Thoughts on Narcissism and Psychopathy

I know that politics is a huge turn-off for many readers as it's coming at us every time we turn on the news, but I wanted to take a more psychological perspective here, regarding our expectations and what may drive those who seek our votes. As always I stress that my blog is an opinion and more of an exercise in juggling around a few thoughts than anything!

In my book of short stories 'Seven Dreams of Reality' I included a tale of somebody from elsewhere visiting earth to observe the behaviour of humans concluding that there are two types of human and that some exist in an altered state where the feelings of others don't really register. Ten years later it seems to me that what was just an idea in a story is actually not far off the mark.

For most of us listening to the news is just a catalogue of horrors – murder, torture, rape, abuse, violence, etc. and there is a sense of incredulity that human beings can do such things to one another. Do extreme circumstances where survival is threatened push human beings into primal behaviour? Or is it trauma / lack of love in childhood that pushes many relatively comfortable humans into a life of selfishness and disregard for others? Perhaps both.

With a general election on the horizon in the UK I often hear (and indeed experience) a sense of despair at politicians who promise the earth and seem to deliver very little. Once again, is this deception deliberate and what kind of person could live with themselves having got into a position of power by lying? Obviously I generalise and not all politicians are the same, but it does seem that those who are enticed by power and wealth the most are those who are more likely to compromise morality in order to achieve it. It is commonly known that there is a much higher proportion of psychopathy among bosses of corporations than among the general population for example. But of course in politics, showing this ruthless desire for power and influence would not achieve the necessary votes. Thus, a certain amount of deception is essential for those at the more narcissistic end of the spectrum to succeed.

I have heard that there are two sliding scales within personality; 'directive v friendly' and 'analytical v expressive.' Potential politicians have to appear to be friendly to get the votes but are more likely to be directive in order to be attracted to the role in the first place. I wonder if this may even come right down to the level where we might expect a pub landlord or landlady to sit chatting to us because he / she has to appear friendly to customers, but he / she may in fact be just thinking about the business and not really interested in what we have to say at all - directive thinking i.e. working towards a specific aim.

Moving up to the pathological level, it is often quoted that around 1% of the population are psychopaths and around 4% are narcissists. These are two significantly different things but a lack of empathy is consistent in both. Thus, 5% of people are not going to play by the accepted norms of society if they can get away with it.

Have you ever encountered somebody you just cannot reason with? No matter how hard you try to tailor your arguments to suit their outlook they simply will not give an inch or concede any common ground in a debate. For them a debate is not about thrashing things out and finding some kind of solution; it is merely about prolonging the debate and staying rock solid. Of course this doesn't achieve much, but once again we are assuming that they want to achieve something – a solution to the argument and peace. Perhaps prolonging the argument for entertainment value or attention could be the aim? I am not saying that every time this happens you are dealing with a narcissist, but as I said, not everybody sings from the same hymn sheet.

There is a huge resource of information on narcissism online so I won't explore the subject in depth here. I guess to most of the 95% it is important to what degree the person can control this awkward or ruthless behaviour or whether it is deliberate. As hinted above, it is believed that narcissism is caused by a lack of unconditional love in childhood resulting in a lack of object constancy, which means that people and things are viewed as 'all good' or 'all bad,' and they can alternate between the two within seconds, kind of like that optical illusion where you either see a candlestick or two faces but never both at once. So with this 'black or white' view of the world, I guess a minor comment can feel like a full blown verbal attack and the wounded narcissist reacts as they feel is appropriate. But at the same time does this excuse the disproportionate reaction? Well, this is a deep ethical rabbit hole to go down – to what extent can anybody control who they are?

With most psychopaths I think it could be different, insofar as they may actually enjoy seeing others suffer so there seems to be an element of choice here, but as always there are gradations within both conditions – how the 95% love those shades of grey!

Back to politics (ugh!), it seems that perhaps naively we expect our politicians to be the same as us. We expect their consciences to burn because they couldn't deliver a promise or because they decided to sacrifice the needs of the 'insignificant poor' to do a deal with the rich and influential (legal tax avoidance, anyone?). We expect the rich to realise that they are privileged and pay their taxes without complaint, getting a warm feeling because they are funding the NHS for us mere mortals. We expect leaders to find a compromise solution to the endless spiral of murder that goes on in the Middle East, or any other of the world's hot spots over contested territory. We even expect a solution to the Brexit deadlock!

I guess my conclusion here is a word of warning to us all. Are our fears being exploited in order to get us to vote a certain way that will benefit only the upper echelons of society? Are statistics being quoted correctly? (Please check any statements in my own blogs too – they are only a collection of thoughts based on what I've previously read after all.) Are politicians exploiting the fact that when many people hear terms like 'million' and 'billion' they just think 'large numbers' when the difference between the two is the difference between one day and nearly three years? And Brexit wasn't solved in a day after all. Until next time, happy voting!

UPDATE: My novel "Codename: Narcissus," a psychological tale about narcissism is now available physically on Amazon and digitally on other online stores. Alternatively email hamcopublishing@aol.com for details.

