This was an interesting video from Professor Glenn Wilson about the hazy boundaries of labeling someone with apparent mental problems are merely mad, bad, or sad.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Zen Buddism and Military
From a reader:
The military is making soldiers do zen meditation (mindfulness meditation). This is similar to what happened with the samurai - they did zen practice (sitting meditation).
They've already got data showing that this practice makes the soldiers stress resilient:
http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=52782
This is their website: http://www.mind-fitness-training.org/training.html
There's plenty of sociopaths in the military. I know one at West Point. For him, doing MMFT is going to help him to distinguish himself and get ahead, so you can bet that he'll do it.
Is anyone familiar with this? It's almost like they trying to train soldiers to have some of the more useful sociopathic traits?
And related comments from another, older, Buddhism post:
why is it that so many empaths expect the sociopath to unfailingly feel things the way they do, no matter how much effort is required, yet are unwilling to put the same amount of effort into managing their own emotions?
And
how are buddhists wishy washy Carlos?
to me compassion feels expansive, like a feeling of connectedness where no one is better or worse than you, a feeling where we're all in it together... just like a drug high but without the drugs. compassion makes me want to paint or write, create art. or freely give you money as if i'm giving it to myself. and that's cool 'cause we're one. : )
empathy feels tight and urgent, like a toothache. it's personal, in its own tight little space, and more about filling my needs even though i'm actively filling yours. i may be feeling with you, but not WHAT you're feeling. and the whole point is to calm my own feelings. if i give you money, it's because things aren't okay and i'm hoping the money will change that. empathy that has no outlet just makes me want to get drunk.
The military is making soldiers do zen meditation (mindfulness meditation). This is similar to what happened with the samurai - they did zen practice (sitting meditation).
They've already got data showing that this practice makes the soldiers stress resilient:
http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=52782
This is their website: http://www.mind-fitness-training.org/training.html
There's plenty of sociopaths in the military. I know one at West Point. For him, doing MMFT is going to help him to distinguish himself and get ahead, so you can bet that he'll do it.
Is anyone familiar with this? It's almost like they trying to train soldiers to have some of the more useful sociopathic traits?
And related comments from another, older, Buddhism post:
why is it that so many empaths expect the sociopath to unfailingly feel things the way they do, no matter how much effort is required, yet are unwilling to put the same amount of effort into managing their own emotions?
And
how are buddhists wishy washy Carlos?
to me compassion feels expansive, like a feeling of connectedness where no one is better or worse than you, a feeling where we're all in it together... just like a drug high but without the drugs. compassion makes me want to paint or write, create art. or freely give you money as if i'm giving it to myself. and that's cool 'cause we're one. : )
empathy feels tight and urgent, like a toothache. it's personal, in its own tight little space, and more about filling my needs even though i'm actively filling yours. i may be feeling with you, but not WHAT you're feeling. and the whole point is to calm my own feelings. if i give you money, it's because things aren't okay and i'm hoping the money will change that. empathy that has no outlet just makes me want to get drunk.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Sherlock sociopaths INTJs
A reader writes on the relationship between sociopathy and the Myers-Briggs personality type, INTJ:
In short, I think a lot of people take MBTI too far. They base huge decisions about life direction on a general tendency to think in a specific way and use their psychological reserves in a particular direction. It isn't a horoscope, the MBTI is supposed to be used to branch out into other styles and become a well-rounded person. No one is a pure type, and INTJs can be arrogant about their perceived purity of rationality, which, ironically, isn't what a rational person would think. The website LessWrong is a pretty good breakdown of the kind of self-regulation a high-minded personality type requires. I type as INTJ myself and can't help but facepalm over the self-appointed geniuses who never created a damn thing in their entire lives. It's a potential, not a promise.
Personality typing is complicated when you bring in certain disorders. INTJs, being a hermitic type, are often judged for that literal and mental distance. The two common slurs are Aspie and Sociopath. What do these have in common? Blunted affect. Or so it seems.
