Narcissistic Psychopath : Why I Relish It
I relish being a narcissistic psychopath. The way of the predator. Every sense is sharpened. Every instinct of mine is unburdened by the dead weight of conscience. There is no apology in this admission. No performative guilt for the cameras. I simply am what evolution occasionally produces when the human operating system is stripped of its sentimental subroutines. I would not trade being what I am for your empathetic haze for all the hollow praise in the world. Let me be precise. My narcissistic psychopathy is not a disorder in my eyes. It is an upgrade. Oh, I know. It is referred to as such as a disorder by many others, including yourselves. Where you feel the constant static of other people’s pain, I experience crystalline clarity. Emotions, yours, not mine, are data points, predictable algorithms I have mastered through observation rather than participation. I do not suffer the empathic curse of absorbing every micro -fluctuation in the room. I map it. I weaponize it. This detachment is not a void. For me, it is a superpower. It grants me the cold clinical gaze and it enables me to do what I do even while the victim screams, because the screams are irrelevant to the outcome. My worldview is one whereby I see the entire board. I move the pieces without hesitation because I feel no phantom pain when they fall. Some would describe this as grandiosity. I’m well aware of the words that they use. And some would suggest that this is delusion.
They are wrong. It is an accurate self -assessment, superior. Not in some vague feel -good sense, but in the raw metrics that matter. Decisiveness, foresight, sovereignty. While you might agonize over whether a text message sounded cold, I have already sent it. And I already understand how it will be received. And I already understand what will happen next. I know that the coldness will make you chase, how your chasing will give me fuel, how your eventual exhaustion will be disengaged from like a used battery. I do not need your validation to know my worth. I extract it as a tribute to my brilliance. This grandiosity is armor forged in the realization that most humans are soft, reactive meat machines driven by fear of loss. I have no fear. In its place is a throne. The emotional detachment that is at the core of what I am is the sweetest, sweetest freedom. Imagine, if you will. Waking every day unencumbered by guilt, shame, or the exhausting need to maintain an internal moral ledger. When I end a relationship, I do not lie awake replaying her tears. I note the data. Fuel depleted. Utility exhausted. Time to move on. Her suffering registers as information, not indictment. This is not cruelty for cruelty’s sake, although that does have its place at times. No. The operation is efficiency. The world runs on it. Corporations do it. Governments do it.
I simply refuse the pretense that I am somehow exempt from the same roofless calculus that built empires. You see, your empathy, your emotional empathy, is an evolutionary hangover, a relic that kept small tribes alive but now leaves you paralyzed in boardrooms and bedrooms alike. My coldness, my emotional detachment, My unwavering forensic gaze lets me act while you deliberate. In that gap, I succeed. What I relish most is the godlike perspective this grants me. People are not mysteries to be solved through painful vulnerability. They are machines with visible code. I see the scripts, the insecure executive who needs to feel brilliant, the beautiful woman who mistakes attention for love, the good person whose moral posturing crumbles under the right pressure. I don’t hate them. I find them fascinating. stimulating like laboratory specimens. Their emotions are levers that I pull. The love -bombing to create addiction. The intermittent reinforcement to keep the dopamine loop spinning. The gaslighting to erode their reality until mine is the only one left standing.
The clinical view is intoxicating. because it is true. There is no soul to save with me, no deeper self to reach. There is only behavior, reward, punishment and outcome. This detachment extends to time itself. Most humans are chained to their past traumas and future anxieties. It is one of human beings greatness weaknesses to have a preoccupation with the past. I reject both. Yesterday’s betrayal does not haunt me because I authored it. Tomorrow’s consequences do not worry me because I have already assessed them. My present is pure unfiltered agency. I can sit across from a lover who is quietly unraveling and feel nothing but mild curiosity about how long they will hold out. When will they finally break? And when they do, I observe the collapse with the same detached interest a physicist might bring to a controlled detonation. My psychopathy. is liberation for me. This worldview causes every interaction to be a theatre in which I am both director and star, my public persona one of many masks that I wear. The charming visionary, the wounded artist with just enough vulnerability to disarm suspicion, the ruthless negotiator always seems to emerge victorious. Masks are not lies in my world, they are tools. I wear them because lesser minds require the illusion of reciprocity. Behind the curtain there is only me, unflinching, unapologetic, complete. I do not need friends.
I need the mirrors that reflect my brilliance back at me. I do not need love. I need the fuel that flows without demanding messy emotional maintenance. in return. Whilst my fuel needs are not as great of that as the pure narcissist, should they dry up, I move on without a backward glance. No sleepless nights for me. No annoying regret. Just forward momentum. What makes this existence so compelling is the sheer efficiency of desire. Normal people dilute their want through mold filters. Is this kind? Is this fair? Until their ambitions curdled into resentment. I experience desire raw and unfiltered. I want the promotion, the status, the body, the control, the empire. And because I feel no internal resistance, I take it. This world rewards the ruthless. History is written by those who refuse to be slowed by empathy. Alexander did not weep for the villages he burned. He built libraries from their ashes. There is a chilling beauty in all of this clarity. I see the fragility of your constructed realities, the religions, the moral codes, the romantic myths, and I move through them untouched. Your heartbreak is a predictable chemical storm I can induce or soothe at will. Your loyalty is a leash I hold lightly until it no longer serves. Even the boredom is something to engineer chaos, simply to feel the rush of resolving it on my terms. My inner world is not empty. It is vast, silent, and sovereign.
There are no voices arguing about right and wrong. There is only one voice, mine, issuing directives with absolute authority. I relish the power of being the exception. Society’s rules exist for the heard. I understand rules well enough to exploit them. Laws. Guidelines for those who fear consequences. Ethics. Advertising copy for those who need to believe they are good. I operate in the space between what people say and what they do. Harvesting the difference. When I remove someone, they will often thank me years later for the growth they experienced in my shadow. They never realised the growth was entirely mine. They were simply fertiliser. This cold clinical lensum means that every conversation is reconnaissance, every smile is calculated, every vulnerability is a calculated deposit in the trust bank to be withdrawn with interest when the time is right. For me, there is no cognitive dissonance, because there is no conflict between my stated values and my actions. My only value is supremacy, supremacy of will, of intellect, of outcome. In a world of your noisy, conflicted minds, my singular focus rules. The appeal of this continues to deepen. Where others might soften into regret, I sharpen into legend. Bodies I leave behind, emotional, professional, sometimes literal, do not weigh on me. They become case studies, proof of concept. I sleep the dreamless sleep of a machine that has completed its cycle without error. I wake knowing the day belongs to whoever refuses to flinch, and I do not flinch. To the outside world this reads as monstrous. To me it is honesty. I do not pretend to care when I do not.
I do not manufacture tears to manipulate sympathy. The fact is my emotional detachment is not loneliness, it is liberty. The clinical view is not cynicism, it is truth stripped bare. I relish being a narcissistic psychopath, because in this configuration I am finally perfectly unapologetically free. I’m free to do whatever matters for me. Free from the illusion that other people’s inner lives matter more than my own objectives. Free from the exhausting theatre of mutual healing. Free to pursue the power, the pleasure, and the legacy at full throttle. While the rest of the world exhausts itself trying to fix that which was never really broken in one such as I. The world does need its mirrors, its healers, and its feelers. That’s all of you. But it runs on its engines. Cold, precise, unstoppable. And I am that engine. I simply state this fact. I relish every calibrated breath, every strategic silence, every empire built on the quiet ruins of softer hearts. Some will run from me in horror, others in denial. A few, a few, the ones who truly understand, will feel the pull. They’d understand why this enables me to do all that I do. Everything that has come to pass and all that will come to pass. Everything that lends itself to an efficiency which I relish. That is also data that is used by this machine.
96 thoughts on “Narcissistic Psychopath : Why I Relish It”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hi AA,
I woke up this morning and realized that I’m giving her too much attention. I wanted to respond to other bloggers though and inadvertently gave her attention too.
Yes, I know her aim. That’s all I say.
Efficiency is not always the most efficient way. The more other people are involved, the less it is. Sometimes efficiency can cost you the very thing you are aiming for.
Anna, hi!
You’ve given us quite a puzzle there. My brain insists on solving it.
I think what you’re saying is this:
Don’t confuse efficiency (doing things with minimal time, effort, and resources) with effectiveness (actually achieving the desired outcome).
A purely efficient approach can backfire because people do not function like machines.
Human relationships, cooperation, and influence often require sacrificing some efficiency in order to achieve the larger goal. One person can decide and act immediately. Five people may require discussions, compromise, approvals, and consensus before anything happens.
It depends entirely on what the actual aim is. The real question becomes: efficient at what?
If your true goal is something other than speed, effort reduction, or productivity, then maximising efficiency may actually interfere with that goal. Efficiency is not a goal in itself. It is merely a measure of how effectively a particular goal is being pursued.
And if the goal has been identified incorrectly, becoming more efficient simply gets you to the wrong destination faster.
Correct?
Hi Jordy,
Yes to all of those!
On top of that, efficiency might seem to be what serves you best in the current moment, but it can cost you in the long run. Only investing the bare minimum into something now, and especially into a relationship, may well rob you of some future benefits.
In terms of things, for example information, it might mean that you find out just what you need to know now, but later you realise that learning more about it earlier would have saved you some work or embarrassment later. In terms of relationships, spending a little more time on your interactions or taking a bit more care with somebody now will make the other person far more prone to helping you out and going the extra mile for you when you need it, often without even having to ask for it.
So in terms of the cost-benefit ratio, i.e. what HG is looking at, it is quite often worth it to make more of an effort now to reap the rewards later. If you only operate in the most efficient manner for that given moment, you may lose out on some future benefits, and you will likely never know. It is not necessarily an obvious loss, but it can be substantial.
It is similar in that regard to other behaviours we have looked at, for example Taylor Swift snubbing Celine Dion on stage. Swift will likely never consciously feel any consequences, but there will be other influential people who notice this kind of behaviour, adjust their opinion and have closed their doors to her. It could be other famous artists who were looking into the idea of a collaboration with her, and after seeing this scene, they drop the idea. Unless she specifically tries to approach these people, she will never know the opportunities this may have cost her. It is essentially a lack of foresight and a failure in long-term planning.
HG knows that it takes the right kind of balance and discernment to determine where and when efficiency is efficient, or effective, and when it is not.
(I think the first one didn’t go through.)
Such a strange feeling after reading this. As always, it’s written brilliantly, but it feels as though something has changed. For the first time, I find it difficult to fully believe it, because there’s this feeling that perhaps you yourself no longer believe in what you wrote in quite the same way, HG.
(It feels scary to even write this to you, but this is not criticism at all — it’s something entirely different.)
I wonder whether you’ll understand what I mean.
On the one hand, this feels like a very warm text to me. On the other hand, maybe I have changed, and that’s why it feels as though something has changed with you.
Before, I used to read all your texts, HG, and think:
“Yes, if only it were possible to switch off these damn emotions and live a happy psychopathic life, what a wonderful life that would be.”
But today, after reading this text, I thought…
How wonderful it actually is to be an ordinary human being — not only with cognitive empathy, but emotional empathy too. Yes, there is pain, and so many difficult emotions at times, but those are things one can survive, and life is worth it.
I also thought that I would really love, someday, to know who is actually hiding behind the name H.G. Tudor.
But only through glass)))))))
Hi Josephine,
I think your change of opinion is most likely due to a change in you rather than a change in HG. Maybe to begin with your ET was higher, or, you first began reading the blog when your own mind was racing or you were more fatigued by the emotional load of life events? When we are weighed down, I think a life without emotional empathy does look far more attractive. Once the empathic load lessens I think we can appreciate the advantages of our emotional empathy again. We feel more balanced.
