21 Cons

21 CONS

If you are saying or thinking these statements then you are being conned, although you probably never even realised.

Time to wake up – Tudor style!

Listen to this excellent insight Here

35 thoughts on “21 Cons

  1. lisk says:

    Again, WiserNow, Violetta’s post—inclusive of her compare/contrast of two teachers and her statement about not giving a shit—is more nuanced than you make it out to be.

    Unless, I am reading her (and myself) wrong, not giving a shit is not about *not* caring about anything.

    It is about holding one’s own logical observations, assessments, and decisions in high esteem, regardless of what narcissistic/abusive/intrusive/ignorant/well-meaning/what-have-you people think or expect.

    It is about trusting one’s own self and ones’s own judgement and proceeding accordingly, without allowing emotional thinking to get in the way.

    1. WiserNow says:

      Thanks for your comment lisk.

      We all see things from our own individual perspectives. As I mentioned before, you are entitled to the way you perceived Violetta’s comment and what you saw and took away from it.

      At the same time, so am I. If you see it differently from me, that’s fine.

      1. lisk says:

        My pleasure, WiserNow.

  2. WiserNow says:

    HG,
    I’m just listening to this now. Just to say, I just had a dead-set, real-life, “LOL” moment when you said, in your very serious, logical, sombre voice, that watching James Corden while drunk would turn out to be the most awful idea one could ever have when considered in the cold and sober light of hindsight. LOL!!!

    1. AnneB says:

      Wiser, I inadvertently watched James Cordern whilst sober just recently in the Cats movie – which was quite weird enough even without JC (he had only a minor role…)! Luckily friend cracked out the red right there and then in cinema which helped. Unfortunately only 1 1/2 glasses for 110 minutes. We both said to each-other, much as we love cats that movie would be better if one were under the influence of something/anything.

      1. Violetta says:

        Since there was another thread about Sean Connery, I think this is the point to mention that I once saw Zardoz at a sci-fi marathon when I was stoned out of my mind.

        It probably doesn’t make sense even when you aren’t on anything.

        1. WiserNow says:

          AnneB and Violetta,
          Speaking of movies, one film I saw recently that I enjoyed and thought was well done in relation to narcissism and personality disorders in general was ‘From the Land of the Moon’. That’s the English title. It’s a French film called ‘Mal de Pierres’ (which translates to ‘The Pain of the Stones’) and it has English subtitles.

          It was made in 2016 and the main character is played by Marion Cotillard, who I really like watching in these kinds of ‘character study’ films. (Another film she’s in that I enjoyed is Rust and Bone).

          I won’t tell you what it’s about, in case you haven’t seen it. However, I thought that it was visually beautiful and also it very sensitively portrayed a person with a PD.

          After watching a film, I sometimes google more about it to learn about the story or get an idea of reviews etc (especially if I enjoy a film). Anyway, the reviews about this were that it was a non-story, or that it didn’t make much sense or that it was tedious. It won awards at Cannes but the general mainstream reviews weren’t very good. I thought that was a fairly accurate reflection of the general public’s ignorance and lack of awareness of these kinds of disorders.

      2. WiserNow says:

        AnneB, hahaha, that’s funny. There are some movies that definitely need a glass of wine or two (or even three!) to make them more watchable.

        When I’m watching films like that, my mind starts wandering and I ask myself things like, “what did the producer have to do to convince people to finance this crap?”, or “how many millions went into creating the sets, costumes, make-up, special effects etc, and there was *no-one* who bothered to say that the story or the whole point is absolute bollocks!?” (Is that truth-seeking? …maybe.)

        I haven’t seen Cats, however, I’ve read a review that wasn’t very good and heard one or two people (and now you as well) say they didn’t enjoy it.

        1. AnneB says:

          It was just a little too weird visually, plus I forgot that I have never really liked musicals that much. I wanted to see what the thing was about Cats cos of it’s long running theatre success. Hahha…my friend and I read a three star review prior which simply said “like nothing you have seen before”. That was pretty much correct!

