I want to be a neo-rat! Great post with lots of interesting ideas. I'm going to think about some of them and get back to you.
Stunning.
Remarkable, elegant, and concise, Doctor. Plus, it synthesizes my own observations of the last 40 years. Masterful!
The fact is that the human brain is predisposed psychologically to "believe in" something greater and outside of itself and that is human nature. That fundamental truth will not go away because some demand complete rationality from people at all times. It ain't gonna happen, folks. Total and complete rationality 24/7 just ain't human nature.
This is either sorely mistaken or if done on purpose, sorely dishonest.
First of all, when you speak of the 'human brain', I'm assuming you're talking about the human 'mind'. I don't think the brain per se, is reachable through psychology, perhaps biology, but whatever.
When you're trying to determine how your mind works, through simple introspection, you quickly discover that the thing is under your complete control, it operates on your own volition.
Take an example. Supose that you decide one day that every time you see the number three, you will purposefully substitute the number four. Then supose that you decide to build a birdhouse. You quickly discover that using your substitution, your birdhouse is nothing more than a pile of boards.
This example illustrates the need for truthful data, in your mind, and in the external world of birdhouses and skyscrapers.
Now that you discover the need for good mental data, you next ax yourself, what method shall I use to operate my volitional mind?
If you're religious, you chose devine revelation, if you are not, and you want good birdhouses, you chose reason, logic, and introspective observation.
Reason, as perhaps the good doctor wishes, is not automatic.
Your mind is under your own control, 24/7. And you can at any time chose reason, or not.
So when you hear, the good 'doc' say, "Total and complete rationality 24/7 just ain't human nature.",
you must simply smile and think, 'Speak for yourself...'.
Sorry anonymous, people frequently feel compelled to do things at a subconscious level that is not fully under the control of the rational mind. Addiction, sexual attraction, obsession, even interest are not completely under the control of your rational mind.
The fact is that at a biological level, there are numerous forces happening at the hardware level, driven by dozens of different hormones and neurotransmitters.
Addiction to substances such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs has been shown to have deep roots in brain chemistry.
Keep dreaming. Your brain is not a computer. None of us has all the free will we suppose.
You are definitely on to something here. I believe it was Aldous Huxley who said that science proceeds by the reduction of multiplicity to unity.
They same can be said for our minds. Maturity largely consists of synthesizing the various parts of ourselves into a higher unity, while pathology clearly involves fragmentation and dispersal.
Much depends on the meaning of One, for there is a good, "complex" One of synthesis and unity, and a "simple" bad one of rigid repression and conformity. I don't know if ths post is relevant or not:
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/20...-false-
god.html
Very intriguing! You’ve encouraged me to read more about this topic.
I agree. Facinating discussion.
Fascinating discussion Dr. Sanity.
I have for many years been fascinated with this subject, but everything I have found and read seems to focus on characteristics rather than cause. I think you are on to something here.
Not being a psychologist, I'm still trying to get my thinking straight on the Grandiose Self and Idealized Object concepts, and I certainly need to go back and re-read your earlier posts, but blogs being what they are, I feel the need to post quickly before the subject is gone.
My curiosity is mainly political, because I have always pondered the question of “Why is it that almost ~50% vote Democrat, and ~50% vote Republican, usually within a 10% variance either way? Why are we divided like this? Your theory seems to address that better than any other I have found.
Question One
First of all, let’s assume most people are fairly normal, and fall within the Cohesive Self category, but still “lean” one way or the other, without it being a mental disorder. On a scale of:
Grandiose Self …………… Neutral …………………… Idealized Object
……………100…………………………………0…………………………………………………100……………
Don’t you think most people would fall into an acceptable range of “normal” say around 80 either way?*
Question Two
Would it be possible to create a questionnaire to determine where one falls within the scale? The reason I ask why it would be possible, is that once a person is above say, 50%, they lie. They see themselves as something other than what they are, and therefore cannot answer in a truthful manner. It would have to be a very tricky questionnaire, devised to detect deception. And who is supposed to compose the questions? How can we determine a completely neutral person who will create an unbiased questionnaire?
We’ve all seen polls by the alphabet news that are manipulated by the way in which the question is asked.
Question Three
Although it may be that I just have a very amateur understanding of your chart, I just see some things that don’t add up in my opinion. I am on the right, and a person I know very intimately, and have had much communication with, is on the left. There are a few categories that seem reversed. Probably just my ignorance, but I would really like to understand why I think that.
