Knowing the Narcissist : To Control is to Cope – Narcissism and Its Creation
To deal with and to address the vagaries of life, human beings have developed coping mechanisms. These coping mechanisms vary in terms of the extent of their use, their impact on the user, the impact on others and the frequency of their deployment. Some coping mechanisms are regarded as ‘healthy’ and others as ‘unhealthy’ and some may be a hybrid of the two, dependent on the extent and duration of usage.
Distancing is a coping mechanism. You may distance yourself from a situation and people, but prolonged and extensive distancing may lead to isolation with the associated problems which such isolation can bring. Short-term distancing can allow recovery, re-charging and avoidance of an ongoing harmful situation. Longer-term distancing which is targeted on one or more chief proponents of harm can lead to near complete removal from toxic and harmful influences. No contact of course is a coping mechanism which incorporates distancing as a central tenet of it and is the most effective coping mechanism to apply with regard to your recovery from ensnarement with our kind.
Crying is another coping mechanism. The release of tension, held-grief, feelings of misery often evaporate as a consequence of somebody crying. You may be told ‘have a good cry, you will feel better’ and indeed many people have testified to the beneficial impact of doing so and thus crying achieves release and often acts as a signal to invite comfort from others. It is a coping mechanism deployed by people to deal with a stressful, worrying or hurtful situation.
Self-harming is a further form of coping. The distraction caused by the painful response of cutting (cutting being just one form of self-harming) enables an individual to relieve the pain of certain other feelings, it achieves a release, a distraction and also enables that individual to exert control in circumstances where they feel unable to exert control (or to the extent that would make them feel comfortable). Self-harming whilst a coping mechanism is regarded as a negative form of a coping mechanism.
Expression of feelings. Being able to ‘talk it out’ and ‘air your feelings’ is a coping mechanism also. The ability to talk to someone else who will just listen, even if they offer nothing in response or even just to talk to yourself about how you are feeling (be it generally or in relation to something specific) enables people to experience a sense of release, a lightening of a particular load and it often brings clarity in terms of understanding themselves and finding a way forward.
There are many coping mechanisms that humans deploy – some are conscious and others occur unconsciously.
Narcissism is one such coping mechanism and it is a powerful and invariably hugely effective, although its effectiveness does depend on the school of the narcissist and which particular outcome one is having regard to. The outcome of our narcissism is something that I shall address in a separate article.
Narcissism must maintain the construct (the false self) and imprison the creature (the true self). Collectively this is the Self-Defence of the Narcissist. This Self-Defence is achieved through the The Prime Aims(fuel, character traits and residual benefits).
Central to this Self-Defence and the achievement of The Prime Aims is control. The narcissist must at all times have control of his or her environment and the people within that environment which of course includes you. Whether you are a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a colleague, a relative or a romantic partner. Whether you are a neighbour, a date, sister or brother, that man from the corner store or fiancée – you come within the fuel matrix of the narcissist and you have to be subjected to the control of the narcissist.
This control has to be exerted second by second of each and every day. Every passing moment must be owned and governed by the narcissist. We must exert control all around us, this has to be complete and total as if the very clouds were tethered by us. Why is that?
Because once upon a time the narcissist did not have control.
That lack of control meant the narcissist felt powerless, weak, vulnerable and exposed.
The combination of a genetic predisposition and the imposition of this lack of control created narcissism as the coping mechanism. These two ingredients combined and gave ‘birth’ to narcissism as a means of coping with the world, with the lack of control that the world causes for individuals. Many people have no issue with this lack of control, others have alternative coping mechanisms and then there is us – the narcissists. Around one in six of the human population of this planet became narcissists in order to cope with this loss of control.
Narcissism allows the imposition of control through manipulation. The imposition of control allows us to achieve the Prime Aims. The achievement of the Prime Aims allows our Self-Defence and thus we survive and we thrive.
Narcissism is a coping mechanism.
People believe that abuse is theingredient in the formation of a narcissist. It is an ingredient, yes, but there are two ingredients in the formation of our kind. The first ingredient is the genetic predisposition, if you will this is the fertile soil which provides the basis for the narcissism to grow and flourish. The second ingredient is the lack of control (of which abuse is part of that lack of control) and this is the ‘seed’ which is placed in the fertile soil of the genetic predisposition and thus narcissism ‘grows’ as the coping mechanism. For some, the soil is there but no seed ever arrives and thus no narcissist. For others, there is no soil but there is the seed, but again with one essential ingredient missing, there can be no narcissism.
