Romney’s Debate Performance

Some thoughts on the debate.

First, Obama said, “Are we going to double down on the top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess, or do we embrace a new economic patriotism…” No facts, no logic, no support, just an attempt at out-grouping Romney. Classic Liberal strategy, viewing the debate as an exercise in social manipulation. “My plan is patriotic, his plan got us into this mess – he’s the enemy.”

Romney did a pitch perfect job of stimulating Obama’s amygdala, and time-wise, he executed it perfectly with a major shock at the beginning, and then minor jabs throughout. I do not know if this occurred by chance, or perhaps most likely, Romney knows Obama has a deep psychological problem and he hired an expert to help him exploit it. This amygdala exploitation was probably the reason Obama’s performance was so poor, and he kept his eyes glued to the paper on his podium, taking notes. That was driven by a deep-seated, subconscious urge to avoid eye contact produced by an overwhelmed amygdala.

I think one problem Obama has is that he is a narcissist who has presided over a clear failure, in the form of our economy. Inevitably, he is going to be challenged over this, and that is something a narcissist just isn’t programmed to deal with. They need others to tell them how great they are, and not challenge them or diminish their enormous ego in any way. Any challenge is a direct amygdala stimulation, with profound effects on overall cognitive function.

Add to this that Romney represents everything Obama loathes and envies. Romney was born with good genetics, family political power, money, he succeeded by himself in business, and he is about to take Obama’s job by turning the population against him. This is Obama’s perfect amygdala storm.

From Romney’s first statement about how bad the economy was, Obama was seeing his amygdala stimulated. (Interestingly, he exhibited a very noticeable head tilt when looking at Lehrer immediately after Romney’s first statement – amygdala stimulation producing immediate diplopia (something I have seen firsthand, which produces a head tilt? Is this a tell of Obama’s stress level?) When Romney described all the people coming to him, asking him for help, because Obama had failed – that was more amygdala stimulation. “Look everyone, the group is turning on Obama, and coming to me.”

Romney then delivered a major, pre-arranged amygdala hijack when he turned to the crowd, and said, “Look, I got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it.” This was the perfect nuclear amygdala hijack to perform on a narcissist. I am certain it was pre-planned, it was probably given to him by an expert in NPD, and it triggered Obama’s amygdala in several ways.

Interestingly, Romney didn’t say “I’ve raised five boys” (all of his children are grown men today, and haven’t been boys in decades – so really he hasn’t “got” any boys, today). Rather, Romney made a point of saying, in essence, he “possessed” five boys, and he made a point of specifically starting the sentence with “I got” instead of “I have,” or “I have raised.”

It is possible he just talks that way, but I think it is more likely he was instructed to say it that way, and this was designed to be delivered at the first opportunity where Obama offered some arguable data point repeatedly. Looking at how Romney turned to Lehrer and the crowd, and delivered it so smoothly, without hesitation, it would seem he was prepared to say it. If so, it may speak to Romney using a psychological professional to craft his linguistics.

Narcissists obsess over unequal allotments of items, even children and grandchildren. Saying “I got” five boys implies being gifted, and given possession, and it would have immediately triggered Obama’s narcissistic competitiveness, in a way that speaking in verbs, such as “I have raised five boys” would not. To a narcissist, doing a job five times, is not as much of a competitive humiliation (or amygdala hijack) as their opponent having been given five of something the narcissist has none of. Again, in my experience, these perceptions of narcissists occur reflexively when they notice minor stuff normal people aren’t even aware of.

What does Obama think? “I wasn’t given *any* boys. I’m inferior, and it is unfair of him to point that out! That bastard!” [amygdala hijack]

It sounds crazy, but that is how narcissists think, immediately and reflexively, and it has profound physiological effects, screwing with their ability to focus later on. It doesn’t matter the difference you point out. “I got ten pairs of black shoes,” “I got ten watches,” etc. Narcissists focus on such relative differences, no matter how meaningless, and tend towards reflexively seeing them as marks of personal inferiority, gross unfairness, and they then panic in response.

