find a pad of paper and start writing or drawing. Draw/Write the weirdest most convoluted stuff you can come up with, paste it all over your room. If you aren't thinking to yourself in some way 'man, I'm fucking crazy' than you aren't doing it right. Just repeat the week over until you can be in denial and know it. Yes your crazy, yes you know it, but it is sooo fun.

   Now that you are totally detached from the externalities of a social culture and you are totally void of feelings or guilt, you are on your way. Upkeep can be less frequent. Be unpredictable in your actions or moods. Don't keep the same face on twice with the same person. Love someone passionately that you don't know, hate someone passionately that you do know. Fight all the time; argue with everyone. Do charity and public service out of the blue without any reason. Don't have a favorite anything, try everything and be open minded about everything. Give someone your favorite book as a gift. 

   This plan has worked on about 7 or the 11 people that have tried it. Although there is great degrees on how they responded there was great general trends. The most important thing is that everyone is happy and their lives; which are greatly improved.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Change and pure evil

A reader sent me this article in the Scientific Article about evil and about people who have a belief that some things are pure evil (70% responded as such in a recent study). All of it's worth reading, but let me include the essential part of the argument:

Evil has been defined as taking pleasure in the intentional inflicting of harm on innocent others, and ever since World War II social psychologists have been fascinated by the topic. Many of the formative thinkers in the field — Kurt Lewin, Stanley Milgram , Solomon Asch — were inspired by their experiences with, and observations of, what appeared to most people at the time to be the indisputable incarnation of pure evil. But what many saw as a clear demonstration of unredeemable and deep-seated malice, these researchers interpreted as more, in the words of Hannah Arendt, banal. From Milgram’s famous studies of obedience to Zimbardo’s prison study, psychologists have argued for the roots of evil actions in quite ordinary psychological causes. This grounding of evil in ordinary, as opposed to extraordinary, phenomena have led some to describe the notion of “pure evil” as a myth. A misguided understanding of human nature deriving both from specific socio-cultural traditions as well as a general tendency to understand others’ behavior as a product solely of their essence, their soul, as opposed to a more complicated combination of environmental and individual forces.

The issue of whether “pure evil” exists, however, is separate from what happens to our judgments and our behavior when we believe in its existence. It is this question to which several researchers have recently begun to turn. How can we measure people’s belief in pure evil (BPE) and what consequences does such a belief have on our responses to wrong-doers?

According to this research, one of the central features of BPE is evil’s perceived immutability. Evil people are born evil – they cannot change. Two judgments follow from this perspective: 1) evil people cannot be rehabilitated, and 2) the eradication of evil requires only the eradication of all the evil people. Following this logic, the researchers tested the hypothesis that there would be a relationship between BPE and the desire to aggress towards and punish wrong-doers.

Researchers have found support for this hypothesis across several papers containing multiple studies, and employing diverse methodologies. BPE predicts such effects as: harsher punishments for crimes (e.g. murder, assault, theft), stronger reported support for the death penalty, and decreased support for criminal rehabilitation. Follow-up studies corroborate these findings, showing that BPE also predicts the degree to which participants perceive the world to be dangerous and vile, the perceived need for preemptive military aggression to solve conflicts, and reported support for torture.

Regardless of whether the devil actually exists, belief in the power of human evil seems to have significant and important consequences for how we approach solving problems of real-world wrongdoing. When we see people’s antisocial behavior as the product of an enduring and powerful malice, we see few options beyond a comprehensive and immediate assault on the perpetrators. They cannot be helped, and any attempts to do so would be a waste of time and resources.

But if we accept the message from decades of social psychological research, that at least some instances of violence and malice are not the result of “pure evil” — that otherwise decent individuals can, under certain circumstances, be compelled to commit horrible acts, even atrocities — then the results of these studies serve as an important cautionary tale. The longer we cling to strong beliefs about the existence of pure evil, the more aggressive and antisocial we become.  And we may be aggressing towards individuals who are, in fact, “redeemable.”  Individuals who are not intrinsically and immutably motivated by the desire to intentionally cause harm to others. That may be the greatest trick the devil has ever pulled.

