Narcissistic injury

1PolarBear wrote:Sure, it's a good question to ask yourself. It's not something special, but for some people it can get out of hand.

Perhaps it's where the expression blinded by emotions stems from.

People get jealous for no reason except envy. People are targeted because they did good, not wrong. There is nothing to change here, except in the jealous person.

This sounds like the envy is the underlying reason/trigger behind jealousy. I read somewhere jealousy is related to not wanting to lose what's yours, while envy has to do with wanting what other people have. Jealousy seems (slightly) more reasonable to me.

It refers to a thread someone made not too long ago. I guess it just means someone that is not hurting others. As far as I can tell, two third of people are highly narcissistic, it shows in all the surveys I see. Of course they would not have a personality disorder, which is a difference in strength and scope, not in kind. That's the real criteria, not the type which is just flavor and is not the real reason for the troubles. But sure, you can doubt, in reality it is all myths.

Makes sense. But perhaps those not hurting others end up being self-destructive unless learning to use those mature coping mechanisms mentioned above. Maybe it comes naturally for some people, but for most of them I'd say it's a conscious learning process.

Someone that is not of good faith lie about things they believe. Of course to be responsible in anything outwardly, you need to be of good faith. Telling the truth is the basis of real relationships, all the rest is garbage.

What if the truth hurts others? Or- do you think the truth can hurt other people?

Read on the Azov battalion and the Right Sector. You can read about the Donbass in the last eight years as well, it was always quite known until a month ago when the CIA has been in spin mode.

I admit not knowing enough about it, but I do know Azov battalion is located in Mariupol and the civilians there are dying from shelling, dehydration and hunger every day. A lot of civilians are being deported to "filtration camps" (?) in Russia. Ukranian president (the one Putin wants to "denazify") is of Jewish descent and his ancestors have been killed by the nazis. Putin is famous for poisoning his political opponents, shutting down independent media in Russia and detaining the people daring to join the anti-war protests. He also attacked an independent country after months of claiming he won't. I read Hitler used a similar justification before entering Poland, he wanted to "liberate German people there". As for Azov, I am not denying there might be a percentage of truth in claims of Azov's crimes, and I know some of them described themselves as nazis and used nazi logos, but I don't see them invading a country, murdering civilians and targeting hospitals, schools and shelters (which is much closer to definition of nazism in my opinion). I did read about Putin's claims of there being a genocide in Donbass before, but from what I've read so far, there is no evidence for such claims (if there were crimes by this battalion, I think they should be dealt with in the court in future, but I don't see how they can be used to explain or justify a genocide happening right now). Most of civilians in Mariupol being killed are Russian-speaking btw, so Putin's claim of "liberating Russian people in Ukraine" makes no logical sense. I also think this war might easily escalate, some are already calling it the beginning of the WW3.
I realize this paragraph is way longer than the other ones but I had to write it.

Maybe. There was one episode, she decided she was ascending and being one with the Universe, and loving everybody. Then someone came and asked for help, and she didn't because she was in that loving phase, so the friend said he did not need that type of loving people, or something like that. It was pretty funny.

I guess too much of anything can have a downside. Just like with the mature defense mecahanisms we mentioned, I am wondering if love is also something to be learned how to do properly. But I think it's legit to be loving and not always help, otherwise it reminds of a contract and there is free will missing. It's also maybe hard to simultaneously love the whole universe and then one particular individual.

Nobody said it could not be true.

True.

They are more powerful than he is, and they are loved by their people, or a bunch of them anyway, and they are self made, not born with a silver spoon. They can be decisive and they were able to keep order generally in their country. They are not the type to hide from truckers at any rate.

I do agree they are more powerful than Trudeau, but in an autocratic kind of way. I am not saying they don't have some respectable traits, but e.g. a decisiveness gone out of control can easily become a dictatorship. (I also read Trump's initial reaction to Putin invading Ukraine, he described it as a move of a genius, and later changed his statement and condemned the war if I recall correctly). Being self-made has its pros and cons, it makes you more capable but maybe also less sensitive to people's needs.

Yes, and they are obsessed by it. That is what I said, it's about strength and scope. In their case, it is really strong and is ubiquitous in their lives.

No sure if you mean their (personality) strength or the strength/intensity of their obsession. Not sure how to define someone's strength either.

It works for most things, except real existential threats. Rambo could have just walked past the city, and that is what the sheriff wanted, but he came back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyRkoKTh6cs

He acted out on a narc injury, it's how the whole thing started...

Still I think it's a good tactic/advice, not sure in what field/branch of profession, science etc is it used the most. As for the link, this is what is says in the comment section:

In the original novel, First Blood By David Morrell, Rambo actually went back into town twice.

The first time was to get something to eat. He got his food at the cafe on takeaway because Teasle caught him and brought him out of town again.

The second time, Rambo was watching fishes and minding his own business but Teasle arrested him this time.

I wasn't aware it's based on a novel.

Iznahs wrote:

1PolarBear wrote:Sure, it's a good question to ask yourself. It's not something special, but for some people it can get out of hand.

Perhaps it's where the expression blinded by emotions stems from.

It's more akin to justice than passions, so it has to do with the will more than emotions.
It's in part about respect, and then about who deserves what. So there it is partly intellectual.

Iznahs wrote:

People get jealous for no reason except envy. People are targeted because they did good, not wrong. There is nothing to change here, except in the jealous person.

This sounds like the envy is the underlying reason/trigger behind jealousy. I read somewhere jealousy is related to not wanting to lose what's yours, while envy has to do with wanting what other people have. Jealousy seems (slightly) more reasonable to me.

To me, envy is about wanting something someone else's has, and jealousy is about wanting to destroy what someone else's has. So it's the bad part of envy that is purely destructive. This is what I use as a definition more or less.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/jealousy-vs-envy/

The idea that it is about protecting something you have is a Rawls definition.

It's not a clear word, it is one of those modern inventions. I believe it comes from Zealot, which used to be a good envy, envy for good behavior. But true to form, people used the word, switched it around, changed the spelling in that case, and made it meaning something bad. So if it is the bad part of envy, then it is about restoring justice by destroying what someone else's has, while the good part if to emulate properly something good others have. So zealous is the good part of envy, and jealous is the bad part.

It's more interesting in a religious context:
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magaz ... ealous-god

Basically they say it is a bad translation of a word "kana", which has the equivalent of "zelos", so in that context it is a good thing and envy is always bad because it excludes this. That was the thinking in the past.

