But in real life, that funny friend has her own life; she might even be the main character in her own movie, right? Her friends are always supporting characters, that can be called at any hour of the night, that will always be interested in what she is wearing, or what she did. Of course she is. He used these to create an identity in his mind that he will spend a lot of energy keeping up. The worst thing that could happen to a narcissist is not that his wife cheats on him and leaves him for another man.
That it is a bad relationship is besides the point — the point is that he and she are still linked: they are linked through arguing, restraining orders, and lawyers, but linked they are. If she can do all that, that means she exists independently of him.
He is not the main character in the movie. That is the worst calamity that can befall the narcissist. Any other kind of injury can produce different emotions; maybe sadness, or pain, or anger, or even apathy. But all narcissistic injuries lead to rage. Narcissists appear to have emotions, feelings, empathy — they cry, laugh, feel your pain, etc — but none of this is real. The reason a narcissist kills is so that no one finds out he is bad. They are conflating the two.
Even psychiatrists get this wrong, they are not the same. Leave aside for now what is the distinction. Look instead at the result: by focusing on the grandiosity, it leaves you, the reader, with an out. These articles actually reinforce your narcissism. Grandiosity is only one possible manifestation of a psychic process that went awry. The essence, the defining characteristic of narcissism is the isolated worldview, the one in which everyone else is not fully real, only part a person, and only the part the impacts you.
Imagine what you look like to another person. They are making instantaneous judgments about your personality based on that mirror image. They are hearing your voice like it comes from a recording, not as you hear from your mouth.
All you have for an answer is images, fleeting thoughts. Nothing concrete. Some words, some phrases, bits and pieces of conversations you may have heard or that you daydreamed. Imagine two people: real, or from TV or movies, that are in love. Imagine them making love. Same goes for sadness. All you really know about experiencing these emotions is the script you got from TV. So you think to yourself, what the hell is wrong with me? Of course you feel nothing. Why would you? You think the only way to connect with people is to have their emotions.
You think she wants to connect with you. You think she wants your help. Is there anything I can do? But that feels insufficient. You think this because you think that there is something you can do, that the sadness is not real for you so it must not be real for her and you thus have the power to change it. But no one taught you this. TV is always about beginnings, not middles. Like love. Who, even if miserable or unfulfilled or unconnected had the decency to fake it for the next generation, for the people they touched.
The story that is making the internet and morning TV rounds: Two people [ The twist is that they announced their marriage in the Style section of the New York Times, because, of course, they hooked up in style. The further twist is that they semi-shamelessly recount in the Times how they fell in love while they were still married to other people.
Even the most hardened narcissist feels some passing guilt when their spouse is sobbing on the kitchen floor. How do you get over that? He probably still writes somewhere though Trying to make sense of this reminds me of reading monad tutorials.
To dense with references self- and otherwise and analogy for me to make sense of. It's definitely possible I'm just not smart enough to understand this, but how does one go about learning to comprehend stuff like this?
Psyladine on June 24, root parent next [—]. If you want to read Russian literature, you don't have to be Russian 'but it wouldn't hurt! To go back to Sandberg, if the system wants cheap female labor, how would we change the system? Only by wanting different things. Simply, if the majority of women wanted to work less, that would be the game. But the majority of women do want to work less, but they also want to buy X, Y, Z aspirational products, and they want X,Y,Z way more then they want to work less.
The final twist to this otherwise simple addition is that what you want is often taught to you by that very system. What is the effect? The government wants [the poor to get Supplementary Security Income], because it wants [them] off the state welfare budget and onto the federal budget, which, as you know, has unlimited funds because it can run deficits, print money, and invade nations and invent words.
But when the system ties benefits to a mental disorder, the point is the benefits, not the mental disorder. And the answer is very simple:. Do you want riots in the streets? How much does it cost to prevent LA or the city of your choice from catching fire?
Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. Yay empiricism. The rise of psychiatry parallels the rise of poverty in industrialized societies. The reason you see psychiatry in the U.
0コメント