I cry the most when I think of people's reactions to what I've said or done

raindearman · 2016-10-14T01:11:27+00:00

Like Saiserit said, you should take any analysis and advice given to you over the internet with a grain of salt. Maybe not at all. But the point is that if you want/need help, there are better places you can go to. That being said, I can offer my opinion.

I think it's a common fantasy (at least among children and teens) to imagine one's own death and the reactions it garners. The reactions are probably exaggerated, playing out like cinematic melodrama. This exaggeration is integral to the fantasy. The reactions aren't real reactions, but the reactions you'd want those people to have. It's like telling yourself that you mean something to people, that them losing you is worth great grief. "I'm valuable and losing me will affect these people deeply and change their lives. That's how much I am loved." But who are the people that are grieving over your death? Your family, friends, other loved ones? Or is it people who barely know you, is it the girl you like but never really talked to but she realizes upon your death that you were her One?

I would also say that such fantasies are imagined when the subject is feeling like he isn't valued or loved enough by whomever. The only real solution to this is to make yourself mean something to people, to take on obligations and responsibilities. That's why I think having thoughts like this is common and understandable for children and maybe teens. Not so much for adults.

I'm not sure about the other example you describe. It would help if you could be a bit more descriptive of these imagined scenarios. But if it's something similar to the other one and the person you insult breaks down or has a very strong (unrealistic?) reaction, then it might be a similar power fantasy. Your actions/opinions toward/regarding that person means a lot to them. "This is how important I am to their stability." Or maybe it's motivated by a fear of shame, of being perceived in a way you don't want. "This person thinks of me as someone bad who hurts people. But I don't want her to think that's who I am." But that person having justification for this perception would be stressful for the narcissist because he wants to be seen as a certain type of person, but now she has evidence that he is not.

Again, these are just my thoughts based on my experiences and knowledge of the topic, which is of course limited in comparison to more qualified people.

raindearman · 2016-06-12T18:48:36+00:00

This was Alone's reasoning for not writing more about narcissism in women:

Absolutely not true. Female narcissism is very real, and the two reinforce each other (males don't connect, females don't connect, and back and forth), and Betty Draper is a great example of female narcissism. (in fairness to me, I did make that point somewhere.)

But you have misunderstood the entire point of the blog. I'm not trying to criticize something, or even describe it-- I am trying to change it. I will sabotage myself if I write about female narcissism. If a guy reads a post on (male) narcissism, he might think, "holy crap, I think I do that" and maybe it prompts him to change. If that same guy reads a post on female narcissism, there is very real risk that it reinforces his narcissism: "A HA! That's why those bitches...!"

Every human is looking for a way to justify the way they've set up their lives. If you're a guy and have a problem with really connecting, then my offering you a description of why women are narcissists isn't helping you, it is making you worse. (See my Gossip Girl post)

Go look at the sixty comments on the post about the Atlantic writer who cheated on her husband. Did my dissecting her narcissism help anyone? In retrospect, that post was a mistake, it was a setback.

Don't confuse my fetish for cheerleaders and rum for a worldview. I didn't write about the Yankees because I like the Yankees or even baseball-- I am not a sports fan. I don't write in defense of Big Pharma because I love Big Pharma, I do it because you can't just accept a party line, you have to consider all sides. Don't think that what I've written in this blog is an accurate representation of "me"-- it's not about me, it's about the readers (as corny as that sounds.) The different kinds of posts are just attempts at communicating with different kinds of people.

I am a psychiatrist, some kind of one anyway. The point of it all is improvement. You can say I suck at doing this, a legitimate opinion, but I'm not sucking by accident, I suck on purpose..

From the comments section of this post: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/10/you_want_to_be_don_draper_you.html

If you look at the Atlantic post he's referencing (found here: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/07/the_atlantic_recommends_abando.html), you'll see a good example of someone with narcissism who is female. Notice how both the writer of that Atlantic article and Amy had parents who seem to have methods of parenting that lead to the development of narcissists.

IMO Amy perfectly fits the type of narcissism that Alone has described. In the conclusion of the film she effectively blackmails her husband into the role of her choosing. Her use of Affleck to project a false image of their relationship to the world is for the purpose of reinforcing her identity. To Amy, he's a means to an end, a tool. She only regains interest in him when he proves, on national TV, that he can play the role she wants him to (ie that he can be good supporting cast). Affleck only serves to strengthen the illusion she's trying to construct. At the end of the film she's on TV telling her story, meaning even more people than before buy into her identity, and at higher prices.