Now the thinking is opposite. Now envy is always good, because it excludes "jealousy", which is usually about relationships. So the jealous relationship is insecure and the person tries to cut other people's ties to others to be secure. So you can take it both ways. It can be a bad mean to achieve security and "keep what you have", or it can just be seen as bad insofar as it might be better to cultivate that relationship better, to "love" properly instead of trying to fend of threats from the outside.

So it's the same here. In the Snow White story, the Queen is envious of Snow White, and in this case, she should try and be fairer (if that is possible), but since it is not, then jealousy is the only recourse, and it is to destroy the other person's relationships by killing her. It's the bad part of envy, which is not zealous, but clearly is jealous.

Iznahs wrote:What if the truth hurts others? Or- do you think the truth can hurt other people?

It can, but I think it is justified to hurt sometimes if it is for a higher purpose, which is to be truthful, but then again, the problem is that people take "truth" by meaning being true to their feelings, or their wishes, which is irrelevant. This is not a belief, it is your own desires, and you can lie about them if you have to, because it's quite relative. Or hide them at any rate, nobody is forcing people in telling everybody what they wish for, it's not virtuous at all.

What I am talking about is a concept of truth that has to do with reality insofar as it is independent of your wishes, and in this case, good faith is a good thing always. When it is reality about "wishes", then it is different, it depends on how important it is to the other to predict you. That's how I think it has to be approached. If your opinion is irrelevant and makes no difference in reality, then you can hide it, lie about it, because it's not really true in practice for what counts.

There is an old religious concept about this too. You can lie about your faith if it is to put you into trouble. People that are against Islam usually call it "taqqiya", not realizing Christians had the same in the same time period, so it is not unique to them. It's fine because publicly speaking, it makes no difference what your belief is, as long as you follow the laws and so on, are not a traitor. But people will ask for "belief", what you "intend" to do. So it is fine about lying about the belief since the intention is not in accord with the belief.

Iznahs wrote:I admit not knowing enough about it, but I do know Azov battalion is located in Mariupol and the civilians there are dying from shelling, dehydration and hunger every day. A lot of civilians are being deported to "filtration camps" (?) in Russia. Ukranian president (the one Putin wants to "denazify") is of Jewish descent and his ancestors have been killed by the nazis. Putin is famous for poisoning his political opponents, shutting down independent media in Russia and detaining the people daring to join the anti-war protests. He also attacked an independent country after months of claiming he won't. I read Hitler used a similar justification before entering Poland, he wanted to "liberate German people there". As for Azov, I am not denying there might be a percentage of truth in claims of Azov's crimes, and I know some of them described themselves as nazis and used nazi logos, but I don't see them invading a country, murdering civilians and targeting hospitals, schools and shelters (which is much closer to definition of nazism in my opinion). I did read about Putin's claims of there being a genocide in Donbass before, but from what I've read so far, there is no evidence for such claims (if there were crimes by this battalion, I think they should be dealt with in the court in future, but I don't see how they can be used to explain or justify a genocide happening right now). Most of civilians in Mariupol being killed are Russian-speaking btw, so Putin's claim of "liberating Russian people in Ukraine" makes no logical sense. I also think this war might easily escalate, some are already calling it the beginning of the WW3.
I realize this paragraph is way longer than the other ones but I had to write it.

I think the point was that they were killing their own people because they were slave, which is also what the Nazis believed in. So strictly speaking, there was an ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region, where they were killing their own people. Sure Hitler used that reason, just like countries in the West use it to try and overthrow Saddam, Kaddhafi, Assad and many others. They also find the thing with the Uighurs reprehensible. So its used by many people, because it is a justification for invasion, so he is not exactly breaking new ground here. The question is more why others have double standards. Putin also does, he used to have a strong line about no interference even for those reasons, but it seems to have changed. But yes, the government of Zelenski and the guy before killed thousands of people and people were turning a blind eye while they were shelling the population, including hospitals and all those things. So his claims are not delusional as far as I can tell, but people don't want it to be true, which is where the delusion is as far as I can tell. Just like you said, in that case you don't believe it justifies an intervention. Maybe you truly believe it, or you follow the CIA double standard, which says it is fine when we do it, but not when they do it. Those same people are also justifying bombing the population in Yemen at the moment, and we are talking major atrocities in number.

Iznahs wrote:
I guess too much of anything can have a downside. Just like with the mature defense mecahanisms we mentioned, I am wondering if love is also something to be learned how to do properly. But I think it's legit to be loving and not always help, otherwise it reminds of a contract and there is free will missing. It's also maybe hard to simultaneously love the whole universe and then one particular individual.

Depends if you think love is a feeling or an action. If it's only a feeling, then there is nothing to learn, but if it is caring for people for their own's sake, then it is totally learned. Then you get the Buddhist concept that is there in play, basically in their view, true love is to love nothing, or delusionally everything. Because if you love "nothing", then it is seen as the purest devoid of wishes and emotions, it is just a concept and an attitude. It does seem delusional on the outside and probably is in truth. It is devoid of meaning at any rate.

Iznahs wrote:I do agree they are more powerful than Trudeau, but in an autocratic kind of way. I am not saying they don't have some respectable traits, but e.g. a decisiveness gone out of control can easily become a dictatorship. (I also read Trump's initial reaction to Putin invading Ukraine, he described it as a move of a genius, and later changed his statement and condemned the war if I recall correctly). Being self-made has its pros and cons, it makes you more capable but maybe also less sensitive to people's needs.

Well, Trudeau became a real dictator. The difference is those people, we know what they are about, while he is pretending to be something else. Or should be because the country is not totalitarian in principle. It's based on liberalism, and he is supposed to be a liberal. So it's not that he is worst necessarily, although he seems to be, but he adds insult to injury.

Iznahs wrote:No sure if you mean their (personality) strength or the strength/intensity of their obsession. Not sure how to define someone's strength either.

Yes, it's the strength of a behavior. There is a difference between someone being "clean" and one that cleans all day long. Or not wanting to be criticized, or spending your life trying to justify yourself. That is what I mean, each "trait" has a strength.
https://www.merckmanuals.com/en-ca/prof ... -disorders

They call it "pronounced and rigid", but it's the same.

Iznahs wrote:I wasn't aware it's based on a novel.

I read it thirty years ago.

1PolarBear wrote:
It's more akin to justice than passions, so it has to do with the will more than emotions.
It's in part about respect, and then about who deserves what. So there it is partly intellectual.

I wonder if humans can ever be unbiased enough to know who deserves what when it comes to other people. Perhaps it's where the idea of some supreme being overlooking the world comes from. It's a nice idea imo.