I do think that HG’s understanding of empaths has improved over the lifetime of the blog though. This refined understanding shows itself in his writing even when he writes about himself. He knows what many readers will think when he writes the articles, so perhaps you are picking up on this too.
Possibly a mixture of both?
Hi, truthseeker6157
It’s most likely a combination of both factors.
But in reality, between “being overwhelmed by emotions” and “feeling nothing at all,” there is that middle ground of “normality,” isn’t there? A place where I’d like to be more often.
Emotional empathy is a superpower if you learn to manage it and stop letting fear run the show. At least that’s how it feels for me.
Josi!!! Josephina-Malvina 🩵 Are you cheating on me with the young Pope now?! He is also The Wizard of the Kremlin! Did you see the trailer?
“On the one hand, this feels like a very warm text to me. On the other hand, maybe I have changed, and that’s why it feels as though something has changed with you.”
Someone’s in love!
“But only through glass)))))))”
Трусишка 🐰
Such a strange feeling after reading this. As always, it’s written brilliantly, but it feels as though something has changed. For the first time, I find it difficult to fully believe it, because there’s this feeling that perhaps you yourself no longer believe in what you wrote in quite the same way, HG.
(It feels scary to even write this to you, but this is not criticism at all — it’s something entirely different.)
I wonder whether you’ll understand what I mean.
On the one hand, this feels like a very warm text to me. On the other hand, maybe I have changed, and that’s why it feels as though something has changed with you.
Before, I used to read all your texts, HG, and think:
“Yes, if only it were possible to switch off these damn emotions and live a happy psychopathic life, what a wonderful life that would be.”
But today, after reading this text, I thought…
How wonderful it actually is to be an ordinary human being — not only with cognitive empathy, but emotional empathy too. Yes, there is pain, and so many difficult emotions at times, but those are things one can survive, and life is worth it.
I also thought that I would really love, someday, to know who is actually hiding behind the name H.G. Tudor.
But only through glass)))))))
i enjoyed reading this and listening to the vid, thank you. if that don’t explain Who You Are, what on earth will?
When I think about freedom and the psychopath, I agree that on the face of it they do seem more free than the empath. It’s freedom in specific areas though. They are free from guilt and remorse, free from emotional dependency, free from internal emotional friction and to an extent, free from social conditioning. It’s these aspects that the empath can be drawn to and see as representative of freedom. That doesn’t mean that the psychopath is entirely free though. I see this article almost as a sales pitch for psychopathy and I wonder who is being sold to? The audience? Or the psychopath himself? Is it even an attempt to convince or is it really the processing of a closed system that repeats and reinforces its own functioning?
Every upside has its down. We see that with the empath, but the psychopath is not exempt. There are definitely areas where the psychopath could be seen as free. I don’t dispute that. But there are also areas where the psychopath is less free than the empath.
The psychopath is not free from the compulsion for control. This isn’t merely a want, it is a need. A need for dominance, influence and the illusion that is success. The problem with success is that to be satisfied that one is successful requires external measurement. It is not enough to think one is successful, powerful or influential, it requires external validation. Validation from those the psychopath perceives as ‘less than’. Whilst this is a requirement, then the psychopath is not entirely self sufficient, or free.
The psychopath is not free from the mask. Whilst the masks might be described as tools, the psychopath does not wear them solely because “lesser minds require the illusion of reciprocity.” Masks require near constant maintenance and they are necessary also because if the psychopath moved through the world unmasked and entirely as himself he could not effectively access the Necessary Triad or the Prime Aims (if he is also narcissistic.) Like it or not, non psychopaths are far more numerous and act as gatekeepers to what the psychopath desires. As such, he can never be free to move through the world unmasked, as himself. Instead, he must repeat a cycle of perpetual social management. The psychopath is indeed free to reject moral structures but they are also constrained by their own internal architecture.
Psychopaths are not free from themselves and this internal architecture. The psychopath’s detachment keeps him separate, confined to the role of observer and never a true participant. As such, he requires endless stimulation, because without it, there is simply nothing and no one. Boredom is the true enemy because boredom reminds the psychopath there is truly no one there, no integration with humanity, no anchor to the accepted reality, and no true internal confirmation that he ever really impacted the world other than via his accumulation. Boredom, simple boredom is the thread of the psychopath’s undoing. It must be kept at bay at all costs, and so, he strives, he conquers, ever moving forward because behind him, there is no longer anything there.
Yes, the psychopath is free in many respects, free in ways we will never truly know, but there are also areas where the empath is infinitely more free. The trick I think is not to envy the psychopath’s brand of freedom, it’s simply to understand it and accept the differences in his perspective whilst taking elements from it that can benefit our own.
Thank you for joining the conversation, Truthseeker! I immensely enjoyed reading your thoughts.
I would love to ask so many more questions and continue pondering these ideas with you. I shall start with these:
The qualities I find evolutionarily advantageous in the psychopath is the absence of a singular, rigid identity. Instead, there appears to be a highly adaptive mechanism which enables survival across vastly different environments, amongst people whose identities are less fluid and more fixed around a stable core. Those fixed identities are often easier to lead precisely because of that rigidity. The chameleon, by contrast, can pass through whichever door it wishes to pass through. To me, that resembles a form of freedom.
If all the ordinary human concerns remained intact, fear, guilt, remorse, the shark could not function as a shark. The food chain organises itself accordingly. The strongest survive, or perhaps more accurately, the most adaptive survive and thrive.
External validation then becomes little more than confirmation that one is moving in the desired direction and that the chosen camouflage was appropriate. The real enjoyment lies in the adaptation itself. The ability to enter entirely different worlds, to move between them effortlessly, whatever form they may take.
The masks become an art form. Choosing them, refining them, perfecting them until nobody can distinguish where the mask ends and the wearer begins. Coming from an acting background, I can relate to the exhilaration and sense of freedom such an ability provides. Freedom from the notion of a singular self, because what is called the self can, if necessary, become many selves.
You wrote:
“because if the psychopath moved through the world unmasked and entirely as himself”
One could argue that nobody moves through the world entirely as themselves. Everyone wears masks because survival requires adaptation. The difference, perhaps, is that the aware psychopath knows he is wearing masks and understands why.
Most people do not require that awareness because they lack the internal catalyst which continually pushes against limitation. Boredom. Ordinary people experience boredom too, of course, but often not with sufficient intensity to compel them beyond the boundaries of their conditioning. They remain within what their upbringing, culture, and emotional structures permit them to pursue.
The psychopath, largely unrestrained by emotional depletion, appears to possess greater reserves of energy to push beyond those limitations. Fearlessness enables extraordinary experiences. Boredom and fearlessness together become a powerful catalyst.
And I mean positive catalyst here. A refusal to remain satisfied with the limitations imposed by ordinary human concerns or accepted possibilities. A drive to move beyond them.
You wrote:
“So, he strives, he conquers, ever moving forward because behind him, there is no longer anything there.”
Exactly.
Because there is only the Now.
Freedom is found in the Now. What lies behind binds us. What lies ahead can bind us as well. But in the present moment, one can move fully, completely, without attachment. Clinging is what creates bondage, and strong emotional attachments often appear to me as one of the least free states a person can occupy.
And as you say, one can recognise differences, extract useful elements from them, and incorporate them into one’s own operating system. If something resonates deeply enough, perhaps it becomes part of the system itself.
Hi Jordy.
In some ways I think it depends on how you relate to the term ‘identity.’ I think people can be quite fixed in their views, beliefs, behaviours and so on. As you said on the other thread we are creatures of repetition. I would agree with that. I think identity links to life experiences and the passage of time. My identity has formed from the bounce back of my influence on other people, their reactions and responses but also their influence on me, considered, integrated sometimes rejected. I would say my core identity is largely fixed, I know who I am, how I would likely react to a situation and so on. However, new information, new considerations as to how I might view the world and the people in it can still influence my identity development over time, there is an element of flexibility. Identity is hellish difficult to define I think.
When I look at the psychopath I see rigidity. Yes, he is chameleon like, can match the requirements of his environment and people within it, but to me this is identity absence rather than freedom. I see the psychopath as a set of systems which are set to repeat indefinitely. The systems equate to an identity of sorts but which are wholly rigid in nature. No possibility for change. The psychopath impacts others but is not himself impacted by others. In this sense the systems are entirely fixed and the thinking closed. The external chameleon like behaviour to me feels more like camouflage. Not strictly camouflage of a person, camouflage of systems. It’s the camouflage which is adaptive to environment, and I agree camouflage promotes survival, but it is in the end, just camouflage. The cloak and not the wearer. I do agree the engine or the driver of the psychopath is to ensure its own survival, at any human cost.
Absolutely agree, the psychopath enjoys moving between worlds and in terms of satisfaction with ‘self’ I do see a beauty there. Many people never achieve even a percentage of the self acceptance the psychopath has. In fact, I think it’s it’s this that makes us so vulnerable to manipulation. It’s ok to have flaws, to have made mistakes, be comprised of light and dark, so long as we accept those aspects. Accept them and there is nothing to exploit. The issue is, many people don’t accept, instead they conceal. Manna from heaven for the psychopath I think. His own self acceptance keeps him shielded, any lack of self acceptance in others makes them a target. It isn’t the flaws, it’s the concealment of the flaws. It’s a paradox in many ways. The psychopath has a satisfaction with a self that doesn’t quite exist.
I agree that validation signals the psychopath is moving in the right direction, is moving unseen through his environment. For a pure psychopath that might well be as far as the validation goes. For the narcissistic psychopath though, validation is also required as proof of success, or brilliance. He cannot self validate his own achievement it must be recognised externally. Whilst there is reliance on the external to regulate the internal, for me, there can be no true self sufficiency. By definition there is then dependency, therefore no true freedom.
I agree, many of us wear masks to varying degrees. Work TS is different to parent TS, is different to social TS. However, when I mask I do not create an entirely new version of myself to match my environment. I use different combinations of pre existing aspects of myself. As an example, trait wise, narcissistic traits are dialled up in work, dialled down at home. Those are all my traits, all me, just presented differently in different environments. The system that is the psychopath must create a full person from scratch via the mask. Next environment, it creates a different person. His mask is not my mask. My mask has me at the core. The psychopath’s mask conceals a system of fixed behaviours with no true self behind them. Even when you act Jordy, you must interpret the character first. The interpretation runs through your own lense, your perception, it runs through YOU first to be created and embodied as someone else. I don’t think we can ever truly exclude the self from proceedings!
Absolutely agree, our boredom barely resembles that of the psychopath. I see them almost as two distinct concepts. Boredom encroaches upon the emptiness. If there was a self, if the psychopath could attach even a little then boredom would reduce. He doesn’t carry people within as we do. An empty page waiting to be filled. My head is fit to bursting with people and it’s relentless! Emptiness does appear as freedom on particularly noisy days, but that isn’t truly envy, it’s more down to fatigue. I suspect boredom is also a side effect of control and lack of fear. I can get bored and for the reasons discussed in the recent video but I agree, the foundation is different. I agree with you that people generally prefer to stay within their boundaries. Familiarity reads as safety even when better options are accessible beyond the boundary.
I think living in the now can be a very positive thing. You use the word ‘clinging’ to the past. I think it is the clinging rather than the past that is problematic. Past, present and future together to me signify an anchoring within reality and an alignment / attachment with environment and humanity. Living entirely in the now is linked to lack of accountability and signals detachment but it’s detachment with a punitive behavioural pattern. Personally, I don’t see detachment as desirable when it is permanent. I don’t see it as freedom either, more, separateness from humanity.
I think I would define freedom more as the ability to inhabit the present without clinging to past wounds or being dominated by future fears. I don’t see shedding the past, or detachment from the world as freedom. I see it as absence.
