7 ms·

Study links mindfulness and meditation to narcissism and “spiritual superiority”

58 points by Bologo 6y ago

emteycz 6y ago
Well, that's a dumb study then. They're noobs! /s Really though, mindfulness the concept is a useful thing IMHO, as opposed to mindfulness the industry. Meditation has scientifically confirmed benefits.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Meditation has scientifically confirmed benefits." This study makes me wonder if those benefits really come from meditation itself or from being more narcissistic or feeling spiritually superior to others.
  - tartoran 6y ago
    Narcissists are all around us and if they get attracted to one thing or another, it doesn’t make those things narcissist specific. If one is seeking to meditate quietly or have some bigger than themselves spirituality it’s likely they have no connection to narcissism whatsoever. Howevet if they actively promote themselves as best meditators, gurus, most spiritual etc they might as well be narcissist. Narcissists seek to lift their ego by means of the world around them without which they collapse. Oh, and narcissists are quite easy to spot. Humble people cannot be narcissists though some narcissists fake ehumility, but they do it poorly and again it is quite easy to spot
  - loopz 6y ago
    This may depend on personality and group dynamics. If leader is so-and-so, expect the followers to mimick those traits. Everything else being neutral however, people adhere to their personalities. They're often rather stuck with that, contrary to advertisements. Externally-induced transformations are bogus claims, as life itself is transformation. One may be guided along a known path though, however, every traveller is distinct and unique.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    There is a lot of research. Check out the book “Altered Traits”.
slolean13 6y ago
I would comment pseudo mindfulness and inexperienced meditation leads to narcissism and spiritual superiority. @OP?
- 0xcde4c3db 6y ago
  There's a reason we don't let drug companies play the "you're holding it wrong" game. In reality the perfect patient doesn't exist, so if the statistics say that people on your drug experience an adverse outcome at significantly higher rates, it's considered a side effect of the drug. It doesn't matter if it's because the patient skipped a dose. It doesn't matter if it's because they're also obese, or alcoholic, or a PewDiePie fan. If we let the drug company explain away all of the bad outcomes as inadequate doctors and patients, then like magic, no drug would have side effects. What it comes down to is this: if N people are prescribed the drug, roughly N/M people will experience these problems. If advocates of non-drug interventions want them to be taken seriously, the same standard should apply. That goes for everything from meditation to psychotherapy to exercise. If you refuse to acknowledge the risks, why should you be entitled to recognition of the benefits?
  - slolean13 6y ago
    That's a good point, but I would argue to it by saying that meditation isn't a drug or a therapy like it has been marketed to western audience.It's more like martial arts or yoga or gym you can assume! So obviously, Dunning–Kruger effect will be there! An absolute master will in turn show Imposter Syndrome maybe :) Anyway, let me give you not so brief information about the way I have understood meditation and spiritual enlightenment.Both are different, meditation is a practice, spirituality is an understanding, I call it the feeling of accepting everything but anyway I am young so don't take my word for it. Coming from Indian background I have always seen this junction of science and technology that is mostly conceptualized in west vs. local culture and traditions.I use reason and logic to understand my surrounding still I get awestruck with the way things have worked around me!!! Meditation is inherent in our culture.The first method for meditation was mentioned in a book called 'Vigyan Bhairav Tantra' in which lord Adiyogi(the first yogi/ shiva) explains how you can experience god, commenting: god is not a knowledge like most of the religion interprets but rather an experience which we all can have by practicing meditation[*it is never mentioned that that's what meditation is]. A total of 112 ways to meditate, to access the `sushma naari `on your forehead! Apparently, seventh/sixth method was used by Gautama(Buddha) to achieve enlightenment. Anyway coming back to the point,the one who practices meditation according to that teaching is the real deal, and i am not saying this in a fanatical way, it has mentioned almost all possible way of meditations. Now, a person who practice smeditation needs to follow some routine [in earlier time they used to], eg. intermittent fasting, early waking up and, few other routine which i am forgetting right now. But one needs to be disciplined while practicing this. Just like martial arts! If a person becomes narcissist and self centered just by doing it for few months/years is basically suffering from Dunning–Kruger effect!as mentioned earlier... Achieving a true spiritual existence requires a lot of practice and patience!
daenz 6y ago
Gem at the bottom: >“The question is whether a truly enlightened person would even participate in our studies,” the authors write. “Would such a person be interested in or even capable of answering all these ‘me’ questions?”
- reality_inspctr 6y ago
  This is the key. I can't help but imagine some hyperbole of the advertisement for participants reading some absurd thing like "Are you highly confident in your spiritual strength and have free time to earn $10 / hr?"
  - blix 6y ago
    The study encodes bias in both participant selection and in the survey questions. I'm not sure why these types of studies are taken seriously. A clever researcher could probably get any result they want.
    - chris5745 6y ago
      They’re taken seriously because they are discussed and debated ad nauseum. A better question might be who is taking them seriously? Experts in the field, or advertisers?
