Men are More Narcissistic than Women, Psychologists Say

a reply to: bb23108

What is 'objectifying awareness'?

originally posted by: bb23108

The term self-awareness refers to one's sense of self, but in reality, awareness cannot objectify itself.

What does this have to do with ANYTHING? This is so incredibly idiotic. No matter what valid reasoning is presented, you warp it to fit your retarded belief system. It's entirely circular, always leading back to itself.

Give yourself a few minutes to actually see if you can objectify awareness. You can certainly confess to being aware, and even call it self-awareness, but this is not the same as objectifying awareness.

Give yourself a few minutes to ask why you would ask the impossible of someone else? This has absolutely nothing to do with awareness being able to look back at itself.

Do you not know the difference between awareness and self-awareness? Why are you attempting to minimalize this? It's just so stupid!

a reply to: Astyanax

What is 'objectifying awareness'?

That which thinks in terms of objects tries to objectify awareness - but awareness is not a thing - awareness is the entire thingless thing.

I think we'll move to a more eusocial civilization, something transitioning away from capitalist individual goals towards the well being of society. You see it everywhere. All of the sought after attributes are more eusocial in nature: unselfishness, service to family and country, orderly conduct. And this is why I ask, maybe the Greys, the popular figurehead of aliens, aren't far fetched afterall. They're commonly portrayed as robotic or servile, or at least highly organized. Maybe higher civilizations are frequently more eusocial than we're, so we contrast them. I wonder if it's possibly the greys are looking at Earth now and shaking their heads, disgusted with our level of disorganization and selfishness. They might tell their children "Look at how messed up humans are." So they're like, "Humans need to learn to work together planet-wide."

en.wikipedia.org - Eusociality...

Eusociality (Greek eu: "good/real" + "social"), the highest level of organization of animal sociality, is defined by the following characteristics: cooperative brood care (including brood care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labour into reproductive and non-reproductive groups.[1][2] The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste.

Note I say towards eusocial, not becoming eusocial. It seems we went from small tribes to small communities to ever large cities and finally to nations. This progression requires some eusocial traits. Now that we're nearing the capacity of Earth to support us in our current state, we need more of those traits to survive and extend its capacity. (Technology is needed too.)

Notice how the government is increasingly intervening in family and in our personal lives. Our attention is moving to society. Our focus needs to be broader than individual or family or community to sustain a larger civilization.

One means to preserve some of our individualism is to go off world to other planets or moons. At least that's what I think. The tighter we're the more push there will be to gain some eusocial traits. So I tihnk it's possible the government on Earth in the future will be more eusocial than governments on other moons or planets. Strongly rooted places will tend to be that way.

EDIT: This is just a fun blah blah for me. Don't read what I write seriously. I DO however sometime watch ants and marvel:
phys.org - Teaching ants: First demonstration of 'teaching' in non-human animals...

a reply to: eisegesis

Well I would be focused on myself right now if your damn avatar wasn't so hot ! I think I better get my own avatar in order if I want to be pleasing that level of manifestation.

Agreed and very happy with their true definitions. On the personal vanity part, see it on both sides of the gender fence. But always knew that aggression, self entitlement and seeking authority positions was all a part of this, and thus misogyny entitlement is by far the more serious and real meaning of narcisissm. Including concepts of royalty, social darwinism and huge ego and mind games found in their philosophies. That being said there are very decent men, but the values of narcissism and entitlement to privilege and power get passed on in subtle and overt ways, and even good people don't realize how unfair they are being at times.

originally posted by: Astyanax

What is 'objectifying awareness'?

Everything you observe or are aware of, you can say is an object or an "other" to you as the subject, to you as awareness, to you as observer.

However, you, as the apparent subject or awareness, cannot ever observe yourself in this same manner - i.e., as a subject observing oneself also as object.

Of course, as awareness, we inherently understand that we exist, but not as an object to ourselves! We simply are, being or awareness itself.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
What does this have to do with ANYTHING? This is so incredibly idiotic. No matter what valid reasoning is presented, you warp it to fit your retarded belief system. It's entirely circular, always leading back to itself.

Not sure what you are so angry about. You are being rude without offering a single specific rebuttal.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Give yourself a few minutes to ask why you would ask the impossible of someone else? This has absolutely nothing to do with awareness being able to look back at itself.

Do you not know the difference between awareness and self-awareness? Why are you attempting to minimalize this? It's just so stupid!

