Category Archives: Personality

High Narcissism (High Self-Esteem), Solipsism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Differential Diagnosis

Trash: NPD is sort of like Attention Deficit Disorder. The terminology is getting tossed around a great deal but I think a vast, vast number of people would fit its criteria.

No, Narcissistic Personality Disorder or NPD has very precise criteria, but clinicians do screw it up. I really doubt if true NPD is overdiagnosed. It is not an extremely common disorder. However, much has been written about how we are becoming more narcissistic as a society. That may be true, but that doesn’t mean we are in an NPD epidemic.

My last therapist told me I was a narcissist – not NPD but narcissistic traits. This took me aback because I am not real fond of these types. They really rub me the wrong way and mostly they are just too much. I have one in my family and he has been known on many occasions to not be a very unpleasant person. There is a real ugly and nasty side to this disorder when it gets bad. They truly do not care about you, are not interested in you at all, and they can be very mean and cruel. Not that they care about that either. Of course they are also utterly clueless.

My best therapist has told me that I am not a narcissist. He said I am self-centered, but that’s more of a case of being all wrapped up in my own stuff to think about others much rather than being selfish. It’s related to my OCD and a lot of OCD’ers are pretty much all wrapped up in their own stuff. This is often confused with narcissism, but it’s not the same thing. It’s more like solipsism. I admit I am pretty solipsistic. It’s not that I don’t care about others. I do, but I am so wrapped up in myself all the time that I do not have a lot of energy left over for others.

He also told me that I have high self esteem. This could also be called high narcissism if you believe that narcissism = self-esteem. In that case, low narcissism would be low self-esteem. However, high narcissism in the sense of high self esteem, though it may seem a bit much, and such folks are often conceited, vain and egotistical, is considered healthy in that generally empathy is fairly well preserved. It is typically considered to be a sign of good mental health. Personally, I think everyone should have high narcissism or high self esteem. Why not? What’s wrong with everyone thinking they are great? How is that bad?

The problem is that people keep going beyond high narcissism all the way into pathological narcissism or NPD. The problem here is that now self esteem has gone so high that as it gets higher and higher, one cares less and less about and has less and less empathy for others. To put it briefly, at some point, the more you love yourself, the less you love others. I am not sure why that is, but perhaps there is only so much love available in a human.

Also at some point, self esteem gets so high that you feel better than or superior to others. This tends to coincide with low empathy. I don’t claim to fully understand narcissism as it is an extremely complex subject. I have been studying it deeply for over a decade now, and it still doesn’t really make complete sense to me, but that’s typical of a lot of mental issues. I’ve also been studying sociopaths for most of my life, and they still don’t make sense to me. I can’t for the life of me see how anyone could be like that. To me they don’t make sense.


Filed under Anxiety Disorders, Mental Illness, Narcissism, Narcissistic, OCD, Personality, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology

Psychologists Say Trump Is Severely Mentally Ill

Well, we knew that.

The particular illness he has s called Malignant Narcissism. Although it is not in the DSM and has never even been proposed, it has a theoretical long history in psychiatry. Karen Horney did some of the best early descriptive work on it, and Otto Kernberg added to that with a superb monograph in 1984. Unfortunately, most of the writing about this disorder is coming out of the psychoanalytic community, where dubious theory is common.

Think of narcissism as self-esteem. They are the same thing, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Almost all human beings are narcissistic, and narcissism is an essential part of the makeup of any healthy human. However, as with most things, even water, you can have too much of a good thing.

Narcissism, like most things in abnormal psychology (or for that matter, on Earth), exists on a continuum.

At the far left, we have low narcissism, which could be seen as low self-esteem. This is not a good condition, but it is very hard to fix once it gets set in.

Healthy narcissism is the sort of thing that most people have.

High narcissism is better seen as high self-esteem and it is generally regarded as a sign of good mental health. Some people might find these people a bit too much, and some people refer to them as vain, conceited, or self-impressed. At worst, they can be arrogant, condescending, and cocky and they can wear out their welcome after a bit. However, if the downside of the feeling (arrogance, condescension and cockiness) are played down, high self-esteem does not generally get too much in the way of functioning well as a human being. In addition, many of these people retain a lot of empathy for others,  but as they tend towards arrogance and cockiness, they can start to seem unempathetic.

Beyond that, we move into the toxic zone of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which may also exist on a continuum of mild NPD, moderate NPD and serious NPD. If you told the first two that they had NPD, they would laugh in your face and turn it into an attack on you. The latter may well recognize that they have this condition, but they don’t care that they do, or else they like it.