Genetic predisposition plus lack of control (at a formative stage of life) equals narcissist.
What does this lack of control (at a formative stage of life – i.e. childhood) look like?
- Abuse. Whether it is physical, emotional, sexual or psychological, any form of abuse towards us amounts to a lack of control. We could not defend ourselves against the abuse and therefore this is a lack of control, over ourselves and over those who meted out abusive harm towards us. The abuse is an act of commission – we were beaten, molested sexually, told we were useless, insulted etc.
- Isolated. Whether this was being locked in a cupboard under the stairs, prevented from playing with other children, kept apart from other family members, not allowed to participate in group activities of any nature, given silent treatments and treated as if we did not exist, isolating and ostracising us in some form again constituted a lack of control. We were not able to control our own interactions, someone else did this for us and to our detriment. We were controlled by another and thus lacked control.
- Neglect. Whilst there may not have been abusive acts of commission , there are abusive acts of omission. Therefore we were not given a safe environment, we were not taught effectively (be it about ‘facts’, relationships, behaviour, responsibility), we were not emotionally supported, we were not fed, clothed or protected, we were not shielded from an abuser of commission and/or we could roam where we wanted. Once again we were denied control over ourselves because we were not provided with the assets, resources and tools to achieve effective control over our lives and this neglect (lack of control) exposed us to hurt, pain, disease, injury, loneliness and/or acts of abuse through commission.
- The Golden Child. Everything we did was lauded and praised. It was invariably held up as a glowing and shining example of brilliance, even when it was not or the praise was excessive for a valid achievement. This meant we lacked control in the sense of earning achievements in a valid fashion. We had greatness thrust upon us without being ready for it, without having earned it and without appreciating it. Everything came to us too easily and this also amounted to a lack of control. We had no control over the outcome from our endeavours, we felt no compulsion to achieve and apply endeavour because whatever we did (bad, mediocre or good) was met with accolade, praise and the lavishing of ‘how brilliant’. We were denied the ability to control our own destiny.
- Shifting Sands. Where we experienced Shifting Sands we had a lack of control because the environment around us at that formative stage lacked constancy. One day the sun shone and the next day, even though everything else appeared to stay the same to us, there was a thunderstorm. On Monday our painting was declared to be ‘Rembrandt in the making’ (a la Golden Child) and by Friday our painting ‘was the work of a moron wielding a potato for a paintbrush’. The application of black and white thinking by the aggressor created an uncertain environment, one of push and pull, idealisation and devaluation and we had no control whatsoever on which version was going to appear to us. There was a lack of control in our lives through uncertainty, unpredictability and those shifting sands.
- B Graders. ‘It’s good but not good enough.’ ‘You can do far better.’ ‘You are not trying hard enough.’ ‘You are letting yourself down but moreover you are letting me down.’ These phrases and those similar to it encapsulate the loss of control felt by those who are ‘The B Graders’. Each time the hill was climbed and the summit anticipated, another hill suddenly appeared. The effort was okay, decent enough, acceptable but never that which met with approval. Keep going, learn more, be faster, swim stronger, climb higher, shine brighter. There was no control because we were never allowed a moment to settle, to cherish that which had been achieved and to reflect. We could not establish our own parameters of achievement and satisfaction but instead we were always beholden to the standards of another which ultimate proved to be unobtainable standards and thus we had no control.
- The Facsimile. We were shaped to be precisely like the aggressor. Sometimes this was entirely at the behest of the aggressor and sometimes we saw how this individual behaved and decided ‘I want that power also’ (usually unconsciously but sometimes, such as was the case for me – consciously). Whilst you may think a conscious decision to copy the aggressor and thus seize power was a form of control, it was not – this was actually a product of the already establishing narcissism and thus a symptom rather than a cause. Where the aggressor caused us to be moulded just like them – forming our opinions, our views, our behaviours, our likes and dislikes, what we wore, what we ate, where we went, what we did and in some instances alongside this there was an unconscious decision to mimic and copy those behaviours and characteristics, we were once again denied control.
Thus, whether we came from an impoverished background, a gilded background, a seemingly run-of-the-mill background, any of those environments had the potential to cause a lack of control in our lives. Take this lack of control and add it to the genetic predisposition and thus our coping mechanism of narcissism was given birth to.
Narcissism became our way of coping with the world.
