My posting is going to be a bit slower/haphazard for a while. Real life, wouldn’t you know.
I will still regularly be considering submissions, though – please send.
I don’t want to lose my wonderful reader-commentators, but I do understand the vastness of the web-world – there’s a lot of good stuff out there.
If you register via RSS feed you’ll be notified when something new appears.
Be well!
An individual with a schizoid tendency may be actuated in substituting hating for loving—curiously enough one an immoral, and the other a moral motive; and incidentally these would appear to be specially powerful motives in the case of the revolutionary and the Quisling. The immoral motive is determined by the consideration that, since the joy of loving seems hopelessly barred to him, he may as well deliver himself over to the joy of hating and obtain what satisfaction he can out of that. He thus makes a pact with the Devil and says, ‘Evil be thou my good ’. The moral motive is determined by the consideration that, if loving involves destroying, it is better to destroy by hate, which is overtly destructive and bad, than to destroy by love, which is by rights creative and good. When these two motives come into play, therefore, we are confronted with an amazing reversal of moral values. It becomes a case, not only of ‘ Evil be thou my good ’, but also of ‘ Good be thou my evil’. This is a reversal of values, it must be added, which is rarely consciously accepted; but it is none the less one which often plays an extremely important part in the unconscious—and that this should be so is the third great tragedy to which individuals with a schizoid tendency are liable.
——————–
Fairbairn, W.D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. Tavistock: London, p. 27
Perhaps he should be called ‘the pick-up technician’ in recognition of the mental knots he ties both himself and the other in:
There are three traits a successful indirect opener should possess: It should appear spontaneous, be motivated by curiosity, and be interesting to most people.
The method: Left over right and under…
——————–
Neil Strauss (2007) Rules of the game. Melbourne: Text, p. 49.
Photo: Knot, originally uploaded by lizjones112
Barbara at Abuse sanctuary provides a list of ‘Verbal manipulations’ and how to deal with them. Here is one:
#4 Picking a Fight – The Confrontational Choice of Words
“Why do you always…” “Do you expect me to…” “I can’t believe you would…” “I thought we were going to…” “Why should I have to…” “I’ve been told that…” “How could you…” “Why don’t you…” “Did you hear me?” “Well, does that mean that I have to….” “I thought you…” “Don’t you think you(we) should…” Are you telling me…” “I thought we agreed…” “Only an idiot would…” are examples of verbal attack moves. These are phrases used to put you on the defensive. So, like a good chess player, set up a strategic counter move. Just say “That’s my decision”, “I know you’re unhappy, but that’s the way it is” “I’ll have to think about that” “You seem upset” “We don’t always have to agree.” “I prefer it that way” Learn the art and science of not taking the bait. Let some things slide. Don’t respond to bad behaviour. It’s their confrontational chip-on-the-shoulder that you’re seeing now. These confrontational questions are pure bait and he’s looking for a fight. Don’t take the bait!!
Strategy #4. Be aware of verbal tactics that make you feel you want to defend yourself. Know you do not have to defend yourself. To minimize their ability to ‘bait’ you it may be best to just agree and say “You’re right” and drop the subject. One difficult part of this is to realize it’s hard for us to not say “I’m sorry but…” Expect the inevitable hissy-fit rage when they’re manipulation is ended, IGNORE THEIR WORDS, simply say something like “We’ll talk later when you aren’t so upset.” Try to avoid saying “I’m sorry but…”
From ‘Twin peaks’: “Leo doesn’t talk, he hits” [after baiting].
In Hitchcock’s film North by northwest the character played by Cary Grant wants to hire a taxi (for a two block trip to a business meeting in a hotel bar). He pushes his secretary, Maggie, ahead of him in the way of a man about to enter a cab. What follows is a masterpiece of manipulation, rationalisation, and implicating the other:
Grant: I beg your pardon. I have a very sick woman here. You don’t mind, do you?
Man (flustered): Well, no…I mean…perfectly all right.
Then, in the cab:
Maggie: Poor man.
Grant: Oh, come come. I made him a happy man. I made him feel like a Good Samaritan.
Maggie: He knew you were lying.