Beyond NPD, we move into the area of Malignant Narcissism. This is a poorly understood construct, but I believe that it does exist and should be in the DSM. This could be seen as narcissism heading off into psychopathy. They are sometimes called Narcissistic Sociopaths.

A lot of people think that narcissism and psychopathy are on the same spectrum , as the sociopath is the ultimate narcissist. In a way he is, but it is in an odd way. To the narcissist, other humans exist, but he just doesn’t care about them.

For the sociopath, in a sense, the sociopath is the only person in the whole world. Not only does the world revolve around them but even worse, the world is them and they are the world. Other humans don’t exist as such. They exist in a way, but they are not really human. Instead, other humans are like the hammers and screwdrivers in your tool chest. Sure, they come in handy sometimes, but they’re not exactly alive. And I can take that hammer or screwdriver and do whatever I want to with it. I can throw it away, set it on fire, throw it in a river, or smash it to pieces. Which is about how a sociopath sees you – as a handy tool that is about as alive as a rock which can be destroyed or tossed aside if he desires to without any more of a thought as you would give to tossing away any nonliving thing.

Here is a good schematic on the Narcissistic continuum:

Low Narcissism (Low Self Esteem) -> Healthy Narcissism -> High Narcissism (High Self Esteem) -> Mild Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) – Moderate NPD – Serious NPD -> Malignant Narcissism -> Various degrees of sociopathy and psychopathy ranging from 20-40 on Hare’s Psychopathy Scale

They kept saying Trump had NPD, but I always wondered about that. I have met a few NPD’s in my life, and I have known at least one quite well. Sure, they are insufferable, and they can be serious jerks, but they didn’t seem to have the same level of crazy as Trump. I kept thinking, “Well, severe NPD is a pretty nasty illness,and they can seem pretty nuts,” but I was unsure about that statement.

And now it all makes sense. The reason he seemed so extreme for an NPD is because he is not an NPD at all.

Instead, he is something considerably worse, a Malignant Narcissist. It is separate disorder from NPD, past NPD on the road to sociopathy. But I do not understand this illness well, and it has never been in the DSM, though it ought to be.

NPD’s can definitely be dangerous, but in general they are too obsessed with their wonderful greatness and their superb lives to commit serious violence and risk imprisonment. They also might not want to hurt their glorious public image.

The one thing you need to know about Malignant Narcissists is that they are dangerous. Now that doesn’t mean that they are ever going to do anything truly bad, and they may go through their whole lives without spending an hour in jail. But the potential for some serious bad behavior all the way up to serial murder is there.

To give you an example of how dangerous a Malignant Narcissist can be, Ted Bundy was a malignant narcissist.


Filed under Mental Illness, Narcissism, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Republicans, Serial Killers, Sociopathy, US Politics

Please Don’t Be an Insufferable Ass

Are you insufferable, Bob ?

Santoculto perfectly fit this definition.

I agree that Santoculto could definitely be an insufferable ass. But he also had some nice, concise and brilliant views on a lot of things, particularly human psychology.

Recall that he is gay. Gay Politics won’t let us talk about this, but many gay men are narcissistic. That is one of the reasons they used to think it is a mental illness. No one quite knows why they are like that. If you think about the very shallow gay male scene in the US with its emphasis like good looks, youth, polymorphous perversion, out of control promiscuity, endless brief, near anonymous and loveless relationships, you can see how it would create a lot of narcissists. Of course it’s horribly homophobic to bring this up,  so I guess I will be a big fat homophobe and share this with you all right now.

The gay novelist John Rechy is profoundly narcissistic.

Novelists Jerzy Kozhinski and Philip Roth are notoriously narcissistic. Kozhinski actually made a vast phony history for himself full of many things that never happened. He didn’t get called out on it for a long time, and when he finally was, he simply denied it. His books are good, but he is a bit of a literary fraud as he plagiarized and made up lies about his life. In fact, his entire life could be accurately described as a gigantic fraud.

VS Naipaul in a recent biography comes across extremely narcissistic and it is generally agreed that he was a perfectly awful person.

Kiss frontman Gene Simmons is one of the most insufferable narcissistic asses in all rock and roll, and he has a lot of competition. He is probably one of the most hated people in rock music and for very good reason. Salvador Dali was extremely narcissistic, but he was so weird that it never bothered anyone. Pablo Picasso was a huge asshole, whether he was a narcissist I am not sure, but he probably was. He had a massive ego and treated a lot of his female models like crap. He had a habit of screwing his young female models, making babies with them and abandoning the girl. He did this over and over. He was a great painter, but a lot of people who knew him well said he was an awful human being.