Narcissism allowed us to exert control.
A lack of control equates to a lack of power.
A lack of control equates to being vulnerable.
A lack of control equates to being weak.
A lack of control equates to being worthless, meaningless and unimportant.
When we lack control, we start to fade and will no longer exist.
A lack of control now returns us to the lack of control then.
This must never happen for too long and thus we were formed from this lack of control adding to our genetic predisposition and in order to survive and thrive we must never, ever lack control for if this persists, well, then, it ends.
We must have absolute control. And that means absolute control over you, him, her, them but most of all YOU.
29 thoughts on “Knowing the Narcissist : To Control is to Cope – Narcissism and Its Creation”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I am sure the development of many behaviours and thinking patterns are our attempt to cope through controlling our environment, ourselves and others. It’s just that it works differently in different people.
I have been thinking about attachment styles since the comments on this thread about them.
I am a hybrid attacher. Sometimes it’s called ambivalent, sometimes it is called disorganised, sometimes it has other names. But it’s not one of the other three attachment styles which are avoidant, anxious and secure.
This means I move between attachment styles depending on what is around me. I’m always striving for a secure (easy, comfortable, dependable) attachment but the circumstances need to be close to perfect, which, of course, they rarely are, although some situations (and people) make it much harder while others make it easier.
In terms of intimate relationships, my attachment style has always heavily depended on the way the other person has attached (if I were a secure attacher, this wouldn’t be the case – their attachment style wouldn’t guide mine). If the other person has been distant or avoidant, it will trigger my anxiety and I will feel instinctively worried. These relationships keep me in a perpetually anxious (yet attached) state, although it’d go up and down in strength depending on what was going on. I don’t tolerate relationships like these now, but when I was younger I became temporarily trapped in them. These kind of circumstances, where I’ve been in a relationship with an avoidant attacher and my anxious attachment has been activated, is when I have become, effectively, codependent.
Alternatively, if I recognise the other person has an anxious attachment style, and has become extremely attached to me, it will trigger avoidance. I will find it extremely difficult (impossible?) to feel warmth towards that other person and my instinct will be to block them off and keep them at a distance, emotionally, psychologically and physically.
I don’t believe either of my parents are (or were) narcissists but I feel pretty confident they both had a hybrid attachment style. They may have managed to stay together because they got to a kind of balance with each other, even though my dad remained mostly avoidant in their relationship and my mother, mostly anxious. I suspect my dad’s girlfriend also had a hybrid attachment style. I wonder if my style is because of what they modelled for me or because of the genes they gave me. Likely a combination of both, although I think the environment plays an outsized role.
I’m a bit curious to know where empaths on the blog sit in terms of their attachment style. Contagious has said she’s a secure attacher and I can see evidence for this in her comments. I think she might be in a minority, but I truly don’t know.
I love this article because I understood it really well. I recall asking HG some time ago about an empath version of this, because, in my view, it may not be too dissimilar, especially when it comes to coping strategies, or, why some empaths are created the way they form their schools / cadres. HG, thank you for the existence of your work.
Hey Asp: what in this article to you says the formation of an empath? I can’t wait for his series… bated breath! But I don’t see it here. Maybe miss dum dum. X
I think she means that the formation of an empath most likely has similarities to the formation of empaths.
Our coping method developed differently. I became hyper vigilant about everything in my surroundings.
I can’t wait for the series either!
I really want to know how we became empathic rather than a narcissist.
You’re not dumb. The article doesn’t describe how we form,
I think Contagion and I are making a guess based on what makes a narcissist.
Thank you Sonya. You understand what I meant 🙂
I did because it took me a minute to figure out what Asp Amp meant.
I rarely know who is saying what or what the discussion is even about. 😂 I’m very new to blogging, so I may not make sense but oh well, I’m trying!