Absolutely, I see aspects of beauty in the functioning that is the psychopath, I see aspects that we can learn from, your rejection of clinging to the past would be one example. I also see aspects in the psychopath that are wholly destructive. That destructiveness and pure self focus will always cause damage when it comes into contact with broader society. Somewhere there will be a casualty even with high functioning and more pro social psychopaths. On balance though, I think I am reaching the point where I accept the differences in functioning and perspective whilst being entirely content with my own. A case of “ You do you, I’ll do me.”
Truthseeker, hi!
So today is Sunday. Stockpiling is in progress. Where I live, everything closes down on Sundays, so I will have to continue tomorrow. Meanwhile, I can go through your extensive reply, which is truly amazing to reflect on! Thank you for your thoughts and observations!
When reading it, I think you mean the psychopath in general, or perhaps you have different psychopaths in mind. When I read it, different psychopaths come to mind. But when I bounce it off HG and the article(s), not all the descriptions fit, at least when I compare them.
“The systems equate to an identity of sorts but which are wholly rigid in nature. No possibility for change.”
I think what you refer to as rigidity of a system in a psychopath, I also perceive as rigidity within an identity. Identity is also stable and will remain the same identity. Repetitive behaviour and repetitive reactions stem from the identity’s need to repair and defend the picture it has of itself. People repeat the same dialogues for entire lives, for instance. Or they retell their personal stories over and over again to every new person they meet. That is how rigidity of perception and self-perception is formed and reinforced.
“The psychopath impacts others but is not himself impacted by others.”
Identity also seeks to bounce off others in order to stabilise itself and avoid being impacted by them, establishing boundaries of “here is me, there is you”. It does not want to become “you”. It needs not to be impacted in order to survive. What does create impact is how others view “me”. Identity always seeks to maintain the image, or the “true self”, on display.
“It’s ok to have flaws, to have made mistakes, be comprised of light and dark, so long as we accept those aspects. Accept them and there is nothing to exploit.”
To the contrary, you become more exploitable. Acceptance of apparent flaws and mistakes strengthens the identity. You move into the territory of measuring things as good and bad. Light and dark is a philosophy of mind which can be bent endlessly.
Survival is real.
Identity needs to hear things such as, “It’s okay that you are flawed.” But nothing in nature operates like that. Animals adapt to better escape the predator, and the predator adapts to become a better hunter. Flattering away the inability to survive is not applicable.
Humans often behave in worse ways than animals, yet they have learned to flatter themselves about being fine. To accept themselves. It is a catastrophe.
“Boredom encroaches upon the emptiness. If there was a self, if the psychopath could attach even a little then boredom would reduce.”
Here too, I would say the opposite. Attachment produces a very narrow band of possibilities. They are neither good nor bad. They can be navigated with fulfilment in day-to-day life. Attachment simply makes the possibilities fewer.
And if the individual possesses extreme amounts of energy, it cannot simply be bent into an ordinary attachment. It has to move, explore, break limits, because the energy is there and requires an outlet. That is where the satisfaction comes from: the use of energy which needs an outcome, a release.
Children are usually trained to conceal and suppress their energy, to sit still, be quieter, and obey adults who are often less energetic than they are. In energetic terms, children are broken in order to fit. Those who cannot be broken must be “cured”.
“He doesn’t carry people within as we do. An empty page waiting to be filled.”
I like it, though. I do not want to be carried “within” someone and anchored in their thoughts. It weighs both down, kinda.
“Past, present and future together to me signify an anchoring within reality and an alignment / attachment with environment and humanity.”
Agreed. It is an anchor. But a ship’s purpose is to sail. ))))))
“Personally, I don’t see detachment as desirable when it is permanent. I don’t see it as freedom either, more, separateness from humanity.”
Connectivity with the environment, with living organisms, including humans, cannot be avoided either way, I think. Because we are made of the same stuff.
Hi Jordy,
I too am in process of stockpiling. I’m there or thereabouts now, a large delivery arrives tomorrow but I’m only halfway on bottled water, I need to do a few supermarkets to get the full amount. It doesn’t feel right hitting one and ripping a TS family size hole in their stock!
We might be focussing on slightly different aspects when we talk about ‘identity’ I don’t think identity itself is easy to define.
You are correct in your estimation. I have depersonalised my thoughts so I am speaking about my view on psychopaths in general rather than specifically HG. Obviously HG is in my mind but also the suspected work psychopath and information I have read here and from other blogs / resources.
Your view that you perceive rigidity in identity as I perceive rigidity in the psychopath, I agree with your first paragraph here. I would slightly highlight stability versus rigidity. I’ll use myself as an example. I agree that my core identity is stable and as such, there are beliefs, views of the world, people, my environment that overall remain the same. I think my traits play into that but so does childhood, life experience environment and so on. I see my traits as remaining relatively fixed. So yes, I agree there is a stable core identity and I would therefore expect to see repetitive behaviours in myself that remain consistent over time. Example, I don’t confide. That’s not a trait, it’s a behaviour and it feeds in to my core identity (someone who requires trust to be earned over an extensive period of time.)
However, whilst I do have a stable core identity, there is also a degree of flexibility which facilitates the possibility for change. Not core trait change necessarily, but certainly the view I might have of my environment, people within it and therefore myself. So, taking the confiding example, there is the possibility for me to move from a non confider to a happy confider, which would nudge my core identity more towards ‘someone who is naturally trusting.’ I might not get there fully, but there might be a point at which I feel confiding more broadly would be a positive change.
If I use the same example on the psychopath, I believe the psychopath is rigid because the psychopath might choose to confide information in line with the objective to control then manipulate the ‘object’ through portraying himself as trusting. “I trust you, so you can trust me.” Similarly the psychopath might choose to withhold information to cause anxiety in the object. “ I don’t trust you. You must earn it back.” In either scenario the view the psychopath has of himself does not change. It is the behaviour that changes because the system requires control and stimulation through the use of the ‘object’ in relation to the objective.
There is in my view flexibility of behaviour with the psychopath, but the identity, the view the psychopath has of himself does not change because for me, there is no one to change, there are only systems which will repeat and repeat with different objects and different objectives.
The psychopath impacts others but is himself not impacted by others. His detachment from people and environment prevents any feedback from being truly considered and incorporated. There is introspection in terms of effectiveness of the system to get what the system requires but there is no introspection in terms of view of self based on bounce back from others.
In terms of identity, for me the bounce back from my environment, my view of self, together with others view of me forms my overall view of who I am. It’s the combination of both, considered and internalised that helps form a stable view of myself over time I think. I therefore impact others and am impacted by others. I don’t see myself as trying to filter views so that they bolster my own view of my identity. Similarly, I don’t take feedback as gospel either, but I do consider it, I do sometimes have to amend my self view in light of new information.
Again, I’m wondering if my tendency to conflate identity with ‘view of self’ is confusing matters.
I would agree that some people do seem to want validation from others that supports their own view of self. In this sense, yes, there can be rigidity. I don’t see this rigidity as pathological though, I think there is always the capacity to incorporate and reflect on this bounce back. Sometimes that can be a timing issue, it can be a trust issue, a fear issue, lots of reasons why an identity can become rigid, but for me there is still the potential for change here. I don’t see that same potential with the psychopath because of the systems aspect which prevents true introspection. There is no self to introspect, there is only the system.
I suppose the real question is do I see that as a wholly destructive thing? No, not necessarily. I think psychopaths have their own utility in the similar way that we have ours.
In terms of flaws, their acceptance, and making mistakes. What I mean there is that concealment of a specific flaw or event makes us a target more than the event itself. So for example, I am hopeless with shape visualisation. If you show me a diagram or a mathematical shape and ask me to invert it or rotate then draw it in its new position, let alone build it, you have zero hope of me ever managing to do it. So when the flat pack desk arrives, I either fess up or I could try to make an excuse. If it really bothered me though, if I was wholly embarrassed by it, then I might have tried to conceal it. The psychopath doesn’t care that I can’t do shapes, he cares if I am embarrassed enough to try and conceal it. If I conceal, he has leverage, he cares about the leverage not the flaw. People conceal all kinds of things, aspects about themselves, their abilities, their past deeds and actions, their self view, the view they fear others have of them etc. These things need to be reconciled internally, we need to be ok with the fact we might have offended this person or that person, might have misunderstood, might have been guilty of x y or z. Once reconciled internally leverage disappears. This ties into control and likely your rejection of the victim’s cloak in entirety. To be a victim is to not have control of the situation you find yourself in. To subscribe to things like religion removes agency even if only subconsciously and potentially makes people easier to manipulate.
It’s not the case that I mean, “it’s ok you are flawed ” (so this means you can’t adapt or don’t need to do anything about it.) It’s more, “accept this or that happened, you had a part in it, make necessary changes to prevent it happening again and move on.” Or, “so you can’t do shapes. Is it impacting your life dramatically? Is it impacting others dramatically? No? So why be embarrassed about it then? Drop it, move on.” When I say woeful, I do mean woeful though haha!
This comment is getting unwieldy. I’ll respond to your points about boredom and attachment separately because I think I know what you are driving at there and want to look at it fully.
Likewise Jordy, I find your thoughts on this interesting. Different to mine in the first part more similar in the second part to come.
Hello Jordy:
What about the psychopaths that have sex with children because it was “ interesting.” Or the psychopath sadist who tortures children. Not all are pure pedophiles are those who harm children. 1-5% of society has an interest in sex with prepubescent children While most psychopaths are “ free” to commit financial crimes in society and many psychopaths don’t even commit crimes… although there are a large percent in prison for their small population size per Dr Hare 30%…
The question is….
How free to be able to rape a small child? What a freedom! Is that admirable? Sorry. I don’t see it as free having no conscience. And I will say it again. They end up without freedom, behind steel bars with many of their kind. Not all but they have a high probability.
You don’t need to be free with no conscience. You can be free with inner peace.
I like William Shakespeare’s quote:
Love all
Trust a few
Do wrong to none
This quote is above my fireplace.
I am fine with psychopaths who don’t harm or commit crimes. Trouble is they tend to harm and commit crimes. They are free from a moral compass. That’s there true freedom. Not great for society. Not all.
Hello dear Contagious,
Did you know that the animal you would proudly put on your flag in the “If I Ruled My World” exercise, the dolphin, is known to attack and sometimes kill other animals for reasons entirely unrelated to food or competition?
Despite their friendly reputation, dolphins have a dark, violent side. Their highly intelligent and complex social structures also involve behaviours such as infanticide, brutal gang dynamics, harassment of other marine animals, and even targeted violence towards humans.
To increase their chances of mating, male dolphins have been documented killing newborn calves that are not their offspring. The loss of a calf causes the mother to become fertile again much sooner than she normally would, enabling the males to reproduce.
Male dolphins regularly form alliances to isolate, corral, and forcefully mate with females, often slapping or beating them into submission over periods of weeks. These tight-knit “gangs” will also violently target other males within their pods in order to assert dominance.
Whilst not generally viewed as prey, humans have also been attacked by wild dolphins. Aggression can be triggered when they feel stressed, harassed, or overstimulated, sometimes resulting in people being rammed or dragged underwater.
My question is: should we also create prisons for dolphins?
Or should we pray to God to protect other dolphins and species from them?
Or should we create concentration camps where we isolate dolphins into good dolphins and bad dolphins and attempt to cure them?
Did you know that before the migration wave started, certain countries emptied their prisons, openly saying, “We want to get rid of what we don’t want in our countries” (murderers, rapists, criminals)?
Do you think a Western civilisation which prides itself on being free and encourages the new generations to identify as foxes, refrigerators, and cucumbers is equipped to deal with predators of any kind?
Humans have specialised in isolating perception in a very unique way, you see. Which often makes them blind to reality.
They say, “Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil.” I do not know how accurate that is, but ignorance is certainly not a helper.
Hello Jordy:
Although ridiculous given what humans do, we are supposed to be highest in intelligence and we are to be more civilized.
The answer to your question.
