"Moral Struggles: Humility vs. Narcissism" -- Sept. 28, 2017 post -- revisited

  My Struggle with Facebook Addiction

Not a Teenager, But a Senior

William Sundwick

In Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World (1932), the World State exercised control over its population by administering a “soma” drug to them. It was a psychoactive drug, producing states of euphoria, and general happiness. It was addictive, and the state monopolized its distribution.

Substitute the amorphously managed “Internet” for the World State, and Facebook, a publicly held corporation in Silicon Valley, could well be the administering entity for soma in the 21^st century. When Mark Zuckerberg invented the social media platform at the beginning of the century, he built it around the idea that people universally wanted to be liked. They would always respond to positive feedback. Much like B.F. Skinner’s rats, they would continually come back to press the lever for more pellets of reinforcement.

If Zuckerberg could package content in such a way that his customers could share it, with some chance of positive intermittent feedback, he might build a giant marketing machine from his platform. Some think the idea sprang from his own personal need to be liked. He was incredibly successful. But, Facebook may have discovered a darker side to its success, as well. Apparently, users are just as likely to come back for more feedback from feelings of anger or sadness as from more conventional “feel good” vibes. The recent controversy over “fake news” planted by Russian intelligence operatives is an example.

It turns out that intermittent reinforcement is a very strong motivator, regardless of the emotional content of the initial behavior. Add the clever opportunities for self-expression on the Facebook platform, and you have the makings of a serious psychological addiction problem. Some studies have even shown physiological changes in subjects that use social media platforms extensively.

When social media are used for active self-expression, it appears that people’s mental health may benefit. Those who post and comment more on the platform are often happier than they were before Facebook. But, passive scrolling through news feeds and over-use of reaction emojis are mostly associated with greater levels of depression and poorer mental health. Also, comparative behavior tends to promote feelings of inadequacy, and perceived social isolation – Instagram is especially bad here -- but, all those shared Facebook photos of happy families and status updates about vacation adventures don’t help.

Facebook does allow you a high degree of control over what you see in your feeds. It would be worthwhile for any heavy Facebook user to explore the updated prioritizing tools for news feeds. You do determine what you see, and you can block things you don’t want to see. Close friends’ posts are now always prioritized ahead of anything commercial. Some say Facebook gives you too much control over news – leading to insulation in bubbles of like-minded screeds.

My own predilection for expressing myself in writing, even short quips in a comment, strikes me as a positive interaction with the platform. Is it really interaction with my friends, though? I sometimes ask myself, “does anybody care?” Of course, the intermittent feedback is largely to blame here. For my part, I try to react to anything my friends post that I feel expresses themselves well – but, there’s a judgmental quality to this. I intentionally fail to react when I do not feel they are expressing themselves well, or when I’m simply not interested in the content they are sharing. And, of course, I impute similar judgement calls to their reactions, or lack thereof, on my posts. Hence, I fall victim to the comparative trap that supposedly haunts teenage girls. Am I not good enough, or clever enough, to be interesting to my friends? Or perhaps to some friends, but not others? And, I’m 70 years old!

A disclaimer is warranted regarding my peculiar usage of Facebook. None (or few) of my friends are people with whom I have a day-to-day relationship IRL (In Real Life). As my immersion in the platform has grown, some friends are mere friends-of-friends whom I’ve never even met IRL. This does not fit the profile of the beneficial social capital some users gain from the platform. It appears that my social media avatar is literally the only me that my Facebook friends know. This is probably not a healthy social milieu! It’s acting. It’s a personal fantasy of who I want to be. Does it smack of narcissism?

With all these potential negatives, it may seem wise to take a break from the platform now and again. You should consider this when Facebook grows boring, when it seems too commercial, when you see too many news feeds whose authenticity you doubt, or when friends’ posts are too closely connected to their personal lives – and not you! 

