Reading a section of The Sociopath Next Door got me thinking about some of the issues mentioned on this thread. I tend to look at people in mostly general accepting terms since we’re all human and in many ways we may develop unique and individual beliefs, values, habits, behaviors but in similar processes.
In my quest for answers, therapies and perhaps some closure post-cult involvement, how someone can act in an unconscionable way continues to elude me. It is something I cannot relate to – I have no experiential context that might explain it. I manage to analyze stuff by either breaking it down to nuts and bolts, its essential elements and the function or purpose that it appears to be intended for.
My fuzzy two-bit psychological theory is that the main function of the conscience is a type of limit switch sensor. In electrical engineering, a limit switch sensor is operated by the motion of a machine part or the presence of an object – for controlling a system or as a safety interlock. You walk up to an exit or entrance of a store and the door magically opens. You press the button to close the overhead garage door and midway down it abruptly stops because the dog just ran into the garage from the outside. These preset limits determine what may or may not pass – focusing or restricting performance. For want of a better analogy I think that’s the way the conscience works – and along with another elusive ‘gizmo’, intuition (whatever that is) – internal stuff I’ve learned to pay more attention to…anyway…here’s some excerpts from The Sociopath Next Door:
begin excerpt
“…As a therapist, I specialize in the treatment of psychological trauma survivors. Over the last twenty-five years, my practice has included hundreds of adults who have been in psychological pain every day of their lives on account of early childhood abuse or some other horrendous past experience. As I have detailed in case studies in The Myth of Sanity, my trauma patients suffer from a host of torments, including chronic anxiety, incapacitating depression, and dissociative mental states, and, feeling that their time on earth was unbearable, many of them have come to me after recovering from attempts to commit suicide.
Some have been traumatized by natural and man-made disasters such as earthquakes and wars, but most of them have been controlled and psychologically shattered by individual human perpetrators, often sociopaths – sometimes sociopathic strangers, but more typically sociopathic parents, older relatives, or siblings…
…About one in twenty-five individuals are sociopathic, meaning, essentially, that they do not have a conscience.
It is not that this group fails to grasp the difference between good and bad; it is that the distinction fails to limit their behavior.
The intellectual difference between right and wrong does not bring on the emotional sirens and flashing blue lights, or the fear of God, that it does for the rest of us.
Without the slightest blip of guilt or remorse, one in twenty-five people can do anything at all.”
Martha Stout, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in private practice, served on the faculty in psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School for twenty-five years. She is also the author of "The Myth of Sanity" and "The Paranoia Switch." She lives on Cape Ann in Massachusetts.
Following up with some more of Martha Stout’s The Sociopath Next Door:
She mentions other psychiatric diagnoses - including narcissism - involve some amount of personal pain or misery for the individuals who suffer from them. Sociopathy stands alone as a “disease” that causes no ‘dis-ease’ for the person who has it. Stout says sociopaths are often quite satisfied with themselves and their lives.
Singular in its ability to unnerve even seasoned professionals, the concept of sociopathy comes perilously close to our notions of the soul, of evil versus good - and this association makes the topic difficult to think about clearly.
Another thing Stout addresses is the idea thatsociopaths may believe they have an advantage. More than one sociopath has implied that conscience is simply a psychological corral for the masses. Most of us have had experiences in which someone unscrupulous has won,and having integrity begins to feel like we are playing the fool.
When someone makes a truly unconscionable choice, all we can come up with are explanations that come nowhere near the truth…what is possibly the single most meaningful characteristic that divides the human species- the presence or absence of conscience - we remain effectively oblivious.
And even after we have learned the label for it, being devoid of a conscience is impossible for most human beings to imagine - probably no other experience so eludes empathy.
We can imagine total blindness (we have all been lost in the dark), clinical depression (we’ve all experienced some great loss). But NOT to care at allabout the impact of our actions on society, friends, family - our children - what on earth would thatbe like? We have no past experiences to inform us - no reference point we can relate to. Absolute guiltlessness defies the imagination.
I understand that dehumanization is a thing. SS soldiers gassing millions of Europeans first had to stop thinking of them as humans. That was easier when they were one thing, like Jews or gypsies, but less easy when they looked at all the other prisoners who were neither.
So, the SS thought of specific people as less than human, so it was all right to mistreat them or kill them- in fact, they didn't see that as "mistreatment" or "murder". It's a little like how one can downgrade plagiarism and label it a virtue, or announce everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and inferior.
For the sociopath/psychopath, it is as if all of humanity- except only themselves- are dehumanized. They don't see people as people, they see people as resources, things. EVERYBODY. That's as far as I can get. I know they do it, but I can't empathize with it.
Following up with some more of Martha Stout’s The Sociopath Next Door:
5 hours ago, WordWolf said:
I understand that dehumanization is a thing.
I realize Im making a rather obvious connection, but, perhaps dehuminization was the reason those who fell out of favor with wierwille, or other directors, in the way international were labaled posessed...or cop outs...or whatever....but those labels typically followed the bums rush in my experience
I understand that dehumanization is a thing. SS soldiers gassing millions of Europeans first had to stop thinking of them as humans. That was easier when they were one thing, like Jews or gypsies, but less easy when they looked at all the other prisoners who were neither.
