In the past few months there's been a fair amount of contempt directed at Greta Thunberg. I understand the sentiment: why should have to listen to a 16-year-old (she turned 17 on January 3rd) lecture us about the environment? What does she know of the world?
There were a few recent gleeful articles about how she traveled in a first class compartment while on a train in Europe. In fact, any time she does anything which pollutes, it's pointed out, as if this proves her hypocrisy.
My reaction to this is, well, at least Thunberg's making an effort. She's evidently given up air travel, and is also a vegetarian. And it's basically impossible to completely avoid polluting in the modern world.
The ones who really deserve our contempt are the Al Gores and Leo DiCaprios and Barbra Streisands and John Travoltas of the world, who wax self-righteous about the sacrifices the rest of us must make while themselves traveling by private plane and living in huge mansions.
Plus, all the antipathy aimed at a 16-year-old seems a little misdirected. Yes, she's a little self-righteous; but I wouldn't want to be held responsible for some of the things I said at 22, let alone 16.
Whenever someone grows up in the public eye, it's inevitably a little embarrassing. Especially when they're being used by others to promote a certain point of view.
To me, the most interesting thing about Thunberg is the intersection between her psychology and her politics. As a child, she was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and selective mutism. She had evidently been depressed for years before she discovered leftist politics, and, according to her father, her activism has essentially made her a happy person.
This protesting-as-therapy phenomenon is probably far more widespread than commonly realized. Find a cause, feel good about yourself.
It's generally a good thing when people do things to improve their self-image, or lift themselves out of depression. But should national policy be dictated by such considerations?
One would think that such would be determined by a clear-eyed, rational, coldly realistic appraisal of the available options.
In the meantime, a young girl who's driven by her heart rather than her head does not deserve our contempt. Our sympathy, maybe, but not our contempt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
In a "a clear-eyed, rational, coldly realistic" world, you don't suffer mutants to live.
Lowly --
Ha! Well, I don't want our government to be quite *that* cold.
It's an act on the part of the girl. She and her parents have ties with George Soros. NATO is pushing the climate hoax (agenda) right now. The girl's father and another man manage the girl's social media accounts.
- Conservative Woman
Conservative Woman --
Soros may have provided money since, but this whole thing started out as therapy for Thunberg. Her parents apparently aren't all that political, they just went along with this to "save" their daughter. Soros would never have picked out some random 16-year-old schoolgirl from Sweden as one of his spokespeople. He tends to fund existing movements, or spokespeople.
I am not at all sanguine about this girl and her intentions for the rest of us. That face does not belong to a mentally stable or empathetic person. I'm tired of her accusations, haranguing and intimations of doom if we don't do what she wants. She's a budding monster who needs to be sent to her room. If she ever achieves power, nothing will deter her from trying to reshape the world more to her liking. Heaven help us all then, especially those of us in the "guilty" older generations, whom she may deem unworthy of further existence.
Anon --
I completely understand how you feel (as I said in the first paragraph). And that was my initial reaction to her as well. And the fact that she's been diagnosed as having Aspergers pretty much precludes empathy, and her OCD also indicates lack of stability. And all of her play-acting, if you want to put it that way, is basically just therapy for her. But the point of this post is basically that she's just a kid, not to be taken all that seriously. And the fact that she is being given such a large platform is just a function of the fact that her narrative fits in with the one the MSM wants to promote.
"She had evidently been depressed for years before she discovered leftist politics, and, according to her father, her activism has essentially made her a happy person"
On a personal basis,my,one of my many,sisters in law was depressed for many years. That is until she met or rather was introduced to a man.
Love blossomed for at least two weeks, until the pleasures of the flesh were dissipated.
And then all returned to normal.
The pleasures of the flesh can last for a few weeks but good cooking triumphs over all. My sister claimed to be a good cook but reality was a harsh judge.
Europeasant --
I'd hope that the pleasures of the flesh might have kept going for more than two weeks.
To be honest, I think most guys would take good looks over good cooking. In fact there are probably some men who'd learn to cook themselves if it meant they could snag the woman of their dreams.
"In fact there are probably some men who'd learn to cook themselves if it meant they could snag the woman of their dreams"
Yes,John what you say is true. But in a recent board game I was presented with the problem of choosing between Charlzie Theron and good cooking. My response was that Charlize would be good for one or two days but the good cooking woman would be there fore ever.Case closed.Unless one likes to chase after the Theron types. Which gets dangerous after a while.
BTW I paid for some good stuff and admittedly some bad stuff in my 18 years of crawling around the streets.The good cooking wins out in the final accounting.
