Does The Narcissist Think About the Disengaged IPPS?



I know that when I have disengaged from you that you will think of me more than anything else. This is all by design – be it instinctive (Lesser or Mid Range Narcissist) or calculated (Greater Narcissist).

Your mind becomes a whirling thought engine as the questions loom and dart about your mind like swooping spirits. Why did he do this? What did I do wrong? Where has he gone? Why won’t he talk to me? Is he with someone else now? How could he treat me like this? These questions and many of a similar nature remain at the forefront of your mind. They are exhausting as you grapple to find the answers, always achieving an unsuccessful outcome because invariably you do not know who has actually disengaged from you.

I cast you to one side, you did not leave me and cause me to apply an Initial Grand Hoover in order to bring you back under my spell. I saw no need for you anymore and therefore I was content to throw you on the scrap  heap, broken and spent, a broken appliance left to its own considerations and dwelling heavily on this cruel treatment.

One of the questions which charges around your mind as you try to sleep is does he think about me? Do I ever feature in his thoughts? Does he think about what I am doing? Does he recall the good times?  You wonder whether I am lying on my bed in a similar state of anxiety, mulling over what has happening. Your thoughts spill and tumble and whilst you want to dispel these memories you cannot help but want to embrace them, experiencing that bitter sweet sensation of both delight and agony –  of course this is being driven by your emotional thinking which is wanting to feed your addiction to me.

You try to get into a comfortable position hoping that slumber will soon drag you into unconsciousness so that the pain will evaporate, if just for a few hours. Yet, even the place you now lie in evokes the image of you and I coupled together, wrapped up in one another as we made love through the night, or at least you felt we made love. Did we actually make love to one another? Did I really love you? You know you loved me, indeed you still do, but what of me?

Yet again a question leaps into your mind. I am everywhere. You consider whether I think about the treatment that you have received and do I feel guilty for behaving that way? Do I have a reason for hurling you to one side so callously and am I wondering whether you are all right? Your truth seeking empathic trait is being seized on and corrupted by your emotional thinking. It drives you to want answers and you are left believing that such a driver is logical and should be addressed. It keeps the thought of me in your head, going round and round, question after question, ensuring that your emotional thinking is alive and surging.

Just as you hold onto the precious memories of the golden period you wonder whether I am similarly replaying them through my mind, recalling the wonderful times, the delicious things we did together. You can summon it all in such detail. The places we went to, the other people there, what day of the week it was, even the exact date. You remember what we wore, what we ate and what was said as the memories tumble through head. As the clock shows it is now closer to morning than it was to the evening, you wonder whether I am thinking about you in a similar fashion?

While you toss and turn in your bed which resembles a place to be endured rather than a place of comfort, I am fast asleep. From the moment my head touched the pillow I fell asleep free from thoughts about you. No imp sits on my shoulder jabbing me with a precious memory and keeping me from sleeping. Whilst you ruminate, cogitate, fathom and review, I am oblivious to everything. During my waking hours you do not invade my consciousness. There is too much to be done, too much fuel to extract as I deal with looking after and nurturing the new primary source of my fuel which replaced you. You have been deleted because you failed me (at least in my mind that is the case) and therefore you have erased from the record. The narcissism demands that. You are of no use to me and therefore you are erased, deleted, removed and wiped away.

Truth be told it was more of an overlap with both you and her supplying me fuel until the old stale trickle was switched off and dumped. In my mind you never existed. My fixation with the new prospect and her golden, delicious, potent fuel means that everything is focussed on her. Her seduction and the maintenance of supply dominates my mind save when I am extracting my fuel from the range of supplementary sources that I interact with throughout the day. I may drink from the mug you once bought me to recognise I support a particular football team but there is no flicker of recognition about you. I do not halt, cup in hand, halfway to my mouth and smile at that trip to the stadium when you insisted on buying half the contents in order to please me. It is just a mug to me but the tea contained in it and prepared by my new prospect is delicious and I tell her so. Her beaming smile provides me with that dollop of fuel as expected. To me it is just a mug bearing the crest of my football team. The link you had to that piece of ceramic has been severed and cast into the abyss. The narcissism demands that must be the case – your replacement governs our thoughts and actions now and therefore there is no need to be reminded of you, that is redundant and as effective and efficient machines, we reject the redundant, jettison the unnecessary and remove the failed.

I may still wear the jumper you bought me but I never consider that weekend away in the highlands when I complained about being cold so you purchased it for me. I may walk past someone who wears the same fragrance as you. I do not remember you as I smell it, not the way you remember me when you smell my cologne and you remember me next to you and that emptiness washes over you once again. I just think that it is a pleasant scent and carry on walking by. It is as if I have pressed delete and you have been erased. You never existed, your thoughts, words and actions all melt away. Your connections to me are severed, your presence eradicated and your memory denied. I have switched off that appliance and everything associated with it has been obliterated. We do not think of you because at this point we have no need to think of you. You serve no purpose to us and therefore remembering you and I is a redundant exercise and a waste of our time and energy. We must not waste anything and thus the instinctive impact of our narcissism ensures you are not thought of.