So, the SS thought of specific people as less than human, so it was all right to mistreat them or kill them- in fact, they didn't see that as "mistreatment" or "murder". It's a little like how one can downgrade plagiarism and label it a virtue, or announce everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and inferior.
For the sociopath/psychopath, it is as if all of humanity- except only themselves- are dehumanized. They don't see people as people, they see people as resources, things. EVERYBODY. That's as far as I can get. I know they do it, but I can't empathize with it.
I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was noteworthy he pushed that ideology into himself.
It reminds me of collaterals or retemories . . . renewing one's mind . . . it's a continual practice to subdue oneself and actively participate in your own dissociation.
With personality disorders, like antisocial personality disorder (sociopath), it's as if there is no self to subdue. The commands come from within, not from the outside. Hitler I've heard was likely a borderline.
I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was noteworthy he pushed that ideology into himself.
It reminds me of collaterals or retemories . . . renewing one's mind . . . it's a continual practice to subdue oneself and actively participate in your own dissociation.
With personality disorders, like antisocial personality disorder (sociopath), it's as if there is no self to subdue. The commands come from within, not from the outside. Hitler I've heard was likely a borderline.
Piaget explained that egocentrism during infancy does not meanselfishness, self-centeredness, oregotismbecause it refers to the infant's understanding of the world in terms of their own motor activity as well as an inability to understand it.[10]In children's social development, the infancy is the period where the individual performs very few social functions due to theconsciousandsubconsciousconcern with the fulfillment ofphysical needs.[11]
At some point each mind has to decide they are a separate entity from the rest of the matter in the universe. Don't they? Interesting we just assume we each are individuals in the first place.
Quote
Egocentrismis the inability to differentiate between self and other. More specifically, it is the inability to accurately assume or understand any perspective other than one's own.[1]Egocentrism is found across the life span: ininfancy,[2]early childhood,[3][4]adolescence,[5]andadulthood.[3][6]Although egocentric behaviors are less prominent in adulthood, the existence of some forms of egocentrism in adulthood indicates that overcoming egocentrism may be a lifelong development that never achieves completion.[7]Adults appear to be less egocentric than children because they are faster to correct from an initially egocentric perspective than children, not because they are less likely to initially adopt an egocentric perspective.[3]
"Body of Christ", "being of one accord", "like-minded" . . . renewing one's mind to the borg mindset?
A narcissist is a person truncated in early development, the self is ossified, the universe is a threatening mother. With all that fear there's no time to think of others.
. . . But as believers . . . we have no fear . . .
At some point each mind has to decide they are a separate entity from the rest of the matter in the universe. Don't they? Interesting we just assume we each are individuals in the first place.
"Body of Christ", "being of one accord", "like-minded" . . . renewing one's mind to the borg mindset?
A narcissist is a person truncated in early development, the self is ossified, the universe is a threatening mother. With all that fear there's no time to think of others.
. . . But as believers . . . we have no fear . . .
More interesting stuff Bolshevik! Thanks!
Your post got me thinking sideways- so I Googled “fear of losing yourself in a relationship” and all the hits I got were about a one-to-one relationship – i.e., couples…But your post got my processor going toward a wider application – comparing involvement in unhealthy groups (harmful and controlling cults, toxic work environments, etc.) with participation in healthy groups (any group that is beneficial to all - no one is exploited or subjugated )…
...I found this one article in Psychology Today, How We Lose Ourselves in Relationships - We can lose ourselves in the name of love or peace, but pay the highest price- posted October 3, 2020 by Darlene Lancer, JD, MFT, licensed marriage and family therapist and an expert and author on relationships and codependency…
I found some of this stuff resonates with my cult experience – when Lancer speaks of romance, I thought of the love-bombing and honeymoon phase of my early years with TWI…and how I sacrificed my personal and professional goals for TWI’s priorities…and when she gets into healthy relationships, boundaries are stated openly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness…anyway I thought it was a good article – here are some excerpts from it – enjoy:
Whether you feel lost in a relationship or are afraid to start one, we can easily sacrifice our individuality in relationships with narcissists and abusers. They usually insist on dominating, that their needs come first and that they are right. Women especially tend to lose themselves in relationships due to cultural conditioning. In fact, even in good relationships, we may do this out of love, not fear. We compromise ourselves slowly often in imperceptible ways, unaware that losing our Self risks our greatest despair. After a breakup, it’s devastating, because we are lost. If we stay, we risk becoming empty shells, feeling powerless and anxious or depressed.
Often there are power struggles, characterized by repeated, unresolved arguments, either about a single recurring issue or numerous trivial things. Many of them boil down to the question of who has control, whose needs will be met, or how intimate they will be…
How We Lose Ourselves
We lose ourselves incrementally in small ways. It can start with romance, when it’s normal to want to please our loved one and spend much of our time together. However, emotionally mature adults don’t drop their activities, give up their lives (they have a life), or overlook improper behavior of their partner, despite strong physical attraction. Neither are they desperate to have or maintain a relationship…
Stages of Losing Ourselves
Many people do fine on their own, but once in a relationship, they start losing their autonomy, not make waves, and be with and please their partner. When there is “chemistry,” they overlook negative indicators that might be a warning not to get involved. Feel-good chemicals in our brain start to alleviate our emptiness, so that we want more of that drug. We don’t want to lose these happy feelings. If we're unhappy being alone, we're more vulnerable to hold on.
