How Will The Corona Virus Change The Course Of Western Civilization? (3-15-20)

Buddy says:

Dissident right politics just made me want to die, because it taught me that I was just living in the downfall of the western world, that the future held nothing but reloading the Drudge report and watching daily as the left destroyed another piece of society piece by piece. The only true right wingers quit whining and learn Hungarian or Russian and move to those countries, where your kids won’t be brainwashed to be trannies or homosexuals.

The ones of us who remain in the west, are really at root, just outnumbered whiners. Outnumbered well and truly, irrevocably by leftists and we know it.

The leftists news but I repeat myself, loves to rag on Trump about him letting John Bolton slim down the national security council and remove this in-house, in-the-white-house pandemic response team. They never mention that this team was only established in Obama’s sixth year in office, in 2014, never existed for five and a half years of Obama’s administration, never existed for all 8 years of Bush Jr’s administration, the pandemic response team never existed for all of the Clinton years, all of the Reagan/HW Bush years, this is never mentioned.

There were always pandemic experts nearby in DC and Maryland who could be brought in within half an hour. They never mention this. The media IS selling this ‘disbanded the pandemic response team’ story as if this team was long-standing, as if all presidents had it, as if Obama had it for all of his time in office, it is not true. It was established in 2014 and disbanded in early 2018 by John Bolton who simply wanted the NSC to focus on foreign policy. It was more like a ‘slimming down’ of the NSC bureaucracy that John Bolton wanted.

If Obama was fine with going through H1N1 pandemic without this ‘pandemic response team’ in 2009, and then waited until 2014 to even establish this team, nobody can argue it was absolutely essential to have this group inside the white house, the group of people was always in Maryland and DC some place else, and Atlanta.

Posted in Covid | Comments Off on How Will The Corona Virus Change The Course Of Western Civilization? (3-15-20)

Trump’s Press Conference

Buddy: “It is night and day between Trump reading prepared remarks, and speaking extemporaneously/off the cuff. It’s like he’s a little sad tired ADHD kid when reading, and then he comes alive like he’s had a Red Bull when he has the freedom to just stream consciousness. He is 10x more manly when he’s not reading. Using walmart and target etc. parking lots all over the nation to set up drive thru testing stations is a pretty good idea.
This will go down well as a good public/private partnership response.
“He managed to slip in a diss of the Obamacare website problems from years ago, that’s not gonna go down well.
What kind of a moron wants to give their medical information to the Google corporation? I wouldn’t be caught dead giving my medical info to Sergey Brin etc…
“He does have undoubted personality problems, Trump, but he’s the only rubber stopper we have, to stick in the giant, cracking, breaking Hoover Dam that holds back leftism. We all know we are getting leftism in 2024 even if Trump wins in 2020. He’s an imperfect tool, but he’s all we’ve got. I call these years the Trump interregnum. It’s a few years of grace, of slowdown of leftism. But make no mistake, in 2024 we will get leftism and get it good and hard. Fun fact the short little doctor Tony Fauci, is 79 years old! he looks 67 at best.”

Posted in Covid | Comments Off on Trump’s Press Conference

McMafia: A Journey Through the Global Criminal Underworld

Misha Glenny writes in 2008: “When the Russians came, they forced the new Bulgarian mafia out of Hungary and into Czechoslovakia,” explained Yovo Nikolov, Sofia’s leading expert on Bulgarian organized crime. “It started off with car smuggling but then the
guys noticed something else.”

That something else was the silnice hanby, or Highway of Shame—the highway that linked Dresden and Prague via the heart of Czechoslovakia’s heavy industry complex, northern Bohemia. In a depressed and chaotic economic climate, young Czech women began selling themselves on the E55 for pocket money. For the price of a modest meal, the teenagers would satisfy the desires of the ceaseless column of sweaty BMW drivers and overweight truckers cruising between Bohemia and Saxony. “People are coming from all over Eastern Europe to the ‘affluence border’ in order to offer young prostitutes to aging German men,” noted Der Spiegel at the time. The national aspect to this sexual Drang nach Osten gave the sordid trade an added frisson, as many punters were East German (so there were a few sweaty Trabant drivers among the BMWs). Women working on the Highway of Shame were, on the whole, exercising choice—to be sure, their economic circumstances compelled them to work as prostitutes, but they were not physically coerced. A minority was forced into the trade by individual pimps, but a majority worked voluntarily in order to earn a living in this way. A large percentage was made up of young Gypsy or Roma women who faced a double dose of prejudice as prostitutes and as Roma.

The Bulgarian heavies milling around Prague and northern Bohemia noticed the virtual absence of any effective policing of this spontaneous sex trade. The potential market was huge—it was well known how thousands of German men traveled every year to Southeast Asia and the Caribbean to indulge in sex tourism. Why not take advantage of that demand by offering them beautiful young women at low, low prices just over the German border, in slightly more relaxing surroundings than the rest stops of the E55? So Bulgarian gangs bought up, built, or rented cheap motels in north Bohemia. With the aim of maximizing their profits,
they sought out pliant women who were not so well connected with the local community. So they sought out their compatriots. In contrast to the local Czech women, however, these Bulgarian women did not enter into the trade voluntarily—they had no idea what awaited them.

* Women are attractive as an entry-level commodity for criminals. They can cross borders legally and they do not attract the attention of sniffer dogs. The initial outlay is a fraction of the sum required to engage in car theft; overhead costs are minimal; and as a service provider, the commodity (a trafficked woman) generates income again and again.

* The Russians were indispensable for the transition from socialism to capitalism.

Despite the murders and the shoot-outs, the Russian mob actually ensured a degree of stability during the economic transition. Of course, by normal standards one might perceive extortion, kidnapping, and murder as constituting a rather harsh policing regime; and most people would probably find it hard to approve of car theft, narcotics, or sex trafficking as a legitimate business enterprise. Yet Russia was not in a normal situation.

No societies are free from organized crime except for severely repressive ones (and although North Korea has undoubtedly very low levels of organized crime, its state budget is decisively dependent on the trading of narcotics to criminal syndicates in neighboring countries). But when you replace one set of rules (the Five-Year Plan) with another (free market) in a country as large as Russia, with as many mineral resources, and at a time of epochal shifts in the global economy, then such immense change is bound to offer exceptional opportunities to the quick-witted, the strong, or the fortunate (oligarchs, organized criminals, bureaucrats whose power is suddenly detached from state control) that were absent hitherto. It is certainly true that the Yeltsin government made some appalling errors. But they were under considerable economic pressure at the time, as the
crumbling Soviet system was no longer able to guarantee food deliveries to the people and inflation (even before the freeing of prices) had hit at least 150 percent and was still rising. Something had to be done. By the mid-1990s the Russian government estimated that between 40 and 50 percent of its economy was in the gray or black sectors, and it is within this context that Russia and the outside world needs to understand the phenomenon of organized crime: it emerged out of a chaotic situation and was very brutal, but its origins lie in a rational response to a highly unusual economic and social environment.

* b) Unlike the traditional American and Italian mafias, members of the gangs were not strictly bound by family loyalties. The codes of the thieves’ world (which conferred honor and recognition on the vory) only survived a matter of months in Russia’s primitive capitalism.

* c) Third, in contrast to the five families of America’s Cosa Nostra, there were thousands of these organizations in Russia.

* The oligarchs’ rape of Russia’s assets enjoys pride of place in the boom of the global shadow economy during the 1990s. Not only did these men succeed in turning Russia upside down, but their actions had a huge economic and social impact on the United States and on countries throughout Western Europe, in the Mediterranean (above all Cyprus and Israel), in the Middle East and Africa, and in the Far East. Unable even to claim that they were helping to police the transition to capitalism (as protection rackets undoubtedly were), they have had an overall influence more destructive than most of Russian organized crime.

* different branches of Russia’s security service would find themselves fighting against each other on behalf of warring oligarchs.

* The oligarchs understood instinctively that Russia was a capricious and dangerous environment and that their billions of dollars were not safe there. They overestimated their ability to control President Putin, the man whom they chose to replace the weak and easily manipulated, alcoholic president Yeltsin. Yet their instincts served many of them well—as an insurance policy, they needed not just to get their money out of the country. They needed it to be clean once it arrived at its destination. So did the organized crime groups. Everybody needed to launder his cash. But before they could establish a worldwide launderette, they all—oligarchs and mobsters alike—needed to establish themselves abroad. The criminal groups now entered the most challenging stage of their development: phase three—overseas transplantation.

* Organized crime and corruption flourishes in regions and countries where public trust in institutions is weak. Refashioning the institutions of Kafkaesque autocracy into ones that support democracy by promoting accountability and transparency is a troublesome, long-term process. The task is made doubly difficult if economic uncertainty accompanies that transition. Suddenly people who have been guaranteed security from the cradle to the grave are forced to negotiate an unfamiliar jungle of inflation,
unemployment, loss of pension rights, and the like. At such junctures, those crucial personal networks from the Communist period become very important. The Red Army evacuated its bases in Eastern Europe, but the equally effective yet more seductive force of favors owed and promises once made stood its ground to exert a strong influence over the transition.

* Apart from when Stalin had a vicious anti-Semitic spasm just before his death, being Jewish in the postwar Soviet Union was not usually much worse than being anything else. As a Jew, one’s professional ambition was often circumscribed in a way that did not affect Slavs and some other minorities, but in many respects all peoples in the Soviet Union were shat upon in equal measure. From 1989 onward, however, the Jews of the former Soviet Union enjoyed one valuable and exclusive privilege—they were eligible for Israeli citizenship and could get the hell out of Belarus, the Caucasus, Siberia, or wherever else with no questions asked.

And many didn’t wait to be the victim of an assassination attempt like Gentelev. They took the passport and ran. Soon hundreds turned into thousands, thousands into tens and hundreds of thousands until within a decade 1 million Russian Jews had pitched up in Israel, amounting to more than 15 percent of the total population.

* But the Jews from Russia and Ukraine were very different—they came in huge numbers in a short space of time, and they had a strong Russian cultural identity that was often more ingrained than their Jewishness. In the profoundly secular Soviet Union,
Judaism and Zionism remained a minority interest at best among Russian Jews. “The former Soviet immigrants perceive themselves as the bearers of European culture in Israel, and 87% of them would like cultural life in Israel to be similar to that of Europe,” noted one study on the sociology of the immigration based on extensive surveys. “However, only 9% believe that this is indeed the situation in Israel.”

Israel, it seems, was a foreign country for these Russians. “The immigrants perceive Russian culture and language as superior to Hebrew. 88% of immigrants evaluate the impact of immigration on cultural life in Israel as positive or very positive, while only 28% evaluate the impact of cultural life in Israel on the immigrants as positive or very positive…” And then there were economic issues. “In addition to its size, another unique aspect of the Russian immigration was that many of the Russian immigrants were highly educated,” the economists Sarit Cohen and Chang-Tai Hsieh have written. “About 60% of the Russian immigrants were college-educated, compared with only 30 to 40% of native Israelis.” This led to social tension and real resentment between the indigenous population and the newcomers—Russian professionals wanted to muscle in on the labor market in large numbers. Not the dirty, poorly paid jobs traditionally reserved for immigrants but the well-paid posts for highly trained men and women.

* It was the police who first noticed something odd happening. “At the time, I was head of the intelligence in Jerusalem,” said the retired police commander Hezi Leder, “and we started getting reports from my colleagues in Haifa and the north of Israel of a dramatic rise in the amountof criminality among young people. These were kids who were thirteen and fourteen, maybe fifteen years old, but they seemed to be outside the education system. And they were almost all Russian.” By the mid-1990s, there were more than 700,000 Russians in Israel. Most were entirely honest…

* police started to observe an increase in murders and assaults involving unprecedented brutality. The crime wave centered on Tel
Aviv—or Sin City, as the tabloids refer to it—but almost always contained within the Russian-speaking community.

* “Their parents pack ’em off from the Upper West Side to Israel with a book filled with the phone numbers of synagogues, rabbis, and shuls, and a wad of cash. And then the minute they get here, they head for the whorehouses.”

* Since the last intifada, the Palestinians no longer carry out the dirty and dangerous jobs that are the preserve of immigrants elsewhere in the industrialized world. Their places have been taken by Romanians, Uzbeks, Thais, Filipinos, Turks—you name it. The
importation of labor into Israel is a corrupt business in which organized crime also engages: globally, the International Migration Organization has identified the trafficking of indentured or slave labor as the fastest-growing sector in the industry.

* For their part, the oligarchs and organized crime bosses started colonizing Israel for a number of reasons. It was an ideal place to invest or launder money. Israel’s banking system was designed to encourage aliyah, the immigration of Jews from around the world, and that meant encouraging their money to boot. Furthermore, Israel had embraced the zeitgeist of international financial deregulation and considerably eased controls on the import and export of capital. And, like most other economies around the world in the 1990s, it had no anti-money-laundering legislation. Laundering money derived from criminal activities anywhere else in the world was an entirely legitimate business.

* The main reason for Israel’s popularity was the simplest—many of these iffy businessmen were Jews, and in Israel they were not treated like dirt but welcomed as valuable and respected additions to the family. A disproportionate number of the most influential Russian oligarchs and gangsters were Jewish. Before the huge wave of immigration to Israel, Jews made up only about 2.5 percent of the population of Russia and Ukraine. But they were hugely influential in the vanguard of gangster capitalism during the 1990s. A cursory search of the Internet will reveal countless racist sites fueling the theory that the pillage of Russian assets during decade was borne of the World Jewish Conspiracy, once so beloved of the Nazis and (when it suited him) of Stalin. By contrast, many liberal commentators simply overlook the issue of Jewish involvement in Russia and Ukraine’s chaotic transition, presumably to dodge accusations of anti-Semitism. In fact, by avoiding any mention of the elephant in the living room, they facilitate its portrayal by anti-Semites as a jackal.