Thoughts on Compassion and Politics

It struck me recently that when times get tough, people grow harder. Following the recession, the UK has shifted to the right and it's now considered OK to talk about foreigners as a swarm, whereas ten years ago this kind of talk would have sounded vaguely 'Third Reich.' It seems that it took the picture of a small child washed up on the beach to reawaken a bit of humanity in the world's fifth most prosperous nation. In the nineties politicians talked about 'education, education, education.' Now all we hear from them is 'immigration, immigration, immigration!'

When the proverbial brown stuff hit the fan, people were angry at bankers for being so reckless and greedy. They were also angry at politicians for wasting our public money on duck houses and moat-cleaning. In short, there was an opportunity for a return to the less selfish values of the fifties and sixties post-war dream. What happened instead was those at the top and their tabloid messengers found a handy scapegoat for all this public anger. Most were willing to have their ire channelled in the direction of, er, The Channel.

Firstly, let's face it, who sold the weapons to myriad dictators and volatile groups in the first place? Is it any surprise that when weapons are used for their intended purpose that people tend to flee to wherever they might think is safe? It's a testimony to this country that we are viewed as tolerant enough for people to want to come here.

Then there's the economic argument. People say we are bursting at the seams and that the country can't take any more. Then in the same breath we hear about a pensions crisis, where the baby boom generation are reaching old age with an insufficient workforce to support them in their time of dotage. Now what exactly is the truth?

It sometimes seems to me that the country goes in thirty year cycles. The nineties seemed like a rerun of the sixties with a more social ethos prevalent. UK workers were cushioned by a minimum wage for the first time for a start. However, wind on twenty years from the sixties and we get... the eighties – pure undiluted capitalism in all its pomp. In short, you are here.

This made me think about my place in the world. After all I was brought up with the values of the pre-eighties era, and this can make it pretty hard to succeed in the post-eighties era. Just how hard-nosed do you really have to be? It's often been said that psychopathic traits are more common in the boardroom than in an average cross-section of the population. Thus, it will be much easier for somebody who's been brought up with the notion that 'there is nothing wrong in taking somebody else's slice of the pie if they are weaker' to adapt to life in the modern world.

But politicians can't all be corrupt, self serving individuals, can they?

I would say 'no,' but I think what happens is a scaled up version of what I have observed locally for many years.

A number of villagers disgruntled by the decisions being made by their 'representatives,' decided to join 'the board' as I shall call it. I heard phrases like, “I'm a little bit stronger than you and will stand up to them without being forced off.” It appeared to me that these no doubt well-meaning folk eventually became part of the establishment, defending the kind of decisions that they had once despised when standing at the bar of the local pub.

It would seem that every organisation has an unwritten code concerning how one is supposed to act. Locally I observed that quaintness and protecting people's property prices seemed to trump providing employment and retaining public services virtually every time. I wondered if those who had joined the board at the time felt that this was expected of them and that it was simply part of what they were there to do.

The status quo at Westminster seems to be to keep the elite happy and the public content with as little as possible. This way the rich don't have to start paying taxes or anything depressing like that. There clearly won't be any scaling back of all that arms distribution any time soon either. Consequently, we will continue to see desperate people heading our way and plenty of traditional Daily Mail and Sun headlines for years to come.

Thoughts on Russell Brand and the UK Election

Be warned, this month's missive is a bit opinionated, for as 2014 draws to a close, I recoil with horror at the thought that we will soon be entering UK election year - yes, it's 'party' time! The airwaves will soon be awash with political rhetoric designed to bend the minds of even the most stoic viewer/listener into putting that all-important cross in the desired box of whoever is doing the speaking. I am going to refrain from mentioning individual parties, so as not to alienate any of my readers; instead I am going to talk about elections in general and how many people feel about them.

Many of you may recall comedian Russell Brand's interview with Jeremy Paxman on BBC TV's Newsnight. It's worth a watch on YouTube if you haven't seen it, but be warned there is one or two rude words in it (it's Russell Brand after all).

I have never been a fan of his comedy style, which I find a bit childish, but his despairing view of politics pretty much sums up how many people feel, irrespective of party divisions. The fact that the proportion who turn out to vote is steadily declining reflects the sad fact that more and more people feel that politicians simply aren't concerned about them. Only 65.1% voted in 2010, compared with 83.9% in 1950. It's a personal opinion, but I see no rush to correct this by any party – after all if it is possible to get into power with a third of the populace declining to vote, I guess it's not really going to be a major concern. But if more people are saying 'none of the above' than the proportion voting for any individual party, it's easy to see that Mr Brand's view could actually be that of the majority, in which case, what does democracy actually mean?.

Winston Churchill was once quoted as saying, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” I guess we are lucky that 'those other forms' haven't been tried here for a very long time. No 'Hitlers' or 'Stalins' thank God, but the famous Milgram experiment worryingly points out how most people will obey authority figures regardless of morality, so I guess we need to keep our wits about us.

