For therapists, this is absolutely critical. As I say time and time again in workshops, trying to treat character disturbance with the tools designed to treat neurosis is like a neurosurgeon trying to do brain surgery with a dentist’s appliances. : )

~CHEERS~

Sorry for misspelling your name!

The problem is when we try to overgeneralize any of our metaphors. Like when we try to apply principles that help us understand the phenomenon of neurosis and insist that the metaphor adequately explains everyone’s behavior and the reasons for it. Such a perspective often leads us to make unwarranted assumptions like a person must be “wounded” underneath, or is necessarily “in denial”, etc. when they do things we don’t quite understand or take issue with. A most egregious incorrect assumption is that rage or anger (and most especially fear) necessarily underlies any aggressive action.

What’s worse, when we try to make sense of things with our old metaphors and especially when we attempt to intervene using them with characters they were never meant to apply to only to experience frustration getting anywhere, we don’t question the validity of our metaphors but instead view the troubled party as too rigidly “defended” to reach.

The issue for some characters is an unquenchable urge to demonstrate superiority and an innate revulsion to subordination. In those cases, it’s just the way it is and they not only know it but like it that way. I’ve seen many cases when such a person will eventually come clean and even voluntarily agree (assent) to behaving somewhat differently when they know they have been correctly “read” and can’t possibly engage in effective impression management anymore. They’ll even acknowledge what they did and why they did it and sometimes even make a half-hearted apology for it. What they won’t do, however, is relent in their tactics when they know that the other person has everything read so wrongly that it necessarily puts them in the very position they relish, that of knowing better (i.e. the “superior” position).

I will start here and attempt, however unsuccessful my attempts may be, to correct your ideals.

First: It isn’t because of a detached sense of self. It is also not because on some deeper level I am out of touch with empathy. I am, and will remain, objective throughout this discussion. To do otherwise, I would be exhibiting the same poor argument techniques that you have shown and that should be avoided. Thus, taking value away from my position and further slipping off point than we’ve already come.

Secondly, I find it ridiculous and absolutely absurd to say that I am filled with hatred. What evidence do you posses to support this claim?

Third, it takes me minimal energy, not all my energy, to form coherent thoughts and sentences. Is there any reason I’ve given you to believe it would take me any more effort than the average individual? You have stated that my writing is disorganized and lacks unity so, again, I would like you to use my own writing as proof of your bold suggestions.

Fourth: Because I am asking your opinions and responding directly to your fallacies, it is clear ( At least to me) that I am giving you a chance to explain your opinion. Thus, also showing that I will listen to the things you have to say. It is not my duty to give your words value and/or meaning. That is up to you, so choose the words and the way you construct what it is you are saying wisely.

I will be honest (insert my true feelings here) and tell you that through reading your words, I find it extremely hard to take you and your substantive postings seriously. Your writings are riddled with fallacies and you continue to make bold assumptions about me without any substantial facts to back up your claims. At times it is like reading one assumption after another. Below is a quick list to help with your most common errors:

hasty generalization -The habit of arriving at a bold conclusion based on a limited sample of evidence.

appeal to authority -the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking

argumentum ad captandum – Any specious or unsound argument that is likely to win popular acceptance

argumentum ad hominem -A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it

argumentum ad ignorantiam -A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don’t know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true

fallacy of false alternatives -A fallacy occurring when the number of alternatives is said to be fewer/less than the actual number

paralogism -Any fallacious or illogical argument generally

straw man -A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth

Dr. Simon,

From a rational point of view I ‘understand’ what you’re saying; they have a different psychological make up. The problem is that we are programmed to expect normal human responses from what appears to be a human being. But these people think WE’RE the crazy ones for choosing to burden ourselves with a conscience and empathy.

You say that disordered characters are who they are to the core. They have a deeply-rooted sense of superiority and entitlement common to individuals who have been over-indulged and over-valued all their lives. They may even be wired differently in their brain and therefore lack the emotional responses you’d normally expect.

Psychology is not hard science, what is true in one case doesn’t necessarily apply to the other even though the same conditions are at play. Also for it to be true/real it doesn’t need to work the other way around for the exact opposite.

