I like to use the group texting function for my Dungeons & Dragons game to talk about deep issues on which I ruminate.

 I like to submit questions to people in my social group on a regular basis to help me figure out the important issues of the day (or to just make sense of my crazy thoughts). One of the wisest people I associate with (who also plays Dungeons & Dragons with me) responded to two of my questions that I posed on Thursday. The first was in the form of a hypothesis, and here it is:

Many psychiatrists who I consider to be professionals within their field have diagnosed former President Trump as a psychopath. I agree with this diagnosis, based upon the things I have read. However, I also don't think he is beyond the norm if you were to consider how white males behaved in the 1940's and 1950's. So my question to my group was: If former president Trump (by modern standards) is a psychopath, does that mean that a lot of the men from the 1940's and 1950's would also be diagnosable as psychopaths? Does this mean that we are literally the children and grandchildren of psychopaths?

Just so you know, my group is pretty liberal. We have one or two conservatives kicking around, but I purposely exclude them from these discussions, because there is no point talking with them. I can learn nothing from them as I've lived around them in Utah and Idaho my entire life. I already know what they will say and can write it down ahead of time. They also possess a lot of "white fragility," which is a term that was not coined by me, but you can look it up on the internet if you like. Still interested in the answer I got? Then read on.

Most of my group was silent on this particular question. But Geneva responded with this (and I wanted to share): 

"I think Trump, and many of his peers both historical and modern, are narcissists rather than psychopaths. Here's why: at the malignant end of the cluster B personality scale, the difference between someone with antisocial personality disorder (what used to be called sociopathy/psychopathy) and a malignant narcissist is that the narcissist cares about his public image. The person with antisocial personality disorder doesn't give a crap what other people thing. Trump and his ilk care deeply what others think, and lash out with rage if they feel that their outward facing image as a dominant "alpha wolf" has been compromised. The psychopath is less likely to act out publicly. He'll simply have you killed."

I find this very interesting, not only because of what Geneva had to say, but if she was right, then the people of the 1940's and 1950's who were white, straight, and male probably possessed diagnosable personality disorders like narcissism in above average quantities. But does the shoe fit? How would this compare to my own family? Well, knowing what I know and how mom and dad lived their lives, I can say with 100% certainty that (in my opinion) my father could probably have been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (using modern standards). It explains so much in the terrors I experienced growing up, and the violence I saw within my own family.

I love that we have explanations and words to describe these disorders. It is so empowering, and it has allowed me to understand (and properly frame) events that I recall from childhood and teenaged years. Being able to understand behavior has helped me with healing. Have your life experiences been similar? Are you (as well) grateful for the words that we have available today to describe behaviors? If so, I'd like to hear about them in the comments. And have a nice weekend. 

Why do people spend so much time virtue signaling online?

If you don't know what "virtue signaling" is, I'll define it for you. Once I do, I think you'll recognize it in your own life on your social media feeds. "Virtue signaling" is an expression of moral outrage that smacks of feigned righteousness intended to make the speaker appear superior by condemning others. In short, it's an attempt to show other people that you are a good person. In my own personal bubble of "friends," the act of "virtue signaling" appears very strong with those who have extreme liberal views. It makes me wonder if they have a problem with self-esteem, or if they feel like they are (in fact) not good people. The answer is probably somewhere in-between.

Still having trouble figuring out what I'm talking about with this term? Want an example? Take the good looking thirty-something man that says on Facebook, "Women please be proud of your bodies no matter how they appear. You are lovely whether you are fat or thin, white or chocolate, and in any shape or size. You are all beautiful." But then you actually know this guy and he dates only thin models or women who have smooth legs that exist nowhere in nature outside of a dolphin (and wear high heels and have long flowing hair and makeup). And yes, the same guy dates only white women. Yet he is chased after by dozens of women, because yeah...he's good looking...like movie-star good looks. He could have anyone he wants, so why not take the Lizzo look-alike? It's because what he's saying online is a hypocrisy. It is not the truth, because fat women actually don't (and never did) have a chance with him at all. It's the "do as I say, and not as I do" type of person.

I've noticed that one of the things about virtue signaling is that it actually does not require the person saying anything to live by what they preach. Additionally, the person that is engaging in "virtue signaling" generally comes across as pompous and bossy. I think most of us would want others to just privately act on one's convictions without the hope or expectation of acknowledgement. However, a lot of people in the modern world have no self-identity within themselves and depend on an external source of validation in order to obtain any kind of life happiness or satisfaction.