  3. Lorelei says:

    HG—I am getting it now. (I think) You can purposely rib someone all day can’t you? By knowing what you are dealing with. If it’s an empath you pick apart their traits and provoke a platform for endless truth-seeking (for example) to the point they appear to be crazy to others by means of incessant babbling.. If it’s a narc you ignore and/or wound or a combo of both until they are weak and then you slink away satisfied or whatever else you see fit. Correct? I listened to this and it occurred to me that there is a lot of application you just know about that falls neatly into place. You really are kinda good at this narcissist thing aren’t you?!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      1. Yes.
      2. Yes albeit the narcissist will withdraw as a consequence of repeated wounding, as explained in “Fury”.
      3. I am the best at it.

      1. Lorelei says:

        But that is what you would seek—for a narcissist to withdraw so you would/do purposefully wound don’t you to throttle their bullshit apart? If need be I assume.

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Your purpose should be no contact for reasons repeatedly explained. One consequence of this is that you will wound. Maintain no contact and any hoover attempts will fail, causing more wounding which will prompt a period of withdrawal.

          1. Lorelei says:

            I don’t mean me doing it—I meant you for fun if they annoy you.

  4. Claire says:

    OMG HG! Thank you, you are my Guardian Dark Angel! With the NY party approaching I needed you wise words more than ever! I mean, lots of emotions, and this post came like an advice from a trusted friend who wisely calms you down. I never did drugs nor I drink a lot but usually my ET is really high when a joyful event is just around the corner .
    Thank you once again and have a marvellous New Year celebration!

  5. Violetta says:

    I’m getting the impression more and more that Emotional Thinking involves neither my thoughts nor my emotions. It’s what I’ve been brainwashed to believe I’m supposed to think and feel.

    When I look back on one particular teacher, I thought I had been fooled by her niceness. I had forgotten that my first reaction to her was feeling sorry for her: she treated everybody as if we were several years younger than we were, and was surprised when some kids started openly correcting her mistakes. But you’re not supposed to judge people so quickly, right?–and she was trying to be nice. She gave the class a creative writing exercise where we were supposed to “describe the person next to you.” She was shocked when this bunch of 10-year-olds reamed each other in prose. I got my usual share for being one of The Weird Kids, but even popular kids got filleted. No one was safe. I sat there thinking, “What the heck did she think was going to happen? Doesn’t she know what kids are like?”

    Later in the year when she would ask one kid at a time “Did you do x?” (some infraction), she’d ask once and move to the next kid, until she got to me or another designated weird kid. We’d get “Are you sure? Isn’t it possible that you ….? Did it ever occur to you…You ALWAYS…” etc. If a kid whose veracity she couldn’t challenge cleared me or whoever, she’d change the subject. She neither apologized to the kid she’d falsely accused nor ask another kid even ONCE if he or she had done it. She meekly accepted it when popular kids would correct her mistakes, but ripped into me for my “attitude” even though I had never said anything when I noticed her errors (I suppose I may have looked at her like she was crazy). I wondered how someone so nice could be so unfair. Mean old Miss Martinet never shied away from ripping ANY kid to shreds; why was Poison Pollyanna so, well, poisonous? Didn’t she see that popular kids would misbehave more because they knew she’d let them get away with it? Didn’t she know troublemakers like me would also misbehave more because we’d get blamed even if we didn’t do something? Couldn’t she see she was making work for herself? Why would a nice person, blah blah.

    The answer is she wasn’t a nice person, and I knew it logically by what she did, and I knew it instinctively because I felt sorry for her for being such a loser. But I quashed both, feeling guilty about deciding she was a loser. I felt guilty again when I wished I had the academic autocrat across the hall instead of Polly. All the kids had to be equally scared of her, and she never played divide and conquer games, then Rogers-Methoded her victim with comments like, “There must be some reason nobody wants to work with you….” When we saw a movie in the strict teacher’s class, she bawled out all the girls for playing with each other’s hair: “This isn’t a hair salon! Stop playing around and pay attention to the movie!” If that had been Polly’s class, she would have singled me out: “Vi-lit, you should know better! Now I understand you want to make friends with the other kids, but isn’t there a more constructive way of” blah blah. What was wrong with me, that I was ungrateful to teachers who didn’t yell and tried to make class FUN?

    The guilt was the emotional thinking. The idea that her approval was important was emotional thinking. The same thing happened with Wanna-Be Playuh Narc. I’d see him do something tasteless, like boasting about his latest tech toys, or sneering at someone’s outdated tech. Then I’d mentally chastise myself for thinking what a nouveau riche white trash thing that was for him to do. People can’t help how they’re educated, he doesn’t know how crass he sounds, blah blah.

