Narcissistic personality disorder explained – very good!

The “very good” refers to the videos below.

I talked about this disorder in relation to Donald Trump, before. Please, do remember that persons with narcissistic personality disorder DID NOT CHOOSE to have this disorder. In most cases, something happened in early childhood while the person’s personality was being formed. (There is a video below about that.)

It’s my interest in bioethics in combination with a zen tinge of acceptance, among other things (including two personal situations), that is causing me to look deeper into particularly these personality disorders.

Bioethicist Julian Savulescu, for instance, advocates for removing essentially all disorders and diseases from the human gene pool, even when we can do a lot to prevent certain conditions or keep them under control (think asthma and air quality). A lot of what he wants is like demolishing homes to prevent that they ever burn down. He also is highly critical with regard to various personality disorders.

If you are able to be compassionate and keep in mind that the line between compassion and stupidity is very thin, you may find that dealing with a narcissist becomes much easier. Also, not everyone with narcissistic personality disorder has the affliction to the same degree or in the same way.

It is, for instance, possible to be friends with someone with narcissistic personality disorder. You have to be very steady on your feet and recognize every instance you’re being played so that you can stop each manipulative game before it starts (such as being told that you’re wrong, that red is black and then when you agree it’s black, being told it’s red).

Recognize the toddler part in narcissists when they behave like toddlers. Respond the way you would respond to a toddler. (Calmly.)

You also have to be aware of what may be happening behind your back (lies that are being told about you) and realize that if you try to talk to third parties about the disorder or about what is going on, YOU will sound like the “crazy” and “jealous” one. Can you handle that?

I am not recommending that we all become friends with narcissists, but they are a part of human diversity so we run into them whether we like it or not. Being able to deal with them well is better for everyone.

You can often choose how you respond emotionally to all sorts of occurrences and being able to choose how you respond can make a great difference. Often, you can either choose to get upset and feel victimized or shrug, smile and calmly carry on with whatever you were doing (or walk away). Understanding more about narcissistic personality disorder can facilitate this ability to choose your own responses.

The upside? Narcissists may all have a great sense of humor and no one can ever accuse them of being boring. Sometimes, you can actually learn from them, or from having encountered them.

The downside? They may have ruined you (your life) completely before you even know what hit you. Taking the zen approach of mentally letting go of what you lost and acceptance can help you deal with it and enable you to stay “whole” (but that is hard to explain without sounding shallow or even flippant or, worse, as an encouragement for accepting abuse).

Video 1: How to understand people who irritate or upset you

Video 2: Understanding the mind of a narcissist

Video 3: The emotion at the heart of narcissism

Video 4: The childhood origins of narcissism

Video 5: 5 key strategies for dealing with narcissists

Video 6: How the narcissist destroys your physical health

Video 7: 5 destructive fantasies empaths have after the narcissist has left.
(This is a video about lingering beliefs or ideas some people have after the breakup of a relationship with a narcissist.)

Video 8: The hidden emotion that makes empaths vulnerable to narcissists

Video 9: 7 traits of Narcissistic Abuse Victim Syndrome

Also, this happens when you ignore a narcissist, apparently:

Knowing how manipulation works is helpful too.

Below is an example of a behavior that narcissistic personality disorder can also result in, apparently. (Notice that no one seems to have realized yet that hackers can also have narcissistic personality disorder.) I am not sure yet how that comes about. Perhaps from the realization that in real life, relationships are too hard for someone with such a personality disorder?

I post the following from the work of Dr Lorraine Sheridan.

Typology 4: Sadistic stalking (12.9%)

Characteristics

· victim is an obsessive target of the offender, and who’s life is seen as quarry and prey (incremental orientation)
· victim selection criteria is primarily rooted in the victim being:

(i) someone worthy of spoiling, i.e. someone who is perceived by the stalker at the commencement as being: – happy – ‘good’ – stable – content and
(ii) lacking in the victim’s perception any just rationale as to why she was targeted

· initial low level acquaintance

· apparently benign initially but unlike infatuation harassment the means of intervention tend to have negative orientation designed to disconcert, unnerve, and ergo take power away from the victim

– notes left in victim’s locked car in order to unsettle target (cf. billet-doux of infatuated harassment)
– subtle evidence being left of having been in contact with the victim’s personal items e.g. rifled underwear drawer, re-ordering/removal of private papers, cigarette ends left in ash trays, toilet having been used etc.
– ‘helping’ mend victims car that stalker had previously disabled · thereafter progressive escalation of control over all aspects (i.e. social, historical, professional, financial, physical) of the victim’s life

· offender gratification is rooted in the desire to extract evidence of the victim’s powerlessness with inverse implications for his power => sadism
· additional implication => self-perpetuating in desire to hone down relentlessly on individual victim(s)
· emotional coldness, deliberateness and psychopathy (cf. the heated nature of ex-partner harassment)
· tended to have a history of stalking behaviour and the controlling of others · stalker tended to broaden out targets to family and friends in a bid to isolate the victim and further enhance his control
· communications tended to be a blend of loving and threatening (not hate) designed to de-stabilise and confuse the victim
· threats were either overt (“We’re going to die together”) or subtle (delivery of dead roses)
· stalker could be highly dangerous

– in particular with psychological violence geared to the controlling of the victim with fear, loss of privacy and the curtailment of her social world