Europeasant --
I have to admit, I'd have gone for Charlize. Of course, I'm more of a gourmand than a gourmet, and am just as happy with a glass of protein powder (which they can make taste pretty good these days) and a peanut butter and honey sandwich as I am with something fancier. For me, much more of it would hinge on the personality: a lot of the Charlizes of the world tend to be pretty difficult. And if I knew ahead of time that the woman was a Cluster B personality (sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline, or histrionic) I wouldn't even go for the one or two days.
Speaking of Charlize, I noticed that even though she was in a number of Harvey Weinstein movies, she never joined the chorus of women who later accused him of abusing them. On the one hand I sort of admire her for not becoming part of the pecking party; on the other, it's impossible not to conclude that she earned her roles the old-fashioned way, on the casting couch. She seems to be pretty tough, like a lot of the South Africans I've met; she not only made her deal with the devil, she honored it and didn't complain about it afterward. (I realize you're only using Charlize as an example, I sort of went off on a tangent here.)
Following my Aspergers misdiagnosis, I bought a book called 'Saving Normal'* from a psychiatrist called Allen Frances. He argues that diagnostic criteria are being ever expanded so that people once considered to be merely eccentric are now considered mentally ill. As a result, ever more 'worried well' people are being pathologised and stigmatised, whilst the genuinely unwell are having vital services diverted from them.
*https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reclaiming-childhood/201407/review-saving-normal-0
Anyway, here's what Allen Frances had to say about Greta on Twitter:
"Greta Thunberg is the opposite of "mentally ill" when she crusades for climate sanity.
The "mental illness" is on us, not her.
Its crazy to follow Trump down self-destructive path of climate denial that's destroying the world we leave for her generation.
"#Aspergers" diagnosis given to Greta Thunberg is clear example of false epidemic of #autism/medicalization of normal.
Greta lacks distress/impairment being who she is & thus doesnt meet criteria for mental disorder
On contrary, being Greta is wonderful for her & our world.
Some people point out Greta had psych issues growing up.
True, but #autism diagnosis jumped 50 fold in 25 yrs bec of careless misdiagnosis of other psych problems.
Others worry my term "false epidemic" will result in missing true cases.
But my goal is more accurate diagnosis."
- Gethin
Gethin --
I agree, a lot of conditions are over diagnosed these days. Where I live, in Connecticut, ambitious parents will often "encourage" diagnoses of Aspergers with psychotherapists because that means extra time on tests, which means a leg up on getting into college. But that aside, I think a lot of psychotherapists want to prove their "worth" by coming up with something. You look more professional and capable if you assign a label than if you way "I"m not sure," and they all, of course, need to justify their existence.
That said, I disagree with Frances about Thunberg. The fact that she is evidently on his side of the political fence does not provide a clean bill of mental health. And the people who know her best, her parents, felt that they were "saving her life" by encouraging her public protests. She definitely suffered from depression, and while I'm unfamiliar with "selective mutism," one of her diagnoses, it does sound like something an Aspie might have.
There are plenty of other people who've done good in some form or other, who've had something. Bill Clinton accomplished much during his Presidency (how much, and whether it was for good or bad, depends on your political point of view), yet no one who really understands sociopathy -- and who's honest -- would deny that he's a sociopath. Trump is accomplishing a lot (again, whether for better or worse depends on your political viewpoint), yet, as I've explained recently, he's extremely narcissistic. And so on.
Two concerns
1. If she really is an Aspie no amount of logic, reasoning or data will change her mind - When will enough be enough as far as a clean environment. If protesting is saving her life how can she ever stop. Will a "victory" remove her depression - what does a victory or end game look like to her -
2. Who is behind the marketing of her? If she is being used as a shield by activist to promote a cause that allows for a one sided argument - who can debate a teenagers position and not look like a bully -especially a teenager that has suffered from metal illness in the past. My fear is she will be used and discarded once the next radical idea is put in place - which might leave her is a worst mental state when it is all said and done.
GT --
Great points. Her thinking is bound to be rigid, and in any case, the environment will always be a concern. I don't think there will ever be any sort of "victory" declared.
And yes, sooner or later the public will lose interest in her and not being in the limelight could well bring back her depression. Sad, actually, I think she's a decent person who's been caught in a maelstrom she now has absolutely no control over.
Hey John have you heard of gangstalking? That's when a bunch of sociopaths gang up on one person.
Anon --
I haven't heard of that particular term, but I can think of a few instances of it. Why do you ask?
Usually sociopaths don't cooperate all that well with each other, and have a falling out in fairly short order.
This is the true conservative, unmatched. So conservative that evolution is an affront. A natural wonder.