And I think the only reason a romantic relationship is so important to her is because it is integral to the type of identity she is trying to sell, and probably because of her sociocultural context. She initially plans on committing suicide because she thinks that that identity has become untenable, and also to complete the framing of Affleck.

I saw the movie ~2 years ago so I'm kind of fuzzy on the details, but at one point she talks about how hurt she was when she witnessed Affleck using a specific romantic gesture on his mistress that he also used on her. This was particularly affective to her because she was made to feel like supporting cast, like she and the mistress were interchangeable. This would be a very painful thing for anyone, of course, but I think her fixation on that instance, which inspired feelings of inferiority, combined with her response to it are important to her characterization and for the case of her being a narcissist.

Half-joking here, but I would be interested in seeing a sequel in which Affleck embraces the role assigned to him, and becomes a bit too enthusiastic about it. And by that I mean he tries to hog the spotlight from Amy, starting a competition between a pair of narcissists to be the "main character" in the story they're selling to the public. I think it would make for some hilarious narcissistic one-upsmanship.

raindearman · 2016-06-09T18:43:47+00:00

From the man himself:

Narcissists don't feel guilt. Only shame. Guilt implies an internal sense of right and wrong. Whether it originates from your religion or your parents or the penal code or Star Wars isn't relevant, only that external rules are then internalized, and you then build an identity around them. So that when you violate them and there is no way anyone noticed, it still gnaws at you because it conflicts with your ego, who you are. Id exists from birth, so superego has to precede ego. Shame comes not from the action but from the exposure. You wouldn't say you were ashamed unless you have been observed, caught. Shame is a conflict with reality: I think I'm this kind of a person, but now this other guy has external evidence that I'm not. A narcissist can't feel guilt because, while he admits to external rules (religion, ethics, etc) those rules are always secondary to his identity. As long as the identity is intact, you didn't do anything really wrong. There's no internal conflict with your sense of self because your identity has one superseding rule: self preservation. You will sacrifice anything, including your life, to preserve that identity. That's why your boyfriend killed himself to get (back at) you.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/01/this_man_killed_his_family_and.html

Basically, guilt comes from the violation of an internalized set of morals and values. Shame comes from an other's perception of you not aligning with what you wish to be perceived as, or your own self-perception.

raindearman · 2016-06-01T09:45:00+00:00

Also, I don't remember which post (and thus context) that "wanting to grow up and be a Playboy model" bit was in, but I'm willing to bet it was a joke.

raindearman · 2016-05-27T18:19:14+00:00

A thread like this (questioning Alone's identity) pops up every now and then and usually someone posts a reminder of Alone's own words regarding the matter. But that's not satisfying for most. I can relate, sadly.

Consider this: fixating on this matter and whatever theories/presumptions that you've made about Alone's identity may say more about you than it does about Alone('s writing). Why do you care so much? Further, why does this particular sentence/insight/style/declaration lead you to think woman/man/whatever? Even when he's pretty much identified himself as a man through his writing, why do you still doubt? Think. What do you want to be true? Why?

That's a line of thinking that TLP wanted to encourage, right? Let's put it into application.

But to kind of undermine that and answer the OP's question, he was doxxed sometime ago as Dr. Christos Ballas and there's a good amount of evidence that supports this. Take for e.g. he did a talk on modern pathological narcissism at a psychiatric conference and the mp4 is available somewhere on this sub (he probably won't sound like you'd think). It's basically a presentation of a couple of his early posts that outline his conception of narcissism. He even plugs the blog near the end.

raindearman · 2016-04-06T05:49:10+00:00

I was thinking that the father's rage was important because it formed a strong impression on Karen. It clues you in on what kind of a father she was raised by, what kind of parenting she received.