    Nope, he was tasteless.

    But I wouldn’t listen to me. Ignoring and suppressing my actual emotions is what emotional thinking does to me.

    I was convinced I needed their approval, even years after I’d been in contact with them. Would they be impressed at last by my achievements? Would they gloat over my failures and say, “I told you so”?

    I will know I am free when I don’t give a shit.

    1. Desirée says:

      Violetta
      Great post, that is an excellent way of putting it. ET is a strange beast, it almost acts as it’s own entity and once it’s smoke has cleared you really do look back on what happened as if it was done by a completely different person.
      One of my main setbacks used to be my misconception that thinking in itself must be logical and in hindsight, that thought was caused by Emotional Thinking as well. The emotions arising from this where as deceptive and untrue as the lies I would tell myself in order to stay in this cycle because it felt familiar and whats familiar must be “good”.

      “I will know I am free when I don’t give a shit.”

      I get that. There’s no point in looking to someone else for approval, tempting as it is, it never fills you up anyway. Then there is then the thought of “But what if I disappoint them one day?” and you stay chained to what somebody else may or may not think. You’re better than that and you’re better than them.

    2. Lorelei says:

      Beautiful post Violetta!! The statement of looking for approval.. One thing that it hits for me is.. So, they have split thinking. Their thoughts on you/us/me are displayed often by ignoring or subtle nuances to display their (?) disdain—all instinctively deployed to get us almost panting after them to return to a more pleasant stance our way. To re-gain a favorable position because that is the right way to be. You also said you will be free when you don’t give a shit. Yes, I agree.

    3. WiserNow says:

      Violetta,

      Your comment is very interesting and it made me think deeply about what you said.

      Personally, there are aspects I agree with and some that I don’t. I admire that you have expressed your inner thoughts in such detail and given an example that illustrates your point in a way that makes it very clear.

      Please don’t take my reply the wrong way. I would just like to suggest something that I can see in your comment that you may or may not be able to see. It’s not a criticism or a judgement; it’s just an observation.

      You have made a fairly strong distinction between the two teachers you had at school. You have described one as a Pollyanna who was ‘nice’ and the other as an ‘autocrat’. Yes, they seem very different, however, no one person can be all of one and none of the other, if you know what I mean. Your own reaction to them was very black and white though. You instantly ‘felt sorry’ for the nice teacher and probably had respect for the autocrat.

      Both methods of teaching can be ‘good’, ‘bad’ or ‘grey’ depending on different circumstances. And more importantly, the judgement of what is good, bad or grey is also subjective to the person making that judgement. So, your own thoughts and emotions *were* important. How you ‘perceived’ the way you were treated by each teacher either agreed with or didn’t agree with your own temperament and your own inner instinctive reactions to their approach. It also agreed with or didn’t agree with your internalised views of what ‘society’ told you was good or bad.

      The way I see it, you instantly felt sorry for the nice teacher because in your judgement, she was a loser. Why did you think she was a loser? What was there to ‘lose’ in your opinion?

      On the other hand, you thought the autocrat teacher was better because she treated everyone the same using fear to control. What is so good about fear and control in your mind? Why do you think you had respect for her? Was it because she was able to control the class? Or was it because she didn’t make distinctions and therefore didn’t reinforce the stereotypes that each student had internalised about themselves and each other?

      Being a teacher to a group of teenagers must be difficult for anyone, and personally, I can see that a ‘no-nonsense’ autocrat stance would create more control over a classroom of teenagers. Is this kind of control helpful to instill a sense of autonomy and freedom of thought in young minds though? Was it your opinion that the autocrat teacher had more control and that made you think she was ‘better’. Or was it something else? Did you buy into the feeling of being ‘The Weird One’ and then the ‘nice’ teacher’s attitude and questions reinforced your own inner beliefs? Was the nice teacher also unconsciously buying into the whole high school clique mentality of ‘the cool kids v. the nerdy kids’ because of her own emotional thinking? Or was she deliberately using those stereotypes because she could see that emotionally questioning the classroom in that way gave her the control she wanted?