Until recently, most researchers believed that sociopathy is not treatable (see some of the articles on treatment at this site hosted by the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy). In fact, when you read some of the articles or see interviews with particularly some of the earlier scientific researchers involved with sociopaths (Hare?), it seems pretty clear that some of them have a belief in pure evil, so it's easy to see how sociopaths got labeled "irredeemable" initially.

The possibility of treatment and change has been one that I've been thinking a lot about, now that I (through therapy and the process of writing and promoting the book) finally feel like I have come to terms with myself in a way that both acknowledges and accepts my sociopathic tendencies, while not allowing them to hamper or restrict the way that I want to live my life. Less and less does my identity center around being sociopathic. I may never be normal, but I am forming a sense of self and learning how to identify and experience my emotions in a way that I never thought would be possible even a year ago. Because I still feel like I am in transition, I've been hesitant to speak too much about it or about anything related to sociopathy. But it does sort of bother me that part of that hesitancy is the concern that people will not receive the news well -- that I will be thought of as a sell-out by other sociopathically minded individuals or that I will be further derided as delusional or a fraud for having ever understood the term "sociopath" to describe me. This is too bad. I wish it were possible for us to believe that someone might have been a validly diagnosed sociopath but still was able to make lasting changes, possibly to the point where she could no longer be diagnosed as such anymore. I have my own personal reasons/biases for wanting to believe that story, but I also think in general it's one that we should try to believe in because it is one of hope and redemption instead of hopeless submission either to the evil inside us or to the evil outside us. But I'm not sure that's where we're at right now, unfortunately. 

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Viewpoints

I enjoyed reading recent comments comparing/contrasting how sociopaths think/feel about what they do vs. empaths. Often people cite the sociopath's lack of guilt as a reason for thinking that they are inherently more dangerous than people who are capable of feeling guilt and empathy. The problem with that is that empaths seem perfectly capable of turning off their guilt and empathy when it doesn't suit them, e.g. slavery, Holocaust, any of the thousands of genocides, any of the millions of wars. And as one commenter put it:

I wonder though, now that you have learned that the perfectly normal person can in the proper circumstances not just do worse evil than the sociopath but ENJOY it and rationalize it as a MORAL victory, do you find that MORE horrifying? When I do something evil at least I know it is evil. I don't get emotional satisfaction out of it. It might give me a momentary intellectual thrill. The "normal" person though who has been given societal absolution for the evil? The get enjoyment out of it. They get excited. btw Anon. They=you. Yes you personally. You want to remove me personally from society because I MIGHT cause harm. I have in my lifetime saved well over 50+ lives. I do charity work. I am making the world a better place DESPITE the fact that I get Nothing out of it emotionally. I do it because I follow my moral code. If we were both put in a position where we were released from societal consequences for causing harm to others and told to kill a stranger (like in war) I would be LESS likely than you to do it. Think on that. 

So the sociopath never receives the same sort of emotionally driven self-justification for doing bad things, just an intellectual thrill. But people seem to find that thrill more scary than the the ability to blindly follow someone to rape, kill, and maim in the name of some higher good.

The other thing that people find disturbing about the sociopath is that he does good things but not for the "right" reasons:

I do good things, I do them because they are right. I don't do it because it makes me feel good or because it makes me feel morally superior. I do it because I know what I am and I want to be something better.
***
I believe good and evil to be actions. Seriously, fuck all the moralizing crap, you are what you DO. You have time after time defended empaths who do evil or do nothing (in Tii's example) and reviled anyone who believes socio's are redeemable with an astounding lack of logic. I have no bones with holocaust deniers, to each their own own conspiracy theory. I subscribe to a few myself. I find them a good intellectual exercise. However, I have noticed a particularity about you that I need to address. 

Another commenter makes a similar point:

I have witness a kid fall of a train platform, thank God for him it wasn't too fast. Every one around made a commotion and took out there phones and cameras. No one tried to help, even the mother just watched while screaming and crying desperately. Only one to act was yours truly, Mr Sociopath. I jumped down and pushed him back up, not because I was happy to do it, not because I cared what happened to the kid, and not for the glory or gratitude (I care about that less than the kid). I only did so because it would be a shame to die so young, and because I couldn't stand those idiot empaths hypocrisy. The mother barelty noticed me I didnt even get a word of thanks, the other fools just clapped, it got me so upset (the clapping) I had to leave the platform. Next, my neighbor's dobberman onced got out of his yard and terrorized a young couple. The boyfriends ran away leaving his girl, while she stood there paralyzed and crying (a few morz seconds she might have pissed herself). One witness, actually a pretty cool guy and a good neighbor laughed, another ran into her house. Who put himself between the beast and the lovely dame? Yours truly, Mr Sociopath. I calmed it down and dragged it back to its house (fine the girl was hot, and I wanted to show off and earn point but still). Anyways my point is, just because I don't care, or because I am not genuine, or again because I hide my true feelings and intentions (I guess that would count as not being genuine too but the backspace key is to far) doesn't make me evil. If I have chosen to live my life doing good, and helping other for their sake and not mine, since I don't give two flying shit what happens to people, I shouldn't be seen for what I think. If actions speak louder than words, they surely speak louder than a thought that doesn't make a fucking sound. Whoever said it's the thought that count was just a lazy bitch, or incompetent hoe that couldn't or wasn't willing to act as he thought he should.
***
Many people call me a hypocrite when I tell them how I truly think or feel, because it doesn't align with my words or my action, or because I don't do good for the sake of others but, because I want to buy my way into heaven. But the way I see it Christianity is about sacrifice, so if I put my own thoughts and wants aside to follow a path that leads me to God (even if I only take it so that I don't end up in Hell), my actions should count more than my thoughts. A pedophile might be regarded as sick, and disturbed in our society but, if he resists all his urges and lies about his preferences because that is the "right" thing, shouldn't he be seen for what he does and not what he thinks? 

The unifying theme seems to be that sociopaths focus on the actions and the results of those actions, whereas normal people have been socialized to care more about whether someone had a "good" or "bad" intention, presumably because they believe that bad intentions make bad people and you can't really trust bad people no matter what:

[P[eople who feel remorse (e.g. who are not psychopaths) are more likely to refrain from committing further crimes than people who do not. This has been explicitly linked to reduced fear of consequences, the absence of shame and remorse and the resultant relative inability to learn from mistakes.

But is that a question as to the morality or the cost benefit analysis of keeping certain people in prison for longer than other people who may have committed a similar crime?

"In a wider sense, I'm not convinced (lack of) feelings of remorse make a 'morally bad' action any better or worse. To take an extreme example, a murder is a murder is a murder. Whether or not the murderer feels guilty about his or her actions, there's still a dead person and a bunch of people negatively affected by that person's absence and the manner of their 'departure'."

The main problem for the sociopath in accepting the empath's point of view here is that to a sociopath, actions can be controlled to a degree (as long as they are not completely ruled by impulse). Thoughts and feelings cannot, particularly to the extent that someone is asking them to feel a certain way about something that is impossible for the sociopath (guilt, remorse, empathy, etc.) So what do you do if you are a sociopath who cares to be better than how they were made? You make choices to do things that you believe to be right -- without any of the usual positive emotional reinforcement that empaths experience and sometimes against your very nature. And is that any less good than acting based on emotional prompts?

I would like you to notice that some of the sociopaths on this site are trying to live by society's rules, though they do not have the emotional "muscle" to help them do that. They have to use their intellect to do it. Can we also use our intellect to understand them? 

And to wrap it up:

I stand by my assertion that you are what you do and what you think or why you do it has no relevance. What I think is smoke and mirrors. Why I save a child or adult is of no relevance. No more than why I hold the door open for the person behind me. It is the right thing to do and I am betting that sociopath that I am I have done more right in this world than you have TJMO.

Does that thought piss you off? For all your hand wringing and moralizing that it is possible that Tii and I have saved more people than you have? That our continued existence benefits society more than your's does? Here is the kicker sweet flower. Most norms do good so they can feel good about themselves, we do because it is the right thing to do. We must fight our very nature to accomplish this task and we do it. Every damn day. For no reward whatsoever. I want you to take that and really think about or feel about it even for a second. Maybe take an hour or two out of your day and meditate on that. Good people do evil things every day. Evil people do good things every day. This is one of things that makes ALL people so damn fascinating to me. Even you my special flower. 