There's very little written on the connection between certain personality values and mental abnormalities (I mean that in the mathematical sense of rarity). It's largely speculation and from what I studied at Uni, it's imprecise. Like throwing at a dartboard and hitting the same place twice it may happen, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
The similarities I can see between sociopathy and INTJs are best described as coping mechanisms. Both types of person deal with copious amounts of information on a daily basis and some form of filtration is required to thrive. Both types tend to live in their heads and this can fairly freak normal people out. The pressure release valve of INTJs is easily upset by undue amounts of stress in a short period of time, causing them to lash out. On the surface, this might appear a sociopathic 0-60 in temper.
Neither is automatically trusting and these belief systems about testing the world, changing things and treating the world like a gigantic experiment can appear manipulative in a damaging way, as many people are socially-oriented before ideas. The dark sense of humour in expression make it sound worse than it is. "I wanted to see what you'd do."
INTJs and sociopaths value truth above socially-proscribed norms and among the common herd this can make them enemies. I agree with those who type BBC's Sherlock as INTJ because his deep, alarmingly sharp processing of information screams INTJ to me.
http://sherlockcharacterconfessions.tumblr.com/sherlockholmesprofile
That isn't to say the guy is without faults. He's full of inconsistencies, being the product of many writers, and one outright declared he isn't a sociopath although "he wishes he was." With all due respect, that guy is full of shit. If we place the INTJ typing aside, the Sherlock they wrote behaves in a sociopathic way. Whether it's for dramatic effect and whether he intends to are irrelevant. SEASON 3 SPOILER ALERT: A person with no sociopathic bent could never shoot a guy in the head at point-blank range in cold blood. On a practical level, their fight/flight response would make it impossible. What annoys me about the character's recent outings are the typical attempt to make him cuddlier and in the process lose the veracity of the Sherlock Holmes brand.
Those personality traits don't need to be fixed, they're valuable to society. However, sometimes the person who embodies them needs to branch out for personal reasons and that is to be encouraged.
If a pure INTJ met a pure sociopath, the latter would be irritated because the former would see them as a big puzzle and the latter would see somebody with a good theoretical brain being wasted on impractical goals. They overlap where they think: yeah, I know the social rules, I just don't care.
In short, I think a lot of people take MBTI too far. They base huge decisions about life direction on a general tendency to think in a specific way and use their psychological reserves in a particular direction. It isn't a horoscope, the MBTI is supposed to be used to branch out into other styles and become a well-rounded person. No one is a pure type, and INTJs can be arrogant about their perceived purity of rationality, which, ironically, isn't what a rational person would think. The website LessWrong is a pretty good breakdown of the kind of self-regulation a high-minded personality type requires. I type as INTJ myself and can't help but facepalm over the self-appointed geniuses who never created a damn thing in their entire lives. It's a potential, not a promise.
Personality typing is complicated when you bring in certain disorders. INTJs, being a hermitic type, are often judged for that literal and mental distance. The two common slurs are Aspie and Sociopath. What do these have in common? Blunted affect. Or so it seems.
There's very little written on the connection between certain personality values and mental abnormalities (I mean that in the mathematical sense of rarity). It's largely speculation and from what I studied at Uni, it's imprecise. Like throwing at a dartboard and hitting the same place twice it may happen, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
The similarities I can see between sociopathy and INTJs are best described as coping mechanisms. Both types of person deal with copious amounts of information on a daily basis and some form of filtration is required to thrive. Both types tend to live in their heads and this can fairly freak normal people out. The pressure release valve of INTJs is easily upset by undue amounts of stress in a short period of time, causing them to lash out. On the surface, this might appear a sociopathic 0-60 in temper.
Neither is automatically trusting and these belief systems about testing the world, changing things and treating the world like a gigantic experiment can appear manipulative in a damaging way, as many people are socially-oriented before ideas. The dark sense of humour in expression make it sound worse than it is. "I wanted to see what you'd do."