Grant: Aah, Maggie, in the world of advertising there’s no such thing as a lie. There’s only the expedient exaggeration. You ought to know that.
Photo: Hitchcock Leytonstone London Underground Mosaics – North by Northwest, originally uploaded by Annie Mole
Swivelchair from Neurological Correlates is interested in the link between Parkinson’s disease and Machiavellianism. Below he describes a woman with Parkinson’s who is “a complete liar, and I would say psychopath”:
In order to make sure she was invited places, she would tempt people with false information, and ingratiate herself.
Here’s one example: she told a bunch of husbands that this one particular friend had the hots for them – a very beautiful woman who does not speak English as a first language.
The husbands would then be sure to attend the social events – giving the Parkinson’s woman a ride.
Finally, the beautiful friend – who was happily married – found out, from her husband who was livid. (A few of the husbands told their wives and also told the husband) This beautiful friend didn’t speak English well enough to understand what was going on, and, being a very kind person, she was helping out our friend with Parkinson’s in giving her rides places, making sure she was invited places, etc.
You can imagine the havoc – the wives were angry at the husbands who were flattered at the interest, the beautiful friend had to explain to her own husband, etc. Plus, several of the husbands refused to go anywhere near the beautiful friend – which hurt her feelings and left her wondering what she did wrong.
Suffice it to say, the Parkinson’s ‘friend’ is not at all embarrassed by getting caught. She tried to deny it, but now just shrugs it off as a scheme that didn’t work, sheesh, everyone is so upset, what’s the problem? Just get over it. She said she was sorry. (The “how not to apologize” guide was followed precisely).
She has flat affect, absolutely no remorse or embarrassment about being caught in any lies, and actually tries to be helpful in suggesting little frauds that other people may want to try out.
Out of curiosity – not combatively or anything – I asked her why she lies so much? I think she answered honestly: she supposed it was power. I heard that when she was a little girl, she would force her little friends under her bed and guard them – making sure they didn’t come out. She didn’t know why she did that.
She doesn’t get that people aren’t “angry” – but that people are disgusted by her (lack of) character.
Sad story – I wonder if this is common in Parkinson’s.
Well, the term sociopath is no longer used by polite psychiatrists, so let’s make do with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). Matt Hunt at How stuff works asks: ‘Is Batman a sociopath?’ and uses the DSM-IV criteria for APD to come up with his answer. No, Batman is not a socioopath.
How about Jack Bauer, of the TV show ‘24 hours’? You do the math – one needs to satify at least four of these criterion to qualify:
So, how does Jack do in in this show about a man constantly “at the crossroads of urgency and ethics.”
Before we make a decision, here is a tip from Dr. James Morrison’s guide for diagnosis:
Career criminals whose anti-social behavior is confined to their ‘professional lives’, may not fulfil the criteria for Anti-social Personality Disorder. They may instead be diagnosed as having Adult Antisocial Behavior.
Mm, OK, but Jack’s personal and professional and personal boundaries are rather porous. Also, notice that this is comparing a (fictional) government agent to a career criminal.
——————–
James Morrison (1995) DSM-IV made easy: A clincian’s guide to diagnosis. New York and London: The Guilford Press, p. 478.
Perhaps it’s unfair to rip a guy on the way out, but this from President Bush is a classic:
“I think we were welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome.”
Appellation: Greetings, mofo!
Cullen Murphy captures the meaning of ‘Jesuitical‘ (not to be confused with Jesuit):
Very early, owing in part to English Protestant propagandists, the word “Jesuitical” came to characterize a form of argument designed less to seek the truth than to make a case, a form of argument that was aggressive and clever but perhaps not always sincere – indeed, one that was at times cunningly equivocal or downright deceitful. Aside from pure anti-Jesuit animus, this nuance probably arose from the work of some 17th-century Jesuit theologians who imperfectly employed a method known as “casuistry” in resolving questions of moral theology – an approach that gave the broadest possible leeway to individual behavior. This form of justification, which became known as “laxism,” may explain why Jesuit priests were the confessors of choice among Europe’s Catholic aristocracy.
An example from Robert Hare’s ‘Without conscience’:
When asked if he had ever committed a violent offence, a man serving time for theft answered, “No, but I once had to kill someone.”