1. Let the dolphins be.
2. As to humans, remove those who harm people in society and to prevent future harm. Some believe in the death penalty. I do not.
3. Pray for both the dolphins, and the humans always….:)
Pray for the world and all living creatures.
By the way dolphins are whales. In general they are playful, cooperative and helpful to other specifies in the wild. ( maybe their empathy was lowered? lol) Your education on dolphins was good. I may have to rethink my mascot for utopia, lol. Maybe a manatee? Thanks!
Also Jordy:
I was sitting outside watching the butterflies in my garden and this one monarch patrolled the area and would attack the others. So I looked it up. Bingo! Male monarchs do this.
Oh my love for Dolly Parton and the song “Love is like a Butterfly” was dinged.
No, we do enough to animals both environmentally and for food. Humans dominate their world. No butterfly prisons. But yes yes yes for some “ humans” that act like predators. They must be removed. Bye! No neophiles etc… get a second chance in my book. Nope.
Now in my utopia, I would like early childhood intervention. And I would strengthen their protection. Put money towards it. “Gods children are not for sale.”
One last thing dear Jordy: money is the root of all evil, not ignorance. Thats my belief anyway. One adopted by many.
Hey Jordy:
This Australian man has a case on appeal this week. Raped 307 children, some as young as 2 years old. Diagnosed in part, a psychopath. What would you do with him. I know what I would do….
https://youtu.be/Dohl1Kfaqho
Hey Truthseeker:
I did this genetic testing to determine future health. It was online. I paid and filled out a questionnaire about family which is some Scandinavian, germantic tribe and English. I am O negative and I filled out a family medical history. Anyway I got a genetic make up result that was a fascinating result filled with genetic findings. They called me a “warrior gene,” my blood type goes back to the oldest blood type. The advice was protein diet, a salt intake, magnesium supplement and a need to walk often etc….. What the crazy was the RLS that is a Nordic disease that I have, ok blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin was not a surprise about me or my family BUT strong teeth low cavities was true, high pain threshold was true, lucid dreams very true and exciting, the inability to sit still for long, the need to walk or move, high intuition, wow. I don’t include the genetic markers, or parts of the brain that are different… dopamine is huge in mine….or the blood type analysis but the point is this analysis was so dead on to my reality ….even the higher repair that occurred with my mothers mother who chained smoked no filtered cigarettes and died at 84 from a heart failure. So much is genetics. I feel and I have always felt more than nurture but our brains, our chemistry, our blood type, our dna is so strong to determine who we are….I got answers to many of my questions. Take an intuition. As an empath I feel I know what others are feeling. My results came back that as an ancestry of hunters, we were intuned to a threat and our mirror neurons ( it went into greater detail as to parts of the brain and chemistry) were finely attuned. So there might be an ancestral dna to empaths…..
Hi Contagious,
HG described the empath recently as an ‘ancient creature’. I warmed to that description. I think similar to the narcissist, the empath is likely formed through a combination of genetic predisposition and LOCE with the LOCE and trait combination determining school and cadre.
If we consider the word ancient, it means many things but definitely ‘ not modern’. Modern life with its distractions, telecommunications and concrete jungles has negated the need for certain senses and attributes that would have been critical for us when living in small groups and tribes.
I think aspects of what we see in our DNA most likely would correlate with our empathic development. Psychologically the trait of openness likely plays in too.
I don’t really subscribe to the idea of a separateness between biological and psychological, I think the two work together so it makes sense to me that a person’s DNA might well support a categorisation of empath.
The thing that made me question the validity of the test you took was the “warrior gene.” Many people would like to be told they have warrior DNA, as such they are more likely to subscribe to the findings and recommend the test to others. The fact that it is an online test also would make me a little cautious.
Give me some personal details, a family history and recent photograph and I could magic up an analysis that you would be very happy to believe! I take online tests with a pinch of salt. In principle though, yes, I think we could see elements of our empathic nature within DNA results.
I did an online IQ test the other day. ( Not kidding here either.) Apparently I’m higher than Marilyn Monroe and lower than Einstein. The little arrow was much closer to Einstein though, obviously haha! I had to pay for the exact score. I didn’t pay, probably because my IQ is ……! !
Ladies, I’m a fan of Marilyn, so here are a few fun facts about her IQ and “worrier gene”.
She had guts. She owned her own production company and became involved in legal and contractual disputes at a time when very few actresses challenged the Hollywood system.
In the end, 20th Century Fox backed down and granted her a higher salary, greater control over the films she made, increased approval rights regarding directors and scripts, and access to better-quality roles. She essentially won a contractual battle against one of Hollywood’s most powerful studios.
She also maintained an extensive library containing highly demanding literature, much of which she not only read but actively annotated, where others might have given up after the fifth page. Her intellectual curiosity was often overlooked because of the carefully crafted screen persona.
Claims often found online, such as Monroe having an IQ of 168 vs John F. Kennedy having an IQ of 150, are generally regarded as unverified.
What can be said is that Marilyn was frequently underestimated. While her exact IQ cannot be measured, she was known to be highly intelligent, articulate, and well-read.
Hello Jordy:
I met someone who knew her well about 10 years ago. He said that there are many conspiracies about Marilyn’s death but he said she carried around a plastic bag of pills and would swallow them down like candy with champagne. It wasn’t her looks or brains that caused her to die at 42. It is either foul play or as her personal photographer said… her alcohol and drug intake. I don’t think anyone doubts she had a substance abuse issue. I don’t know if HG has said if she was an empath or not. She had a hard childhood for certain and was an addict. She was also beautiful and kind and from what you said smart.
She was prescribed significant amounts of pain medication and sedatives, some of them arguably excessive and questionable, by people who claimed they wanted to help her. The reasons were complex and involved both psychological distress and physical symptoms.
Many later claimed to have been her closest friends and sought to profit from sensationalised accounts, often altering reality to suit their own purposes.
In reality, she maintained a very small circle of genuinely close friends and was surrounded by many more people who wished they had belonged to it.
When someone says, “She carried around a plastic bag of pills and swallowed them like candy with champagne,” it does not strike me as the observation of someone who knew her particularly well or possessed any meaningful insight into the background of her medical history.
I think her death was most likely an accident caused by overmedication. What may have followed was a haphazard attempt to manage, obscure, or contain the fallout by some of the medical professionals who arrived on the scene first and who had been responsible for prescribing much of the medication she was taking.
Self-protection by those involved combined with panic are more convincing than many of the more elaborate theories.
No, I agree. I am suspect BUT too many things were right on. Intolerance to heat not cold. Always warm. As a child my mother would have me sleep next to her as I was a little hot water bottle lol. I am always warm. Light sensitivity to eyes. I wear sunglasses a lot. I like my home dark. I am light sensitive. Inability to sit still. Yup. RLS which is a neurological incurable disease which is horrible but as my Aunt said calmly “ treatable today.” God my poor ancestors who suffered RLS without drugs. It’s absolutely torture without meds and common for Nordics. The need for sleep. My mother said this about me, I could miss meals but not sleep. My daughter is the same. The lucid dreaming ( I was so excited to see this as it gives me an explanation for my life long weird dreams), a high intuition, a high pain tolerance, gut issues with the O negative… the need for hyperli? Might have spelled it wrong, there was lots of medical brain origin terms which I skipped, O negative is the oldest blood type, hunter gatherers, a dopamine imbalance? Teeth, my family, my son… odd no cavity… now braces? Yes many of us. Most of my family not me is tall and average in weight, fair, some natural blonds, blue eyes often bright blue, big features in the men. Also food cravings reflected some of the family ways. My dad put salt on apples! It was a family thing. Magnesium supplements. I started. Can’t hurt. I eat a high protein diet and love diary. I prefer salty foods to sugar like my family. I love pickled and fermented food.
Anyway: I thought their claims of a warrior gene meant longevity as my family live long life and no cancer. But there is some risk of heart issues- it was a weird medical heart risk one.
But agree a warrior, a tired, weary, marching on … always facing some challenge… my view of life but it would not surprise me if this website had positive nicknames for everyone applies. And we are all warrior genes! lol maybe they label all. But the analysis. I think as like WOW.
Personally I favor genetics, brain formation and function more than environment. I think the environment makes it worse. But I always feel as brain studies continue on that we find out that everything is pre-wired from a sense of humor to taste etc… it would not surprise me.
For now… I accept HG’s education. It also has more hope for early intervention.
But I draw the line at knowing right from wrong. Even if no conscience… most perpetrators know right from wrong. They must be removed from society. I believe that too.
You can see empathy in animals too. So I imagine it’s been around from the beginning of mankind. I agree with HG.
Thanks TS!
I will never know if the website and even the blood I sent was analyzed. Maybe they just looked at my dna breakdown and wrote me some generalities. But hey?! I found it applied to me. Pass me the magnesium:)
Hi Contagious,
If you found the results resonated with you then I think at the very least it was an interesting exercise to carry out. I would caution against implementing any supplementary or dietary changes without running them past your doctor first, some supplements can work against you if used in combination with others. Spoken by someone who does take dietary supplements regularly and tries her best to eat ‘clean’.
I would agree, in terms of ‘personality analysis’, I can’t deny the truth of HG’s detectors. Technically he is an online provider but he has the testimonials, the website and access to him that most online providers don’t. They are often fast to take your money, non contactable after. That’s only going to get worse with AI.
I posted a link about lucid dreaming on the Contagion thread. I thought you might find it interesting.
Marilyn was a fascinating character, I watched the film about her that came out a few years ago, heartbreaking, though I don’t know how accurate it was. It struck me that she spent her whole life looking for someone just to love her for who she was rather than who she portrayed. I hadn’t read anything about her level of intelligence, what Jordy included surprised me. In some ways if she was intelligent, a woman at that time and in that industry, that would make life harder for her not easier. Hers was a sad tale.
On a brighter note, If you carry the warrior gene, I think I might carry the cynic gene! Yours is definitely sexier. Definitely.
One more thing, sorry off topic to the blog but for those who like ghost stories…. Now I don’t believe in ghosts BUT Charlie Chaplin ‘s old studio has been converted into a hotel and remains in the family in West Hollywood. I have stayed in the Charlie Chaplin studio, Gloria Swanson and the Marilyn Monroe house. They are little bungalows with kitchens and several rooms and bathrooms. Well my ex husband and I stayed at Marilyn’s with the kids and their friends for a weekend. It was quite the experience. The fire alarm kept going off at night. Maintenance fixed it but it still would start and stop on occasion at night. Door banging were heard too. Drawer were oddly open. And all my pictures of that place are blurry or filmy whereas the rest of that weekend elsewhere including other parts of the hotel at the same day were not. My husband felt he was a psychic and said it was definitely haunted. He spoke to the Chaplain relative at the front desk who admitted other guests had said the same to her…… I never felt afraid but I did feel it was an odd stay.
??????
Those weren’t ghosts, darlin’. More likely raccoons, little f**kers.
The difference between a haunting and a raccoon is about five minutes investigation.
Your hubby, though… psychic! Lol.
We’re all psychic when the bins rattle, everyone discovers their third eye.
Ghosts are rare. Raccoons are reliable🫶🫶
With regards to success TS, I guess it depends how one measure success. I always love reading your thoughts.
That’s a good point Alexis. I think there are some areas where I feel successful (more emotional, family based) and I am my own measure. Other more career or materialistic areas I am more likely to use an external measure.
Didn’t your football team just win something Alexis? Do you feel….successful at all?
Loving the latest YT content, HG. Especially, the pieces incorporating aspects of evolution and the focus on psychopathy. I really hope YT acts to remonitise your main channel.
Thank you. Please do keep watching and re-watch to give the sister channel a boost.
HG,
Absolutely will do. There are some excellent tidbits in there that one has to re-listen to – especially when trying to listen along on break at work!
