Sometimes I can't stop myself from writing, so here are some of my thoughts on why this happens, with a prevalence of narcissism in humanity not being a major reason in my mind as some other comments are suggesting-- and I think the idea of rampant online narcissism is possibly a mistake in reason popularized by Jordan Peterson.. at the very least in that it might unintentionally do these three things: oversimplify our fellow human beings in a way that dehumanizes them, damaging the collective understanding of what it means to be human, and prevent more platonic intimacy and subsequent wellbeing between human beings as a result; which is also not to say there are people that should be avoided for different reasons including narcissistic traits.
One problem with appealing to oneself as an authority is when it is a mirage of language based on constraints. We go about our daily lives speaking in generalizations and absolutes-- rather than in arguments, that are seen as probabilities, where the level of probability is fluid, and defined by intuiting and weighing the reason and evidence we have for each argument-- with the latter being the more analytical mindset. We have limited time, attention, and energy, and going along with that, human language generally appears to work better and faster with less contrasting of arguments and the probabilities of aspects of those arguments being true. So we are biologically and culturally geared towards simpler stances on reality that would theoretically help us with the known base impulses of survival and reproduction, going along with what seems at present, to be a history of humans mostly being hunter-gatherers.
Since it takes more words and time to speak in more nuanced probabilities, sometimes a person can end up looking like they aren't "premise guarding".. not delivering their arguments in a way that shows that they see them as a probability, that's subject to change based on evidence and reason: due to text constraints-- for example on Twitter; or due to their time constraints. And it also seems that for two people to have really novel intellectual discussions, particularly when they are from different specializations of knowledge, sufficient time needs to pass for them to learn each other's differing uses of language, as it might apply to whatever they are talking about-- or else the discussion revolves around figuring that out, or taking offense to it by mistake, rather than maybe something more novel and generally desirable.
But also there is a problem of appealing to oneself as an authority because of fight or flight physiology, going along with cognitive dissonance-- with a person having one or more cherished values that conflicts with new reason and evidence, preventing them from a more analytical mindset. I agree this seems like a conceptual and emotional struggle that it appears everyone is prone to; and to use, and add onto, some ideas from the YouTube channel Navigating Patterns.. a good way of navigating this problem seems to require building more platonic intimacy or communal understanding of each other, while trying to healthily navigate the limitations on how many social interactions and friendships one can have-- and maintaining the capacity for a poetic view of the world rather than purely propositional view of it, in the sense of leaving room for embracing uncertainty, and doing this in a way that is more rooted in love, and faith in love, rather than in fear, to pursue more desirable outcomes in life.
1. Truth is a seldom-attained state of inference, derived from deductive logical calculus, inside prosecution of a critical path of probative questions. Truth is not a destination, nor is it in any way related to me.
2. Truth is something I perceive and possess. My task is to ensure through every means at my disposal, that others concur.
These are tools to spot the person who subconsciously operates under the second paradigm.
I mostly agree but have two potential disagreements. These are mainly my views on the underlying psychology of thinking styles presented here, not for any kind of bad faith communication or debate point scoring, but for whatever potential utilitarian benefit doing so might have. First, having had a lot of wild experiences with meditation for 15 years and conceptually exploring that, I personally think it could be argued with the first position that truth is related to everyone, rather than in no way related to everyone, if that's a fair rewording, by getting into metaphysical speculation-- I don't want to go any further with that rabbit hole here, but I think it's worth briefly mentioning.
Second, I think one could add that there is an aspect of the second condition that is missing.. which is some kind of felt sense of being wrong, that can happen, that causes a change in opinion. To go into that further, and play armchair psychologist again, I think the second position is a biological spandrel, or byproduct of evolution, in relation to the constant human need to feel some degree of absolute truth rather than probable truth.. in order to maintain sanity or emotional stability, and also, to function in life where needed, outside of non-stop waking critical analysis, despite it's potential intellectual benefits.
Intuition seems to be an innate, simpler, and faster form of probability deduction than with using symbols via language and math; and because we have limited mental resources, I think we have to mentally register many probability deductions about reality as being absolute truths, maybe especially with the more simpler and intuition-based probability deductions, and maybe going along with a simpler use of language and math-- which is not to say intuition and probability deduction is fully rooted in language.