Many actors are narcissistic. If you think about it all of the performing arts, especially film, lend themselves to narcissism. They attract narcissists and then the nature of being a performer on a stage of some sort in and of itself drives a lot more narcissism. If they get famous, that drives even more narcissism. At some point it is probably an endless feedback loop. My mother said all actors are narcissists and she said you have to be narcissistic to be an actor. There is an old joke where the journalist has been interviewing the actor. It has gone on for 45 minutes of the actor going and on about himself enjoying the sound of his own voice. At some point, he realizes his violation and tries to rectify it.

After 45 minutes:

“But anyway, enough about me. Let’s talk about you now. What did you think of my latest movie?”

Get it?

Am I insufferable? God no! I am not an NPD! I don’t even think I am all that narcissistic. I cannot stand pathological narcissists. The idea that I might be one of these people I hate so much pisses me off. I have a not of problems, but that ain’t one of them. Nobody calls me that. I used to get called arrogant, but I have been working on that one really hard. I have to work on that a part of the time when I am around people, but I cannot manage it pretty well by faking it and getting underneath people.

I do not have a lot of disdain for the people I meet in day to day stuff. Most of them seem like decent enough people even if I do not wish to make personal friends of them. There are some lowlife ghetto types around here who I dislike, but they deserve to be hated, and I do not waste time thinking about them anyway.

I have been called a lot of things, but insufferable is not one of them. However, people do remark that I have a big ego, that I have have some egotism, etc. I have had some complaints that I am vain, conceited, self-impressed, etc., but that is just a vibe you will get from my mind. You will not find me talking like that because I am not a braggart and a showoff and I hate people like that. If I do have some impressive accomplishment I wish to divulge, I have the art of false modesty down to a T, so I can relate things that would normally seem like bragging, but nobody gets upset because it seems like I am embarrassed or ashamed of this accomplishment of mine. It’s an act, but so what?

I do not care if people dislike the vain, conceited, self-impressed vibes I give off. As far as I am concerned, they should feel that way too! Everyone should think they’re great! Start being great today! What are you waiting for?

I hate insufferable people. They are often quite impressed with the sound of their own voices too and they can be downright soporific when they go on one of their endless narcissistic monologues. It’s all just too much, the whole thing. It’s way over the top and typically even offensive. You often want to leave the room when they are going on and on. Of course they cannot see anything wrong with their behavior and they will barely even notice if you walk out. You’re not part of the Me Show anyway. You’re the audience. Some of the audience is leaving before the performance is over. No big, this happens all the time. They have for all intents and purposes little to no insight into their behavior.

I think narcissism is a tendency a lot of us have to watch out for. Just go look at some pathological narcissists, figure out why you can’t stand them and use that as a model for how not to be. Watch yourself on a regular basis to make sure you are not falling into that lousy mindset. Narcissists suck, and a lot of people hate them for good reason. Do you want to suck? Do you want to be widely hated for being an insufferable ass? That’s terrible! I would be ashamed and embarrassed if I acted like that.


Filed under Art, Celebrities, Cinema, Homosexuality, Literature, Music, Narcissism, Novel, Personality, Psychology, Rock, Sex

Egotism Versus Narcissism

Apparently I have some narcissistic traits according to a therapist. But I have seen a lot of these guys, and he is the only one who ever brought it up, so I do wonder.

Another therapist called it egotism, implied that he was that way too, and said, “So what? So you have some egotism? What’s wrong with that?”

I would agree with this. I have big ego. So what? What of it? Look around you at important people. Quite a few of them have huge egos. It goes with the territory. Now you can also become a huge asshole if you have a big ego, but it is not necessary by any means. My egotism doesn’t seem to bother anyone very much.

In fact, I note that a lot of other men feel this way too. I am not particularly arrogant, but it is something I have to work at constantly. Because I have tendencies this way, I often have to manipulate my mind when I am around certain people. I tell myself lies like, “I am a worm. I am nothing. I am zero. This person is so superior to me. I am ashamed of myself.” I don’t really believe any of that, but I can play that role if I need to and brainwash my mind into thinking it is true for a bit. You would think that people would regard a person who thinks this way as disgusting and pitiful, but possibly because I do not really believe the lie I am telling myself, apparently it just comes across and nice and friendly and not pitiful and self-hating.