Hence, we become increasingly preoccupied with and dependent upon our loved ones. We see less of our friends and may drop our routine to spend time together. For women more than men, often our work and professional goals take second place to the relationship.
The desire to please can lead to obsession. Our need for connection can create denial about our partner’s behavior and makes us doubt our own perceptions. Boundaries become blurred so that we start to accept our partner's point of view.
If our partner is abusive, our self-doubt grows and our self-esteem shrinks. We don’t say “no” or set limits on what we’re willing to do or what we’re willing to accept from our partner. Not only that, but confusion also arises between what our partner feels and our own feelings. We feel responsible for their feelings, too, especially if we're being blamed. If he’s sad, then I’m sad, too–as the Barry Manilow song goes. If she’s disappointed or angry, it must be my fault…
…Healthy Relationships
Healthy relationships are interdependent. There is give and take, respect for each other’s needs and feelings, and are able to settle conflict through authentic communication. Decisions and problem-solving are collaborative. Assertiveness is key. Negotiations are not a zero-sum game. Boundaries are expressed directly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness. Vulnerability actually makes us stronger, not weaker. In fact, we can be more intimate and vulnerable when our autonomy and boundaries are intact and respected.
Both partners feel secure. They want to maintain their relationship and allow for each other’s separateness and independence, and aren’t threatened by their partner’s autonomy. Thus the relationship supports our independence and gives us more courage to explore our talents and growth.
Recovery
Fortunately, we can recover our lost self. We can escape a narcissist-codependent trap. First, stop focusing on changing your partner. Change begins within. We can waste years lost in this denial. Yet, when we change, often our partner changes in response to our new behavior. Either way, we will feel better and stronger because we've grown in self-respect…
Your post got me thinking sideways- so I Googled “fear of losing yourself in a relationship” and all the hits I got were about a one-to-one relationship – i.e., couples…But your post got my processor going toward a wider application – comparing involvement in unhealthy groups (harmful and controlling cults, toxic work environments, etc.) with participation in healthy groups (any group that is beneficial to all - no one is exploited or subjugated )…
...I found this one article in Psychology Today, How We Lose Ourselves in Relationships - We can lose ourselves in the name of love or peace, but pay the highest price- posted October 3, 2020 by Darlene Lancer, JD, MFT, licensed marriage and family therapist and an expert and author on relationships and codependency…
I found some of this stuff resonates with my cult experience – when Lancer speaks of romance, I thought of the love-bombing and honeymoon phase of my early years with TWI…and how I sacrificed my personal and professional goals for TWI’s priorities…and when she gets into healthy relationships, boundaries are stated openly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness…anyway I thought it was a good article – here are some excerpts from it – enjoy:
Whether you feel lost in a relationship or are afraid to start one, we can easily sacrifice our individuality in relationships with narcissists and abusers. They usually insist on dominating, that their needs come first and that they are right. Women especially tend to lose themselves in relationships due to cultural conditioning. In fact, even in good relationships, we may do this out of love, not fear. We compromise ourselves slowly often in imperceptible ways, unaware that losing our Self risks our greatest despair. After a breakup, it’s devastating, because we are lost. If we stay, we risk becoming empty shells, feeling powerless and anxious or depressed.
Often there are power struggles, characterized by repeated, unresolved arguments, either about a single recurring issue or numerous trivial things. Many of them boil down to the question of who has control, whose needs will be met, or how intimate they will be…
How We Lose Ourselves
We lose ourselves incrementally in small ways. It can start with romance, when it’s normal to want to please our loved one and spend much of our time together. However, emotionally mature adults don’t drop their activities, give up their lives (they have a life), or overlook improper behavior of their partner, despite strong physical attraction. Neither are they desperate to have or maintain a relationship…
Stages of Losing Ourselves
Many people do fine on their own, but once in a relationship, they start losing their autonomy, not make waves, and be with and please their partner. When there is “chemistry,” they overlook negative indicators that might be a warning not to get involved. Feel-good chemicals in our brain start to alleviate our emptiness, so that we want more of that drug. We don’t want to lose these happy feelings. If we're unhappy being alone, we're more vulnerable to hold on.
Hence, we become increasingly preoccupied with and dependent upon our loved ones. We see less of our friends and may drop our routine to spend time together. For women more than men, often our work and professional goals take second place to the relationship.
The desire to please can lead to obsession. Our need for connection can create denial about our partner’s behavior and makes us doubt our own perceptions. Boundaries become blurred so that we start to accept our partner's point of view.
If our partner is abusive, our self-doubt grows and our self-esteem shrinks. We don’t say “no” or set limits on what we’re willing to do or what we’re willing to accept from our partner. Not only that, but confusion also arises between what our partner feels and our own feelings. We feel responsible for their feelings, too, especially if we're being blamed. If he’s sad, then I’m sad, too–as the Barry Manilow song goes. If she’s disappointed or angry, it must be my fault…
…Healthy Relationships
Healthy relationships are interdependent. There is give and take, respect for each other’s needs and feelings, and are able to settle conflict through authentic communication. Decisions and problem-solving are collaborative. Assertiveness is key. Negotiations are not a zero-sum game. Boundaries are expressed directly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness. Vulnerability actually makes us stronger, not weaker. In fact, we can be more intimate and vulnerable when our autonomy and boundaries are intact and respected.