Theme song: Parsing is such sweet bullcrap.
——————
Cullen Murphy (1996) Jesuitical vs. Talmudic: Making arguments, splitting hairs. Slate June 25.
Robert Hare (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York and London: The Guilford Press, p.125.
Photo: Side Altar at the Jesuit Church in Vienna, originally uploaded by jrodenbiker
Prior to the verdict in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, James Ellroy – see here, here, and here – wrote a piece trying to get into the minds of the characters:
Some months ago, the Simpson defense team assumed O.J.’s perspective and realized that their client was flubbing his performance as an innocent man unjustly accused. O.J. never screamed, “Let’s nail the shitbird who killed my wife!”
The defense team worked up some belated damage control….via a toll-free tip hot line. O.J. offered a fat reward for information leading to the apprehension of the real snuff artists – cash he might or might not have after his lawyers bleed him dry….The defense team, eager to cast the LAPD as both incompetent and racist, put out their public appeal – in case potential witnesses missed the canvassing cops and the media coverage attending the most publicized crime of all time. This was a move of epic disingenuousness – specious in its logical structuring and wholly cynical in its application….
The Simpson defense team understands the tortured history of the LAPD and Los Angeles Blacks – both its historical validity and the level of justified and irrational paranoia that it has produced. They put out a magnet to attract misinformation, fear, and outright madness – and some of the more presentable bits they receive may show up in court as fodder to further confuse and already informationally swamped jury.
Principle: The law of attraction.
——————–
James Ellroy (1994) Sex, glitz, and greed: The seduction of O.J. Simpson, in Crime wave: Reportage and fiction from the underside of L.A. London: Arrow, 1999, p. 243.
——————–
Photo: O. J. Simpson, originally uploaded by Alan Light:
“Photo taken February 1986 at the Kahala Hilton Hotel in Honolulu Hawaii. Photo shows OJ holding one of his children, posing with my sister. Nicole Brown Simpson was with O.J. and watching behind camera. Permission granted to copy, publish or post but please credit ‘photo by Alan Light’ if you can.”
Done.
In ‘The Seat of Sin, the Heart‘ Greg Herrick elaborates on the writings of the English theologian, John Owen (1616-1683):
The more men sin, the more they are inclined to sin. It is from the deceitfulness of this law of sin, whereof we shall speak afterward at large, that men persuade themselves that by this or that particular sin they shall so satisfy their lusts as that they shall need to sin no more. Every sin increaseth the principle, and fortifieth the habit of sinning (Owen, VI:170).
There is no more realistic picture of the deceitfulness of sin than here presented. How many times have you heard people (myself/yourself?) say: “I’ll just do it this time and get it out of my system.” Nothing could be more deceitful than this. “Do it once, and you’ll do it twice” is much closer to the truth (Herrick).
Moral – It’s not just that ’sinful habits’ are sinful, it’s that they’re habits.
——————–
John Owen, The works of John Owen: The nature, power, deceit and prevalency of the remainders of indwelling sin in believers, ed. William H. Goold, vol. VI. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967.
Rebecca West on Kafka:
His benevolence was impersonal; it flowed out to people in whose idiosyncracies he was not interested. This is exactly the sort of kindness which is to be expected from the born bureaucrat. But in his closer relationships he might even be called insensitive. When he was well on in his thirties, he wrote a letter to his father, many pages long, and gave it to his mother in order that she should pas it on to his father, though happily she had the good sense to withhold it. It is an extremly cruel document, which shows a smattering of psychoanalytic knowledge, and is an early example of the painful truth that Freud gave sadists a new weapon by enabling them to disguise themselves as hurt children.
Appellation: Daddy, you bastard.
——————-
Rebecca West (1957) The castle of God, in The essential Rebecca West. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977, p. 421.
Photo 1: FREUD_1962, originally uploaded by piH9
Photo 2: Flower or Weapon, originally uploaded by Hamed Saber
Barbara at Abuse sanctuary has an article – originally published here – on a technique favoured by the narcissist and the psychopath (N/P): ‘Projection: A glimpse into hell’.