* Although the Soviet Union was renowned for its antipathy toward most national identities that threatened its idealized image of homus sovieticus, it did construct one specific barrier for Jews—the glass ceiling. In virtually all the central party and state offices, in almost all industrial branches, and in most places of learning, Jews were systematically prevented from reaching the top. There were exceptions to this rule—Kaganovich (one ofStalin’s unloved Politburo colleagues) and, in the 1980s, Evgeni Primakov emerged as an extremely influential political figure, having prophylactically discarded his birth name, Yonah Finkelshtein. But on the whole, if you were Jewish, the key promotion would elude you.

In consequence, there were a lot of smart Jews who felt frustrated in their pursuit of intellectual challenges and entrepreneurial opportunities. Where better, then, to exercise those skills than in the world’s toughest market (which officially didn’t even exist!)—the Soviet planned economy. Over seventy years, they honed their business skills in this grim totalitarian world where huge industrial behemoths would seek to produce goods without regard to the laws of supply and demand. Instead, enterprises would follow the targets (or norms, as they were known) set down every five years by the State Planning Commission. These rarely bore any relation to the available materials, raw or processed, and so each factory would be engaged in a relentless and exhausting struggle against shortages. Factories were often reliant on suppliers based thousands of miles and several different time zones away and with which there were no functioning communications. The only way to meet those targets was to employ wheelers and dealers who could hustle the right materials from any source anywhere. These people were known as tolkach, and without the ingenuity of the tolkachi in sustaining the wobbly edifice, the Soviet Union may have buckled earlier than it did. And just as there were a disproportionate number of Jews among the oligarchs, so there were among the tolkachi.

* This ability was not restricted to the Jews. It is no coincidence that among organized crime bosses, the other two chronically overrepresented nationalities in Russia were the Chechens and the Georgians, whose talent for overcoming the daily consumer misery of the Soviet Union was similarly the stuff of legend. The criminals and oligarchs emerged from communities who inhabited the twilight periphery of the Soviet Union—although usually denied access to the central institutions, they were not pariahs. Instead they were compelled to seek out the possibilities of social and economic activity that existed in the nooks and cracks of the state. This experience was invaluable for many when negotiating the roller coaster of post-Communist Russia. For the Jewish oligarchs and gang bosses, Israel was both a retreat and, by dint of its passport, a door to the outside world.

* The Palestinian issue is simply overwhelming in Israel. At times, it almost seems that Israelis have willingly diverted all their intellectual faculties into consideration of this one matter. Everything appears illuminated by the torch of the Arab-Israeli conflict, obscuring in the process the fascinating and dynamic nature of Israel’s own society, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of globalization.

* The Russians had agreed at the 1995 El Dan meeting in Tel Aviv to avoid acting in an ostentatious criminal manner within Israel. Now Israelis were about to discover that the years of champagne and excess in the 1990s had spawned a new phenomenon—indigenous Israeli organized crime. And unlike the Russians, these people cared very little about their public image.

* “The Russians were very careful. And were able to impose discipline because they were based on an organization. The Israeli crime groups were families.” This meant that in structure they were much more like the Sicilian Mafia than the Russians were. “When you have crime based on families, then issues such as honor and vendettas come into play,” Professor Amir continued. The existence of family feuds may result in the occasional innocent victim, as in the Rosenstein case, but in another respect they assist police. The bloodletting enables intelligence officers to monitor what is going on in the crime community, “which means that the Russians and similar organizations are more effective and more dangerous.”

* And lest we fall into the error of thinking that Israelis or Jews had a particular penchant and ability for engaging in organized crime, it is worth remembering that the center for the global money-laundering industry was a few hundred miles away in a very different country—the United Arab Emirates.

* Lev Timofeev, the former Soviet dissident mathematician turned analyst of Russia’s shadow economy, has written one of the most comprehensive economic studies of the drug market. His conclusions are stark:

“Prohibiting a market does not mean destroying it. Prohibiting a market means placing a prohibited but dynamically developing market under the total control of criminal corporations. Moreover, prohibiting a market means enriching the criminal world with hundreds of billions of dollars by giving criminals a wide access to public goods which will be routed by addicts into the drug traders’ pockets. Prohibiting a market means giving the criminal corporations opportunities and resources for exerting a guiding and controlling influence over whole societies and nations. This is the worst of the negative external effects of the drug market. International public opinion has yet to grasp the challenge to the world civilization posed by it.”

From an economic point of view, a person’s decision to enter into the drug trade as a producer, distributor, or retailer is entirely rational because the profit margins are so high. This is all the more compelling in countries such as Afghanistan and Colombia where chronic poverty is endemic. Time and again, narcotics traffickers have demonstrated that their financial clout is sufficient to buy off officials even in states with very low levels of corruption, as in Scandinavia. In most countries, traffickers can call on combined resources of billions of dollars where national police forces have access to tens or hundreds of millions (and are further hamstrung by a complex set of regulations constraining their ability to act).

On the whole, governments do not argue that drug prohibition benefits the economy. They base their arguments instead on perceived social damage and on public morality. On the contrary, it distorts the economy because it denies the state revenue from taxes that might accrue from the purchase of a legal commodity (not to mention the immense costs of trying to police the trade and the incarceration of convicted criminals). This huge financial burden is one reason that so many economists, like Timofeev, and indeed one of the great organs of the British establishment, The Economist magazine, are adamant in their support of the legalization of drugs.

* Rio’s favelas produce some of the finest documentary films in the world, a testimony to the openness of the culture. This was the only country I encountered in which not a single person asked me to turn off my tape recorder when I spoke to him or her. Brazilians are fanatical communicators (witness the huge success of Orkut, an equivalent of MySpace in Brazil), and so it is easy to learn a great deal about the country (the dark and light sides) in a short space of time, especially in Rio.

SANDY EMAILS:

I gave up watching McMafia like 4 episodes in.

I watched a couple of your streams today. I liked what you had to say, it was refreshing the other day you were open enough to admit what many of use porn for.

To watch some lady getting humiliated so we can “let off steam”, and feel superior for a few minutes, ending with the 4 second orgasm.

I find it remarkable how often I’ve ejaculated, and within milliseconds, the browser tab is closed and I’m back to reading some article, completely moved on from the several minutes of hate-fucking porn.

One of the worst parts of porn is the minutes spent browsing for something you ad hoc decide will be a suitable clip to watch, the endless browsing.

You’re reading about narcissism, be careful I do know a bunch of morons who interpret the whole world through name-calling people ‘narcissists’, it becomes a kind of astrology. These videos on youtube by Gannon and Vaknin and HG Tudor, it is a cottage industry. Most of their followers are middle aged women looking for a catch-all explanation for their breakup or divorce.

Posted in Russia | Comments Off on McMafia: A Journey Through the Global Criminal Underworld

Jews, Non-Jews & The Corona Virus

What are the biggest differences between how Jews and non-Jews deal with the Corona Virus? Christians seem more serene, Jews seem more kvetchy and preppy.

Every Jew knows the best doctor and they will happily tell you about him because Jews love to educate.

I notice that Jews tend to have stronger opinions on the virus and what should be done (their prescriptions are all over the map) than non-Jews. Jews are all about this world while Christians and Muslims think more about the next world.

It seems like every Jew in LA has a guy named Victor who advises him on the stock market. I hear Jews analyzing stocks this week with the fervor the goyim reserve for sports.

PS. Is the Trump administration subsidizing the energy and farm sectors because they primarily vote Republican?

PPS. People say the Fed has shot its wad. I don’t buy it. Surely there are more bonds and things they can buy to inflate the economy? If the Federal government wants to do something, if it wants to convict you of something, it can.

David Pinsen: “Yes, they have unlimited ammo and could buy corporate bonds or even stocks if they wanted to. But fiscal stimulus would be more effective.”

Arnelsmom: “It’s hard to stimulate spending when people aren’t going shopping because of a lethal pathogen rather than a lack of liquidity. The only way to stimulate the economy is with intelligently targeted wage and welfare packages to help marginal families and industries make it through.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Jews, Non-Jews & The Corona Virus

Will The Last Luke Ford Viewer Please Plug In The CPAP?

I don’t like failing, but it doesn’t bother me as much as it used to (if it is not vital to my life). I don’t think I need to feel special as intensely as I used to need this (still need it some or else why would I blog?). To err is human, ergo, I accept my flawed humanity. I’ve made peace with being a worker among workers, an addict among addicts.

I can’t pretend that I have ever fantasized that one day I’ll be speaking before a crowd of 15 people. My father, who died a year ago tomorrow, used to preach to thousands, but after the 1980 Glacier View controversy, his live audience went down to about 10% of what it was. Did that bother him? Definitely. My father was a lonely unhappy man after 1980.

For the past few months, my Youtube show has not worked more than it has worked. My views over the past month are a third of what they were the previous month (which were less than half of what they were in the Spring and Summer of 2018). I often feel my failure on these days to connect with my best audience and with my best self. But is it humiliating? No, because I haven’t made any grand claims about my numbers or my relative success with livestreaming.

So I’m trying to tap into subjects and books that fill me with energy, to make notes of things I want to expound on, and to stay open to what works and what doesn’t. I want to face up to how much I need other people to make my show great, and to have the courage and fortitude to do what I can on my own to improve.

My self-esteem does not depend upon my view count and I have made deliberate choices to do shows on important topics that will not draw as large an audience as more sensational stories. I’ve also become much more discriminating about who I stream with. Unfortunately, most people who have the time and inclination to come on my show are anti-social.

As I keep trying things, I know that the show may get worse before it gets better. I want to feel free to fail and free to learn from that.

So how should we deal with failure? It seems like a good idea to admit it. It is good to accept reality before we try to change it. If various approaches have not worked, we can open ourselves to something new. It is good if our sense of self does not depend upon winning. If we can fail and still like ourselves, that’s good.

A large reason my show has failed over the past few months is that people I need on to make great shows are no longer available. So it seems like facing up to reality to admit that I need those people, to accept that they have other priorities, and that while I may not be able to get the band back together, I can create a new band.

I realized Sunday that my sound settings were not working, so I spent an hour researching the topic and then another hour experimenting with new settings in OBS. And now that I listen back to my latest show, I realize I’ve made my sound quality worse.

I should adapt Mayor Koch’s question — how am I doing (with my audio levels)?

How many people have hated their job, hated working for their families, quit to try something new, failed, and had to come crawling back? Change is not always good. Friends of mine have spent up to a decade trying to do stand up comedy, earn a living from teaching Alexander Technique, and other quixotic ventures that saner people told them would not work out financially, and they have utterly failed (at earning a living in their desired field). Not everyone is cut out to work for themselves. Most people are probably better off working for others.

The Luke Ford Show is where dreams come to die.

Friends and therapists have noted that I am not flexible (a typical trait of narcissists), and that may make my working well with others an above average challenge.

This would be a good time to acknowledge my enormous debt to Kevin Michael Grace for the 415 shows we did together. Kevin now has his own channel.

Cuachalango: “​Will the last Luke Ford viewer please plug in the cpap?”

I like the moral and cognitive challenge of livestreaming, even when few people watch. Some people like to work out their body at the gym or their soul at church. I like to work out my mind on Youtube.

When does my show work? When I’m connecting. When does my life work? When I’m connecting. But I don’t want to connect with anybody at any level. I want to connect with what is best in people and to reduce my tendency to trauma bond.

So what separates humiliating failure from regular failure? Humiliation is the result of being out of touch with our relative importance in an interaction, and basing our sense of self on feeling special and making public declarations about how special we are that are shown to be bogus.

One of the turning points in my life was when my sponsor told me that I did not need to beat myself down any more over having an emotional addiction and all the embarrassing behavior that goes with that. I don’t have to trash myself because of bad decisions I made in the past. I didn’t ask to have these addictions. I didn’t choose such misery. Instead of regretting the past, I can face the past, face myself, face others, clean up my side of the street, make amends to those I’ve hurt, and use my experience to help others.

If someone does not answer your letter, do you automatically assume you did something wrong or that the other person did something wrong? That seems like a good litmus test of your sense of self and your sense of reality. It seems to me that one would not want to fall into either camp of blaming yourself or others but accepting that reality is complex and frequently has nothing to do with our choices.

Where else am I failing in life?

* I am a bachelor.
* I have nothing saved for retirement.
* I often don’t sleep well. Probably no one thing would improve my life like consistent quality sleep.
* My income has stayed flat since June of 2018.

Everybody dies disappointed, ergo everybody fails much of the time. It is where in our lives we fail and how we deal with failure that matters. It is easier to learn from failure if you live in reality and have clarity about what is important.

In late 1998 or early 1999, a Seventh Day Adventist Bible scholar deconstructed me and my father:

You father “knows” too much for me to tell him anything. Including about you. It will never happen.

…Knowing too much, summarizing too fast, summing up too quickly, is a weakness he has. It’s a way that you and he are terrifically alike.

…By the way, you enjoy controversy and driving people nuts way too much. Both of you. What is the blessing in “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Jesus knew at least as much about Judaism as you do….) Part of what makes you ill at ease in the self/world dichotomy is this approach toward the outside world as the enemy to be debunked.

Hiding behind “journalism” as the reason for this cynicism just won’t do. I ain’t convinced! There are lots of “journalists” who do have the same problem with their approach, but there are lots that don’t. It’s not endemic to journalism to have to drive people nuts, to be cynical, and to print what MAY be someone’s screwup and assume it’s true until proven otherwise. The theory of the law, “Innocent until proven guilty” would help in your approach to your journalism. But of course you became this sort of journalist as a result of an already existing cynicism, not the reverse. You have charm and intelligence and good looks, and I can see that it is dangerously easy for you to mislead people about yourself–even when you know you’re doing it. Careful, this can make for a hollow feeling and dis-ease.

…Now, what your father [two Ph.Ds in Christianity] was exposed to was “readings” in the British style. Not the original materials, but readings of not-very-good European writers, whose writings couldn’t even be taken seriously (since they’re relatively ignorant of the details) in American Biblical Studies. Out of this study of generally poor secondary sources your father got the impression he was something of an expert in theology. From this weak background, with most of his questions unanswered, he launched into doing what only someone who didn’t know what he didn’t know would do: he tried to write a commentary on Daniel. It was a terrible mishmash of preterism, historicism, and futurism without any understanding of how these systems complement and clash. There was no understanding of their history, of the sameness and difference involved in them.. And much of the book was unedited quotes from other sources strung together in ways that didn’t fit at all. It became apparent to me after only a few minutes that your father didn’t have the foggiest notion of the Book of Daniel, and shouldn’t even be teaching an academy class on the subject, much less writing a book about it. That a Seventh Day Adventist publishing house published this mess, virtually unedited, and with even the Hebrew title screwed up, showed the blind leading the blind.