To me, envy is about wanting something someone else's has, and jealousy is about wanting to destroy what someone else's has. So it's the bad part of envy that is purely destructive. This is what I use as a definition more or less.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/jealousy-vs-envy/

The idea that it is about protecting something you have is a Rawls definition.

It's not a clear word, it is one of those modern inventions. I believe it comes from Zealot, which used to be a good envy, envy for good behavior. But true to form, people used the word, switched it around, changed the spelling in that case, and made it meaning something bad. So if it is the bad part of envy, then it is about restoring justice by destroying what someone else's has, while the good part if to emulate properly something good others have. So zealous is the good part of envy, and jealous is the bad part.

It's more interesting in a religious context:
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magaz ... ealous-god

Basically they say it is a bad translation of a word "kana", which has the equivalent of "zelos", so in that context it is a good thing and envy is always bad because it excludes this. That was the thinking in the past.

Now the thinking is opposite. Now envy is always good, because it excludes "jealousy", which is usually about relationships. So the jealous relationship is insecure and the person tries to cut other people's ties to others to be secure. So you can take it both ways. It can be a bad mean to achieve security and "keep what you have", or it can just be seen as bad insofar as it might be better to cultivate that relationship better, to "love" properly instead of trying to fend of threats from the outside.

So it's the same here. In the Snow White story, the Queen is envious of Snow White, and in this case, she should try and be fairer (if that is possible), but since it is not, then jealousy is the only recourse, and it is to destroy the other person's relationships by killing her. It's the bad part of envy, which is not zealous, but clearly is jealous.

I also mostly relate jealousy to relationships and it's when I experienced it the most. It might also be the fear of change lurking behind it, as the loss of a relationship of any kind affects our life more than any other kind of loss. I think (severe) jealousy is the symptom of a failing relationship, I've had relationships where it never or rarely happened. Meaning to say it might also be a symptom/side effect of a bad relationship and not always within a person. Envy for good behaviour seems useful even.

As for the Queen, I wonder if the story would have been different if she encountered people who genuinely thought she was the fairest of them all (beauty being in the eye of the beholder). She also could have changed her identity strategy and replace the word beauty with some other quality maybe. Not sure what I would do in her place. What happened to her is relatively common I guess, her reaction not so much.

It can, but I think it is justified to hurt sometimes if it is for a higher purpose, which is to be truthful, but then again, the problem is that people take "truth" by meaning being true to their feelings, or their wishes, which is irrelevant. This is not a belief, it is your own desires, and you can lie about them if you have to, because it's quite relative. Or hide them at any rate, nobody is forcing people in telling everybody what they wish for, it's not virtuous at all.

What I am talking about is a concept of truth that has to do with reality insofar as it is independent of your wishes, and in this case, good faith is a good thing always. When it is reality about "wishes", then it is different, it depends on how important it is to the other to predict you. That's how I think it has to be approached. If your opinion is irrelevant and makes no difference in reality, then you can hide it, lie about it, because it's not really true in practice for what counts.

There is an old religious concept about this too. You can lie about your faith if it is to put you into trouble. People that are against Islam usually call it "taqqiya", not realizing Christians had the same in the same time period, so it is not unique to them. It's fine because publicly speaking, it makes no difference what your belief is, as long as you follow the laws and so on, are not a traitor. But people will ask for "belief", what you "intend" to do. So it is fine about lying about the belief since the intention is not in accord with the belief.

I wouldn't agree it's ever justified to hurt others in the name of a higher purpose, I'd rather describe it as a collateral damage. People succeeding in life without hurting others are the true masters of life I guess. I remember reading somewhere facts are not (always) the same as the truth, and the truth can be hidden in a lie as well (e.g. in art, it's fiction but also the truth). In this case the definition of the truth is an inner emotion/state of some kind or something coming from the subconscious realm. Or perhaps there needs to be a communication of the facts for them to be truthful.

I think the point was that they were killing their own people because they were slave, which is also what the Nazis believed in. So strictly speaking, there was an ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region, where they were killing their own people. Sure Hitler used that reason, just like countries in the West use it to try and overthrow Saddam, Kaddhafi, Assad and many others. They also find the thing with the Uighurs reprehensible. So its used by many people, because it is a justification for invasion, so he is not exactly breaking new ground here. The question is more why others have double standards. Putin also does, he used to have a strong line about no interference even for those reasons, but it seems to have changed. But yes, the government of Zelenski and the guy before killed thousands of people and people were turning a blind eye while they were shelling the population, including hospitals and all those things. So his claims are not delusional as far as I can tell, but people don't want it to be true, which is where the delusion is as far as I can tell. Just like you said, in that case you don't believe it justifies an intervention. Maybe you truly believe it, or you follow the CIA double standard, which says it is fine when we do it, but not when they do it. Those same people are also justifying bombing the population in Yemen at the moment, and we are talking major atrocities in number.

I read a statement by Zelensky saying the Azov battalion was cleared of its extremist members before becoming an official part of the Ukranian army. Some of them were convicted and jailed (before this war). I don't think the West or the Ukraine are completely free of fault (as no one or rarely anyone is), but what Putin is currently doing and what he's done in the past in e.g. Chechnya can't be compared to it. Relativization seems somewhat reasonable in theory, but I would be very scared living in a world ruled by Putin (or Putin-alikes).

Depends if you think love is a feeling or an action. If it's only a feeling, then there is nothing to learn, but if it is caring for people for their own's sake, then it is totally learned. Then you get the Buddhist concept that is there in play, basically in their view, true love is to love nothing, or delusionally everything. Because if you love "nothing", then it is seen as the purest devoid of wishes and emotions, it is just a concept and an attitude. It does seem delusional on the outside and probably is in truth. It is devoid of meaning at any rate.

I'd like to say love is action, but I think it's both unfortunately. At least romantic love. Maybe the definition can be unlearned/re-wired in our brain and transformed into something else, I don't know.

Well, Trudeau became a real dictator. The difference is those people, we know what they are about, while he is pretending to be something else. Or should be because the country is not totalitarian in principle. It's based on liberalism, and he is supposed to be a liberal. So it's not that he is worst necessarily, although he seems to be, but he adds insult to injury.

I've heard a decent number of people recently saying they don't appreciate the people pretending to be something else (as opposed to the ones being e.g. open about their negative feelings and acting them out), as if pretending is that easy. Isn't what we decide to do do more important that how we feel? Not meaning to say Trudeau isn't a dictator, I genuinely don't know, right now his actions got overshadowed by Putin's so his misdeeds mentioned here seem milder. But to get a clearer view of his politics in my head, if he was a European politician, who would he be?