Both partners feel secure. They want to maintain their relationship and allow for each other’s separateness and independence, and aren’t threatened by their partner’s autonomy. Thus the relationship supports our independence and gives us more courage to explore our talents and growth.
Recovery
Fortunately, we can recover our lost self. We can escape a narcissist-codependent trap. First, stop focusing on changing your partner. Change begins within. We can waste years lost in this denial. Yet, when we change, often our partner changes in response to our new behavior. Either way, we will feel better and stronger because we've grown in self-respect…
Kids are born, and then as Piaget pointed out in your link, kids talk out loud to themselves . . . so there's a conversation going on in some form . . . within ourselves.
When does life begin? When do we first converse with ourselves? . . . (I don't know) . . . but the concept of the individual shouldn't be assumed or taken for granted. I'm not you and you're not me and we each came to that conclusion independently. (I'm assuming ) Boundaries there could be agreed upon implicitly or explicitly.
Using Jiminy Cricket as a metaphor for our conscience, we can develop a strong conversation or a weak one, a strong bond with our own conscience, or a weak one. . . . . There's some work and energy involved.
I'm thinking boundaries are a by-product of the establishment of this internal dialogue. What's the boundary between our conscience and our inner critic? (The narcissist we know sees only the inner critic as a god to be appeased).
. . . .
Followers of TWI tend to use VPW as currency between each other. Like a hand shake, or a hello. This is how they validate and acknowledge each other. Is this a by-product of the inner dialogue?
Followers of TWI tend to use VPW as currency between each other. Like a hand shake, or a hello. This is how they validate and acknowledge each other.
Yes!
what's the attraction?
do birds of a feather flock together?
does wierwille ideology have a tendency to breed sociopathic traits in followers?
Wierwille-fans have a habit of running up the flagpole the fantasy of a pathological liar, a cheating, thieving , sociopathic, mean and abusive sexual predator like it’s no worse than anyone else when they’re out of fellowship with the weak and sin-tolerant god that wierwille promoted.
the god that wierwille promoted is indeed a fantasy of a sociopath’s creative imagination who - like the devotee cannot distinguish between what’s right and wrong, between truth and lies.
The way that wierwille presented himself through plagiarism and sincerity many thought he was the real deal and not a faker. Many thought their lives were changed for the better because that was the group hype . Narrow minded people feel their lives are better because they’re right and all others are wrong.
wierwille had a charismatic personality - many folks were attracted to his influence NOTbecause they thought he was a holy man - but because he made himself out to be a maverick - this appealed to the counterculture movement in its day. He went against mainstream Christianity and disparaged academia, cognitive skills, and worldly logic. He was not your typical religious leader.
he turned the straight and narrow path of Christianity into something self-referential “as long as you love God & neighbor you can do as you full well please” . - as wierwille would often brag “anything done in the love of God is okay”. what a handy rule of thumb - if YOU THINK you’re doing something out of the love of God it’s okay. Plagiarizing the works of others so you can offer your followers a new and improved version of their work.
A sociopath will always have the advantage over folks with a conscience. Why push yourself to develop your research skills and original ideas when you can take the shortcut and plagiarize from others.
Occasionally I hear wierwille-fans say we should focus on wierwille’s “successes”. That makes me wonder what their definition of success is.
Do sociopaths congratulate each other over getting away with unconscionable acts?
Why would anyone defend a sociopath? Do ‘great’ sociopaths think alike?
he turned the straight and narrow path of Christianity into something self-referential “as long as you love God & neighbor you can do as you full well please” . - as wierwille would often brag “anything done in the love of God is okay”. what a handy rule of thumb - if YOU THINK you’re doing something out of the love of God it’s okay. . .
I'm going to fail at articulating this back to you here.
If you love anything or anyone you don't do whatever you want. You do what's best for them. And I think self respect is involved.
But I imagine VPW emphasized love in such a way if you didn't nod and agree you felt you were being unloving and hurtful. . . And if you agree once, agreeing twice is easier, and then doing the things now in your head is easier.
There's two parties making decisions here.
He could do whatever he wanted. You had to conform. Why agree to that dynamic? . . . Because he's been allowed to become a primary if not only source of social validation.
In his BS phrase he's suggesting you'll receive love if you agree with him. But you won't get that, you'll get the pleasure of the thought of love . . . An addictive dopamine hit.
If you love anything or anyone you don't do whatever you want. You do what's best for them. And I think self respect is involved.
But I imagine VPW emphasized love in such a way if you didn't nod and agree you felt you were being unloving and hurtful. . . And if you agree once, agreeing twice is easier, and then doing the things now in your head is easier.
There's two parties making decisions here.
He could do whatever he wanted. You had to conform. Why agree to that dynamic? . . . Because he's been allowed to become a primary if not only source of social validation.
In his BS phrase he's suggesting you'll receive love if you agree with him. But you won't get that, you'll get the pleasure of the thought of love . . . An addictive dopamine hit.
I'm going to fail at articulating this back to you here.
If you love anything or anyone you don't do whatever you want. You do what's best for them. And I think self respect is involved.
