Explaining narcissism

I have already written on narcissism a few times and have noted some versions of what it is and how people get like that. Is there something that turns a person into a narcissist?

There are few attempts to answer that out there but all are highly theoretical with very little objective research supporting the explanations. The explanations sometimes reflect clinical experience but inferences from clinical experience are inevitably subjective and incapable of proving anything. It should be noted that even Freud was not satisfied with the explanation he offered for its origin.

The big problem with all the theories is that narcissism does not really exist as a single coherent syndrome. The two recurrent themes in theories about narcissism are an inflated sense of self-esteem and a feeling of insecurity about one's own worth and competence. For short, the two traits are grandiosity and vulnerability. And the basic claim of narcissism theories is that the two traits belong together in some way.

But they do not. The survey research tells us that the two traits are NOT correlated. People with grandiose feelings about themselves MAY also have feeling of vulnerability but that is not automatically so. There are many grandiose people who do NOT feel vulnerable. Many grandiose people are perfectly confident that their ideas about themselves are perfectly correct and not open to serious challenge. They are not bothered by people who doubt them. Such people are sometimes said to have "a thick hide".

And of course many people with feelings of vulnerability do not also think that they are wonderful

So in asking what causes narcissism, we are essentially asking the wrong question. There are really three questions there: What causes feelings of grandiosity, what causes feelings of vulnerability and how does it happen that some people have both feelings at once?

The programmatic explanation for all three questions is that all human personality traits occur along a continuum. There are always strong and weak tendencies towards a particular behaviour type. And thinking well of oneself, for instance, is normal and as such in no particular need of explanation.

It does beg for explanation when it is extreme but the explanation needed is about degrees of self-esteem, not degrees of "narcissism". And there is a very large literature on self-esteem in the annals of psychological research. I am not up to date with it so will not endeavour to summarize it

Similarly there is a HUGE literaure on anxiety and neuroticism so that literature tells us about feelings of vulnerability. I have had rather a lot of research published in that field so I will suggest the elements of an explanation for it.

http://jonjayray.com/anxiety.html

Neuroticism/anxiety just seems to be one of the basic ways people differ. It affects all sorts of behaviours. We all have it to some degree and it matters a lot how strong it is in us. It seems in fact to be hard-wired in our neurology. We are born with it but to different degrees. As such, there is no way to "cure" it but we can of course do some things to ameliorate its effects. Valium being an obvious example.

So how come both vulnerablity and grandiosity sometimes co-occur? It may need no particular explanation. The processes that cause both tendencies just sometimes overlap. Some people may simply be both neurotic and full of themselves. The one tendency does not cancel out the other, perhaps surprisingly. They are the people we often identify as narcissists but they appear to be not the outcome of any single influence.

My previous posts on the matter give more detail

https://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2022/10/narcissism-and-sam-vaknin-vaknin-is_0.html

https://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2023/05/revolutionary-leftists-are-narcissists.html

https://pcwatch.blogspot.com/2024/02/are-leftists-narcissists-mayo.html

Self-confidence

So where does self-confidence fit into the two factor picture I have outlined?

Self confidence is clearly the opposite end of feelings of vunerabiity. It is a lack of self confidence that plagues the vulnerable person. Confidence is clearly one part of a broader factor -- a continuum of confidence/vulnerability

So is the grandiose person self-confident? It might seem automatically so. But the answer once again has to be that there are two factors involved. As we see from the statistical correlations, it is perfectly possible -- but not automatic -- for grandiose people to feel vulnerable. Some people with grandiose views of themselves are not at all confident that they are so admirable and tend therefore to do things to prop up that belief.

As I have argued previously, the subset of people who are both grandiose and vulnerable often find relief as active political leftists. They actively promote themselves as good and kind and wise and righteous, with sometimes unfortunate results when they get something wrong. It is precisely their vulnerabiity which makes them so keen to censor the views of anybody who disagrees with them

Coincidentally, a well-sampled study has recently appeared which found that "woke" attitudes correlated with "depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness". The correlation with depression was particularly high -- clearly vulnerable feelings.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.13018

I have always had self-confidence in spades. I inherited it from my mother. A non grandiose example may be of interest:

After completing Junior school, I saw that Senior school took a further two years to do and disliked that prospect. So I looked at the Senior syllabus and its listing of the knowledge required to pass the Senior exam. I thought that I could easily acquire the knowledge required in one year. So I quietly did just that. I taught myself the requirements for the Senior exam in one year and got respectable passes in it, including a couple of "A"s. I was confident of my abilities and it paid off.

So self confidence is pretty good stuff. And I am not remotely grandiose. I have never sought the limelight despite several opportunities in that direction. It always seemed too much bother.

JR

******************************************

Do Americans have the will to fight?

I am pretty sure most Trump supporters do but I don't know about the rest

For those of you who do not know her, Bari Weiss is the journalist who had the courage and intellectual honesty not only to leave her gig as an opinion writer at The New York Times in 2020 but to pen a public resignation letter that exposed the oppressive culture there that prompted her departure.