Breaks can feel good, allowing you to “recharge.” Facebook even facilitates blocking feeds from certain sources (“hiding” them, or “snoozing” them for 30 days if they just get too intense). You can always “unfriend” people (highly recommended for exes), and all these things can be undone when you want to jump back in. Limiting your feedback to others also serves a purpose: I never pick fights, and often refrain even from giving positive feedback when I fear it might spin out of control (discussion groups are notorious for that). Purposeful restraint in use of reaction emojis and making comments can sometimes increase your control over Facebook’s algorithm, too. The platform keeps the details secret, but if you’re good, you may even be able to beat Facebook at its own game.

Dealing with the withdrawal symptoms is best handled by increasing your IRL interaction with people – try email for folks too far away to see in person. Facetime and Skype? For self-expression, try writing a blog (like me), or art? music?

And, do a reality check on that Facebook avatar – it’s dangerous when you start believing it yourself. Don’t delude yourself into depression because you can’t get the feedback you crave. It’s just narcissistic supply, after all. Since you invented the avatar in the first place, you can always tweak it as necessary. Once you focus your self-expression needs on real creativity, it may be time to re-enter the social media world – cleverness and effort should get you more positive feedback. Use Facebook to feel better about yourself, not worse.

There are plenty of tools provided by Facebook (and Twitter) allowing you to take control of the platform, if you’re willing to use your agency. Nobody needs to be a Facebook addict – the platform is not smarter than you! You are your own soma.

Flirting: Fun? Cheating? Harassment?

It’s Really About Power

William Sundwick

Recently, we’ve all been subjected to a barrage of celebrity sexual malfeasance, both in politics and entertainment, men are caught in truly heinous instances of sexual abuse and harassment. It appears that nothing has changed about men’s awful behavior, but more women are now emboldened by their sisters, and the media, to come forward and name their abusers.

We can choose to hang a political/ideological banner on some of these acts, or we can choose to play a self-righteous “traditional virtue” card on others. Whichever fits, we’ll use it to blame those disgusting Republicans or those disgusting Hollywood types. Unfortunately, the evidence tends to support that the same behavior exists everywhere – not just in these high-profile celebrity arenas.

One of these recent revelations, involving comedian Louis C.K., is slightly different. C.K. did not attempt to deny the accusations, but instead wrote a letter of apology – saying he “asked” for consent from each of his accusers. This highlights a salient feature of civilization going back thousands of years: established patriarchal power relationships. C.K. wielded power over these women, as a prospective employer, or key to their future careers in comedy. He flagrantly abused that power to humiliate and demoralize the women. Patriarchy is bigger and runs deeper than any of us is aware – even such an astute observer of the human condition as Louis C.K. 

An Orgy of Self-Examination

Any “feminist manifesto” needs all the help it can get to begin manifesting change in the culture. If you’re a man, it’s admirable for you to join the fight, but ultimately, you must own the culture. You are a beneficiary of patriarchy as much as women are victims.

Many of us have been indulging in an orgy of self-examination lately. Will any good come from this? Honesty about physical attraction is good, since physical attraction tends to perpetuate the species. But, we also have egos. We all seek, to varying degrees, what psychologists call “narcissistic supply.” Some of us never seem to get enough. And, it’s often collected in a setting of power over the opposite sex – partners, employees, students, people we meet randomly.

We flirt. We flirt when we are single, looking for a mate. We flirt when we are married, thinking we can get away with it. We flirt to test whether we can obtain consent (even if we don’t pursue it). And, we hope we can still justify our behavior to ourselves when the flirtation ends. We do it because it’s fun. We play the game because there is some chance of reward – if we’re good at it. If we’re good at it, the object of our flirting will also feel good.  The narcissistic supply flows in both directions, we tell ourselves.

But, does it? One of the most insidious aspects of patriarchy is that power relationships between men (the aggressors) and women (the victims) make resistance impossible in many cases. Consent cannot be reasonably given when the initiator and recipient of the exchange inhabit very different power positions. It’s easy to determine consent between two people with power differential near zero. They are free actors. Not so much between superior and subordinate, between star and aspiring entertainer (Louis C.K. case), between customer and server. All these unequal power relationships can transform flirtation into harassment. Large age disparity is another unequal power dynamic (Judge Roy Moore and his teen-age “dates”). Even among peers in an office environment, the requirement to always smile and be kind to your coworkers is an imposition of power relations in the workplace.