      Like you say, all these aspects make me think that your views about both teachers were based on *both* your own emotions and reactions as well as what you were socially conditioned to believe was either good or bad and what you thought you were *supposed* to think. However, what I can also see is that there isn’t much room in your current thought processes to think of the ‘grey’ as well as the black and white.

      Also, for some reason, it made me instinctively sad to read that you will be free when you no longer give a shit. Personally, I think that it’s healthy to care and it shows that your inner spirit is still alive. If you didn’t care at all, to me that would mean there was a loss of something important and valuable. I think it’s a healthy thing to care and to feel emotion. The important thing (I think) is to question your own thoughts and emotions so that you can better understand in a cognitive way why you feel the way you do. And of course, to be aware of how your emotions can either protect you or lead you into harmful situations.

      I hope you don’t mind me saying these things, and again, thank you for your comment.

      1. lisk says:

        Violetta’s post is definitely more nuanced than “black and white.”

        And so is her statement, “I will know I am free when I don’t give a shit.”—which is immediately going up on my bathroom mirror.

        1. WiserNow says:

          lisk,
          You are of course entitled to your views, however, I didn’t say Violetta’s ‘post’ was black & white. When I mentioned black & white, it was specifically about the example of the two teachers and her memories of them.

          What I did say about Violetta’s post was, “I admire that you have expressed your inner thoughts in such detail and given an example that illustrates your point in a way that makes it very clear.”

          Again, as I stated in my comment, I did not reply to criticise or judge. The intention I had was to ask questions in an attempt to ‘help’ if anything. That is, to ‘help’ Violetta see that her memory of each teacher was from her own perspective at the time she was at school. The teachers were people too – people who had their own experiences, their own histories, and their own perspectives in that particular contextual situation.

          Also, the attitude of ‘not giving a shit’ is interesting to me. I find it difficult to understand how one person can easily flip between caring about one thing and not caring about something else.

          For instance, if you yourself think not giving a shit is a good way to be, why did you care enough to reply to me and provide your opinion in defense of Violetta. If you ‘want’ to not give a shit, you wouldn’t have bothered. I don’t think it’s possible to “not give a shit” in general and then remain a genuinely caring person when it suits.

          Again, lisk, I’m not here to argue or make enemies. I’m here to learn and better understand both myself and other people.

          1. Violetta says:

            WiserNow:

            My opinion of them changed over time. I was scared to death of the Battleaxe for years, and didn’t appreciate what a good teacher she was until much later.

            I wondered why the “nice” teacher would crack down on me for my “attitude” after letting other students correct her, with open derision in their voices, on 4th-grade reading comprehension on 3rd-grade math all morning. Occasionally, she let the mask slip: I protested that whatever my attitude, I hadn’t said or done anything, and Basil and Rosie had, and she said, “Well, I don’t have to take it from you.” She apparently did not question the necessity of taking it from Basil and Rosie.

            Years later, I was in therapy, and mentioned how the “nice” teacher had accidentally revealed damaging personal things about kids in front of other kids, which got them more teasing or just long-term polite shunning than yelling at them (per the Battleaxe) that they were a bunch of hoodlums who belonged in juvenile hall (which meant maybe half an hour of teasing).

            My therapist said, “That’s a lot of accidents.”

          2. K says:

            Violetta
            The teacher seems like she was a midrange-pity-playing-bully. Your therapist was useless.

          3. WiserNow says:

            Violetta,

            From your descriptions of your “nice” teacher, she sounds like she showed blatant favoritism towards some students and demeaned others. As a teacher, that’s very irresponsible and a classic sign of narcissism. It sounds like she was getting positive fuel from some kids even though they were mocking her, while she got negative fuel from others.

            At high school, kids are at the age (say, from 11 to 17) when their emotional development and feelings of inner self-worth involve their identity and how they perceive themselves in comparison to others in their social peer group.

            If a teacher is permissive with some kids and not with others, that can reinforce underlying attitudes about certain stereotypes and cause teenagers to take these attitudes to heart. In the long run though and in the bigger scheme of ‘life’, the stereotypes are a form of ET and they don’t describe the reality of a person.

            It’s an interesting example. Thanks again for sharing it 🙂

          4. Violetta says:

            That therapist was actually pretty good. He made me see that there were too many “accidents” with this “nice” teacher.

