Sunday, September 25, 2005

More on Narcissistic Victimhood

Part of one's being a narcissist is thinking that every conversation, word, and thought of others applies specifically to him. That is because he is the center of the world, he can't imagine people not talking about him [after all he is of prime importance], for he is the beginning and the end of all things. He thinks that he is on the minds of others, and that the only thing worth discussing is him. In today's parlance: it's all about him.

This plays into the victim status of the narcissist too. As mentioned, I see a strong link between narcissism and victimhood. Quite often, the narcissist has the following reinforcement mechanism:

(1) Observe or intrude or "poke one's nose" into something not having to do with them.
(2) Impute the discussion's origin, direction, focus, etc on to something fundamental to his character, being, essence, etc.
(3) He then feels victimized, making a childish display that only reinforces the fact that he views himself as the true center of the universe.
(4) This gives the narcissistic victim, at least in his mind, future warrant for even more strongly viewing himself as the tragic persecuted one, and, at least in his mind, supports the idea that conversations, thoughts, words are about him, the center of the universe.

Ours is a politically correct age, where such a mechanism is combined with leftist groupthink to create the "sensitive totalitarians" we see in universities. We'll comment on this a bit later.

11 Comments:

Anonymous dave armstrong said...

Oh, so you have NO particular person in mind when you write all this psychobabble? If you don't, then, frankly, who cares about your psychoanalysis? Are you trained in psychology? Or is it just a hobby of yours? What's the POINT? All it proves is that there are such persons out there who are self-understood "victims" and narcissists. So what!!!

If you DO have a person or persons in mind, on the other hand, then why don't you come out and reveal who he / she / they are, and stop being such an intellectual coward about it. If you wish to make the charge, then substantiate it with proofs, and have the courage of your convictions.

At least the fool who made the fake blog about me (strangely enough, with this same droning "narcissist" theme) had the guts to name me, before he ran and removed it from the Internet (apparently scared of being sued for libel and false pretenses).

You wouldn't happen to know who THAT guy was, would you, Pee Pee? Just wondering . . .

What is this: "Carly Simon polemics"?: "You're so vain; you probably think this song is about you."

So it is about the person and not about him at the same time. LOL

Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:21:00 PM  
Anonymous dave armstrong said...

Does the following portion of a past post of yours perhaps provide a clue as to who you might possibly have in mind? Does it not also suggest that you are quite inconsistent in what you claim to be doing here? If you're so "conflict-averse," then why don't you stop writing about folks in this cowardly fashion?:

----------------

(5)Attempt to drum up readership by being much more provocative.

Here's an attempt at provocation by an admitted novice:

Hey Catholics: You're a bunch of Biblically illiterate Romanist idolators!
Hey Reformed Catholics: You're a bunch of psuedointellectuals!
Hey [insert Catholic apologist here]: Get a real job and stop asking for money!
Hey Atheists: Jesus Saves!
Hey PoMo's: Your purported scholarly writings require the same intellectual rigor as does popping bubble wrap!
Hey James White: You're a narcissistic perpetual victim whose favorite topic is himself! In that regards, you're like Dave Armstrong!
Hey Eric Svendsen: You're a radical sectarian gnostic!
Hey New Yorker: Jets suck, Yankees suck, Knicks suck.... [a Peter Griffin reference]

And so the list could go, but, in the end, it just ain't me. I suppose the PP will have to live in its richly deserved obscurity.

Since I'm relatively conflict-averse, passing the time with (5) is out of the question. The muse must suggest yet another thing.

("Bored", 29 June 2005 - http://pedanticprotestant.blogspot.com/2005/06/bored.html)

Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:35:00 PM  
Blogger steve said...

It's hard to see why dear old dave is taking offense. Does he see himself in your anonymous psychological profile? He can only attack you on pain of self-incrimination.

Sunday, September 25, 2005 5:00:00 PM  
Anonymous dave armstrong said...

Who do you think it IS, Steve? In another comment, you said, "Gee, I wonder who you're referring to?" Was that merely an innocent question, or was it a knowing sarcasm?

And don't be so damned predictable and boorish. It doesn't reflect well on you at all. With all that brain power, I'm sure you could be a bit more original and inventive than this bilge.

I still say that you and PP are intellectual cowards, as long as you are too scared to even name the person you wish to trash.

All it proves is the pea-brained, juvenile, asinine nature of much of anti-Catholic "criticism," which is all the more ridiculous and to be utterly scorned by all thinking, fair-minded persons, seeing that it is coming from two as obviously intelligent as you and Pee Pee.

Sunday, September 25, 2005 5:37:00 PM  
Blogger The Clinging Vine said...

Actually, I hadn't a clue who he had in mind until you identified yourself.

This episode reminds me of a scene in D. E. Stevenson's "Miss Buncle's Book.," wherein Miss Buncle (who insisted she had no imagination) wrote a novel based upon her neighbors. It didn't take too long for someone to recognize herself, and the furious woman stormed to her solicitor, demanding he "do something" about stopping publication and suing for damages because the character who obviously represents her, though not resembling her in the slightest, is her to the life and she's been held up for public ridicule.

Never seen it happen in real life until now, though.

Monday, September 26, 2005 5:46:00 AM  
Blogger steve said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Monday, September 26, 2005 6:38:00 AM  
Blogger steve said...