That Libido

Our libido makes us choose what feels good. Narcissism makes us insensitive to how our actions cause someone else to feel bad. And, an unequal power relationship may prevent an honest answer about how a flirtatious advance makes the recipient feel.

Not everybody is equally narcissistic. Some people are saints. But, look who we elected President. Narcissists often appeal to us. They can relieve us of responsibility for our response. Flirting takes advantage of this – we can “play along” with an advance rather than anxiously guessing about intentions, because we have no expectations. We relax and enjoy the attention!

Flirting was invented as a socially acceptable way of expressing physical attraction for another. But, whether it is acceptable to the recipient of an advance is another matter. Most people, including his victims, would not consider Louis C.K.’s advances socially acceptable. But, what could they say to him? Would they shrug it off? Would they pretend to be amused? Flattered? How would they hide their shame?

But, some flirting clearly DOES make the recipient feel good, doesn’t it? Aren’t we all susceptible to flattery? Doesn’t it feel good to be the subject of attention from an attractive member of the opposite sex (or same sex, depending on your orientation)? What about attention from someone you’ve always admired? What about that flirting game? The jockeying for dominance between two people in not obviously different power positions can be a source of amusement -- like any competition against a worthy opponent. Superior social skills, correctly guessing the other’s intentions, before they guess yours, give you an advantage. And, it’s not necessarily a preordained advantage based on patriarchal rules. “Toxic masculinity” is usually a disadvantage in this game, but there is also the risk of being subjected to “slut shaming” by peers.

Courage is needed to withdraw from a flirting game that turns abusive. It won’t do you any good to continue playing as if it’s still an innocent diversion, when it turns into harassment – as it often does. Standards of public decency supposedly make it easier to withdraw from some situations, but the aggressor may know this, and use outward appearances of innocence to his advantage. Clearly those standards did not work to extricate Louis C.K.’s accusers.

Eyes of the Beholder

If flirting becomes harassment, or cheating, it is usually in the eyes of the beholder. It is harassment if the victim feels diminished, or shamed. It is cheating if the victim is a third party – a spouse/partner. The interpretation of flirting as cheating depends, again, on the power relationship between the flirting partner and the apparent victim partner. The victimized partner may call out the other’s actions as cheating, or suffer silently, building resentment as the aggressor partner persists in the behavior – much as the victim of harassment feels diminished, but can’t complain because of unequal power distribution. There could be another approach, of course -- acceptance and mutuality. If each partner understands the other’s personality, and both engage in the same kind of behavior, mutual acceptance could result. That may work in cases of relatively low power differential between the two partners. If not, best to modify your behavior, and stop flirting!

Finger-pointing is common among partners when it comes to flirting. But, it’s worthwhile to remember that self-righteous accusations and distrust reveal one’s own narcissism. Usually, the more outgoing partner is likely to be on top in the power differential. The more introverted partner will not be as successful at flirting. This may cause envy more than jealousy. Which end of the narcissistic power balance are you on? Are you “the greatest,” or the “worthless piece of crap”?

Don’t Hide

All flirting, if it is ever benevolent, as opposed to malevolent, relies on some degree of honesty. While true that overt intentions are purposely hidden in the flirtatious exchange, it’s important that the initiator and responder both come to an agreement – eventually – about what is happening. Flirting should not be hidden forever. Of course, the flirtatious relationship will come to an end when the “truth” is revealed. This is the way it’s meant to be. It may end when the spouse finds out. It may end when one party to the flirtation finds they are no longer collecting their “narcissistic supply” from the relationship. It may end when it just gets too uncomfortable for either party to continue – when they cannot deal with the honesty required! This is the inherent risk of all flirtatious relationships. They must end sometime. When flirting while single, the hope is that the relationship will lead to a deeper partnership – the flirtation may transform into a marriage. When flirting while married, the hope is that it is ended responsibly, before any damage to the marriage occurs. When flirting from grossly unequal power positions, the hope is that both parties can still respect each other, and themselves, when the relationship ends.