Yes, it's the strength of a behavior. There is a difference between someone being "clean" and one that cleans all day long. Or not wanting to be criticized, or spending your life trying to justify yourself. That is what I mean, each "trait" has a strength.
https://www.merckmanuals.com/en-ca/prof ... -disorders

They call it "pronounced and rigid", but it's the same.

So "strong" traits (or a combination of strong traits) are a symptom of a personality disorder of some kind.
I think I've encountered so many people with strong traits that I lost the will to work on my own. Why would I invest time in gaining better insight into myself when there are people out there invading countries and murdering people? What if I need some of those "strong" traits in the future as a mean of self-protection? I realize this doesn't sound very mature, but neither do the global happenings these days.

I read it thirty years ago.

Better than never.

Iznahs wrote:

1PolarBear wrote:
It's more akin to justice than passions, so it has to do with the will more than emotions.
It's in part about respect, and then about who deserves what. So there it is partly intellectual.

I wonder if humans can ever be unbiased enough to know who deserves what when it comes to other people. Perhaps it's where the idea of some supreme being overlooking the world comes from. It's a nice idea imo.

Sure, the divine will, but it's not really someone overlooking, that is more of a superstitious take on it. But there is the idea some things are cyclical and are part of a will outside our own which we have to submit to or face the consequences. So you have to respect that will which is a kind of justice. Of course that will is unbiased from a human perspective, just like the movement of the stars.

Iznahs wrote:I also mostly relate jealousy to relationships and it's when I experienced it the most. It might also be the fear of change lurking behind it, as the loss of a relationship of any kind affects our life more than any other kind of loss.

Yes, but that is sadness or grief. In the case of jealousy, usually it is a grief that does not exist because you haven't lost the thing, you just think you might or will. So what people talk about jealousy is a fantasy, so it can't really be a lack of virtue or a virtue since it is a delusion. The bad part is the delusional part, not the loss which does not exist. It's really the fear of a loss, so some anxiety. But in reality, the person is usually jealous of another relationship, so it's really envy, which is sadness about something one does not have but others have. So the solution is to destroy it, while pretending it is about guarding something valuable, your own relationship, which is clearly inferior, otherwise you wouldn't be jealous. What it essentially do is hide the problem, so the real solution which would be to better your own relationship is evacuated because of a zero sum thinking.

Iznahs wrote: I think (severe) jealousy is the symptom of a failing relationship, I've had relationships where it never or rarely happened. Meaning to say it might also be a symptom/side effect of a bad relationship and not always within a person. Envy for good behaviour seems useful even.

Yes, it is probably the case.

Iznahs wrote:As for the Queen, I wonder if the story would have been different if she encountered people who genuinely thought she was the fairest of them all (beauty being in the eye of the beholder). She also could have changed her identity strategy and replace the word beauty with some other quality maybe. Not sure what I would do in her place. What happened to her is relatively common I guess, her reaction not so much.

She could mind her own business and top comparing herself to others. Then she won't have envy which she clearly cannot deal with properly. Also when you suck, your image should be the last of your concern, there are more pressing matters to attend to. You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want, it still remains a pig.

Iznahs wrote:I wouldn't agree it's ever justified to hurt others in the name of a higher purpose, I'd rather describe it as a collateral damage.

It's really the same, just with sugarcoating. It takes out agency. It's better to own what you do. If you think hurting someone is justified and inevitable, it's something that can be argued, but you are in control. If you just happen to do things and collateral damage "happens", then you are saying it is beyond your control and some sort of god-like effect. Denying responsibility is a common antisocial tactic. You see it in most criminals, it's even a "deception" technique to spot it. If someone claim they did not do something, but talk about it in impersonal terms like this, they are deceiving people.

Iznahs wrote:People succeeding in life without hurting others are the true masters of life I guess. I remember reading somewhere facts are not (always) the same as the truth, and the truth can be hidden in a lie as well (e.g. in art, it's fiction but also the truth). In this case the definition of the truth is an inner emotion/state of some kind or something coming from the subconscious realm. Or perhaps there needs to be a communication of the facts for them to be truthful.

Yes, it's a kind of metaphorical truth. The thing is that stories aren't lies, because they are not meant to deceive in general. You know it's a story, but there are internal truths to it. Even in fairy tales, there are truth in it, some consistency, so there are rules you can't break. If you throw a bean outside the window, it might grow up to the sky, because it is what magic beans do. It's not a lie, just a different framework with different rules. You need such frameworks to have something true. Of course if you don't have one or reject all of them, you are always lying.

Iznahs wrote:I read a statement by Zelensky saying the Azov battalion was cleared of its extremist members before becoming an official part of the Ukranian army. Some of them were convicted and jailed (before this war).

That's not what the Western media were saying at the time at all. In fact they were saying quite the opposite, that they were taking over, that they had some elements in key positions, like ministers, especially the minister of defense. I mean, define "extremist". Maybe for him, he has some other definition, or he is lying. Overall, they share the old nazi ideology, and more or less worship it overall. It's just they don't consider that extremism. The people that are targeted by them do.

Iznahs wrote:I don't think the West or the Ukraine are completely free of fault (as no one or rarely anyone is), but what Putin is currently doing and what he's done in the past in e.g. Chechnya can't be compared to it. Relativization seems somewhat reasonable in theory, but I would be very scared living in a world ruled by Putin (or Putin-alikes).

But you are. There is no difference in what Putin did, then let's say Obama invading Syria, or Lybia and just any Western country agrees with it. Putin did not, but he does now, so there are kind of double standards on both sides. It's not relativism to point it out.

I don't know, my way of thinking is that the population in the Donbass were victim of a coup and they simply rejected the new government, which I believe is their right, especially since it want to officially discriminate against them. They were militarily aggressed since then by the Ukraine government with US backing for eight years, and there were lots of atrocities there too. There were some accords that the West signed but never contemplated following. So they lied to make war on Russian speaking people quite literally. I think it comes close to a just war, but what I know for sure is those that speak against it are not the ones that will stop it, because they basically caused it. They will have to accept reality first, then actually decide to stop making it happen.