Psychic actions are continually taking place at a deep level, beneath the treshold of awareness, and either they can be of a sort that messes things up for us or they can be creative both for ourselves and for the people with whom we are in contact. The ego, if you like to call it that, is active and it does things like identifying with, projecting, introjecting, splitting etc.

In the case of Bradley it is clear that he is putting himself in a superior, grandiose position by saying that he is ’simply’ freeing his logical responses from emotion. To me, and correct me if I’m wrong, this is a defence of intellectualisation – when feelings/intuition/sensation (which are also parts of the self) are dissociated from an (intellectual) idea.

Bradley visits your website, he reads your articles and comments on them. He spends a great deal of energy trying to look as if he is writing in a coherent way. There seems to be an appearance of unity but underneath there’s disunity. All that is unpleasant to the self-image can be ditched, pushing it somewhere into another part of the mind, or into others, and in this process a worldview is constructed that’s consistent (or egosyntonic) with what’s done. However, I want emphasize the principle that when something is done there’s also something that is NOT done. Seeing what has been refused enables us to see what constitutes mental health.

In the core of Bradley there’s a HATRED of the relational – a hatred of something that’s inherent in our being. There’s a distinct LACK of empathy and he’s UNWILLING or UNABLE to identify with the opinions of others. Bradley has learned to conceal his deeply wounded true self behind what Winnicott called a “false self.” What the world sees in such damaged individuals is an extremely rigid defensive persona. A carefully constructed and meticulously maintained false self, behind which the raging, wounded, depressed true self lies.

What’s your opinion on this?

“Who do you mean by “these types of people” I surround myself with? Who is lumping who into the ‘they’ now?”

I’m so glad that you tried to circle the wagons, so to speak, and try to come back with something of this nature. Unfortunantly it is not similar to the way that I presented the question to the Dr. initially. I was clearing speaking about your post from earlier, in which you stated “I was engaged and almost married to someone who was very controlling and manipulative in a covert way.”

To explain myself further, you were trying to put me into the same category by stating “Wow! Bradley Griffin sounds exactly like my ex…”

That is where the “they” comes in. The types of people you surround yourself with, which can be lumped into a “they” due to the fact that there are a select few that you do or do not spend your time with. I would fall into the “not they” category because I wouldn’t position myself so poorly.

“By saying that you’re freeing your explanations from emotions and by implying that I am unable to back up my opinion with logic and reason you strive to affirm your superiority and rightness.”

Not really sure where to begin here. Yes, I have given you only logic and reason. I have kept myself clear of stating things that are based entirely on the way I feel about you or making any sort of stereotype or commiting to a falacy in which I were to attack your character rather than the topic of discussion. Further, there were never attempts to affirm my superiority. That was never what this was about. It was clearly to stand up for myself after you began to attack me with comments of defamation and slander.

“Now, I know my take on this is not mainstream (it never has been)”

First, I want to say that I mean no disrespect when I say this, but after being a part of this for only a short period of time, I’m not surprised to hear this information. Although you make very valid points, at times there are a few things that allow me to understand this self made comment. After all, it was you who initially fired me up enough to get envolved and say how I felt. That being said, can you give me your personal feedback on the ability for one to “reprogram” themselves. Is it possible for someone who is susceptible or a weaker personallity to change characteristics over time? More specifically, when enough time is spent with a stronger, more dominant personallity.

Egocentric thinking is one of many different erroneous thinking patterns that cluster together in individuals with deficient or disordered characters. However, that doesn’t mean that everyone who exhibits some degree or aspect of any of these thinking patterns is necessarily a disordered character or a person whose behavior can’t be modified.

Sometimes, problematic ways of thinking are a matter of awareness and/or maturity. In other words, a person simply hasn’t learned better yet how function in a healthier ways socially. What often happens in these cases is that friends and associates are hesitant to address the issue directly. Such issues can be addressed, however, if done in a benign manner and with tact. The best way to know if the person you’re dealing with has too disturbed a character to change or if they’re merely oblivious to the social mess their making is to confront the issue directly but with kindness and goodwill. If the other person accepts the feedback in good spirit, then you know you might have the beginnings of a good and meaningful friendship. If you’re met with resistance and hostility, the odds are that your not dealing with a person with whom you’d probably want to have a deeper or more meaningful relationship. : )