Lena Dunham and Amygdala Hijacks

The Lena Dunham saga is a good example of how amygdala development, or lack of it, can produce a human’s nature. In it, you see a woman who growing up had few if any instances of amygdala-developing stress, and whose parents themselves seemed predisposed to amygdala atrophy. As a result, she never developed boundaries on her behavior, because her amygdala was never taught through adversity, “don’t do that.” Now, as an adult, she will always seek the easiest, least stressful path, and will lack the ability to map out the long term consequences of her actions. Because she lacks the hardware, her brain actually sees a world without any consequences, and because she isn’t adapted to hardship, any hardship she walks into is traumatic beyond belief.

In many ways, her story is directly analogous to the broader issue of leftism in America. She freely wrote a disturbing account of her behavior with her little sister, one which could easily destroy the most vital thing for a rabbit – her reputation and status. Yet her amygdala could not map out the consequences of her actions, and now she is in a perpetual amygdala hijack that she cannot escape.

Leftists are identical. They cannot map out the long-term consequences of their actions. The amygdala hardware is just not there. So they seek the pleasure of the moment, avoid any hardships – even those which might yield benefit later if endured now. Eventually they collapse the very governing structures they need to hide behind, to shield themselves from reality. It is no surprise Dunham is a leftist rabbit.

On the subject of hijacking the Dunham sisters, reader David writes,

>> Grace, (the victim), said, “heteronormativity deems certain behaviors
>> harmful, and others “normal”; the state and media are always invested
>> in maintaining that.”

Notice how the amygdala-deficient do things which should provoke anxiety. It would be mush easier to adjust reality to not stimulate their amygdala by altering behavior, but they can’t do that because their amygdala cannot predict consequence. As a result, they will seek to portray normal behavior as defective in some regard, so they can see their own defectiveness as normal by comparison. As a result, all normalcy must be given a clinical name to make it sound pathological.

Suddenly, normal behavior becomes “heteronormative,” while bizarre becomes another flavor of normal, and no cause for amygdala-stimulated anxiety. The leftist brain is so fragile that everything from perception, to logic, to vocabulary becomes a giant construct designed to shield them from a clear perception of reality. Of course their defense explains your best attack, as David notes.

>> ……. a controlled,
> > well-delivered amygdala attack. Mine would go something like this,
> > “Heteronormativity? Heteronormativity? I’m going to assume that’s a
> > synonym for the scientific study of sexual abuse. Grace, have you ever
> > been to therapy? Have you ever been tested for a personality disorder? I
> > ask, because to suffer sexual abuse is to greatly increase the risk of
> > developing a personality disorder. And what about you, Lena? Have you
> > ever been to therapy? Have you ever been tested for a personality
> > disorder? I ask, because committing sexual abuse is one of the clearest
> > indicators of a personality disorder. Why don’t you both get tested by
> > three world-renowned psychologists / psychotherapists, so we can put this
> > to rest? You can refuse, if you want, but refusing just means that you
> > think you’re smarter than the smartest scientists, the ones who devote
> > their lives to understanding sexual abuse. And if you make that claim,
> > everyone will just laugh at you…”

This is a brilliant example of the type of blitzkreig attack that you use to shock the narcissist amygdala. It has out-grouping the target by in-grouping normal people, out-grouping by in-grouping scientific authority, diminution of stature through labeling as mentally defective, challenging her to take a test which would expose her to reality, and even laughing, all set off by repeating two words that she said, incredulously.

The one caveat I would add is that when I used to do this, I would prepare it with interesting rhetorical flourishes, thinking that the interesting nature of the speech would focus the narcissist’s amygdala better on the amygdala triggering ideas. But what I noticed was, that if I said, “Heteronormativity? Heteronbormativity?,” the narcissist’s amygdala would light up with recognition that they were under attack. As it did, their eyes would go intense, glossy, and wide, and they wouldn’t follow complex speech too closely afterward. As a result, instead of hearing, “I’m going to assume that’s a synonym for the scientific study of sexual abuse,” they’d hear, “I’m going to blah, blah, blah-blah.”

For that reason, I learned to factor in that the shock would degrade their cognition, and I would dumb down the presentation of any amygdala-shocking idea after it, so that even in their shocked state, they could easily comprehend it. It would be like pretending that I was explaining something to someone with a limited English vocabulary.

Here, I would say, “Heteronormativity? Heteronormativity? You mean the way normal people think sexual abuse of a child is evil?” I’d raise my eyebrows, push my head forward, and say it slowly as if talking to a baby, as well as nod my head with emphasis, and slow my pronunciation of, the words normal, sexual-abuse, child, and evil, to focus what brain power was available on the idea of normal people thinking she is evil for supporting the hurting of children. I found you really have to work to sink those painful ideas in after the shock of attack, because the narcissist’s brain will be doing everything it can to block them out. Indeed, it is exceptionally well trained to do that, almost to the point of reflexivity.

Again, I was good at this, but I didn’t do it on the fly, because it would have been too complicated to map out the reactions and make adjustments. Dealing with these psychologies would always entail a lot of visualization of the effect that various routines would have beforehand, and a lot of tuning what was to be said and its delivery, so each hijack could be rolled out, one after another, in bite-sized pieces that would sink in as deeply as possible. A lot of hijacking is learning to get ideas past that cognitive blockade they have developed to protect themselves from bad ideas, and specifically from what you are trying to do to them.

While it is not clear why Lena Dunham canceled her book tour dates, it would not surprise me to find out that she is presently in bad shape health-wise – nauseous, headachy, weak, and probably fighting off some head-bug. One of the biggest things which will strike you about amygdala deficiency is how it will create physical illness from amygdala activation in those afflicted.

They really do live awful lives of horror.