For example, a person has "the story of me", "the existence of the things I own", "the relationships I am part of", "the environment I am in", and generally a lot of information for the brain to manage, and they can't keep this all in question in endless mental chatter with the first position-- assuming they became too critical and questioning of reality itself-- or they may be theoretically less able, or unable, to function in the world, both emotionally and through action. So like the right and left hemispheres of the brain, or the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system, there is a friendly "opponent processing" that arguably has to go on between the perception of probable and absolute truth, between these two positions, for optimal wellbeing-- and humanity generally seems imbalanced and destructively biased towards the second position.
Taking the example of a herd animal who sees the whole herd going in a different direction, has something happen physiologically as a result, and changes directions to reunite with them.. that seems roughly accurate for how change in opinion, towards truth or away from it, can often happen in the second position in human beings-- for example, I have many appeals to (the social tribalism) of authority figures throughout my life which were intellectual mistakes, like blindly taking an antibiotic prescription for Flagyl without doing any research on my own time, that I believe temporarily began to shut down my central nervous system and ability to operate my body. But it seems like our survival drive theoretically needs a way for us to break from the more instinctual second position.. and this anecdotally seems to often look like realizing one doesn't socially belong in the way they want to, and changing perception-- not necessarily always quickly-- as a result of that.
Point 1 - Agreed. Metaphysically, truth is connected to us all. My context of course is in the immediate frame of reference, where that truth can be applied in the extreme in order to deceive.
Point 2 - Also Agreed. Intuition and projection are valuable components of our perception. However, we cannot advertise them as 'truth' - rather suspicion or faith. Again here, by applying these valuable tenets in the extreme, we create deceptions and cold rabbit trails.
Point 3 - Also Agreed. Herd instinct and influence has value. This is abductive inference, and has use inside diagnostics and protocol. However, the subjects we deal with here, suffer from what I call the Exoentropy of Normatives. In other words, abductive inference is harmful inside areas which are tough to prosecute or resolve.
Point 3 is the fundamental disagreement I have with fake skeptics.
Look buddy! I am very smrt and I dont know what your (P) and (Q) represent, therefor they mean nothing and you have wasted everyones' time with your OBVIOUS nonsensical diatribe! /end-sarcasm
Ok jokes out of the way. Thanks for the post and a reminder to think more before speaking to people that claim special authority.
Personally, I don’t understand the point of this. Assuming we can read the minds of, and/or understand the motives of another person’s perspective does not give us the right to label his/her thought process and therefore, the person. If he/she disagrees with my train of logic, or just can’t follow it or just doesn’t think the same way, does that necessarily mean that she/he believes A or B and considers himself/herself omniscient? Aren’t I the one thinking I’m omniscient by prescribing motive or believing that I know what/how they’re thinking? Outside of clinically psychotic behavior (I.e., serial killers, psychopaths, etc.), most of us aren’t qualified to diagnose clinical narcissism. Aren’t we all selfish sometimes and don’t we all favor our own points of view? Logic IS logic, but applying it can be a subjective exercise sometimes. I’m not disagreeing with the logic premise, but I’m getting tired of the word narcissist being applied whenever we (including myself here) disagree with, are offended by, or think differently, than someone else. Using the term narcissist seems like more of a shaming/canceling tool these days. I am trying to favor the biblical concept of examining the log in my own eye and focusing less on the specks in the eyes of others before I start passing judgement on their character. Just saying.
Remember, my article is about whom you should and should not waste time engaging with... it is not a claim to being a mind reader, nor being judgmental, nor claiming to be able to diagnose, nor did it use the term 'narcissist'.
As someone who IS qualified to diagnose clinical narcissism, I wish everyone (and I do mean a broadly-applied EVERYONE here) would just fucking stop using diagnostic terminology to describe poor character.
Relating our societal, cultural, and spiritual decay to the framework of mental health under all possible circumstances not only looks and feels ridiculous after a while (have you noticed teenagers all started talking like therapists about a generation ago?), it's usually completely unproductive and represents a dead end: okay, you've decided this (like so many other things) is caused by <insert armchair diagnosis>. What now? What do you do with that?
Narcissism and variant words (narcissistic) are terms that have been in common use before Psychiatry medicalized them, not so? Having struggled with mental health all my life I can be a preachy asshole about every incidence of ableist terms like "mad", "insane" or even "depressed" or I can just accept that there are common-sense meanings, no matter how off-target they are, and more scientifically precise terms. These need not be antagonistic.