Has your abuser ever accused you of the most vile, cruel lies?Accused you of being crazy? Twisted everything you say into something grotesque? Most of us have experienced that with the NP in our lives. We are left emotionally reeling. The hurt can be nearly unbearable. You were likely experiencing ‘projection’. To make things simple, he is accusing you of what he is THINKING, DOING OR PLANNING.
Also included is this little quiz:
[These] are actual words spoken by our N/Ps. Which is the projection and which is the lie?
1. “You can’t count on those people to tell the truth”.
2. “I just don’t know who you are anymore”
3. “I cheated on you because I was depressed and I was punishing myself.”
4. “Never trust anyone!”
5. “I don’t want to know anything about your life.”
6. “You don’t care about the kids, they’re a burden to you. All you care about is your work and being with your friends.”
7. “You’re a lousy housekeeper.”
Answer: The only ‘lie’ is #3. All others are projection.
——————
Photo: Point!, originally uploaded by a2gemma
***The link to Letters home to you in the previous post was broken (now fixed). Apologies it Ian. Readers’ do give this site a visit – Ian is a most entertaining writer.***
“No matter what you do,” than man without qualities thought with a shrug, “within this mare’s nest of forces at work, it doesn’t make the slightest difference!” He turned away like a man who has learned to resign himself – indeed, almost like a sick man who shrinks from every strong physical contact; yet in crossing the adjacent dressing room he hit a punching bag there a hard, sudden blow that seemed not exactly in keeping with moods of resignation or conditions of weakness.
Query: Does being without qualities mean being without either good or bad qualities (thus protecting one from hubris), or does it mean being without good qualities (thus making room for bad to flourish)?
————–
Robert Musil (1978) The man without qualities. London: Picador, pp. 7-8.
Ian from Letters home to you provides the following:
I’ve been happily married for more than a decade. About three years ago, I met this woman at a gathering of fellow expatriates in the city I live who slowly revealed herself to be a real narcissist – textbook case. She instantly paid me attention, made it known in subtle ways she was interested in me as more than a friend. She said she was married too. Thirteen years younger. Well, like an idiot I believed her bullshit, or rather, always knew that something was amiss, but chose to ignore the red flags. I won’t go into details, but I realised after a while that she was one of those women who intentionally and exclusively go after married men. That was about five seconds after she told me, while we’d both been drinking, that “there are many wives in (our city) who hate me.”
I cut off contact with her in time so that there was no damage to my marriage. I never slept with her, or had anything physical, actually. It was all a con to her, a game to get and keep me interested.
I finally figured out that she was really nuts when I was out with her the very last time. Sitting down for a quick bite to eat, I casually asked, “have you ever worn a wedding ring?” She almost choked on her sandwich and after carefully cleaning off her mouth and fingers launched into this incredibly long, convoluted and weirdly formulated story of why she didn’t wear her wedding ring, where it might be in her house, and on and on. Just as she was about to tell the story, it was as if someone had flipped a switch on a robot. She stiffened, her eyes became kind of glazed and far away, she never blinked, her voice became a monotone and her features didn’t change. I felt, OH MY GOD what kind of creature have you been wasting your time with? I played along and didn’t make a scene, call her a liar like I wanted to, but I broke off contact completely after that.
Earlier on she had, in fact, told me of affairs she’d had, and when I asked her how she managed to pull them off, casually said, “oh, I’m a really good liar.”
An example of how narcissists are so convinced of their own invincibility, they think they are good liars and are totally unaware how their actions prove them wrong.
Moral: Like the purloined letter, the evidence is in full view.
Notifying his readers about this new blog (thank you, sir), Postcards from the id goes on to suggest how the forensic psychologist like himself might put these kinds of examples to work:
First, periodically reminding oneself that client’s who are attempting to avoid accountability will say almost anything is a good way to avoid being taken in.