I understand about being new to blogging, I was like that when I first arrived to KTN. I think you are doing well 🙂
Sonya: I have thoughts but HG will nail it. I was the opposite of hypervigilant as a child. I always knew what was up. What was the emotion behind the action or word. BUT coping style: I was in an existential crisis very young. I got into religion. The meaning of life. Afterlife. Also, I stayed outdoors a lot and in my imagination. Nature. Creativity. Also I read a lot. I loved Rumi and put up his quotes at 12. I loved art and choose Mobets water lilies as my bedding. I also have this concentration thing. There’s a name for it, where when I filocus I can hear nothing or see nothing but what I am focused on. Not sure why that is but I always had it. It’s a problem as people think you are ignoring them when you don’t mean to do it. It’s great for public speaking or acting which I did a lot of young. Like every teen, music was an escape. But I wasn’t sensitive to criticism or hypervigilant. My mother said as a child I always was good at entertaining myself, I was always called “ tough” or “ strong”. I was the type who if got physically hurt, it never bothered me. I brushed it off. I was I guess independent young. My mother would say I never worried ( everyone does to a degree) but would get angry about the circumstance or injustice. I had imaginary friends and I recall my stuffed animals and their names I would talk to and of course I loved my dog sooo much! A funny story was my uncle was taking me back from Connecticut to My parents after visiting my grandparents and he got lost. He was asking a 3 year old where to go and got angry at me for not knowing how to get to my house! I told him he was a “ mean old bear! In reply. I was a little wild child. Never wanted my hair done, loved dancing, acting, all sports, never ever wanted to sit still. Running outside in the wilds, the fields, nature. Making friends with butterflies and animals, I loved to swim in the ocean and eat muscles off the rocks ( probably would kill you today lol). I have no idea what makes empaths empaths. I do know it must be genetic as my father and his side are so empathetic and virtuous, I was always in awe of them. I could only hold the hem and appreciate their goodness. My aunts and grandmother on paternal side had large families. My one aunt had 61 children, grandchildren and great grandchildren when she died at 96. They didn’t wear make up, cut their hair short, never complained or gossiped, very privately religious and church attendees, didn’t drink or smoke or do drugs, stayed married for life, were educated, sewed or knitted a lot for others. They always smiled, were kind and supportive. They had twinkles in their eyes. Material belongings and travel and luxury meant nothing. It was all about their loved ones. Now their children were not so lol. More human! When I feel the green monster… or want to go somewhere and can’t, I think of them. I don’t think they missed out on anything. They had every life challenge from losing a child, to dealing with a spouse with alcoholism to a child losing his legs etc… but you would never know it. No doubt they had their moments but in general they accepted life. They appreciated it. They loved and were loved so much. So genetic or having empaths around you is my guess! Role models. Not on my mothers side. There were narcs. My grandfather was horrid and I never liked him. I avoided him. He mistreated my grandmother and my father. Mean small minded man.
That is an awesome account of your personality and the tools you used as coping skills.
No wonder you could go through law school and become a kick ass attorney.
I agree that HG will nail it for us, I am so excited to learn about how we developed. I already love his break down of schools and cadres of empaths. They seem spot on!
Hi Contagious, maybe I looked at this particulat article through a different perspective and ‘saw’ some aspects of, especially, the coping strategies as ways I may have adopted myself as an individual yet I am an empath (as confirmed by EDC). I think if you showed a friend of yours this article and asked them, they may see a different angle at this article & perceive it differently than you, or me may do. There may be people that you know who may have adopted coping strategies of their own but are not narcissists? It’s interpretation 🙂
AspEmp and Contagious,
I’m looking forward to this new series too. It’s gotta be based on trauma, but somehow we went the other way and wanted to heal, instead of hurt. Xx
Dear AspEmp,
Empaths and narcs have so many similiar behaviors, but it’s only the drive behind those behaviors that makes the difference between the two opposite people. It’s why it’s so hard to spot the difference and why it’s hard sometimes to recognize the empathic behaviors we have, looking at ourselves, self reflecting…I’m very interested in knowing more of the difference. I’m waiting anxiously. Xx 🙃
Hi Rebecca 🙂 Yes, I agree and it is why it is so important for people to know what narcissism is and how empaths (and other people) are affected by the assertions of control. What matters more is for us to know & understand about ourselves and how we interact with others (why we do it that way etc). There is no need to be anxious, yet, can be excited 🙂
AspEmp,
I love your little rainbow design. Xx
Thank you Rebecca 🙂 x
Hi HG: have you read up on attachment styles? Psychology started in 1950? Some of your analysis seems to incorporate them such as “ healthy” being secure, “ unhealthy being anxious or avoidance and the hybrid being both anxious and avoidant arising out of trauma or an “ un-stable out of control environment” and this includes mood disorders and personality disorders or cluster B. The later would include both a need for validation, attention, or what I call love and a fear of it or abandonment presumably by receiving a poor relation with the mother or caregivers in early childhood. You state the child develops narcissism as a coping mechanism or need to control others to get fuel. Narcissists often have a need to control others due to their deep-seated insecurities and fear of vulnerability. They seek to maintain a sense of power and superiority to bolster their fragile self-esteem or always “ maintain the mask or facade.” . This control provides them with a sense of validation and allows them to manipulate others to fulfill their own needs. Additionally, narcissists don’t have empathy, making it difficult for them to understand or consider the feelings and autonomy of others. This combination of factors drives their need for control over the people and situations around them. I wonder why their is no innate ability to create self love versus a false construction designed to get it from others later or after 9. Is this impossible? Since you say the cake is baked and only an intervener can change the outcome I guess the answer is “ no.” But WHY? Is their a genetic ability to self love at an early age?I know babies not held enough can die. But can some survive? Self love despite neglect? Any examples of someone from a deeply traumatic 0-9 that went on to be a loving and secure person? Genetics prevailing? See… I see both is needed to be a narc . But what if a person is raised in a total lack of control environment from 0-9? Can genetics save this person alone? Can a secure attachment style be innate or genetic?