You write very much in the style of your father. Like him, you tie together long quotes, with rather poor segues and transitions. This is so evident in your website that I marvel that I didn’t get it sooner. And you’ve gotten the same kind of accurate and strong criticism your father got for what passes for writing. And the same kind of “this guy really didn’t take the time to know what he was talking about before he became a legend in his own mind” criticism.

My livestreams suffer from the same problems as my blogging.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Will The Last Luke Ford Viewer Please Plug In The CPAP?

The Choice Between Life & Death On Social Media

I love Deuteronomy 30:15: “I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.”

Here are my thoughts on what choices in our social media use promote life:

* You develop habits and form neural-pathways that serve you in life
* When you’d be proud to see your contributions featured on the front page of the NYTimes
* You build connections, develop friends, go into business or date people you meet who share your values
* You feel good afterward
* You display an accurate sense of your own importance and expertise
* You contribute and help people
* Shared vulnerability judiciously chosen
* You strive to be accurate
* Your social media use meshes with other parts of your life
* Your social media use promotes coherence in your life, what you share works through all parts of your life
* You exercise care and discretion
* You lift up people
* You seek win-win solutions
* Your self esteem does not depend on how much engagement you get
* You don’t sacrifice your values to pursue engagement

Choices that promote death:

* You develop habits and form neural-pathways that hurt you in life
* When you’d hate to see your words on the front page of the New York Times
* You destroy your friendships, you piss people off so they want to hunt you down in real life and hurt you
* You feel lousy afterward
* You lack an accurate sense of your own importance
* Look at me! Your use is to primarily emphasize that you are special and not subject to the ordinary rules of human relationships
* You primarily want to tear people down
* You pursue feuds
* You’re reckless
* Your social media use threatens the rest of your life
* Your social media use promotes splitting your life
* You hurt people
* You’re morbid
* You seek I win, you lose
* Your self esteem depends upon how much engagement you get
* You violate your moral code to pursue engagement
* You worry that the wrong people will read it
* Your use makes you feel degraded and disconnected

Richard Spencer’s famous rant is an example of what not to do: “I am so mad. I am so fucking mad at these people. They don’t do this to fucking me. We’re going to fucking ritualistically humiliate them. I am coming back here every fucking weekend if I have to. Like this is never over. I win. They fucking lose. That’s how the world fucking works. Little fucking kikes. They get ruled by people like me. Little fucking octoroons. My ancestors fucking enslaved those little pieces of fucking shit. I rule the fucking world. Those pieces of shit get ruled by people like me. They look up and see a face like mine looking down at them. That’s how the fucking world works. We are going to destroy this fucking town.”

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on The Choice Between Life & Death On Social Media

Rethinking Narcissism: The Bad – and Surprising Good – About Feeling Special

Craig Malkin writes:

* narcissism is a learned response, that is, a habit and, like any habit, it gets stronger or weaker depending on circumstances.
Narcissists bury normal emotions like fear, sadness, loneliness, and shame because they’re afraid they’ll be rejected for having them; the greater their fear, the more they shield themselves with the belief that they’re special. Unhealthy narcissism isn’t an easy habit to break, but people can become healthier by learning to accept and share the emotions they usually hide. And their loved ones can help them shift to the healthy center of the spectrum by opening up in the exact same way.

* At the heart of narcissism lies an ancient conundrum: how much should we love ourselves and how much should we love others? The Judaic sage and scholar Hillel the Elder summarized the dilemma this way: “If I am not for myself, who am I? And if I am only for myself, then what am I?”

* [Heinz] Kohut believed that children gradually learn that nothing—and no one—can be perfect and so their need for self-perfection eventually gives way to a more level-headed self-image. As they witness the ways healthy adults handle their own flaws and limitations, they begin coping more pragmatically, without the constant need for fantasies of greatness or perfection. At the end of their journey, they acquire healthy narcissism: genuine pride, self-worth, the capacity to dream, empathize, admire and be admired. This, Kohut said, is how any of us develops a sturdy sense of self.

But when children face abuse, neglect, and other traumas that leave them feeling small, insignificant, and unimportant, they spend all their time looking for admiration or finding people to look up to. In short, Kohut concluded, they be- come narcissists—vulnerable, fragile, and empty on the inside; arrogant, pompous, and hostile on the outside, to compensate for just how worthless they feel. People, in their eyes, become jesters or servants in their court, useful only for the ability to confirm the narcissist’s importance.

* Narcissism only becomes dangerous, taking us over and tipping into megalomania, when we cling to feeling special like a talisman instead of playing with it from time to time. It all depends on how completely we allow grandiosity and perfectionism to take us over.

* Otto Kernberg agreed with Kohut that healthy narcissism provides us with self-esteem, pride, ambition, creativity, and resilience. But he diverged sharply with Kohut’s theory when it came to unhealthy narcissism. Whereas Kohut viewed even grandiose narcissism in a somewhat benevolent light, Kernberg saw it as inherently dangerous and harmful. Likely due to his exposure at an impressionable age to Nazism and Hitler (one of the most dangerous megalomaniacs who ever lived), Kernberg believed in the presence of evil in the world. His experience during psychoanalytic training reinforced his dark views of human nature—Kernberg cut his teeth professionally working in hospitals and clinics with severely mentally ill patients prone to aggression and psychosis, while Kohut arrived at his theories treating privileged patients in his luxurious private offices. In Kernberg’s view, narcissists, at their most destructive, are masses of seething resentment—Frankenstein’s monsters, crudely patched together from misshapen pieces of personality. They’d been failed so horrifically as children, through neglect or abuse, that their primary goal is to avoid ever feeling dependent again. By adopting the delusion that they’re perfect, self-contained human beings (and that others are beneath them), they never have to fear feeling unsafe and unimportant again.

Kohut’s and Kernberg’s competing theories were battled over through conferences and papers, with neither side gaining ascendancy. But after Kohut succumbed to cancer in 1981, Kernberg was left alone in the spotlight and his views, particularly of malignant narcissism, spread widely. They were helped into public consciousness by historian and social critic Christopher Lasch’s popular 1979 book, The Culture of Narcissism, which drew heavily on Kernberg’s frightening image of destructive narcissism. In most people’s minds, narcissism became synonymous with malignant narcissism.

* The NPI, on which Twenge draws so heavily, is a deeply flawed measure. Under its design, agreeing with statements that reflect even admirable traits can inch people higher up the narcissism scale. For example, picking “I am assertive” and “I would prefer to be a leader” counts as unhealthy even though these qualities have been linked repeatedly in decades of research to high self-
esteem and happy relationships. People who simply enjoy speaking their mind or being in charge are clearly different from narcissists who enjoy manipulation and lies. But the NPI makes no distinction. More people checking these salutary state-
ments could easily account for millennials’ rising NPI scores through the years, and that’s what some studies indicate has happened.

Second, numerous large-scale studies, including one of nearly half a million high school students conducted between 1976 and 2006, have found little or no psychological difference between millennials and previous generations (apart from a rise in self-confidence). In fact, one study of thousands of students suggests that millennials express greater altruism and concern about the world as a whole than do previous generations, prompting psychologist Jeffrey Arnett, of Clark University to call them “GenerationWe.” The results of a 2010 Pew Research Report, surveying a nationally representative sample of several thousand millennials, also stands in stark contrast to Twenge’s findings. Millennials, the Pew authors concluded, get along well with their parents, respect their elders, value marriage and family far over career and success, and are “confident, self-expressive, and open to change”—hardly the portrait of entitled brats.

But there’s another far more troubling problem with using the NPI to declare an epidemic: we have no way of knowing whether or not people scored as “narcissists” remain so over time. No study has followed up on these thousands of college students after they graduated. Furthermore, just about every theory of adolescence and early adulthood presumes that the young are only temporarily a self- absorbed bunch, and research seems to support that view. We used to think that was a good thing: the bright-faced idealism of youth. The young believe themselves capable of anything; they’re ready to take over the world and make it a better place. Most of us, in our less cynical moments, appreciate their ostentatious energy. But just as with other temporary bouts of narcissism brought on by specific life stages, such enthusiasm eventually fades. As we approach our thirties, most of us come back down to earth, and our self-importance, and yes—self-absorption—give way to the realities of life.

* Most models of human behavior consider flexibility to be the hallmark of mental health. We adapt our feelings and behavior to fit the circumstance. When it comes to narcissism, similarly, only the most extreme echoist or narcissist becomes fixed at one end of the scale. Healthy people generally remain within a certain range on the spectrum, moving up or down a few points throughout their lives. Nevertheless, we’re all prone to climbing even higher on the scale if something provides a big enough push.

Narcissism spikes dramatically, for example, when we feel shaky about ourselves: lonely, sad, confused, vulnerable. In adults, major life events like getting divorced or becoming sick in old age often trigger a large surge of self-centeredness as we struggle to hold on to our self-worth. In younger people, narcissism tends to peak during the teen years. Adolescents often betray a staggering sense of omnipotence, as if they’re somehow above natural and man-made laws (fatal accidents might happen to others who drive drunk, for instance, but certainly never to them). Teens are well known for elevating even the act of suffering to great heights— prone to fits of despair, convinced no one can fathom the pain of their unrequited crush, or the searing humiliation of not owning the next cool smartphone. Nothing else—and often no one else—matters more than the anguish they feel.

* Societies that prize individualism and fame, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, are apt to produce uber-extroverted narcissists who raise navel-gazing to a high art. In contrast, cultures that prize altruism and group harmony, such as Japan and many other Asian nations, tend to create communal narcissists who pride themselves on being the most patient, loyal, and polite people on the planet.

* Chad had become so uncomfortable sharing normal worries or fears or sadness that he’d largely given up trying, turning instead to the high that comes from feeling special—that is, smarter, more talented, and sexier than others. He saw, in glimpses, that he’d made mistakes in his relationships or that his anger had become a problem. But instead of seeking comfort or help from others, he soothed himself with fantasies of being a great lawyer or an amazing lover. Chad rarely felt good about himself without puffing himself up. Seeking help became difficult for him because the impulse to depend on anyone made him uncomfortable. Any time he looked to someone for real support, he ended up feeling alone and invisible. His father couldn’t see Chad at all unless he saw him as his amazing son. So that’s the only way Chad could see himself.

* Subtle echoists like Mary reflexively focus on other people’s needs. It’s an unconscious strategy to keep people from rejecting them; in their minds, the less “room” they take up with their own demands and worries, the more likable or lovable they become. People in this range aren’t allergic to all attention. Being noticed is fine, as long as they’re noticed for what they do for others—being a supportive partner, a productive worker, or an attentive listener. And people like Mary can have wonderful, loving relationships.

* Unhealthy narcissism on the right isn’t always obnoxiously arrogant or openly condescending. Instead, subtle narcissists are often merely bad listeners, endlessly preoccupied with how they measure up to everyone less. Since winning is an easy way to feel special, they obsess over their numbers at work or compare themselves to anyone who exceeds them in looks or talent or achievement. They’re constantly consulting some imaginary scoreboard in their head.

* If [entitlement] surges don’t bring in the needed emotional reinforcement, they can become so frequent that entitlement tips into exploitation. It’s the hallmark of the move from dependence to addiction. Escalating entitlement turns out to be one of the key indicators in the difference between healthy and extreme narcissism. In fact, as entitlement peaks and becomes more relentless, people enter the territory of illness, near 9 on the spectrum.

* Exploitation is a pattern of doing anything necessary to get ahead or stand out, including hurting other people. Extreme narcissists may suffer incredible withdrawal—periods of anger, sadness, fear, and shame—until they can sneak, demand, borrow, or steal their next dose of attention. If feeling special means taking the credit for someone else’s work, so be it. If they have to criticize others mercilessly to feel superior, even if it means throwing their partner’s self-esteem under the bus, they will.

Exploitation and entitlement are closely linked. If I truly believe I deserve to be treated as the smartest or most beautiful or most caring person in the room, then I’ll make it happen. I won’t wait for good fortune or goodwill on the part of others to give me what I want; I’ll simply take it.

* the toxic blend of entitlement and exploitation (called EE, in the research) leaves people at 9 or 10 so blind to the needs and feeling of others that empathy begins to vanish. Among the “narcissists” on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), the people high in EE cause the most damage. Here’s where esteem begins to crumble whenever grandiosity fails, where rates of depression and anxiety and even suicidal ideation begin to rise. These are the narcissists who tend to show up in therapy, often vacillating rapidly between nearly delusional fantasies of greatness and devastating episodes of shame. No matter how puffed up they might be at times, their fragility has begun to show. Their puffery feels like the frantic efforts of the Wizard of Oz: vulnerable, frail human beings, hiding behind a bombastic empty show, all in an attempt to distract us from just how small and
powerless they feel.

* You should think of NPD exactly the way you would any full-blown addiction; recovery’s a tough road, but it’s impossible when the person denies the problem and refuses help…people with NPD, like Roger, have a strong need, in every area of their life, to be treated as if they’re special. They’re also driven to act special. They’re entitled, exploitative, and unempathetic. They tend to be extremely arrogant and condescending, but they can also be shy and full of shame. More often than not, they vacillate between the two stances—feeling special one day and worthless the next.

Either way they demand attention, admiration, and approval or special consideration because they have little sense of who they are apart from how they’re viewed by others. And they fight tooth and nail to ensure the impression they make is a “good” one. For the person with NPD, people are simply mirrors, useful only insofar as they reflect back the special view of themselves they so desperately long to see. If that means making other people look bad by comparison—say, by ruining their project at work—so be it. Because life is a constant competition, they’re also usually riddled with envy over what other people seem to have. And they’ll let you know it.

