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 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!