From a previous blog post here, a description of a narcissistic trigger:

“Next is relative inferiority. Narcissists are acutely sensitive to relative states. If a Narcissist notices someone else has a nicer car, a nicer watch, a better job, a nicer house, higher status, higher intelligence, etc, it will bother them profoundly.”

Regardless, that alone, would not have been enough to completely disorient Obama. However, it would have magnified the effect of the out-grouping and stature diminishment which Romney was really performing with the statement, which hit Obama right between the eyes. In this jab, Romney used the same imagery tool Colonel Connell used here, to cast Obama as an inferior, spoiled child, who was pushing lies again and again out of pathetic desperation. In this model, Romney cast Obama as the lying child, cast himself as the parent rejecting the lies, and then he moved on without further discussion, as Obama sat helpless.

Obama is a child, Obama is a liar, Romney is a parent, and Romney is the person people should be looking to for truth, knowledge, and leadership. It was an amazing use of imagery to hijack Obama’s amygdala. Out-grouping and status diminishment, in a way guaranteed to traumatize a narcissistic Liberal, without anyone even noticing. It was just like Colonel Connell casting Mike Wallace as a pathetic, helpless rube, wounded on the battlefield, begging for help, then moving on to talk about something else. It was brilliant, and Obama’s amygdala was in high gear by that point.

From another previous post on this blog:

“Diminution of Stature, as we discussed, is a powerful technique to apply to the narcissists. Best done in groups, it entails a quickly delivered aside explaining the narcissist’s low stature or lack of ability. Combined with quick laughter, and delivered quickly before moving on to the main topic, it is fiercely irritating to the narcissist.”

That some people in the audience (plants?) laughed when Romney said this would have magnified the effect still more. Narcissists hate laughter, and especially any situation which involves others laughing with someone, at the narcissist. It reeks of having been out-grouped. Together with Obama’s ingrained narcissistic demand to be respected as an authority, this all combined to produce a perfect amygdala hijack.

From another previous post on this blog:

“Finally, one thing I have noticed is the final stake in the heart of a wounded narcissist is laughter at them. I suspect many narcissists, due to their affliction, were unusually sensitive to being laughed at in childhood. It was likely a trauma most normal kids would not be able to imagine. As a result, the narcissists I have known have been unusually sensitive to being laughed at. Even worse, if you can incite the group to laugh at them, the effects are incredible.”

When Obama heard this en toto, his little Liberal brain, focused on processing social hierarchy information more than logic, perceived that he had been damaged socially, relative to Romney, and he was crushed. His amygdala went into overdrive, his blood pressure increased, his heart rate exploded, and it degraded his cognitive abilities immeasurably. I was actually impressed he was able to continue as well as he did.

Once Romney triggered this initial amygdala hijack, future hijacks would come easier, have more effect, and Obama’s underlying mental state would gradually deteriorate, barring some ground-altering gaffe by Romney. Of course not only did Romney not have any major gaffes, he delivered more amygdala hijacks. As the two sets of pictures below show, these affected Obama’s mood during the debate quite effectively. (Also, note that in Romney’s pictures, he is using the perfect gloating smile to drive Obama crazy. You have to know a narcissist really well to understand what Obama was going through, but if you do, those pictures speak volumes.)

Some of the write ups on this debate have spoken of techniques described on this site.

From the link above,

“Romney quipped that the president “picks losers” like Solyndra. Stevens says the “losers” passage was indicative of Romney’s ability to be snappy but not snippy. He’d lead with something sharp and follow with a couple of meaty paragraphs. ”

The word “loser” is an epic narcissist amygdala stimulator. Especially when contrasted with Romney who we all know has a long record picking “winners.” Every narcissist is a narcissist specifically to avoid having to confront their own status as a “loser.” Pointing it out is an excellent amygdala hijack. Also, opening with something “sharp,” as the article noted was Romney’s plan, will perform a small amygdala hijack. This will impede the narcissist’s ability to focus on the “meaty paragraphs” immediately following it and formulate a response. The result is Colonel Connell. You present your side and a dejected loser, opposite you, offers but token resistance.

Also, from the article:

Romney’s strategists told him “what to do when your opponent is speaking (less note-taking, more direct eye contact).”