The point you make about armchair diagnoses is quite valid, of course, and the timeline you hint at looks fairly accurate too (so-called reality shows may have added impetus) but language, culture, ideology (and even Holy Science) evolve and rearticulate with other prevalent ideas all the time. As discussed above, 'truth' is always provisional, including whatever DM5 might say about NPD. It wouldn't be the fifth version otherwise.
Now define character if you might be so kind, and what constitutes 'poor character'. ;-)
"Character" not being a term with clinical significance, I feel more comfortable using it fluidly. I'm comfortable saying that any definition of "character' would be purely my own, and necessarily subjective. I don't think I want every word that describes characteristics of a person to be nearly so, however.
Yeah I tend to agree lol. The guy who wrote Corrosion Of Character, I can't read the spine from here, acknowledged as much. But was correct in suggesting there's less of it about than there used to be. (sennett I think)
Remember, my article is about whom you should and should not waste time engaging with... it is not a claim to being a clinical psychologist, nor ability to diagnose, nor did it use the term 'narcissist'.
Indeed, the last paragraph is of paramount importance, for even the intelligent who pay attention, and are often right, always have their own blind spot.
Never knowing enough is always my baseline premise. Always confused that some people think they know it all. I believe most have pretender syndrome and convince themselves that their fake persona is real.
Nicely put. In a sense the Imposter Syndrome, so prevalent in Early Career Researchers, some say, is quite the nice humble brag. "We all have these moments of self-doubt when we become convinced our cleverness is inadequate but don't worry, most of us power our way through." Worked, until it didn't, for Claudine Gay.
Well said. This is the narcissistic version. These techniques are central to approaches used by professional trolls & propagandists. You'll find that what you just said is largely contained within The Gentlepersons' Guide to Forum Spies:
Sometimes I can't stop myself from writing, so here are some of my thoughts on why this happens, with a prevalence of narcissism in humanity not being a major reason in my mind as some other comments are suggesting-- and I think the idea of rampant online narcissism is possibly a mistake in reason popularized by Jordan Peterson.. at the very least in that it might unintentionally do these three things: oversimplify our fellow human beings in a way that dehumanizes them, damaging the collective understanding of what it means to be human, and prevent more platonic intimacy and subsequent wellbeing between human beings as a result; which is also not to say there are people that should be avoided for different reasons including narcissistic traits.
One problem with appealing to oneself as an authority is when it is a mirage of language based on constraints. We go about our daily lives speaking in generalizations and absolutes-- rather than in arguments, that are seen as probabilities, where the level of probability is fluid, and defined by intuiting and weighing the reason and evidence we have for each argument-- with the latter being the more analytical mindset. We have limited time, attention, and energy, and going along with that, human language generally appears to work better and faster with less contrasting of arguments and the probabilities of aspects of those arguments being true. So we are biologically and culturally geared towards simpler stances on reality that would theoretically help us with the known base impulses of survival and reproduction, going along with what seems at present, to be a history of humans mostly being hunter-gatherers.
Since it takes more words and time to speak in more nuanced probabilities, sometimes a person can end up looking like they aren't "premise guarding".. not delivering their arguments in a way that shows that they see them as a probability, that's subject to change based on evidence and reason: due to text constraints-- for example on Twitter; or due to their time constraints. And it also seems that for two people to have really novel intellectual discussions, particularly when they are from different specializations of knowledge, sufficient time needs to pass for them to learn each other's differing uses of language, as it might apply to whatever they are talking about-- or else the discussion revolves around figuring that out, or taking offense to it by mistake, rather than maybe something more novel and generally desirable.
But also there is a problem of appealing to oneself as an authority because of fight or flight physiology, going along with cognitive dissonance-- with a person having one or more cherished values that conflicts with new reason and evidence, preventing them from a more analytical mindset. I agree this seems like a conceptual and emotional struggle that it appears everyone is prone to; and to use, and add onto, some ideas from the YouTube channel Navigating Patterns.. a good way of navigating this problem seems to require building more platonic intimacy or communal understanding of each other, while trying to healthily navigate the limitations on how many social interactions and friendships one can have-- and maintaining the capacity for a poetic view of the world rather than purely propositional view of it, in the sense of leaving room for embracing uncertainty, and doing this in a way that is more rooted in love, and faith in love, rather than in fear, to pursue more desirable outcomes in life.