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    "Are you highly confident in your spiritual strength and have free time to earn $10 / hr?" Are they participating to earn $10/hr or to help science and understanding of meditation? On the other hand, why can't someone who is confident in their spiritual strength just be poor and actually need the $10/hr?
- smitty1e 6y ago
  The answer is that joy is not a finite resource, and in fact grows with the sharing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
fennecfoxen 6y ago
Has anyone here read The Tao of Pooh? Good little book, but spends way too much time looking down its nose at the Busy Backsoons and like people. There's definitely a spiritual-superiority complex leaking out.
eternalban 6y ago
Not news. This phenomena surely was observed thousands of years ago in various cultures. There is a reason all occult spiritual paths require a “Master”, “Guru”, “Pir”, “Guide”. Nearly all such collectives subject members to ritual humbling until a degree of “spiritual maturity” is detected. Occult literature (and here I include the esoterica of various established religions) is rife with warnings as to the dangers of spiritual seeking without guidance. A wonderful self-test of one’s spiritual maturity is precisely the inner struggle of the novice with “accepting another as superior”. I suspect this has been and remains a fairly common experience for those on the spiritual path. The standing bug to this approach is the authenticity factor of the respective “master” [so shop around].
- amatic 6y ago
  I have absolutely no problem with accepting proof of superiority in some area. I will listen to demonstrated expertise. But what is the proof of knowledge in "spirituality"?
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Perfect reflection is a good indicator. Find that well polished mirror, and keep in mind that the related literature is replete with the seekers praying for their master for years before meeting. Genuine yearning is apparently answered ..
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  It's the guru who is most susceptible to a feeling of spiritual superiority. The guru/disciple setup has led to all sorts of abuses throughout history.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    This is also true but again not remotely “news”. But it is asserted that a genuine master is in fact superior and has mastered ‘something’. This is a person that has experienced the same precise pattern of development that all go through and has had to deal with the delusions of the ego (the thing that is mastered). So the issue remains authenticity. (Various schools are just different coherent symbolic systems built on top of a shared human experience.) My favorite story of a student meeting his master is the fabled encounter between Shams of Tabriz and the man who became known as Rumi. It seems genuine spiritual “birds of a feather” recognize one another and also recognize the “Fowler’s trap”. Both Shams and Rumi have [extensively discussed] this matter, and give it huge import.
l8mr4 6y ago
An antidote in Mahayana is wanting all beings to be happy above oneself. How often do you focus loving kindness towards Trump? He only wishes to be happy and pain free. Unfortunately he has a lot of habits and conditioning (karma) to make him loathe-some by many spiritual and non-spiritual ppl. I find myself reactively wanting to see him punished.
- zepto 6y ago
  ‘He only wishes to be happy and pain free’. Is that true? And if it is, what does that mean for him? Why would you rule out the possibility that some people experience a reduction in their own pain through hurting others?
throwaway32992 6y ago
Spiritual materialism is not new, and that's why Zen focuses so much on the ego problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_Through_Spiritual_Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_Through_Spiritual_Mate... Having said that, some aspects of the study made me cringe: "the incentive to participate was a lottery with gift certificates of € 25,- to € 50,- ..." "we recruited 860 participants via a Facebook page about psychology" Leading questions like "My faith in myself goes up when I acquire more spiritual wisdom"
- blueprint 6y ago
  If Zen were so concerned with the ego problem they would all try to listen to Buddha and see his way themselves instead of each other's suggestions to kill him. Noobs. Not even a dog has Buddha-nature. Neither does anyone but a Buddha.
- polotics 6y ago
  Thank you for the context! With Facebook at the gate, selection bias is massive, and clearly not compensated for. With the chance of getting a 25-50€ gift certificate as the motivator, many will have filled the survey very quickly just to get their chance. I would suggest conducting interviews at Buddhist or Yoga retreats instead.
alecbz 6y ago
> The results of these three studies do not imply any casual direction; the authors suggest the causal arrow may work in both directions.... spiritual training may attract people who already feel superior. And the “extensive exploration of one’s personal thoughts and feelings” that spiritual training encourages “may be particularly appealing” to narcissists
- alecbz 6y ago
  Also, I can see how statements like: > The world would be a better place if others too had the insights that I have now. seem narcissistic, but I think that's kind of just a logical conclusion of thinking meditation is useful? (and that most people don't meditate) Maybe having that thought come up often, unprompted, is a sign of narcissism. But being presented with the statement, I think most meditators would have to say they agree, unless they didn't find meditation useful.
jarmitage 6y ago
Reading the scale they developed, I'm not sure how one could distinguish their results from the more general bias that the majority of people believe they are above average at any given thing (especially with statements like "I do X better than other people"): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.2721 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.2721
- onecommentman 6y ago
  In the link you provided, I didn’t see any formal validation studies presented justifying the scale/test/instrument they were using here. That’s the sort of practice that leads to a inability to reproduce and validate the results...
loopz 6y ago