Weiss thereafter launched The Free Press, a subscription-based online news and opinion journal that has already acquired a reputation for ideological balance, in-depth coverage of complex issues, and willingness to interview and publish articles from individuals who have been effectively banned from “traditional” media.

Weiss has written extensively about the horrific terrorist attacks against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, as well as what those attacks portend for America. The address Weiss gave at the Federalist Society’s annual Barbara K. Olsen Memorial Lecture (“You Are the Last Line of Defense”) garnered a standing ovation and made headlines across the country, not least because the Federalist Society is a politically conservative legal organization, and Weiss is neither an attorney nor a conservative.

This week, Weiss published a piece titled “The Holiday from History Is Over.” In it, she describes conversations she had on her recent visit to Israel with survivors and family members of those killed on Oct. 7. According to Weiss, Israelis believe they are fighting “a second war of independence—an existential war necessary for the survival of the state.” Israeli journalist Gadi Taub told Weiss that “one of the slogans of this war is lo noflim midor tachach! which loosely translates to ‘do not fall short of the ‘48 generation’”(referring to 1948, the year the modern state of Israel was founded).

Weiss opines that it’s “nearly impossible to imagine” a comparable sentiment in the United States, a “rallying cry about not falling short of the 1776ers.” Toward the end of the piece, she asks rhetorically:

“What would the people I know do if we ... had to fight for homes and our families, and the homes and families of our fellow citizens? ... Does courage emerge spontaneously out of necessity? Or is there a quiet wellspring inside some people or some cultures waiting to be tapped? Do we have that here in America? Would we answer the call if it came?”

Weiss fears that Americans think we live “outside” of history.

I think she’s wrong.

Does this country contain citizens who view themselves as inheritors of the mantle of the Founders? Would Americans step up to defend their homes and families, and those of their neighbors? Do we have the courage we would need in a crisis?

The answer to each of those questions is “yes,” and the proof is in the headlines every day—although perhaps not in the way Weiss might see it.

Americans who take seriously the wisdom of the Founders are fighting vigorously to defend the natural law principles in the Declaration of Independence, for judges who use originalist interpretations of the Constitution, for the preservation of the Electoral College and the current composition of the U.S. Senate, for checks and balances and limited government.

And for that, they are denounced as beneficiaries of “white privilege,” defenders of “systemic racism,” and (most recently) as “Christian nationalists.”

Millions of Americans are prepared to defend their homes, families, and communities; they are the ones fighting for our rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
And for that, they are blamed for the deaths of children at the hands of every lunatic who decides to commit mass murder, for urban gun violence and for crimes committed by those unlawfully in possession of a weapon. If they happen to live in the country, they are now accused of harboring “rural white rage.”

And as for courage? The average American displays it every day in droves. Courageous Americans are fighting school administrators and teachers trying to insert pornography into school libraries and curricula. They are fighting against activists encouraging vulnerable young people to undergo chemical castration or surgical mutilation to “change” their gender—often without the knowledge or over the objections of parents. They are fighting to preserve sports and safe places for women and girls. They fought for truthful science and against COVID-19 lockdowns and forced inoculations of experimental drugs. They fight for the free exercise of religion, free speech, and the lives of unborn children, praying and protesting outside abortion clinics. They fight for the integrity of our elections and government accountability, and against vote fraud.

And for displaying the courage to fight for their rights—and the rights of others—these Americans are denounced as racists, bigots, “deplorables,” “domestic terrorists,” and “insurrectionists” by the same “elites” Weiss accuses (rightly) of having “all of the noblesse with none of the oblige”; they are doxxed, censored, shamed, silenced on social media (other than X), sued, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and even incarcerated.

These Americans are not too blinded by bread and circuses to see the very real threats facing us.

The Americans who are paying attention—and there are millions—are all too aware. These are the same Americans fighting to close our borders, for the enforcement of our immigration laws and the deportation of those who violate them. They are fighting against the two-tiered “justice” system and the use of “lawfare” by the politically powerful against their opponents. They are the Americans who decry the degeneration of our cities and the proliferation of homelessness and substance abuse in our streets. They are demanding that crime be punished and criminals be imprisoned. They want an end to foreign policies that kill millions of innocents abroad, enrich sponsors of terrorism, and embolden our enemies.

No, Bari, Americans do not think we live outside of history. But they do understand that those in power at present are setting the stage for a disastrous future. When the inevitable crisis comes, will Americans “answer the call”?
Some already are.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/responding-to-bari-weiss-5607459

******************************************

JK Rowling vows to defy Scotland's 'ludicrous' new hate crime laws and refuses to delete posts calling trans TV presenter 'just a man'

JK Rowling has called Scotland's new hate crime laws 'ludicrous', as she vowed not to delete social media posts describing a transgender TV presenter as 'just a man'.

The Harry Potter author was cleared of any wrongdoing by police in England earlier this month over an online post about broadcaster India Willoughby, who complained she had been 'misgendered'.

But Ms Rowling has now been targeted by activists who claim she could be prosecuted under the controversial new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, due to be introduced on April 1.