From the video, it looked like Romney remained mostly unemotional, and occasionally looked bemused, as he maintained aggressive eye contact, even as Obama broke it to “take notes.”

Research indicates that Liberals probably avoid eye contact due to their inferior amygdala development. Forcing eye contact once Obama’s amygdala had been hijacked just added to Obama’s stress levels. This kept the strain on Obama, and it was probably why Obama focused on note taking, as a ploy to avoid the stress of the eye contact. There is really no way around this for Obama. If he tries to counter with eye contact of his own next time, that will just stimulate his amygdala more, and leave him even more “locked up.”

From a previous post on this blog here where we discussed this strategy:

“I have seen this myself on a couple of occasions, especially in my primary narcissistic guinea pig. After a marathon session tripping his amygdala in conversation, he actually compulsively looked at the floor when talking to me, despite there being no intimation of physical threat on my part. This trait was actually identical to what one would see in an extremely autistic child, and was much different from his normal countenance. I was fascinated, and thought it might indicate an increased desire to avoid any amygdala stimulation resulting from the subtle stress of direct eye contact.

Based upon several instances I have observed, I suspect that humans have evolved an innate tendency to avoid eye contact when the amygdala has been overwhelmed. In individuals facing a superior threat (for which the amygdala cannot find a solution to quiet itself, and is overwhelmed), this probably serves as an unconscious threat avoidance behavior. It might speak to the utility of forcing direct eye contact in debate with Liberals, as you stimulate their amygdala while maintaining a totally unconcerned, domineering frame.”

Note, as we have said, the goal of these techniques isn’t to win the debate outright with the narcissist/Liberal, but rather to erode the ability of your opponent to function and oppose you. You still need to assert your position and present your argument as it relates to the issue discussed. However, after the proper application of these techniques, suddenly you are asserting your position, and your opponent is not presenting effective counter-arguments, and is even willing to cede to you. Combined with Romney’s policy/fact mastery, it is a potent combination.

You should also notice that by the end of the debate, people weren’t saying, “Romney was brilliant,” they were saying “What happened to Obama?” That is what a mild amygdala hijack does. It is a subtle turn of phrase which shuts down your narcissist opponent’s ability to stand up to you, in a way which observers perceive as unusual, but don’t understand.

When I did this with Bob, even in it’s most extreme form, an observer might not notice anything unusal about the conversation. However, ten minutes and several repetitions later, Bob not only can’t argue, he’s literally having signs of a stroke. The effects are unreal, if you can just wrap your mind around how different the narcissist’s thought processes are. Here, these mild attacks, all but unnoticable, shut Obama down.

I strongly suspect that Romney hired a psychological professional behind the scenes to help him come up with customized psychological exploits like these, to sprinkle into his debate performance. I’m pretty certain he and his crew know something is fundamentally wrong with Obama. I suppose it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that he hired a professional to help him exploit it. Of course, I’d love to think somebody in his operation stumbled on this blog, but that is probably unlikely.

The movement needs to analyze these types of debates with professionals who know these disorders intimately, to tease out exactly why an opponent like Obama would suddenly shut down, and offer poor opposition to their Republican opponent. Even if these techniques merely eroded the cognitive ability of Liberals marginally, that could be the difference between a won debate, and a tied debate. Here, I am convinced the application of these techniques, whether through careful planning, or simple chance and accident, provided the Republican with a decisive victory over a narcissistic Liberal.

I am hopeful that Romney exhibited a conscious technical understanding of how to get under the skin of a narcissist, and that this wasn’t all by chance. If Romney has hired a psychological professional, combined with his expansive knowledge of policy and figures, he should be even more formidable next time around. (Though if this is the case, Obama will fail slightly differently next time, and Romney’s psychological strategy should change somewhat to help this along.)

I only hope Romney is as ruthless with Liberalism, the ideology, once elected. That will be the only way to assure himself a second term – unite the Conservative movement behind him while demoralizing the Liberal movement in a fashion similar to Obama’s demoralization last Wednesday.

Of course, you demoralize Liberals by out-grouping and humiliating them, as the great Ronald Reagan showed us time and again.