They don't call it "spiritual shopping" for nothing. Spirituality is something you find for yourself, but in order to go deep, most people need guidance. Yes, spirituality is chock full of paradoxes too!
zests 6y ago
> For this study, the authors did not measure “agentic narcissism” (for example, “I am more special than others and deserve special privileges”), but rather “communal narcissism,” which describes people who think of themselves as more nurturing and empathic than others. Example statements that characterize this trait include “I have a very positive influence on others” and “I am generally the most understanding person.” It's unfortunate how far I had to scroll down to see they are using a different definition of narcissism than one typically expects. I was either expecting either Narcissus "pop-culture" narcissism or the actual personality disorder.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  Yeah that's a pretty important distinction. Not shocking they're using a non-standard definition since it give them a baitier headline.
- for_i_in_range 6y ago
  Exactly. I’ve never observed a definition of narcissism that would label Mother Teresa and Gandhi narcissists.
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    Are they renowned for saying they were more empathetic or compassionate than others? It's likely true that they were, but that's not the same thing.
  - axlee 6y ago
    Answering a high yes to "I have a very positive influence on others” and “I am generally the most understanding person.” are absolutely narcissist traits, even according to the "standard" definition. Those questions are about self-perception, not about actual assessment of their communal effects.
  - WalterSear 6y ago
    You may want to read more about them: neither of them were the entirely wholesome people we were led to believe. Gandhi was so drunk on his conception of non-violent resistance that he urged the german jewish people to go willingly to the death camps. Mother Teresa was involved in numerous controversies. > "But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep." https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lsquo-the-jews-rsquo-by-gandhi https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lsquo-the-jews-rsquo-by... > The same paper claims that doctors found a shortage of care, food, and painkillers, although Teresa had raised millions of dollars. Slate also found that Teresa brought in tons of money, but her missionaries looked as bad when she founded them as they did after her death. (During her own illness, Teresa fled to California clinics, Slate reports.) The conditions in her missions were so dire, in fact, that they were once compared to photographs of "Nazi Germany's Bergen-Belsen concentration camp." https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvzebx/mother-teresa-was-kind-of-a-heartless-bitch https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvzebx/mother-teresa-was-kin...
javajosh 6y ago
If you interviewed body-builders about health and fitness, would you find them narcissistic if they say that they are physically superior to most people? Or a scientist who's spent her whole life studying, and who believes that their depth of knowledge is superior to most people? Not all claims of superiority are narcissistic. (Although I think society has rightly picked a convention where you're not really supposed to say such things about yourself, but rather wait for someone else to nominate you as superior in some narrowly defined way.) It is, in fact, possible to be truly superior in spiritual terms, but such people are usually identified by their demeanor and accomplishments more than their claims.
- tartoran 6y ago
  Id even go as far as looking at their acomplishments. If they say they’re superior but have nothing to show then it is possible we’re dealing with some form of narcissism. They may as well have acomplishments and be narcissistic. Narcissists don’t have passions. Some of them are incredibly smart but they learn things/have accomplishments solely for the world to be impressed by them. They do brag a lot. On the other hand really knowledgegable people are quite modest as they truly understand how little they know.
  - javajosh 6y ago
    I think I understand sentence 2, but the meaning of 1 and 3 elude me! But I disagree with your last sentence, at least as a generalization. There are legitimately talented, accomplished, capable, and arrogant people all over the place! In fact I'd say a slight majority of talented people are arrogant (say, 60%). That said, there are pretenders who are arrogant without talent, and they "poison the well" for the 60%. I think this is especially a problem in software, because the field is still "pre-paradigmatic science" (in the Kuhn sense) which means, in part, that there is no great way to measure relative developer capability. The best you can do is examine their history of "finishing hard things" or "solving synthetically hard problems." How fast and well do you learn? What is your intuition about design, about code? Do you actually care about the structure of software enough to have opinions about it? The biggest problem we face is that the really good developers answer yes to the last question, but then are faced with the dilemma of being forced to dwell in an inferior technology space in order to make a living. Presumably a strong paradigm would reduce this error mode! If you had ideas around defining that paradigm for software applications, somewhere between the too-abstract Turing machine/Lambda Calculus and the too-concrete "everything is just a string of bits" mental models, would that make you narcissistic? Or just too ignorant to realize that "the best paradigm" is too subjective to define, or illusory, or already discovered (and ignored)? Was Lavoisier, and the other scientists that converted the practice of alchemy into the practice of chemistry narcissists because they competed with each other for recognition and fame?
bergstromm466 6y ago
