Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Do narcissists love?

I've been reading Sam Vaknin's book "Malignant Self Love" and thought I would share his opinion on how narcissists view love, in contrast to how sociopaths conceive of love:
Do narcissists miss loving, would they have liked to love and are they angry with their parents for crippling them so?

To the narcissist, these questions are incomprehensible. There is no way he can answer them. Narcissists never love. They do not know what is it that they are supposedly missing. Observing it from the outside, love seems to them to be a risible pathology. They equate love with weakness. They hate being weak and they hate and despise weak people (such as the very old, the sick, the poor, and the very young). They do not tolerate what they consider to be stupidity, disease and dependence - and love seems to be comprised of all three. These are not sour grapes. They really feel this way.

Narcissists are angry men - but not because they never experienced love and probably never will. They are angry because they are not as powerful, awe inspiring and successful as they wish they were and, to their mind, deserve to be. Because their daydreams refuse so stubbornly to come true. Because they are their worst enemy. And because, in their unmitigated paranoia, they see adversaries plotting everywhere and feel discriminated againdst and contemptuously ignored.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

TED Talk on Empathy

From a reader:

I recently viewed this Ted Talk about empathy, and as a person who has never truly experienced it, the presentation was rather interesting. What I found especially fascinating was the role of mirror neurons in the empathetic process. Could it be that sociopaths cannot utilize (or do not possess) mirror neurons, thus making us physiologically incapable of empathizing with others? 

Another point mentioned was the tie between empathy, religion, and the development of society. Rifkin states that empaths are able to relate to those of their own religion and nationality. As an atheist (and someone who exhibits most of the "sociopathic characteristics" that are generally recognized in psychology), I personally cannot see why religion might create stronger empathetic bonds between people. As a Mormon, have you ever noticed yourself favoring those who share your religious beliefs, and perhaps even relating to them to a higher degree?

The speaker brought up the earthquake in Haiti, which was actually the event that caused me to question if I was a sociopath. While I saw others crying about the event on social media and even in public, I didn't have any sympathy for those who experienced the earthquake, and my callousness made me look like an outsider in a crowd of extremely emotional people. 

In the presentation, there is also a constant theme of civilization only being possible with empathy. If so, why are there so many sociopaths taking the highest positions in society almost seamlessly? Why are empaths so proud of their ability to have others influence them so greatly?

I'd love to know your thoughts on the matter. 

M.E.: I have never really felt myself feeling closer to other Mormons, maybe because I'm not enough like them to feel like one of them. In fact I remember vividly one instance in which I visited a Temple open house and was surrounded by thousands of little redheaded Mormon children and almost had a panic attack because I got it in my head that I would stick out more there than usual -- that I would be outed. I remember (also vividly) the first time that I felt patriotism, in my early 20s. Not surprisingly, it was while playing a Sousa march accompanied by 250 blaring other musicians. (I say not surprisingly because I often feel like I can get in touch with emotions via music that are otherwise not as available to me.)

The fetish that empaths have with empathy is one of the great mysteries to me. Only a few psychologists and other researchers question it's presumed dominance and importance in society, culture, and human interrelations. I have often pointed out, to those who might be interested, what I find to be the limitations and or quirks of empathy. A favorite recent examples is the story of the Norwegian child bride. I don't want to ruin the effect for anybody, who should experience it for themselves, but you can read about it here.

Still I think it's interesting what an uproar it created. And you think of how many times a similar situation happens elsewhere and how little we care. But that's empathy for you.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Passion and compassion

I liked this comment from a while ago:

Anon. continued -- and it goes without saying, I love the hell out of her. I love her the way a normal guys loves his dearest possession. I love her in the sense that I want her to be happy (agape). And I love her waist-to-hip ratio (eros).

I also love her in the way that if she betrays me in a way that hurts (not all betrayal bugs me) and I can get away with retaliating in a cruel way, I'll do it. And she knows that. 

A test: in order to stop your country from getting taken over - and a good chunk of the country purposefully killed and tortured (think of the Bolsheviks taking over Ukraine and causing the Holodomor) and dominating the country "forever", you need to sacrifice your wife. You must personally torture her to death. If you do that, your country will keep its autonomy. If you don't millions will suffer.

Would you do it?

I asked my friends if they thought I'd to that to my wife; they all knew the answer - and they knew that I'd reached it in about a second, without my pulse going up.
I asked the wife (also a psychopath). Her answer, "sucks to be me."

About the viewing people like machines, but still liking some: imagine you are a kid and you have an army of toy soldiers. You get into a "battle" with another kid and you lose soldiers. You really like yours (say they are elves). You don't like the orcs (ugly). You really want the elves to win, and you'll do what it takes to make it happen. Until maybe some of the elves piss you off, and then you decide that pointy-eared elves are OK, but the elves with rounded ears are really irritating - and have to go - preferably melted down, cut up in to pieces or blown up.

That explains why the German people were really great, until Hitler decided that all the really good ones were already dead (having followed their orders), and the only remaining ones were so disgusting and selfish they didn't deserve to live.

It is a childish and misanthrophic way to view humanity. It leads to a lot of suffering for the person that views reality that way.

The compassionate thing would be to hope that such a person could come around and see how great humans are and treasure all of them - including the psychopaths, normal people, etc.
But this isn't how normal people are. Psychopaths scare them and hence merit as much compassion as a pissed off snake.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Enlightenment

From a reader:

Hi, it's interesting to get a sociopath take on reality. I notice you try to 'justify' the sociopaths view of the world and this is often both thought-provoking and helpful.

However, is the socio take on the world false?

I'm interested in 'spirituality' and (as I think you've discussed before) many people who experience enlightenment believe the self to be an illusion. However, when they do experience enlightenment they all say they feel extremely high affinity for all life and inanimate objects. This is the polar opposite of a socio of course. If enlightenment reveals the truth, then the truth is we ought to have a very high degree of affinity for others. Since socio's have low or no affinity doesn't that suggest the way socios see the world is false? Possibly even somewhat animalistic and sub-human? (Btw I believe non-violent socio's ought to be tolerated and encouraged to be as open and honest as possible about themselves, as you do on your blog).

My response:

Yes, I think I sort of agree with you. The way that Buddhists seem to lose self in enlightenment is to realize the truth -- that they are just like everyone else, a meaningless spec that has fooled itself into believing that it controls its destiny. The way sociopaths seem to lose their sense of self is to be put in situations at a young age in which they see a sense of self (and accompanying emotions and loss of control) as a liability, and they are all too willing to abandon it. Sociopaths still have self, they just don't acknowledge it and give it meaning, the way they don't really acknowledge or give their emotions meaning. So yes, I would say that it is a false view of the world.

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.