INTJs and sociopaths value truth above socially-proscribed norms and among the common herd this can make them enemies. I agree with those who type BBC's Sherlock as INTJ because his deep, alarmingly sharp processing of information screams INTJ to me.
http://sherlockcharacterconfessions.tumblr.com/sherlockholmesprofile
That isn't to say the guy is without faults. He's full of inconsistencies, being the product of many writers, and one outright declared he isn't a sociopath although "he wishes he was." With all due respect, that guy is full of shit. If we place the INTJ typing aside, the Sherlock they wrote behaves in a sociopathic way. Whether it's for dramatic effect and whether he intends to are irrelevant. SEASON 3 SPOILER ALERT: A person with no sociopathic bent could never shoot a guy in the head at point-blank range in cold blood. On a practical level, their fight/flight response would make it impossible. What annoys me about the character's recent outings are the typical attempt to make him cuddlier and in the process lose the veracity of the Sherlock Holmes brand.
Those personality traits don't need to be fixed, they're valuable to society. However, sometimes the person who embodies them needs to branch out for personal reasons and that is to be encouraged.
If a pure INTJ met a pure sociopath, the latter would be irritated because the former would see them as a big puzzle and the latter would see somebody with a good theoretical brain being wasted on impractical goals. They overlap where they think: yeah, I know the social rules, I just don't care.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Attitudes about lying
From a reader:
I've just recently found your blog, and I love it. I basically skimmed through your whole blog over the weekend, so maybe you did address this and I missed it, but just in case you haven't, I thought I'd ask:
Was there ever a particular moment/epiphany where you realized that people genuinely struggle to lie - either just as a skill set, or morally they can't abide by lying?
I was never able to take fictional characters who struggled to lie seriously, and merely assumed they were yet another dumbed-down archetype meant to instill a moral objective in children, one of many that society ultimately fails at. Why should I take the grown-ups seriously about not lying when they also, in the process of telling me to "be nice", encouraged me to lie (either outright or by omission)? I struggled to understand the subtle social cues, and took them as invisible nuances of walking and talking that I worked hard to understand - and I assumed lying was apart of these 'unspoken universal actions'.
When I responded to people's various dilemmas over the years with "why don't/didn't you just like?", I never understood them when they said, "I can't!" Didn't they see how pointless this moral attitude was? It wasn't until my early teens when someone explicitly said that they froze up in that situation, and that the lies I'd thought of on the spot they were only able to conceive after careful consideration, that I realized lying was less of a universal and more of a skill-set. After all, if I knew there were people out there who could, say, do a complex math problem easily in their heads that I struggled to do with pen and paper, then of course it made sense that lies I could easily think of would come harder to some people.
Even then, it didn't really occur to me that people could feel such moral aversion to lying. I could understand disliking lying, and I could understand not being good at it. But then a very recent incident sharply reminded me how easily other people become guilt-ridden over the most ridiculous things:
A female friend of mine comes from an extremely micromanaging and conservative family. She wanted to visit a sex shop with the rest of our social group, and we suggested she tell her family that she is seeing "The Hobbit" to justify being away from home and not answering her phone for several hours straight. Simple, right? Except a day later I got a text from her asking if we can see another movie instead. I was very confused and assumed she just wanted a different time frame (preferring a 2-hour block instead of the 3-hour block to be gained with The Hobbit), and after a couple of back-and-forths it turned out now she actually wanted to take us to see a movie "so the guilt and shame would not kill her".
Considering she upheld a very active social life that often has somewhat sexual components to it without her family's knowledge, I was genuinely shocked that she had this aversion to lying. Lying about whether someone is a friend or sexual acquaintance is okay, lying about which part of the city you are in is okay, and lying about what you are doing those long hours you are supposed to be studying in college is okay, but you draw the line at lying about a movie? I'm...actually still rather confused by it. Both by the fact she, specifically, has such an aversion - and that someone can feel guilt about lying when they are doing so as a measure of self-support in the face of unnecessary social suppression. I intellectually understand that some people feel guilt when lying. But I cannot understand why someone who was lying to an overtly-controlling family just to be able to go out with some friends would feel guilty about it. The only explanation that makes sense is that it's a domestic analogue to Stockholm Syndrome - except that she obviously isn't kidnapped nor abused by her family (there was an abusive father, but he has been gone for years, now).