* Extreme narcissistic entitlement, not surprisingly, eventually crowds out not only empathy, but ethics and morals as well; the most coldly unemotional narcissists may also be psychopaths. (Note: not all narcissists are psychopaths, though all psychopaths are narcissists.) Psychopaths have a much lower level of fear or concern or regret than most people; at their most extreme, they seem totally devoid of sadness, anxiety, guilt, or remorse.

Psychopaths’ capacity to treat people like means to an end far surpasses that of narcissists’ ordinary entitlement. A boastful narcissist might lie, claiming to be a graduate of Harvard when he’s really a high school dropout, but it wouldn’t dawn
on him to steal. A psychopathic narcissist, however, embezzles funds without giving it a second thought if it helps him advance in any way.

* Are there signs that can alert you early on that you’re keeping company with a narcissist?

Yes. One crucial sign: narcissists dodge normal feelings of vulnerability, including sadness, fear, loneliness, and worry. In any relationship, we’re bound to make mistakes and hurt others. On a bad day, when our patience is exhausted by problems at work or squabbles with our kids, it’s easy to lash out over an innocent question from our spouse like, “Did you pick up the milk?” Or, lost in our own worries, we may neglect to greet our loved ones with a kiss or even say hello. Minor slights like these can be easily repaired if we say we’re sorry and acknowledge the hurt we’ve caused—accidental or intentional—and most people can do so after they calm down. But narcissists often seem incapable of showing contrition or remorse because, as with any kind of vulnerability, connecting with loved ones in this way demands sharing all the feelings that unhealthy narcissism is meant to
conceal. And that’s precisely what gives narcissists away: they resort to a number of predictable psychological strategies to hide normal human frailties.

* WARNING SIGN: DISPLAYING EMOTION PHOBIA

Human interaction poses a scary problem for narcissists who are, deep down, extraordinarily insecure people. One of their favorite methods of shoring up their self-confidence is to imagine themselves as perfectly self-sufficient and impervious to other people’s behavior and feelings. As a result, they don’t let on when they feel shaky, or hurt by something you’ve done or said. Instead, they lash out in anger, which is something we all do when we’re upset enough. But narcissists combine it with a show of superiority. They become condescending. They might even point out all the ways you’re lacking. Their main goal, in all the bluster, is to hide that you’ve affected how they feel. Some narcissists won’t even admit to their anger, claiming, “I’m not yelling,” while they’re in the midst of a terrifying tirade. That’s how far they’ll go to avoid acknowledging emotion.

* Whereas emotion phobia signals a deep discomfort with feelings, emotional hot potato is a way of getting rid of those emotions. It’s a more insidious form of projection, in which people deny their own feelings by claiming they belong to someone else. A friend, for example, might wander up to you, after days of not returning your calls, and ask “Are you upset at me about something?” Given her refusal to respond to your messages, odds are good she’s the one who’s angry. But instead of recognizing the feelings as her own, she accuses you of harboring a grudge.

In emotional hot potato, however, people don’t simply confuse their own feelings with someone else’s. They actually coerce you into experiencing the emotions they’re trying to ignore in the first place. In this case, a spouse might launch into a rant, laying into you for “being so angry all the time.”

* WARNING SIGN: EXERTING STEALTH CONTROL

Another warning sign is the constant need to remain in charge. Narcissists generally feel uneasy asking for help or making their needs known directly. It confronts them with the reality that they depend on people. For that reason, they often arrange events to get what they want. It’s a handy way of never having to ask for anything.

* WARNING SIGN: PLACING PEOPLE ON PEDESTALS

Mia displayed another common habit of unhealthy narcissism—she placed Mark on a pedestal. And in fact, Mark hadn’t been the first to enjoy her panegyric, nor would he be the last. Two months into his therapy with me, Mark learned that Mia had been seeing another man—and he, too, seemed to meet her every requirement for the perfect guy.

Why should this be a warning sign of narcissism? For one thing, when people compulsively place their friends, lovers, and bosses on pedestals, it’s just another way of feeling special. The logic goes like this: If someone this special wants me, then
I must be pretty special, too.

WARNING SIGN: FANTASIZING YOU’RE TWINS

It’s fun feeling like you’ve found a soul mate, with all the same passions, fears, ideas, and interests. It’s a bit like looking in the mirror. Having a twin provides us with a constant source of validation. With a twin at my side, I can tell myself my
ideas make sense, my desires are important, and my needs matter. I don’t even need unique talents or beauty to stand out. I can distinguish myself from the masses with a uniquely wonderful relationship. The twin fantasy doesn’t demand an illusion of perfection either. We can wallow in—even celebrate—our failings and flaws and still feel great about ourselves.

Narcissists often pair up and wreak havoc under the intoxicating glow of twinship. It’s mutually beneficial; even the faintest stars seem to light up the sky when they come in pairs. Perhaps this is why adolescents, struggling with their sense of
importance in the world, often buddy up or form groups of nearly identical friends. It helps them feel important in the midst of an adult world that makes them feel in- significant. In a similar manner, young lovers often gaze into each other’s eyes,
amazed that they’ve found someone who sees the world just as they do.

Twinning dodges feelings of vulnerability in two ways. First, if you and I are perfectly alike—if we’re one mind in two bodies—all fear disappears. No difference, no disappointment. We want the same things. We love, and long to be loved, in exactly the same way. Second, the twin fantasy effectively sidesteps any risk associated with being dependent on someone: since you and I see eye to eye on everything, I never have to worry about you refusing to meet my needs.

As thrilling as it is, the twin effect can’t last. No two people, even identical twins, are ever exactly alike. After a time, when differences become apparent, reality sets in.

* be very careful if you’re in your thirties and you feel pressure to be just like your friend. Twinship creates a powerful emotional bond, just short of romantic love—and subtle narcissists often thrive on just that kind of intensity. It’s more common in women than men, but male narcissists “twin up” from time to time, too.

Twinship, though rarer on the job, isn’t unheard of. Sometimes, supervisors find a sycophantic assistant willing to dress and act like them. Or you might catch a coworker “kissing up” to the boss, placing him on a pedestal. But the most com-
mon tactic at work, by far, is hot potato.

Our bosses and coworkers are often looking for ways to feel more competent. What better way to accomplish that than by questioning your every move? Work is all about performance, which provides plenty of opportunity to undermine people’s ideas and feelings of competence. Your boss or colleague might ask incessant questions about everything you produce. Or they might suggest an ill-conceived course of action, then blame you when it fails. None of this requires getting to know you, and that makes it even easier to pull off. Like snipers, extreme narcissists often prefer to keep a distance from their target. You’ll rarely get close enough
to witness their allergy to feelings or hear about their perfect childhood. More often than not, you’ll just feel their potshots. But that’s also what gives their position away.

* Recent studies indicate that the bleak “once a narcissist always a narcissist” view doesn’t necessarily hold true. If narcissists are approached in a gentler way, many seem to soften emotionally. When they feel secure love, they become more loving and more committed in return.

* Always remember that unhealthy narcissism is an attempt to conceal normal human vulnerability, especially painful feelings of insecurity, sadness, fear, loneliness, and shame. If your partner can tolerate sharing and feeling some of these emotions, then there’s still hope. But you can only nudge narcissists out of hiding if you’re willing to share your own feelings of fragility. As simple as that sounds, it isn’t easy. We’re all a bit squeamish about revealing our softer side, especially when we feel threatened.

You’ll have to dig deep into yourself first. Our most obvious emotions—the surface ones—are rarely the most important. The frustration or anger (or numbness) we feel in the face of a narcissist’s arrogance and insensitivity protect us; just below these feelings, however, are the far more potent ones we’re usually reluctant to share. We’re sad that someone we love has become so hurtful. We’re terrified they might leave or betray us. We’re ashamed that they’ve found us lacking (or claim they have). But instead of showing this, we throw on our protective armor. Tears stream down our cheeks, but our voice is full of rage. Or we apologize incessantly, hiding our pain beneath mea culpas, even though, secretly, we feel profoundly hurt. We need to remove this protective armor to give people a chance to understand—and respond—to how we truly feel. It’s by doing this that we help narcissists emerge from their emotional bunker and reach for deeper intimacy.

* Make a list of the strategies you use to get your special high. Are they arrogance, boasting, or put-downs? How about brooding or rage when you feel “misunderstood”? In the subtler range, do you rely on idol worship or emotional hot potato? These are your protections—each and every one is a vulnerability dodge. If you notice yourself using them, that’s your clue: you’re feeling insecure in some way.

Ask yourself: What’s the source of the insecurity? Sadness that your partner doesn’t seem to think you’re good enough? Fear that your friends might look down on you? The most likely suspects are fear and shame of being unworthy in some way, and sadness and loneliness over being rejected. Whether you realize it or not, the feelings are there; all evidence suggests they’re part of being human (barring severe neurological deficits). So as soon as you catch yourself falling back on old narcissistic habits, take a moment to look for the fear, sadness, or shame lurking underneath. Then take a breath and share these feelings.

Remember: anger and frustration are a cover. If you have even a hint of these feelings when you’re speaking to someone who cares about you, you’re not taking the risks you need to. The goal here is to test your own capacity to depend on people you care about, to move to a place where mutual support and understanding become a way of life. That’s what replaces the chronic need to feel special with genuine caring and closeness. You can keep the big dreams or self-assured attitude; just add a healthy dose of empathy and aspire to life at the center of the spectrum. It’s the space where you’ll not only feel genuinely great about yourself, but also proud of how you treat others.

* You have two choices with a friend: you either accept the relationship for what it is, limitations and all, or you end it. The first option means lowering your expectations. You’ve accepted that you can’t truly count on your friend—he or she’s a workout buddy or someone you share a drink with. These kinds of friendships can be fun in a limited way, but you have to ask yourself what they add to your life. And be honest. If you have to find other people to turn to in times of need because they’re more reliable or understanding than your friend, who are you staying for — you or your friend?

* Confrontation doesn’t seem to improve these situations either. Criticizing an extreme narcissist’s manner (“Stop interrupting people!”) or pointing out their mistakes (“That slide’s completely wrong”) usually makes things worse. They can’t absorb honest, accurate feedback; instead they become more angry and aggressive, and the already mistreated worker is bound to face a verbal lashing. Besides, where power differences exist, as they did between Jane and Drew, such frank feedback might not even be possible. Few people feel comfortable correcting their boss, let alone an insufferably conceited supervisor or CEO.

* According to research by psychologists Gary and Ruth Namie, of the Workplace Bullying Institute, the most common bullying behaviors are:

•Blaming mistakes on other people
•Making unreasonable job demands
•Criticizing a worker’s ability
•Inconsistently applying company rules, especially punitive measures
•Implying a worker’s job is on the line or making outright threats to fire
•Hurling insults and put-downs
•Discounting or denying a worker’s accomplishments
•Excluding or “icing out” a worker
•Yelling, screaming
•Stealing credit for ideas or work

* PROTECTING YOURSELF

Document Everything

Remain Focused on the Task

Instead of challenging the bad behavior directly, question its relevance to success-
fully completing the task.

Block the Pass

If you’re feeling helpless or overwhelmed after an interaction with anyone at work, you’re likely at the end of an attempted hot-potato pass. You’ll need to block it. In this approach, you encourage the narcissist to speak directly about the insecurities
they’re trying to get rid of, but again, in a collaborative tone.

* Nudging narcissists to center means focusing on moments when they show some capacity for collaboration, interest in other people, or concern for the happiness of those around them—in short, whenever they behave more communally.

* What changes are you hoping for in your workplace? Make a list. Successful
outcomes might include:

•You’re no longer afraid to go to work
•You’re sick less frequently
•You feel more creative
•You feel more valued
•You can stand up for yourself
•You feel emotionally safe (less likely to be unfairly criticized or insulted)

Alternatively, your measure might be more specific: having your work recognized, experiencing more reasonable job demands, or getting more consistent and fair compensation. Many people just want to be free from put-downs and yelling.

* If you’ve tried interventions at every level and the supervisor or system is unresponsive to your needs, you’ve truly done all you can, and you’re in much the same position as the partner or friend of a narcissist who can’t break their addiction. Your needs aren’t likely to be met. The system, itself, may be stuck in an addictive cycle, which means the narcissist is merely a symptom of a larger problem. Leaving a job can be as painful as leaving a relationship. And in troubled economic times, it can feel impossible. But if you’ve tried to make things better and still feel miserable, choosing to stay likely means continued misery. That’s because your happiness isn’t in your hands anymore, but the company or employer you work for. That’s when it’s time to take control—and leave.

* Based on what we know about human behavior offline, anything that takes us further away from authentic relationships is more likely to feed narcissistic addiction. That holds true in the digital world as well. It’s all too easy to hide our vulnerabilities and trade empty show for true sharing—and that pushes people toward both ends of the narcissism spectrum.

* When people feel important enough to pay special attention to their deepest desires and needs—and honestly share them—those who care about them learn something new. They finally get to meet the person they love, a truly thrilling moment for all involved. It’s a privilege that even narcissists and echoists can enjoy once they move closer to the center of the spectrum.

Posted in Narcissism | Comments Off on Rethinking Narcissism: The Bad – and Surprising Good – About Feeling Special

The Like Switch: An Ex-FBI Agent’s Guide to Influencing, Attracting, and Winning People Over

From the 2015 book by Jack Schafer:

Friendship = Proximity + Frequency + Duration + Intensity

* Street people are constantly seeking handouts, especially in big cities. They can be persistent. Their persistence is not random, though. They target people who are most likely to give them money, and aggressively pursue them. How do they know who is a soft touch and who is not? Easy: They look for friend and foe signals. If
their targets make eye contact, the odds go up. If their targets smile, the odds go up. If their targets show pity, the odds go up. If you are constantly being targeted by beggars and panhandlers, it is most likely
because you are unwittingly sending them nonverbal signals that invite personal contact. Without personal contact, the chances of receiving money are nonexistent. Beggars know this and pursue targets who are more likely to give them a return on their efforts. So, in this case, an urban scowl could come in quite handy.