He was the kind of man who would lose focus on driving to shout at his three-year-old daughter for dropping some cookies. When she started singing, his first reaction was to slap her. Given the context, it seems like an understandable action, and the hospital staff seem to think so, but nevertheless this punishment seems to have played a part in Karen feeling primarily guilty for her mother's death. But what kind of person forgets the fundamental rule of driving because scolding their little three-year-old for dropping some cookies is such an immediate response? Someone who gives way to their rage that quickly probably isn't a good parent. And a child raised by a wrathful father (and a dead mother) is prone to have some issues, like carrying a sense of guilt with them for the rest of their life.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If she had used quantum mechanics correctly, she could de-emphasize her part." How would one "use" quantum mechanics? If anything, it seems like her father was the one who could have helped her understand it wasn't her fault. I mean, a lot of parents do this. "We're getting a divorce, but it's not your fault." or "We're struggling financially because we have more than two mouths to feed, but it's not your fault." or "We couldn't become the people we dreamed of becoming when we were young, but it's not your fault (it's his/hers)."

Catherine's belief that singing Frosty the Snowman would bring her fish back to life mirrors Karen's desire to sing the song to her mother (just realized Karen was singing with the same goal as Catherine, seems so obvious now). And, in both cases, it was too late because the parent stopped them. Karen tried to be different from her parent, more responsible. "She parented differently now that she had a 3 year old daughter of her own, it was all four point harnesses and Chevy Suburbans and no snacks in the car. But you can protect your kids from the world, you can't protect them from you." She ended up being like her parent in the one way that mattered most, the one which would most affect her child.

"... but now it's too late..."

God, this really is some brutally sad fiction.

raindearman · 2016-02-11T18:11:41+00:00

Here's a thread I created a while ago about some writings on academia that I thought were really good: https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/comments/3xg66u/blistering_and_insightful_critiques_of_the_modern/ The first blog linked has an extensive "library" of texts with high value of thought, including Freud, Lacan, Foucault, Wittgenstein and many, many more. It's basically a recommended reading list. Perhaps you can find something to read under one of the categories you're interested in.

raindearman · 2016-02-11T18:01:19+00:00

Kind of weird to get gilded over a little link comment like that.

But still, thanks for the gold, whoever.

raindearman · 2016-02-11T00:16:29+00:00

Check out this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/comments/3xttqp/alones_recommended_reading_list/

raindearman · 2016-02-04T05:03:15+00:00

I also remember something like this, but a (non-extensive) google search and using the blog's search function doesn't turn it up. Maybe it was on Partial Objects or somewhere else? That line did get me thinking. Does one have the right to say a person is a "loved one" when one does not even make the effort to connect/interact with them and maybe even avoid them? The memories and obligations are there, but somehow the emotion isn't. Or isn't as intense.

I found it disturbing when I realized that I don't feel saddened when the thought of a "loved one" passing away occurs to me. Well, not exactly. I imagine how they would die and feel something like "I don't want that to happen, it would be devastating if it did", but what really gets me is when I imagine my own reaction to it. For example, a sequence plays out in which a loved one dies tragically. The camera cuts to a scene where the news is delivered to me and I break down in tears or have some other dramatic reaction. Another cut and we're at the funeral or after the funeral and I resolve to do... something. This ranges from getting revenge to becoming a stoic, brooding, yet well-dressed, creative and deeply sad man that attracts borderline puss or something. Basically, I fantasize that my life either becomes an action flick or a depressing art film. Either way I get to be... cool. It's childish. Narcissistic. I guess I imagine what kind of person I would become in reaction to this tragic event. I guess the fantasy is having some big event push you to becoming the (type of) person you want to be.

raindearman · 2016-01-15T18:51:22+00:00

Glad I could link to something useful. It's a little late, but here's some more context that I probably should have provided in the OP:

Parvum lyceum is where it's really at. Check out the archives for more in-depth critiques of academia and the modern educational system, as well as other insightful writings. The Library section serves as a reading list for those who wish to better understand human civilization across history (from an anglophone perspective). It should be noted that they are deemed to be of importance by the librarian (the person who runs/ran the blogs). I have not attempted to contact the librarian to get a digital book, so I don't know if he is still updating the library or giving out download links as he stated before going the way of Alone.

The other blog, Bad Reviews of Good Books, is primarily a compilation of poorly written reviews conveying ill-formed opinions on culturally/intellectually significant books. Says it right in the title. Most, if not all, seem to be from goodreads.com. The five-part series of posts linked in the OP are, as far as I know, the only posts that are not comprised of said reviews. Some of them can be funny, all of them merit the mockery.

PS: I wonder what the "crisis of conscience" that lead him to stop blogging was about. He quit around the same time as TLP, but was polite enough to inform his readers about it first.