When I am not doing that, I have my normal egotism thing going, which just means that I like to have a high opinion of myself. I have no idea why this is pathological, and I believe everyone should have high self-esteem. Sure it runs into arrogance, but you can control that if you try. I figure I’m great. What’s wrong with that. Everyone should think they are great. That’s how I see it.

Of course there’s no evidence that I am great, and in fact, there is a lot of evidence that the opposite is probably true, but so what?

Playing roles in life is one thing (you can technically play all sorts of different roles in life as much as the finest character actors if you work yourself into it. Actually I advise it because by playing all sorts of different roles ion life you will realize that there is no real you, there is no true self, and there’s no need to figure out who you are because its constructed and you can deconstruct it or construct new selves any old time you want. People get way too trapped up in the somewhat nonsensical belief in “being yourself” or “finding the true you,” or “figuring out who you are.” To some degree it is as silly endeavor.

Anyway when I am doing my egotist thing, I notice a lot of men are very friendly to me, and they go into this egotist mode themselves where they seem to be communicating, “Hey, I have a high opinion of myself too! I see you’re great. So I am I! We’re both great, you and me.” If high self-esteem only provokes others into a similar high self-esteem mode, I fail to see the problem.

On the other hand, narcissism is a bit like a box of matches. Sure it can be very useful in life, but it can also cause you all sorts of problems if you get careless or carried away with it. You can even burn the whole house down.

Taoism applies here. The Middle Way is moderation in all things, and I would add narcissism to that list.


Filed under Narcissism, Personality, Philosophy, Psychology

No, Pathological Narcissism Is Not OK

Even water can kill you if you drink too much of it, and at some point, the normal narcissism continuum that most of if not all humans are on gets to be too much of a good thing, and you are going into pathological narcissism. Usually this is heading towards Narcissistic Personality Disorder or something close to that.

Pathological narcissists are not acceptable. They are not ok. They are not all right. They don’t live longer than others. They’re not happier or healthier than others.

Instead of being ok, the truth is that they are simply ill. It’s not normal for a human being to be that way, as it clashes badly with smooth social and occupational functions. It’s a maladaptive disorder because it turns you into the biggest asshole on the planet, and understandably causes a lot of people to dislike you just about everywhere you go.

People with NPD are generally quite damaging. They tend to damage or harm most of the people they are in relationships with. Why? Because that’s just what they do. They can’t really do anything else. Of course they have no insight, and most are utterly incurable. The longer it goes on, the worse they get, and by the time they are in their 40’s or 50’s, almost all of them are completely hopeless and often profoundly ill cases.

As you might expect, therapy with NPD’s is typically a monumental waste of time and often quite unpleasant for the therapist to boot.


Filed under Mental Illness, Narcissism, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy

Narcissistic Personality Disorder In Therapy: A Pointless and Unpleasant Endeavor

Like everyone on Axis 2, the person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder thinks they are fine. Obviously the problem is everybody else. They will just go through their whole life blaming other people. That’s how they ride.

They rarely if ever show up for therapy, and when they do, it is often at the behest of others who are forcing them into therapy because the narcissists is driving these people insane and ruining their lives. Once in therapy, the narcissist plays games, engages in a boatload of manipulation, does no work on themselves because after all there is nothing to be done, and often engages in a lot of ego and narcissistic games with the therapist, including insulting the therapist, thinking he is better than the therapist and telling him so, deciding that the therapist is a lousy therapist, etc.

If you tell them they are narcissists, will generally either reject the diagnosis, ignore it, blow it off with some humorous blustery remark, decide that psychiatry is a pseudoscience, or say, “So what? I like being this way.”

They might take it as an insult, but they usually will not react aggressively. Instead you will see a spark of recognition and alarm in their eyes. The narcissist is not an idiot. Many are highly intelligent and in fact, sadly it goes with the territory. At some level, most if not all narcissists now what is going on. The problems is they don’t care, or they like to be this way.

If you keep reminding the narcissist of what he is, he will stop being flippant about it and start getting aggressive. Expect dirty fighting, devious and crafty manipulation, nasty insults, or walking out of the room. Keep it up, and the narcissist will just end the relationship. The narcissist is not going to sit there and let you call him a narcissist all day. He’s too good for such degrading treatment. If he cannot do that, at some point, he will probably create a nuclear explosion of a fight and try to terrorize you into not bringing up the subject again.