But I imagine VPW emphasized love in such a way if you didn't nod and agree you felt you were being unloving and hurtful. . . And if you agree once, agreeing twice is easier, and then doing the things now in your head is easier.
There's two parties making decisions here.
He could do whatever he wanted. You had to conform. Why agree to that dynamic? . . . Because he's been allowed to become a primary if not only source of social validation.
In his BS phrase he's suggesting you'll receive love if you agree with him. But you won't get that, you'll get the pleasure of the thought of love . . . An addictive dopamine hit.
The isolationism The Way International subjected us to (and each of us willingly, if unwittingly, allowed) cut each of us off from wonderful humanity and culture. A few short weeks ago, we lost David Crosby. I always knew I loved CSNY music, familiar from my teen years.
One of the last of his (and their) contributions to humanity was this song:
And the passing just a few days ago of a giant of a musician and contributor to enriching humanity, Burt Bacharach at 94 years old. Listening to popular music with wonderful messages for more than 60 years, I learned to appreciate his work while a school child. However, the isolationist mindset and conditioning of twi suppressed my appreciation for his music for many years. Dionne Warwick made many Bacharach tunes recognizable by hundreds of millions of people. But she wasn't the only one. This one, sung by Neil Diamond, is or should be familiar to many here on GSC. It's a Bacharach tune. Both of the songs I'm posting in this comment relate to the need for us, as members of the human race, of humanity, to NOT let our consciences be sedated. Selah.
The isolationism The Way International subjected us to (and each of us willingly, if unwittingly, allowed) cut each of us off from wonderful humanity and culture. A few short weeks ago, we lost David Crosby. I always knew I loved CSNY music, familiar from my teen years.
One of the last of his (and their) contributions to humanity was this song:
And the passing just a few days ago of a giant of a musician and contributor to enriching humanity, Burt Bacharach at 94 years old. Listening to popular music with wonderful messages for more than 60 years, I learned to appreciate his work while a school child. However, the isolationist mindset and conditioning of twi suppressed my appreciation for his music for many years. Dionne Warwick made many Bacharach tunes recognizable by hundreds of millions of people. But she wasn't the only one. This one, sung by Neil Diamond, is or should be familiar to many here on GSC. It's a Bacharach tune. Both of the songs I'm posting in this comment relate to the need for us, as members of the human race, of humanity, to NOT let our consciences be sedated. Selah.
Rocky, great songs for this thread – thanks! I love Burt B’s stuff! What an artist!
I got into my stream of consciousness mode - -and a few things flowed through my mind - - you’ve talked before about the mesmerizing methods of wierwille - - the Ramones’ song I Wanna be Sedated- the repetitive nature of way corps curriculum going over already familiar information (PFAL) again and again.
I think I had grown to trust wierwille / PFAL so much that I had let my guard down years before I went into the way corps. Sedation is the administering of a sedative drug to produce a state of calm or sleep. A drug is a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. Figuratively, a cult’s indoctrination can have an adverse psychological effect. So that by the time I was in-residence I was already primed – sedated – to accept without question…uhm…I shouldn’t mince words – just flat out absorb the expanded…amplified…and more serious perversion of an already warped ideology (PFAL) – wierwille would say toxic ‘gems’ to the in-residence way corps (leadership-in-training). such seemingly innocuous and ambiguous things like “anything done in the love of God is okay”. For wierwille and The Way International being a supposedly biblical research and teaching ministry – how come they never found any passages in the Bible to support that statement?
Anyway… I did a little 'research' on the song I Wanna be Sedated – and wanted to share a couple of things about the inspiration behind the song:
A song about occasions where getting chemically knocked down is preferred to the boredom, inspired by life on the road…
“It’s a road song. I wrote it in 1977, through the 78. Well, Danny Fields was our first manager and he would work us to death. We would be on the road 360 days a year, and we went over to England, and we were there at Christmas time, and in Christmas time, London shuts down. There’s nothing to do, nowhere to go.”
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
49
25
15
Popular Days
May 7
29
May 5
22
May 4
19
May 3
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jeaniam 16 posts
T-Bone 49 posts
Bolshevik 25 posts
another spot 15 posts
Popular Days
May 7 2007
29 posts
May 5 2007
22 posts
May 4 2007
19 posts
May 3 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
You're misrepresenting, or, perhaps not understanding, the full scope of Wierwille's deception. Wierwille claimed to have taken his voluminous library to the dump and, instead, used the
Bolshevik
I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was notewo
WordWolf
Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns. "I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrin
T-Bone
It’s okay to feel guilty about some things
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Reading a section of The Sociopath Next Door got me thinking about some of the issues mentioned on this thread. I tend to look at people in mostly general accepting terms since we’re all human and in many ways we may develop unique and individual beliefs, values, habits, behaviors but in similar processes.
In my quest for answers, therapies and perhaps some closure post-cult involvement, how someone can act in an unconscionable way continues to elude me. It is something I cannot relate to – I have no experiential context that might explain it. I manage to analyze stuff by either breaking it down to nuts and bolts, its essential elements and the function or purpose that it appears to be intended for.