In addition, it is often an effective therapeutic technique to demonstrate the examples of others to clients who aren’t completely ready to admit their own lack of accountability. By using obvious examples that are widely known (due the celebrity status of the speaker of the lie/manipulation, for example), one can ease the tension that accompanies the initial defensiveness to this concept. One of my favorites is the politician’s standard response to allegations of wrong-doing: “I’m shocked by these charges!” Well, you may be shocked by the charges, but that doesn’t say anything about whether you’re guilty of said charges, does it? “I find these allegations troubling” is another one of my faves. In any event, one can always fall back on the numerous statements made by one O.J. Simpson to illustrate virtually any point regarding lying and deception.
Or as Catherine Tate would say: How VERY dare you!?
In 1978 high school teacher Richard Lindwall was convicted of the kidnap, sexual assault, and murder of a seventeen year old hitchhiker, Jefferson Wesley. Years later his former student Robert Kurson interviews Lindwall in prison:
Mr. Lindwall asks if I remember his trial. I tell him that I’d read the papers and, like everyone else, admired his speech in the court.
“That speech was bullshit,” Mr. Lindwall says softy. “I remember believing it at the time – I’m not saying I purposely lied. But I had no feeling for my victims, nothing. It took years in hear before I felt anything for victims, mine or anyone else’s.
“Remember Sporto Hall? I remember one, this very sensitive kid walked down Sporto hall and the jocks were merciless, teasing him, and when this guy came back he was in tears. I embraced him, tried to comfort him. I felt so bad for the kid, I just wanted to ease his pain. But even then, at the very moment I was comforting him, I also wanted to hurt him.”
Do you find yourself being lulled by his admirable honesty and insight? Well don’t. The whole interview was a play within a larger play Lindwall was playing – the play that all psychopaths play. It’s aim is to undermine, mess with, destroy, terrify, confuse, etc. the other. This will become clear when I tell you that that sensitive kid was Robert Kurson.
———————-
Robert Kurson (2001) My favorite teacher, The best American magazine writing, 2001. Public Affairs Books: New York, p. 103.
Hat tip to Barbara at Barbara’s Tchatzkahs who alerts us to the article How NOT to Apologize when you have Seriously Fucked Up by Annesthesia over at heartless bitches. In summary:
1.) Apologize in email.
2.) Make sure the “confession”, er, apology comes MONTHS or years after the incident.
3.) Use generic sweeping statements, so that you don’t have to own up to, or deal with any specifics.
4.) Try to evoke sympathy for yourself as part of the apology.
5.) Don’t give any reasons about why you have suddenly decided to extend this tremendous effort (writing an email) after so much time has passed.
6.) Expect instant redemption and forgiveness.
7.) Get upset when your trite “olive branch” isn’t received with warmth and acceptance. Go whining to whomever will listen.
8.) Take no further action. Use pat phrases like, “I’m doing my best to take responsiblity for the consequences of my behaviour”, but don’t actually DO anything beyond sending the email.
After all, once you’ve made your apology, you can wash your hands of the whole messy affair and wipe your conscience clean without having to dirty yourself with uncomfortable things like integrity, sincerity, action or actually facing the person you harmed.
——————–
Theme: A sorry excuse.
A primary purpose of a paramoralism is to corrode the moral thinking of the other. In the Vick case one way would be to distract attention away from Vick’s killing and torturing of dogs with his own bare hands, and onto a more culpable (imaginary) person. (Another way would be to pooh-pooh the offence: Oh, everyone does it where he comes from, according to Whoopi Goldberg.) Consider the tack taken by Deion Sanders, former star football and baseball player and current commentator for CBS Sports:
Why are we indicting him? Was he the ringleader? Is he the big fish? Or is there someone else? The fights allegedly occurred at a property that he purchased for a family member. They apparently found carcasses on the property, but I must ask you again, is he the ringleader? This situation reminds me of a scene in the movie New Jack City when drug dealer Nino Brown is on the witness stand and eloquently says, ‘This thing is bigger than me.’ Are we using Vick to get to the ringleader? Are we using him to bring an end to dogfighting in the United States? The only thing I can gather from this situation is that we’re using Vick.
————————–
Guideline: If you can’t find a culprit conjure one up using smoke and mirrors.