Do you remember when Trump wanted out of Syria? there were outrages. He was essentially betraying their "allies" the Kurds, who would all die because of it. It would be a genocide they said. Well it turns out as soon as they stopped being financed and prodded by the US, they immediately made a deal with Assad, and it stopped the war for the most part. No arms and no money, usually people are more likely to make accords and follow them. The same will need to happen in Ukraine, or this thing will last a long time. The only people at peace will be those under Russian control while the others are manipulated by the West to make war for some ideological reasons, like the right to join Nato eventually maybe, or some such nice sounding things, like territory integrity (which is totally arbitrary. If Ukrainians don't like Russians, then maybe they are not part of the same nation and therefore would need their own country, so they have no claim on the Donbass logically), etc.

Iznahs wrote:I'd like to say love is action, but I think it's both unfortunately. At least romantic love. Maybe the definition can be unlearned/re-wired in our brain and transformed into something else, I don't know.

Yes, but the love that is good is only action. The other is just a want. It just sounds better than desire, want or something that sounds more exploitative.

Iznahs wrote:I've heard a decent number of people recently saying they don't appreciate the people pretending to be something else (as opposed to the ones being e.g. open about their negative feelings and acting them out), as if pretending is that easy. Isn't what we decide to do do more important that how we feel?

Yes, but when you pretend to be someone you are not, you are doing something, you are lying. It's not always important, but for a head of state, if the state is to be legitimate and responsible, the leader can't lie all the time. If he does, he is simply a tyrant with no legitimacy whatsoever, because you just support of fraud. It's like buying a house with hidden vices, the contract is null and void.

Iznahs wrote:Not meaning to say Trudeau isn't a dictator, I genuinely don't know, right now his actions got overshadowed by Putin's so his misdeeds mentioned here seem milder. But to get a clearer view of his politics in my head, if he was a European politician, who would he be?

I guess he is a kind of more stupid and more woke Macron, but overall you would have a hard time distinguishing them at a party. The bid difference is Macron assumes his authoritarian traits, while Trudeau claims to be some sort of Jesus. Also I think Macron tends to follow the laws, while Trudeau simply does not, he is above it in his own mind, and he said it himself, so no need to guess. So his propensity for corruption is only bounded by his lack of imagination. His biggest virtue is to be a moron and not be an effective tyrant. Putin at least respect things, like tradition, laws and his words. So while he has his faults, he is not completely immoral. Trudeau has no moral bone and he even denies Canada exist when it fits him, but claim it does when comes election times or when he wants something.

So yeah, I don't think there is such a fraud in Europe, I am not even sure if it would be possible. Would Europeans elect some guy that claims the country he is running for does not exist? I kind of doubt it, but here it sounds enlightened and post national. Macron plays on this sometimes, but not always, he has a core where he knows there is such a thing as France or the "Republic" mostly. So at least there is something, a kind of backbone.

I would take any dictator with a backbone instead of that jelly blob of nothingness. The result is usually worst with the blogs, because they believe in nothing.
https://youtu.be/H-rkpgchJOA?t=13

Iznahs wrote:So "strong" traits (or a combination of strong traits) are a symptom of a personality disorder of some kind.

It's not a symptom, it's a requirement. It's like the definition. It has to be stronger than normal and mostly more pervasive. It has to be resistant to change, or else it is something else by definition. Personality disorders have no "realness" outside their definition. It's like a centimeter. By definition there are 100 in a meter. If not it is something else. And of course you can't prove it is not the case, because a centimeter has no reality outside its definition. So its a delusion people find useful, but it's still myth. It is basically people Freud could not fix with his therapy that were not psychotic, because there is no "feelings" to fix, no "dream" to mess around with. What therapists do is fix nevrosis, people with desires they can't fulfill, frustrated people. This is another ballpark which has more to do with morality of the masses vs the morality of the individual. If the individual is not included then he is to blame somehow. It is an older morality. People today believe the exact opposite, so that is why those concepts are probably going to die, except on places like youTube and Hollywood where it is about good and evil.

Iznahs wrote:I think I've encountered so many people with strong traits that I lost the will to work on my own. Why would I invest time in gaining better insight into myself when there are people out there invading countries and murdering people? What if I need some of those "strong" traits in the future as a mean of self-protection? I realize this doesn't sound very mature, but neither do the global happenings these days.

That's why personality disorders are not fixable, they are usually needed. The question here is not about the behavior itself, it's not a moral thing. It's about how flexible it is. So it's the lack of flexibility that is the real issue, and it's usually due to a lack of options, real or imagined.

A narcissistic injury is usually something that challenges the narcissists grandiose self image which isn’t closely tied to reality so it’s kind of like a reality check that they aren’t as great as they think they are at something or whatever and the reaction can vary greatly depending on how strong the narcissistic defenses are. It can be dismissive and outright denial, it can be rage as rage is really a secondary emotion that is masking the true emotions of worthlessness and shame and embarrassment that is truly causing the injury and some just fall apart and fall into a deep depression which can even lead to suicide attempts. It’s very much different for everyone with NPD

1PolarBear wrote:
Sure, the divine will, but it's not really someone overlooking, that is more of a superstitious take on it. But there is the idea some things are cyclical and are part of a will outside our own which we have to submit to or face the consequences. So you have to respect that will which is a kind of justice. Of course that will is unbiased from a human perspective, just like the movement of the stars.

Maybe the term god can be also used to describe this will outside our own..

Yes, but that is sadness or grief. In the case of jealousy, usually it is a grief that does not exist because you haven't lost the thing, you just think you might or will. So what people talk about jealousy is a fantasy, so it can't really be a lack of virtue or a virtue since it is a delusion. The bad part is the delusional part, not the loss which does not exist. It's really the fear of a loss, so some anxiety. But in reality, the person is usually jealous of another relationship, so it's really envy, which is sadness about something one does not have but others have. So the solution is to destroy it, while pretending it is about guarding something valuable, your own relationship, which is clearly inferior, otherwise you wouldn't be jealous. What it essentially do is hide the problem, so the real solution which would be to better your own relationship is evacuated because of a zero sum thinking.

I partially agree the person might be jealous of another relationship, but another relationship can also be just a trigger, and the person can be jealous of e.g. a character or actor/actress from a porn movie or anything else. I'd like to think there are ways to work on this, but for now I think it simply means the relationship is not working.

She could mind her own business and top comparing herself to others. Then she won't have envy which she clearly cannot deal with properly. Also when you suck, your image should be the last of your concern, there are more pressing matters to attend to. You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want, it still remains a pig.

I've heard someone once say competitive mindset has benefits such as all the people involved growing in the process. Not sure I agree. As for the first sentence, if only we could be what we choose to be when it comes to personality traits.