Systemic fuckery (as well as capitalist alienation in general) cannot be overcome by individual will. Not by 'meditating' or whatever else. We do not choose to get cancer from living close to a place of industrial production (and the poluting toxins released fromt that). We do not choose to be born in marginalized communities. I hope we can become more aware that there our current system rewards Elites, and the existing propertied clasees. We are exploited by them. Nora Bateson writes beautifully about interdependence of systems and communal wealth in a post called "My Health Is Not My Own". "Vitality or life, is created through relationships that build relationships that build relationships and so on. Think of soil, and how soil becomes a forest or meadow where birds and insects find their homes, and where lovers walk hand in hand. The most important aspect of a healthy body, or healthy family or a healthy community is not the health of the individuals, but the the relationships between them. A family is several generations of relationships in multiple directions, within a culture, within history. The relationships matter and each communication within them also matter, this relational process is what life is made of. Beyond the din of people arguing about the binaries of incomplete research around masks, transmission, lockdowns and going back to how things were- beyond all of that mess… there is a meta message that has a nasty bite to it. The deeper disease, the one that many of us have been pointing to for decades, has shown its rash, again. The meta message is that the era of the 'individual' is going to be hard to get out of. There is something like an addiction taking place, and cold turkey is scary as hell. Going from individuality and personal freedoms to recognition of interdependency is an invitation for all the trickery of the addiction. What is more comfortable is to be selfish. So, the array of justifications not to change that individualistic image of self is fantastic. Have you ever had an addiction and heard yourself make contortions of logic to make it not-wrong to have one more cigarette, or just on the weekends, or to find that shred of research that proves that some people show no signs of illness from smoking? The acrobatics of addictive logistics are spectacular. The human mind has an unmatched capacity to reason that which is unreasonable. There is no lack of imagination, it is just placed toward the project of keeping the addictions in place, rather than living differently. The world of industry, distribution, banking, advertising, consuming — is what feels familiar, and even if it is killing us and the planet, it is what we know. The pull to return is strong. The meta message is that most of us are not habituated to recognize the health of others as our own health, and therefore to consider this interdependency is an unacceptable course of action. After all, what good will it do me? This is not how the soil builds richness. My health is not my own. My health is the whole community’s, it belongs to the elderly, the youth, and even to the biome of organisms that live in my body and in the soil. This, is the opposite of everything that the last centuries of manufacturing, education and politics have forged into societal infrastructure and even the making of identity. It is easier to identify myself by my profession, my address or my car than to recognize that I am a living system in relation to other living systems. I am not me, I am a vessel of the past and the future. In this moment what is asked of me is that I recognize the harms the systems of the past have wrought, and make radical changes so that the future is not burdened with the same destructiveness as the past." [1] Also the term Magical Voluntarism is relevant here: "The radical therapist David Smail argues that Margaret Thatcher's view that there's no such thing as society, only individuals and their families, finds "an unacknowledged echo in almost all approaches to therapy". Therapies such as cognitive behaviour therapy combine a focus on early life with the self-help doctrine that individuals can become masters of their own destiny. The idea is "with the expert help of your therapist or counsellor, you can change the world you are in the last analysis responsible for, so that it no longer cause you distress" – Smail calls this view "magical voluntarism". Depression is the shadow side of entrepreneurial culture, what happens when magical voluntarism confronts limited opportunities. As psychologist Oliver James put it in his book The Selfish Capitalist, "in the entrepreneurial fantasy society," we are taught "that only the affluent are winners and that access to the top is open to anyone willing to work hard enough, regardless of their familial, ethnic or social background – if you do not succeed, there is only one person to blame." It's high time that the blame was placed elsewhere. We need to reverse the privatisation of stress and recognise that mental health is a political issue." [2] [1] Nora Bateson, https://archive.is/n6gOj https://archive.is/n6gOj // https://norabateson.medium.com/my-health-is-not-my-own-ec824c463cb https://norabateson.medium.com/my-health-is-not-my-own-ec824... [2] Mark Fisher, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/mental-health-political-issue https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/mental...
hprotagonist 6y ago
it was said of abbot agatho that for three years he carried a stone in his mouth until he learned to be silent.
cs702 6y ago
There are many potential issues with this paper, starting with the fact that it redefines "narcissism" to suit its purposes... Nonetheless, this sentence in the abstract[a] really struck a chord with me: > Our results illustrate that the self‐enhancement motive is powerful and deeply ingrained so that it can hijack methods intended to transcend the ego and, instead, adopt them to its own service. [a] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2721 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2721
buffalobuffalo 6y ago
A large number of the people that participate in any activity do so in an attempt to feel better than others. Humans live in hierarchies. Trying to climb those hierarchies is in our genes.
jl2718 6y ago
I am really quite sick of this word.
Giorgi 6y ago
haha, most of users here will be pissed.
acephal 6y ago
This is also Joe Rogan and his "just eat mushrooms" ideology