Personally, I always vote, for the simple fact that people died for the right to vote, so for me, it is more out of respect than any belief that where I put my cross is going to make a difference to anything, particularly that, without proportional representation, in safe-seat areas we can pretty much guarantee the outcome of every election before a single vote has been cast. All the other votes are discarded in the great scheme of things, rather than counting towards a national total. So this could one reason that many people may feel apathetic.

There was an attempt to address this, but I think the proposals for electoral reform were so confusing that most people opted for leaving things the way they are, but we know that this will mean more poor turn-outs and general apathy, so to my mind it's not a solution either.

Personally, I feel far more empowered when it comes to changing things by activities such as signing petitions, donating to worthy causes or trying to bank and spend in a way akin to one's own ethics. I have even taken part in a couple of protests, one of which the newspapers falsely branded as a 'pot-smoking rabble!' I guess this paper respects everybody's right to an opinion, as long as it's the same as the editor's!

As Mr Brand rightly pointed out, nothing is being done [by any party] about off-shore tax havens, and the drive for profit is putting basic commodities out of reach of an increasing proportion of people (food banks, anyone?). Can it be right that people are willing to fight so hard to protect bankers' “rights” to a huge bonus while hard-working people are having to choose between heating and eating. Is it any wonder people feel failed?

Those familiar with Jeremy Paxman's interview style will know that he is a pretty dogged interviewer, but I found myself almost cheering when Russell Brand pointed out that he of all people should be tired of the unfulfilled rhetoric that he would have heard during his many years on Newsnight.

Well, I guess that this interview has been largely forgotten now, but I still applaud Mr Brand's anger at the bizarre contradiction of poverty in the sixth largest economy in the world. I would describe this as a badly organised society to say the least. Some things like poverty are worth getting angry about, surely?

In the meantime I'm bracing myself for the propaganda onslaught. I doubt we will witness a lot of 'joined up thinking' – it's much simpler for politicians just to demonise anybody from overseas or in need of financial help. Er... didn't somebody demonise a section of the populace for his own political gain back in the late 30s?

Meanwhile, one thing they are not telling you about is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This secret trade deal could potentially allow private companies to sue governments if their profits are harmed by a country's policies. Surely the ultimate triumph of money-power over democracy. If this sounds scary, the petitions are out there online waiting for your signature. Personally I see politicians as little more than the PR wing of big business. If anybody wants to know what to get me for Christmas, I'd like some earplugs please!

Thoughts on Teleportation and Fracking

Those who are familiar with the BBC comedy 'Only Fools and Horses' will know what I mean by 'Trigger's broom.'

The joke was along the lines of "He's had had the same broom for thirty years. It's had ten new handles and eight new brush-heads." So the philosophical argument is, 'Is it the same broom?' Most people would say 'no,' but now let's turn it around.

The human body is in a constant process of renewal, and scientists say that there will not be a single atom in your body that was part of you ten years ago, so are we the same people that we used to be? Or are we really just a new machine running to an old computer program (our brains)?

Similarly, I often used to puzzle about the science fiction scenario of 'teleportation'. The idea of this is that you step into the machine and it analyses you before destroying you and recreating an exact replica of you in a different location. If such a thing ever existed, I wonder if my consciousness would instantly transfer to the new me, or if I would simply cease to perceive anything while the new me seamlessly carries on with all my thoughts and memories and therefore no sense of being a new being. Funnily enough, I explored this quandary in one of my stories in 'The Kent-erbury Tales,' which can be tracked down on Amazon.co.uk - how's that for a seamless plug?

Changing the subject slightly, there seems to have been a marked rise in the glorification of war in recent years, so I was pleased to read a column in the local rag recently, highlighting the true human cost and that the only real winners are the arms manufacturers, who no doubt love a good war now and again to keep business ticking over. In short, we flog the weapons, and then when they get used we've got ourselves another war. I don't buy the argument that if we didn't make the weapons some other country would, as by this logic we may as well plough up the rape seed and start growing fields of opium!

Sadly most of our banks are instrumental in investing our money in the arms trade. We do have a choice though. The Co-op bank (although not completely white as we have seen) does not invest in this sector and neither do many building societies, so we can get our money out of arms if we choose to. If you want to see which accounts measure up when it comes to ethical investments visit http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/money for live updated rankings.

Sadly many of our politicians view the arms industry as important for jobs, when like many people I'd rather see the jobs shifted to creating a green revolution which would give young people real hope rather than the prospect of just more of the same (endless wars and a recession every 20 years, which will of course be somebody else's problem so short term savings and unsustainable 'solutions' seem to be the order of the day. Now that the plans for a huge hydroelectric dam across the mouth of the River Severn have been scrapped and 'fracking mania' has been given the go ahead, does that mean that the official line is that all the fears we had about global warming have just vaporised? Or has nobody read up on the 'greenhouse qualities' of natural gas? Joined up thinking hey, who needs it?!