4 ms·

My point is you didn’t make any argument that he was wrong, you suggested he was crazy because he reached a conclusion you didn’t like. Why would you do that?

staticman2 4y ago
I said I agreed with the people on the comment section in that blog, I didn't see the point in expanding on it since they already had, but I'd be happy to. A psychiatrist can only read a single person's mind, and that person is themself. He goes around constantly calling people narcissists. He doesn't use evidence based research. He doesn't follow the standards of his field. I recall an old blog post where he gives an example of how he believes the socialization of school children turns them into narcissists. He says, essentially, that if a kid tries to stop a bully from preying on others, and the teacher punishes both the kid and the bully for fighting, the kid learns not to care about other since he or she was punished for caring, and will learn to be a narcissist. (It's probably been a decade since I read this so I'll acknowledge it's possible my memory is a bit faulty, but I don't think the basic point of his body of work has been missed). Narcissism to him seems to be all encompassing. He sees it everywhere. This seems to be saying something unhealthy about him. There' a bit in the comic book Promethea, written by Alan Moore, where an angel says that demons aren't so bad. Confused, a human asks the angel why she would think that. Aren't Angels supposed to be enemies with demons? Aren't demons supposed to be wicked and disgusting? Paraphrasing from memory, the angel responds with, "We don't directly experience the world, we only experience a perception of the world in our own minds. I'm an angel. I see angels everywhere." It just seems to me someone constantly seeing narcissists everywhere is not in a healthy place. I'm not actually suggesting he's narcissist, I don't know what his problem is. This is just an opinion of a random layman. I have no idea who he is in real life and I don't care to know. I suppose it's possible that this anonymous author is a perfectly functional, happy adult who only writes like he's troubled, sort of like a happy-go-lucky Hollywood author writing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, I can only draw conclusions from the limited evidence I have that his writing doesn't seem to come from a healthy place.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  I don’t think him seeing narcissism everywhere implies that he’s projecting. Sure, maybe he is. Or maybe he’s making a genuine observation that has unpleasant ramifications. Maybe he has some hard won insight into humanity. Why can’t it be true? Also, making empirical observations and hypothesizing about their causes may not be standard, but that says nothing about their validity. Granted it’s not proof. I think your notion that this doesn’t come from a healthy place needs to be explored more.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    "Maybe he has some hard won insight into humanity." Why would we presume that? He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. That seems to open up the possibity that he's in cuckoo land, it's not like someone can correct a false notion of his by saying "No, actually I don't want my wife to be a sorority girl" they would just be in denial, right? Or not in touch with their subconscious desires? What system exists for a person who believes these notions to refine their views against the world around them? You can't correct them when they are wrong when they pronounce what you are thinking because they've already dismissed you as delusional about what is going on in your head. And if everyone is delusional to take him seriously we also have to posit by chance the universe made this one guy miraculously delusion free about what he is thinking and what we are thinking? Why would we assume that?
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      I agree that we don’t have the intellectual technology yet to prove or disprove these claims. But you can introspect, observe things about yourself and compare them with your theories. The fact that these things are hard to prove doesn’t make them wrong. > He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. What do you mean by this? Obviously humans are wrong about themselves and others all the time. I don’t see why you can’t know things about someone else that they don’t themselves know. I think if you actually read the book you would see that often what he’s doing is listening to what people say even more than they themselves are. > Why would we presume that? We shouldn’t, and I didn’t, but it’s just as possible as your belief that he’s crazy. We should think about what he said instead, and see if it makes sense.

staticman2 4y ago

I said I agreed with the people on the comment section in that blog, I didn't see the point in expanding on it since they already had, but I'd be happy to. A psychiatrist can only read a single person's mind, and that person is themself. He goes around constantly calling people narcissists. He doesn't use evidence based research. He doesn't follow the standards of his field. I recall an old blog post where he gives an example of how he believes the socialization of school children turns them into narcissists. He says, essentially, that if a kid tries to stop a bully from preying on others, and the teacher punishes both the kid and the bully for fighting, the kid learns not to care about other since he or she was punished for caring, and will learn to be a narcissist. (It's probably been a decade since I read this so I'll acknowledge it's possible my memory is a bit faulty, but I don't think the basic point of his body of work has been missed). Narcissism to him seems to be all encompassing. He sees it everywhere. This seems to be saying something unhealthy about him. There' a bit in the comic book Promethea, written by Alan Moore, where an angel says that demons aren't so bad. Confused, a human asks the angel why she would think that. Aren't Angels supposed to be enemies with demons? Aren't demons supposed to be wicked and disgusting? Paraphrasing from memory, the angel responds with, "We don't directly experience the world, we only experience a perception of the world in our own minds. I'm an angel. I see angels everywhere." It just seems to me someone constantly seeing narcissists everywhere is not in a healthy place. I'm not actually suggesting he's narcissist, I don't know what his problem is. This is just an opinion of a random layman. I have no idea who he is in real life and I don't care to know. I suppose it's possible that this anonymous author is a perfectly functional, happy adult who only writes like he's troubled, sort of like a happy-go-lucky Hollywood author writing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, I can only draw conclusions from the limited evidence I have that his writing doesn't seem to come from a healthy place.

philosopher1234 4y ago
I don’t think him seeing narcissism everywhere implies that he’s projecting. Sure, maybe he is. Or maybe he’s making a genuine observation that has unpleasant ramifications. Maybe he has some hard won insight into humanity. Why can’t it be true? Also, making empirical observations and hypothesizing about their causes may not be standard, but that says nothing about their validity. Granted it’s not proof. I think your notion that this doesn’t come from a healthy place needs to be explored more.
- staticman2 4y ago
  "Maybe he has some hard won insight into humanity." Why would we presume that? He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. That seems to open up the possibity that he's in cuckoo land, it's not like someone can correct a false notion of his by saying "No, actually I don't want my wife to be a sorority girl" they would just be in denial, right? Or not in touch with their subconscious desires? What system exists for a person who believes these notions to refine their views against the world around them? You can't correct them when they are wrong when they pronounce what you are thinking because they've already dismissed you as delusional about what is going on in your head. And if everyone is delusional to take him seriously we also have to posit by chance the universe made this one guy miraculously delusion free about what he is thinking and what we are thinking? Why would we assume that?
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    I agree that we don’t have the intellectual technology yet to prove or disprove these claims. But you can introspect, observe things about yourself and compare them with your theories. The fact that these things are hard to prove doesn’t make them wrong. > He obviously believes humans are not a reliable source of information as to what they are thinking, so like Freud he knows humans better than they know himself. What do you mean by this? Obviously humans are wrong about themselves and others all the time. I don’t see why you can’t know things about someone else that they don’t themselves know. I think if you actually read the book you would see that often what he’s doing is listening to what people say even more than they themselves are. > Why would we presume that? We shouldn’t, and I didn’t, but it’s just as possible as your belief that he’s crazy. We should think about what he said instead, and see if it makes sense.