When the “truth” of the flirtation becomes known to both (all three) parties, and they are honest with themselves, some self-examination of motivations may be in order. There’s never anything wrong with learning about yourself. Apologies may also be in order – these should be honest, too.

But, flirting is way too common, and life too short, to flail yourself forever because you didn’t handle the denouement as adroitly as you might have.

Moral Struggles: Narcissism vs. Humility

William Sundwick

Power and Intimidation

Self-righteousness is the sole property of the narcissist.  He is always right. Those who have differing opinions are always wrong. And, he believes that if we are to be moral creatures, righteousness must be enforced. Wrong must be suppressed.

His instruments of enforcement include brute force, legal authority, religious dogma, bureaucratic hierarchies. He may even invent fictitious authority, for instance “history” or “custom” -- usually softer than the other more brutal instruments. But, the basic principle is intimidation, or cajolery and persuasion.

His aim is obedience. If he cannot summon sufficient instruments of power to carry the day, the narcissist becomes the submissive servant instead -- unworthy, despicable, a loser.

How much does organized society depend on this psychological cruelty? What is the payoff in this system?

An alternative appeared sometime early in the development of human consciousness. It was to foster cooperation. Doing the “right thing” depended not on the force of will, or authority, but on the anticipation of shared rewards. The sales pitch would be opportunity, not fear.

Then God was invented. From a simple concept, the doctrine of humility arose. The highest authority resided outside any one person – indeed, above all flawed humanity. Unfortunately, humans, being narcissists, had difficulty grasping this concept.  They projected their narcissism onto the emperor, or some collection of powerful people, like an ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Though the pull of narcissism proved strong, one spark did seem to persist through the ages – the deep desire to do better. Humility became a goal to strive toward. And, the moral struggle became an obsessive challenge for many a monk, and many a slave.

Mine

Toddlers discover agency. They can do things, get attention from parents … and soon learn the word “mine” to describe objects they want to control, to own. This creation of “Self” is the beginning of narcissism. I’ve seen my 22-month-old grandson achieve this level of consciousness, with a vengeance! When he appears to offer an object to someone else -- a toy, food, or when he points, naming something he sees -- it’s an attempt to influence them, to show off, not to be generous. Hopefully, he can relearn these behaviors as generosity when he gets older, but for now, it’s strictly ego gratification! If he doesn’t relearn, he will be in danger of becoming a pathological narcissist. That condition would arise if “mine” is the only idea he understands. In earlier times, it was called megalomania.

While psychologists can describe the symptoms of narcissism, the causes of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are in dispute. The clinical description from DSM-IV is as follows: 

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, interpersonal exploitiveness, and lack of empathy, beginning in early adulthood and manifest in a variety of contexts. 

Like many personality disorders, it seems to be a matter of degree (key judgmental words here – “pervasive,” “need,” “lack”). A 2009 survey estimated about

6% of U.S. population suffers from NPD. But the other 94% of us exhibit some of these symptoms some of the time, throughout life.

Here is an entirely amateur hypothesis, based only on my own introspection, raising two sons, and observing my grandson – as well as other people throughout my life. I think narcissism comes from difficulty reaching one’s Self. Most people can find themselves with a moderate amount of work, as they mature.  But, due to various circumstances, some just can’t quite get there.  Their Self is either opaque, or visible but unreachable. These aggravating circumstances might have to do with parental expectations, or even parental narcissism.  It could be an inherited disorder.