* Moving with purpose has a purpose. To a potential predator, you are less likely to be seen as prey, just as a healthy, speedy, alert antelope is not likely to be the target of first choice for a lion who is chasing a herd
of the beasts across the African savanna.

* THE “BIG THREE” FRIEND SIGNALS

They are the “eyebrow flash,” “head tilt,” and the real, as opposed to fake, “smile” (yes, the human brain can detect the difference!).

A head tilt is a strong friend signal. People who tilt their heads when they interact with others are seen as more trustworthy and more attractive. Women see men who approach them with their head slightly canted to one side or the other as more handsome. Likewise, men see women who tilt their heads as more attractive. Furthermore, people who tilt their heads toward the person they are talking with are seen as more friendly, kind, and honest as compared with individuals whose heads remain upright when they talk.

* People tend to lean toward individuals they like and distance themselves from people they don’t like.

* I often use nonverbal signals to monitor the effectiveness of my lectures. Students who are interested in the material will lean forward in their seats, tilt their heads to the right or the left, and periodically nod their heads in agreement. Students who are not interested, or who have lost interest, will lean back in their seats, roll their eyes, or in extreme circumstances, tilt their heads backward or forward as they doze off.

* Members of a large group who form a semicircle with their feet pointing toward the open side of the circle are signaling that they are willing to accept new members. Members of a large group who form a closed circle are signaling they are not going to be receptive to adding new individuals to their gathering.

If you see two people who are facing each other—each with their feet pointing toward the other person—they are telegraphing the message that their conversation is private. Stay away. They do not want outsiders to interrupt. On the other hand, if two people are facing each other with their feet askew, this leaves an “opening” and sends the message that they are willing to admit a new person to their group.

* You can make more friends in two months by becoming genuinely interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you. —DALE CARNEGIE

* When you meet another person for the first time, it is a defining moment of truth in how that relationship will develop. Will that person treat you like a friend or shun you like a foe? The Golden Rule of Friendship—If you want people to like you, make them feel good about themselves—can be a deciding factor in which side the person puts you on.

* If you want people to like you, make them feel good about themselves. You must focus your attention on the person you are befriending. It sounds easy, but it takes practice even for trained agents. If you make someone feel good about themselves, they will credit you with helping them attain that good feeling. People gravitate toward individuals who make them happy and tend to avoid people who bring them pain or discomfort.

If every time you meet a person you make them feel good about themselves, he or she will seek out every opportunity to see you again to experience those same good feelings.

* People’s egos get in the way of practicing the Golden Rule of Friendship. Most people think the world revolves around them and they should be the center of attention. But if you want to appear friendly and attractive to others, you must forgo your ego and pay attention to the other person and his or her particular needs and circumstances. Other people will like you when you make them (not you) the focus of attention. Think about it: It is unfortunate that we seldom use this powerful rule for making ourselves more attractive to others while, at the same time, making those individuals feel better about themselves. We are too busy focusing on ourselves and not on the people we meet. We put our wants and needs before the wants and needs of others. The irony of all this is that other people will be eager to fulfill your wants and needs if they like you.

* Empathic statements keep the focus of the conversation on the person you are talking with rather than on yourself… Empathic statements such as “You look like you are having a bad day” or “You look happy today” let people know that someone is listening to them and cares to some degree about their well-being. This kind of attention makes us feel good about ourselves and, more important, predisposes us to like the person who gave us the attention.

* Empathic statements also close the discourse cycle. When a person says something, they want feedback to know if their message was received and understood. Mirroring back what a person says using parallel language closes the communication circle. People feel good about themselves when they successfully communicate a message.

* The basic formula for constructing empathic statements is “So you . . .” There are many ways to form empathic statements but this basic formula gets you in the habit of keeping the focus of the conversation on the other person and away from you. Simple empathic statements might include “So you like the way things are going today,” or “So you are having a good day.” We naturally tend to say something to the effect of “I understand how you feel.” The other person then automatically thinks, No, you don’t know how I feel because you are not me. The basic “So you . . .” formula ensures that the focus of the conversation remains on the other person. For example, you get on an elevator and see a person who is smiling and looks happy. You can naturally say, “So, things are going your way today,” mirroring back their physical nonverbal cues.

* Empathic statements also serve as effective conversation fillers. The awkward silence that comes when the other person stops talking and you cannot think of anything to say is devastating. When you are struggling for something to say, fall back on the empathic statement. All you have to remember is the last thing the person said and construct an empathic statement based on that information. The speaker will carry the conversation, giving you time to think of something meaningful to say. It is far better to use a series of empathic statements when you have nothing to say than to say something inappropriate. Remember: The person you are talking to will not realize that you are using empathic statements because they will be processed as “normal” by the listener’s brain and will go unnoticed.

* A fine line separates flattery from compliments. The word flattery has a more negative connotation than the term compliment. Flattery is often associated with insincere compliments used to exploit and manipulate others for selfish reasons. The purpose of compliments is to praise others and acknowledge their accomplishments. As relationships grow and develop, compliments play an ever-increasing role in the bonding of two individuals. Compliments signal that the other person is still interested in you and what you do well.

* The key to allowing people to compliment themselves is to construct a dialogue that predisposes people to recognize their attributes or accomplishments and give themselves a silent pat on the back. When people compliment themselves, they feel good about themselves, and according to the Golden Rule of Friendship, they will like you because you provided the opportunity to make them feel good about themselves. Referring back to Ben’s fledgling relationship with Vicki, he can set the stage for Vicki to compliment herself.

BEN: Then you’ve been really busy lately. (sophisticated empathic statement)
VICKI: Yeah, I worked sixty hours a week for the last three weeks getting a project done.
BEN: It takes a lot of dedication and determination to commit to a project of that magnitude. (a statement that provides Vicki the opportunity to compliment herself)
VICKI: (Thinking) I sacrificed a lot to get that mega project done and I did a very good job, if I may say so myself.

Note that Ben did not directly tell Vicki he thought she was a dedicated and determined person. However, it was not hard for Vicki to recognize those attributes in herself and apply them to her circumstances at work. In the event Vicki does not see herself as a dedicated and determined person, no damage will be done to the fledgling relationship. What Ben said is true regardless of Vicki’s self-assessment, so his comment at worst will go unnoticed, and at best will provide the impetus for Vicki to feel good about herself (and Ben). Based on human nature, even if Vicki was in reality not a dedicated and determined person, she would likely apply those favorable attributes to herself. Few people would admit in public, much less to themselves, that they are not dedicated, determined people.

Words cannot change reality, but they can change how people perceive reality. Words create filters through which people view the world around them. A single word can make the difference between liking and disliking a person.

* The next time you conduct an interview, meet a new colleague, or buy a new product, think about how you came to form your opinion about that person or product. Chances are high that your opinions were formed by primacy.

* Do not overuse this technique [of asking someone for a small favor to get them to bond with you], because Ben Franklin also observed that “guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.” (As do people who ask too many favors!)

* when you make other people feel good about themselves (the Golden Rule of Friendship) you not only get people to like you, there’s also a collateral benefit; they want to make you feel good as well.

* If you go looking for a friend, you’re going to find they’re very scarce. If you go out to be a friend, you’ll find them everywhere. —ZIG ZIGLAR

* After you make initial contact with a person, listening to what they say can provide you with additional clues to their likes and dislikes. Make a conscious effort to direct the conversation toward the things you have in common. Talking about shared experiences, interests, hobbies, jobs, or any number of other common topics enhances rapport and the development of friendships.

* Reciprocity is also linked with openness in communication. Individuals who disclose more personal information with other people are more likely to receive a similar level of personal information in return. This phenomenon is further enhanced if the people who are communicating have shared interests. Self-disclosure promotes attraction. People feel a sense of closeness to others who reveal their vulnerabilities, innermost thoughts, and facts about themselves. The sense of closeness increases if the disclosures are emotional rather than factual. This is partly due to the intensity of such disclosures, which positively affects the likability of the person making them.

Disclosures that are too general reduce the sense of openness, thus reducing the feeling of closeness and likability. Disclosures that are too intimate often highlight character and personality flaws of the person, thus decreasing likability. People who make intimate disclosures too early in a relationship are often perceived as insecure, which further decreases likability. Thus, if you are meeting someone who you would like to have as a long-term friend or significant other, you should be careful about making your most intimate disclosures in the early stages of the relationship. Self-disclosure is a two-step process. First, a person has to make a self-disclosure that is neither too general nor too intimate. Second, the self-disclosure must be received with empathy, caring, and respect. A negative response made to a genuine self-disclosure can instantly terminate a relationship. Self-disclosures are often reciprocal. When one person makes self-disclosures, the listener is more likely to reciprocate by making similar ones. The exchange of personal information creates a sense of intimacy in relationships. A relationship in which one person makes personal self-disclosures while the other person continues to make superficial disclosures is not progressing and is likely to end.

* Relationships tend to wane over time. To increase the longevity of these liaisons, release self-disclosures over an extended period of time. Once somebody finds a person whom they can trust, they are often tempted to open the emotional floodgates—telling too much too quickly—overwhelming their partner in the process. Disclosures should be made over a long period of time to ensure that the relationship slowly increases in intensity and closeness. A steady trickle of information, like Hansel and Gretel’s bread crumbs dropped one piece at a time, increases the longevity of the relationship because each partner continually feels the closeness that comes with a steady stream of self-disclosures. Mutual self-disclosures create trust.

* According to Gordon Wainwright, author of Teach Yourself Body Language, anyone can increase their attractiveness to others if they maintain good eye contact, act upbeat, dress well, add a dash of color to their wardrobe, and listen well. Wainwright also stresses the importance of posture and bearing and suggests that for one week you stand straight, tuck in your stomach, hold your head high, and smile at those you meet. From the results of many experiments, Wainwright predicts you will begin to be treated with more warmth and respect and start attracting more people to you.

* Individuals who use humor in social encounters are perceived as more likable. In addition, both trust and attraction increase when a lighthearted approach is used during person-to-person interactions. Judicious use of humor can reduce anxiety and establish a relaxed mood that helps a relationship to develop more rapidly.

* The added benefit to using humor is that laughing causes a release of endorphins, which makes you feel good about yourself, and, according to the Golden Rule of Friendship, if you make people feel good about themselves, they will like you. A woman who likes a particular man will laugh at his jokes, no matter how lame, more often and with more gusto than she will laugh at jokes told by a man.

* So, when a less attractive individual wants to be seen as more attractive, he or she should associate with a group of attractive people. Conversely, an attractive person may be viewed as less attractive if he or she is in the company of unattractive people. It seems that adult life doesn’t change all that much from high school. If you want to be “popular,” you still need to hang out with the popular people. In a business situation this means always try to “friend up,” not down. Who you associate with matters. If you want to be seen as successful, you need to hang out with successful people.

* People like to associate with individuals who display high levels of self-esteem. Thus, such individuals have an easier time attracting others and making friends. Individuals with high levels of self-esteem are also self-confident and comfortable with being the center of attention. They are also comfortable with self-disclosure, which is a building block in creating close personal relationships. To people with high self-esteem, rejection is part of life, not a reflection on their self-worth. Conversely, people with low self-esteem are reluctant to disclose personal information.

* When it comes to establishing short- or long-term romantic relationships, high-status women (young and physically attractive) tend to couple with high-status men (high earning potential and disposable income). This pattern of mate selection parallels typical mating strategies. Men select young and physically attractive women to ensure procreation and women select high earners with disposable incomes to achieve the security necessary to raise children. Men with lower self-esteem tend to select women who are less physically attractive and women with lower self-esteem tend to select mates who are lower income earners and with less disposable income. Sometimes lower-status individuals will try to “fake” higher status in an attempt to establish relationships with people “out of their league.” For example, a man might pretend to be a high-income earner by lavishing a woman with expensive gifts, driving a car he cannot afford, and spending money he does not have. This strategy, although effective in the short run, usually ends catastrophically as time passes and the suitor, unable to afford his ruse, is unmasked and his true worth revealed.

* An individual should not always make him or herself readily available to the person they are targeting for a longer-term relationship. A certain level of unavailability will make you more of a mystery and a challenge.

* The more you can encourage the other person to speak, the more you listen to what they say, display empathy, and respond positively when reacting to their comments, the greater the likelihood that person will feel good about themselves (Golden Rule of Friendship) and like you as a result. This means that when I (“ME”) desire YOU as a friend, I want to let you know I am interested in what you have to say, and, in addition, give you plenty of time to say it.

* Glory has a short expiration date; goodwill has a long shelf life. A good idea produces a large plate that can be divided into many pieces. Freely distributing the pieces increases likability, puts people in your debt, and gives you allies should you need their help in gaining successes down the road.

* Listening to what another person is saying can be difficult to achieve, particularly for extroverts. They are so busy thinking about what they want to say, interrupting the speaker, or letting their mind wander that they literally don’t hear what is being said.

* When it comes to establishing and building friendships through verbal behavior, take your cue from LOVE (Listen, Observe, Vocalize, and Empathize). This acronym captures the four rules you’ll want to follow if you want to maximize your chances for making friends through the use of communication.

* Empathic statements are the spice of conversations. If you make it a habit to use empathic statements, you will force yourself to listen more carefully to other people. As a consequence they will feel good about themselves and like you.

* When using electronic media to communicate, don’t use sarcasm, understatements, or words that have double meanings if you want to avoid the possibility of miscommunication. The best way to keep your verbal communication effective in a world filled with word mines is to: 1. Think about the words you are going to use before you say them. Scan ahead for possible word mines that you’ll want to eliminate from your speech. 2. Observe your listeners for any unusual reaction while you are speaking. It might indicate that a word mine has been tripped. 3. Do not become defensive or angry if a listener becomes agitated over your use of a word mine (even if you didn’t know it existed); and 4. Immediately take the time to find out if the listener’s discomfort is the result of a word mine detonation. If it is, apologize for using the word or phrase, explain that you were unaware that it had a negative connotation to the listener, and assure him or her that you will not use it again. And then, be sure you don’t.