When we have disengaged from you and we have done so because we have a new Intimate Partner Primary Source we do not think about you. If you enter our spheres of influence by messaging us, ringing us, walking by us or even coming to see us, you can expect at best a cold and polite short moment of recognition before we move on and at worst a malign response to send you away in hurt and pain. You failed us – we no longer want or need you. You have been replaced and therefore you are stricken from our thoughts and should you ever invade our sphere of influences in another way, we maintain this rejection of you.

However, once the new IPPS enters devaluation (and this person will – that is a guarantee – it is just a question of time) well, then you become useful to us once again and our narcissism alters the record once again. This time you will be remembered, although if truth be told you ought to prefer that you remain cast into obscurity because in all likelihood we will be coming back for you in some form of other to draw again on our investment, to seize our property once again but solely for our benefit.


28 thoughts on “Does The Narcissist Think About the Disengaged IPPS?

  1. Leela says:

    But H.G.: You had so many IPPS? You cannot hoover all? Can you really remember all of them?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Of course I remember who they all are.

    2. Gina says:

      It’s not like they completely forget you and are insane or something. I think it’s more like how we would have a relationship with somebody in our past that didn’t impact our life a lot. We know and remember who they are we just don’t think about them a lot. I think that narcissists don’t necessarily distinguish wife brother son daughter mother, in the same way that we do. That’s just another person and it depends on what the narcissist is getting from that person as to how ” important” that person is at the time. Staying off their radar makes you less important and less likely to get hoovered. This is really hard for us because we don’t think like that. But we never were very important to them in the same way they were or are special to us.

      1. NarcAngel says:

        Great way of looking at it.

  2. Bekah B says:

    Here’s a quote from a movie I find extremely relevant to how the narcissist operates concerning disengaged sources:

    “If a conscious being is not observing something, does that thing actually exist? ….. In computing, procedural generation allows a computer to not get bogged down with processing data that it isn’t using or observing.. If something isn’t being observed by the collective consciousness, then it would cease to exist until it is observed once again…”

    “It would cease to exist until it is observed once again” = Hoover Triggers..

    1. HG Tudor says:


      1. Empath007 says:

        So is it possible then, if a victim is proper no contact. We could achieve a permanent deletion in the narcs mind?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          No. There is always a risk of a hoover trigger and therefore a risk of a hoover

    2. Darth Renardus says:


      Schrodinger. The cat in the box is the classic experiment. Essentially because particles and waves are the flip side of the coin, a particle can exist in finite states until it is observed. Then the wave form collapses into one of two states.

      It’s essentially almost Zen. Does a tree make a sound in the woods if no one is there to observe it?

      You are wrong on PCs though. Many devices are running malware and theyve become bots.

      Kind of reminds me of something…

      1. Bekah B says:

        Hello Darth,

        Remember, that is a quote from a movie, so I suppose the *movie* is wrong when it makes the statement about computing and not getting bogged down processing data it isn’t actively observing.. However, this statement serves to be true in relation to how narcissists operate.. HG has mentioned many times how narcissists’ energy must be conserved and spent only on the most essential and rewarding acquisitions of fuel.. They must not get bogged down with anything that is not serving their purposes and ultimate benefit..

        Incidentally, the hypothetical question about the tree was also in this movie I watched.. Lol.. Its all relevant.. 🙂

        1. HG Tudor says:

          It is an accurate analogy to the way we operate and reinforces how a victim is not repeatedly on our mind each and every day.

          1. Bekah B says:

            Precisely, HG.. This analogy is also effective in encouraging me to have a more logical perspective in how narcissists operate when it concerns disengagement..

            Ex Machina.

            If I just think of them as some sort of “bot” or “computer” that is just doing what it has to do to operate at maximum capacity so it can thrive, strangely enough, I develop the sympathy I need to to be content with that.. I can let go and not take the disengagement (of myself and our children) so personally.. I fully understand the narcissist is doing what he needs to do to survive.. This analogy is relevant even to how the narcissist is with his current IPPS.. At the end of every night when the narcissist falls asleep (in “sleep mode”), he is no longer observing anything during this time, so all things cease to exist.. It is only when the narcissist awakes and has interaction with his sources and receives the fuel he desperately needs that he is reassured all of his “systems are a go”.. It’s like hitting reset every single day that goes by…. (and it explains the inconsistency that eventually comes along during the push-and-pull cycle of idealization and devaluation)

            Of course there was a punchline in that movie, as it concerns this topic: “If the computer had *unlimited power*, it wouldn’t need to conserve data and energy like that”.. It just goes to show the narcissist has his/her limits and they are not the all-powerful beings they like to make themselves out to be..