It's really the same, just with sugarcoating. It takes out agency. It's better to own what you do. If you think hurting someone is justified and inevitable, it's something that can be argued, but you are in control. If you just happen to do things and collateral damage "happens", then you are saying it is beyond your control and some sort of god-like effect. Denying responsibility is a common antisocial tactic. You see it in most criminals, it's even a "deception" technique to spot it. If someone claim they did not do something, but talk about it in impersonal terms like this, they are deceiving people.

I meant to say we are always responsible for it, even though going through life means hurting others along the way. I am just not sure if being responsible is always the same as being guilty for hurting someone. Can't talk about how others felt when I hurt them, but I know that I have 2 different kinds of reactions to getting hurt. Sometimes I suck it up due to knowing it was either unintentional or I had it coming, and sometimes I feel pretty wronged about it and can't let go for a while.

Yes, it's a kind of metaphorical truth. The thing is that stories aren't lies, because they are not meant to deceive in general. You know it's a story, but there are internal truths to it. Even in fairy tales, there are truth in it, some consistency, so there are rules you can't break. If you throw a bean outside the window, it might grow up to the sky, because it is what magic beans do. It's not a lie, just a different framework with different rules. You need such frameworks to have something true. Of course if you don't have one or reject all of them, you are always lying.

Do you mean existing framework (e.g. fairy tales) or a framework made by us? I remember reading about a radio-play about the invasion of the aliens in some local radio station and people believing the invasion is actually happening. I also don't know if one of the requirements of the truth is for everyone to believe it. What if there are people who can't resonate with these internal fairy tale truths, does it still make them truthful?

That's not what the Western media were saying at the time at all. In fact they were saying quite the opposite, that they were taking over, that they had some elements in key positions, like ministers, especially the minister of defense. I mean, define "extremist". Maybe for him, he has some other definition, or he is lying. Overall, they share the old nazi ideology, and more or less worship it overall. It's just they don't consider that extremism. The people that are targeted by them do.

I can't know for sure. But from what I've gathered so far, Azov is a part of a national guard, and they didn't even exist before 2014. So they were formed as a reaction to the events in '14. They seem to be in defensive and not offensive position in this war, and their motivation for participating in this conflict is defending their families in Mariupol and that steel factory.

But you are. There is no difference in what Putin did, then let's say Obama invading Syria, or Lybia and just any Western country agrees with it. Putin did not, but he does now, so there are kind of double standards on both sides. It's not relativism to point it out.

I don't know, my way of thinking is that the population in the Donbass were victim of a coup and they simply rejected the new government, which I believe is their right, especially since it want to officially discriminate against them. They were militarily aggressed since then by the Ukraine government with US backing for eight years, and there were lots of atrocities there too. There were some accords that the West signed but never contemplated following. So they lied to make war on Russian speaking people quite literally. I think it comes close to a just war, but what I know for sure is those that speak against it are not the ones that will stop it, because they basically caused it. They will have to accept reality first, then actually decide to stop making it happen.

Do you remember when Trump wanted out of Syria? there were outrages. He was essentially betraying their "allies" the Kurds, who would all die because of it. It would be a genocide they said. Well it turns out as soon as they stopped being financed and prodded by the US, they immediately made a deal with Assad, and it stopped the war for the most part. No arms and no money, usually people are more likely to make accords and follow them. The same will need to happen in Ukraine, or this thing will last a long time. The only people at peace will be those under Russian control while the others are manipulated by the West to make war for some ideological reasons, like the right to join Nato eventually maybe, or some such nice sounding things, like territory integrity (which is totally arbitrary. If Ukrainians don't like Russians, then maybe they are not part of the same nation and therefore would need their own country, so they have no claim on the Donbass logically), etc.

So you believe the war would stop if the world stopped supporting Ukranians with weapons etc? I think there were cases where surrender or not being supplied with weapons meant more mass graves and concentration camps. Murdered people in Bucha were mostly disarmed and captured as far as I know. The explosions also seem to be spreading into Moldavia. There is also Putin's "war manifesto" online which describes in detail the plans of Russia's regime for Ukraine.

Yes, but the love that is good is only action. The other is just a want. It just sounds better than desire, want or something that sounds more exploitative.

Maybe.

Yes, but when you pretend to be someone you are not, you are doing something, you are lying. It's not always important, but for a head of state, if the state is to be legitimate and responsible, the leader can't lie all the time. If he does, he is simply a tyrant with no legitimacy whatsoever, because you just support of fraud. It's like buying a house with hidden vices, the contract is null and void.

Maybe that kind of a leader believes their own lies, otherwise it would be hard to lie all the time.

I guess he is a kind of more stupid and more woke Macron, but overall you would have a hard time distinguishing them at a party. The bid difference is Macron assumes his authoritarian traits, while Trudeau claims to be some sort of Jesus. Also I think Macron tends to follow the laws, while Trudeau simply does not, he is above it in his own mind, and he said it himself, so no need to guess. So his propensity for corruption is only bounded by his lack of imagination. His biggest virtue is to be a moron and not be an effective tyrant. Putin at least respect things, like tradition, laws and his words. So while he has his faults, he is not completely immoral. Trudeau has no moral bone and he even denies Canada exist when it fits him, but claim it does when comes election times or when he wants something.

So yeah, I don't think there is such a fraud in Europe, I am not even sure if it would be possible. Would Europeans elect some guy that claims the country he is running for does not exist? I kind of doubt it, but here it sounds enlightened and post national. Macron plays on this sometimes, but not always, he has a core where he knows there is such a thing as France or the "Republic" mostly. So at least there is something, a kind of backbone.

I would take any dictator with a backbone instead of that jelly blob of nothingness. The result is usually worst with the blogs, because they believe in nothing.
https://youtu.be/H-rkpgchJOA?t=13

Does woke have a negative or positive or neutral connotation in this sentence? Thanks for the Macron analogy, it's a bit more clear now, though I still know very little about the political scene in general. From what I know of Macron, he seems like the more reasonable choice (or lesser of 2 evils) compared to the other presidential candidate (Le Pen). I remember reading somewhere Elon Musk calling Trudeau a dictator as well. I am not sure if he still thinks that after getting involved in the Ukraine-Russia war. It's possible people all over the world have a different definition of a dictator based on their own experience/context.

Don't know if it's words and laws and traditions Putin respects, he uses e.g. history when it suits him in advancing his plans. If it was the tradition and laws he respected, he wouldn't illegally invade a neighbouring country with a lot of shared tradition.

I am not sure if having a backbone is the opposite of believing in nothing. There are a lot of cynics out there who could also fit the definition of "believing in nothing", I wouldn't say this lack of belief is a problem in itself. Joker seems to be a good example of the statement though. I also don't know how to understand the word belief, a thought or an idea that doesn't change over the period of time? Don't know.

It's not a symptom, it's a requirement. It's like the definition. It has to be stronger than normal and mostly more pervasive. It has to be resistant to change, or else it is something else by definition. Personality disorders have no "realness" outside their definition. It's like a centimeter. By definition there are 100 in a meter. If not it is something else. And of course you can't prove it is not the case, because a centimeter has no reality outside its definition. So its a delusion people find useful, but it's still myth. It is basically people Freud could not fix with his therapy that were not psychotic, because there is no "feelings" to fix, no "dream" to mess around with. What therapists do is fix nevrosis, people with desires they can't fulfill, frustrated people. This is another ballpark which has more to do with morality of the masses vs the morality of the individual. If the individual is not included then he is to blame somehow. It is an older morality. People today believe the exact opposite, so that is why those concepts are probably going to die, except on places like youTube and Hollywood where it is about good and evil.

Seems like a clear definition, all those Freud couldn't fix got labeled with a PD. Could be but I also think these traits get naturally milder with time. So time works for pwPDs looking to be "normal". As for frustrations, I remember reading about a Vegetotherapy (Reich), not sure if it's used nowadays.

That's why personality disorders are not fixable, they are usually needed. The question here is not about the behavior itself, it's not a moral thing. It's about how flexible it is. So it's the lack of flexibility that is the real issue, and it's usually due to a lack of options, real or imagined.

I think there are also PDs in which pervasive (over-)flexibility seems to be described as a symptom. Hard not to end up in DSM in some form.

Grayskull wrote:A narcissistic injury is usually something that challenges the narcissists grandiose self image which isn’t closely tied to reality so it’s kind of like a reality check that they aren’t as great as they think they are at something or whatever and the reaction can vary greatly depending on how strong the narcissistic defenses are. It can be dismissive and outright denial, it can be rage as rage is really a secondary emotion that is masking the true emotions of worthlessness and shame and embarrassment that is truly causing the injury and some just fall apart and fall into a deep depression which can even lead to suicide attempts. It’s very much different for everyone with NPD

Seems close to what I imagine a narcissistic injury to be. Do you think there's emotional pain involved as well?

Iznahs wrote:Do you mean existing framework (e.g. fairy tales) or a framework made by us?

Well, who is "us"?
If someone creates a story, it's their own framework, but for everybody else it is existing.
Truth is always in comparison to a framework.

Iznahs wrote: I remember reading about a radio-play about the invasion of the aliens in some local radio station and people believing the invasion is actually happening.

The War of the Worlds, yes. I heard that myth. I don't believe it, but of course, some people coming during the show might have thought it was news and be fooled for a few minutes.

Iznahs wrote: I also don't know if one of the requirements of the truth is for everyone to believe it. What if there are people who can't resonate with these internal fairy tale truths, does it still make them truthful?

Yes, people's feelings and beliefs have nothing to do with truth. It's always going to be true Superman can stop bullets, whether people believe it or not, or resonate with it or not. It does not mean he is anything but a fictional character, but denying his essence is just dumb.

Iznahs wrote:I can't know for sure. But from what I've gathered so far, Azov is a part of a national guard, and they didn't even exist before 2014. So they were formed as a reaction to the events in '14. They seem to be in defensive and not offensive position in this war, and their motivation for participating in this conflict is defending their families in Mariupol and that steel factory.

They created the events, along with others. They were sniping people and were blaming the government for it, among other things, with the help of the US. After they were incorporated in the national guard. But it's not just them. They had political parties, I think the Svoboda party, and lots of those people became minister after the coup. Head of the army especially. So they essentially took power, not officially, but people know they are a force to be dealt with. When someone criticizes, the government, they are the ones giving them a visit. There are dozens such groups too, Azov is just the one most known. They are the ones hiding in Mariopol. In any case, they are the ones Putin refers too, it's not a projection.

When Trudeau calls the truckers nazis, then that is a projection. He supports nazis, and his own right arm is part of a nazi family. Her father was part of those Ukrainian groups. They predate the actual nazis, so they are more than a hundred years old. At the time they were simply nationalists wanting pure Ukrainians. When the nazis came, they allied with them against Russia and the Jews, so they were seen as liberators and the founders of the country. During the cold war, they were allied with the US and still are. They are their boots on the ground, like the Northern alliance in Afghanistan, the Shia in Irak, or the Kurds in Syria, or the naco-traficants in Southern America.

Iznahs wrote:So you believe the war would stop if the world stopped supporting Ukranians with weapons etc?

No, but it would last less long. Just take Azovstal, the only reason they are holding out there is to prolong things and play the international community. They were hiding behind human shields, then the UN intervene, and they could not play that game anymore and they had to let them go.

Let's imagine when Russia invaded, that the West did not posture and pledge allegiance. It's quite possible they would have fought, but chances are they would have sit down and negotiated, which is what Russia wanted. Now there is no reason to, and besides, the US does not want them to, they want to create an Afghanistan for them essentially, it's their plan. So as it is, the war might last years, although I have the impression Putin will simply suddenly call it off at some point, once he has reached his objectives. It would be the smart move to do. Just stop unilaterally the operation and let the others deal with their own issues. It's what Israel does all the time.

Iznahs wrote:I think there were cases where surrender or not being supplied with weapons meant more mass graves and concentration camps.

Yes, sometimes you don't have any choice, like with Hitler, but it is not the case here.

Iznahs wrote: Murdered people in Bucha were mostly disarmed and captured as far as I know. The explosions also seem to be spreading into Moldavia. There is also Putin's "war manifesto" online which describes in detail the plans of Russia's regime for Ukraine.

I haven't seen a manifesto. He said what he wanted. He wants to keep Crimea in Russia because they voted for it, and that Ukraine recognizes the two new Republics in the Donbass, as well as liberate them from the Ukraine army. But of course the more the thing lasts, the more he will ask, so now he wants to annex Kherson, and he will probably do the same with Mariopol. It makes sense strategically, and besides those places are at majority Russian so it's in their interest not to be part of Ukraine.

I don't really care what Putin wants, it's quite likely he wants more than he says, but looking at the situation and the people there, he's more on the right side than the wrong side of things. At least it is arguable, but what I don't find acceptable is the West stance. Basically it's an ethnic cleansing stance that refuses any compromise, so it's the same as Hitler. Either you let them do it, or you don't. They had their way for eight years, it seems long enough to know they will just keep coming.