58 points by Bologo 6y ago

Well, that's a dumb study then. They're noobs! /s Really though, mindfulness the concept is a useful thing IMHO, as opposed to mindfulness the industry. Meditation has scientifically confirmed benefits.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"Meditation has scientifically confirmed benefits." This study makes me wonder if those benefits really come from meditation itself or from being more narcissistic or feeling spiritually superior to others.
- tartoran 6y ago
  Narcissists are all around us and if they get attracted to one thing or another, it doesn’t make those things narcissist specific. If one is seeking to meditate quietly or have some bigger than themselves spirituality it’s likely they have no connection to narcissism whatsoever. Howevet if they actively promote themselves as best meditators, gurus, most spiritual etc they might as well be narcissist. Narcissists seek to lift their ego by means of the world around them without which they collapse. Oh, and narcissists are quite easy to spot. Humble people cannot be narcissists though some narcissists fake ehumility, but they do it poorly and again it is quite easy to spot
- loopz 6y ago
  This may depend on personality and group dynamics. If leader is so-and-so, expect the followers to mimick those traits. Everything else being neutral however, people adhere to their personalities. They're often rather stuck with that, contrary to advertisements. Externally-induced transformations are bogus claims, as life itself is transformation. One may be guided along a known path though, however, every traveller is distinct and unique.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  There is a lot of research. Check out the book “Altered Traits”.

slolean13 6y ago

I would comment pseudo mindfulness and inexperienced meditation leads to narcissism and spiritual superiority. @OP?

0xcde4c3db 6y ago
There's a reason we don't let drug companies play the "you're holding it wrong" game. In reality the perfect patient doesn't exist, so if the statistics say that people on your drug experience an adverse outcome at significantly higher rates, it's considered a side effect of the drug. It doesn't matter if it's because the patient skipped a dose. It doesn't matter if it's because they're also obese, or alcoholic, or a PewDiePie fan. If we let the drug company explain away all of the bad outcomes as inadequate doctors and patients, then like magic, no drug would have side effects. What it comes down to is this: if N people are prescribed the drug, roughly N/M people will experience these problems. If advocates of non-drug interventions want them to be taken seriously, the same standard should apply. That goes for everything from meditation to psychotherapy to exercise. If you refuse to acknowledge the risks, why should you be entitled to recognition of the benefits?
- slolean13 6y ago
  That's a good point, but I would argue to it by saying that meditation isn't a drug or a therapy like it has been marketed to western audience.It's more like martial arts or yoga or gym you can assume! So obviously, Dunning–Kruger effect will be there! An absolute master will in turn show Imposter Syndrome maybe :) Anyway, let me give you not so brief information about the way I have understood meditation and spiritual enlightenment.Both are different, meditation is a practice, spirituality is an understanding, I call it the feeling of accepting everything but anyway I am young so don't take my word for it. Coming from Indian background I have always seen this junction of science and technology that is mostly conceptualized in west vs. local culture and traditions.I use reason and logic to understand my surrounding still I get awestruck with the way things have worked around me!!! Meditation is inherent in our culture.The first method for meditation was mentioned in a book called 'Vigyan Bhairav Tantra' in which lord Adiyogi(the first yogi/ shiva) explains how you can experience god, commenting: god is not a knowledge like most of the religion interprets but rather an experience which we all can have by practicing meditation[*it is never mentioned that that's what meditation is]. A total of 112 ways to meditate, to access the `sushma naari `on your forehead! Apparently, seventh/sixth method was used by Gautama(Buddha) to achieve enlightenment. Anyway coming back to the point,the one who practices meditation according to that teaching is the real deal, and i am not saying this in a fanatical way, it has mentioned almost all possible way of meditations. Now, a person who practice smeditation needs to follow some routine [in earlier time they used to], eg. intermittent fasting, early waking up and, few other routine which i am forgetting right now. But one needs to be disciplined while practicing this. Just like martial arts! If a person becomes narcissist and self centered just by doing it for few months/years is basically suffering from Dunning–Kruger effect!as mentioned earlier... Achieving a true spiritual existence requires a lot of practice and patience!

daenz 6y ago

Gem at the bottom: >“The question is whether a truly enlightened person would even participate in our studies,” the authors write. “Would such a person be interested in or even capable of answering all these ‘me’ questions?”

reality_inspctr 6y ago
This is the key. I can't help but imagine some hyperbole of the advertisement for participants reading some absurd thing like "Are you highly confident in your spiritual strength and have free time to earn $10 / hr?"
- blix 6y ago
  The study encodes bias in both participant selection and in the survey questions. I'm not sure why these types of studies are taken seriously. A clever researcher could probably get any result they want.
  - chris5745 6y ago
    They’re taken seriously because they are discussed and debated ad nauseum. A better question might be who is taking them seriously? Experts in the field, or advertisers?
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Are you highly confident in your spiritual strength and have free time to earn $10 / hr?" Are they participating to earn $10/hr or to help science and understanding of meditation? On the other hand, why can't someone who is confident in their spiritual strength just be poor and actually need the $10/hr?
smitty1e 6y ago
The answer is that joy is not a finite resource, and in fact grows with the sharing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fennecfoxen 6y ago