In looking at the chart, I think I see a pattern by column except for the "Politics" row. To me anyway, the "Socialism" part goes better with everything else in the "Grandiose Self", and "Anarchy" (but not "Thugocracy") is better with the items in the "Idealized Object" column. Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but I think of Socialism in both the National and Communist senses (after all, this is the "Politics" row); or do you mean more in the need-to-be-part-of-society sense? Or something else?
utopianists all think that the best outcomes are schieved by following what an elite thinks is best.
that elite mught be harvard economists, or yale lawyers, or mullahs, or party leaders.
what unites these people is their fundamental distrust of the marketplace - which is aftyer all just a euphemism for individuals making up their own minds for themselves.
these elitists donlt belive in the "wisodom of crowds" or diistributed intelligence.
they believe that marketplaces are bad and individuals selfish and tohether that their unfair.
fair is an outcome that jibes with their worldview, their utopia.
i do not think that people who oput their FAITH in utopianist/statist/elitist juntas are fundamentally narcissistic or necessarily narcissistic.
but they do have less faith in their fellow humans and in the universality of humanity than those who do believe in democracy and free markets.
the utopianist want outcomes based on their preconceived notions of justice.
free marketeers belive that outcomes under conditions which ar free are intrinsically just.
this is IMHO not a primarily emotional or psychological polarity, but one based on acculturation and brainwashing.
most children raised by utopianists - whether they are marxists or marcussian or binladenesque - grow up to become utopianists.
it is difficult to break free. first because one is INUNDATED with it. and second, one is ostracized if one breaks free.
i know: i was raised by commies.
utopianists must be fought in the academy and in the media. because people need to be DEPROGRAMMED, and not psychoanalyzed.
LUVYA!
btw: the table is fascinating, but my experience with peoiple indicates that NO ONE is all one column or another. but mixes of all three and not consitnetly either.
my main point is that deprogramming requires fighting the utopianistic elitist statists with logic, facts and effective policies, and not understanding their psychology, the reasons they feel the way they do, etc.
all the best!
Being an Erikson man, I think your chart dovetails nicely with his '8 stages of psychosocial crises' theory.
As per usual, nice work Doc.
You have a very sharp analytical mind!
really enjoyed reading this. I actually did something that came to a similar conclusion, working from an evolutionary epistemological basis.
My background: BS degrees in Psychology and Sociology, and was halfway to my Masters in Psychology when I switched to law school, obtained my JD, and spent the next 15 years practicing law. I am astounded by the sheer number of persons with varying personality disorders in varying degrees of severity that I have personally had to deal with. These people are in constant contact with the criminal justice system and the legal system generally.
Your presentation here is tour-de-force, a Viktor Frankl-like search for meaning amongst the social rubble wrought by sociopathy.
Regarding leftists, I thought Noam Chomsky's mission to Hizbullah illustrated this post nicely.
DOC!? What, "They're all friggin' nuts!" was too simple for you?!?
(8oD
anonymous: How does one fit dreams into your insistence that the mind is rational or under your control 24/7?
Uneducated comment: I have wondered if utopianists 1) replace "God" with self, as they claim to be rational and disbelieve myth, then replace a "God"-oriented system of justice with their own opinions/beliefs/reality system. 2) Thus provide themselves a sense of security of an environment they define, if only the rest of us could see it. We are deluded, if not malevolent. Some of the emotion seems to arise because the "deluded" don't just challenge the utopian rationale, but threaten the perceived safety of their definitions.
It has always seemed very grandiose to me to be so sure one knows how everything ought to be, and what needs to be done to reach that state.
The "grandiose self" and the "idealized object" are so much opposites as they are different aspects of the same thing (why I call them flip sides of a coin). Most of those with a defect in their "self" flip-flop between the two. Utopians not only feel the awe in contemplating their ideal; they are prone to narcissistic rage. The dictator (the epitome of an unrestrained grandiose self) not only experiences narcissistic rage; but often has mystical experiences (i.e., Ahmadinejad's belief that he was surrounded by a halo/aura that struck the people at the UN speechless during his address there). When the self is not integrated, the each pole is free to express itself without the mitigating effect of the other.
Having once worked as a law clerk at the Wayne County Circuit Court, Criminal Division, I can say from experience, that very, very, very few of the defendants suffered from low self-esteem. Actually, a few inhibitions would have been nice to have seen.
I share your admiration for Kohut's ideas and Jayne's thesis on the breakdown of the bicameral mind. I can see manifestations of the Narcissistic Rage and Awe among people I know.
I wonder how much these descriptions explain non-Western cultures.
Do girls who will be married off at 13, who are hidden from view after 6, who are prisoners of the male members of the household really ever experience anything like the grandiose self or its integration with the idealized object? My guess is no.
Perhaps that explains the mothers who are glad to see their sons commit suicide.
On the boys side, they're taught to idealize their mothers, but to fear/hate/denigrate women's (sexual) power.
Do you think it's possible that some cultures have not quite come to the breakdown of the bicameral mind? It's easy to talk the talk. But the emergence of consciouness didn't happen overnight and then stop fully emerged. There's a trajectory that has moved through what we now call Western civilization that has not been seen in many non-Western cultures. St Paul, Augustine, Jung, Kohut. All asked serious questions about the nature of consciousness and what that asks/demands of us as human beings.