Sunday, August 17, 2014

"Feeling For You"

To file under failings of empathy (and the urge to simplify and reduce humanity into a problem that can be fixed only if you point it out often enough?), from Timothy Burke:

When the streams do cross and someone in a group or a discussion suddenly says, “Actually, I feel pretty hurt or offended by the way you folks are talking about this issue, because I’m actually the thing you’re talking about”, what happens? Sometimes people make non-apology apologies (“sorry that you’re offended”), sometimes people double-down and say, “You’re crazy, there’s nothing offensive about talking about X or Y”. A turn or two in the conversation, though, and what you’ll often hear is this: “Look, I just care about you and people like you. So I want to help.” (Or its close sibling: “Look, not to insult you personally, but people like you/behavior like that costs our society a lot of money and/or inflicts a lot of pain on other people. Don’t you think it would be better if…”)

I’d actually like to concede the sincerity of that response: that we get drawn into these discussions and the judgments they create out of concern for other people, out of concern for moral and social progress. That we feel passionately about people who let their children go to the park by themselves, about people who train their children to go hunting, about people who are overweight, about people who drive big SUVs, about people play their radios too loudly in their cars, about people who buy overly expensive salsa, about people who play video games, about people who raise backyard chickens, about people who demand accommodations for complex learning disabilities, about people who follow the fashion industry, about people who post to Instagram, about people who feed their kids fast food twice a week to save time, and so on.

I’d like to concede the sincerity but the problem is that most of these little waves of moral condemnation or judgmental concern don’t seem to be particularly compassionate or particularly committed. The folks who say, “I just want to help, because I care about you” show no signs of that compassion otherwise. They usually aren’t close friends to the person they’re commenting on, they usually have little empathy or curiosity overall. The folks who say, “Because I care about progress, about solving the bigger problem” don’t show much interest in that alleged bigger problem. The person who hates the big SUVs because they’re damaging the environment is often environmentally profligate in other ways. If the SUV-judger is consistently environmentally sensitive, some other aspect of their concern for the world, their vision of a better society, may be woefully out of synch or weakly developed.

The people I know who really care about others generally aren’t the people going on Facebook to say, “Man, I’m sick of people hiding behind claims of depression” or “If I meet another mother who thinks it’s ok to bring cupcakes to my child’s class, I’m going to go berserk”. The people I know who are really think about incremental moves to improve the world don’t get hung up on passing judgments on someone they’ve witnessed fleetingly in public.

I also liked this comment on the same post:

I think that at least part of these kinds of incidental judgements that people have and the weird fierceness of them in contrast to their weak post-hoc justifications (false compassion) comes from not having a good way to talk about non-instrumental aesthetic concerns.

We (I mean Westerners I guess) cannot really appeal to aesthetics as a justification. Think about grammar. People always justify things like lay/lie or “12 items or fewer” in terms of clarity, as though it were actually likely to confuse someone about meaning. Of course, no one is ever confused about meaning in those cases. However, for someone who has a strong aesthetic sense of which is correct, there is a moment of annoyance, a kind of disgust-related aversion to hearing the wrong one. This is actual source of the grammar pedant’s complaint, but it can’t be expressed as a valid justification because it’s not instrumental to some commonsensical social goal. So they invent concerns about clarity of language. Ditto the driver who is momentarily annoyed by a bicyclist and then concocts arguments about how not sharing in licensing fees makes riders freeloaders. The presence of an element that doesn’t fit smoothly into a mental model of how a system should work (for people like themselves) is the real problem. People do have some interest in keeping their mental model of the world well-defined, if only to lighten cognitive load. What’s problematic is the prioritization of one group’s aesthetic concerns over another’s very lives (e.g. drivers who bully cyclists on the road).

I’m a fat person, or I have been on and off, and I more or less share your take on the situation there. I’m quite sure that people aren’t expressing their real concerns when they talk about health or medical costs. (After all, runners have an extremely high rate of injury and no one thinks that they are anti-social; much to the contrary.) Although I don’t really want to sign up for some kind of identity politics of fatness either, I think it is ultimately rooted in the disgust response, much like the kinds of aesthetic judgements that go along with racism.

I think that not being racist and not being homophobic etc. are special cases of suppressing these extraneous aesthetic requirements with the understanding that some specific dimension of variation needs to be tolerated and integrated into the mental model of how things work — but that tolerance is the result of hard-fought gains specific to each case.

Which of the mental health categories get this type of hate the most? 
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.