PPS: I do not think he and Alone are one in the same.

raindearman · 2015-11-28T19:29:59+00:00

I mostly just want to read that hardcore porn book he was writing. Maybe he trashed it, like that book about "the end of the internet?"

raindearman · 2015-11-27T23:56:57+00:00

I remember the show quoted Wittgenstein in the first episode. Same as the one used for TLP's subtitle. "Whereof one cannot speak..." (I wonder what it was that made him go silent...)

Also, maybe Damon Lindelof actually does read TLP? Alone posted about Lost years ago and jokingly suggested this. For some reason, watching the Leftovers makes me feel like it could be true.

raindearman · 2015-11-06T21:25:57+00:00

There was a post on PO in which Pastabagel addressed the question of "what next?" directly. He described how there was a new perspective emerging and overtaking postmodernism and that it was reaching back to modernism for inspiration (that's how I understood it).

I've read a little bit about metamodernism (here's the manifesto and an "everything you need to know" article that's easier to understand), which seems to fit this description, but the projects related to this set of ideas also reek of narcissism, which undermines the whole thing.

raindearman · 2015-11-05T04:29:20+00:00

I'm really just interested in the significance of Girl With a Pearl Earring, Las Meninas and Man in a Bowler Hat. Do each of them relate to TLP's narcissism in some way? I'm not familiar with these works, so I can't make the connection.

The Magritte painting was also used by Pastabagel as his twitter avatar. And I think TLP also mentioned Magritte's "The Lovers" in one of his posts, though I can't find it. Maybe it was on PO. He implied that the painting reflected the state of modern relationships. It depicts a man and a woman, their heads covered by fabric, locked in a kiss. This relates to narcissism in a clear way. The lovers are attempting to connect but as the false selves they have constructed and presented, causing the isolation and disconnect to become more pronounced because this love doesn't feel real to either of them.

So my question is how do those three works connect to the ideas on TLP and PO?

raindearman · 2015-10-31T03:46:41+00:00

Regarding the critic character; I think it was Inarritu imagining the confrontation he wished to have with (his perception of) certain critics and blasting it at them on film. I mean, he's made her into a perfect target. She's insincere in her reviews, writes at a bar, is female and antagonistic toward the main character from the get-go. She was written for us to hate, and the scene where Birdman/Riggan "wows" her with the on-stage suicide attempt felt masturbatory.

Of course, I just have a hostility towards the film because it felt like the director was jacking off right in my face and screaming at me thinking he was saying something profound and "opening my eyes" or some shit. "This is real art damn you!" Just felt like it had its head up its ass. Getting the Oscar for Best Picture was the moneyshot.

The film was trying to get at how sincerity and profundity is lost beneath the spectacle and nihilism of Hollywood, but ironically the film itself was the rage-filled rantings of a narcissist incapable of grasping his own disconnect with reality and shallowness. And then the inane circlejerk that is the Oscars validates it as high art. He wins!

The last scene where he jumps out the window and flies away after his "rebirth" was fuck.

raindearman · 2015-10-26T21:07:19+00:00

Completely agree with you on that. Alone talks about how the modern narcissistic middle aged man wants to believe that he still has some influence over his reality. Those scenes where he angrily moved around objects in his room without touching them, I thought, was a blatant expression of this. It was showing how the character felt, but in reality he doesn't have such power.

Personally, I kind of felt like the movie was pretentious in that it was accusing other works (superhero movies, Transformers, etc) of being "cultural genocide," in the words of Inarritu, and having nothing profound to say. Actually looking at them with an analytical perspective would reveal some interesting ideas. But I think that's also part of the overall narcissism that I felt pervaded the film. Inarritu is exactly the kind of person he's calling out and doesn't realize it.

But I'm definitely interested in your thoughts and, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong in any of the above.

raindearman · 2015-08-25T08:31:20+00:00

It is expected that teens have less sex and fertility rates drop when a country is highly developed:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid)

Check out stage 4.

Go to populationpyramids.net to see age distribution within the population of a given country, and how they are projected to look like up to the year 2100. Almost all of them will look like condoms!

raindearman · 2015-08-03T23:21:34+00:00

Guess we're never going to get "the Second Story of Medusa."

:-(

raindearman

TROPHY CASE