And I think that's the ultimate answer to the question I posed in the headline: why do people spend so much time virtue signaling online? It's because in the modern world, a lot (and I mean LOTS in all caps) of people are relying upon external validation for their self-esteem. Through virtue signaling, they get reassurance that they know what they stand for, they point out to others that they are a good person, and they (maybe) identify with a wrong that harmed them personally and are pointing it out to the world so that others avoid being damaged in the same way.

That's what I think, anyway. As to why people collectively worldwide seem to possess low self-esteem, I have only a few theories. The most prevalent one is that the Earth is extremely overcrowded (population explosion times infinity). Because of this, scarcity of resources is becoming an everyday thing as is the inability to distinguish oneself from another because anything you have to offer is a dime a dozen.

The term "spoilt for choice" comes to mind. This is a British phrase that means, roughly, that there are so many things to choose from that it becomes impossible to choose, which can create anxiety. Remember elementary school and not wanting to be the last one picked for a dodgeball team? Well society is essentially a dodgeball team on a grandiose scale. Whatever is doing the picking, whether it is for a job, for a lover, to be a model, to be a singer, to be a famous author...no one wants to be in the picked over pile. But because there are so many of us, the pickers are "spoilt for choice" and (I hate to say it) but a lot of us just end up on the bottom of the barrel rotting away. Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, I think Earth's ever increasing population does a disservice to us all by collectively devaluing the actual cost of a single human life with each new baby that comes along. That's not to say that I don't like babies. I adore them as much as the next person. I'm just trying to state the obvious that when a population goes from a million to ten million and to a hundred million, each individual in that population is worth less (in terms of what value they bring to a society). This is why we all have to join unions to get collective bargaining power: a single person alone is no threat at all to the employer.

So maybe virtue signaling in the end is an attempt to restore some of that lost value damaged by unchecked population growth. However, (and for whatever reason) it always makes me think for a little while that the people who are doing it are smug. It makes me want to ask, "Who gave you the power to tell others how to live?" I don't like it, but I don't think it's going away anytime soon. Just my two cents on a Wednesday.

Curious: do you virtue signal online? Please leave your answers and thoughts in the comments.

Deception is a remarkable thing.

I know several deceivers, and they are small time creatures who weave webs of lies to cocoon themselves within their own realities. What strikes me as remarkable about this is that it seems so apparently obvious to me, yet it isn't obvious to their families and even one fiancée in particular (you'd think that a fiancée would know, but they don't). Though I don't care all that much, I wonder why I'm able to see things that they are not. And I think it all boils down to one thing: the family and the fiancée want very much for life to appear a certain way. The fiancée does not want to be single, and I think she believes she is running out of time with one failed marriage already under her belt. I believe she's put a lot of time into this relationship, and that she just doesn't want to see anything wrong with it. It's like a cost vs. benefits thing. "There's no effing way that I've spent this kind of time investing in this thing and I'm not gonna get a reward for it!" It's like a cognitive dissonance or something similar....

What the family wants is a bit different. They want things to be defined a certain way. To them, bad people look like non-whites who are flashy in the way they dress (or sexual). Bad people are the ones with the tattoos, the ones with the piercings, and the ones who are blatantly honest with their sexuality. A person who is very open and has no problem saying, "I'm gay and I like dick," is a bad person not to be trusted with underage boys because (obviously) they are just waiting to molest. But a person who is closeted, who outwardly says all of the right things...the deceiver if you will...is the person they invest with all of the trust. It's truly baffling, and all of the signs that they are "in the closet" are right there (and perhaps up to nefarious things). But it's not worth digging any deeper to them because it might spoil what they really want (a Norman Rockwell life?), which in my opinion doesn't exist.

I've come to observe that a willingness to take lies as truth comes from fear, and I wasn't expecting this. I have a very healthy and honest relationship with fear. If I'm afraid of something I say it. I also embrace fear in many ways, realizing that (as an emotion) it's purpose is to keep me safe. But I've never been struck by a fear of truth (I guess) because I've always embraced truth and didn't care what other people thought of me. I'm gay, I'm fat, I'm two years from my fiftieth birthday...all of these things are true and I don't care. I say blunt things because this is how I think and I feel bluntness is good and solid communication that has no risk of being misunderstood. When people I've barely met ask to use my computer, they act stunned when I say. "Yes. But I should warn you that there's naked pictures of guys on there so don't open certain folders if you are offended by that kind of thing." I just don't care, but I'm also comfortable living a life alone. I've had people say to me over the years, "You are so courageous for living alone like this." I usually look puzzled and say, "Um...I like living alone. This isn't torture you know?"