Iznahs wrote:Maybe that kind of a leader believes their own lies, otherwise it would be hard to lie all the time.

Well yes, eventually you become the lie, you become the idol, and then it is whatever you say that goes. You make the rules. That is why he thinks he is Canada, it's embodiment and why he laughs when people talk about Canadian values, because he has no value, except his own grandiosity. Like he will ask them to name them, so if they do, then it reflects good on himself, which then simply proves the point of his grandiosity, but if they don't, then it just means that Canada outside him simply does not exist. So he wins either way. It's what narcissism does. It gives you the impression you are always right since you are all there is. Lots of people talk about the new "rules based" international order the US is imposing on people. That too is narcissism. It's what Russia is against, along with most countries that are not American narc suppliers.

Iznahs wrote:Does woke have a negative or positive or neutral connotation in this sentence?

Negative. Or probably neutral in that context.

Iznahs wrote:Thanks for the Macron analogy, it's a bit more clear now, though I still know very little about the political scene in general. From what I know of Macron, he seems like the more reasonable choice (or lesser of 2 evils) compared to the other presidential candidate (Le Pen). I remember reading somewhere Elon Musk calling Trudeau a dictator as well. I am not sure if he still thinks that after getting involved in the Ukraine-Russia war. It's possible people all over the world have a different definition of a dictator based on their own experience/context.

I guess. It's someone that dictates, that is above the law, but probably more importantly, it is a tyrant when he does not listen to people. So both are tyrants, cracking down on their own people that dare complain about their policies that are dictated. Pretty much all the Western countries took dictatorial powers during covid, and they abused them grossly. Trudeau went a step further and used war power to crack down on dissent. Macron does not even need to do that, he just sends the police and it seems acceptable in France to maim people and shoot them in the eyes, he does not need special powers to do that. Both are basically "elites", Trudeau from birth, Macron by adoption, but they do the work of the bankers and believe they are above the laws, on top of having contempt for their people. So that is what I mean by those words. So I agree with Musk.

He is also part Zelensky, insofar that he is the type to play piano with his balls. So he is a mix of Macron elitism and Zelensky clownism. All of them are tyrants.

Iznahs wrote:Don't know if it's words and laws and traditions Putin respects, he uses e.g. history when it suits him in advancing his plans. If it was the tradition and laws he respected, he wouldn't illegally invade a neighbouring country with a lot of shared tradition.

He invokes the article 51 of the United Nations so there is an attempt.
Which country is that though? those are territorial disputes, and there is no right or wrong there most of the time. The Donbass is not Ukrainian anymore, nor is Crimea, at least in his mind. That's where the people disagree. In the West they deny this, so of course they will come to a different conclusion.

It's what I told you, truth is about framework, so in this case, there are two frameworks of reality, so no amount of posturing or reasoning will solve the issue. Someone will need to change their framework, or there will be war.

There is also a difference to note. Putin actually talks to people. He talks with Macron, with the UN, and he tried with Ukraine and the US. Those two on the other hand, don't talk to anybody, especially not to the people they are bombing in the Donbass. To me it's telling, and clearly to Putin as well. He has been telling them to follow the Minsk accords and talk to them, and they never did, and again, it shows the mentality is different. They wanted to talk to Putin, but he was saying he had nothing to do with it, to talk to them directly. They never did because they don't respect the people there. They are elite people only talking with elite people. The accords for them was simply to impose their will, to gain time.

I disagree with him when he does not recognize Ukraine as a country, so in that case, I agree he uses double standards, and it is not justified. I don't think his obsession with Nato is totally justified either, at least not to make a war over it, so there you see his own narcissism. He sees an existential threat where there isn't, and part of it is to stick it to the man, so there is a personal revenge in the way he is acting. It's clever in a way, but does not really look good overall.

Iznahs wrote:I am not sure if having a backbone is the opposite of believing in nothing. There are a lot of cynics out there who could also fit the definition of "believing in nothing", I wouldn't say this lack of belief is a problem in itself. Joker seems to be a good example of the statement though. I also don't know how to understand the word belief, a thought or an idea that doesn't change over the period of time? Don't know.

It's just saying something is true, that's a belief. It creates a framework, and from that you can derive other truths. A cynic will usually deny the framework, so yes, it is a problem in itself, because now the cynic is alone, and if he denies everything, alone with his own mind. So he will end up at war with everybody and ultimately will not be able to communicate, which is what being human is about. If you say "there is nothing", or "all is a dream", or "all is relative", it's the same as believing nothing, and also the same as having no framework, and no backbone. That includes habits and morality in general or just be humane. It makes you an animal of the worst kind.

Iznahs wrote:Seems like a clear definition, all those Freud couldn't fix got labeled with a PD. Could be but I also think these traits get naturally milder with time. So time works for pwPDs looking to be "normal". As for frustrations, I remember reading about a Vegetotherapy (Reich), not sure if it's used nowadays.

maybe, but if it gets milder it's not a pd anymore. But sure, people eventually learn new tricks usually. So people might see that as "milder".

Iznahs wrote:I think there are also PDs in which pervasive (over-)flexibility seems to be described as a symptom. Hard not to end up in DSM in some form.

It's possible to be inflexible in being flexible, basically it's similar to have no backbone, at least in terms of life projects and so on. If you can't hold a job, or hold a career, or those type of things, you will get diagnosed, and one of the reason might be you don't like the sameness.

Iznahs wrote:

Grayskull wrote:A narcissistic injury is usually something that challenges the narcissists grandiose self image which isn’t closely tied to reality so it’s kind of like a reality check that they aren’t as great as they think they are at something or whatever and the reaction can vary greatly depending on how strong the narcissistic defenses are. It can be dismissive and outright denial, it can be rage as rage is really a secondary emotion that is masking the true emotions of worthlessness and shame and embarrassment that is truly causing the injury and some just fall apart and fall into a deep depression which can even lead to suicide attempts. It’s very much different for everyone with NPD

Seems close to what I imagine a narcissistic injury to be. Do you think there's emotional pain involved as well?

It certainly can be a lot of emotional pain, sure it can also be that the narcissist only feels the rage it’s a defense against the emotional pain it’s a masking emotion. So for some all they feel is that anger of who does this POS think they are to challenge me? Others it may pierce through that thin grandiose bubble and cause it to pop and leave the narcissist to deflate