            I find a great deal of comfort in that..

          2. HG Tudor says:

            Many of them are not. Some of us are.

          3. Bekah B says:

            But of course YOU are, HG.. You’re the Ultra.. Lol

        2. Ren says:


          I’m going to kind of disagree with your first point.

          Computers cannot ‘observe’, unless they are sentient. Which they arent. At least, not yet. I think therefore I am. Descartes.

          Computers can however parse code. Which takes up processing power.

          As to Zen. It’s not a hypothetical question. It strikes to the very route of the observable universe. What we see is what we percieve. We see our reality through the paradigm of our own experiences. Filters, if you will. Enlightenment is the removal of these filters, so your perception of reality is as close as you can get to reality itself. Its asymtotic. You can never get there.

          The proponents of Zen were the Japanese. Now I ADORE Japinese culture and I’m no racist However, it strikes me that something went deadly wrong there. I’m talking about the rise of the Shogun. The Geishas, hari kiri, the samurai and of course in WW2 the suicide bombers. Bonsai.

          I think what might have happened is that NPD ran out of control. Could be wrong of course but I do ponder on this.

          A strange and very beautiful culture. I’d very much like to visit.

        3. I’m thinking Rupert Murdoch

    3. Violetta says:

      Like object and people permanence in babies. You can hide a toy under a handkerchief right in front of a baby, and before the baby has reached a certain stage, he/she won’t lift up the handkerchief, even if the toy’s outline is clearly perceptible under the handkerchief. If you lift the handkerchief to reveal the toy, the baby shrieks with delight. Eventually they get it, and then they think peek-a-boo is the most thrilling game ever, but it’s not an inmate concept by any means. Babies are quite the solipsists.

      1. Bekah B says:

        Precisely, Violetta! Another great example that is relevant to this topic.. Clinically, I do believe people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder struggle with object permanence, whole object relations, and object constancy..

        1. Violetta says:

          We we do it too.

          At a later stage, if you’ve been repeatedly putting the toy under a red handkerchief, then the last time you take it out, show it to the baby, and put it under a blue handkerchief while the baby watches, the baby will pick up–the red handkerchief.

          The baby doesn’t really picture the toy as existing no matter what color handkerchief it’s under; it’s more like, “pick up the red handkerchief and you get a surprise, and you and the adult you’re playing with will laugh and celebrate!”

          Now that’s us: looking for Lurve with Narcs even if we know damned well there isn’t any.

          1. truthseeker6157 says:


            When I was little, my dad tells me I used to hide behind the couch with my backside sticking out. I thought that if I couldn’t see them, they couldn’t see me.

            I like to think of it as hiding in plain sight. Stealthy.

            Just thought I’d share!

          2. Fiddleress says:

            This discussion around object permanence/constancy is really interesting. Until a few years ago, I thought I had NO sense of object permanence as I panicked somehow when I was not in touch or in the presence of the person I loved (in romantic relationships, and my N mother; not with friends). I felt abandoned, or that I was going to be abandoned, that the other person, or indeed I, had disappeared for good when we were not in contact. And indeed, it happened, through silent treatments, mostly absent ST.

            Now I think it wasn’t so much me struggling with object permanence, but that I knew at an unconscious level, as you say Violetta, that I was looking for love when there was none.because those it happened with were narcissists, in fact (didn’t know at the time).

            But now that we know damn well there isn’t any, surely none of us is going to keep looking for that non-existent love with narcissists.

          3. Violetta says:

            Unfortunately, I can’t seem to MAKE myself take interest in that blue handkerchief.

    4. NarcAngel says:

      Great catch on that quote! I would have thought it interesting but not made the link like you did. Thank you for sharing it.

      1. Bekah B says:

        Thank you too, NarcAngel! 😉

  3. Gina says:

    I have been no contact since mid-February. It has helped me a lot. Because I have two children, (adults now) with the narcissist, he will always be in the periphery. A couple weeks ago he showed up at my place of work, which is a public place. He’s also having my daughter bring me things which I left at the (previously) marital residence. I don’t want any of those things which is why I left them. But he appears to be hoovering for some reason. I don’t like always having to be on guard, but it’s a whole lot better than being involved with him everyday, living with him or being married to him.

  4. Virginia says:

    You are absolutely precise!

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you.

  5. lickemtomorrow says:

    We are all just ‘appliances’ … even the new IPPS.

    Nothing to be jealous of there.

    She’ll be on the scrapheap before she knows it, too.

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

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

Previous article