Again, you are being rude without being helpful to the conversation.

The reason I asked Astyanax to consider doing this is because she indicated that one could look at their own awareness, and so I invited her to try and do this. Of course it is impossible to objectify awareness - that was the point - to point out that awareness is most fundamental being itself.

If you want to continue this conversation, try being less rude and more communicative.

originally posted by: bb23108

as I said in an earlier post, the ego-I is best equated as the body-mind, not some internal "psychological entity" we somehow tend to identify as our self.

I guess it would be helpful if you explained your usage of the term "body-mind", which I've seen you use often in threads, but I (and apparently others) are not familiar with. I don't understand exactly what you are refering to.

When I use the word "ego", I am speaking of a "psychological entity"- a mental conception of "self" as individual, as separate, as having particular characteristics. It is a perception of separation.
The term "mind-body" includes mind which refers to psychology.

When I look at another person, I am aware they have an ego, they have a concept of self, a psychological entity, with a full universe of thoughts, concepts, beliefs, ideas, all born of the experiences of their body.

Through relationship, I can gain some awareness of that internal world and their conceptual self, but never all of it. I see them not only as a body, but as a conceptual being, with a wonderful base of nothingness (mystery, pure potential) to discover together endlessly.

Without looking at my neighbor with awareness of that "psychological self" they have in mind, I would guess they would just be an object.

I don't yet understand how you mean to separate "ego" and this "mind-body" you refer to.

originally posted by: Astyanax

Exactly. What the anti-egotists refer to as 'ego' is better described as 'egotistical behaviour' — that is, behaviour that promotes and aggrandizes oneself, often at the expense of others. Such behaviour — as is widely understood — is neurotic, associated with a poorly differentiated sense of self (to use Jungian terminology). The problem is not an overdeveloped ego but an underdeveloped one.

"Anti-egotists" ...*chuckle* I like that term. I am in disagreement with many anti-egotists too.
The development of a strong ego build walls around self experience which not only protect them, but protect others.
The less developed ego tends to ooze out all over the place, not respecting others experiences.

The discussions on "ego" are always wrought with misunderstandings because of differences in interpretation on what the word refers to!

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: bb23108

as I said in an earlier post, the ego-I is best equated as the body-mind, not some internal "psychological entity" we somehow tend to identify as our self.

I guess it would be helpful if you explained your usage of the term "body-mind", which I've seen you use often in threads, but I (and apparently others) are not familiar with. I don't understand exactly what you are refering to.

The body/mind is what you would refer to as your separate self. But really the body/mind is what is appearing. The body/mind is not any different from a cloud in the sky - there is no one who can control it.
All that is appearing simply just appears - no one is doing it.
Yet there is a very, very strong idea that the body/mind is all that one is.
The body/mind is just an appearance in consciousness.

As the study admits, this was to be expected; in fact in the introduction it quotes scholars as saying "the symptomatology of narcissistic personality resembles very highly the masculine sex-role stereotype of men in our culture". Like the majority of personality traits however, having some naricissism isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's when the level veers towards the extreme that it becomes detrimental to well-being. The study found no gender differences in what it called 'vulnerable narcissism'.

It's clear that narcissism exists across the genders - you only have to look on facebook - it would be interesting to see similar studies across cultures, on whether certain types of cultures (patriarchal vs matriarchal) encourage narcissism in individuals.

originally posted by: Bluesma


The development of a strong ego build walls around self experience which not only protect them, but protect others.
The less developed ego tends to ooze out all over the place, not respecting others experiences.

What is there to defend or protect? A story about the 'me' - the person you think you are. What if someone does not go along with your definition of yourself? It may cause anger to arise. What is the point in having a separate me when all you have to do is fight on it's behalf or hide behind a wall frightened.
If the walls came down there might be realization that the fear is not outside the wall. The idea that there could ever be an inside is what makes fear - the division - the belief in a separate me - and other separate mes.
There is no other - this is it.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

What is there to defend or protect? A story about the 'me' - the person you think you are.

Everyone has the right to write their story and experience it.

What if someone does not go along with your definition of yourself? It may cause anger to arise.

Seriously? I don't think ANYONE perceives me as I perceive me. Some who have a close relationship with me have a conception which is closer to mine than others do. If I got angry when others didn't go along with my conception of self, I would be always angry and that would be a waste of this experience.