            The therapist I had as a kid, which is when this took place, told my school I was on hyper meds, but didn’t tell them my dad was a wife-beater and kiddie-basher. This meant that teachers like this one could stereotype all the “kids with problems,” or rather the kids she knew had problems. If you didn’t make it into her file, because your parents didn’t believe in therapy (or were smart enough not to divulge it to the school because they didn’t want anyone pumping their kid for info about putting Gran to bed when she’s drunk and cleaning up the vomit or Uncle Humbert’s babysitting stint), she was less likely to harass you with her efforts to “help.”

            The teacher’s use of psychology as social blackmail eventually backfired.
            When one kid threw it in my face I was hyper and seeing a shrink (still considered rather weird in the ‘burbs in those days–now, neither is any big deal), instead of teasing me, kids I wasn’t even friends with came up and told me not to worry about it. One had to see a therapist because her sibling rivalry got outright violent; another had parents heading for divorce. I wondered why they’d take my side against the kid who blabbed when they didn’t like me any better, not realizing until much later that they knew where she got that info. It was the teacher they didn’t trust. She’d do the same thing to them, if she knew.

            There was at least one incest case I’m now sure of, others I suspect, GOK how many with families including drunks or druggies, and one guy who years later dressed in women’s clothes and hanged himself from a tree in his parents’ front yard. All of these kids faked normal and never reported it, at least during the elementary years, to some extent because they may not have realized other families aren’t always like this, and to a greater extent, because they saw what the teacher did to me and anyone else who got the “maladjusted” label.

          5. Violetta says:

            WiserNow:
            “The teachers were people too – people who had their own experiences, their own histories, and their own perspectives in that particular contextual situation.”

            We were ten, not teens. I didn’t have any perspective on that aspect until I was an adult in grad school, and started surfing in the College of Education’s library to find out how teachers were being trained around that time.

            Carl Rogers, Herb Kohl, and Torrance & Myers were advocates of this trend in the school system. Max Rafferty reamed it in a series of books, particularly, What They Are Doing to Your Children. Nicholas Van Allen’s The Branded Child describes how teachers were so busy with psych observations and assessments of their pupils’ progress, they had barely any focus left for the subjects they were supposed to teach. Several kids were labeled “schizophrenic” or “retarded.” Some parents got their kids independently tested and for ND they had been mislabeled; other who could afford it put their kids in private school. A large number of parents who weren’t Catholic put their kids in parochial schools, where they mysteriously did much better.

            Fast-forward a couple of decades, and Rita Kramer’s Ed School Follies describes how the training process is even worse now that the trainers are from that “teach the whole child” generation, and the subject-centered traditional ones have retired or died.

            So I know what my teachers were being told to do, and why they were doomed to failure. Not just with me, although I was practically allergic to their methods, but when I was out sick or moved up a grade, pretty soon the class would start on the fat kid, the skinny kid, the kid with the coke-bottle glasses, etc. Teachers who tried to use peer pressure to control the class found that once you give the kids power over each other, you never get it back.

            As to why some teachers were especially receptive to such theories, that’s for another post, but HG’s description of early powerlessness leading to a constant need for power in some individuals definitely holds for at least two teachers I can think of. There were hints here and there of why they needed to compensate by controlling not just we did, but what we thought and felt.

          6. Violetta says:

            K: no, he was actually pretty good. I wasn’t recognizing consciously how suspicious her number of “accidents” was, even as an adult.

            The therapist I saw as a kid was so bad that the minute I mentioned who I’d seen to my current one, he said, “Oh, him. Yeah, I’ve heard his name before, from other patients. You are not alone.”

            I’m reading Sitting Target. Try to imagine someone telling kids the opposite of everything HG says, and you’ll get a fair idea how the first guy tried to “help.”

          7. K says:

            Violetta
            Ok, good! I think I read about your previous experience with your childhood therapist, on another thread, and assumed it was the same one. I am happy to read that you had a better experience with this one. It’s upsetting to read about people being treated so badly in therapy. You go for help and they re-victimize you. It’s nuts! And people pay money for this.

            Teachers can be bullies or terribly misguided and often put children at risk with their ignorant behavior. It happens frequently in the school system. There are three female MMRNs in the classrooms at my daughters elementary school.