* Knowing what a person thinks gives you an advantage. The trick is to change their mind before they have an opportunity to articulate their opposition. Once an opinion or decision is expressed out loud, changing a person’s mind becomes more difficult due to the psychological principle of consistency. Decision-making causes tension to some degree. When a person makes a decision, tension dissipates. They are less likely to change their mind because to do so would mean admitting their first decision was a bad one, thus causing tension. Maintaining an articulated position causes less tension than going through the decision-making process again no matter how persuasive the arguments for change may be. In other words, when people say something, they tend to remain consistent with what they said.

* In social settings, you can avoid embarrassing moments by observing the person you are talking to. If you introduce a sensitive topic and you see the other person pursing or compressing their lips, you are best advised to change the subject before more damage is done. You can safely return to the subject when sufficient rapport has been built between you and the other person.

* Giving someone the feeling they have some control over a situation can work wonders, even with children.

* Status elevation can take the form of a simple compliment.

* If you want to get information from somebody without arousing their suspicion or putting them on the defensive, use the elicitation approach. You use elicitation devices in conversation to obtain information from a person without that individual becoming sensitive (aware) of your purpose. People often hesitate to answer direct questions, especially when the inquiries focus on sensitive topics. If you want people to like you, use elicitation instead of questions to obtain sensitive information. Elicitation techniques encourage people to reveal sensitive information without the need for making inquiries. Asking questions puts people on the defensive. Nobody likes nosy individuals, especially when you first meet them. Ironically, this is the time you need the most information about persons of interest.

* The Empathic Statement is versatile because it can be combined with elicitation techniques. Two empathic elicitation techniques that are based on the human need to correct will be discussed, the empathic presumptive and the empathic conditional. Salespeople routinely use empathic elicitation. Customers are less likely to buy something from someone they don’t like. Salespeople use empathic elicitation to accomplish two goals. First, empathic statements quickly build rapport, and second, empathic elicitation gleans information from customers that they would not normally reveal under direct questioning.

If the presumptive is false, the customer will typically correct the presumptive. Just look at this example:

SALESPERSON: May I help you?
CUSTOMER: Yes, I have to buy a new washer and dryer.
SALESPERSON: So, your old washer and dryer are on their last legs? (empathic presumptive)
CUSTOMER: No, I’m moving to a small apartment.
SALESPERSON: Oh, so you’ll need a compact washer and dryer. Let me show you a popular stacked unit that we sell.
CUSTOMER: Okay.

The empathic conditional keeps the focus of the conversation on the customer and introduces a set of circumstances under which the customer would purchase a product or service.

SALESPERSON: Can I help you?
CUSTOMER: No, I’m just looking.
SALESPERSON: So, you haven’t decided which model you want to buy. (empathic statement)
CUSTOMER: I need a new car, but I’m not sure I can afford one.
SALESPERSON: So you’d buy a car, if it were priced right? (empathic conditional)
CUSTOMER: Sure.
SALESPERSON: Do you like red or blue cars?
CUSTOMER: Blue.
SALESPERSON: Let’s take a look at some blue cars in your price range.

* When people receive something either physically or emotionally, they feel the need to reciprocate by giving back something of equal or greater value (Law of Reciprocity). Quid pro quo is an elicitation technique that encourages people to match information provided by others. For example, you meet a person for the first time and want to know where they work. Instead of directly asking them, “Where do you work?” tell them where you work first. People will tend to reciprocate by telling you where they work. This elicitation technique can be used to discover information about people without being intrusive and appearing nosy.

* I used the need to reciprocate when I interviewed suspects. I would always offer the suspect something to drink such as coffee, tea, water, or soda at the beginning of the interview (the television term is interrogation). I did this to invoke the need to reciprocate. In return for the drink, I hope to receive something in return such as intelligence information or a confession. During your conversation, you should seek common ground (Law of Similarity) with the other person. You should also use empathic statements to keep the focus on that individual. In short, you want to make the other person feel good about themselves (Golden Rule of Friendship), and if you are successful, they will like you and seek future opportunities to share your company.

* To find out what your loved one really thinks about cheating, you need to approach the topic from a third-person perspective. Instead of asking the direct question, “What do you think about cheating?” you want to say, “My friend Susan caught her husband cheating. What do you think about that?” When a person is confronted with a third-party observation, they tend to look inside themselves to find the answer and tell you what they really think.

* The best way to find out how your children really feel about drugs is to ask them from a third-party perspective. For example, “My friend’s son got caught in school with marijuana. What’s your take on that?”

* People develop positive feelings toward those individuals who can “walk in their shoes” and understand what they are experiencing. Your empathic statements and/or statements of concern send a message to the listener that you comprehend their circumstances and realize what they have to say is meaningful. In doing so, you are fulfilling the other person’s need to be recognized and appreciated. This makes them feel better about themselves and in turn makes them feel better about you, which encourages friendship development… What you will see, more often than you might expect, is the individual you are watching saying or doing something that reveals they are dissatisfied with the current situation they are in. This is especially true when you are dealing with individuals whom you might only confront once, or at infrequent intervals, during your life, such as salespeople, clerks, service personnel, and the like.

* To keep the communication flowing smoothly, be sure to steer clear of common conversation pitfalls that impede verbal exchanges between individuals.

1. Avoid talking about topics that engender negative feelings in your listener. Negative feelings make people feel bad about themselves and, consequently, they will like you less.

2. Don’t constantly complain about your problems, your family’s problems, or the problems of the world. People have enough problems of their own without hearing about yours . . . or anyone else’s for that matter.

3. Avoid talking excessively about yourself. Talking about yourself too much bores other people. Keep the focus on the other person in your conversation.

4. Do not engage in meaningless chatter; it turns people (and the Like Switch) off.

5. Avoid expressing too little or too much emotion. Extreme displays of emotion may put you in a bad light.

* The more grooming behaviors that are present, the more intense the relationship.

1. Do you run your fingers through your significant other’s hair? 2. Do you wash your significant other’s hair or body while showering/bathing? 3. Do you shave your significant other’s legs/face? 4. Do you wipe away your significant other’s tears when he or she cries? 5. Do you brush or play with your significant other’s hair? 6. Do you wipe away or dry liquid spills off your significant other? 7. Do you clean and/or trim your significant other’s fingernails or toenails? 8. Do you brush dirt, leaves, lint, bugs, etc. off your significant other? 9. Do you scratch your significant other’s back or other body parts? 10. Do you wipe food and/or crumbs off your significant other’s face or body?

* In testing for rapport using torso movements, the basic rule to remember is that people who share rapport will orient their bodies toward each other. This is the typical sequence for achieving such an orientation: First, the other person’s head will turn toward you. Second, the other person’s shoulders will turn toward you. Finally, the other person will reposition his or her torso so that it directly faces you. When this occurs, you can be confident that rapport has been established.

* A good way to test for rapport is to look for barriers that individuals place and/or remove between themselves and other people. People who do not feel comfortable with other individuals will erect barriers or leave ones already there in place. On the other hand, individuals who feel at ease with the person with whom they are interacting will keep an open space between them, even if it involves removing barriers that are already between them.

* Arm crossing serves as a psychological barrier to protect individuals from topics that cause them psychological anxiety. People who are in good rapport do not feel threatened, nor do they feel anxious. If the person you are talking to suddenly crosses his or her arms, then rapport has not yet been established or it signals weakening rapport.

* The placement of soft drink cans, pillows, purses, and other movable objects between you and another person signals discomfort and a lack of rapport.

* Anxious people will signify their uneasiness by prolonged eye closure. Their eyelids serve as a barrier to prevent them from seeing the person or thing that makes them anxious or uncomfortable.

* When people experience anxiety, they tend to increase their eye-blink rate.

* The body takes about twenty minutes to return to normal after a full fight or flight response. In other words, angry people need time to calm down before they can think clearly again. Angry people will not completely comprehend any explanations, solutions, or problem-solving options until they can think logically again. Allowing for this refractory period is a critical part of any anger management strategy. The first strategy for breaking the anger cycle is “Never try to rationally engage angry people.” Anger must be vented before offering problem solving solutions.

* People want to feel like they are in control. Angry people seek order in a world that no longer makes sense to them. The inability to make sense of a disordered world causes frustration. This frustration is expressed as anger. Providing an explanation for a given behavior or problem will often reorder a disordered world and soothe the angered person’s feelings in the process.

* Anger needs fuel. The increased anger provokes you to give a more intense response, which provides additional fuel to an angry supervisor. If this anger cycle continues, at some point your fight or flight threshold is crossed, causing a reduction in your ability to think logically.

Posted in Psychology | Comments Off on The Like Switch: An Ex-FBI Agent’s Guide to Influencing, Attracting, and Winning People Over

The Science of Likability: 27 Studies to Master Charisma, Attract Friends, Captivate People, and Take Advantage of Human Psychology

Patrick King writes:

* Memories have long been found to be context-dependent, first by Godden and Baddeley in 1975 in their breakthrough publication “Context-Dependent Memory in Two Natural Environments: On Land and Underwater,” which means memories are heavily linked to the environment, events, sounds, feelings, and even smells that were present during the formation of the memory. The researchers found that either being on land or underwater led subjects to recall different sets of memories.

We can see this in our everyday lives. For instance, this is why so many of us fall into bouts of nostalgia when we hear certain songs—the song is information that is linked to much more than the song itself.

* memories were also mood-dependent. In other words, the mood we had when the memory was formed is also part of the memory. The information is in there somewhere, and Eich and his associates found that appealing to those hidden aspects of memories allows you to influence people’s moods for the better.

* Participants who were in good moods typically recalled positive memories while participants who were in bad moods typically recalled negative memories. And of course, the subsequent memories recalled served to further increase the moods they were in—misery and happiness both grew.

* This is the first step in becoming a presence that people start to crave; if you either (1) directly talk about positive memories or (2) indirectly evoke elements that were present at the time of that positive memory (recall how holistic and three-dimensional memory is), people will slip into the mood they were in during that
memory.

* Talk to people in terms of what makes them happy, and it will make them happier.

* No one is drawn to the person that reminds them of the last funeral they went to.

* You’d be surprised how effective staying in a good mood, putting on a happy face, praising others, and acting positive is. In fact, there is a term for the contagious power of positivity: emotional contagion.

* Finally, the stimulus-value-role model of social interaction states that to get to someone’s inner circle, you have to show three levels of compatibility: stimulus, value, and role. To use this model, you have to first
understand which stage you are currently at with someone, and then you can understand what you need to do before moving into the next stage. The deepest level is role: working together, collaborating, and resolving
conflict.

* Often, we treat people like strangers when we meet them. This sounds natural, but it is actually detrimental to building rapport and being likable. Treat them like a friend and they will treat you like a friend. This is backed
up by the theory of transference, which states that people transfer their emotions of someone else to those they see acting in a familiar way or role.

•We don’t realize it, but we have the ability to set the tone of our relationships, and you might be causing the very source of your unhappiness by not acting the part of a friend.

•Another aspect of treating people like a friend right off the bat is to understand how the Pygmalion effect works. People live up to the expectations we give them. If we treat them like strangers, they will remain strangers. If we expect that they are interesting, we will treat them in a way that allows them to demonstrate this. All of this requires more effort on your part, but you have the ability to set the tone, so use it.

•Next, we come to self-verification theory. This states that we naturally gravitate toward and like people who confirm our self-perception—they see us as we like and want to be seen. This makes people feel understood, seen, and heard. It’s not manipulation or fakery so much as the act of validating people and letting them know they are, again, understood, seen, and heard.

•Finally, we arrive at friendship chemistry—this is typically what we think of when we think of hitting it off with someone. But just like everything that you’ve read so far, there is far more intentionality than you might
assume, even if it is largely unconscious on your part. Exactly what instantly draws us to someone, and vice versa, is generally categorized into five elements: reciprocal candor, mutual interests, personableness, simi-
larity, and physical attraction. What is perhaps most illuminating and encouraging is that these are elements that we mostly have control over, most of the time.

* Trust has been shown to work in a linear fashion. The more you see someone, the more you trust them, regardless of interaction or depth. This is known as the propinquity effect, and it is similar to how studies have shown that customers only purchase after seeing a product seven times. It is also similar to the mere exposure effect, where feelings of preference and affection show a linear relationship with the frequency of interactions we have with something/someone rather than the quality of those interactions.

•Credibility is a notch above trust; trust is about people feeling that they can believe you, and credibility is where people also feel that they can rely on you. There are also proven ways to create an aura of credibility around yourself. These include highlighting qualifications, showing your caring and empathy, showing similarity, being assertive, showing social proof, not contradicting yourself, and avoiding being overly polite.

* Not being perfect is endearing to people. Vulnerability is attractive and relatable, and it ensures that you
aren’t intimidating to others. Don’t pretend you’re perfect—you’re not, anyway—because it will probably backfire on you.

* One of the easiest ways to make people lower their guards is to stop trying to be perfect and impressive. Instead, try to be relatable and harmless to a degree. Nothing epitomizes that better than the pratfall effect, which shows the attractiveness of imperfection and vulnerability. This also works because you are catering to people’s insecurities and allowing them to feel that are you not a source of judgment.

•Another method of lowering people’s guards is to make rough times better, which is possible through using the Losada ratio. This ratio should govern the amount of positive and negative remarks you use—roughly 2.9 positive statements will generally make up for one negative statement and can be the difference between a stressed and “languishing” mind versus a happy and “flourishing” mind. Who would have thought that being nice and positive to others could increase our likability?

•Asking people for advice is a powerful element of lowering people’s guards. When we ask questions, especially on topics that they feel specially equipped to answer, they will open up and can’t wait to share. In
fact, they won’t be able to shut up, usually. In addition, asking for advice shows respect and belief in someone’s intelligence and abilities.

•The Benjamin Franklin effect is where you ask someone else to perform a favor for you, and surprisingly, this makes them like you more. This goes against the conventional view that doing things for others is what creates
goodwill and affection. The psychological component behind this is known as cognitive dissonance, which is when the brain is trying to make two conflicting thoughts exist with each other. Thus, “I don’t like him” plus “I did this for him” equals “I suppose I like him enough.” Asking for favors also closes the psychological distance and shows vulnerability.