Michael Vick’s letter to Judge Henry E. Hudson asking for clemency before his sentencing for dog fighting (let’s not omit dog torture and dog slaughter by his own hand) can be viewed in full here. I quote:
As you can see, the past six months have been the most difficult of my life. I’ve lost everything including my freedom. Throughout my life, I’ve never been convicted of a crime other than a traffic violation, so this experience was very overwhelming. Growing up in Newport News, I was exposed to numerous illegal activities and dogfighting was one of them. I never understood why people [were] arrested for guns and drugs, but never for dogfighting. No one really called the police so I grew up not knowing the severity of the crime. Your Honor, I grew up loving animals ans still to this day. I have Paso Fino horses, parrots, fish tanks, and lizards. I take full responsiblity for my actions and am ashamed that my actions hurt animals and allowed animals to be hurt and killed.
——————
Clarification please: Not understanding why people weren’t punished implies knowledge that it was wrong, right? Or, if it’s not wrong, why the shame?
Homer Simpson is caught out lying:
Homer: It takes two to lie, Marge. One to lie and one to listen.
—————–
Conclusion: So it’s not really his fault, then, is it?
William George Heirens was convicted in 1948 of the murder of three women. He remains in prison.
His modus operandi remained the same. He opened the front door [of the apartment building] and pressed the buzzer panel. When a woman answered, Heirens recalls, ‘I would talk gibberish. In those days, communication in such buildings was through brass tubes and by the time the sound got to the receiving end, it was hard to tell what was being said. Since they couldn’t understand me and I kept ringing the bell, they would simply buzz me in.’
——————-
Comment: Hello?
Christopher Berry-Dee (2005) Talking with serial killers, 2. London: John Blake, p. 169.
Dr X writes about duper’s delight – a micro expression revealing the experience of pleasure betrayed by the smile of a lying psychopath. (The term comes from Paul Eckman, the authority on lying.)
Every time he evades the truth or tells an outright lie, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad busts an idiotic smile for his audience. His stupid grin expresses a moral perversion extending beyond the psychopath’s simple pleasure in the power of deception. He takes obvious delight in making offensive claims that are so transparently false his audacity shocks the moral sensibilities of his listeners.
Ahmadinejad knows we don’t believe him when he speaks. Our belief is not what he wants. Listening to him and watching him even briefly, it becomes abundantly clear that he is gratified by a sense of diabolical power that accompanies his ludicrously, offensive statements.
—————-
Warning: Read my lips
Photo: ahmadinejad, originally uploaded by Semerkand
Overheard in a queue:
A: So what’s he getting you for Christmas?
B: A silver charm for my bracelet?
A: Oh, that’ll be nice. Did he tell you he’s buying it or did you tell him what you want?
B: Neither! I mean there’s no fun if you have tell him. But if he really cares…
—————–
Criterion: Read my mind (or else)
In ‘Brideshead revisited’ Julia Flight is engaged to Rex Mottram, MP. Brenda Champion is his old flame. Julia learns that Rex had been staying the week-end with a stockbroker in Sunningdale, when he said he was at his constituency, and that Mrs Champion had been there too:
On the evening she heard of this, when Rex came as usual to Marchmain House, they re-enacted the scene of two months before.
‘What do you expect?’ he said. ‘What right have you to ask so much, when you give so little?’
—————-
Tactic: Whitewash an admission with an accusation.
Evelyn Waugh (1945) Brideshead revisited. Harmondworth: Penguin, p. 217.
Here is Governer Eliot Spitzer’s non-apology, ‘An Apology From Albany‘:
WE made mistakes.
Though two independent investigations proved that no illegal activity occurred on my watch, it is crystal clear that what members of my administration did was wrong — no ifs, ands or buts.
I have apologized to Joe Bruno, the Senate majority leader, and now I want to apologize to all New Yorkers.
What you’ve been reading about in the papers and watching on television this week is not what we are about. In fact, it represents just the opposite. Read the rest of this entry »
Don’t de-spam this
My spam catcher asks me whether I want to delete the following message or de-spam it:
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
Thinking it’s a reader’s comment I visit the site only to find this!
Lesbians Girls Lesbians Teen Lesbians
——————-
Moral: A perv in friend’s clothing.
Categorized in False pretences
Tags: blogging, de-spam, pornography, pron, reader's comments, spam