          8. Violetta says:

            WiserNow:
            She did play favorites, but unfortunately, her method wasn’t to gush over some kids and ignore the rest, as some teachers do. I could live with that. Every now and then she’d start on one of her trying-to-help rituals, and if you didn’t say the lines in her psych-for-education majors textbook (and what kid could follow a script the kid hadn’t even seen?) she was indignant. In retrospect, I think she experienced it as criticism.

          9. WiserNow says:

            Violetta,
            You could be right. If she was a narcissist, she was probably very ‘defended’, since it is a defence strategy.

            Anything that anyone said to her that didn’t automatically agree or validate her own thoughts was probably taken as being ‘adversarial’ or as a criticism.

      2. Violetta says:

        WiserNow:

        We were ten, not teens.

        (Long story, HG, but I think the teacher was a perfect example of the kind of mid-range narc who sends people screaming for the hills when she announced she’s going to “help” them.)

        Here’s the “nice” teacher gathering stragglers for reading:
        Lily, it’s time for reading. Get in the circle.
        Rosie, it’s time for reading.
        VIOLET, would you LIKE to JOIN us?
        Heather, it’s time for reading. Stop dawdling.

        “Nice” teacher at recess:
        Basil, you know we’re not allowed to climb that tree.
        No playing buck-buck, boys. You know better.
        VIOLET, you’re playing with Heather and Sorrel so NICELY.
        Go to the nurse, Ash, and she’ll put a band-aid on it.
        Well Fern, there must be a REASON Lily and Rosie won’t play with you. There must be something that you DID. Don’t you WANT people to like you? Even VIOLET has learned to get along with people.

        1. Heather and Sorrel had been my friends on and off since 2nd grade. It had nothing to do with her class, except I made sure we only played at each other’s houses after that. Otherwise, they might have been afraid to associate with me at all.

        2. The week before (and the week after), she would be reproaching me by saying that “even FERN wouldn’t do things like that.” Then she expressed puzzlement that Fern and I didn’t get along.

        3. I had her for 6th as well as 5th. At the time I was glad, because I was terrified of the battle-axe across the hall, and was genuinely puzzled that I was calmer and could concentrate when we did a joint activity with that class.

        Fern was in a different class for 6th, so when I came back from being sick for almost a month, the class was picking on Sorrel. Poison Pollyanna couldn’t tell her she must have done something to deserve it, because Sorrel wasn’t a legendary troublemaker. She couldn’t tell Sorrel’s parents Sorrel needed to learn that her actions had consequences and if she wanted the girls to like her, she’d have to blah blah, because Sorrel’s parents knew she was actually rather shy. They would not have said, “Well, what’s she done now?” as mine did. They’d have complained to the principal that if Sorrel was misbehaving, Polly needed to handle it herself, instead of trying to hide behind peer pressure. And Polly couldn’t claim Sorrel had misbehaved, or even make vague accusations of her having an “attitude” (her fallback with me). But she also couldn’t stand up to the ones picking on Sorrel, because they were more popular than she was and could turn the class against her.

        First she tried to drag me into it one recess: “Violet, you should KNOW better. How did YOU feel when” etc.

        I said, “I was playing with Ivy here. We didn’t hear what happened.”

        Ivy said, “That’s right. Violet and I were talking about language arts.” Ivy was the school sociopath, and that was a hint that she’d continue to back me against Polly if I continued doing her language arts homework for her.

        Polly looks at the group in frustration, says, “First you pick on Violet, now it’s Sorrel. I don’t know why you girls have to be so MEAN to each other,” and walks away.

        Was it deliberate malice? Suppressed malice?

        Or was she genuinely indignant that all the Group Dynamics she’d been indoctrinated with in teacher college didn’t work the way she’d been told? We were supposed to learn Cooperation, and if it backfired and her class was actually worse than the same kids with other teachers, we were criticizing her.

        1. WiserNow says:

          Violetta,

          Firstly, I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist and don’t have the experience or skills to analyse personalities. Also, I’m an empathic person, so I instinctively see things from the perspective that no one person is more ‘valuable’ or ‘worthy’ than any other person from a ‘big picture’ point of view. We are all part of the same universe, so the fact that we’re all here living on the same planet means that we are ‘meant’ to be here.

          Secondly, I don’t know you personally and I don’t know your history, so I’m only going on your words in your comments. That’s a narrow frame of reference and it’s not the ‘big picture’. So, my opinions are based on the information I do have. My opinion could be different if I had more information than what you have given here.