Who wouldn't be a coward? The PP and I live in mortal fear that The Nameless One will contact his buddies in Opus Dei to send out a death squad. Why else do you suppose that the PP and I go around in flak-jackets? Sleep with a revolver under the pillow? Sleep in a different motel room every night? Have our own security detail? Use untraceable, disposable cell phones?

Monday, September 26, 2005 9:10:00 AM  
Anonymous dave armstrong said...

Clinging vine,

I wouldn't expect most people to have the suspicion I have, because they haven't followed this. But when you are the consistent recipient of such psychoanalytical nonsense, as I have been, from PP and Steve Hays, then you are in a position to note the insinuation.

Of course it doesn't follow that I agree that what is being written is characteristic of myself at all. The question at hand is whether PP's intention is to apply this description to me.

His past pronouncements suggest that indeed I am the one he has in mind, especially his sarcastic comment: "You're a narcissistic perpetual victim whose favorite topic is himself! In that regards, you're like Dave Armstrong!"

Now, imagine, if instead of using my name there, he used yours:

"You're a narcissistic perpetual victim whose favorite topic is himself! In that regards, you're like clinging vine!"

And suppose that there is a history of ill will, not only between PP and yourself, but between most of the people he links to, and yourself: a consistent pattern of such rhetoric, and then assume the two recent "psychobabble analyses." Would it be irrational for you to suspect that he may be talking about you again? No, of course not.

I could easily document dozens of such examples in Steve Hays' rhetoric. Why bother? I've wasted enough of my time trying to reason with fools. I've found you to be a reasonable person in the past, so I don't mind reasoning with you a bit.

Also, there is the evidence of the fake blog (it was presented in a satirical way as my own), which had as its entire theme "Dave as a completely self-centered, juvenile, arrogant, pompous, know-it-all narcissist."
Since that named me, it is not speculation at all as to who was the target. Does that make me paranoid and conspiratorial and mentally ill, too, because I simply disagree with the characterization therein and object to it, and now see the same theme and object again? Of course not. Is a person supposed to just lay down and die in the face of propagandistic character defamation?

What would you think if someone made an entire fake blog devoted to your supposed deficiencies, and purporting to be you yourself writing it, filled with lies? If you merely objected to it, would that prove that you had those characteristics?

See the documentation:

Part I: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_socrates58_archive.html#111516159944920631

Part II: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/fake-anti-catholic-blog-about-yours.html

No one knows yet who produced that idiotic smear, but it looks more and more all the time like it may be PP. If he was not the one, he can easily deny it here. But he sits silent.

I am simply asking who he had in mind. Why is he so reluctant to say? I contend that it is because he is too cowardly to state directly to me that I am the one that he (thinks) he is "describing."

The fake blogger named me but wouldn't identify himself, which is an act of cowardice. Now we know Pee Pee is writing this, but he won't name the target.

But Steve Hays seems to know, doesn't he ("Gee, I wonder who you're referring to?")?

The plan was to goad me into replying, so that the present charge could be made that I must have a severe psychological problem, to recognize myself in this. Clever, but completely fallacious.

I don't have to "recognize myself" in anything, in order to object to a lie being promulgated, which I have good reason to suspect is being directed towards myself.

The point is that such tactics reveal both a bankruptcy of a rational, intelligent, factual critique of an opposing position, and the cowardice of those who engage in such activities.

If anyone is psychologically suspect, it is Pee Pee, who writes such things, and the fake blogger, not the one who is the unjust recipient of the fake blog and the likely recipient of yet more lies presently.

Now, could you please do me the courtesy of making a nice, normal reply, rather than the constant mockery and insult of PP and Hays? What is improper or irrational or paranoid in the above reasoning?

Monday, September 26, 2005 9:19:00 AM  
Blogger The Clinging Vine said...

I'm going to have to take your word regarding the ongoing interaction between y'all, but would still suggest the prudent course of action when reading such an unflattering commentary, is to assume it obviously couldn't have anything to do with you.

From the peanut gallery where I reside, it was rather astonishing to have someone voluntarily leap forward yelling, "Hey! That's ME you're talking about!"

My tuppence and worth every dime, no doubt. ;^)

Monday, September 26, 2005 9:26:00 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Moorhead said...

Ok PP and Steve (I’m sure Frank is in on this too), I’m fed up with this “Dave Armstrong” character you all have created. I confess that I am new to the blogosphere and have not followed the whole dialogue here, but we all know that you made a false identity, named him “Dave Armstrong,” created a blog for him and everything. Really though, do you think anyone believes this harebrained person exists? Not only does he ramble and ramble, he repeats himself endlessly and appears to be on some medication (or lack thereof). Then to top it off, you have him calling PP “juvenile,” and then in the same sentence he calls PP, “Pee Pee.” Come now, its time to fess up and do penance.

P.S.- If a “Dave Armstrong” really does exist, please disregard the above comments. The voices told me to do it . . . wha? . . .

Monday, September 26, 2005 4:44:00 PM  
Blogger steve said...

Well, Jonathan, it does overtax the willing suspension of belief, does it not? Of course, we never said it was Dave Armstrong. But he muscled his way in to claim the prize. Who are we to argue with that?

Monday, September 26, 2005 9:03:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home