Generally speaking, they are a complete waste of time in the office, therapy with them is often quite unpleasant, and nothing gets done anyway. It’s not uncommon for the therapist to simply fire the narcissist as client, informing him that nothing is getting done. This a relief to the narcissist, as now he has an excuse to quit the degrading therapy. Technically this is client abandonment and an ethics violation, but the decision is always mutual, and nothing was getting done anyway, so why prolong the pointless endeavor?

Theoretically, the narcissist can be cured. Since lions cannot change into tigers, all we can do with personality disorders is turn the bad side of a basic personality type into the good side of that type. The good side of Narcissistic Personality is Confident Personality. These people can be a bit much too, but they are healthy enough that they can function quite well especially in a hyper-competitive capitalist society like ours. The goal of therapy with an NPD is to turn them into a Confident Personality. But good luck with that.

There is so much more to talk about with narcissism and NPD, but let’s leave that for another day.


Filed under Ethics, Mental Illness, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy

“‘Leaders’ and ‘Followers’ among Blacks,” by Phil

In my observations as both a researcher of native Blacks during the time periods of exploration and colonization as well as being a Black individual, I’ve happened to find a similar variation in terms of personality of “leaders” and “followers” when it comes to conformity amongst Blacks.

First, I will start with my thesis supported by my personal anecdotes, compare that with the anecdotes from my research on the pattern within a native environment, then state my concluding thoughts in the qualities of a “Leader” vs a “ Follower” in Black population.

Referring back to a previous article of my where I commented “I didn’t think I was Black,” I meant that I didn’t conform to Black groups or say common Black interest in way of social trends. With that said, while I haven’t met too many Blacks like me, I did notice considerable variation in personalities. Also, in addition, I will describe them in terms of phenotypes to guesstimate their ancestry ratios due to White ancestry possibly being a co-hypothesis in my thesis. Now, some will mention in the case of the Tutsis, that skin color alone isn’t very accurate in terms of determining ancestry. I agree, for my studies have shown that adding the variable of facial features or phenotype will reflect better results.

Number One would be a junior who I’ve met this year in my AP Calculus class named Cole. Cole, in terms of phenotypes, seemed more or less as admixed as I am. His eyes were seemed to have a similar distance from each other, though his lips weren’t as big as mine. His skin hue was overall browner (his being around “Earth 1,” and mine being closer to “Clay 2-3”) than mine, and our jaws were somewhat equally medium prognathous. Based on his head, he didn’t seem to have a receding forehead like other Blacks, which will be shown in other subjects.

In terms of personality and classwork, he was more industrious, calmer, and attentive. Overall, despite not really showing intellectual introvert characteristics like me, he was a better student than I was, thus is why he is still in the class, and I decided to leave. It wasn’t that I couldn’t understand the material, but for me I worked better with word problems because there was more to analyze, and there was a scenario for me to apply. Simple “solve” problems were too boring, and sadly, I became idle in my work.

Number Two will be a 2nd semester Medical Terminology classmate named Tyquan. He was overall darker and more prognathous than or Cole or I are and darker in hue (Earth 3), As far as his personality goes, he is, like Cole, calmer than me and overall a nice guy. His intellectual faculties didn’t come off as very strong, though he did seem like the type who would be obedient towards extra effort.

Number Three will be a first semester AP English student who I sadly didn’t catch the name of. Overall, he seemed as pure as a Black person gets in this country. He resembled a villager in many respects in terms of facial features, muscularity, and skin tone (about Earth 4) and was somewhat shorter than me. He, however, was not only calm like the others but particularly sweet in his manner and speech.

Number Four will be a General Biology classmate named Nehemiah. He had a similar Black phenotype to Tyquan or Number Three, third, yet his head and face were overall taller than theirs. Concerning hue, he was about an Earth 4 or 5. He was an extrovert, and thus was more disruptive and less calm than I am, though if were to compare us on aggressiveness, he was still aggressive than I am.

Number Five will be a boy named Marcus. In appearance he was similar to the previous subjects, particularly Tyquan, although he was notably overweight, and his skin seemed to be an Earth 6. In terms of personality, he projected more extroversion than Nehemiah, though he differed in lacked inhibition, being loud and less obedient. But he had the same humorous character as like Nehemiah.

Now we will move to a phenomenon taking place with West African Natives.

See here.

Here are details of personalities of various slaves, in particular some of whom were noted to have a decent temper.

As far as these types reacting to conformity, here’s what I found.

In the scope of cannibalism, being described as a major vice in the Calabar at the time, one man described his servant as of Eboe (being the slang for Calabar at the time, where true Ibo country was more to the west) origin, and describing the servant’s shame when he admitted to eating flesh during a cannibalistic ceremony.