One of my friends even said, "Living like you would make me want to commit suicide." I think I was eating ice cream and watching t.v.  I was like, "What?" And they clarified, "I just don't know how you do it?" And I was like..."Do what? Eat ice cream?" And then they started saying how it must be miserable to be single, and I quickly said, "Look, I only suffer from loneliness or depression honestly about once a month or once every two months. I actually love all the space I have and I love being single. It's great. I go to movies all the time, and I only have to buy one ticket. I never have to arrange myself around anyone else's schedule. I eat what I want every night. I watch what I want. It's actually pretty great." But they would have none of it. They thought I was miserable.

There's a weird kind of shaming that happens with our society around folks who are single. We must all be the biggest losers that humanity has ever pooped onto the Earth, and we must all be suffering and one inch away from suiciding out. But that is not the case at all, I assure you. But it's this "idea" and "fear of being single" and "going your own way" that opens people up to deception. It's the idea that there is only one formula for happiness, and that if you stray from that formula, well you're basically f*cked so you should accept anything that happens to you (or that is told to you) as long as it preserves the formula for happiness. It's complete and utter bullshit. And it makes me think ultimately, that a lot of people are not equipped to detect deception, because ultimately they don't want to do just that. Essentially, people find comfort in being lied to as long as it fits the formula for happiness. What they don't like are the things that threaten to derail the formula for happiness. Even if these uncomfortable things are facts and are completely true, they will be labeled as lies by people in order to preserve what they know.

That is so messed up. So yeah...deception is a remarkable thing. And it's just another layer of what it's like to live in this messed up world. Do I have any advice to people out there who want to be able to spot deception and to be free of it? Yes, and it's actually pretty easy. Embrace the fear of being alone. Embrace the fear of walking a path alone through life. Be your authentic self. Get to a point where you don't care what people say about you. Get to a point where you are not dependent on anyone else, and you can truly say "No" to opportunities (because if you wanted to you could just do them yourself). Once you've arrived at that point, you will spot people who are lying to you. You will unmask the deceivers and the manipulators.  And you will probably learn something about yourself along the way.

Why does no one point out that there can be some spectacular and horrifying consequences to saying no?

Before I get to the point of my post, I would like to say that I believe all people have a right to say no. They have a right to draw boundaries, and they should be encouraged to do so with abandon. Children should be taught the power of saying "no" to this and "no" to that. Women and men should say "no" all the time to all kinds of advances, questions, opportunities. However, I feel that all of these "the power of no" conversations are lost teaching opportunities. People are overlooking the uncomfortable other side of standing up for yourself and drawing boundaries, which are done solely for selfish reasons: to secure what makes you happy (or what is healthy for you). This "uncomfortable other thing" is the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring: that there can be unforeseen and even unpleasant consequences to saying no. Think of all the things that qualify for "no" in this world.

Saying no to someone who wants a relationship with you.
Saying no to an applicant that desperately wants a job.
Saying no to someone who is demanding equality.
Saying no to a person who is demanding to be respected.
Saying no to someone who asks for your help.
Saying no to someone who wants compassion.
Saying no to someone who just wants to be listened to.
Saying no to someone who wants to be included.
Saying no to someone who wants monogamy.
Saying no to someone who wants your money.
Saying no to someone who wants drugs.
Saying no to someone who wants a book deal.

The list is endless, but our society teaches that it is OKAY TO SAY NO. Fine. I'm all for that. Every single one of us should always get what we want and never have to do anything that even remotely makes us uncomfortable or could possibly damage us in any way.

In a perfect world, there should be no consequences to saying "no," and I for one will line up for this perfect world so fast I might get whiplash. But here's the rub: we don't live in a perfect world. We don't live in a world where a person can freely slam the door in someone else's face and expect them to be "right as rain" about it. Sure...we can try to educate them...we can try to condition behavior to the point that, if someone rejects you...if someone says no to something you want badly...then you just need to smile, say thank you, and walk away. Yes, we can try to achieve this utopia. But the pessimist in me thinks that people should all be aware that sometimes this isn't the case. And on very rare occasions, it can backfire spectacularly (and in horrible terrifying ways). When I watch the news and see instances of these backfires...when I see horrible crimes that have been committed because someone was so angry because they had a door to something (that they desired deeply) slammed in their face so many times...I am stunned by how many people come forth and say, "We were so surprised. I can't believe that this man did _____. We never saw it coming." Are we really this naive?