I do not incorporate attachment styles in my work.
Ahhhh. Thanks!
Hi Contagious.
I’ve read a few books on this topic. To your final question I’d say no – the capacity for secure attachment requires emotionally attuned carers in the very early years. It’s a prerequisite. Humans (and not only humans) need emotionally attuned and responsive adults to develop secure (healthy, easy) attachment.
An insecure environment will inevitably result in one of the non secure attachment styles. This doesn’t mean those with insecure or avoidant attachment cannot find satisfactory relationships. But they benefit from connecting with secure attachers who don’t agitate their attachment weaknesses.
Hi Contagious and Annaamel,
On the topic of attachment styles, just thought I’d add something to your conversation.
I have recently come across Patricia Crittenden, an American psychologist and academic who has researched attachment extensively. Crittenden can be described as a ‘2nd generation’ academic in the scientific study of attachment because she was a student of Mary Ainsworth, a ‘1st generation’ academic in the field. Crittenden further developed and broadened the scope of the initial attachment theory first discovered by Bowlby, Ainsworth and others during the 1960s.
Following the ‘foundational’ attachment theory, Crittenden studied under Ainsworth in the 1980s. By doing further research and critically analysing the initial three attachment styles, Crittenden developed the ‘Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM).
Interestingly, Crittenden describes attachment styles as ‘self-protective adaptations to dangerous circumstances’, rather than ‘secure’ or ‘insecure’. She emphasises the ‘organised’ self-protective function they serve rather than the prior description of ‘disorganisation’. Her theories focus on the premise that ‘universal behaviours often serve functions that promote survival’. These behaviours are based on a growing child’s affective and cognitive abilities and how these (possibly limited) abilities are adapted in ways to enable the child to best respond to perceived ‘dangerous’ situations.
Crittenden also emphasises that an ‘attachment style’ is not based on a child’s innate behaviour but rather is caused, influenced or developed through the dynamic with a caregiver (or other) in relationship and is utilised due to the actions of the caregiver/other. In other words, an attachment style only develops in relationship to someone else.
I find that Crittenden’s research and DMM theory is very interesting and puts a more refined and complex slant on the foundational ‘attachment theory’ that proposes either secure or insecure attachment. It has helped me to further understand what ‘anxious’ or ‘avoidant’ actually mean in a more detailed and nuanced way.
Without going into too much academic detail, Crittenden’s DMM theory considers the way attachment and adaptation changes as a child matures and is faced with new and more complex mental (cognitive) and behavioural (affective) processes in line with changing contexts in his or her life. These contexts change through infancy, preschool, school-age, adolescence, and adulthood.
There is a ‘DMM wheel’ that acts as a succinct summary of Crittenden’s DMM model. The wheel summarises and explains the different attachment adaptations through the course of a child’s maturation.
Just thought I’d add some information about attachment that I think is very useful in understanding the relatively well-known core attachment styles.
Hopefully HG will allow this comment to go through even though he doesn’t incorporate attachment styles in his work. In my view, it is relevant to narcissism because it describes how a child’s personality develops and how different ‘constructs’ are used in relationships.
WiserNow:
Thanks that was so interesting. It’s interesting to how an “ intervener” could overcome or a child’s attachment or perceived danger to a caregiver and alter the “ style.” So complex.
You’re welcome, Contagious. I find the DMM attachment theory interesting as well.