Another one of similar origin wasn’t as embarrassed in doing this, for he explained that his tribe only did it to war enemies, and when asked, he said he wouldn’t eat his “Massa,” but he would eat his Master’s enemies. John Baker’s Race even shows near-individualist behavior in the Azande of Central Africa, a cannibal group of much fame at the time, where he mentions another man who refused to take part in the practice.

As far as I could tell, these types would meet either of two fates, being successful through conformity, or falling victim of beatings or even slavery due to their gentle nature.

The overall contrast between the Leaders and the Followers in these works seemed to be that the Followers were overall more gentle, sharing similar vices as the other Blacks but on a lesser scale. I don’t think I need to explain who the “Leaders” were. They were the main source of any mayhem or trouble. The Followers, though not all true individualists, were more likely to follow gruesome or horrific customs in lockstep fashion rather than actually embody the nature of them as the Leaders did.

This observation may tie into Robert’s posts about where line between the where the Ghetto Black begins and the “Good Blacks” ends and vice versa, but once we get to a subject like Marcus or perhaps Nehemiah, things get Fuzzy.


Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Central Africa, Cultural, Guest Posts, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, West Africa

Aryan Invasion Again and Why Narcissism Is the Core Indian Personality

Nelly (note fake British female name) an Indian nationalist, writes:

I personally find it so funny that so many people hold onto the Aryan Invasion theory with such tenacity. This theory was made popular by Hitler, which is really funny because he was also the same person who said that the superior people were those with blonde hair and blue eyes, and also went around claiming that Jewish people were evil and should be exterminated.

Today, the majority of people know that those with blonde hair and blue eyes are not superior to any other people nor are Jewish people evil and should be eliminated. That being said, why do so many people still believe the Aryan invasion theory even though it came from a man who did nothing but spread lies in an effort to brainwash people? Why are you guys so selective in what you want to believe as being true? Why does Hitler’s credibility suddenly increase for the entire Aryan theory?

I don’t usually get involved in these debates because I realize that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and I respect that. But, there is a difference between what is an opinion and what is a fact. And the fact is that the word “Arya” is Sanskrit for “noble.”

Max Mueller, who came up with the idea of two Aryan races, used this discovery as a means of showing the common ancestry between the Indians and Europeans, not as a form of racism (Esleben, 2008, F. Max Müller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas (1888), Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2004, p.120; Dorothy Matilda Figueira, Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorizing Authority Through Myths of Identity, SUNY Press, 2002, p.45).

There is also a mountain of evidence that debunks the idea of there ever having been an invasion. Archeologists and researchers have never found any indication that an invasion occurred as the skeletons discovered never suggested that an invasion ever occurred  (Gregory L. Possehl, 2002, The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, Rowman Altamira, p. 238, ISBN 9780759101722).

The majority of Western scholars don’t refer to it as an “invasion” because they are educated enough to know that it isn’t. Those who still call it an invasion are not viewed as being credible by the rest of Western scholars, but are rather seen as racist. (Witzel, Michael, 2005, “Indocentrism”, in Bryant, Edwin; Patton, Laurie L., The Indo-Aryan Controversy. Evidence and Inference in Indian History (PDF), Routledge).

Again, I’m not expressing any opinions in the last three paragraphs. I’m literally just stating facts. That is, information that has been proven to be true by people who are experts in this topic. So, if you choose to attack me, then I don’t know what to say except go hash it out with the experts who, after years and years of research, came up with these theories instead of me.

My remarks: The Aryan Invasion Theory was not created by Hitler. The Indians called themselves Aryans. They didn’t need Mueller or Hitler to make it up. Iran means “Aryan.”

Almost all Western scholars agree that the theory is true. Only a few crackpots and nuts disagree, and they are very isolated and cannot even publish in peer reviewed journals because their theories are so antiscientific. It is not a fringe theory. It is cutting-edge modern social science.

Further, I believe that there is excellent evidence of an actual Aryan Invasion that resulted in a vicious war that left many dead and entire cities in the Indus Valley razed to the ground.

And you won’t get called racist for calling it the Aryan Invasion Theory either. You might be called that by some idiot Indian, but who cares what Indians think about this or much of anything really?

This response is also interesting.

First of all, in order to show how well read they are, this Indian nationalist peppers her comment with a lot of nice references. I admit that the references are nicely done, and I commend the commenter for her scholarship. However, I must painfully point out to this apparently blind commenter that every single one of those quotes that she quoted actually supports the Aryan Invasion Theory instead of opposing it. So her references do not support her thesis; instead they disprove it!