My fuzzy two-bit psychological theory is that the main function of the conscience is a type of limit switch sensor. In electrical engineering, a limit switch sensor is operated by the motion of a machine part or the presence of an object – for controlling a system or as a safety interlock. You walk up to an exit or entrance of a store and the door magically opens. You press the button to close the overhead garage door and midway down it abruptly stops because the dog just ran into the garage from the outside. These preset limits determine what may or may not pass – focusing or restricting performance. For want of a better analogy I think that’s the way the conscience works – and along with another elusive ‘gizmo’, intuition (whatever that is
) – internal stuff I’ve learned to pay more attention to…anyway…here’s some excerpts from The Sociopath Next Door:
begin excerpt
“…As a therapist, I specialize in the treatment of psychological trauma survivors. Over the last twenty-five years, my practice has included hundreds of adults who have been in psychological pain every day of their lives on account of early childhood abuse or some other horrendous past experience. As I have detailed in case studies in The Myth of Sanity, my trauma patients suffer from a host of torments, including chronic anxiety, incapacitating depression, and dissociative mental states, and, feeling that their time on earth was unbearable, many of them have come to me after recovering from attempts to commit suicide.
Some have been traumatized by natural and man-made disasters such as earthquakes and wars, but most of them have been controlled and psychologically shattered by individual human perpetrators, often sociopaths – sometimes sociopathic strangers, but more typically sociopathic parents, older relatives, or siblings…
…About one in twenty-five individuals are sociopathic, meaning, essentially, that they do not have a conscience.
It is not that this group fails to grasp the difference between good and bad; it is that the distinction fails to limit their behavior.
The intellectual difference between right and wrong does not bring on the emotional sirens and flashing blue lights, or the fear of God, that it does for the rest of us.
Without the slightest blip of guilt or remorse, one in twenty-five people can do anything at all.”
From pages 8ff of The Sociopath Next Door Kindle Edition by Martha Stout Ph.D.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
About the Author
Martha Stout, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in private practice, served on the faculty in psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School for twenty-five years. She is also the author of "The Myth of Sanity" and "The Paranoia Switch." She lives on Cape Ann in Massachusetts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Following up with some more of Martha Stout’s The Sociopath Next Door:
She mentions other psychiatric diagnoses - including narcissism - involve some amount of personal pain or misery for the individuals who suffer from them. Sociopathy stands alone as a “disease” that causes no ‘dis-ease’ for the person who has it. Stout says sociopaths are often quite satisfied with themselves and their lives.
Singular in its ability to unnerve even seasoned professionals, the concept of sociopathy comes perilously close to our notions of the soul, of evil versus good - and this association makes the topic difficult to think about clearly.
Another thing Stout addresses is the idea that sociopaths may believe they have an advantage. More than one sociopath has implied that conscience is simply a psychological corral for the masses. Most of us have had experiences in which someone unscrupulous has won, and having integrity begins to feel like we are playing the fool.
When someone makes a truly unconscionable choice, all we can come up with are explanations that come nowhere near the truth…what is possibly the single most meaningful characteristic that divides the human species- the presence or absence of conscience - we remain effectively oblivious.
And even after we have learned the label for it, being devoid of a conscience is impossible for most human beings to imagine - probably no other experience so eludes empathy.
We can imagine total blindness (we have all been lost in the dark), clinical depression (we’ve all experienced some great loss). But NOT to care at all about the impact of our actions on society, friends, family - our children - what on earth would that be like? We have no past experiences to inform us - no reference point we can relate to. Absolute guiltlessness defies the imagination.
End of my notes from the book
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I understand that dehumanization is a thing. SS soldiers gassing millions of Europeans first had to stop thinking of them as humans. That was easier when they were one thing, like Jews or gypsies, but less easy when they looked at all the other prisoners who were neither.
So, the SS thought of specific people as less than human, so it was all right to mistreat them or kill them- in fact, they didn't see that as "mistreatment" or "murder". It's a little like how one can downgrade plagiarism and label it a virtue, or announce everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and inferior.
For the sociopath/psychopath, it is as if all of humanity- except only themselves- are dehumanized. They don't see people as people, they see people as resources, things. EVERYBODY. That's as far as I can get. I know they do it, but I can't empathize with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I realize Im making a rather obvious connection, but, perhaps dehuminization was the reason those who fell out of favor with wierwille, or other directors, in the way international were labaled posessed...or cop outs...or whatever....but those labels typically followed the bums rush in my experience
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"empties floating by."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What a shame. What a hopeless view of humanity
No deposit no return
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was noteworthy he pushed that ideology into himself.
It reminds me of collaterals or retemories . . . renewing one's mind . . . it's a continual practice to subdue oneself and actively participate in your own dissociation.
With personality disorders, like antisocial personality disorder (sociopath), it's as if there is no self to subdue. The commands come from within, not from the outside. Hitler I've heard was likely a borderline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Very insightful Bolshevik!
The ultimate Egocentrism experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
At some point each mind has to decide they are a separate entity from the rest of the matter in the universe. Don't they? Interesting we just assume we each are individuals in the first place.
"Body of Christ", "being of one accord", "like-minded" . . . renewing one's mind to the borg mindset?
A narcissist is a person truncated in early development, the self is ossified, the universe is a threatening mother. With all that fear there's no time to think of others.
. . . But as believers . . . we have no fear . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
More interesting stuff Bolshevik! Thanks!