* The more information about you that is out there, the less readily people can judge and stereotype you,
simply because you can’t fit into singular stereotypes anymore.

* Thus, we come to a 2015 study by William von Hippel called “Quick Thinkers Are Smooth Talkers: Mental Speed Facilitates Charisma,” which provides a clear and instructive lesson that will make an impact on how others perceive you. As you might gather from the name of the study, his discovery was that speed of thought and dialogue was more related to people’s ratings of charisma than many other traits, including being correct or accurate. In fact, if you were to prioritize one aspect of interaction, quickness would be highest rated.

* If someone appears to have a speedy answer for everything, especially in a confident and assertive manner, then we find it appealing for some reason. Why might this be? Humans place incredible weight on perception.

Speed is associated with intelligence and social acumen. Think about how we perceive people who are slow to answer, who make us wait, and need a joke explained more than once. Now contrast that to someone who has snappy and witty comebacks and can rattle off jokes that we can barely keep up with. Indeed, we use speed as a proxy for intelligence and charm, and we tend to become enamored with those who speak quickly and confidently.

* The first theory on humor is called the superiority theory of humor and was mentioned as early as Aristotle and Plato in roughly 300 BC. It is finding humor in the misfortune of others and, therefore, our own superiority that we would not fall victim to said misfortune. We laugh at others because we see the differences illus-
trated between us. This is also related to schadenfreude, which is a German word roughly translating to “enjoying the misfortune of others.” This theory is easy to see in action; you can reliably find it in your local ice-skating rink as you watch people flail about and try to keep themselves upright.

The second theory is known as the relief theory of humor, which states that humor comes as a result of the release of psychological tension. Herbert Spencer in The Physiology of Laughter in 1860 postulated that we are always in a sort of nervous state, and laughter is the constant feeling of relief at feeling safe and having a pleasant outcome. It was later expounded on by Sigmund Freud, who of course saw it through a sexual and unconscious perspective. But on a more daily level, we might see this play out by mistakenly being told that your restaurant bill is double what it should be and then having the error corrected. At first, tension would grow,
but upon correcting the bill, you might laugh in a release of tension. The third theory is what the top joke in the world played on—a sense of surprise and subverted expectations. It is called the incongruity theory, and it states that we find humor in the incongruity, or gap, between our expectations and reality. If we hear X and Y, then we find an incongruity when we actually hear Z instead.

* there are no comedy movies that have consistently struck gold in international box offices because
humor is rooted in language and cultural and contextual norms. However, action and adventure movies routinely break box office records because there’s no cultural translation required for an explosion or flying car.

* Whatever traits you describe in others, people will transfer to you. If you talk about someone being lazy, people will more likely think you’re lazy. If you describe others as engaging and cheerful, they will also think that about you.

* bad gossip is bad for people’s perceptions of you and your likability. You see it with spontaneous trait trans-
ference, and you also see it in “Is Gossip Power? The Inverse Relationships Between Gossip, Power, and Likability” from 2011, where Sally Farley explored and ex-panded on Dunbar’s findings on social grooming. She found that what she deemed “prolific” gossipers were much less liked than non-gossipers, and those who were negative gossipers were liked the least of all. Out of a scale of 117, negative gossipers scored an average of 37 for likability while non-gossipers scored an average of 47. In addition, prolific gossipers were seen as socially weaker and with
less influence.

This seems to contradict Dunbar’s earlier findings on the essentiality of gossip and idle chit-chat, but on the topic, Farley stated, “Perhaps high gossipers are individuals who we welcome into our social networks for fear of losing the opportunity to learn information, but we tend to keep them at arm’s length.”

Posted in Psychology | Comments Off on The Science of Likability: 27 Studies to Master Charisma, Attract Friends, Captivate People, and Take Advantage of Human Psychology

Normal Marital Sadism

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/experts/david-schnarch-phd
https://crucibletherapy.com/about/david-schnarch
https://passionatemarriage.com/

David Schnarch writes in his book Passionate Marriage:

* When we talk about developing a fuller, deeper understanding of marriage, many people automatically think of unconscious feelings or repressed experiences. We’ve grown accustomed to looking at life’s struggles as a reflection of unconscious processes. When we’re unhappy, we look within ourselves for past traumas that incapacitate us in the present. The notion of uncovering repressed feelings has become synonymous with mental health, as if progressively stripping away façades and unearthing unconscious anxieties will liberate our innate vitality and creativity. In this view, therapy is a method of peeling away the layers of your character like an onion. Often, however, the problem is not a matter of peeling away layers but of developing them—growing ourselves up to be mature and resourceful adults who can solve our current problems. Many marital therapists believe childhood wounds drive marriage, leading us to reenact our family problems with our adult partners. I do not. While I don’t ignore unpleasant childhood experiences, I also don’t believe they are the only or even the strongest factor shaping a marriage. Childhood wounds have their impact, just like parental modeling and social conditioning. I believe other aspects have at least as much—if not more—impact on marriage than our childhood or unconscious processes. These involve how sex and intimacy operate within marriage as a system with rules of its own. (I’ll discuss these shortly.) Misguided emphasis on childhood wounds does more than send couples off in the wrong direction. The resulting “trauma model of life” ignores everything outstanding about our species’ determination to grow and thrive. When Pulitzer Prize winner Ernest Becker said our social “maps” trivialize life and destroy any opportunity to feel heroic, this is an example of what he meant. Likewise, in Care of the Soul, Thomas Moore observes “we like to think that emotional problems have to do with the family, childhood, and trauma —with personal life—but not with spirituality.” Passionate Marriage is about resilience rather than damage, health rather than old wounds, and human potential rather than trauma.

* What’s an example of a crucible in marriage? How about the fact that your spouse can always force you to choose between keeping your integrity and staying married, between “holding onto yourself” and holding onto your partner. These integrity issues often surface around sex and intimacy—about what the two of you will and won’t do together. They can just as easily arise over issues about money, parenting, in-laws, and lifestyle. The more emotionally enmeshed you and your spouse are—fused in my lingo—the more you will push this choice right down to the wire. Stay in the marriage or get divorced. The key is not to lose your nerve or get overreactive or locked into an inflexible position. I know that’s tough when you think your marriage is about to explode—or you’re about to sell out your beliefs, preferences, or dreams. But it’s actually part of the people-growing process in marriage. When you’re oblivious to ways marriage can operate as a people-growing process, all you see are problems and pathology—and the challenges of marriage will probably defeat you. Your pain will have no meaning except failure and disappointment; no richness, no soul. Spirituality is an attitude that reveals life’s meaning through everyday experience; however, don’t bother looking for sanctuary in your marriage. Seeking protection from its pains and pleasures misses its purpose: marriage prepares us to live and love on life’s terms. Facing relationship realities like these produces the personal integrity necessary for intimacy, eroticism, and a lifetime loving marriage. How is integrity relevant to marriage? Integrity is the ability to face the realities I just mentioned. It’s living according to your own values and beliefs in the face of opposition.

Differentiation involves balancing two basic life forces: the drive for individuality and the drive for togetherness. Individuality propels us to follow our own directives, to be on our own, to create a unique identity. Togetherness pushes us to follow the directives of others, to be part of the group. When these two life forces for individuality and togetherness are expressed in balanced, healthy ways, the result is a meaningful relationship that doesn’t deteriorate into emotional fusion. Giving up your individuality to be together is as defeating in the long run as giving up your relationship to maintain your individuality. Either way, you end up being less of a person with less of a relationship. In this chapter I’ll discuss several ways differentiation dramatically affects relationships. Here’s the first and most important one: differentiation is your ability to maintain your sense of self when you are emotionally and/or physically close to others—especially as they become increasingly important to you. Differentiation permits you to maintain your own course when lovers, friends, and family pressure you to agree and conform. Well-differentiated people can agree without feeling like they’re “losing themselves,” and can disagree without feeling alienated and embittered. They can stay connected with people who disagree with them and still “know who they are.” They don’t have to leave the situation to hold onto their sense of self.

* Think of differentiation as a “higher order” process that involves balancing both connection and autonomy… Then you can see that emotional fusion is connection without individuality. Lack of differentiation alienates us from those we love. Emotional fusion deceives us into thinking that we’re not connected and we move away in defense. But the deeper truth is that we have to move away to counterbalance the tremendous impact we feel our spouse has on us. Or, unable to turn away, we turn ourselves over to the connection, but it feels engulfing.

* Let me tell you a little more about differentiation… the term actually comes from biology, referring to the ways cells develop. All cells in your body start from essentially the same material, but as they begin to differentiate they take on unique properties and perform separate yet related functions. The greater the differentiation, the more sophisticated and adaptive the life form. More highly evolved forms of life display greater variability in response. Mammals show more variable reactions than amoebae or earthworms. Your fingerprints, voiceprint, and handwriting are examples of highly evolved uniqueness. Biologically and socially, humans represent the most sophisticated differentiation in the world. When you have a wide repertoire of possible responses, you, your family, your business, and our species have increased versatility and adaptability. Fewer resources in well-differentiated families and marriages have to be rigidly devoted to compensate for the inability of any one member to take care of himself/herself. Conversely, there is less need for anyone to sacrifice growth or self-direction to maintain the stability of the family or marriage. Differentiation allows each person to function more independently and interdependently. Families are like multicelled living entities, just as your body is composed of many different cells. Families gain or lose differentiation over generations according to the successful struggles of their members to develop.

* …your level of differentiation, and that of your marriage and family, results from how well you and your parents and grandparents succeeded in becoming well-developed individuals while maintaining emotional contact with the family. Differentiation transcends generations because it is partly about intergenerational boundaries. How strong is the emotional umbilical cord between parents and children, particularly during adolescence and adulthood? Have you had to “run away” to other parts of the country to buffer your parents’ impact on you (like Joan’s brother)? Have family members cut off from each other instead of separating emotionally but staying in touch? Do emotional bonds in your family choke its members development? Joan’s comment that “blood is thicker than water” actually describes emotional fusion rather than loyalty. Meaningful sacrifice involves free choices rather than emotional entanglements and guilt. When families (and marriages) have the use of us, there’s no choice involved.

* When people pick marriage partners, it’s not uncommon to pick someone whose family tried the opposite way of dealing with emotional fusion—but who was no more successful.

* Bill and Joan also illustrate why emotional fusion is so tenacious: borrowed functioning. Basically differentiation refers to your core “solid self,” the level of development you can maintain independent of shifting circumstances in your relationship. However, you can appear more (or less) differentiated than you really are, depending on your marriage’s current state. Borrowed functioning artificially inflates (or deflates) your functioning. Your “pseudo self” can be pumped up through emotional fusion, which makes poorly differentiated people doggedly hang onto each other. Two people in different relationships can appear to function at the same level although they have achieved different levels of differentiation. The difference is that the better differentiated one will more consistently function well even when the partner isn’t being supportive or encouraging.

* When we need to be needed and can’t settle for being wanted, we perpetuate poor functioning in our partner to maintain borrowed functioning. Superficially we may look like we’re encouraging our partner’s autonomous functioning, but in truth we suppress it on a daily basis. Borrowed functioning differs from “mutual support” because it artificially suppresses the functioning of one partner while it enhances functioning in the other. It feels good—as long as you’re on the side that is inflated by the borrowed functioning. We all experience a difference between our level of functioning when we support ourselves versus when we are emotionally supported by someone else. The wider this difference is, the more our elevated functioning is not a reflection of our “real” self—not without a partner serving as a booster rocket. We latch onto people with whom we function better. Often we call this “finding someone who brings out the best in us”—but it’s still borrowed functioning. Since differentiation is a complex process that is easily misunderstood, let me offer several important clarifications:

People screaming, “I got to be me!” “Don’t fence me in!” and “I need space!” are not highly differentiated. Just the opposite. They are fearful of “disappearing” in a relationship and do things to avoid their partner’s emotional engulfment. Some create distance; others keep their relationship in constant upheaval. Declaring your boundaries is an important early step in the differentiation process, but it’s done in the context of staying in relationship (that is, close proximity and restricted space). This is quite different from poorly differentiated people who attempt to always “keep the door open” and who bolt as increasing importance of the relationship makes them feel like they’re being locked up. The process of holding onto your sense of self in an intense emotional relationship is what develops your differentiation. Differentiation is the ability to maintain your sense of self when your partner is away or when you are not in a primary love relationship. You value contact, but you don’t fall apart when you’re alone. Differentiation is different from similar sounding concepts. It’s entirely different from “individualism,” which is an egocentric attempt to set ourselves apart from others. Unlike “rugged individualists” who can’t sustain a relationship, differentiated folks welcome and maintain intimate connection. Highly differentiated people also behave differently than the terms autonomy or independence suggest. They can be heedful of their impact on others and take their partners’ needs and priorities into account. As we discussed earlier, differentiation is the ability to balance individuality and togetherness. The differentiated self is solid but permeable, allowing you to remain close even when your partner tries to mold or manipulate you. When you have a solid core of values and beliefs, you can change without losing your identity. You can permit yourself to be influenced by others, changing as new information and shifting circumstances warrant. Realize, however, that this flexible sense of identity develops slowly, out of soul-searching deliberation—not by simply adapting to situations or the wishes of others. Differentiation doesn’t involve any lack of feelings or emotions. You can connect with your partner without fear of being swept up in his or her emotions. You can evaluate your emotions (and your partner’s) both subjectively and objectively. You have feelings, but they don’t control you or define your sense of self. The self-determination of differentiation doesn’t imply selfishness. Differentiation is not about always putting yourself ahead of everyone else. You can choose to be guided by your partner’s best interests, even at the price of your individual agenda. But it doesn’t leave you feeling like you’re being ruled by others’ needs. As you become more differentiated, you recognize those you love are separate people—just like you. What they want for themselves becomes as important to you as what you want for yourself. You value their interests on a par with yours. You can see merit in their positions, even when they contradict or interfere with your own. What I’m describing is called mutuality. Differentiation is the key to mutuality; as a perspective, a mind-set, it offers a solution to the central struggle of any long-term relationship: going forward with your own self-development while being concerned with your partner’s happiness and well-being. When you’ve reached a high level of differentiation, your view of conflict in relationships shifts dramatically. “What I want for myself versus what you want for you” shifts to “What I want for myself versus my wanting for you what you want for yourself.” If you talk your partner out of what he or she wants so you can have your way, you lose. When you participate in the agendas of those you love and sacrifice out of your own differentiation, it enhances your sense of self rather than leaving you feeling like you have sold yourself out.