I'm muddling through it on my own and after poking around some of her issues I started to understand it, but now that I've stumbled across your blog, I have to ask - when did you learn people struggled with lying, or did you always know without any particular epiphany? Did you never differentiate between people who struggled with lying purely as a skillset vs those who struggled with it "morally"/emotionally? Did you ever try to explain to yourself why they struggled? If so, what are some of the explanations you've come up with? And if not, how did you handle people's bizarre attitudes towards lying?
I've just recently found your blog, and I love it. I basically skimmed through your whole blog over the weekend, so maybe you did address this and I missed it, but just in case you haven't, I thought I'd ask:
Was there ever a particular moment/epiphany where you realized that people genuinely struggle to lie - either just as a skill set, or morally they can't abide by lying?
I was never able to take fictional characters who struggled to lie seriously, and merely assumed they were yet another dumbed-down archetype meant to instill a moral objective in children, one of many that society ultimately fails at. Why should I take the grown-ups seriously about not lying when they also, in the process of telling me to "be nice", encouraged me to lie (either outright or by omission)? I struggled to understand the subtle social cues, and took them as invisible nuances of walking and talking that I worked hard to understand - and I assumed lying was apart of these 'unspoken universal actions'.
When I responded to people's various dilemmas over the years with "why don't/didn't you just like?", I never understood them when they said, "I can't!" Didn't they see how pointless this moral attitude was? It wasn't until my early teens when someone explicitly said that they froze up in that situation, and that the lies I'd thought of on the spot they were only able to conceive after careful consideration, that I realized lying was less of a universal and more of a skill-set. After all, if I knew there were people out there who could, say, do a complex math problem easily in their heads that I struggled to do with pen and paper, then of course it made sense that lies I could easily think of would come harder to some people.
Even then, it didn't really occur to me that people could feel such moral aversion to lying. I could understand disliking lying, and I could understand not being good at it. But then a very recent incident sharply reminded me how easily other people become guilt-ridden over the most ridiculous things:
A female friend of mine comes from an extremely micromanaging and conservative family. She wanted to visit a sex shop with the rest of our social group, and we suggested she tell her family that she is seeing "The Hobbit" to justify being away from home and not answering her phone for several hours straight. Simple, right? Except a day later I got a text from her asking if we can see another movie instead. I was very confused and assumed she just wanted a different time frame (preferring a 2-hour block instead of the 3-hour block to be gained with The Hobbit), and after a couple of back-and-forths it turned out now she actually wanted to take us to see a movie "so the guilt and shame would not kill her".
Considering she upheld a very active social life that often has somewhat sexual components to it without her family's knowledge, I was genuinely shocked that she had this aversion to lying. Lying about whether someone is a friend or sexual acquaintance is okay, lying about which part of the city you are in is okay, and lying about what you are doing those long hours you are supposed to be studying in college is okay, but you draw the line at lying about a movie? I'm...actually still rather confused by it. Both by the fact she, specifically, has such an aversion - and that someone can feel guilt about lying when they are doing so as a measure of self-support in the face of unnecessary social suppression. I intellectually understand that some people feel guilt when lying. But I cannot understand why someone who was lying to an overtly-controlling family just to be able to go out with some friends would feel guilty about it. The only explanation that makes sense is that it's a domestic analogue to Stockholm Syndrome - except that she obviously isn't kidnapped nor abused by her family (there was an abusive father, but he has been gone for years, now).