Has anyone here read The Tao of Pooh? Good little book, but spends way too much time looking down its nose at the Busy Backsoons and like people. There's definitely a spiritual-superiority complex leaking out.

eternalban 6y ago

Not news. This phenomena surely was observed thousands of years ago in various cultures. There is a reason all occult spiritual paths require a “Master”, “Guru”, “Pir”, “Guide”. Nearly all such collectives subject members to ritual humbling until a degree of “spiritual maturity” is detected. Occult literature (and here I include the esoterica of various established religions) is rife with warnings as to the dangers of spiritual seeking without guidance. A wonderful self-test of one’s spiritual maturity is precisely the inner struggle of the novice with “accepting another as superior”. I suspect this has been and remains a fairly common experience for those on the spiritual path. The standing bug to this approach is the authenticity factor of the respective “master” [so shop around].

amatic 6y ago
I have absolutely no problem with accepting proof of superiority in some area. I will listen to demonstrated expertise. But what is the proof of knowledge in "spirituality"?
- eternalban 6y ago
  Perfect reflection is a good indicator. Find that well polished mirror, and keep in mind that the related literature is replete with the seekers praying for their master for years before meeting. Genuine yearning is apparently answered ..
pmoriarty 6y ago
It's the guru who is most susceptible to a feeling of spiritual superiority. The guru/disciple setup has led to all sorts of abuses throughout history.
- eternalban 6y ago
  This is also true but again not remotely “news”. But it is asserted that a genuine master is in fact superior and has mastered ‘something’. This is a person that has experienced the same precise pattern of development that all go through and has had to deal with the delusions of the ego (the thing that is mastered). So the issue remains authenticity. (Various schools are just different coherent symbolic systems built on top of a shared human experience.) My favorite story of a student meeting his master is the fabled encounter between Shams of Tabriz and the man who became known as Rumi. It seems genuine spiritual “birds of a feather” recognize one another and also recognize the “Fowler’s trap”. Both Shams and Rumi have [extensively discussed] this matter, and give it huge import.

l8mr4 6y ago

An antidote in Mahayana is wanting all beings to be happy above oneself. How often do you focus loving kindness towards Trump? He only wishes to be happy and pain free. Unfortunately he has a lot of habits and conditioning (karma) to make him loathe-some by many spiritual and non-spiritual ppl. I find myself reactively wanting to see him punished.

zepto 6y ago
‘He only wishes to be happy and pain free’. Is that true? And if it is, what does that mean for him? Why would you rule out the possibility that some people experience a reduction in their own pain through hurting others?

throwaway32992 6y ago

Spiritual materialism is not new, and that's why Zen focuses so much on the ego problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_Through_Spiritual_Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_Through_Spiritual_Mate... Having said that, some aspects of the study made me cringe: "the incentive to participate was a lottery with gift certificates of € 25,- to € 50,- ..." "we recruited 860 participants via a Facebook page about psychology" Leading questions like "My faith in myself goes up when I acquire more spiritual wisdom"

blueprint 6y ago
If Zen were so concerned with the ego problem they would all try to listen to Buddha and see his way themselves instead of each other's suggestions to kill him. Noobs. Not even a dog has Buddha-nature. Neither does anyone but a Buddha.
polotics 6y ago
Thank you for the context! With Facebook at the gate, selection bias is massive, and clearly not compensated for. With the chance of getting a 25-50€ gift certificate as the motivator, many will have filled the survey very quickly just to get their chance. I would suggest conducting interviews at Buddhist or Yoga retreats instead.

alecbz 6y ago

> The results of these three studies do not imply any casual direction; the authors suggest the causal arrow may work in both directions.... spiritual training may attract people who already feel superior. And the “extensive exploration of one’s personal thoughts and feelings” that spiritual training encourages “may be particularly appealing” to narcissists

alecbz 6y ago
Also, I can see how statements like: > The world would be a better place if others too had the insights that I have now. seem narcissistic, but I think that's kind of just a logical conclusion of thinking meditation is useful? (and that most people don't meditate) Maybe having that thought come up often, unprompted, is a sign of narcissism. But being presented with the statement, I think most meditators would have to say they agree, unless they didn't find meditation useful.

jarmitage 6y ago

Reading the scale they developed, I'm not sure how one could distinguish their results from the more general bias that the majority of people believe they are above average at any given thing (especially with statements like "I do X better than other people"): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.2721 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.2721

onecommentman 6y ago
In the link you provided, I didn’t see any formal validation studies presented justifying the scale/test/instrument they were using here. That’s the sort of practice that leads to a inability to reproduce and validate the results...