Your post got me thinking sideways
- so I Googled “fear of losing yourself in a relationship” and all the hits I got were about a one-to-one relationship – i.e., couples…But your post got my processor going toward a wider application – comparing involvement in unhealthy groups (harmful and controlling cults, toxic work environments, etc.) with participation in healthy groups (any group that is beneficial to all - no one is exploited or subjugated )…
...I found this one article in Psychology Today, How We Lose Ourselves in Relationships - We can lose ourselves in the name of love or peace, but pay the highest price - posted October 3, 2020 by Darlene Lancer, JD, MFT, licensed marriage and family therapist and an expert and author on relationships and codependency…
I found some of this stuff resonates with my cult experience – when Lancer speaks of romance, I thought of the love-bombing and honeymoon phase of my early years with TWI…and how I sacrificed my personal and professional goals for TWI’s priorities…and when she gets into healthy relationships, boundaries are stated openly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness…anyway I thought it was a good article – here are some excerpts from it – enjoy:
Whether you feel lost in a relationship or are afraid to start one, we can easily sacrifice our individuality in relationships with narcissists and abusers. They usually insist on dominating, that their needs come first and that they are right. Women especially tend to lose themselves in relationships due to cultural conditioning. In fact, even in good relationships, we may do this out of love, not fear. We compromise ourselves slowly often in imperceptible ways, unaware that losing our Self risks our greatest despair. After a breakup, it’s devastating, because we are lost. If we stay, we risk becoming empty shells, feeling powerless and anxious or depressed.
Often there are power struggles, characterized by repeated, unresolved arguments, either about a single recurring issue or numerous trivial things. Many of them boil down to the question of who has control, whose needs will be met, or how intimate they will be…
How We Lose Ourselves
We lose ourselves incrementally in small ways. It can start with romance, when it’s normal to want to please our loved one and spend much of our time together. However, emotionally mature adults don’t drop their activities, give up their lives (they have a life), or overlook improper behavior of their partner, despite strong physical attraction. Neither are they desperate to have or maintain a relationship…
Stages of Losing Ourselves
Many people do fine on their own, but once in a relationship, they start losing their autonomy, not make waves, and be with and please their partner. When there is “chemistry,” they overlook negative indicators that might be a warning not to get involved. Feel-good chemicals in our brain start to alleviate our emptiness, so that we want more of that drug. We don’t want to lose these happy feelings. If we're unhappy being alone, we're more vulnerable to hold on.
Hence, we become increasingly preoccupied with and dependent upon our loved ones. We see less of our friends and may drop our routine to spend time together. For women more than men, often our work and professional goals take second place to the relationship.
The desire to please can lead to obsession. Our need for connection can create denial about our partner’s behavior and makes us doubt our own perceptions. Boundaries become blurred so that we start to accept our partner's point of view.
If our partner is abusive, our self-doubt grows and our self-esteem shrinks. We don’t say “no” or set limits on what we’re willing to do or what we’re willing to accept from our partner. Not only that, but confusion also arises between what our partner feels and our own feelings. We feel responsible for their feelings, too, especially if we're being blamed. If he’s sad, then I’m sad, too–as the Barry Manilow song goes. If she’s disappointed or angry, it must be my fault…
…Healthy Relationships
Healthy relationships are interdependent. There is give and take, respect for each other’s needs and feelings, and are able to settle conflict through authentic communication. Decisions and problem-solving are collaborative. Assertiveness is key. Negotiations are not a zero-sum game. Boundaries are expressed directly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness. Vulnerability actually makes us stronger, not weaker. In fact, we can be more intimate and vulnerable when our autonomy and boundaries are intact and respected.
Both partners feel secure. They want to maintain their relationship and allow for each other’s separateness and independence, and aren’t threatened by their partner’s autonomy. Thus the relationship supports our independence and gives us more courage to explore our talents and growth.
Recovery
Fortunately, we can recover our lost self. We can escape a narcissist-codependent trap. First, stop focusing on changing your partner. Change begins within. We can waste years lost in this denial. Yet, when we change, often our partner changes in response to our new behavior. Either way, we will feel better and stronger because we've grown in self-respect…
Excerpts from : How We Lose Ourselves in Relationships | Psychology Today
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Sideways yes . . .
Kids are born, and then as Piaget pointed out in your link, kids talk out loud to themselves . . . so there's a conversation going on in some form . . . within ourselves.
When does life begin? When do we first converse with ourselves? . . . (I don't know) . . . but the concept of the individual shouldn't be assumed or taken for granted. I'm not you and you're not me and we each came to that conclusion independently. (I'm assuming
) Boundaries there could be agreed upon implicitly or explicitly.
Using Jiminy Cricket as a metaphor for our conscience, we can develop a strong conversation or a weak one, a strong bond with our own conscience, or a weak one. . . . . There's some work and energy involved.
I'm thinking boundaries are a by-product of the establishment of this internal dialogue. What's the boundary between our conscience and our inner critic? (The narcissist we know sees only the inner critic as a god to be appeased).
. . . .
Followers of TWI tend to use VPW as currency between each other. Like a hand shake, or a hello. This is how they validate and acknowledge each other. Is this a by-product of the inner dialogue?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes!
what's the attraction?
do birds of a feather flock together?
does wierwille ideology have a tendency to breed sociopathic traits in followers?
Wierwille-fans have a habit of running up the flagpole the fantasy of a pathological liar, a cheating, thieving , sociopathic, mean and abusive sexual predator like it’s no worse than anyone else when they’re out of fellowship with the weak and sin-tolerant god that wierwille promoted.
the god that wierwille promoted is indeed a fantasy of a sociopath’s creative imagination who - like the devotee cannot distinguish between what’s right and wrong, between truth and lies.
The way that wierwille presented himself through plagiarism and sincerity many thought he was the real deal and not a faker. Many thought their lives were changed for the better because that was the group hype . Narrow minded people feel their lives are better because they’re right and all others are wrong.
wierwille had a charismatic personality - many folks were attracted to his influence NOT because they thought he was a holy man - but because he made himself out to be a maverick - this appealed to the counterculture movement in its day. He went against mainstream Christianity and disparaged academia, cognitive skills, and worldly logic. He was not your typical religious leader.
he turned the straight and narrow path of Christianity into something self-referential “as long as you love God & neighbor you can do as you full well please” . - as wierwille would often brag “anything done in the love of God is okay”. what a handy rule of thumb - if YOU THINK you’re doing something out of the love of God it’s okay. Plagiarizing the works of others so you can offer your followers a new and improved version of their work.
A sociopath will always have the advantage over folks with a conscience. Why push yourself to develop your research skills and original ideas when you can take the shortcut and plagiarize from others.
Occasionally I hear wierwille-fans say we should focus on wierwille’s “successes”. That makes me wonder what their definition of success is.
Do sociopaths congratulate each other over getting away with unconscionable acts?
Why would anyone defend a sociopath? Do ‘great’ sociopaths think alike?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm going to fail at articulating this back to you here.
If you love anything or anyone you don't do whatever you want. You do what's best for them. And I think self respect is involved.
But I imagine VPW emphasized love in such a way if you didn't nod and agree you felt you were being unloving and hurtful. . . And if you agree once, agreeing twice is easier, and then doing the things now in your head is easier.
There's two parties making decisions here.
He could do whatever he wanted. You had to conform. Why agree to that dynamic? . . . Because he's been allowed to become a primary if not only source of social validation.
In his BS phrase he's suggesting you'll receive love if you agree with him. But you won't get that, you'll get the pleasure of the thought of love . . . An addictive dopamine hit.
(Dopamine, when what you need is serotonin)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Incredibly insightful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great post, Bolshevik!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The isolationism The Way International subjected us to (and each of us willingly, if unwittingly, allowed) cut each of us off from wonderful humanity and culture. A few short weeks ago, we lost David Crosby. I always knew I loved CSNY music, familiar from my teen years.
One of the last of his (and their) contributions to humanity was this song:
And the passing just a few days ago of a giant of a musician and contributor to enriching humanity, Burt Bacharach at 94 years old. Listening to popular music with wonderful messages for more than 60 years, I learned to appreciate his work while a school child. However, the isolationist mindset and conditioning of twi suppressed my appreciation for his music for many years. Dionne Warwick made many Bacharach tunes recognizable by hundreds of millions of people. But she wasn't the only one. This one, sung by Neil Diamond, is or should be familiar to many here on GSC. It's a Bacharach tune. Both of the songs I'm posting in this comment relate to the need for us, as members of the human race, of humanity, to NOT let our consciences be sedated. Selah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Rocky, great songs for this thread – thanks! I love Burt B’s stuff! What an artist!
I got into my stream of consciousness mode
- - and a few things flowed through my mind 
- - you’ve talked before about the mesmerizing methods of wierwille - - the Ramones’ song I Wanna be Sedated - the repetitive nature of way corps curriculum going over already familiar information (PFAL) again and again.
I think I had grown to trust wierwille / PFAL so much that I had let my guard down years before I went into the way corps. Sedation is the administering of a sedative drug to produce a state of calm or sleep. A drug is a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. Figuratively, a cult’s indoctrination can have an adverse psychological effect. So that by the time I was in-residence I was already primed – sedated – to accept without question…uhm…I shouldn’t mince words – just flat out absorb the expanded…amplified…and more serious perversion of an already warped ideology (PFAL) – wierwille would say toxic ‘gems’ to the in-residence way corps (leadership-in-training). such seemingly innocuous and ambiguous things like “anything done in the love of God is okay”. For wierwille and The Way International being a supposedly biblical research and teaching ministry – how come they never found any passages in the Bible to support that statement?
Anyway… I did a little 'research'
on the song I Wanna be Sedated – and wanted to share a couple of things about the inspiration behind the song:
A song about occasions where getting chemically knocked down is preferred to the boredom, inspired by life on the road…
“It’s a road song. I wrote it in 1977, through the 78. Well, Danny Fields was our first manager and he would work us to death. We would be on the road 360 days a year, and we went over to England, and we were there at Christmas time, and in Christmas time, London shuts down. There’s nothing to do, nowhere to go.”
From: Ramones – I Wanna Be Sedated Lyrics | Genius Lyrics
This could be the new song in a way corps promo
Edited by T-BoneI wanna be edited
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I wonder about music produced in a world without free speech.
Then I found this inspiring masterpiece. (Time stamp 00:59)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.