I'm muddling through it on my own and after poking around some of her issues I started to understand it, but now that I've stumbled across your blog, I have to ask - when did you learn people struggled with lying, or did you always know without any particular epiphany? Did you never differentiate between people who struggled with lying purely as a skillset vs those who struggled with it "morally"/emotionally? Did you ever try to explain to yourself why they struggled? If so, what are some of the explanations you've come up with? And if not, how did you handle people's bizarre attitudes towards lying?
M.E.: I don’t think I ever wondered about people’s ability to lie, but I definitely remember trying to coach my long distance cousin about how to stand up to the bullies in his life and being shocked that he wasn’t able to naturally intuit ways of subtly undermining others while maintaining a veil of innocence to onlookers.
I myself don’t think about or understand lying much. Should we publish what you wrote to see what others have to say?
Reader:
Sometimes, I still have trouble grasping how difficult it is for other people to lie. It's like saying you don't know how to brush your teeth or something. Several years into college and I still have to remind myself that just because I can immediately figure out what someone else's insecurities and psychological weaknesses are, doesn't mean everyone else can. (And it really takes some reminding, sometimes, because it just seems so obvious to me.)
And definitely, go ahead and publish it (and hell, this e-mail, too). I'm curious to see what other people would say. I've had some...interesting reactions to explaining to people (every day people in real life) that I had to 'learn' in my tweens that lying didn't come easy to most people, because I'd been doing it so naturally and easily all my life.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Sliding scale of emotions
From a reader:
I just heard your interview on CBC radio and was totally fascinated by you.
I could really identify with your perception of yourself as a child, and the knowingness of being different, your high intelligence and your ability to read people. As I listened, I was right there with you. Funny enough, I am a highly empathetic person. I feel people and in the same way you enjoy "ruining people" I enjoy building them up. I hone in on an attribute and try to mirror it back to them to lift them up. It is a skill that I have and I derive much joy and satisfaction from expressing this aspect of myself. Lucky for me, society looks upon this as an acceptable trait and therefore life is made easier for me.
I have come to believe that we all reside on a sliding scale when it comes to emotion. If you are a sociopath, what would we call those who are so into their emotions that they are constantly surrounded by chaos, drama and never ending suffering. I love the way you see yourself, I love that you have rules you live by that allow you to exist in society and to find a solid balance between being o.k. with who you are and being o.k. with how the world sees you. We should all be so lucky.
I just wanted to say thanks for sharing. I wholeheartedly believe that we are all aspects of the whole and I was able to experience what you have to give today and for that I am grateful. You are magnificent and I just wanted to express how much joy I felt listening to you. I look forward to reading your book.
I just heard your interview on CBC radio and was totally fascinated by you.
I could really identify with your perception of yourself as a child, and the knowingness of being different, your high intelligence and your ability to read people. As I listened, I was right there with you. Funny enough, I am a highly empathetic person. I feel people and in the same way you enjoy "ruining people" I enjoy building them up. I hone in on an attribute and try to mirror it back to them to lift them up. It is a skill that I have and I derive much joy and satisfaction from expressing this aspect of myself. Lucky for me, society looks upon this as an acceptable trait and therefore life is made easier for me.
I have come to believe that we all reside on a sliding scale when it comes to emotion. If you are a sociopath, what would we call those who are so into their emotions that they are constantly surrounded by chaos, drama and never ending suffering. I love the way you see yourself, I love that you have rules you live by that allow you to exist in society and to find a solid balance between being o.k. with who you are and being o.k. with how the world sees you. We should all be so lucky.
I just wanted to say thanks for sharing. I wholeheartedly believe that we are all aspects of the whole and I was able to experience what you have to give today and for that I am grateful. You are magnificent and I just wanted to express how much joy I felt listening to you. I look forward to reading your book.
My response:
I actually also enjoy building people up. I enjoy seeing the effect that I can have on people, the power that I have over myself and my environment. I even have a preference for building people up, for whatever reason. But that doesn’t detract for me at all the pleasure in seeing something torn apart. Maybe being in law is a good career choice for me — tearing apart people’s stories, the lies that they’ve decided to live or at least try to pass off as truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