loopz 6y ago

They don't call it "spiritual shopping" for nothing. Spirituality is something you find for yourself, but in order to go deep, most people need guidance. Yes, spirituality is chock full of paradoxes too!

zests 6y ago

> For this study, the authors did not measure “agentic narcissism” (for example, “I am more special than others and deserve special privileges”), but rather “communal narcissism,” which describes people who think of themselves as more nurturing and empathic than others. Example statements that characterize this trait include “I have a very positive influence on others” and “I am generally the most understanding person.” It's unfortunate how far I had to scroll down to see they are using a different definition of narcissism than one typically expects. I was either expecting either Narcissus "pop-culture" narcissism or the actual personality disorder.

rtkwe 6y ago
Yeah that's a pretty important distinction. Not shocking they're using a non-standard definition since it give them a baitier headline.
for_i_in_range 6y ago
Exactly. I’ve never observed a definition of narcissism that would label Mother Teresa and Gandhi narcissists.
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  Are they renowned for saying they were more empathetic or compassionate than others? It's likely true that they were, but that's not the same thing.
- axlee 6y ago
  Answering a high yes to "I have a very positive influence on others” and “I am generally the most understanding person.” are absolutely narcissist traits, even according to the "standard" definition. Those questions are about self-perception, not about actual assessment of their communal effects.
- WalterSear 6y ago
  You may want to read more about them: neither of them were the entirely wholesome people we were led to believe. Gandhi was so drunk on his conception of non-violent resistance that he urged the german jewish people to go willingly to the death camps. Mother Teresa was involved in numerous controversies. > "But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep." https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lsquo-the-jews-rsquo-by-gandhi https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lsquo-the-jews-rsquo-by... > The same paper claims that doctors found a shortage of care, food, and painkillers, although Teresa had raised millions of dollars. Slate also found that Teresa brought in tons of money, but her missionaries looked as bad when she founded them as they did after her death. (During her own illness, Teresa fled to California clinics, Slate reports.) The conditions in her missions were so dire, in fact, that they were once compared to photographs of "Nazi Germany's Bergen-Belsen concentration camp." https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvzebx/mother-teresa-was-kind-of-a-heartless-bitch https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvzebx/mother-teresa-was-kin...

javajosh 6y ago

If you interviewed body-builders about health and fitness, would you find them narcissistic if they say that they are physically superior to most people? Or a scientist who's spent her whole life studying, and who believes that their depth of knowledge is superior to most people? Not all claims of superiority are narcissistic. (Although I think society has rightly picked a convention where you're not really supposed to say such things about yourself, but rather wait for someone else to nominate you as superior in some narrowly defined way.) It is, in fact, possible to be truly superior in spiritual terms, but such people are usually identified by their demeanor and accomplishments more than their claims.

tartoran 6y ago
Id even go as far as looking at their acomplishments. If they say they’re superior but have nothing to show then it is possible we’re dealing with some form of narcissism. They may as well have acomplishments and be narcissistic. Narcissists don’t have passions. Some of them are incredibly smart but they learn things/have accomplishments solely for the world to be impressed by them. They do brag a lot. On the other hand really knowledgegable people are quite modest as they truly understand how little they know.
- javajosh 6y ago
  I think I understand sentence 2, but the meaning of 1 and 3 elude me! But I disagree with your last sentence, at least as a generalization. There are legitimately talented, accomplished, capable, and arrogant people all over the place! In fact I'd say a slight majority of talented people are arrogant (say, 60%). That said, there are pretenders who are arrogant without talent, and they "poison the well" for the 60%. I think this is especially a problem in software, because the field is still "pre-paradigmatic science" (in the Kuhn sense) which means, in part, that there is no great way to measure relative developer capability. The best you can do is examine their history of "finishing hard things" or "solving synthetically hard problems." How fast and well do you learn? What is your intuition about design, about code? Do you actually care about the structure of software enough to have opinions about it? The biggest problem we face is that the really good developers answer yes to the last question, but then are faced with the dilemma of being forced to dwell in an inferior technology space in order to make a living. Presumably a strong paradigm would reduce this error mode! If you had ideas around defining that paradigm for software applications, somewhere between the too-abstract Turing machine/Lambda Calculus and the too-concrete "everything is just a string of bits" mental models, would that make you narcissistic? Or just too ignorant to realize that "the best paradigm" is too subjective to define, or illusory, or already discovered (and ignored)? Was Lavoisier, and the other scientists that converted the practice of alchemy into the practice of chemistry narcissists because they competed with each other for recognition and fame?