If children are taught to relate to others only through the prism of their own egos, something will remain undiscovered – and that something will likely include empathy. If expectations are exceedingly high for a child, that child may either fantasize that it has achieved those expectations, or surrender to perennial failure, never able to “measure up.” If parents teach children that their whole family is constantly subject to being judged, the child will adopt a persona of constantly seeking approval from others. And, so on.  I don’t believe “over-indulgence” of children causes narcissism. Instead, it results in strong egos, not the characteristically weak ego of the narcissist.

What if somebody realizes, as an adult, that they have NPD? What do they do about it? Probably nothing, since seeking help runs counter to their whole world view – they are already either perfect, or hopeless. Could friends and family persuade them to seek therapy? Depends. Greatest likelihood would probably be via threat (loss of job or spouse), but that may only cause them to dig in deeper!

Rather than attempting to get somebody to deny Self, the more fruitful approach might be to teach them to incorporate others into Self – a philosophy that knows no bounds! The whole world could conceivably be viewed as the Larger Self (invoking a vaguely spiritual presence?). If my ego encompasses everybody, what might be the implications for society? For morality, itself?

Healthy skepticism of the “Larger Self” view is warranted, however. We always need to be on guard against false humility. Some of the best examples of false humility are people who make lots of promises, or try very hard to make you feel good. Think about preachers, teachers, politicians! They have all mastered some professional acting skills – they may not convince so much as “stroke” the Self. We naturally find them hard to resist. On the other hand, if we knowingly submit to their wiles, perhaps we are on the way to true humility ourselves – can willing submission outweigh the need for dominance? Sometimes. The secret might be to recognize that we were being manipulated, and accept it – it may be benign.

NPD and the Rest of Us

Of course, most of us would not be diagnosed with NPD by a mental health professional.

“Everyday narcissism” can be described in a similar way as NPD, but can be better controlled. We can engage in a modest amount of introspection when confronted by apparent rejection, or demeaning comments by others. We can learn to ask ourselves about others’ personal agendas, as well as ours. We can acknowledge that we ought to do better, and try tweaking our interpersonal behaviors accordingly.

Two examples of everyday narcissism which many of us experience, and can be considered beneficial to human welfare, are flirting and leadership.

Flirting, though perhaps banal, is based on the principle of physical attraction. It is an intimation of bonding between individuals, but with no commitment to intimacy. Within socially agreeable constraints, it is generally thought to consist of ego “strokes” we find appealing. Both parties to flirtation are indulging essentially narcissistic fantasies. They are presuming worthiness of intimacy, but unconsciously agreeing not to engage in intimacy with each other (if either party consciously says “no,” or “are you kidding,” the flirtatious exchange, by definition, is over). The usual social constraints include keeping the flirtation hidden from a spouse, and knowing the prudent stopping point. But, given these rules, flirting is an exploration of getting outside one’s Self, an attempt to reach out. It has the benefit of making both participants feel good, appealing to them with “narcissistic supply.”

More consequential, the quality of Leadership has been identified as a combination of narcissism and humility. True enough, many people occupying leadership roles may show much narcissism, and only false humility. But, the best leaders have goals governed by ego needs, yet know in their hearts that cooperation (teamwork) is the only way those goals can be achieved. This is genuine humility, not exploitation. Steve Jobs has often been cited as the archetype of the successful narcissistic leader, mostly because he managed to come back from humiliating failure, caused by his narcissism, as a changed, humbler, executive. He then achieved phenomenal success up to his death. Social organizations do require leadership, and we cannot deny the role narcissism plays.

The important moral lesson about narcissism is that being good is a quest, not a state. You are on your way when you finally realize that their welfare matters to you. Intimacy depends upon this realization. Leadership depends upon it, as well. Giving is learned behavior, and practice will tend to improve one’s skills. Sometimes, occasional role reversal helps us to understand the dynamics of narcissism. If we are usually ensconced in a grandiose dominance role, try switching to the submissive listener role. If we are stuck in an unworthy ”piece-of-crap” self-image, try being more assertive. Over time, with practice, we may come to understand our ego dynamics better. But, the quest continues … thinking we’ve finally “made it” spells certain defeat!