Anon --
Are you referring to me? Lefties are the ones who really object to what evolution teaches us:
https://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2013/01/evolution-part-ii.html
John,
Any thoughts on the current virus pandemic?
Hi Arthur --
Good to hear from you. Honestly, I don't have any original thoughts on this thing; I couldn't tell you anything you haven't heard before, elsewhere. It really is like something out of a disaster movie, certainly not something I had expected to see in my lifetime. It's sort of as if the volcano underneath Yellowstone erupted; we've all read about how it would be incredibly disastrous, and would immediately inundate six states, etc. But none of us really expect it to happen while we're alive.
There's going to be a lot of speculation in the future about whether or not it's manmade, and if it is, how exactly it escaped. But in the meantime, we all just have to hunker down and hope for the best. I'm fairly pessimistic as far as limiting its spread; I think it's eventually going to make its way through most of the population, can't see how that can't happen. It also seems like the best thing that can happen to most of us is to actually be exposed to it over the summer, so that we have a chance to develop antibodies to it while its effects are milder.
John,
Agreed. In the coming weeks and months, we will find out what kind of country this truly is. Are we simply cogs in the mighty GDP machine, huddled around the economic excel spreadsheet like a fire lit to honor the great spirit in the sky? Or a nation that has the well-being and concerns of our fellow citizens as a value? The character of the country will be revealed. The trials and testing begins soon. Will we pass the test?
I certainly hope so.
Or this all blows over in two weeks without a hitch and we go back to squabbling over the Kardashians and sports. Haha
Arthur --
That would certainly be nice. I'm actually surprised that the US has done such a good job of shutting things down. That's going to tamp down the transmission quite a bit, and, given that the incubation period is supposed to be roughly up to two weeks, that could mean that things get opened up sooner rather than later. I still think we're pretty much all destined to be exposed to it sooner or later, but if a lot of that exposure comes when the weather has warmed, the destructive effects won't be nearly as bad. Or, maybe that's wishful thinking. Bt they say that viruses don't do well in warm, muggy weather, so it would make sense that people would have more chance to develop antibodies in an environment where they have the advantage over the virus, rather than vice versa.
John,
Someone just asked me if I was afraid of the corona virus?
Here was my response.
Corona Virus. Corona Virus!
I ain’t afraid of no Corona Virus.
I’ll bitch slap that Virus
Like if she was a Two-bit Whore.
And I ain’t jokin cause
I’m comin out Smokin!
Stay well.
Europeasant --
Thank you, be well yourself.
Ha, that sounds like something Muhammad Ali might have said, though, now that I think of it, he probable wouldn't have since one of his primary opponents was "Smokin' Joe Frazier," and it would have seemed derivative.
Good attitude to have, though.
Any comment on this?
https://tips21.com/20-signs-president-trump-may-be-a-sociopath/
Gilbert --
Just took a look. Honestly, the guy doesn't sound too smart. That was evident in the first paragraph when he wrote that "the current President cold be a psychotic leader in chief." To be psychotic is to crazy, or schizoid, and the only thing it has in common with psychopathy is its first six letters. No one who's well versed in sociopathy would make that mistake.
In his fourth paragraph he writes of Trump's "constant bereavement of anyone who dares challenge him." To be bereaved is to be in mourning; what author Hector Mota means to say is "belittlement," but he's not proficient enough in English to know the difference.
In his next subheading, he labels Trump as "psychotic" again.
Then, when he lists the various traits which define sociopathy, he seems to have used traits which may character narcissism, but not sociopaths. For instance, "Appearance is top priority." In other words, because he's vain, he must be a sociopath. That's ridiculous. I've read a lot of the literature on sociopathy, and I've never seen vanity listed as one of its defining traits. We're all vain, maybe narcissists are more so, but that's hardly proof of sociopathy.
Another defining characteristic of sociopathy he lists is "Shows skills or understanding about certain things." In other words, if you're an expert on something, this means you're a sociopath? I guess all doctors must be sociopaths.
Yet another is "Loves social media." There are plenty of narcissistic personalities with Instagram accounts who are not sociopaths. And there are plenty of relatively normal people with Facebook accounts where they try to present themselves in their best light, who are obviously not sociopaths.
Then, when Mota does hit on a defining trait, like "World's biggest liars," he'll follow up with a ridiculous statement like, "Believe it or not, only .01 percent of what a sociopath says is true." Where exactly did he get that number from? I've know several sociopaths well, and have observed many others at a distance. If I had to throw a number at this, I'd say that at least 75% of what they say is true. At least. That said, if you're lying about 25% of the time, that would rank as extreme dishonesty. And the way sociopaths "lie" is usually more a function of spin than outright dishonesty. They'll often shade something, or present it in a certain light to make themselves look better or manipulate you somehow, but often it falls a little short of being an outright lie. I"m guessing that Mota isn't particularly numerate, either. To say that only ".01 percent of what a sociopath says is true" is to say that one one-hundredth of one percent, i.e, one statement intended thousand, is true. If that were the case, then in fact sociopaths would be the most reliable people around: you could ask them a question and know, with 99.99% certainty, that the opposite of what they say is the truth, as long as you knew they are sociopaths. And with numbers like that, you'd certainly know they were sociopaths in pretty short order.
I cold parse every single one of Meta's paragraphs and find more stuff like this, but you get the idea. And by the way, as I've said many times on this blog, Trump IS unquestionably an extremely narcissistic personality, but he's not a sociopath. (I wrote about this in some detail in December.)
Brilliant. Thanks.
Gilbert, thank you, but I just reread my comment, and see about ten typos, all of which add up to making me sound as dumb as Mota. I need to start proofreading. "One statement intended thousand" was supposed to read, "one statement in ten thousand." Etc. But you probably knew what I meant.
No worries at all - there's a difference between an article and a comment on a blog post.
Now would you please get back to blogging?! :-)
Gilbert --
Every now and then I see something I want to write about, but then I just don't get around to it. For instance, Kobe Bryant's death made me want to write about how the public reacts when a celebrity dies. (They really ought not to care any more when someone famous dies than the famous person would care if they died.) And it wasn't just Bryant's death which made me think that, vtw, I was struck even more by that when Princess Diana died 23 years ago. All those silly people....but then I never got around to it.
It also occurred to me I ought to write about the strong parallel between Meghan Markle and Wallis Simpson; they are very similar personality types. And frankly, Sarah Ferguson and Diana also fell into that ambitious/dishonest/conniving/striving/nasty cohort as well.....but then I never got around to it.
And I suppose there are a few things I could say about this virus. (One of which is that with all these colleges moving online, it demonstrates how unnecessary attendance at an actual physical college really is. And if courses can be taught online, really, couldn't a similar amount of learning just be gained from reading books? And doesn't all of this show higher education to be somewhat of a scam?)
And so on. Anyway, thank you, I may get back to blogging at some point, but in the meantime I've also been busy with other stuff.
Related: https://jackbaruth.com/?p=18007
Titled: This Quarantine Is Proving To Me Just How Terrible The Schools Truly Are
Chris B --
Excellent article, thank you. The author's kids are obviously brighter than average, but still, his experience shows what a waste of time much of school is. Schools mostly provide a babysitting function, so parents don't have to be with them 24 hours a day. I wouldn't discount the importance of that -- if parents have to work, that's a necessity. But as far as the curriculum goes, they have to cater to the lowest common denominator, and move along at a pace that the dullest of students can understand, so bright kids like the author's are inevitably bored and get distracted.
OT:
I have been thinking that Bill Gates is way than Steve Jobs:
HOW BILL GATES MONOPOLIZED GLOBAL HEALTH
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cC9pWgi3IQGV/?list=recently-viewed&randomize=false
BILL GATES' PLAN TO VACCINATE THE WORLD
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zEL8OhqEOkq2/?list=recently-viewed&randomize=false
Allan --
Good to hear from you. Honestly, I don't see Gates as being as malevolent as Jobs. Jobs was all about getting more credit for himself (despite the fact that he was't any kind of tech wizard and never designed a thing at Apple, he merely took credit for everything). And he tried to screw those who should have been nearest and dearest to him (like Steve Wozniak, early on in their careers, and his own daughter, whom he claimed falsely was not his daughter). And he never really became a campaigner for causes larger than himself or his company.
Gates was an aggressive businessman early on, basically gaining monopoly power for his MS-DOS with sharp-elbowed tactics. But his push to help cut down on malaria and AIDS deaths and the like doesn't strike me as having some evil underhanded motive. He's pushy when it comes to getting his way, but it never struck me that his ultimate goal was more personal power.
Respectfully, I must disagree. He has a bad track in vaccines in India and Africa. He wants to reduce world population. The more I have been reading on him the more I'm convinced he is a rather sinister figure. What is said about Jobs, can be said about Gates.
Anyway, I love you and it's good to hear from you as well.
No. Her parents think she is an Indigo Child and have abused her into all kinds of delusional beliefs while making all the posts for her on social media accounts and writing all her speeches. Look up Indigo Child. It's a New Age cult. They really think she can literally see (with her indigo child sense) carbon dioxide from smoke stacks.
Post a Comment