This post in the series will focus upon a critical observation I’ve made in the course of my dealings with Narcissists, specifically a subtlety of behavioral presentation which seems to alleviate their misery when experiencing aversive stimulus. One of the tenets of this analysis is that although not all Narcissists are Liberal, the vast majority of diehard Liberal ideologues suffer from some degree of aggressive Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As a result, I have yet to see techniques which would savage a Narcissist not affect Liberals, at least to some degree.
To understand the Narcissist (and hardcore Liberal), it is important to try and understand where they’ve come from, the experiences they’ve been exposed to, and how this has rendered them different in their drives and perceptions. In my experience, Narcissists are, at their core, panicked individuals. This panic arises because of an insecurity, and inability to deal with stress, which they experienced quite profoundly as a child due to some instability in their environment.
Interestingly, my experiences would indicate that this intimate exposure to an extreme form of stress reactivity in themselves, seems to give the Narcissist a unique insight into the processes by which stress is engendered in other humans. Because they are extremely sensitive to stress producing cues, the vaguest stimuli which produces even the subtlest stress in others is boldly highlighted to the Narcissist as they examine themselves. Because of this, even the most basic self analysis by a Narcissist will offer them great insight into the nature of stress producing environmental cues in others, and how they can be presented to others so as to stimulate stress and anxiety. I
Of course, the Narcissist holds a double edged sword. Even as they wield a much greater knowledge of how to engender stress, and control the emotional states of others, the Narcissist is simultaneously rendered much more vulnerable to stress themselves.
As we wrote here, many Narcissists likely divest themselves of a clear perception of reality due to an urgent need to deny it. This need often arises due to extraordinarily hostile interactions with others around them at critical developmental junctures. This triggers the Narcissistic disorder, imbues the Narcissist with a hostility and anger towards those around them which will persist into adulthood, and imbues the Narcissists with a fear of open and outright confrontations, such as those unpleasant confrontations which provoked their very adoption of the disorder.
Combined, you are left with an individual who has a psychologically defensive perception of themselves as perfect and superior, feelings of hostility to those around them, a burning desire to lash out absent an open, outright confrontation, and an exceptional knowledge of how discomfort is engendered psychologically. It is my experience with several such individuals, that they acquire great comfort from emotionally riling others, and exerting some degree of control over the emotional states of those around them, all while pretending to do so ignorant of any purposeful motivation.
Such individuals also find profound discomfort in the comfort of those around them. In the Narcissist, this manifests as a burning desire to upset a comfortable situation, most often through the use of a conjured argument. In Mike Wallace’s case, his wife actually made him sign a contract to not complain about any furniture she bought. Apparently, Mike Wallace refused to go shopping with her for furniture. So she would go alone and buy the furniture she liked, return home happy, and he would then set about upsetting her with arguments, so as to ruin her happy moment. First of all, who complains about furniture? Even if you do, then buy it yourself the way you want it. Wallace preferred the argument, and his wife’s unhappiness. This is a classical presentation of this phenomenon, in my experience, and it is due to a desire to see those around you unhappy.
Recently some research has noted this is a facet of some female personalities in intimate relationships. From a press release about the study
“It could be that for women, seeing that their male partner is upset reflects some degree of the man’s investment and emotional engagement in the relationship, even during difficult times. This is consistent with what is known about the dissatisfaction women often experience when their male partner becomes emotionally withdrawn and disengaged in response to conflict,” said the study’s lead author, Shiri Cohen, PhD, of Harvard Medical School.”
Note, the women were comforted specifically by their partner’s emotional upset. It would seem to me such a tendency would be a characteristic of a specific type of psychology, and would not be consistent throughout the female population. Given my experience, I wouldn’t be surprised if these women who acquired pleasure from their partner’s upset would also exhibit high levels of Narcissism. If so, they were acquiring comfort from their position of control and increased security, in being able to upset their man’s emotional mood at will. In such a case, a man who doesn’t care is a man who cannot be controlled, and it is this which is upsetting. Likely this is similar to how Wallace would have been bothered more had his wife ignored his argument, and gone on enjoying her new furniture in happiness. He would have had no control in the relationship, and this would have left him feeling insecure in his position. Instead he upset her, and then felt satisfaction at her upset, and his control.