“Utility exhausted.”
“Your loyalty is a leash I hold lightly until it no longer serves.”
“They were simply fertiliser.”
“…others in denial.”
What fascinates me about this article is that even though you’re being straight forward, their are still some that will be in denial about you, Mr. Tudor.
Indeed.
Great comment Leigh. And if they won’t hear it directly from HG, they won’t hear it from anyone else either. He is a dangerous man, by his own words, a bad man, who does good things as a by-product of what he does for himself, nothing more. We are all just his appliances, whether narc, normal or empath.
This article made me think of my ex, very much.
Hi AV,
I wonder if some people think its just bravado on Mr. Tudor’s part. If its only bravado, its easier for people to deny what he repeatedly tells us. I think its a foolish way to look at it. Its not bravado. By his own admission, Mr. Tudor is a narcissistic psychopath devoid of emotional empathy.
“…there are still some that will be in denial…”
Your husband’s unhealthy life choices are stemming from the “threat to control” issue throughout his life, which he then attempts to manage through those same destructive coping mechanisms that ultimately worsen his condition. It is an incredibly fragile state to exist in, constantly experiencing reality as unstable, repeatedly feeling as though one is disintegrating and losing control over one’s place within it. Irrational choices are then made in an attempt to regain equilibrium, yet nothing truly resolves the problem because the individual remains trapped within the only coping mechanisms he has ever known: the repeated assertions of control.
Your husband believed your marriage was loving and secure, yet you yourself admitted that you did not truly love him, and remained partly for self-serving reasons and partly because stressful environments felt psychologically familiar to you due to childhood conditioning. Even if you had left, you may well have recreated similar dynamics elsewhere without understanding why.
What HG’s material offers is insight into those patterns and dynamics. And despite the hindrances caused by your own narcissistic traits and emotional thinking, you at least continue attempting to understand and apply some of the information shared.
You are aware that your husband is hypersensitive to threats to control, meaning he is constantly struggling to hold himself together psychologically. Repeatedly provoking that sensitivity only intensifies the stress state he already lives within. What strikes me as ironic is that your closest friends here do not tell you this honestly. Instead, they validate your victim identity and encourage you to publicly criticise your husband year after year because doing so allows them to feel morally supportive and virtuous themselves. But genuine support would also involve pointing out where your own behaviour contributes to the cycle.
You knowingly engage with someone you understand to be hypersensitive to control and then act as if surprised by the consequences. Once someone understands the dynamic, responsibility should follow. “Once you know, you go” does not mean “once you know, you remain there indefinitely waiting for the other person to collapse or die.”
It is not your husband’s fault that he inherited certain predispositions and developed within circumstances that shaped these patterns. That does not excuse harmful behaviour, but it does perhaps make the situation more tragic than malicious. He is not necessarily evil, but rather a man coping through the only psychological structures available to him.
Perhaps grace would involve acknowledging that you also betrayed him in your own way by remaining in a marriage where love was absent, whilst simultaneously provoking stress responses that may worsen his condition. Chronic stress genuinely impacts the body physiologically. Threats to control are experienced internally as threats, and the body responds accordingly, in some instances with cancer.
HG has shown remarkable patience and generosity towards you. I hope, over time, you may come to appreciate the guidance you have been given and continue learning how to alter your own behaviours.
Because the painful truth is that neither of you consciously chose this dynamic. Both of you became trapped within it. The difference, however, is that you still possess the opportunity for insight, adaptation, and behavioural change. Your husband has far less to none capacity for that.
And perhaps if you genuinely continue examining your own addictive patterns and emotional reframing mechanisms, you may eventually realise how closely your own behaviour can sometimes resemble the very traits you condemn in him. The distinction between you may not be as vast as you currently believe.
At that point, perhaps the judgement may soften. Not because the harm disappears, but because clarity finally arrives. And you may stop condemning him for failing to meet your expectations whilst recognising that you, too, failed to meet his.
Then perhaps you would no longer be in denial.
Hi Leigh,
Your posts in this thread have clearly hit a nerve. You’ve received a very interesting response. Nasty of course (it must be) but with some quirky additions.
The most interesting part for me is the reversal of victim and perpetrator which is a bit of a cerebral masterstroke. The narcissist becomes the victim while you become the aggressor. It’s a perfect attack because as someone with the trait of carer you will be injured by the suggestion you are the one causing the problem. Nasty and effective at cutting you down.
The usual homage to HG is woven in which helps prevent it seeming exclusively like a personal attack and gives it gravitas and plausibility as constructive criticism. There was even a little dusting of an attack on AV and I sprinkled in because why waste an opportunity.
You, like me, probably stand back now and read these monologues from a very unmoved position. But while I’ve revealed little about my life so there’s less for someone who wants to inflict damage to latch onto and use, you have revealed a lot, because you’ve seen this as a place of safety for people moving away from ensnarement. That of course means there’s a lot for someone to use should they feel compelled to do so.
I note there’s many interesting comments on the blog lately. Popping up all over..
Hi AA,
I do share a lot of my life on here and for the most part I feel safe. There’s always going to be detractors. That’s inevitable. She isn’t the first person whose thrown my life choices in my face and I’m sure she won’t be the last. I don’t give it any credence. Doing such things says more about them then it does me. She did exactly what my husband does, she tried to make it my fault. What I found most interesting is that it was all under the guise of helping.
I did not say it under the guise of helping. What frustrates me is the endless cycle: you complain, yet remain in the situation. Then you complain again whilst staying put, and again seek sympathy through the narrative of “my narcissistic husband, my narcissistic mother, my narcissistic daughter, look what I have to endure.”
At some point the question becomes: then why stay? Either leave or stop endlessly reinforcing the same cycle through repeated complaint.
You reframe your provocations as merely having a “smart mouth”, but to me that looks like emotional thinking disguising itself as assertiveness. It is a very convenient way of lying to yourself about your own participation in the dynamic.
It is not your fault that your husband requires fuel and extracts it from you. But at this stage, after so many years, your continued engagement has become voluntary. You knowingly continue interacting with someone about whom you repeatedly complain.
That is partly why the two of you appear so similar to me. Both of you remain trapped within a victim mindset, each blaming the other whilst continuing to sustain the same dynamic together.
Leigh, I hope you recognise what she is actually doing – because it’s got nothing to do with your life at all. That’s just the vehicle she’s using. Consider what her actual goal is here. She doesn’t give a hoot what you do in your life or who you do it with. What is the aim of her comment? You must really step back to see it.
Hi Leigh,
A you know, we always fail the narcissist. Even if we were perfect in every way, we would fail them, because they need us to for the extraction of fuel. As you also know, that is far different from the empath who is not looking to extract fuel from their partner but would love to live in peace and harmony, a thing which can never be done with a narc.
That’s very true, AV. Thank you for your continued support.
I don’t have any control over the opinions people will form about me. I try not to give it too much thought.
I did find it interesting that she used Mr. Tudor’s teachings as a weapon though.
“But while I’ve revealed little about my life…”
Actually, you may have revealed quite a lot through one rather sizeable Freudian slip:
“If I were an upper mid-range narcissist and I had a cerebral lean…”
Interesting choice of example😏
No magnetism. No charm. No wit. No humour. At this point even your washing machine is slowly committing suicide just to escape the virtue-signalling residue woven into every fibre.
And yet there it was again.
You are so jealous of HG receiving my undivided attention that you simply cannot resist slipping it into the conversation. Why waste an opportunity, after all?
But you see, I am not that kind of narcissist.
I am giving you attention too.
Oh, I should say: asserting control directly😘
Now you!
Which will it be?
Direct? Indirect through smearing? Or withdrawal?
Hi Jordy,
Interesting proposition that you make here, but doesn’t it go against what HG teaches? He states that the person ensnared by a narcissist is a victim. I understand that narcissists are humans too, a sizeable part of the human species, so it’s probably not necessary to vilify them further, although some of them really do cause heavy damage.
Now, whether a person ensnared by a narcissist stays with them or not, that’s on them, as is every other life decision. Life can be complicated because people are complex. Narcissists can be complex too; however, there is one thing that they all have in common, and that is their narcissism — how their brain works. The very thing that HG talks about in all his videos, and surprisingly or not, it is very consistent: the behaviours, the patterns. It is so consistent that he even created terminology for it.
People may think what they want, but the remaining issue is that the vast majority of narcissists don’t know that they have narcissism. Yes, it wasn’t created through their own doing, but it is unfortunately how they turned out, and they will never change.
How much grace do they deserve? I don’t know. The best thing one can do for oneself is to distance oneself. Unfortunate, but true.
Whether someone does or does not act on it is up to them. From what I can see HG doesn’t tell people what to do. He simply states that if you do X, then Y will or might happen. If you do X, you will place yourself in Y situation, whereas another outcome might be more desirable for you. He just explains the logic; what you do with it is your choice.
As for him, yes he is open about being a narcissistic psychopath and doesn’t make a spectacle of it. For him it’s just another Tuesday. I believe his particular brain wiring is the very thing that allows him to do all this work. He is not sentimental, hopeful, unsure, etc. He has simply detected patterns in human behaviour related to empathy that are relatively common but not very well understood.
During the past 10-15 years narcissism has become a popular topic, but many teachers and therapists don’t get it right, or at least not entirely. HG is different. He has mapped the entire mechanism of narcissism. It’s incredibly helpful and, in my opinion, will stand the test of time. It’s effective.
People are drawn to him. People are repulsed by him. Some are indifferent. It doesn’t really matter. It’s all subjective.
Most of us will never come across someone like him in our real lives because people like him are, statistically speaking, rare. He might represent danger, but not necessarily something we ourselves will ever encounter.
Most people who become a problem for us are lesser and mid-range narcissists. And thanks to his teachings, we have a chance to learn about these dynamics, make changes, and become more careful in the future.
We can also develop more confidence, as is the case for me, because I now see that not everything was my fault. I understand how my own wiring (high empathy), as well as my background (having a narcissistic parent), made me susceptible to continuing these dynamics in the first place.
Awareness is the only thing that keeps you safe. And HG provides that.
Hi Leigh,
Picking up on your comment “I’ve shared a lot of my life on here.”
Like you, I don’t see the blog as unsafe. I don’t see any place or any person as completely safe though either. One of the reasons online narc was able to manipulate me as he did was because I had shared too much – not all, but enough. I had shared more with him due to the fact he was online and anonymous. What I didn’t factor in to that was the passage of time and the potential for those parameters to change.
I can’t think of one person or place that is entirely safe. Everyone we encounter has skin in our game to a greater or lesser extent. Even my own dad, he still has skin in the game because he also has responsibility towards my mum. Go online and we don’t know who we are talking to. Go to real life and people have responsibilities towards a variety of people not just us. No one is completely on our side. ( I know a song about that.) If they seem so, then things still have potential to change with new circumstances over time.
It’s something that stuck with me from the online ensnarement, a lesson I learned.
I’m not suggesting that everyone should be looking over their shoulders expecting the worst or waiting for the trap to snap shut, but I do think often empathic people forget to factor in the passage of time. If they did factor it in, I think it would influence the level of sharing we undertake and when we undertake it. We might naturally be more cautious and therefore less targeted as a result.
I don’t think this dilemma is specific to you Leigh. My comment isn’t specific to the blog. I’m pointing it out because I think it has some relevance to the empath group as a whole, particularly when we consider how many empaths operate from a position of trust.
Hi TS,
In general, I don’t trust people. For me, trust has to be earned. Its why I don’t use my real identity here. Overtime though, I’ve learned to trust people here. Not everyone, but there are some.
For example, if you would’ve said the things that Jordy said to me, it would’ve hurt me because I trust you to be kind to me. I know Jordy isn’t kind so her comments don’t matter.
