Search Box

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Social justice warriors as narcissists

Watching the participants during this fall of protest, listening to their complaints, and seeing their patterns of behavior, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that their movement is basically narcissism writ large.

Look at the way they protest. Look at these protesters march through an otherwise quiet library, yelling at people who just want to be left alone to study. Look at these BLM protesters shutting down a Bernie Sanders speech. Look at these protesters blocking off a street. Or these protesters, blocking a train. Narcissists never give any thought to how they inconvenience others, and it never seems to occur to them how they would feel if their lives were disrupted this way. Like children, they throw their tantrums without concern for the consequences.

(Look up "narcissism" on Wikipedia, and among the telltale signs listed are "difficulty with empathy" and "inability to view the world from the perspective of other people.")

The social justice warriors are so convinced of their own righteousness that they are oblivious to the fact that they are driving people away from their side of the argument.

(Wikipedia lists "a lack of psychological awareness" as another sign.)

If you've ever talked to a social justice warrior, you know they tend to be impervious to facts. Quote them a fact that doesn't fit with their narrative and they'll dismiss it with, "Oh…what's your source on that, Faux News?" If it is a conservative source, they'll often respond, airily, oh, I would never listen to anything they'd say. (This is a statement more revealing than they intend: narcissists only accept the version of events that fits with their narrative.)

Another narcissistic specialty is argument-by-drowning-out. I've never had a conversation with an SJW that hasn't ended with them trying to talk over me. Even if you listen to them politely, they will almost always interrupt and not allow you to have your say.

Anybody who refuses to even listen to the other side is a narcissist. This, of course, applies to people on both the Left and Right, but I've seen the behavior far more often from Lefties.

(Once again, "inability to view the world from the respective of other people." And, it's hard not to suspect, "problems in sustaining satisfying relationships," also per Wiki.)

Look at the difference in hate crimes hoaxes. They all seem to come from the Left, which needs to make up things to get angry about. When was the last time you heard of someone on the Right fabricating a crime in order to look like a victim?

(These hoaxes actually cross the line from narcissism to sociopathy, but since most SJW's don't commit them, we can't say such hoaxes are typical SJW behavior. On the other hand, it is interesting that these hoaxes all seem to be perpetrated by those on the Left.)

Consider the concept of "micro aggressions." It's a way to claim offense when none was meant. Traditionally, it meant saying something insensitive to black people like, "Can I touch your hair?" or "You people…." Now it can be just saying that America is the land of opportunity. Or "God bless you" after a sneeze.

(From Wiki: "hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults.")

By the way, when was the last time you heard a conservative complain about a microaggression aimed at him?

Being an SJW is, at heart, a pose. I actually had someone tell me once, "I'm a liberal. I care about the less fortunate." In other words, I'm a liberal because I'm a good person. Like that old bumper sticker advertising, "I brake for animals," it's all moralistic preening.

Some people become liberals because they've been brainwashed into thinking that they must be if they want to think of themselves as "good." And their desire to see themselves in that light is so strong, they can't even allow "bad" (i.e., realistic) thoughts to enter their head because doing so would sully their self-image. So, they put on, or at least pretend to put on, politically correct blinders.

(For some reason, some narcissists, like some sociopaths, have a strong desire to appear morally superior. It's not enough to be as good as other people: they must show that they are better.)

Contrast today's campus protests to the campus activism of the 60's. Social Justice Warriors today no longer protest needless wars (in Southeast Asia, or Afghanistan), or nuclear weapons, or for free speech. They now clamor for "safe spaces" -- where free speech is not allowed -- or against "microaggressions," those imaginary slights. Or against that nebulous (and mostly fictional) bogeyman, "white privilege."

It's no longer about larger issues: it's now all about them.

Their mindlessness and demands for ideological purity are reminiscent of Mao's Red Brigades back in the 60's. But instead of having Mao's Little Red Book, today's SJW's obey the (unwritten) Manual of Political Correctness, with its ever-evolving (and increasingly ridiculous) litany of required sensitivities and unmentionable facts.

But there actually is one group which beats the social justice warriors at their own game these days: ISIS. They are so intolerant of other's beliefs, so convinced of their own righteousness, that they give absolutely no thought to other peoples' rights and freedoms. Or even, to their lives. And they feel good about killing people in all sorts of grotesque ways, simply because they know they are right. Not a doubt in their minds.

If you view the terrorists' behavior through the prism of narcissism, and think of them as the ultimate social justice warriors, they become easier to understand.

See, that's the thing about being an SJW, or a narcissist: you can't ever harbor any self-doubt.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

there is (somewhat) of a manual of political correctness, i.e.:


http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

one could write a book about all their problems...confining myself to two observations, they tend to interpret situations bizarrely BY DEFINITION...and then any competing factual interpretation of the same scenario is rejected out of hand as a "fallacy"...Fun reading, though.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Thank you, that is pretty handy summation of all of the required sensitivities.

Yes, agreed, and not only are competing interpretations ejected as "fallacies," they are often labeled as "pseudoscience" and people who believe in such hate facts are automatically called "extreme."

Anonymous said...

I am going to get this post to my college age son. After talking to him last week, I discovered that he has some PC nonsense swimming around in his head. I want him to be more balanced in his thinking.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
Thank you. I don't think this one post will sway him all that much, but maybe if he reads a little further…...

Anonymous said...

I realize that he might not be swayed, but I will try and encourage him to consider other points of view, broaden his thinking on certain subjects.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
Usually time has that effect, sometimes it's hard to get college age students to think clearly when they're spending their lives immersed in the hothouse atmosphere of a college.

Baloo said...

You understand things very well and say them very well. You're reprinted and quibcagged here:
John Craig on Social Justice Warriors as Narcissists

Steven said...


@Baloo just the bare necessities.

@John excellente article, amigo.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you very much. Not sure I understand what you're saying to Baloo (though I do understand your Spanish).

Steven said...

Baloo is the bear in the jungle book who sings the bare necessities.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Aah, gotcha, thank you.

Quartermain said...

A perfect vid of the SJW crowd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCLizTg9nWo

John Craig said...

Allan --
I actually think they feel they're telling the truth. They just don't know the difference.

Steven said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/viral-video/11889656/Angry-Brooklyn-jogger-shouts-at-white-privilege-couple-with-baby-stroller.html

John Craig said...

Steven --
That's funny. What a misfit. And what kind of white guy shoos about white privilege? I guess it's pretty clear which side of the political fence he falls on.

Steven said...

yeah and it just seemed narcissistic the way he got so angry that somebody was in his way and wanted it to be known that he paved the way for white families to move there.

'dude, the black people are laughing at you.'

Steven said...

He said he is a fighter. Doubt it. He probably thinks he's a tough guy for living in a black area. Then maybe he doesn't like the families who have moved in and spoiled his narrative.

John Craig said...

C'mon Steven -- He DID settle the area, and paved the way for the other white people.

I doubt he's a fighter too. He probably finds that getting up in people's faces that way gets them to back down, so he keeps doing it. Plus look at who he was picking on, a young white married couple with a baby. Let's see him try that act with some of the people he "settled" among.

Quartermain said...

"I actually think they feel they're telling the truth. They just don't know the difference"

I was thinking more of their leaders and sources of information.

Side Note: Political Correctness is the fallacy that only White men can take a joke or criticism.

John Craig said...

Allan --
Ah, yes, their leaders. I'd actually say some of their leaders are con men, and some are closer to being True Believers.

The weird thing about political correctness is that before it came about, lots of people could take a joke. PC has taught them that they're supposed to be outraged instead.

Quartermain said...

I would say that "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer should required for students entering college.

Anonymous said...

I have been working on changing the definition of "intolerant" upon the basis of being a "narcissist"
With this definition and basis, any one (yes even minorities) can be labeled as "bigots"

By doing this, by changing what "intolerant" is you can turn their name calling antics right upon them.

Do be aware, this behavior is present on both sides of the isle.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Agree with your last sentence, as i said in the eighth paragraph of the post (though it's also true, as I pointed out, that I see this behavior much more frequently on the right).

I also agree with your first paragraph; I hate to use the word, but one of the most racist statements of all is when people say, only whites can be racist. I've seen tribal instincts from every group, and those tend to be at their most feral and uninhibited among nonwhites.

Anonymous said...

Tribalism is the root of intolerance. Narcissism is also root of all intolerance. The root of narcissism is an emotionally unsound mind that has been exposed to abuse in some shape or form.

The root of those prone to either are people who were abused in some shape or form or are mentally ill. Unlike other ideas which call you crazy for merely not having a different point of view, mine is actually easy to observe.

Might want to look up the dynamics of a dysfunctional families or how those who were raised in abusive homes.

The dynamics are exactly the same as the left treats people who disagree with them. The same can be observed with certain those on the right.


These are just small snippets to my alternative theory of what is tolerant and what is not tolerant.

"hate to say it"
Not according to my theory is isnt. First according to my ideas, but the left and right are intolerant because the ideas were designed to make you mentally ill and sick.

John Craig said...

Anon --
You're right, the key to people's personalities is seeing how they treat those who disagree with them. Do they make an effort to see the other's point of view? Do they acknowledge facts that don't fit their theory? Do they resort of ad hominem attacks when logical arguments fail them?

And once again, yes, you see these types on both sides of the aisle, but more frequently on the Left.

Anonymous said...

"
And once again, yes, you see these types on both sides of the aisle, but more frequently on the Left."

I despise both left and right. My goal is to remake what is "left and right"

As you said both types are each side of the aisle. I believe it should be "us" versus "those types".

If you like my ideas, let me know. I have a basis but I need more help forming them.


"You're right, the key to people's personalities is seeing how they treat those who disagree with them. Do they make an effort to see the other's point of view? Do they acknowledge facts that don't fit their theory? Do they resort of ad hominem attacks when logical arguments fail them? "
this proves you re a great person.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I'm definitely not a great person, but thank you.

kid3t3rnity said...

The Left has been successfully smearing news sites like Fox News for years, and it worked. Stopped drinking the Kool Aid after a while and now I see the BS for what it all is. SJWs just want to feel special, nothing else. They want to be looked up to as being better than everything else. What an ego trip. Your article is spot on.

kid3t3rnity said...

Considering that not all coming from dysfunctional families end up as being intolerant hellions, I can safely say that no excuse ever justifies atrocious behavior and cruelty.

John Craig said...

Kid3t3rnity --
Thank you.....And yes, it's all a misguided ego trip with the SJW's.

kid3t3rnity said...

The main gripe I have with them are their numerous doubled standards and hypocrisies. Many of them claim to be feminists, but then they turn around and freely demonize female fictional characters that don't fit their idealizations, or are getting in the way of their gay ships (sounds ridiculous, right?). They also hurl abuse at anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative, subsequently negating the notion that only women suffer online abuse (Anita Sarkeesian). I'm bisexual, and if somebody has a problem with me liking men, then I'm not going to be a hypocrite about it and generalize that everyone who isn't gay is like that, nor will I froth in the mouth about it. Many of the LGBTQ preening that they do? Completely fake and nothing but a lot of impotent grandstanding. Actual people who fight for gay rights wouldn't stoop so low, and are more than a little reasonable. Too bad the media has drowned out reasonable voices for ratings. The world we live in right now is fucked. We have the guys at CNN emphasizing crimes against women by men, but minimize the crimes done against men by women. This morning, before writing this, a man went on a killing spree in... England, I think? He stabbed a few people, but CNN ended up giving more attention to the American woman that was killed, who was already a senior. Sounds normal, right? If the anchor didn't mention the killer's gender like a curse word, I would not have cared. I might just be imagining it, but with the mounting evidence of this agenda stacking everyday, I'm willing to keep myself open. I don't even give a shit about skin color, gender, or any of that political tripe. I care about people, and about an individual's actions and responsibility.

John Craig said...

kid3t3rnity --
Ah, if only everybody had your outlook and attitudes. Yes, the biased media coverage is sickening. You mention it in the context of inter gender violence, but as you probably realize, it's actually far worse when it comes to race. The police kill roughly twice as many whites as blacks every year, but all we ever hear about are the blacks who are killed. These days the media are nothing but propagandists, doing their best to rile people up, mostly against straight white males, the new bogeymen. It's all agenda-driven.

And you're absolutely right, the Left will always hurl abuse at anyone who disagrees with that agenda. You've done a good job of rising above your background and seeing things for what they are.

"I don't even give a shit about skin color, gender, or any of that political tripe. I care about people, and about an individual's actions and responsibility."

--Amazingly, anyone with that aside these days is called a racist and a sexist and a homophobe.

kid3t3rnity said...

I live in the Philippines. We have our fair share of SJWs here, but we mostly refer to them as netizens. Unlike America, we don't even have political correctness, and our President is a fucking badass unlike that pretention idiot in the White House.

John Craig said...

Kid3t3rnity --
Oops, meant to say "attitude," not "aside," in the last line of my previous comment.

My mother was born in Manila (though she's Japanese), but I've never been there. Duterte is definitely a badass, no question. And you've characterized the US President accurately, too.

What does your moniker signify?

kid3t3rnity said...

It's just a comic book codename I'm fond of.

John Craig said...

kid3t3rnity --
Aha, okay, thank you.

kid3t3rnity said...

I actually meant to say 'pretentious' in the previous comment. God, I hate autocorrect.

The netizens here aren't as bad the ones in America. For one thing, we have actual problems with significance to our country and our countrymen, like how thousands of drug related crimes are already being resolved, with many surrendering to rehab and prison. You would not believe how packed they are now (it's that bad). Obama would rather fight drugs with love, patience, and tolerance. Hahahahahahah, yeah, we tried that. Drug lords just take advantage of that BS. None of it worked. And before anyone who sees this comment thinks it's a violation of human rights for police to shoot criminals who resist arrest strongly; violently even, then they really don't know what it's like out in the field. This is all part of the 'shoot to kill' policy that the President has issued, essentially giving police permission to shoot criminals. Unfortunately, this has also given a few dirty cops the means to take out snitches who would rat them out, but considering Duterte, they'll be caught eventually.

kid3t3rnity said...

Did I say something wrong?

John Craig said...

kid3t3rnity --
Is your last comment a reference to the fact that I didn't post your previous comment immediately? If that's what you're asking, the answer is no, I went to sleep. (We're on opposite sides of the world.) And just so you know, even if I disagree with a comment or it attacks me personally, I still post it if I think it's relevant to the post. (And I knew you meant "pretentious," don't worry about Auto Correct, it plagues us all.)

And, I happen to mostly agree with you. Obama has been trying that love and tolerance stuff with Muslim extremists for seven years now, and we see how well that's worked. And, as a matter of fact, he's now freed more prisoners (most of whom were in jail for drug offenses) than the previous nine Presidents combined. The only people Obama truly hates are Republicans, especially white Republicans who are aware of racial differences in IQ and crime rates.

I believe in human rights more than Duterte does, but I will admit, his methods are effective.

kid3t3rnity said...

Duterte does believe in human rights, it's abusing those rights at the expense of others is what he cannot tolerate. The people of Davao love him, and his approval ratings have been good so far. He's just more aware of the buffet picture than the bleeding heart types. Yes, there have been many innocents lives claimed during this campaign, but these are drug pushers, drug lords, drugs, drugs, drugs. We here at the Philippines are sick and tired of it. Do you know how much it costs the country to just bail out one overseas worker when they are arrested for being drug mules? Many families here have had their lives ruined because of drugs. And if we're going to just stand and wait for it all to just "go away", then we'd all be long dead by then. Obama is too much of an ideologue to understand that his methods are impotent. They seem more like something out of a cartoon than anything. He even recently did a 15,000 word essay encouraging all men to be feminists. Ridiculous.

John Craig said...

kid3t3rnity --
No question, D├ętente's methods work. I saw that article, I think it was in Glamour, by Obama. I doubt he actually wrote it himself, but the sentiments are certainly in keeping with his personality and outlook. Pathetic. Obama just thinks he's way smarter than he is, he's basically just a narcissistic buffoon with an IQ of around 120 who's been a radical leftist and also a con man his entire life. He certainly pulled a big con on the American people by getting elected, but conditions were right, America was thirsting for a black President by 2008, and he seemed to be an inoffensive type. The joke was on America.

Anonymous said...

"If it is a conservative source, they'll often respond, airily, oh, I would never listen to anything they'd say."

This is why, when referencing my claims, I use the most scientific source possible. Not that that changes people's minds - most people continue believing as they did before.

As Terry Prattchet wrote:
"Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things…well, new things aren’t what they expect. They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that. In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds…Not news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know is true."

- Gethin

Anonymous said...

"The social justice warriors are so convinced of their own righteousness that they are oblivious to the fact that they are driving people away from their side of the argument."

This.

Now that I've finally outed myself as a transsexual, I guess I'm free to say what I really think. SJWs have done more damage to the trans rights movement than anything else in the recent past. People with penises aren't female and people with vaginas & uteruses aren't male, end of. Trans people who've had surgery still aren't biologically members of the gender they've transitioned to.

Unfortunately, SJWs have said ad nauseam that gender is a social construct, people are women if they say they are, biological sex isn't real, etc. This has lead many to think that transsexuals think this, rather than just the SJWs. I've had to clarify many times that I didn't transition because I "felt like a man", just that my old female bits made me depressed to the point of considering suicide. Then the feminists jump in and claim that I must have wanted to transtion due to the "misogynistic oppression" I must've experienced before and that I could've been a lesbian woman if there were less misogyny (not true: I still would've had body dysphoria and, besides, I'm attracted to men so I'd make a rubbish lesbian).

SJWs & feminists combined have made my life difficult. It's hard to explain to people that my sole motivation was wanting to get rid of body parts that made me uncomfortable, not any crazy SJW-like beliefs about biology being unreal. This matters: when people don't understand transsexuals' motivation, they don't welcome trans people as harmless members of society.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
In response to your first comment: so true.

To your second: that's a great analysis of how and why the SJW's are full of it. They politicize everything, including situations such as yours which have noting to do with politics. And they do turn people off with their know-nothing brand of self-righteousness. I'd never thought of them making transgenders miserable before, but that was a good explanation of how they manage to accomplish that as well.

kid3t3rnity said...

Gethin, thank you for speaking up. John, this is what should be heard, actual trans people decrying the nonsense that SJWs and media snot fests espouse to the detriment and expense of people who are perpetually being misunderstood by society. SJWs cannot communicate what needs to be heard, what needs to be said. They do not live or think in terms of reality and/or truth. Gethin is a breath of fresh air and I'm sure that there are many, many others like him out there.

John Craig said...

kid3t3rnity --
Couldn't agree with you more. In fact I was thinking about asking Gethin if I made a post out of his earlier comment (outing himself) and this one, but then I hesitated, because I didn't know if he would want me putting all of this into a post that everyone would see. (Very few people go back to old posts and read the comments.)

But Gethin, if you're listening, I'd love to quote you here in a new post, if I get your permission. It would mean a more public outing, and if you don't want me to do it, I'd completely understand.

Anonymous said...

The behaviour of SJWs is autistic (pre-1910s definition)
https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/autistic-thinking/
"Logical structures supporting a totally private view of reality. The patient exists in a universe whose facts, circumstances, and logic are markedly original and grossly defective.
Example: The patient religiously avoids stepping on cracks in the pavement when walking outside, because he is convinced the car accident he witnessed two years ago was caused by this."

Blueler created the word "autism" for specific behaviour decades before Leo Kanner or Asperger:
“(on autistic behaviour) (He) ceases to care about the real world. He shows a lack of initiative, aimlessness, neglect of reality, distractedness, but also impulsive and bizarre behaviour. Many of his actions, as well as his whole attitude to life are insufficiently externally motivated. Both intensity and extent of attention are disordered. One often finds 'whimsical obstinacy', both WANTING SOMETHING AND THE OPPOSITE at the same time. One finds obsessional acts, automatic acts, automatic commands, etc. (Schizophrenics) live in an imaginary world of WISH FULFILLMENT and DELUSIONS OF PERSECUTION" "autistic thinking can also be found NOT JUST IN psychotics, indeed IN EVERYDAY LIFE, for example, in SUPERSTITION or PSUEDO-SCIENCE."

Sound familiar?

I've given a piece of vocabulary, but it's like "gay,queer,boner" now unrecognizable for its older sense after over a century, we aren't talking directly about Aspies/Autism Spectrum Disorder. Should there be a new word?

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
I see SJW's as weak-minded narcissists rather than artists. Their logic may be 'grossly defective," but it's certainly not "markedly original." None of them can think for themselves, and they all subscribe to the same fiction-based ethos.

Anonymous said...

What sort of people do you think (non-clinical) autistic thinking can be found in?

-Ga





John Craig said...

Ga --
The sort of person who subscribes too wholeheartedly to one "-ism." Someone who subsumes himself in a cult of some sort, and slavishly adheres to their every recommendation, their every tenet. Such a cult could include a major religion, or a political philosophy. Basically, I'm talking about anyone who can't think for himself.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever wondered why people on the spectrum often always need to be right? I thought about my own behaviour, and it would be hard to explain in short.

But this video has the answer, the second thing Kanner mentioned, "sameness" "enviroment".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr1HF6a0w40

The word "autos" from autism also means "the same" in ancient greek if used in neutral gender, as an adverb it means "by or within oneself/itself" or "as it currently is", in philosophy it refers to the familiar, what is nearby, what acts without external motivation, what happens repeatedly, what is self contained, and as a noun it means "itself/oneself" like "he himself saw the movie alone", all capturing the underlying root of this disorder in one word.

The word is from "au" (back, again, returning, original starting point) and "tos" (that which is mentioned before). Autos....it's like the word existed just for this disorder.

Leo Kanner....overshadowed now by Hans Asperger, wrongly accused of things he never did or said such as claiming poor parenting was the cause (the was Bruno Bettleheim).
I dream of someday seeing Kanner get the credit he deserves

https://the-art-of-autism.com/the-two-great-pioneers/

The claim Kanner plagiarized Asperger came from that guy Michael Fitzgerald (remember that weirdo in the video for "planet asperger", the guy who diagnozed George Orwell, Ted Bundy, and Charles De Gaulle as autistic? yes that guy.)

Kanner was known for his warmheartedness and caring personality. He, an American jew, saved Jewish families from the holocaust by helping them escape to the USA.

Asperger took part in the holocaust...

Sometime if you ever feel interested I recommend you read a bit about him on wikipedia, and then read about Asperger and compare. Who, to you, is the greater pioneer of the two? is what I would like to ask. I know you don't have an answer.
Of course evidence has emerged of a female Soviet psychiatrist who may have documented and published findings in 1925!

Nevertheless, I just want Kanner being known. Everyone knows who Asperger is, but hardly anyone knows who Kanner is. I feel it's quite unfair, and disruptive to my need for "sameness".

-Ga

PS. Do you know what I mean by the "need to be right" and what the video says as an answer?

John Craig said...

Ga --
Yes, I know who you mean by Aspies always having to be right. They can never admit they're wrong, no matter what, and will come up with the lamest and most transparent of excuses to justify their errors. Trust me, I've seen that in action many, many times. I"m not sure that video answers that question, though. Only Aspies can make changes?

Not familiar with Michael Fitzgerald, but he's obviously way off base.

Anonymous said...

Information is an entity which a person possesses like you would say a toy or phone.
A severe autistic person can be seen to breakdown if you go into their room and remove an item or move their toys around.

When I was worse at handling criticism, praise sometimes, and different beliefs, I got angry but not like "how dare he disagree with ME of all people! The great Ga! I am such an amazing person who is God's gift to the world!",

it is "your facts are wrong! All of this information is incorrect! I have the right facts! THIS INFORMATION IS CORRECT, THAT INFORMATION IS NOT!"


Something related:
I remember arguing that Transylvania was not the same as Pennsylvania in 1st grade. It's obvious I would get things wrong but would be right sometimes, same with everyone, but I grew stubborn from feeling resentment of the times where I was actually right for real and felt a injustice, but alsi from inconsistency, If someone on the street says to me "I fucked your mom" I wouldn't care, but if everybody loved Kim Jong Un and I was the only person who didn't I would be pissed off more at being alone than at Kim himself. This must say something, I feel these have something to do. If you can help me understand this, it would be helpful for me understanding myself.

But back to the explanation:
Everything must fit, cannot be moved around, someone changing your mind is like them coming into your room and rearranging your furniture. This is a need for sameness. And the information is seen in an absolute unchanging way, which makes the need to hold onto it even more leading to stubborness.

This is what is true for me, because discovering this and thinking about it helped me learn to accept criticism, sudden uncomfortable compliments, and disagreement better, so I reason this must be the root cause.

Also related:
You have to remember John, the 200 angry autist brigade attacked you not out of feelings of individualistic prides getting bruised. Much more like the reaction from a horde of Muslims if you attacked Mohammed. They don't care if somewhere autistic children get raped. Its all about their god. I have mentioned that a lot, so I want to know if you got what I was talking about.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
Okay, thank you, that's a good explanation of how and why Aspies react the way they do to being corrected.

The two Aspies I know best generally don't give off the air of constantly being proud of themselves, the way narcissists do. But their arguments are often tired and lame. With one of them, if you give her a fact she doesn't like, that doesn't fit with her world view, she'll say, "Uh...what's your source on that?" Which, of course, leads to, "Oh, I would *never* take *[that source]* at its word!"

Anonymous said...

It's important to understand the roots of these behaviours, so they can with early intervention be mitigated. Too often the explanations offered are either too positively (pride groups) or negatively biased (trolls).

There is more medication and treatment on the way, its only a matter of years.
Combined with early treatment, I believe it will be a condition with a degree possible functional recovery someday (not the same as being cured, but some sort of lessening of symptom severity?)

Even now, I do wonder, if a person on the spectrum has a good childhood and they would find the roots of behaviours and stop them very early on that all you are left with is not aquired character disorder as a result thereof (having the condition) and secondary symptoms (downstram results from enviroment in childhood and more, so no repressiveness or phobias etc.) and were left with a person with only primary organic symptoms, what would that person be like?
That is rhetorical but finding the answer is a necesarry goal.

-Ga

Anonymous said...

http://people.com/celebrity/donald-triplett-autisms-first-ever-patient-now-82-has-continued-to-grow/

This story seems like a partial answer. He was a very severe case, unable to properly talk and communicate when 3, he is patient 1 of 11 identified by Kanner in 1938. The first person to ever be diagnosed, and he has led a fulfilling life and is happily retired.

Most don't turn out as well as he does, but he had THE Leo Kanner, the founder, as his doctor, and instead of being institutionalized in an asylum, he received exceptional treatment from the man himself.

Meanwhile I don't know if I will make it to 82 living on my own, even though I'm nowhere near as severe as this guy's case. Childhood and early treatment play roles.

-Ga