The 58-year-old wrote on X that she would not be taking down any of her posts about Ms Willoughby.

She said: 'If you genuinely imagine I'd delete posts calling a man a man, so as not to be prosecuted under this ludicrous law, stand by for the mother of all April Fools' jokes.'

Ms Rowling was responding to a post from a user claiming to be a British lawyer who wrote: 'Delete the posts about India Willoughby as they most likely contravene the new law. Start deleting!'

Supporters of Ms Rowling praised her for 'standing up against the woke mob'.

And feminist group For Women Scotland wrote: 'Not sure anyone claiming to be a lawyer should be posting misleading info.'

Police Scotland has indicated that only incidents after April 1 will be investigated under the new law, meaning Ms Rowling would not face retrospective action.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13212107/JK-Rowling-vows-defy-Scotlands-ludicrous-new-hate-crime-laws-refuses-delete-posts-calling-trans-TV-presenter-just-man.html

*****************************************

Faith-Based Schools Can’t Maintain Ethos Under New Religious Discrimination Bill: Australian conservatives

It is actually the Bible which is the problem. It describes homosexuals as an abomination and says that God will judge them (Romans 1 & 2). And Christians are commanded to preach Christian teachings actively (Matthew 28: 19 & 20). Legislating against the Bible is surely a vast cultural leap that can only end badly. Christian beliefs must be allowed or there will be big consequences. Prime Minister Albanese is already headed for the boot. If he enacts this he will go out in a landslide

Faith-based schools could find themselves getting bogged down in litigation as a result of the Labor government’s religious discrimination bill, according to the federal opposition.

Shadow attorney-general Michaelia Cash has taken aim at the Albanese government’s upcoming religious discrimination protections, which she said could obstruct religious schools from maintaining their religious ethos.

What Is The Proposal About?

The bill, which was initially introduced by the former centre-right Coalition government in 2021, set out to protect Australians from discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

However, the Coalition failed to pass the law prior to the 2022 federal election after five Liberal MPs crossed the floor to support amendments by the then-opposition Labor Party, which were designed to prevent discrimination against gay and transgender students by religious schools.

On the other hand, faith-based groups have expressed concern that the bill would do little to legislate protections for religious Australians, arguing the protections were too narrow to be effective.

The topic would soon resurface in public debate as the Australian Law Reform Commission prepared to release a long-awaited report in March 2023 that would recommend “making discrimination against students on the grounds of sexual orientation … unlawful.”

This would be done by repealing section 38(3) under the Sex Discrimination Act, a move that could potentially bar faith-based schools from preferencing candidates who share the schools’ spiritual outlook during recruitment. It could also prevent schools from asking students to abide by the school’s belief system.

The shadow attorney-general warned that under Labor’s religious protection bill, faith-based schools wouldn’t be able to conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with their values.

“What they’re saying to me is ‘Michaelia, we just want to educate; under Mark Dreyfus and Anthony Albanese, we’re going to wind up litigating,’” Ms. Cash told Sky News on March 17.

She also said she had heard “very concerning things” about the new amendments, adding that this would likely include an anti-vilification provision, which criminalises speech that is considered hateful.

‘A Cure That Is Worse Than The Disease’: Think Tank

Similar concerns have been voiced by Morgan Begg, the director of the Legal Rights Program at the Institute of Public Affairs. He said the religious freedoms of Australians would be under siege due to the “weaponisation of anti-vilification and anti-discrimination laws.”

“This notoriously ambiguous concept creates an opening for bureaucrats and courts to tie up supposedly legitimate speech in legal limbo,” he wrote in an opinion article for The Epoch Times.

“For example, saying ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ is something that many religious Australians believe, but saying so could be considered ‘hateful’ by some in the community.”

Mr. Begg warned the religious discrimination bill would “add more laws on top of bad laws” and described it as “a cure that is worse than the disease.”

Pressure To Conform

In recent years, faith-based schools have been facing mounting pressure to compromise on their spiritual values with LGBT groups.

The conflict was highlighted during the controversy surrounding Citipointe Christian College in 2022, which saw the school’s principal stand down over an enrolment contract that described homosexuality as a sin.

The contract, which stated that the college would only enrol students on the basis of the “gender that corresponds to their biological sex,” had attracted public protests and criticism, with some parents accusing the school of stigmatising a “vulnerable community.”

Former Principal and Pastor Brian Mulheran said at the time that his intention was “only to offer families a choice about how their children educated, and to be open and transparent about our religious ethos.”

“I am sorry, sorry that some students felt that they may be being discriminated against at Citipointe. We would never discriminate against any student on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity,” he wrote in a letter.

Ahead of the 2022 election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised he would resume addressing the religious discrimination bill during their term of parliament.

“We’ll do it in a way which is much more consultative and brings people together in a way that I hope characterises the way my government functions,” Mr. Albanese said, adding that he “respected people of faith.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/faith-based-schools-cant-maintain-ethos-under-new-religious-discrimination-bill-opposition-5609230

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************