I'm not a criminal psychologist. But I don't think it takes a criminal psychologist to see some horrible shootings that have occurred as a result of repeated "no's" (or their equivalent) heaping on top of unrequited desires for (insert blank). And again, I'm not saying that any of this is right. People should feel free to say "no" as much as they want with absolutely no consequences. But I don't ever hear someone saying to a child, "I want you to know that it's okay to say 'no.' But be aware, that if you do say 'no' to someone...that if you make them feel disrespected in any way...there's a very rare possibility that this someone will not take it well and either hurt you or a bunch of other people. That's just how life works, and you need to be prepared for that consequence. And be aware that the consequence need not be immediate. It could take years of 'no's to eventually break a person. Yours could be the first or last in a long line of them. It's all just Russian roulette and sometimes, in life, ya just gotta take a spin and see how it turns out." Nope...no one says that. Instead the last half of that sentiment gets chopped off and all that's said to the child is, "I want you to know that it's okay to say no."

I think that this is wrong to do. It raises a person to believe that "no" is empowering and that you can throw it in another person's face and they just gotta take it. But it completely ignores or outright disrespects the potential and power of violence. I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "violence doesn't solve anything." It's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I usually am swift to correct them by saying, "Actually, violence solves a lot of things. Depending on the level of violence, it has a potential to bring a swift end to any disagreement. It has the potential for finality, unlike any other thing. It just depends on how committed to the violence someone is." I have actually been asked to leave a home because I said this to someone. They were so "shaken" by my ability to point this out. However, in my defense there were others in the room that immediately agreed with me, making this person who kicked me out of their home very cross that I could possibly bring up such a sentiment around their children.

So here's my ultimate point: it's my observation that we are increasingly becoming a society where no one wants to deal with the garbage. And yes, I'm using "garbage" as a metaphor. "Mommy, I don't want to put my hands on the garbage because my hands are dirty and I smell." Yes, yes that is a reasonable thing. However, if there is no one that wants to put their hands on the garbage, the garbage starts to rot and fester and it does start to pile up. There's more and more garbage every day. No one wants to date the garbage. No one wants to live with the garbage. No one wants to have sex with the garbage and get that horrible mess all over us. We are raised to expect better, and (for lack of a better metaphor) to avoid the garbage because we are better than the garbage. Do you get what I'm saying? But I think that the garbage gets tired of being treated like garbage. And sometimes (very rarely) it has a very strong opinion about its perceived "garbage status." Yes, we could just brush it off as mental illness, but I think there's more to this than PTSD, "aspies," and any other flavor of the psychological universe. I think people need to become more aware of the power of anger, and they need to be more aware of spotting signs of anger and treating anger like a disease. If people thought of anger as a disease, they would learn the causes, and learn how to cure it no matter how unpleasant the cure happens to be. But we don't like "unpleasant" conversations as a society, so we'll probably just stick our heads in the sand.

Yes, there can be some spectacular and horrifying consequences to saying "no" to the garbage. If we don't want to deal with these consequences, fine by me. But we should all be prepared for them in any case. We should also, maybe, have a societal conversation between all of us that we should try to say as many "Yesses" as we possibly can stomach before throwing up. Maybe if we all dirty ourselves just a little bit, then no one has to suffer too much.

Are thoughts germs and can they be transmitted to other people via the internet just like a disease? The answer will surprise you

I saw this on io9 yesterday, and as the video actually requests for all viewers to share then you are the people I've chosen to infect. It begins with a premise: are thoughts germs? Can they be transmitted from one person to another? Watch this and explore the psychology of how a one-standard deviation increase in the amount of anger an article evokes can increase the odds (for example) that it will make the most e-mailed list by 34% on The New York Times. Sure, it's a wee bit long but it has advice that should you follow it, may just aid in helping you keep a healthy mind. And who doesn't want a healthy mind?

Jugs

On Ellen, the host asked Sofia Vergara if she thought if brunettes or blondes had more fun.


Sofia responded:

“I would say the girls with the bigger boobs. I’ve been blonde and I’ve been brunette. I speak from experience.”

Remember ladies. With great power comes great responsibility.

This gets taught to every guy sooner or later from the wise men on the mountain.

I Love Modern Family. Ciao.

Understanding Men To Write Your Fiction

I'm not a Psychologist, but I think I understand why men do many of the things that they do.  And so I'm going to tell you.  Who knows...maybe what I say here will help you in portraying them in your fiction.  Now, this post is a generalization and there will of course be specifics that I'm sure I'll get nailed on.  Men (like women) are simply too complex to talk about here. That is the nature of the human brain.  Anyway, here's what I've noticed...take it with a grain of salt if you want...I don't care if you think I'm a flake.  I'm a guy and I think I understand other guys.  So here it is...my theory of men.