I see so many Indian nationalists and Hindutvadis come here adopting European-sounding names, both first names and surnames.

We even had an extreme Indian nationalist here posting under “Snow is fun.” Snow is white. It’s white and cold, and there’s not much of it in most of inhabited India. To me, giving himself that name meant that he secretly wanted to be Scandinavian. And in fact, he was an Indian expat posting from Sweden.

Others post under names like “Arya” and then proceed to rip the Aryan invasion theory to shreds. And note how many of the wildest Indian nationalists have long bailed out of Shithole India for the hated White Man’s Land, where they paradoxically live so much better than they do in glorious Bharat Mata.

They hate Whites, but they disguise their identities under White first names and last names.

They hate Whites and consider them inferior to superior Indians, yet they left superior India for inferior White man land where they somehow live much better than in Mother India.

They call themselves Arya yet viciously attack the Aryan Invasion Theory.

They hate Whites but post from Sweden.

They hate Whites but call themselves Arya.

They hate Whites but come from a society that worships White skin like a God.

They hate Whites but give themselves names describing white things like snow that are only found in cold climates were Whites are common.

They hate Whites but call themselves “Snow is fun,” which to me means “I love Whiteness.”

In other words, almost all of these Indian nationalists are absolutely crazy. The cognitive dissonance here would deafen you.

Furthermore, obvious psychological complexes such as inferiority complex, envy, reaction formation, projection, denial, narcissism, false confidence, etc. are painfully evident here. The “Indian complex” seems to be characterized by hatred and envy for their “inferiors” who they secretly ape, emulate and live among. The painful recognition that their “inferiors” are actually superior to their falsely “superior” selves is blatantly on display.

Hatred, envy, false and fragile overconfidence, an inferiority complex and especially the subconscious knowledge that their “inferior” rival is actually better than their “superior” selves and the resulting shame and rage that this engenders is almost a textbook definition of the narcissist.

I suggest that narcissism is the base personality of many Indians, especially the nationalists, ultranationalists and Hindutvadis.


Filed under Asia, Asian, East Indians, Hinduism, History, India, Narcissism, Nationalism, Personality, Political Science, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, South Asia, South Asians, Ultranationalism, Whites

In Praise of Eccentricity

Found on the Net:

Weeks’ aim is to encourage the acceptance and cultivation of eccentricity in society, he said, and where necessary, he also hopes to familiarize mental health workers with eccentricity as a condition distinct from mental illness. This new understanding, he believes, will prevent patients from being wrongfully committed to mental hospitals when they are simply eccentric (an infrequent but not unheard-of scenario, Weeks said).

While eccentrics may exhibit one or two symptoms that are consistent with mental illness, they retain a hold on reality and have insight into their own behavior, he said. The psychologist has identified 20 traits indicating that a person may be eccentric.

A much-needed turnaround. Ever read the psychiatric literature, especially the older stuff from say the 1930’s? I am reading some right now. Check out the case studies. Damn those guys had some rigid ideas about how a healthy person should live their life. I think the mental health field needs to get away from microscopically examining everyone to look for hidden signs of maladaptive or unhealthy behavior, poor adjustment, oddness, or just not doing what you’re supposed to do, whatever the Hell that might be.

We should be looking at people for signs of healthy and adaptive behavior, good adjustment at least in some areas and and overall functionality. If can function pretty well, you can’t be all that nuts. Wouldn’t that be cool? Instead of getting out the DSM whenever anyone shows up, we should have a Mental Health Manual where we go down and check lists of healthy and adaptive behaviors, decent adjustment and especially ability to function decently in society. We could give people mental health diagnoses instead of mental illness diagnoses. That would be so boss!

Eccentricity means different things. If a Normie ever calls you eccentric, watch out. They will say it as they shake their head fatalistically or frown dismissively.

They mean you are nuts, and they think that sucks. And that you suck, sort of.

I am not sure if they mean you are really nuts. Normies aren’t all idiots. Normies are assholes, but they’re not necessarily dumb. They might mean that you are not nuts enough to be seriously crazy, and you might still be able to function pretty well in some areas, but you’re definitely not normal at all. You’re weird. You’re odd. You’re strange. And there’s nothing a Normie hates worse.