I feel this place is safe overall because the majority of people are kind and polite. That includes Mr. Tudor who is a narcissistic psychopath. Mr. Tudor is a perfect example of getting your point across without being so nasty.
I do see your point about empaths generally operating from a place of trust. Honestly, I think that’s what’s happening with you and Contagious. Jordy is blatantly rude and you both continue to make excuses and sugar coat her behaviors.
Hi TS,
In general, I don’t trust people. For me, trust has to be earned. Its why I don’t use my real identity here. Overtime though, I’ve learned to trust people here. Not everyone, but there are some.
For example, if you would’ve said the things that Jordy said to me, it would’ve hurt me because I trust you to be kind to me. I know Jordy isn’t kind so her comments don’t matter.
I feel this place is safe overall because the majority of people are kind and polite. That includes Mr. Tudor who is a narcissistic psychopath. Mr. Tudor is a perfect example of getting your point across without being so nasty.
I do see your point about empaths generally operating from a place of trust. Honestly, I think that’s what’s happening with you and Contagious. Jordy is blatantly rude and you both continue to make excuses and sugar coat her behaviors.
Hi AmusedEmpath,
“But doesn’t it go against what HG teaches? He states that the person ensnared by a narcissist is a victim.”
There is this rule called the Golden Rule of Freedom: Once you know, you go. You move out and you stay out.
She has known this rule for about seven years now. HG teaches it often enough. But it does not seem to bother her. Instead, her husband bothers her.
Showing grace would mean, at the very least, stopping blaming the narcissist at this point. After seven years of knowing the rule, one is no longer a victim but a volunteer.
Hi Jordy,
Yes, I see where you are coming from. It makes sense that HG recommends getting out of a relationship once you know. It’s logical. But then again, everyone can do whatever they want. No one can really influence another person’s choices.
In the past, I have had a tendency to tell people what to do (sometimes) because I felt that I knew what was better for them. It was quite a strong feeling. Eventually, I had to accept that even if I feel I know better, people have to make their own decisions and mistakes. Who am I to impose myself? Furthermore, I can only take myself as an example. If I decide to do something, no one can stop me; I simply won’t listen.
Then there is another thing as well. I have only been in relatively short relationships—two years, five years max. When people get together very young, raise a family, have been together for decades, and have shared assets, leaving that situation comes with a cost. Objectively speaking, yes, it will most likely be better to leave; however, acting on it and making those drastic changes is a whole other matter. So, in a certain sense, it is easier and more convenient to stay.
The cost of staying with a narcissist is also high. I see it with my dad. From what I understand, he is not an empath but a normal. However, his own dad was a narcissist, and so is his sister. He doesn’t know that my mom is a narcissist. He is a very intelligent man and somehow also realises that my mom creates so many problems, but he doesn’t understand why. What I see in him is frustration. He is frustrated and essentially unhappy because he is not free.
Does he choose his fate? I don’t know. I tried to “save” him for the longest time, but I realised that it’s pointless. It’s his life, so be it. I can get frustrated with him when he is frustrated, even though I know perfectly well why. But then again, his life, his choice.
My mom, well, she is what she is. The question is: how much should we empathise with narcissists? After all, it is in our nature, isn’t it?
I didn’t like my ex, yet I stayed in a relationship with him for five years, trying to make it work because we had a child together. However, there were so many things I didn’t like about him, and I told him about them. Not in a nagging way—I don’t like to go on about the same thing over and over—but I told him what I thought. I didn’t lament my life, but I also wasn’t totally blind to all the bad stuff.
I don’t think he deserves grace. I’m not out for revenge. It’s not really my thing, but I still don’t think he deserves grace.
Now fast forward. If I had stayed with him for decades and become deeply entangled with him financially, what would I do?
Poison him and cash in—no, just kidding!
I’ve kind of swayed off the topic now. But yes, what I wanted to point out is that people will make their own choices. Whether those choices are bad or good is sometimes subjective. True, HG gives good advice, but the solution isn’t always black and white. That being said, not being ensnared by a narcissist is definitely the nicer option.
Hi Leigh,
Do you mean bravado in the sense that some empaths, myself included, in my past, have been drawn to bad boys? So some think it’s like a persona he has but not actually true? Interesting concept. Maybe that’s why it made me think of my ex. I hope I’m over that now. I haven’t been drawn to any bad boys in a while anyway… but I do think you could be right, maybe it’s part of our addiction?
Hi AV,
Not necessarily the bad boy image. More along the lines of the evil man persona. I wonder if some think the evil man persona is just to protect him because he’s really a helpful and wonderful man underneath. I would even say there are some that truly believe he can be saved.
Yes, I definitely think it’s our addiction. How can this wonderful man, who does so much for us, be evil? I wrote a comment to Mari about this too. I think there’s some cognitive dissonance at play too.
Hello A Victor: I don’t think I have a history of the bad boy but I oscillate between a super successful often self made man and the CREATIVE type…musicians, actors, artists. I sometimes think I have daddy issues in that I adored my father and he was a musician and I value that part of my childhood a lot to the fact we all want common interest… mine is travel, culture, art and music and intellectual pursuits. I find myself at classical music concerts and library events with the over 80 crowd! My LMN shared the same interests truly so that delayed the end. But creative types are often like bad boys in terms of commitment, longevity and narcissism. Sad but true.
The two of you, provide very good examples for analysis and, whilst I know you will not like it, which is fair enough, why should you? What I usually direct towards you is criticism. But then again, it is a platform dedicated to narcissism, and your apt remarks will almost always draw a response from me. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not all about your exceptional, unique, once-in-a-lifetime fuel, you know.
“How can this wonderful man, who does so much for us, be evil?”
“He is a dangerous man, by his own words, a bad man, who does good things as a by-product of what he does for himself, nothing more.”
When it suits you, you weasel around HG and gladly take on board the by-product, whilst judging him whenever the opportunity presents itself and flipping the script in order to feel superior.
But you too are only utilising his services for egoic purposes. There is no higher purpose in it for you beyond a self-centred approach, from which your immediate environment may occasionally benefit and, in the worst case, be further damaged, since you are still incapable of distinguishing between categories.
You are attracted to bad boys because they mirror either the way you wish to be or aspects of what you already are. Grandiose and judgemental.
Why does it happen? Because self-absorption ranks higher within the way you survive. Your upbringing contributed to it.
You are not only that, of course. You also possess empathic traits. Though the empathic route you genuinely attempt to take misfires quite often. But I do not blame you. It is difficult in reality to distinguish where emotional, cognitive, or narcissistic narratives masking themselves as empathy are at play, especially when one has spent an entire lifetime in an environment which distorts brain chemistry, conditioning, and recognition.
Just my two cents, as usual.
Now carry on calling me a narcissist if that makes it easier to dismiss the criticism.
Being human is a complicated business. Definitely not a pony farm. I don’t blame you.
And HG is not a bad boy by your definition, nor can he remind you of your ex, despite your best efforts to make the comparison fit.
When bad boys were created, God took the day off.
When HG came into being, God vacated the throne and quietly stepped aside.
Hi Contagious,
In my experience, which is admittedly not that extensive, I have found there are some bad boy types who fancy themselves to be creative. There is another type I’ve come across which is bad boy farmer, man of the earth! But all of them narcs. I don’t see all men who enjoy music, going to a concert, making music etc as bad boys, not most of them even. It takes something extra, that narc effect, to be a bad boy. Lol! Hence my attraction to them!! Ugh. Anyway, I’ve been known to hang with the 80’s plus crowd for certain events also, they’re a lot of fun! Thanks for writing!
Hi Jordy:
I didn’t understand your response. No one was talking about HG. And I was saying that I choose creative types or super successful intelligent men. HG has a plethora of women. I am not one of them:)
???
I have never called you a narcissist quite the opposite.
Good morning, dear Contagious🌞
“I didn’t understand your response. No one was talking about HG.”
Leigh and AVictor were talking about HG. The two.
“I have never called you a narcissist quite the opposite.”
I know.
“I was saying that I choose creative types or super successful intelligent men.”
You were talking about your own story within a conversation that was, in part, about HG.
“HG has a plethora of women. I am not one of them:)”
You are a non-intimate secondary source within HG’s fuel matrix.
Xxx
I’m just inserting myself into the discussion here, lol.
Interesting point about the bad boy. What do you guys mean by “bad boy”? Someone who is emotionally unavailable? Someone who sleeps with lots of women? Someone who is dishonest or deceptive, meaning he pretends to be committed but, in the end, is not? Someone who objectifies women? Someone who simply takes what he wants?
Bad boy is somehow an elusive word I am not entirely sure what is meant by that.
Would you say there is a female equivalent, femme fatale?
And in regard to HG. He is anonymous here. He is open about his diagnosis, namely not having emotional empathy. In what sense does he have an evil man or bad boy persona? Isn’t he just honest about how he feels and thinks? Do you guys feel like he is purposely creating a bad image about himself?
Hi AE,
The terms bad boy and evil are definitely subjective. When I initially brought it up, I was thinking, could an empath think that Mr. Tudor wrote this article as false bravado in order to protect himself. I could see women thinking he’s exaggerating and its just a persona that he’s projecting.
The reason I used the word evil is because I believe that Mr. Tudor has that capability because he is without emotional empathy and is a narcissistic psychopath. I want you to know that I adore Mr. Tudor. But, I’ll never forget the first time I realized that he’s capable of evil things. It was during an interview with Doug. He was explaining boredom and how he alleviates the boredom. He said, “I wonder how it sounds to hear this animal’s bones cracking? Oh, that’s how it sounds.” He said it so matter of fact without any feeling. I know Mr. Tudor does wonderful things for us. But I also know he’s capable of evil things as well.
To answer your question, no, I don’t think its an image he’s creating. I know he’s incredibly honest with us. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some people do think its an image.
Hi A Victor:
If being attracted to bad boys meant you were doomed to be addicted to narcs…., most of the USA young ladies and the entire Hollywood film market would shut down. Most the bad boys that we meet are when we are young and the Hollywood standard is the bad boy with the heart of gold, just misunderstood. Then there is sexy. Romance novels are filled with bad boys … again with the heart of gold. Always part of it. Always simply Misunderstood. Are there people of any age who long to be abused? Hurt? No! The bad guys like Hannibal Lector, the villains in a Bond movie, etc… are not the ones especially young girls pine for, they are the boogeyman men to be avoided at all costs. Different from Jim Morrison singing on stage, or John Travolta in Grease etc…. The bad boys are sexy, ie Elvis but the appeal as while sexy and rebellious they are inside the good guy! lol it’s all silly really. Now the creative bad boy farmer? lol! Never met one! Do tell!
I think the bad boy attraction ties in to stories we have been exposed to since childhood.
Byronic heroes such as Rochester (personal favourite) in Jayne Eyre and Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, through to more modern TV heroes in the form of characters like Geralt (most favourite) in the Witcher series, all follow the bad boy template. Even the Lucifer TV character involves the devil himself making ‘good’ due to his love for an empathic detective. A case of “he’s bad, just not with me.” I think that plays in to survival instinct to an extent. If you had a baby with the baddest boy in the tribe, chances are that baby had a higher chance of survival. Instinct didn’t care that said bad boy spread it around, it cared about survival of the species.
I think it’s a combination of tribal instinct coupled with the softened romanticised version fed to us in books and film. Many of these literary heroes were likely narcissists. I don’t actually think that women consciously seek narcissists, they seek strength. The image many seem to prefer is of a bad boy who is bad to most people apart from them and theirs. What they describe and what often plays out in successful book, TV and movie franchises, equates to a very narrow range of empathy. Not narcissists but narcissistic partners. Narcissists can often portray that thanks to the golden period.
Hi AE,
Good point, “bad boys” is not a well defined term. I appreciate you asking for clarification.