bergstromm466 6y ago

Systemic fuckery (as well as capitalist alienation in general) cannot be overcome by individual will. Not by 'meditating' or whatever else. We do not choose to get cancer from living close to a place of industrial production (and the poluting toxins released fromt that). We do not choose to be born in marginalized communities. I hope we can become more aware that there our current system rewards Elites, and the existing propertied clasees. We are exploited by them. Nora Bateson writes beautifully about interdependence of systems and communal wealth in a post called "My Health Is Not My Own". "Vitality or life, is created through relationships that build relationships that build relationships and so on. Think of soil, and how soil becomes a forest or meadow where birds and insects find their homes, and where lovers walk hand in hand. The most important aspect of a healthy body, or healthy family or a healthy community is not the health of the individuals, but the the relationships between them. A family is several generations of relationships in multiple directions, within a culture, within history. The relationships matter and each communication within them also matter, this relational process is what life is made of. Beyond the din of people arguing about the binaries of incomplete research around masks, transmission, lockdowns and going back to how things were- beyond all of that mess… there is a meta message that has a nasty bite to it. The deeper disease, the one that many of us have been pointing to for decades, has shown its rash, again. The meta message is that the era of the 'individual' is going to be hard to get out of. There is something like an addiction taking place, and cold turkey is scary as hell. Going from individuality and personal freedoms to recognition of interdependency is an invitation for all the trickery of the addiction. What is more comfortable is to be selfish. So, the array of justifications not to change that individualistic image of self is fantastic. Have you ever had an addiction and heard yourself make contortions of logic to make it not-wrong to have one more cigarette, or just on the weekends, or to find that shred of research that proves that some people show no signs of illness from smoking? The acrobatics of addictive logistics are spectacular. The human mind has an unmatched capacity to reason that which is unreasonable. There is no lack of imagination, it is just placed toward the project of keeping the addictions in place, rather than living differently. The world of industry, distribution, banking, advertising, consuming — is what feels familiar, and even if it is killing us and the planet, it is what we know. The pull to return is strong. The meta message is that most of us are not habituated to recognize the health of others as our own health, and therefore to consider this interdependency is an unacceptable course of action. After all, what good will it do me? This is not how the soil builds richness. My health is not my own. My health is the whole community’s, it belongs to the elderly, the youth, and even to the biome of organisms that live in my body and in the soil. This, is the opposite of everything that the last centuries of manufacturing, education and politics have forged into societal infrastructure and even the making of identity. It is easier to identify myself by my profession, my address or my car than to recognize that I am a living system in relation to other living systems. I am not me, I am a vessel of the past and the future. In this moment what is asked of me is that I recognize the harms the systems of the past have wrought, and make radical changes so that the future is not burdened with the same destructiveness as the past." [1] Also the term Magical Voluntarism is relevant here: "The radical therapist David Smail argues that Margaret Thatcher's view that there's no such thing as society, only individuals and their families, finds "an unacknowledged echo in almost all approaches to therapy". Therapies such as cognitive behaviour therapy combine a focus on early life with the self-help doctrine that individuals can become masters of their own destiny. The idea is "with the expert help of your therapist or counsellor, you can change the world you are in the last analysis responsible for, so that it no longer cause you distress" – Smail calls this view "magical voluntarism". Depression is the shadow side of entrepreneurial culture, what happens when magical voluntarism confronts limited opportunities. As psychologist Oliver James put it in his book The Selfish Capitalist, "in the entrepreneurial fantasy society," we are taught "that only the affluent are winners and that access to the top is open to anyone willing to work hard enough, regardless of their familial, ethnic or social background – if you do not succeed, there is only one person to blame." It's high time that the blame was placed elsewhere. We need to reverse the privatisation of stress and recognise that mental health is a political issue." [2] [1] Nora Bateson, https://archive.is/n6gOj https://archive.is/n6gOj // https://norabateson.medium.com/my-health-is-not-my-own-ec824c463cb https://norabateson.medium.com/my-health-is-not-my-own-ec824... [2] Mark Fisher, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/mental-health-political-issue https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/mental...

hprotagonist 6y ago

it was said of abbot agatho that for three years he carried a stone in his mouth until he learned to be silent.

cs702 6y ago

There are many potential issues with this paper, starting with the fact that it redefines "narcissism" to suit its purposes... Nonetheless, this sentence in the abstract[a] really struck a chord with me: > Our results illustrate that the self‐enhancement motive is powerful and deeply ingrained so that it can hijack methods intended to transcend the ego and, instead, adopt them to its own service. [a] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2721 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2721

buffalobuffalo 6y ago

A large number of the people that participate in any activity do so in an attempt to feel better than others. Humans live in hierarchies. Trying to climb those hierarchies is in our genes.

jl2718 6y ago

I am really quite sick of this word.

Giorgi 6y ago

haha, most of users here will be pissed.

acephal 6y ago

This is also Joe Rogan and his "just eat mushrooms" ideology