Two innate positions exist:
1. Truth is a seldom-attained state of inference, derived from deductive logical calculus, inside prosecution of a critical path of probative questions. Truth is not a destination, nor is it in any way related to me.
2. Truth is something I perceive and possess. My task is to ensure through every means at my disposal, that others concur.
These are tools to spot the person who subconsciously operates under the second paradigm.
I mostly agree but have two potential disagreements. These are mainly my views on the underlying psychology of thinking styles presented here, not for any kind of bad faith communication or debate point scoring, but for whatever potential utilitarian benefit doing so might have. First, having had a lot of wild experiences with meditation for 15 years and conceptually exploring that, I personally think it could be argued with the first position that truth is related to everyone, rather than in no way related to everyone, if that's a fair rewording, by getting into metaphysical speculation-- I don't want to go any further with that rabbit hole here, but I think it's worth briefly mentioning.
Second, I think one could add that there is an aspect of the second condition that is missing.. which is some kind of felt sense of being wrong, that can happen, that causes a change in opinion. To go into that further, and play armchair psychologist again, I think the second position is a biological spandrel, or byproduct of evolution, in relation to the constant human need to feel some degree of absolute truth rather than probable truth.. in order to maintain sanity or emotional stability, and also, to function in life where needed, outside of non-stop waking critical analysis, despite it's potential intellectual benefits.
Intuition seems to be an innate, simpler, and faster form of probability deduction than with using symbols via language and math; and because we have limited mental resources, I think we have to mentally register many probability deductions about reality as being absolute truths, maybe especially with the more simpler and intuition-based probability deductions, and maybe going along with a simpler use of language and math-- which is not to say intuition and probability deduction is fully rooted in language.
For example, a person has "the story of me", "the existence of the things I own", "the relationships I am part of", "the environment I am in", and generally a lot of information for the brain to manage, and they can't keep this all in question in endless mental chatter with the first position-- assuming they became too critical and questioning of reality itself-- or they may be theoretically less able, or unable, to function in the world, both emotionally and through action. So like the right and left hemispheres of the brain, or the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system, there is a friendly "opponent processing" that arguably has to go on between the perception of probable and absolute truth, between these two positions, for optimal wellbeing-- and humanity generally seems imbalanced and destructively biased towards the second position.
Taking the example of a herd animal who sees the whole herd going in a different direction, has something happen physiologically as a result, and changes directions to reunite with them.. that seems roughly accurate for how change in opinion, towards truth or away from it, can often happen in the second position in human beings-- for example, I have many appeals to (the social tribalism) of authority figures throughout my life which were intellectual mistakes, like blindly taking an antibiotic prescription for Flagyl without doing any research on my own time, that I believe temporarily began to shut down my central nervous system and ability to operate my body. But it seems like our survival drive theoretically needs a way for us to break from the more instinctual second position.. and this anecdotally seems to often look like realizing one doesn't socially belong in the way they want to, and changing perception-- not necessarily always quickly-- as a result of that.
Point 1 - Agreed. Metaphysically, truth is connected to us all. My context of course is in the immediate frame of reference, where that truth can be applied in the extreme in order to deceive.
Point 2 - Also Agreed. Intuition and projection are valuable components of our perception. However, we cannot advertise them as 'truth' - rather suspicion or faith. Again here, by applying these valuable tenets in the extreme, we create deceptions and cold rabbit trails.
Point 3 - Also Agreed. Herd instinct and influence has value. This is abductive inference, and has use inside diagnostics and protocol. However, the subjects we deal with here, suffer from what I call the Exoentropy of Normatives. In other words, abductive inference is harmful inside areas which are tough to prosecute or resolve.
Point 3 is the fundamental disagreement I have with fake skeptics.
/sarcasm
Look buddy! I am very smrt and I dont know what your (P) and (Q) represent, therefor they mean nothing and you have wasted everyones' time with your OBVIOUS nonsensical diatribe! /end-sarcasm
Ok jokes out of the way. Thanks for the post and a reminder to think more before speaking to people that claim special authority.