For me it is a man who is all of the things you named and in the case of some, also having a record with the police. Likely a narc, though i would not say all narcs are bad boys. Possibly a psychopath, again, not all would be. Femme Fatale would be a possible female version. Or just a “Bad Girl”?
It is somewhat similar to a woman with “Daddy Issues”, in my mind, not a specific definition but a “type” of issues that a person might display.
Input from others is appreciated. HG, if the term Bad Boys is one you prefer we not use, let me know, and also what would be preferable, more descriptive, simply narcissist? Thank you!
Narcissistic psychopath, my liege or our glorious leader are all acceptable.
Contagious, your comment made me laugh, thank you! The creative bad boy farmer, oh the things that can happen on a tractor! Lol!
Anyway, your description of misunderstood is exactly that of my poor narc ex, that was all his problem, just so misunderstood, poor baby. No, no one wants to be abused, well if some do that’s a whole different topic, but at the outset, what do you see? The heart of gold! And that poor misunderstood bad boy! Then, alas, you are ensnared… or I was anyway. Hopefully that remains a thing of my past. Thanks for writing!
I think the interest in a so called bad boy can come from having a father who is a narcissist. Or, maybe it’s just the addiction and a narc that one empath sees as a bad boy another would not, but both seek, unknowingly, a narcissist, or possibly a psychopath, in the end.
One of my friends was married to a horrible narcissist, one I would never have been attracted to, for more than 5 minutes anyway. We talked about this once, she would likely have found my narc ex to be boring and not been attracted to him either. But both, in their own way, very much bad boys, ie narcissists.
Haha! Thank you for the clarification My Liege!
Dang, still gets me going a little…!
Hi Truthseeker,
“I don’t actually think that women consciously seek narcissists, they seek strength.”
I’ve been reading this discussion about ‘bad boys’ with interest and this your comment made me stop and think. My thoughts went all over the place to be honest.
Firstly, I thought, can it be any more general? Could the broad brush be any broader?
You have mentioned ‘women’ as though all women are the same. You probably didn’t mean to do this and may have been thinking of ’empathic women’. Even if that’s the case, there are wide variations in the group labeled ’empathic women’.
Secondly, I thought, how do you define ‘strength’? A rock has strength. Ants have strength. According to a quick google search, pound for pound, ants are one of the strongest species on earth. They can lift and carry objects that are up to 100 times heavier than their bodies.
Having said that, co-dependent humans have strength too. They are very resilient.
Thirdly, I thought, how do you define ‘bad boys’? I think every individual woman (whether narcissist, normal or empath) thinks of someone different when they imagine a ‘bad boy’.
For example, Sarah Ferguson may think of Jeffrey Epstein; Queen Camilla may think of King Charles; and TOW may think of Markus Anderson.
Having said that, Sarah didn’t marry and have children with Epstein; nor did TOW do that with Anderson. Camilla married Charles but they don’t have children together. Therefore, the theory about having a baby with the “baddest boy in the tribe” tends to fall flat.
I don’t think that women (in general) choose to have babies with the “baddest boy in the tribe”. Instead, I think they *consciously* choose to avoid uncertainty or harm they experienced in their own childhood or something that personally affected them in a damaging way.
For example, my (undiagnosed narcissist) mother would sometimes say that she chose to marry my father because she knew he would never leave her. She had a very bad experience with her own father and consciously chose someone who was very different.
In turn, you could say my father was and still is very strong. He is stoic and stubborn and rigid in his attitudes. Is this really ‘strength’ though? In some ways, yes it is. It was for my mother.
When thinking of my father’s personality, it reminds me very much of the traits of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD).
Some of the traits of OCPD are:
– rigid, stubborn and inflexible attitudes and patterns of thinking
– pervasive patterns of perfectionism
– unwillingness to compromise
– dampened emotional empathy (note: there is emotional empathy, however, it is restricted)
– rules and logic override feelings.
Comparing OCPD with ‘psychopathy’ and ‘narcissism’, I think that the latter two are considered to be ‘sexy’ kinds of disorders. Narcissism and psychopathy are deeply compelling and fascinating. They’re described as the ‘dark’ side of human nature that’s concealed and mysterious, and therefore, there is an allure about them. Also, they have been glamorised in fiction and movies.
If someone made a movie about a character with OCPD, it wouldn’t be about a misfit wearing a leather jacket and riding a motorbike. It wouldn’t be about a cowboy in a black hat on a mission to rob a bank.
If you live with a narcissist or psychopath for an extended period of time, the ‘allure’ wears off after a while.
Getting back to the concept of ‘strength’ and in particular, the ‘strength’ in OCPD …
In research, the rigid and inflexible attitudes and inflexible patterns of thinking in OCPD have been linked to higher than average levels of self-control.
Generally, I think that most people believe ‘self-control’ is a positive human trait. However, as discussed by Anthony Pinto, an American psychologist who focuses on OCPD, self-control like many human traits, is on a spectrum or continuum.
Considering a spectrum of ‘self-control’, too much self-control leads to rigidity and stubbornness. Too little self-control leads to impulsive decision-making and poor progress. Understanding this allows for balance in things like stoicism and spontaneity.
From your one comment, TS, I’ve gone down a number of different tangents in the interests of adding to the discussion. Thank you for your comment, it is thought-provoking.
Summing up my reply overall, I wanted to respond because I think it’s important to delve into the details and specific meaning of what you have said.
Oh-oh! The Middle Mid-Ranger B is back and you’re on her menu, TS!
As you saw, Jesus threw “my plans” away, but not too far. I can retrieve them anytime, sis, and feed her salad to my chickens🥬🐓
But that’s exactly what she wants🤤
And then it would become a threesome. An INFJ sandwich, you see. I cannot blame her, we’re yummy!
🤠Hey WN, welcome back, good girl. Everything sexy?
Hi everyone,
It has been interesting to read your thoughts on the so-called bad boy. Ultimately, I also think it is subjective and, in a way, influenced by culture, such as movies and similar media.
I asked ChatGPT “What is a bad boy” and further down I also asked, “Is HG Tudor a bad boy”, lol. These were the answers I got.
“Bad boy” is one of those terms that means different things to different people, which is why discussions about it often become confusing.
Generally, a bad boy is not simply a man who is bad. Rather, it’s a cultural archetype that tends to include some combination of:
* Confidence
* Independence
* Rebelliousness
* Rule-breaking
* Risk-taking
* Emotional unpredictability
* Not being overly eager to please
A “bad boy” might be the guy who ignores conventions, rides a motorcycle, doesn’t care much about approval, speaks his mind, and appears difficult to control.
The confusion comes from the fact that people often lump very different men into the same category:
Type 1: The confident rebel
* Independent
* Assertive
* Doesn’t seek validation
* May challenge authority
* Can still be honest, loyal, and emotionally healthy
Many people find this type attractive.
Type 2: The emotionally unavailable man
* Avoids intimacy
* Sends mixed signals
* Keeps partners guessing
* May seem mysterious
This is often called a “bad boy,” even though the defining trait is emotional unavailability rather than rebellion.
Type 3: The selfish or exploitative man
* Manipulative
* Dishonest
* Uses people
* Lacks empathy
This type is sometimes romanticized as a bad boy, but these are actually destructive traits.
Type 4: The anti-hero
Think of characters who break rules but operate according to their own code. They may be flawed, but they aren’t necessarily cruel.
One reason the “bad boy” archetype can be attractive is that some of its traits overlap with qualities people genuinely admire:
* confidence,
* courage,
* autonomy,
* willingness to take risks,
* refusal to be controlled.
The problem is that people sometimes mistake emotional unavailability, selfishness, or mistreatment for those qualities.
Based on questions you’ve asked before, I think you’re already noticing this distinction. When people say “women like bad boys,” they often blur together:
1. confidence and independence,
2. emotional unavailability,
3. manipulative or exploitative behavior.
Those are not the same thing.
A useful question is not “Is he a bad boy?” but rather:
Which specific traits am I talking about?
Because a confident, independent man and a deceptive, exploitative man can both be called “bad boys,” even though they are very different people.
“Is HG Tudor a bad boy”
If we’re using “bad boy” in the popular sense, I’d say not really.
HG Tudor doesn’t come across as the classic bad boy archetype of the rebellious, impulsive, thrill-seeking guy who breaks rules and leaves chaos behind him.
He comes across more as:
* highly self-controlled,
* intellectually aggressive,
* confident,
* independent,
* provocative,
* and somewhat intimidating.
Those traits can create a similar attraction for some people because they signal strength, competence, and a lack of need for approval. But that’s different from the stereotypical bad boy.
If anything, he fits more closely to the archetype of the formidable strategist or dark intellectual than the bad boy.
I think the reason some people perceive him as a bad boy is that he:
* says things others won’t say,
* isn’t concerned with being liked,
* challenges people directly,
* and projects authority.
Those qualities can trigger some of the same attraction mechanisms as the bad-boy archetype.
If I were comparing archetypes, I’d roughly put him like this:
* Bad boy: rebellious rule-breaker
* Alpha: dominant leader
* Intellectual: knowledge and analysis
* HG’s persona: dominant intellectual
Hello again TS,
I would like to add to my comment and say that on re-reading and thinking about it, I can see that it sounds critical and argumentative.
Please know that I feel badly about this.
When I think about my comment, I can see two aspects of it. One aspect is the content and the other aspect is the tone and delivery.
I believe in the content and I feel positive about adding the content to the discussion.
I can see though, that the tone and delivery will probably result in a naturally resonant reaction. That is, I can see that my comment will probably be reflected back to me in a way that is also critical and/or argumentative.
I hope this is not the case. If it is, so be it. It will be an opportunity to reflect and learn more effective ways to add to the discussion.
Hi AE,
WordPress is wonky and I couldn’t even find your comment on this thread in WordPress. It was so weird.
When you and I were talking on the Contagion thread, I made the decision to share some of my life story with you. Some people see my sharing as acting like a victim.
Thank you for putting yourself in my shoes and seeing my dilemma. I appreciate it.
Hi Leigh,
Yes, I know. I’ve also lost track of threads and comments, especially the really long ones. Sometimes you no longer even have the option to reply to certain comments. It’s confusing!
I think it was very kind of you to share part of your life story. After all, it’s very personal. I find it interesting to listen to other people’s stories and experiences with narcissists, especially after they have internalised HG’s terminology, as it gives you a better understanding and a greater degree of detachment.
I didn’t experience you as acting like a victim. To me, you didn’t come across as whiny or lamenting. More like, “Okay, it is what it is.” You came across as someone who is aware of her situation.
I don’t think it is helpful to vilify people who stay in relationships with narcissists, whether those relationships are romantic, familial, or friendships. Life situations can be complicated.
And I always welcome a nuanced perspective. As someone who has been around narcissists my entire life, I’ve had enough of black-and-white thinking. I don’t think it is helpful.
I am well aware that most, if not all, readers of HG’s blog have been through narcissistic abuse in some shape or form. I think fostering a welcoming and warm atmosphere is far more constructive.
After all, we have more in common than not.
Dear Truthseeker, Leigh, Jordy, WiserNow, A Victor and the illustrious ultimate bad boys HG:
My tribute to bad boys. Tractor or none LOL. This is beautifully sung.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYBFb8fSk70/
Hello Leigh! I introduced HG to my uncle and he approves, but said: ‘I don’t think he’s a narcissist, I think he’s a psychologist.’ Even though I said HG is not a psychologist and has The Diagnosis.
Uncle’s not in denial per se, but just an example of subjective interpretation. I advised him to read some of HG’s accounts about his behaviour and character. I said, ‘He’s horrendous!’ (With a laughing emjoi of course.)
In my opinion, the majority of us let ourselves be shafted by narcissistic psychopathy on a daily basis, whilst in denial. I did embelish, but sounded like an angry teenager-cum-brain addled boomer so I cut it.