In the Liberal, this same urge manifests in a desire to use government to disrupt the life of a successful, happy individual through onerous taxes, governmental regulation, or other infringements upon their freedom. In my experience, this is a bedrock trait among both Narcissists and Liberal ideologues. Take away the desire to upset the happiness of the happy, and Liberalism ceases to advocate for taking the wealth of others for simple redistribution, and it would become about a small group of Liberal’s personally volunteering and providing charity to help the poor.
In my experience, it is important to understand this trait when arguing with Liberals and Narcissists. They gain strength from emotional upset in those around them, especially the emotionally riled states which the Liberal will seek to create in their opponents during argument. If you betray even the slightest hint of upset, they will gain strength, the aversive stimulus in their brain will be diminished, and it will be much more difficult to subdue them.
When Lawrence Summers upset Teresa Hopkins, and when Colonel Connell savaged Mike Wallace, an essential part of their delivery was their absence of emotion. Summers was simply reciting facts which made Hopkins feel unwelcome. She became an r-selected bunny rabbit, being unemotionally out-grouped, in a K-selected world where ability and effort actually conferred benefit. Even worse, she had lost control over the pretty little lies others would be forced to adhere to so rigidly by a fascist intellectual community. Had Summers been enraged, sad, confrontational, upset, or otherwise emotional, Hopkins would not have been driven from the room.
Wallace faced the prospect of a world where his treason was not only, not tolerated, but where Colonel Connell was firmly in control, and the group was inescapably focused upon just what a traitor Wallace was. Again, had Colonel Connell been spewing spittle as he waved his arms and wildly asserted that Wallace was a traitor, had he been angry or emotional, Wallace would have felt some degree of relief, and relaxed in his seat. Wallace would have felt as if maybe he could still out-group Connell, by portraying him as extreme, and emotionally unbalanced.
By keeping his cool, and only evincing a passive contempt, Colonel Connell made his attack all the more devastating. It is vital to understand this.
Likewise, if Rush Limbaugh were emotional, instead of jovial and bemused each day as he describes Liberal treachery, he too would likely be far less effective in riling Liberal amygdalae, and making them physically ill (a Google search for [“Rush Limbaugh” “physically ill”] will yield over 39, 000 results). Similarly, Majority Leader Boehner’s frequent teary eyed spectacles probably prevent him from eliciting much aversive stimulus within Liberal brains, thereby curtailing his ability to emotionally affect Liberals in debate.
I saw this myself in my early days of manipulating the Narcissists I knew. On occasion, as a Narcissist began to grow upset, I would let my emotions rise with theirs, seeking to increase the visual and auditory stimulation they experienced, seeking to speed their meltdown under the mistaken impression it was excitement overwhelming their brain. I noticed they escalated their emotional behavior with others when seeking to rile their associates, and I thought it would work upon them.
But then I began to notice that they regained their emotional footing as I did so. As time went on I realized, they thought they were controlling and upsetting me, and this was giving them comfort and security, and emboldening them in some strange way. In their mind, yes, they were being exposed to discomfort, but they were controlling me, and making me angry and excited as well, so it was all OK. It was only when I struck a frame in which I was hyperlogical, or passively bemused at their circumstances, and wholly unagitated, that they truly became emotionally lost. With time I began to feign passive confusion at their opposition to the stimuli I was presenting, and this too proved to render my actions more potent. What I was saying was so obvious, I couldn’t understand how anyone could dispute it. Certainty, combined with incredulity that anyone would question me, will prove highly effective.
I cannot over-emphasize how any escalation in emotional state, other than happy bemusement, will give the Narcissist, and almost certainly the Liberal, a feeling of control which will strengthen them. You must be wholly unaffected by them as you present the stimulus. There is probably an evo-psych reason for this, maybe relating to the environment in which they were most certainly out-grouped. Maybe passions only ran high in the opposition when out-grouping was in jeopardy, or not likely. When out-grouping was a foregone conclusion, passion was not elicited. Or maybe their childhood torment was worst when their opponents were amused as they tortured the Narcissist.
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. I have no doubt Saul Alinsky was projecting when he sang the praises of using ridicule to terrify your opponent. There was nothing Saul would have hated more, than to see the nation turn towards him and laugh at his patheity.
Next up, Part V – Distilling the Stimuli
Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics
Table of Contents
Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part I – Foundational Understandings
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part II – Mike Wallace Debates a Marine
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part III – Mike Wallace’s Amygdala On Overload
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part IV – The Presentation
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part V – Distilling the Stimuli
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VI – Additional Stimuli
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VII – Amygdala Development and Inducing Maturity