* First, we emerge from our family of origin at about the highest level of differentiation our parents achieved. Our basic level of differentiation is pretty much established by adolescence and can remain at that level for life. In the process of regulating their own emotions, poorly differentiated parents pressure their children for togetherness or distance, which stops children from developing their ability to think, feel, and act for themselves. They learn to conduct themselves only in reaction to others. Raising our level of differentiation is not easy. We can raise it through concentrated effort (like therapy) or crisis (as commonly occurs in the course
of marriage, family, friendship, and career). In general, though, the level of differentiation in a family tends to stay relatively the same from one generation to the next. It changes only when a family member is motivated to differentiate him- or herself enough to rewrite the family’s legacy. This reality differs from the popular belief that your spouse is supposed to pull you out of your family’s grasp. Eventually, your partner’s grasp seems most important to loosen!

Second, we always pick a marital partner who’s at the same level of differentiation as we are. If partners are not at the same level of differentiation, the relationship usually breaks up early. Sometimes one partner is a half-step farther along than the other—but it’s only a half-step. The fantasy that you’re “much farther along” than your spouse is just that—a fantasy. If you and your partner argue over who’s healthier or more evolved, you’ll be interested in three important implications: You have about the same tolerance for intimacy, although you may express it differently. You and your spouse make splendid sparring partners because you have roughly the same level of differentiation. Assume you are emotional “equals” even if you’d like to believe otherwise. If you want to discover important but difficult truths hidden in your marriage, stop assuming you’re more differentiated than your partner. Look at things from the view that you’re at the same level and you’ll soon see the trade-offs in your relationship.

* The many small steps toward core transformation involve more than a self-indulgent search to “find yourself.” Solitary pilgrimages can lead to discoveries, but so can staying with your partner. The end result can bring you the best of what life offers, but that doesn’t mean the process feels good. No one ever wants to differentiate. You’ll probably do it for the same reasons most people do: differentiating eventually becomes less painful than other alternatives. It’s what Gloria Steinem referred to as outrageous acts of heroism in everyday life. So although becoming more differentiated makes your life less painful, it will not be pain-free. The very process of differentiation can be excruciating at times. Loving is both beautiful and painful. Differentiation offers the ability to tolerate it, enjoy it, and see its meaning. Psychotherapy can do many things. It can aid poorly functioning people and assist those who seek self-knowledge. It can help us affirm ourselves, raise our self-esteem, and remove constricting guilt, doubt, and despair. We function more effectively and efficiently when we’re less fragmented and bottled up. But there are many things psychotherapy cannot do. Psychotherapy can “free you up” but it can’t give you joy—something Freud well understood, but which we rarely understand about Freud. We’ve promised ourselves paradise through self-knowledge: love, sex, and transcendence will be easy once we know ourselves and our partner. But that’s often when you need to soothe your own heart and calm your own anxieties to take care of yourself. That’s what differentiation offers. By now the paradoxes of differentiation should be clear: while differentiation allows us to set ourselves apart from others and determines how far apart we sit, it also opens the space for true togetherness. It’s about getting closer and more distinct—rather than more distant.

* How can you tell the married couples in a restaurant? I’ve posed this question to audiences in different cultures and the response is always the same: there’s a long pause for introspection, then the sudden realization, “They don’t talk to each other!” “And how do you know the couples who are dating?” The universal answers come quick, now that they’ve got a frame of reference. “They talk to each other!” “They look into each other’s eyes!” Some responses sound wistful. “They touch!!” “They still drink beer together!” (That last one rang a bell with many Australians, although it was new to me.) Too often new couples talk nonstop while long-married couples sit in silence. As we discussed in Chapter 2, when you haven’t achieved much differentiation, you depend on validation from others and you look in their eyes for your sense of self. When you’re dating, conversation is designed to reduce anxieties about being rejected and keep open the possibility of a lasting relationship. You search for commonalities and things you agree about. Discussing differences can create awkward silences—not a great strategy if you want a second date. Young couples gab like magpies because they’re stroking and reinforcing each other in their quest for commonality and union. The next question I ask audiences is “Why aren’t the married couples talking?” Responses are usually slow again. Audience members seem to be thinking, “Why don’t we talk?!” The answers trickle in. “They have nothing to say to each other.” “They’ve said it all.” Some are more idealistic: “They know each other so well, nothing needs to be said.” Then I point out that the silence is more often icy cold than warm and relaxed. This is not the quiet of long-term intimates. Immediately, people see what I’m driving at: we experience this marital silence as alienation and failed communication. Ask yourself the same question: “Why aren’t the married couples talking?” If you’re married, you know from personal experience that “they’ve said it all” isn’t true. Important things are yet to be said—so why do they remain silent? When I ask this question a second time, a few in every audience eventually call out a difficult truth: “They don’t want to hear what the partner has to say!” Now here’s the million-dollar question: “How do you know you don’t want to hear what your partner has to say?” The answer is: “Because you already know!” What we call “lack of communication” is often just the opposite: if you truly “can’t communicate,” you wouldn’t know that you don’t want to hear what your partner has to say. The silence of married couples is testimony to their good communication: each spouse knows the other doesn’t want to hear what’s on his or her mind!

* We all have a nasty side. Not the “dirty sex” type of nasty (which so many cannot harness). Nasty, as in “You’re not a very good person.” There’s a side to all of us that’s bad—evil. All of us have a touch of it; some have more. We all torment those we love while feigning unawareness. Marriage is perhaps the place we do it most frequently—and with impunity. We withhold the sweetness of sex and intimacy while acting like we want to please—and in the course of this deceit, we pervert our sexual potential. Early American philosopher Thomas Paine said that infidelity (as in “religious infidel”) is not about what we do or don’t believe—it’s professing to believe what we do not. Jokes about marriage and masochism abound, but we rarely acknowledge marital sadism. “Snorgasms” (“I’ve had my orgasm; good luck getting yours!”) and lousy oral sex may originate in ignorance, but they are perfected within marriage. The long-term marital relationship is where you learn to screw your partner two ways at once—withholding the erotic gratification he craves while having sex with him. J. P. McEvoy said, “The Japanese have a word for it. It’s judo—the art of conquering by yielding. The Western equivalent of judo is, ‘Yes, dear.’”

The American Psychiatric Association glossary defines sadism as “pleasure derived from inflicting physical or psychological pain or abuse on others. The sexual significance of sadistic wishes or behavior may be conscious or unconscious. When necessary for sexual gratification, [it is] classifiable as a sexual deviation.” The Association also considered (and then dropped) a diagnostic category of “sadistic personality disorder.” The criteria included (a) humiliating and demeaning others, (b) lying to inflict pain, (c) restricting the autonomy of people in close relationships, and (d) getting others to comply through intimidation. Apparently, the psychiatrists favoring this diagnostic category considered marital sadism to be normal: the diagnosis wasn’t applicable if sadistic behavior was directed toward one person, such as your spouse.

If given the chance, spouses (hesitantly) acknowledge hating their partner. They seem relieved to admit it—as long as they’re not sitting next to their spouse when they do. But exactly this kind of difficult face-to-face acknowledgment enhances differentiation and reduces normal marital sadism. Author Stella Gibbons has written, “There must be a dumb, dark, dull, bitter belly-tension between a man and a woman. How else could this be achieved save in the long monotony of marriage?” In my workshops and public lectures I discuss marital hatred. Audience members laugh nervously, realizing they are in a sea of nervous smiles.

Most of us feel it’s okay to be angry, angry, angry at our partner—as long as we don’t hate him or her. Labeling what we feel as hatred can seem like crossing a line beyond which love cannot exist. Hating is to anger as fucking is to sex. It makes us nervous to do either one. Lots of people act like they’re ignorant of both. More of us know more about hating than fucking. Sometimes we hate our spouses because we love them. Our love makes us vulnerable to what they can do to us, what they can do to themselves, and what can befall them (and, indirectly, us). We deny our hatred because it hurts our narcissism and makes us feel unlovable (but it’s apparently okay as long we’re “blind”—that’s normal marital sadism). Why do we attempt to deny when we feel hatred? The superficial reason is that most of us are taught that it’s bad, bad, bad to hate. But there’s something deeper: children (and immature adults) can’t tolerate the powerful tension of ambivalence towards those they love. Many people believe, “You can’t love and hate the same person at the same time.” They believe: “If you love me, you can’t hate me.” “If you hate me, you can’t love me.” “If I hate you, I must not love you.” “If I love you, then I can’t hate you.”

The fact is, people who cannot acknowledge their hatred are most pernicious to those they “love.” One cannot control what one won’t acknowledge exists. Mature adults have the strength to recognize and own their ambivalent feelings towards their partner. They self-soothe the tension of loving and hating the same person at the same time—and the fact that their partner feels similarly. Marriage invites the necessary differentiation: it’s hard tolerating hatred when your marriage is rancorous. But it’s tougher seeing it when everything is going fine. It makes you respect couples who are friends. Marriage helps you realize you’re living with an out-and-out sadist! And then there’s your partner to deal with . . . Normal sadism is observable in every family.

At some point every parent, for one reason or another, withholds the emotional gratification his or her child wants. And at some point, spouses are bound to use torture to achieve their ends. (One husband tortured his family by making them all whine about his procrastination; then he wouldn’t fulfill his commitments because they had complained.)

Emotional fusion fuels and shapes normal marital sadism. You see it when a spouse attacks the partner’s reflected sense of self. Statements like, “If you were good enough, I’d have orgasms . . . or no sexual difficulties . . . or desire for you” are invitations for the partner to feel bad. Or when women fake orgasms and then have contempt for their partner, who feels proud. One variant involves faking not having an orgasm! Women who practice this kind of sadism want the pleasure but don’t want their partner feeling good about it, so when they reach orgasm they hide it. Some husbands do it by blatantly ogling younger women, or sending sexual vibes to their wife’s best friend. Disparate sexual desire is inevitable, but emotional Siamese twins interpret any disparity as sexual incompatibility. It’s better to think of sexual compatibility as having the willingness to use divergent preferences.

Properly managed, you picked the right partner. As commonly managed, disparate desire is a playground for normal marital sadism. Monogamy operates differently at different levels of differentiation. I didn’t know this until I saw it with my clients. We think of monogamy as an ironclad agreement containing no ifs, ands, or buts. But it is really a complex system with rules and dynamics of its own. Differentiation changes monogamy by returning genital ownership to each partner. Emotional Siamese twins act as if their partner’s genitals are communal property. Monogamy is a prison when it’s based on emotional fusion, for fusion shackles desire and prompts withholding as a means of reaffirming emotional boundaries (Chapter 5). But monogamy per se is not the problem. The problem arises when we lack the differentiation necessary for the kind of monogamy we want.

Monogamy between undifferentiated partners creates a sexual monopoly: the partner with the lower desire controls the supply and the price of sex. Deprivation and extortion flourish at low levels of differentiation in ways that dating and open marriage “free markets” won’t allow. Poorly differentiated couples approach monogamy as a promise to each other—and later blame their spouse for their mutual deprivation pact. Some inflict the effects of personal (sexual) difficulties on their spouse. They justify this by citing their partner’s shortcomings or saying, “Look, it’s happening to me, too!” They get so good at inflicting their problems on their partner that they overlook the fact that they enjoy the act of inflicting per se. Some spouses wield monogamy like a bludgeon, battering their partner with their commitment in ways never intended by marriage vows. They say, “You promised to love me for better and for worse—and that includes my (sexual) limitations!” Yes, we all marry “for better and for worse,” but the assumption is that spouses will do everything possible to overcome their limitations—not simply demand their partner put up with them!

Although many of us lack sufficient differentiation for the kind of monogamy we want, the monogamy we have often provides the crucible in which we can develop it. Like a pressure cooker, monogamy harnesses pressures and tensions that produce differentiation. Absence of other sex partners, along with disparate sexual desire and styles, drives spouses toward gridlock. This forces the two-choice dilemma of self-confrontation/self-validation vs. normal marital sadism. This is the process Audrey and Peter were going through—although they hardly appreciated the elegance of it at the time.

Monogamy operates differently in highly differentiated couples: it stops being a ponderous commitment to one’s partner (or “the relationship”) and becomes a commitment to oneself. The relationship is driven more by personal integrity and mutual respect than by reciprocal deprivation or bludgeoning. It’s no longer your partner’s fault you don’t have sex with other people; it’s part of your decision to be monogamous. And the pressures of disparate sexual desire come with your decision, too. Having an affair becomes more a self-betrayal than a betrayal of your partner (since you promised yourself and not him). That same integrity supports the self-validated intimacy necessary to keep your sexual relationship alive and growing. You feel less controlled by your spouse, and less motivated to have an affair. That’s fortunate, because it’s also not safe to have affairs or withold from a partner whose integrity runs his monogamy: if he won’t tolerate adultery or sexual laziness from himself, he’s not likely to tolerate either one from you. There is less room to offer mercy fucks—and no reason to believe they’d be accepted.

I first learned the term mercy fuck from a client. Couples intuitively recognize that it refers to, “I’ll do you a BIG favor. I really don’t want sex or you. But if you insist, I’ll accommodate you. You can use my body—and you’d better appreciate it!” Normal marital sadism surfaces in gifts given or received that are never quite right. Mercy fucking withholds the sweetness of sex, breaks your partner’s heart (if he or she catches on), and leaves little recourse. You let your partner climb on top of you to get him off your back. The goal isn’t doing your partner—it’s getting done with it so you don’t have to do it tomorrow

Posted in Marriage | Comments Off on Normal Marital Sadism