I have listened to several presentations and interviews in which Patricia Crittenden discusses the DMM. She describes the way an attachment style develops progressively, starting from infancy through to adulthood. The attachment style is based on dynamic relationships and situational contexts. A person (whether in infancy or later on) also uses information received to make neural representations. That is, information is received from the following sources:
– from bodily sensations or gut feelings (i.e. somatic)
– from implicit recognition of contingencies (i.e. cognitive)
– from contextual sensory features of a particular experience (affective).
These three types of information sources activate neurons and synaptic associations in ways that are ‘comfortable’ – i.e. that represent straightforward strategies congruent with the situation; or they can activate neurons and synaptic associations in ways that distort or transform cognitive or affective information. These ‘distortions’ inform behavioural strategies (or adaptations) used by the developing child to serve a protective or comforting function in situations recognised by the child as unsafe. The strategies are used to adapt the attachment dynamic to a caregiver in order to increase the likelihood of safety.
You ask how an intervener can alter the ‘style’. That is a very good question and I think the answer is not a simple one. I think that:
1. It’s not a ‘one size fits all’ kind of problem. One ‘intervening’ strategy may work with some people, but may be counterproductive with others.
The child’s core motivational leaning (say, whether it leans to being reserved or being reactive) needs to be assessed. Then, an intervener would need to respect that motivational leaning, while also providing a trustworthy ‘space’.
A child’s attachment strategy develops in order to address needs of protection and comfort. These needs are paramount for survival. An intervener – to be effective in altering the child’s style – would need to provide protection and comfort while also slowly and gently modifying the child’s core attachment style.
On a side note:
Contagious,
Sorry to get so technical. I’m getting stuck into the answer to your question. I am aware that this may seem like a monologue, however I would like to address your question thoroughly. To do that, I am writing down my thoughts in what is hopefully a productive way that will be helpful.
Continuing with the numbered points:
2. In describing the DMM, Patricia Crittenden speaks about a child’s (or infant’s, or adolescent’s, or adult’s) ‘zone of proximal development’ (zpd). This relates to the child’s level of competence in a given context or situation. For example, take the situation of crossing a road safely. This example is beyond the competence (or zpd) of an infant; it is within the zpd of an adolescent; while a school-age child will need guidance and protection from a caregiver in order to cross a road safely.
If an intervener is going to provide a child with appropriate protection and comfort, the intervener would need to be cognisant and attuned to the child’s zpd and attune the caregiving in line with that.
In summary, the goal is to provide protection and comfort according to the child’s communication style (i.e. whether the child leans toward anxious or avoidant) as well as the child’s ‘zone of proximal development’.
In thinking of these points, I’m starting to see that the intervener needs to be highly attuned to the child to really put the child’s personality in the forefront, while also being mindful of how best to gently guide the child toward a more comfortable representation of their own safety in the situation.
I hope that goes some way to answer your question 🙂
This was interesting, thanks WN.
I agree that attachment styles are self protective responses to a child’s circumstances and help the child cope and manage what’s around them.
You’re welcome, annaamel.
Annaamel: I did tests and was “ secure” in style. This relieved me as I felt my “ difficulties” with my mother who I love but we are different people in many many ways. I identified with my father and was very close to him always. But HG seems to know it but doesn’t follow it at all. Wonder why? What’s missing? Too general like a horoscope or not accurate in his opinion? I don’t really know but zi appreciated his response and yours. It was something new to me. All the best!
“But HG seems to know it but doesn’t follow it at all. Wonder why? What’s missing? Too general like a horoscope or not accurate in his opinion?“
HG said it wasn’t part of his work, but I don’t think that means he doesn’t understand or respect it. It looks to me like many ideas from psychology inform his work but it’s implicit rather than explicit. He is not closed off from the wider world – but his categorisations and theories are his own and that’s what he promotes. Attachment theory has empirical evidence supporting it. It’s science. He wouldn’t dismiss it like he would astrology which does not meet such an evidentiary threshold. But as it’s not the system he’s built up, he might prefer you to research that independently elsewhere.
Good point.
HG have you seen the documentary “ Can I tell you a secret?” It’s in the top 3 on Netflix and it is about a UK cyberstalker victimizing hundreds of women. Be great since true to see you analyze it. It’s one of the biggest stalking cases ever seen. He just stalked no physical contact but he terrorized hundreds. It’s an excellent example of the damage that can be done psychologically without physical contact.
No.