If any Normie ever insults you like that, just end the damn friendship right there. I am serious. They’re never going to like you. Not ever. It’s dead, Jim. Sure, you can stay friends with them, but they will be frenemies, and the friendship will suck. I have had scores of sucky friendships. The Hell with it. I’d rather be alone. At least when I’m alone, I’m hanging around with someone who likes me.

There are other people who are ok with eccentricity, and they may even cultivate it themselves. I have had some girlfriends tell me that I’m eccentric, but they were crazy in love with me at the time, so it wasn’t an insult. Usually someone who doesn’t mind your eccentricity is at least a little that way themselves. They are often in the arts somehow – artists, writers, dancers, musicians, actors – if only as fans, hangers on or hobbyists. In the arts, eccentricity is often a cultivated and desired state. When an artist calls you eccentric, that’s probably a compliment!

Anyway, I would like to see more tolerance for eccentricity in society and I hope people would quit calling eccentrics crazy. I know they won’t. but one can always hope. And of course clinicians should learn what’s non-pathological eccentricity and what’s pathological mental disorder. And if you’re eccentric, and you can’t seem to figure out how to not be eccentric no matter how hard you try (my boat), you really need to embrace it and quit beating yourself up. Quit calling yourself weird, nuts, crazy, strange, odd or disturbed. You’re none of those things. Accept your eccentricity as you accept any other things about yourself and embrace and incorporate it into your identity in a positive way.

1 Comment

Filed under Mental Illness, Personality, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy

Another Way of Looking at IQ: Extra-IQ Factors

RL: Incidentally, two of the brightest commenters on my blog had IQ’s of 113 and 117. The 117 IQ guy was fantastic at philosophy and other forms of abstract thinking. The other fellow was into genetics and anthropology, but he thought in much the same way. A few of these types are so bright that you almost think that their score is wrong. I am not sure what is going on except maybe they are working their brains extra hard, or they have filled their brains up with all sorts of goodies.

Oops I did it again: Myers-Briggs (Jungian) type, life experiences, economic status, degree of neuroticism (“Work their wits hard”), the brain faculty we call “sensitivity”, the other we call “fantasy”, all are factors.

This is so correct. Jim Flynn wrote a book the premise of which was something like “factors above and beyond IQ.” He showed how 1st and 2nd Generation Northeast Asians in the US (mostly Japanese and Chinese) were often working at jobs up that usually required IQ’s 20 points above their level. In other words, a 100 IQ Japanese-American would be functioning on the job at the same level as a typical 120 IQ ordinary American. In other words, the NE Asians might have an IQ of 100, but on his on the job performance was the same as someone with a 120 IQ.

Flynn called these “extra-IQ factors.” In other words, on the job, IQ isn’t everything. I forget what the extra-IQ factors were but they seemed to be things like punctuality, responsibility, resilience, psychological stability, regular attendance, studiousness, reliability, seriousness, conscientiousness, hard working nature, and stick-to-it-iveness or what some are now calling “grit” which boils down to “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” or continuing to hammer away at a problem even after repeated failure – not giving up.

So you see there are personality factors that you can add to your IQ score so you perform at a higher level than your IQ would predict.

I was thinking of this in terms of Blacks, that maybe Blacks could cultivate some extra-IQ factors that would allow them to overcome some of their disadvantage due to lower average IQ. If an 85 IQ Black person could function on the job at the same level as we expect a 105 IQ person to perform at, I think the position of Blacks in the US could improve a lot. Unfortunately the wort of things that were helping the NE Asians were sort of “nerd factors, square factors, uptight factors” that Blacks just don’t seem to do well in, mostly because they look down on this sort of excessive seriousness.

Nevertheless, I am open to the idea of harnessing extra-IQ factors in Blacks to help them to perform better in school and work. Harnessing what seems to be their innate social skills and extroversion might be one of these things.

Myers-Briggs or Jungian personality type: Yes, certain personality types might help one perform above their IQ level.

Life experiences: Correct. Certain types of life experiences and lessons learned and skills gained from them could help push you above your IQ level.

Economic status: Yes, a higher economic status might help you to perform above your IQ level.

Degree of neuroticism or working their wits hard: Correct. Someone who pushes their brain into overdrive and characteristically pushes their mind and intellect to its limits in an almost challenge-testing near-athletic competitive manner could surely perform above their IQ level. I think I have seen some examples of this in my life.

Sensitivity as a brain factor: I could see how this would help you perform above your IQ level, but I am wondering just what this factor is.

Fantasy as a brain factor: If this means something like creativeness or open mindedness or the tendency to think outside the box, I could see how this would help you.


Filed under Asians, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Intelligence, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity