Any posts on why this type of person is likeable and succesful in life? I understand the power dynamics that makes them appear higher-status than the interlocutor in certain scenarios. But, in others, narcissists are just annoying and insufferable.
I have a post in progress about leadership and what makes anyone likeable/followable. Success in life is subjective based on what one values. I would suggest that their material gain is at the expense of genuine connection, meaning, and other virtues. Which is why they’re annoying and insufferable.
I find your work really intriguing Nathalie. Here is a question I have: what psychology / personality traits and possible narcissism is at work with so-called truthers and also new agers in the Social Media realms? You will find a plethora of them here on Substack as well. I am less interested in the actual content, but interested in the psychological framework that has people going down a particular path - possibly with very good arguments, thoughts, theories that the mainstream may be afraid of - but it ultimately becomes a one-sided hate fest, culminating in people marinating in hate, vengeance, arrogance… What kind of shadow aspects are at work in people like Charles Eisenstein, who presents himself all New Agey and high and mighty, but you can’t actually reason with him at all about different viewpoints (especially now with the ME war). Or take Caitlin Johnstone. Just a nut job or what kind of tools / narcissism does she engage in with her level of the speech? There are thousands like that, many hidden behind well-constructed facades of being ‘investigative’ and ‘truth-seeking’, but when actually challenged become absolutely nasty pieces of work… Thank you!
Some people who need validation (but act like they don't) need to have a unique truth that only they know or can access, and who can provide access to those who validate them. One such archetype is the Gurupreneur. I would classify Eisenstein as a not obviously capitalistic Gurupreneur.
The Aussie nut job is a typical Social Injustice Warrior. Fuelled by sanctimony and disgust about the inner oppressor hidden in her Shadow, her shame about lusting for power and control is projected onto Israel/Zionists as the externalised object of her self-hatred. Of course she has zero self-awareness as her perception of reality has been distorted and her mind is under the control of the Nazi demon she summoned.
They both want to be the Guru and cannot fathom life without an endless stream of attention. They are their own status god that followers worship, clinging onto every word as if it was gospel.
I've been fascinated by this dynamic in the medical freedom substack community -- the propensity for natural and even erstwhile allies to go to war with each other and cast potential or past fellow travelers into outer darkness for transgressions that to me sound like paranoid nutjobbery. Sasha Latypova would be an example of this archetype.
Didn’t Sasha Latyapova do really good investigative work on pharma and vaccines though? Who did she go after? I know she hates RFK Jr now. The whole alternative movement suffers from a desire to constantly disembowel each other it seems..!
Every point you made is so true. We can be that petty and difficult. I don't want to be like that. I have work to do.
Being these things true, a question comes to my mind: When are our opinions valuable? I mean, I think all of us have had moments in which we really disagreed with certain people (even people that we don't know personally), and we genuinely felt that they did malicious, dishonest or at least not very mindful or complete arguments about a topic. So we wanted to say a lot of things to them.
My point is that what we want to say can have positive or negative outcomes (in those people we disagree with, or in people who see the conversation between us), but at the same time I have this suspicion that engaging in those conversations is absurd, because we can inform ourselves and live up to our ideas without needing to talk about them with anyone.
And sometimes I'm simply tired of being kind when others are saying obnoxious things. But when I think in the probability that the other person will not care about what I said... is it worth it? Because opinion is not neutral: it has a purpose. To communicate ideas for the mere pleasure of talking without seeking any outcome or feedback... doesn't make sense to me.
And if we have an intention to change a situation that is important to us (for instance, a social issue), but opinions are generally unsolicited, are we behaving with certain amount of entitlement because of having opinions?
(This reminds me of a recent song which says "I don't want your judgement or your expectations" and "Don't rely on my moral compass". It seems like the opinions of people are not welcomed in the context of the song, although the song also contain opinions).
And if we are not known at all by others, is there a balance in how much we have to communicate our opinions? Are they legitimate? In which contexts?
Thanks for reading it Stone and for your reflective questions. We all have opinions but they don’t always matter to the person we’re talking to. If they’re like the character I highlighted in the article, you’re just wasting your energy trying to contribute equally to a conversation because they’re only interested in dominance. Is your opinion still important? Yes, but only to you. They’re always right because the rules of engagement are defined entirely by them.
The energy required to engage in a conversation is best used when it’s clear the other person is willing and open to listen to a different idea. Sometimes that person needs to warm up to you and it requires you to learn more about their thinking through asking questions and paraphrasing so they know you’re interested in listening to them. Once they’re less guarded, it’s easier for you to propose a different perspective/opinion.
Sometime it requires us to make more of an effort to help reduce someone’s defences to make it easier to contribute your opinion. Sometimes people might have to do that with you, especially if you’re passionate about a topic and have a strong stance.
The best interaction involves not having to do the dance of managing other’s and our own egos to say what we think and feel. If you can find those people, those are the ones where your opinion matters, even if they disagree.
I think your title explains in great deal alone why narcissists are the way they are: protection. Protecting their version of reality at all costs is a priority and comes before anything else. Psychologically, there’s a prominent element of cognitive dissonance I believe. They think that life as they know it would cease to exist if they adopted any other belief that challenges their version of truth
I love this! I think we all have a little bit of ego inside of us, even if we don’t want to admit it. It’s nice seeing it all laid out in your article.
Very insightful piece- I love all your posts Nathalie. Having recently survived a narcissist relationship I am very aware of seeing it displayed in several Substack publications and I am amazed as I watch people fall for many of these tricks. But based on my personal experience I am very aware that you can't tell people who are currently being love bombed what is happening to them. I guess we all need to go through this and then learn from the process and be more aware next time we encounter such a person.
Any posts on why this type of person is likeable and succesful in life? I understand the power dynamics that makes them appear higher-status than the interlocutor in certain scenarios. But, in others, narcissists are just annoying and insufferable.
I have a post in progress about leadership and what makes anyone likeable/followable. Success in life is subjective based on what one values. I would suggest that their material gain is at the expense of genuine connection, meaning, and other virtues. Which is why they’re annoying and insufferable.
I find your work really intriguing Nathalie. Here is a question I have: what psychology / personality traits and possible narcissism is at work with so-called truthers and also new agers in the Social Media realms? You will find a plethora of them here on Substack as well. I am less interested in the actual content, but interested in the psychological framework that has people going down a particular path - possibly with very good arguments, thoughts, theories that the mainstream may be afraid of - but it ultimately becomes a one-sided hate fest, culminating in people marinating in hate, vengeance, arrogance… What kind of shadow aspects are at work in people like Charles Eisenstein, who presents himself all New Agey and high and mighty, but you can’t actually reason with him at all about different viewpoints (especially now with the ME war). Or take Caitlin Johnstone. Just a nut job or what kind of tools / narcissism does she engage in with her level of the speech? There are thousands like that, many hidden behind well-constructed facades of being ‘investigative’ and ‘truth-seeking’, but when actually challenged become absolutely nasty pieces of work… Thank you!
Thank you Pebbles and for your questions!
Some people who need validation (but act like they don't) need to have a unique truth that only they know or can access, and who can provide access to those who validate them. One such archetype is the Gurupreneur. I would classify Eisenstein as a not obviously capitalistic Gurupreneur.
Gurupreneur: https://www.hackingnarcissism.com/p/gurupreneur
The Aussie nut job is a typical Social Injustice Warrior. Fuelled by sanctimony and disgust about the inner oppressor hidden in her Shadow, her shame about lusting for power and control is projected onto Israel/Zionists as the externalised object of her self-hatred. Of course she has zero self-awareness as her perception of reality has been distorted and her mind is under the control of the Nazi demon she summoned.
Social Injustice WArrior: https://www.hackingnarcissism.com/p/socialinjusticewarrior
They both want to be the Guru and cannot fathom life without an endless stream of attention. They are their own status god that followers worship, clinging onto every word as if it was gospel.
I've been fascinated by this dynamic in the medical freedom substack community -- the propensity for natural and even erstwhile allies to go to war with each other and cast potential or past fellow travelers into outer darkness for transgressions that to me sound like paranoid nutjobbery. Sasha Latypova would be an example of this archetype.
Didn’t Sasha Latyapova do really good investigative work on pharma and vaccines though? Who did she go after? I know she hates RFK Jr now. The whole alternative movement suffers from a desire to constantly disembowel each other it seems..!
She's obsessed with Robert Malone's wife for some reason, but the biggest surprise to me was when she lit out after @amidwesterndoctor.
Uuuhhh. I missed that. Any idea why? It’s awkward isn’t it.
Every point you made is so true. We can be that petty and difficult. I don't want to be like that. I have work to do.
Being these things true, a question comes to my mind: When are our opinions valuable? I mean, I think all of us have had moments in which we really disagreed with certain people (even people that we don't know personally), and we genuinely felt that they did malicious, dishonest or at least not very mindful or complete arguments about a topic. So we wanted to say a lot of things to them.
My point is that what we want to say can have positive or negative outcomes (in those people we disagree with, or in people who see the conversation between us), but at the same time I have this suspicion that engaging in those conversations is absurd, because we can inform ourselves and live up to our ideas without needing to talk about them with anyone.
And sometimes I'm simply tired of being kind when others are saying obnoxious things. But when I think in the probability that the other person will not care about what I said... is it worth it? Because opinion is not neutral: it has a purpose. To communicate ideas for the mere pleasure of talking without seeking any outcome or feedback... doesn't make sense to me.
And if we have an intention to change a situation that is important to us (for instance, a social issue), but opinions are generally unsolicited, are we behaving with certain amount of entitlement because of having opinions?
(This reminds me of a recent song which says "I don't want your judgement or your expectations" and "Don't rely on my moral compass". It seems like the opinions of people are not welcomed in the context of the song, although the song also contain opinions).
And if we are not known at all by others, is there a balance in how much we have to communicate our opinions? Are they legitimate? In which contexts?
Thanks for all your work.
Thanks for reading it Stone and for your reflective questions. We all have opinions but they don’t always matter to the person we’re talking to. If they’re like the character I highlighted in the article, you’re just wasting your energy trying to contribute equally to a conversation because they’re only interested in dominance. Is your opinion still important? Yes, but only to you. They’re always right because the rules of engagement are defined entirely by them.
The energy required to engage in a conversation is best used when it’s clear the other person is willing and open to listen to a different idea. Sometimes that person needs to warm up to you and it requires you to learn more about their thinking through asking questions and paraphrasing so they know you’re interested in listening to them. Once they’re less guarded, it’s easier for you to propose a different perspective/opinion.
Sometime it requires us to make more of an effort to help reduce someone’s defences to make it easier to contribute your opinion. Sometimes people might have to do that with you, especially if you’re passionate about a topic and have a strong stance.
The best interaction involves not having to do the dance of managing other’s and our own egos to say what we think and feel. If you can find those people, those are the ones where your opinion matters, even if they disagree.
Thanks! That's very helpful advice and a valuable challenge for building good character. I'll keep that in mind.
You might be interested in this - paywall removed:
https://www.hackingnarcissism.com/p/power
I think your title explains in great deal alone why narcissists are the way they are: protection. Protecting their version of reality at all costs is a priority and comes before anything else. Psychologically, there’s a prominent element of cognitive dissonance I believe. They think that life as they know it would cease to exist if they adopted any other belief that challenges their version of truth
Too familiar- both from the workplace and social settings sadly.
I’ve started dropping the link to this article in response to trolls. It amuses me :)
Touché!
William F. Buckley:
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
I love this! I think we all have a little bit of ego inside of us, even if we don’t want to admit it. It’s nice seeing it all laid out in your article.
Very insightful piece- I love all your posts Nathalie. Having recently survived a narcissist relationship I am very aware of seeing it displayed in several Substack publications and I am amazed as I watch people fall for many of these tricks. But based on my personal experience I am very aware that you can't tell people who are currently being love bombed what is happening to them. I guess we all need to go through this and then learn from the process and be more aware next time we encounter such a person.
I just discovered your writing. I'm going to start digging in your other pieces. I found this pretty funny and deeply insightful.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-1
I wonder if we've encountered the same nauseating leaders on LI. There's a plethora of them in the medical community.