I think men have an innate desire to be somebody. All the choices that they make in our society boil down to this testosterone-driven primal urge.

I think men go into politics not to fix a problem but again to be somebody--an odd reason to want a job, right?  Fixing a problem is only a consequence of them holding office...something they must deal with that is a distraction of being somebody.

I think men play video games to win. Winning makes you instantly a somebody.  Men really like to win.  And they like watching other people win because birds of a feather flock together. Winners watch winners.

I think men play games period to win.  If it's a social game like Dungeons & Dragons where winning is not obvious...then they are playing to be the best one at the table and to outdo everyone else.

I think men choose their love partners because their partner makes them feel like they are somebody. The implications of this are pretty wide.  What I'm saying is that they don't care so much WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE so much as they care that other people are jealous that they own you.  They just have to get this feeling...it doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be true. It just needs to exist in their minds. And if there's ever a time when people don't want you, when you are an undesirable commodity for whatever reason, then attraction will fade even if things on a personal level are going great.

I think that men cheat because the person with whom they are cheating makes them feel like they are a somebody more so than the person with whom they are currently in a relationship.

I think that men dominate religions because religion is an instant platform by which to be somebody and they love being in that position.

I think that men go through a mid-life crisis when they feel that they are becoming invisible and they have this perception in their mind that they were somebody to begin with...even if they never were. All that matters is what they think.  The mid-life crisis is just a way to try and recapture that feeling that they were, at one time, relevant.

I think that one reason why Twilight is so successful is because Stephenie Meyer subconsciously KNEW THIS about men. Edward loves Bella for who she is and it doesn't matter that she's important to anyone else.  The real romance is that "Bella" needs no other validation from any of Edward's peers and he loves her all the same.  I think that this is entirely fiction because it isn't the way men think...hence...why it's uber romantic.  Women may not quite put it so bluntly...they may not realize that what I'm saying is going on...but as others point out...I can be very blunt.

And it's also why Twilight fails with a male audience.  Men want to be somebody.  They don't want to read about a woman that is the somebody.  They want the man TO BE THE ONE that is a somebody. Twilight removes the nuts from the men...so yeah...it fails with a male audience.

And it's why George R.R. Martin succeeds with a male audience.  All of his men are important and they are in a power struggle to prove who is the most important.  It's awash in testosterone and every man who reads it cannot get enough.

People talk about boys not reading.  I think that boys DO read and want to read.  I think that men read and want to read.  But if you want to appeal to men, you're book has GOT TO make the man live the fiction of BEING SOMEBODY important.  J.K. Rowling did it with Harry Potter AND managed to also appeal to a huge female audience.  But make no mistake, Harry (the man) was the big somebody in the book.  Either this or the act of reading the book MAKES them a somebody. This is where the intellectual snobs come in, touting Ulysses by James Joyce or an original version of Don Quixote in Spanish because they read it and are somebody because of having done that.

So my advice is...if you are writing a story...and you are wondering if a man would do a certain act...to just pause.  Stop.  Ask yourself these questions:  By doing this, is the man getting an ego boost? Is he being somebody?  By screwing a girl in the backseat of a car will his friends high-five him?  By dealing drugs does he get money so that he can buy a low-rider all tricked out with bling that his other friends will drool over?  By cheating on his spouse, is the woman (or man) that he is with making him feel better at the moment than he feels when he is with his partner?  If he chooses to ignore the partner at home and play a video game...is the video game making him feel like he is somebody because he's winning and beating things down and destroying things?  If a man turns down money offered from a friend who just wants to help...is he doing so because accepting the gift makes him into a nobody?  Being a nobody...being mediocre...that sucks.  And if you want men to like your fiction, they don't want to feel mediocre.

That's just my two cents.

EDIT: I received a very interesting question from fellow blogger Ciara Knight. She asked why the Hunger Games was so successful given a female protagonist.  I wanted to answer that here because it's a great question and I wanted to clarify something. Female protagonists are perfectly acceptable and men will read them (I know I do). But to resonate, the theme of the book and the protag need to be winners. The Hunger Games is about winning and the stakes are very high if you lose. This makes it all the better. Men like stories of winning, challenges, more winning...pure winning.  Look at Twilight again (as an example).  What does Bella win? A boyfriend? That's not guy material. But ask yourself what does Katniss win and what does she stand to lose by not winning? It's the very essence of being somebody.