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. : )

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

“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. : )

My search for anwers lead me to this article, which I found simple to understand and basically is an answer to my basic questions. However, I wanted to expose my situation. I have a friend who is, I would dare to say, egocentrical in a “ligther way”. I dont consider her egocentrical ways as aggresive , but consistent. For example, we have been planning a trip for months, and time is getting close (next week). We have been trying to agree in what our schedule would be for the trip, but for some time I feel affected by my friend’s egocentrical thinking (eg. She made a reservation for a restaurant without my knowledge, she never asked if I was ok with it, it happens to be my birthday and on top of it all she clearly stated that she wanted to go to this restaurant because of a number of reasons (all of them her reasons). I was definitely outrage, but I am a person who likes to avoid confrontation, specially when you are on vacation so far away from home. Besides this, she has created a schedule as if this is her vacation, just making decisions without counting on anyone else (At least we are a group of 4 people) I am outrage on how she blatantly says what we are going to do and what not. Everybody just ignores her, including me, I know at the end of the day everybody will make their own decisions no matter what she thinks, but I feel this really bothers me, because I would like to tell her, in a nice way, that she is wrong and that every decision must be considered as a group. Ive heard stories about her from other friends that simply ended the friendship due to her behavior. As for me, she has been more than nice most of the time and has even offered her place for me to stay whenever I visit her city. I do not know if this could be due to the fact that we are not best friends, and our friendship is relatively “new”. I would really like to know if I should tell her somehow directly or indirectly, that her behavior may affect the groups rapport or I should just ignore her, as everybody does and just do whatever the group decides. Can we fix egocentrical people?? Can we make them realize that their behavior is not generally accepted? Or should we ignore this behavior and move on, and just feel pitiful for them?

Thank you very much
- Nicole

While you are at it, please consider the significance of what you are trying to say. Meaning, is projecting yourself outward on me and attacking me for trying to better understand the article really what is important. If so, after considering its perhaps yourself with the internal issues, please feel free to keep your proposed argument. Try to keep it relevant and explain to me how this helps us with the issue.

My general understanding with you, up to this point, is that for some reason you continue to surround yourself with these types of people. My question to you is this, “Is it that you continue to surround yourself with these types of people or are you the person projecting yourself onto them through your own subconscious.”

One last sliver of thought:

Your brain is programmed and conditioned to operate the way that it does from years of conditioning from external sources. ( Your parents, your education and your environment just to name a few.) By rejecting or becoming defensive of logical arguments proposed through sound reasoning you are simply showing that you have a scotoma to the issue. Or more simply, a blind spot in your ability to see what I am talking about. This inability leads you to believe there is something wrong with the way I am speaking to you rather than to question your own beliefs. So like I said previously, maybe its an internal issue vs the entire world ganging up on you. What do you think…?

Please Dr., feel free to re-engage and share if you feel I have “again” obviously riddled my statements with error or confusion. Like you stated before, I carefully am selecting that which i say. I see what I am saying as sound and backed with explanation and logic. I am simply freeing my explanations of emotion…which can often times cause those pesky scotomas I briefly threw into the mix. I am open minded to hearing an opinion to the contrary as long as it is also backed with logic and reason. Simply stating you feel a certain way and attaching a reason of “because I feel like its true” doesn’t actually make it so. Similarly, by seeking out a definition meant for something entirely different doesn’t create a sound argument. I did congratulate her for being able to find it. Its intended use, however, is still a mystery.

There is far more in your comments than merely a critique of my writing style. Further, the other things that are there are so glaringly obvious that virtually no one could miss them or misinterpret them. Because you are obviously bright and because these things are so obvious, I would have a hard time believing that you don’t see them. It’s more plausible that you are simply comfortable with them. I think that’s why persons like Marianna eventually express the sentiments she did, not because she is one of the “better” group, but because disengaging from such things brings such relief.

This is my last comment on the subject. I choose to disengage also.

I’m sorry. I didn’t know it was up to me to read the entirety of your works in order to understand one piece of it. Clearly, this must be an error on my end due to me being the author of the piece and assuming the reader was well educated and versed in my literary compositions.

I was glad, however, to see that you explained that other writings you had done explained that the behavior seen as problematic were traits that were so important through an evolutionary stand point. As a matter of fact, most of your explanation this morning made me feel better about you on a grand scheme verses after reading the document last night. You took away the infinitives and stopped generalizing. You made more vague statements and more clearly defined the groups based on naming them, rather than saying “they” or “we”.