Personally, I don’t understand the point of this. Assuming we can read the minds of, and/or understand the motives of another person’s perspective does not give us the right to label his/her thought process and therefore, the person. If he/she disagrees with my train of logic, or just can’t follow it or just doesn’t think the same way, does that necessarily mean that she/he believes A or B and considers himself/herself omniscient? Aren’t I the one thinking I’m omniscient by prescribing motive or believing that I know what/how they’re thinking? Outside of clinically psychotic behavior (I.e., serial killers, psychopaths, etc.), most of us aren’t qualified to diagnose clinical narcissism. Aren’t we all selfish sometimes and don’t we all favor our own points of view? Logic IS logic, but applying it can be a subjective exercise sometimes. I’m not disagreeing with the logic premise, but I’m getting tired of the word narcissist being applied whenever we (including myself here) disagree with, are offended by, or think differently, than someone else. Using the term narcissist seems like more of a shaming/canceling tool these days. I am trying to favor the biblical concept of examining the log in my own eye and focusing less on the specks in the eyes of others before I start passing judgement on their character. Just saying.
Remember, my article is about whom you should and should not waste time engaging with... it is not a claim to being a mind reader, nor being judgmental, nor claiming to be able to diagnose, nor did it use the term 'narcissist'.
As someone who IS qualified to diagnose clinical narcissism, I wish everyone (and I do mean a broadly-applied EVERYONE here) would just fucking stop using diagnostic terminology to describe poor character.
Relating our societal, cultural, and spiritual decay to the framework of mental health under all possible circumstances not only looks and feels ridiculous after a while (have you noticed teenagers all started talking like therapists about a generation ago?), it's usually completely unproductive and represents a dead end: okay, you've decided this (like so many other things) is caused by <insert armchair diagnosis>. What now? What do you do with that?
Narcissism and variant words (narcissistic) are terms that have been in common use before Psychiatry medicalized them, not so? Having struggled with mental health all my life I can be a preachy asshole about every incidence of ableist terms like "mad", "insane" or even "depressed" or I can just accept that there are common-sense meanings, no matter how off-target they are, and more scientifically precise terms. These need not be antagonistic.
The point you make about armchair diagnoses is quite valid, of course, and the timeline you hint at looks fairly accurate too (so-called reality shows may have added impetus) but language, culture, ideology (and even Holy Science) evolve and rearticulate with other prevalent ideas all the time. As discussed above, 'truth' is always provisional, including whatever DM5 might say about NPD. It wouldn't be the fifth version otherwise.
Now define character if you might be so kind, and what constitutes 'poor character'. ;-)
"Character" not being a term with clinical significance, I feel more comfortable using it fluidly. I'm comfortable saying that any definition of "character' would be purely my own, and necessarily subjective. I don't think I want every word that describes characteristics of a person to be nearly so, however.
Yeah I tend to agree lol. The guy who wrote Corrosion Of Character, I can't read the spine from here, acknowledged as much. But was correct in suggesting there's less of it about than there used to be. (sennett I think)
Remember, my article is about whom you should and should not waste time engaging with... it is not a claim to being a clinical psychologist, nor ability to diagnose, nor did it use the term 'narcissist'.
Understood. Not directed at you.
This is more than narcissism, it’s a step up. It’s I am God, all knowing. This is what the globe is now confronting
Yes, as many have written in the comments, we'll find ourselves dealing, and debating, with a narcissist. Proceed with utmost caution.
BTW, TES: I mentioned you in my Substack article, here:
https://nightowlchristian.substack.com/p/advent-2023-christmas-sunday-epiphany
Indeed, the last paragraph is of paramount importance, for even the intelligent who pay attention, and are often right, always have their own blind spot.
Never knowing enough is always my baseline premise. Always confused that some people think they know it all. I believe most have pretender syndrome and convince themselves that their fake persona is real.
Nicely put. In a sense the Imposter Syndrome, so prevalent in Early Career Researchers, some say, is quite the nice humble brag. "We all have these moments of self-doubt when we become convinced our cleverness is inadequate but don't worry, most of us power our way through." Worked, until it didn't, for Claudine Gay.
What, other human beings are ends in themselves, not merely means to my end?
Absurd!
Well said. This is the narcissistic version. These techniques are central to approaches used by professional trolls & propagandists. You'll find that what you just said is largely contained within The Gentlepersons' Guide to Forum Spies:
https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
Perfect
Agreed -- you can’t argue with narcissism, it’s infallible by definition
Hahaha
😵💫