· physical violence was also entirely possible

– especially by means which undermine the victim’s confidence in matters normally taken for granted e.g. disabling brake cables, disarming safety equipment, cutting power off

· sexual content of communications was aimed primarily to intimidate through the victim’s humiliation, disgust and general undermining of self-esteem
· the older the offender, the more likely he would have enacted sadistic stalking before and would not be likely to offend after 40 years of age if not engaged in such stalking before
· victim was likely to be re-visited after a seeming hiatus

Case management implications

· should be taken very seriously
· acknowledge from outset that the stalker activity will be very difficult to eradicate
· acknowledge that there is no point whatsoever in appealing to the offender – indeed will exacerbate the problem
· never believe any assurances, alternative versions of events etc. which are given by the offender
· however, record them for use in legal action later
· the victim should be given as much understanding and support as can be made available
· the victim should not be given false or unrealistic assurance or guarantees that s/he will be protected
· the victim should carefully consider relocation. Geographical emphasis being less on distance per se, and more on where the offender is least able to find the victim
· the police should have in mind that the sadistic stalker will be likely to:

(i) carefully construct and calculate their activity to simultaneously minimise the risk of intervention by authorities while retaining maximum impact on victim,
(ii) be almost impervious to intervention since the overcoming of obstacles provides
(iii) new and potent means of demonstrating the victim’s powerlessness (ergo self-perpetuating) and,
(iiii) if jailed will continue both personally and vicariously with the use of a network.

http://www.le.ac.uk/press/ebulletin/archive/speaker_sheridan.html

http://www.le.ac.uk/ebulletin-archive/ebulletin/features/2000-2009/2007/07/nparticle.2007-07-17.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6300291.stm

http://www.le.ac.uk/press/stalkingsurvey.htm

When Buddhism goes haywire

Yesterday, I looked into Buddhist violence in Burma. That may sound like a contradiction to you, but there is a group of violent Buddhists in Burma (Myanmar) and there is one in Sri Lanka too.

If you want to read up on it, follow these links:

understandingArticle in Time: How an Extremist Buddhist Network Is Sowing Hatred Across Asia

Article in the New York Times: Sri Lanka’s Violent Buddhists

Article in BBC News: The darker side of Buddhism

Article on Al Jazeera America: Myanmar’s Buddhist terrorism problem

Article on the CNN site: Dalai Lama to Myanmar, Sri Lanka Buddhists: Stop violence against Muslims

Article in Time: Burma’s Hard-Line Buddhists Are Waging a Campaign of Hate That Nobody Can Stop

Facebook in trouble?

Facebook appears to know it is in trouble over the experiment it conducted (see previous post). On CNN, I read this morning that a spokesperson said it was research “to improve our services”.

It looks like Facebook is trying to jump through hoops. But Facebook doesn’t fit through the hoops.

When users consented to their data being used to improve Facebook’s services, most users will have assumed that this referred to services provided to the users, not services Facebook provides to advertisers. (When you’re happy, you are more optimistic, hence more likely to click on advertisements. Pessimists have a more realistic view of the world than optimists, but optimists likely see themselves as more successful than pessimists.)

And when Facebook users consented to their data being used to improve the services, they sure as hell did not consent to psychological experiments being conducted on them.

They may have expected Facebook to analyse the data and make use of the results of those analyses, yes, but they were likely thinking in terms of technology or something along those lines. Upgrading server x that delivers Facebook to country y. They may also have expected to see baby products being advertised to those who clicked on such ads and posted baby pictures, and office products being shown to people who stated that they are self-employed.

Facebook tweaking the streams of users to bring them the items it thought users wanted to see, that is one thing. I can be annoyed about Facebook not showing my friends’ posts in my timeline, no matter how many boxes I tick to try and get them to show and I can be annoyed about commercial posts I get shown no matter how many boxes I tick in an attempt to get rid of posts about products I cannot even buy because I am many miles away on the other side of the world, but that is an entirely different ballpark compared with Facebook deliberately tweaking the streams of users to make them feel happy or make them feel miserable, or even attempting to see whether it can or not.

Facebook – and the two university researchers along with it – has crossed a line, again. This time, Facebook has made an unforgivable mistake.

It is true that other media manipulate us all the time. But we expect that. We know that the BBC only reports what it wants to report and does not present an objective overview of society. We know that commercials feed us bullshit, that buying that car or buying that dress or perfume won’t make glamorous models suddenly find us irresistible. And I know that when CNN – CNN Money, that is – writes that “it does not appear that Facebook faces any legal implications”, CNN is trying to manipulate its audience too.

That does not apply when it comes to messages from our friends. It may still be true that we have one or two friends – or children – who may consciously or subconsciously try to manipulate us, but when it comes to messages our friends post combined, we do not expect those messages to be manipulated by a third party in such a way that we become happier. And we certainly don’t expect our Facebook streams to be manipulated to make us miserable.

Happy or sad?

 

Facebook could have conducted this experiment equally well after explaining what it wanted to do and allowing users informed consent. It chose not to.

The US Army provided some of the funding for this experiment. That does not help.

I have meanwhile realised how Facebook may be able to get away with this in a court of law. Facebook could claim that it was carrying out this experiment because it was concerned about the number of suicides and other problems precipitated by bullying on Facebook. It could say that it was trying to figure out how it could tweak the streams of its users to prevent such problems for its users. Unless some whistleblower provides evidence to refute this, that might very well work.