[FRIAM] narcissism

[Steven A Smith]

> Waco
> https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/waco/s01

I declined to respond to Glen's originating post on this topic until I
had more time/background.   We finally watched the limited series the
last two nights and it brought back a lot of memories of that era to
both Mary and myself.   We had the opportunity to discuss both our
contemporary understanding of characters like Koresh and his followers
(and the ATF/FBI characters as-depicted and the families of, and locals
in nearby Waco) as well as our memories of how we responded to it as it
unfolded (through the lens of popular media and discussion).  I felt
that the show (and probably the two books it was derived from, written
by the FBI negotiator and by one of the more sympathetic
characters/members of the Davidians) had some barely hidden agendas...  
while I'm willing to believe that egos and personalities and
incompetence and systemic flaws were key to how the ATF/FBI (mis)handled
the scene right up through it's tragic conclusion and aftermath, I
didn't take every detail to be unbiased and accurate. 

> I don't know much about Koresh or the Branch Davidians. I remember watching it (and the Ruby Ridge coverage) on TV back then. (I was pretty libertarian back then ... but that was back when the word "libertarian" meant something ... it's a useless word these days. So my understanding of these events was heavily biased by that.) This TV show does a good job, I think, of showing Koresh simply edit out his abuse of the flock while maintaining an air of authenticity in other domains. And the supporting character (Paul Sparks/Steve Schneider) states it explicitly when he says something like "I wish God had chosen someone else" or somesuch ... because Koresh was such a jerk.
I don't know much about Koresh (or his Davidians or the Ruby Ridge
family or ... players) either...  and I agree that this depiction showed
well a tension between his "abuse" and "authenticity".   I have NO
embedding in the kinds of belief systems that Koresh and his followers
came from (and went far beyond),  so my first-order response to the lot
of them was not very sympathetic.   Mary was raised Catholic and did not
leave that fold until she divorced in her early 40's.   She still has
some momentum from that embedding which makes it easier for her to be
sympathetic with the underlying tropes of belief in a personal
creator/savior and in scripture, even though I would say all of those
are now vacant in her active current consciousness.
> My conscious attempt to empathize with everyone, in every context, no matter how deplorable it might be, prevents me from accusing someone like Koresh of *rational* manipulation.
I share that conscious attempt, or even instinctual bias.   I don't
*want to believe* people are that fundamentally different/bad/flawed
than I want to believe that I am.   I know myself to have operated with
*rational* manipulation, but it usually grows up out of the fertile soil
of *unconscious* manipulation... simply seeking to optimize some
personal rewards/satisfaction vector with limited awareness of the
results on others (especially those far from me socially/geographically).
>  I tend to think his manipulation of others is the *same* as his manipulation of himself. In programming, we use the term "reflection" or "introspection" to talk about an object manipulating itself in the same way it manipulates other objects (and vice versa). In some circles, it's called "reflexive", which I think is misleading. The idea is that you treat yourself as other or you treat others as yourself.

As I understand your point here, it is perhaps the *only* or *most
fundamental* thing which keeps me in line consciously.  I do have
natural empathy that is rooted in my
vertebrate/mammalian/primate/hominid genetics as well as that which was
nurtured by my family and communities of origin.    But as I became
(trained to be?) more rational, my own narcissistic pursuits transformed
to become more *intentional* and possibly more pathological.   A lot of
what probably comes across as bald "virtue signalling" in my posts here
is me trying to remind myself that I *can* (and should?) work
consciously to balance that out.   If left to my own instincts and
learned habits in this (manic hypercapitalist, ultra-individualistic)
society, I might well behave in a very selfish manner at every
opportunity.   

It also triggered memories of how the well-publicized Jonestown and
Heaven's Gate cult suicides  unfolded... though I *do* believe the Waco
account that says theirs was NOT a mass-suicide.   The nature of
cult-belief/following/extremity was the point.

> When I hear descriptions of narcissism, this self-other mixing seems absent, which makes all the descriptions of narcissists seem cartoonish and wrong. They portray narcissists as hyper-rational, manipulate others to get what you want, sociopaths [†].
I think these are the extrema (edge/corner cases) that we like to focus
on because it makes for good storytelling.
>  But if all people do a little bit of self-manipulation as well as other-manipulation (and it's the same tools/anatomy that does the manipulation), then narcissists are *not* hyper-rational sociopaths. They can't be if they *feel* hurt by the words of others, insecure, self-important, grandiosity, etc. If they have feelings at all *and* they manipulate their self like they manipulate others, then they can't be these hyper-rational sociopaths. It's either a contradiction or a paradox that needs resolving.
I believe this way of framing it... but when faced with someone whose
narcissism builds a strong (albeit fragile) ego-shell which impinges on
my own (hopefully equally strong, but in a more durable way) it is easy
to forget this and react as if they are hyper-rational sociopaths.
(which engenders an awareness that the biggest risk in these contests is
to "become one's enemy")  In Sun Tzu's wisdom, there is a place for
this... but getting caught in it seems to be what keeps us there.
> We can see this in the DSM 5 _Alternative_ model. The 1st two trait categories (section A, 1-4) are other-centric, whereas the 2nd two are self-centric. Section B's categories seem to flip too, where grandiosity seems self-centric and attention seeking seems to be other-centric. It leaves me wondering if there are really 2, fundamentally different types of narcissism, that driven by an external locus vs. that drive by an internal locus, where the former cares deeply what others think/feel and the latter is totally apathetic to (or denies outright) others' thoughts/feelings. If that's plausible, then former-type narcissists would (as Frank said last week) live horrifying lives, but the latter-types might get a bit frustrated by the complexity of the machine they have to live inside, but could live very happy, solipsistic lives.

I think your previous invocation of "modes of being" are apt here.   I
suspect we all have our (minor? trivial? well-managed?  well-hidden?)
episodes of all of these features of narcissism.    Just after we hit a
lucky shot (pick your sport) or make a killer-prediction (stock market,
news, personal business decision, etc.) we may feel a rush of
grandiosity.   After a particular embarrassing faux-pas, we may feel
acutely judged and defend it with some posturing or rapid
change-of-topic.   I would suggest that if we are *healthy* (whatever
that means) that these are passing episodes which we compartmentalize
more than rationalize... too much rationalization can layer those
ego-preserving/enhancing habits deeper into our selves.  

Some of my earliest/strongest memories involved some kind of acute
embarrassment or abrupt awareness of my own vulnerability (even if not
observed by others).  To the extent I am aware of those moments and keep
them somewhat walled off as exceptional moments rather than
internalizing them as (ambiguous?) proof of my ultimate entitled
powerfulness or my abject victimhood, I feel like I can use them to
understand myself and the world I live in better, rather than slip into
(yet more of) a fantasy that protects/supports my ego.

 Mumble

> [†] By "sociopath", I mean something like: someone who doesn't mirror the feelings of others in themselves. Sorry if that's non-standard. I'm using it because I don't have a better word for such a person.
>