          This is what I’m seeing in your comments:
          – you were ten years old and at school (i.e. a child who was at school presumably to learn about reading, writing, math, history, etc)

          – you had friends who were also ten. Your friends had different personalities, however, being children, you were all at school primarily to ‘learn’. Your main reason for being there was not to show that you were socially ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than any other child there (although that’s naturally what tends to happen at school, whether kids consciously see it or not).

          – you had an instant first impression that the Pollyanna teacher was a ‘loser’. For whatever reason, you did not have a personal sense of respect for her. That was your initial impression. From that first impression, I feel that you looked down on her (either consciously or unconsciously). This makes me think that whatever she said or did, you would probably have been annoyed by it, because you didn’t think she was ‘worthy’ of your respect and therefore it was demeaning to you to have to take her seriously.

          – the teacher was an adult responsible for teaching a classroom full of ten-year-olds. Why do you think she would put aside all of the things she had been trained to teach up to that point, i.e. all of the things she’d been ‘indoctrinated’ with, to be deliberately malicious to ten year olds?

          – all of the things you point out about what she said to you compared to what she said to others and how you were treated compared to how others were treated, make me think that even as a ten year old, you felt you should have been treated with more equality. She should not have made any differences in the way she spoke to you compared to others.

          – you describe Ivy as the ‘school sociopath’. So, the 10-year-old ‘school sociopath’ was on your side, so that means you were protected against the teacher who you thought was a loser in the first place.

          From the above, I can’t be sure that the teacher was a narcissist. She may or she may not have been.

          What I can see though, is that even as a 10-year-old, you judged the teacher (who was older than you and had more life experience than you) and believed that her different words to different kids automatically meant she had ‘malice’ against you. I find this interesting. You didn’t respect her deep down because she was a ‘loser’, and yet, her words made you feel like *she* had malice towards you.

          Perhaps you knew (already at ten) that her attempts to make the class ‘co-operate’ were futile because you had no real intention of listening or obeying her because you thought she was a loser.

          It’s interesting to me that you resisted her attempts to ‘co-operate’ and thought she was incapable of controlling the class. You thought that her particular attempts to do that were because of her ‘malice’ towards you. On the one hand, you respect ‘control’, but then on the other hand, if you don’t respect the person, their kind of ‘control’ is seen as malice.

          Violetta,
          Again, I don’t have the answers. All I can do is comment on the things I find thought-provoking or the things that stand out to me. I am not blaming or criticising you or the other kids or the teachers.

          What I have read in my reading is that all of us are born with a certain kind of temperament, (i.e. quiet or loud, energetic or laid-back, social or withdrawing, etc). Logically, these temperaments are not ‘good’ or ‘bad’. They simply just ‘are’. As individuals though, we put our own value-judgements on them according to whether we can relate to them or not, or whether they make us feel good or not.

          If we are treated in a certain way by someone with a temperament that is similar to our own, we are more inclined to ‘internalise’ that method of behaving because it feels more relatable or closely matches our own.

          If we are treated in a certain way by someone whose temperament is not the same as ours, we don’t internalise that method of behaving because it doesn’t ‘fit’ with our own and it feels too different.

          I think your personal temperament was different from the Pollyanna teacher’s natural temperament and you felt that she was a ‘loser’ and not able to control you. You rejected her methods of trying to control.

          At the same time, the Pollyanna teacher probably felt that your temperament was difficult to deal with because you defied or resisted her attempts for the class to ‘co-operate’.

          That’s what I can see. Again, I’m not criticising or judging anyone. I’m simply describing what I see from my perspective.

  6. cogra002 says:

    Really good information.
    It really just reminds me of the thinking of alcoholics, drug addicts or even smokers quitting . The mind plays tricks to get u to relapse. They even have a name for it.
    You call it “emotional thinking”.
    You’re an addiction counselor “Narcs Anonymous “.
    Only difference is yours is not a Christian perspective, which AA is.
    I continue to think this is more addiction behavior than anything.

  7. K says:

    21 cons came to mind when I was writing to WiserNow on Wanted! Extinguished or Shining! This is one of my favorites.

  8. Witch says:

    Yyyaasss! Spread the gospel
    Lead me to salvation my narcsiah

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.