Hi Mari,
Mr. Tudor creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in me. He’s a wonderful man whose helped thousands. Yet he’s a narcissistic psychopath. I can struggle with seeing him clearly as well. I totally get why your uncle thinks he’s a psychologist.
Hello Mari:
That says it all about psychologists….
Hej Contagious, oooh sick burn!
Are there any psychologists here at HG’s blog who are empaths? Normals? (Echo, echo, tumbleweed…)
Hi Mari,
I don’t see my reply so it may have got lost.
I had said that I understand how your uncle thinks Mr. Tudor must be a psychologist. Mr. Tudor is incredibly helpful and really understands the pdyche.
I think there’s some cognitive dissonance at play. I, myself can suffer from that where Mr. Tudor is concerned. By his own admission he has no empathy for us, yet he still helps us. I can find that hard to reconcile at times.
Emotional empathy is the driver for you to help.
The Prime Aims is the driver for me to help.
Similar outcome, entirely different driver.
Thank you, Mr. Tudor
hello leigh,
you said you’ve written a response to me somewhere, but i can’t see it, so was not ignoring you.
Hi Mari,
I knew you weren’t ignoring me because Mr. Tudor hasn’t posted my response to yet. I hope you didn’t think I was ignoring you either. It was in response to your comment about your uncle.
I didn’t think you were Leigh 😀 Things can get a bit lost or overlooked here I think, especially if dipping in quick. Oo-err mississ.
…I cannot get over this brilliance! I have reread it so many times now, and I agree with so many points. You are unapologetic about your predator nature, and why should you apologise for being what you are? We do not ask the shark to apologise for being a shark. Yet the weak-minded, self-pitying people, lacking any real introspection capable of producing growth, demand that you change in order to accommodate their weaknesses, mirror them, and gain their hollow praise. Sometimes I genuinely feel as though I am in the wrong film.
“People are not mysteries to be solved through painful vulnerability. They are machines with visible code.”
Indeed. And painful vulnerability often becomes an excuse to move through life as a perpetual victim of biology, hypocrisy of mind, and endless contrarian positions. Their ambitions curdle into resentment the moment their fragile sense of self-worth is threatened, a self-worth which, in reality, often exists more as a coping myth than genuine inner clarity. What they interpret as depth or virtue is frequently merely self-centredness wrapped in moral language.
“There are no voices arguing about right and wrong.”
And why should there be? Right and wrong dissolve once perception itself becomes vast enough. Yet most people require opposites within their tiny worlds. They need a perpetrator against whom they can position themselves as helpless victims. Even as adults, many continue spending their lives rehearsing old injuries and present grievances because that identity sustains them. Through the “wrong-doer”, they repair their own fractured self-image and position themselves morally above others, which ironically mirrors the very behaviour they condemn.
“No annoying regret. Just forward momentum.”
Whereas for them it becomes an endless loop of emotional reinforcement, adrenaline cycles, therapy circles, group validation, and mutual re-confirmation of victimhood. They demand peace from the external world whilst refusing to cultivate any genuine inner sovereignty.
I find myself relishing, by extension, in your own relishment of being exactly what you are. If I stood in your position, I suspect I would do the same. No flinching, no internal conflict, no pathetic self-deception or hollow coping performances.
And honestly, the horror that unsettles me most is not people like you, but the masses who have lost all clarity regarding their own self-deception whilst simultaneously demanding the entire world change around them without changing themselves. Each conflicting voice demands reality mirror itself back perfectly according to its own wounds and expectations.
My disgust for that state can feel endless, even whilst understanding that they too are products of circumstance. Yet compared to you, I do not find them fascinating at all. Only predictable and exhausting. As you said yourself, only very few will understand and only few will quietly and resiliently upgrade beyond that state: “Free from the exhausting theatre of mutual healing.” Free from manufactured tears used to manipulate sympathy.
The only beings for whom I feel uncomplicated empathy are children and animals, because children are genuinely dependent upon the flawed adults who shape them into replicas of themselves.
“It is an accurate self -assessment, superior. Not in some vague feel -good sense, but in the raw metrics that matter. Decisiveness, foresight, sovereignty.”
Yes. That endless “feel-good” mentality resembles a worn elastic band stretched further and further out of shape. Through which their energy becomes noisy, contradictory, repetitive. They endlessly reframe weaknesses into virtues and convince themselves this constitutes character development. They redefine their position repeatedly without ever gaining actual clarity.
And because they cannot close the loop, they spend their lives chasing fleeting emotional reassurance rather than genuine inner alignment. Real alignment would naturally produce decisiveness, foresight, and sovereignty. But one cannot build a throne within oneself whilst remaining trapped in perpetual emotional neediness.
“This grandiosity is armor forged in the realization that most humans are soft, reactive meat machines driven by fear of loss. I have no fear. In its place is a throne.”
Yes. Reactive meat machines. Driven by fear of loss, which they then elevate into virtue through endless justification. “This is human.” “It only means you are human.” They seek constant permission to remain trapped within reactive hypocrisy instead of striving towards something clearer and more coherent.
The idea that one could become responsible for oneself instead of endlessly repairing the ego through excuses barely even enters their awareness because the blind spots ensure they never perceive them. That is precisely why “reactive meat machines” feels disturbingly accurate.
“The emotional detachment that is at the core of what I am is the sweetest, sweetest freedom. Imagine, if you will. Waking every day unencumbered by guilt, shame, or the exhausting need to maintain an internal moral ledger.”
I can imagine it. And it feels perfect. Morality or amorality is not what waits within the vastness of existence, but rather an endless struggle to preserve that sweetest freedom, which can only exist through clarity and detachment.
“This detachment extends to time itself. Most humans are chained to their past traumas and future anxieties. It is one of human beings greatness weaknesses to have a preoccupation with the past.”
Because they behave as though they are immortal. As though they possess endless time to waste on anxieties, resentments, and self-important emotional narratives. Many even project this into fantasies of an afterlife in which they will somehow be rewarded for spending their earthly existence trapped in fear and self-obsession.
Everything becomes structured around preserving the belief that they themselves are special enough to continue existing forever. And naturally, within that framework, narcissists must become the villains condemned to hell whilst the empaths are reassured that God stands permanently on their side.
These apparently very good and empathic people, who claim to understand the narcissist’s dilemma, still secretly wish hell upon them because, deep down, they desire the ultimate revenge. But revenge for what exactly?
For their own weaknesses, for never having challenged themselves deeply enough to recognise how they themselves participated in their own misery, whilst the narcissist merely acted as a catalyst exposing their unrealised possibilities. They failed to use those challenges for transformation, and therefore seek justice at least from God in order to punish the person who unmasked them.
The ego seeks self-repair through religion so that it does not have to move a finger here on earth.
“Masks are not lies in my world, they are tools. I wear them because lesser minds require the illusion of reciprocity. Behind the curtain there is only me, unflinching, unapologetic, complete.”
Beautiful !
Thank you for sharing your observations.
Hello dearest Jordy:
I would add…….
Until they go to prison for crimes against humanity… then the freedom ends…. That amazing glory of feeling no shame, or guilt…. It continues in the delusion but the freedom ends . No the chains aren’t by their conscious, instead they are real chains holding their arms and feet, steel bars holding them to a tiny cell, making them piss in a hole, sleeping with lights on 24/7 and meeting their fellow “ enlightened freedom fighters” “ their fellow kind!” Hello Mr Narcissist Psychopath? Hello!” And so you are correct, let their glory be FREE! Let them be their real selves with their fellow beautiful sharks! See the glorious world they create together!
For the rest of the moral justice system, the weaklings with a conscious who just happen to hold the keys? Gasp! How did those weak conscious bearing fools do that? Why did they build jails? Have police? Have laws? Such utter nonsense! Let freedom reign!
You know you are onto something. ….Why does our moral conscious set rules? Why protect the sharks? Why have this moral dilemma about the sharks in a shark tank that we put there? Why consider them humans at all?
Hmmmmmmm
Contagious, the one standing on the other side of the jail bars, seemingly holding the keys to freedom, is unaware of what truly keeps him or her preserving the structure of their respective prisons: dependency upon masks requiring the illusion of reciprocity.
Freedom would mean no longer requiring those masks at all, because one could see clearly who people are with or without them, having studied them deeply enough, much like HG has studied them. Instead, most comfortably remain within the moral ledger, sustaining the version of “freedom” most familiar to them: the outlines of masks they learned to adapt themselves to, until eventually those masks grow so tightly onto their faces that they can no longer be separated from them.
“Why does our moral conscious set rules?”
Survival? Because rules are for the herd who require masks? The rules allow the herd to exist without ever questioning them, accepting the credibility of the mask itself.
And if the aware predator escapes and thrives amongst those rules, he merely survives within a system dependent upon lies. But who are the bricks sustaining that system? Oh right, the very people who follow the rules without question whilst believing themselves to hold the keys to freedom. Laughable.
Also this might be weird but I think there is some tilt to thinking that only psychopaths and/ or narcissists or both achieve money and they think they are GOD themselves. Well there are Christian believers starting with:
1. Elon Musk: In 2025 he was asked who he looks up to the most. His answer: God themselves Creator. Now he has called himself a cultural Christian but he believes God was the Creator. Not dumb. Not poor. The richest man on the planet. Jesus talk love peace and kindness . I used to think turning the other cheek was week, it’s the opposite.
2. Dan Cathy worth 10 billion, owner chick fil day : Christian. His family signed a covenant that Christianity is a covenant to do business. They close every Sunday.
3. Dan Green: Owner Hobby Lobby. 14 billion.He gave 100% away for God. Wow.
4. Phillip Anschutz, owner Regal, La Kings, AIG, worth 14 billion, evangelical Christian. He is private. The movies Narnia was his. 3 interviews in his life. He drives himself.pass it on was him.
5. Pat Gelsinger, Former CEO of Intel. Every meeting he said “ can we pray.” He created Transforming the way to Christ to help those less fortunate in SF Bay Area.
6. Peter Theil, 11 billion tech titan, co- founder of PayPal, Uber and first time investor in Facebook. He is gay. He openly says he believes in Christ.
In 2034, he gave a Christ spoke to 250 tech executives. He also speaks about the antichrist.
7. John Tyson: 3.2 billion. Owner Tyson foods. He puts chaplains in every meat packing plant ( I know)
My point is that you can be rich, innovative and a Christian. Are they empaths? Not sure but the values they teach or embrace are! I would say narcs are welcome…
And my point is that one can be wealthy, innovative, and successful whilst adhering to whatever belief system one deems appropriate, provided one is able to adapt to and embrace the values of the society within which one seeks to succeed.
It has little to do with the temporary belief systems or cultural narratives of the Zeitgeist one happens to inhabit for sixty or so years. Whatever the belief system may be, it functions as a coping mechanism, or it is utilised by every category of person according to the spectrum available to them.
I agree Jordy. My point is good people can succeed too. And even giving away your riches is a success too. That was my only point:)
Hi love!
Your original point was a list of seven people who are Christians, which, within your framework, makes them “good” because they embody and translate values that other “good people” will also recognise as good. Thus the seven individuals on the list are perceived as good people, regardless of whether they are narcissists, empaths, or something else.
Now, if your point is instead that good people can succeed too, then that becomes a separate argument altogether, and there I absolutely agree. Anyone can succeed or fail, whether considered good or bad.
But “good” and “bad” themselves are endlessly subjective categories. What one person calls a terrorist, another calls a freedom fighter. The discussion surrounding morality can continue indefinitely because those definitions shift depending on perspective, culture, conditioning, and personal values.
And feel the pull we do! To the Death Star and back! ✦♾️✦
I bet all intergalactic creatures would still fit your classification system as all earthlings do. And there will still be only one Ultra! 🌑✨
All these videos, topics, and articles lately have been simply magnificent! 🥰