The JOY of self experience and duality is this exchange of sharing each other, and discovering each others "story" as it is created, and sometimes creating together. Why deny the experience, miss out on the joy, just because one MIGHT get angry??
Even if one was ignorant enough to get angry about that (such individuals exist) - is experiencing anger such a terrible thing?

What is the point in having a separate me when all you have to do is fight on it's behalf or hide behind a wall frightened.
.

The point is to experience duality and separateness, relation and co-creation. "Hiding behind a wall frightened" ? Jeezus, your story must be horrendous, if that is what life is for you. I respect your choice of this belief system and religion, and accept that you will never acknowledge it as "yours". Self respect is respect for others. Deny one you deny the other.
It's all the same anyway.

I will ignore you now.

originally posted by: Bluesma
I guess it would be helpful if you explained your usage of the term "body-mind", which I've seen you use often in threads, but I (and apparently others) are not familiar with. I don't understand exactly what you are refering to.

When Astyanax so eloquently asked "What the #@*?>//# is a body-mind?" , I responded:
The whole complex that we identify with. Would you prefer I call it the whole body or whole bodily complex or the whole ball of wax or ???

In other words, it is the body and all of its functions, and the mind and all of its functions - as one unit or complex (whatever all of those functions are altogether, and whether so-called high or low in the whole scheme of things.)

originally posted by: Bluesma
When I use the word "ego", I am speaking of a "psychological entity"- a mental conception of "self" as individual, as separate, as having particular characteristics. It is a perception of separation.

...
I don't yet understand how you mean to separate "ego" and this "mind-body" you refer to.

I understand what most people mean when they use the word "ego" - and you defined it in those terms quite well. However, the ego, even in those terms, is not an entity - it is a process of separating, moment-to-moment.

At its root, the ego is the function of attention - the "point-of-view-making" activity that goes on constantly, and always results in the sense of separation from everyone and everything. It is this sense of separation that is an illusion - it is only a sense of self, not an actual entity. And yet we hold on to that sense and are constantly reinforcing it because we are afraid at the root of finding out we don't exist as we think we do!

Given this sense of self is just an activity rather than an entity, and that the whole body-mind is actually distinguishable as apparently separate from others, it is more useful to equate the sense of self, or ego-I, with the whole body-mind.

It is also the case that everyone's body-minds all arise in this unlimited field of relationships, all together - not as some separate inward entities that actually have no physical reference point.

a reply to: bb23108

However, you, as the apparent subject or awareness, cannot ever observe yourself in this same manner - i.e., as a subject observing oneself also as object.

Of course you can. Everybody does it every day.

originally posted by: Bluesma
"Hiding behind a wall frightened" ? Jeezus, your story must be horrendous, if that is what life is for you.

There is no inside or outside to what I am/this is. No wall, no division, no separation.

The development of a strong ego build walls around self experience which not only protect them, but protect others.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I see a big ole wall.

Maybe it's just me.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: bb23108
Of course you can. Everybody does it every day.

Awareness simply is, it cannot observe itself as an object. Yes, awareness inherently is self-evident, but it cannot objectify itself. This would be similar to your eyes being able to see themselves.

The point I am actually trying to make with this exercise is that awareness is our fundamental condition - it never changes. Awareness never ages. If you really feel into what your fundamental condition was when you were say 10 years old, and compare it to now, it is not different in terms of awareness.

Awareness is prior to the body and the mind (the "body-mind") and is always the case, even in deep sleep - though this would have to be discovered to see it is true.

In the meantime, it is tacitly obvious that awareness is, and is more fundamental than the body-mind. Everything you experience is a mode of awareness.

a reply to: eisegesis
Given the difficulties psychiatrists have in accurately diagnosing I doubt this is an accurate assesement.

It has been known for many years that women are much more likely to be diagnosed with Border line personality disorder and men with Narcissisitic personality disorder, both disorders present with similar personal difficulties which makes it very difficult to distinguish between the two. Throw aspergers into the mix and diagnosning accurately becomes even more difficult especially in adults.

Mature adults with Borderline personality disorder are know to loose exective function as they age, confusing the issue even more, as on assessement, under certain circumstances it can be possible to confuse BPD with ADHD/ADD.

If a child with high functioning autism has a narcissistic parent as a primary carer and isn't assessed for autism unlittle later in life, it is easy to mistake the two.

This study isn't worth the webspace it is written on, in my opinion.