Just thinking out loud.
Cheers and thanks for your interesting articles. They're very thought provoking.
"The 'grandiose self' and the 'idealized object' are so much opposites as they are different aspects of the same thing (why I call them flip sides of a coin)."
Hmm, reminds me of this ancient gem:
"... two vices, one on the side of excess, the other on the side of deficiency ... while these vices fall short of or exceed the due measure in feeling and in action, [virtue] finds and chooses the mean ..."
Aristotle, [I]Nicomachean Ethics[/I]
hmmmm I think narcissism is a great protective mechanism. You might annoy the heck out of other people but you will be so convinced you are right that it will be water off a duck's back 
Oy, personality theory - the stuff drives me nuts! But consider the gloomy side. The 'by any means necessary' approach to life has now been acculturated, and indeed, now constitutes a requirement for success in the workplace, to the extent that training seminars and classes with titles like 'Methods of Manipulation For People With Difficult Personalities', are now standard for all aspiring havetobes. Yeech!!!!!
Greg G says “In looking at the chart, I think I see a pattern by column except for the "Politics" row. To me anyway, the "Socialism" part goes better with everything else in the "Grandiose Self", and "Anarchy" (but not "Thugocracy") is better with the items in the "Idealized Object" column. Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but I think of Socialism in both the National and Communist senses (after all, this is the "Politics" row); or do you mean more in the need-to-be-part-of-society sense? Or something else?”
Greg: I have to disagree. I think the good doc has this one correct. In an extreme form of narcissism where the grandiose self is dominant, a state of anarchy or a warlord controlled society – even feudalism and monarchism -- seems apt. It describes Hume’s state of nature very well. Socialism/Communism, at least in their pure ideological form are utopian visions of everyone working together for the common good and sharing a common value system that defines the common good. (We all know however, that socialism and communism tend to deny real human nature, which is why they fail in practice.)
However, doc, I think the colum on metaphysics is off. If you read Marx, you will find reference to a “materialist dialectic,” and if you listen to the real lefties, they argue for the destruction of religion and support an extreme form of existential atheism that Sartre would recognize. There is a sense of “thrownness” that they espouse. There is nothing beyond what one can experience through the senses. However, the interpretation of what one experiences is highly subjective. It is a question of ontology: Since all one can know is what is experienced through the senses, one cannot experience reality directly. Therefore, all that one knows is subjective. There can be no objective knowledge of reality, hence one person’s interpretation is as good as another. In the extreme version of this philosophy, for each individual, they themselves are the ultimate truth, since they have no way of experiencing others’s subjective realities, theose others amy or may not be merely figments of the subjective self’s imagination. Subjective perceptions of the material world are elevated, while the truly spiritual is denied.
The flaw, I think lies in Gagdad Bob’s characterization of what constitutes the vertical and what constitutes the horizontal. While Bob’s writing are a good jumping off point for this discussion, and clearly spurred your ideation, his characterization is flawed and should not constitute a serious element of your table.
Perhaps a better characterization of the metaphysics would be one in which the grandiose self is represented by philosophies of anthropocentric utilitarianism and the idealized other is closer to nihilism/existentialism, with a range of philosophies in between. (I’m a little rusty on my philosophers.) The point is that the application of the metaphysics of either extreme leads to tyranny and oppression or anarchy and misery. The idealized object seeks reunion of all with that idealized other: perfect and absolute unity. The grandiose self seeks dominance of the self over all. Both can claim appeal to a the divine or to a higher purpose. Both may be characterized as having both vertical (spiritual, subjective) and horizontal (material, objective) components.
Additionally, I would also urge a rethinking of the Epistemology Cognitive row. The grandiose self would likely not argue from a position of reason or scientific knowledge, but rather from an authoritarian position with the grandiose self as the authority.
With this change, one can see how monarchism ("divine right of kings") and its antecedant, the rule of priest-kings falls into this column of the table. With this change and the change elucidated in my earlier post, Doc, you might have a very workable model.
I was with you until you reached the "Metaphysics" row.
There is only one OBJECTIVE reality and to propose a mixture leans decidedly towards the subjective. Swap the middle column to the right, and the left column to the center and you're dead-on correct.
Pardon earlier!
Correction: Swap the center column to the left and the left column to the center.
Hey, maybe you're not as stupid as I thought. At first I thought you were an overachieving daddies' girl engaging in divisive politics in order to reconcile your ego. Which made me think you were probably a terrible psychiatrist. But you do have a transcendent quality although barely perceptible.
I would add there are a thousand right ways to approach an answer.
The Radical Centrist
Commenting by HaloScan.com
