Discussion The inherently (flawed) human urge to define evil

[NormallyNeurotic]

It feels more and more like people are regressing to their basest animal instincts nowadays. Nuance is a dying skill. We try to define those who abuse by their "disorder," those who are hateful by their "lack of intelligence," and all it's doing is feeding into exactly what those horrible people want—an excuse. For the focus to be taken away from the choices they make.

Society has such an obsession with defining and explaining why someone did something "evil" to the point that they make up false answers just to feel better. I saw multiple people claiming that Elon Musk is the way he is because his father allegedly sexually abused him and he never healed from it. But that's not how humans work.

Our nurture, current and past environment, all are secondary to our actions. They can guide and push us one way or another, but centering the possible "why" behind actions instead of the fact that the actions were done to begin with just gives these people an "out."

And even if part of them wants to change, they never will, because people focus more on their hypothetical permanent state of being rather the accountability they should be taking. This is an issue even in the psychological field.

The internet comes up with some sort of "epiphany" for why bad people are the way that they are every week or so. Elon was molested. Trump is a "narcissist." RFK Jr. is brain damaged. Neil Gaiman (and Elon, and any other autist who does bad things) are "good examples of what happens if you don't teach your autistic kids right." JK Rowling is "secretly a trans man," etc. All real things I've seen people say.

It's so demeaning to the marginalized people that these bastards hurt to boil them down to a label because you can't just admit that they choose to "be evil." They make that choice every day. No one forced their hand.

People need to stop trying to find a "why" and live in the present. We claim to be more intelligent than other animals, and yet we don't put the effort in to fight the base instinct of "identify/define danger." We want there to be a reason why people choose to be bad, because the reality is scarier—some people just choose to be that way. There isn't always a way to identify evil because evil doesn't exist. These people are humans.

 

[Hvergelmir]

The internet comes up with some sort of "epiphany"...

Without epiphany there's not much to say. The Internet is fighting for attention, trying to invent novel explanations and perspectives.
I don't think it's about good and evil, or psychology, but about literally everything.
It's often misleading garbage, indeed.

It feels more and more like people are regressing to their basest animal instincts nowadays. [...] People need to stop trying to find a "why" and live in the present.

This sounds a bit contradictory.
If we stop asking questions and trying to understand, in favor of acting on immediate observation and emotion; wouldn't that be a regression to the very animal instincts you criticize?

 

[Forever Sleep]

I partly agree in so much as it does annoy me too. The whole: People aren't truly responsible for their actions. I tend to agree that our choices are strongly influenced by our genes, upbringing, past experiences, current environment. Simply the fact though, that a violent criminal say isn't being violent the majority of the time means they can make decisions to control their urges. They also recognise them as something considered 'bad' that they could get in trouble for so I imagine- the majority of the time, there is full awareness and control.

When it comes to the understanding bit though- I'd say that is kind of necessary. You can decide that someone is behaving like they are because they might be a narcissist say. That doesn't mean you see them as any less dangerous or cruel necessarily. Whether they can (supposedly) help it or not- they present a threat.

It can also help in giving us early warnings- before the worst happens. Having experienced what I believe was natcissistic abuse- I'm extremely wary of red flags now. If people exhibit certain behaviours that are similar- I give them a wide berth. Or, I'm very much on my guard if I have to say- work with them. So- analysing and recognizing traits means we can be cautious around certain types of people.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

It can also help in giving us early warnings- before the worst happens. Having experienced what I believe was natcissistic abuse- I'm extremely wary of red flags now. If people exhibit certain behaviours that are similar- I give them a wide berth. Or, I'm very much on my guard if I have to say- work with them. So- analysing and recognizing traits means we can be cautious around certain types of people.

Analyzing traits is slightly different from the issue I have. I guess I should have specified. People should stop looking for a simplified "why."

Avoiding people with traits of those who do what people claim is "narcissistic abuse" works to keep you safe because "narcissistic abuse" is just a label created by a grifter and added to traits that all controlling abusers do.

From groomers to colonizers to misogynists, their actions fit the "narcissistic abuse criteria" because it is purposely broad in an attempt to do exactly what I criticize—give a label. Comfort our "monkey brain." Many people crave that comfort during hard times.

By avoiding those with traits of controlling abusers, you're not avoiding narcissists. If you met someone with NPD who never gave you the "ick" or the "red flags" that other supposed narcissists do, never even did anything but be kind, and you avoided them because you were convinced they'd abuse you, that is an example of what I am criticizing.

I know you said that you would likely avoid someone with NPD if you met them (I believe these were your words? The host was fronting at the time, feel free to correct), but you seem to be fully conscious of the fact that this is a trauma response, and that a personality disorder label does not assure abusive actions.

In that case, you are completely valid to associate with who you want, in the same way that many alters in this system tend to avoid cis men—but some people genuinely think that anyone with the label "narcissist" will abuse them, no question. That is base instinct, the need to label evil in simple terms.

Identifying danger is not the same as identifying dangerous patterns. Feeling "off" about someone is your survival instincts identifying toxic actions and the patterns that tend to lead to such. We do that too.

This sounds a bit contradictory.
If we stop asking questions and trying to understand, in favor of acting on immediate observation and emotion; wouldn't that be a regression to the very animal instincts you criticize?

Correct, thank you for pointing this out. See message above.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Analyzing traits is slightly different from the issue I have. I guess I should have specified. People should stop looking for a simplified "why."

Avoiding people with traits of those who do what people claim is "narcissistic abuse" works to keep you safe because "narcissistic abuse" is just a label created by a grifter and added to traits that all controlling abusers do.

From groomers to colonizers to misogynists, their actions fit the "narcissistic abuse criteria" because it is purposely broad in an attempt to do exactly what I criticize—give a label. Comfort our "monkey brain." Many people crave that comfort during hard times.

By avoiding those with traits of controlling abusers, you're not avoiding narcissists. If you met someone with NPD who never gave you the "ick" or the "red flags" that other supposed narcissists do, never even did anything but be kind, and you avoided them because you were convinced they'd abuse you, that is an example of what I am criticizing.

I know you said that you would likely avoid someone with NPD if you met them (I believe these were your words? The host was fronting at the time, feel free to correct), but you seem to be fully conscious of the fact that this is a trauma response, and that a personality disorder label does not assure abusive actions.

In that case, you are completely valid to associate with who you want, in the same way that many alters in this system tend to avoid cis men—but some people genuinely think that anyone with the label "narcissist" will abuse them, no question. That is base instinct, the need to label evil in simple terms.

Identifying danger is not the same as identifying dangerous patterns. Feeling "off" about someone is your survival instincts identifying toxic actions and the patterns that tend to lead to such. We do that too.


Correct, thank you for pointing this out. See message above.

I wouldn't necessarily avoid someone if they told me they had NPD. I've in fact, entered into conversations here with people who say they suffer with it and, to no ill effect- hopefully- for the both of us. I assume someone who recognizes they have it will be more conscious of their actions. I really admire that.

I also find it a sort of contradiction in terms. My extremely basic understanding of narcissism is that they present a highly polished mask to the world. That they are simply better than others. To admit they have a personality disorder that is considered by many to be toxic I think is one hell of a reveal! So- I'm already thinking- you likely won't be so 'bad' if you're conscious and willing to be vulnerable. There again- it could be a double bluff- if they still act in abusive ways.

I'm not in fact sure how I feel when people do reveal themselves that they have a personality disorder or mental illness. It sometimes feels like a precursor to- if I'm really unkind, go cold, am totally self obsessed with you- this is why and- you'll need to put up with it. So again- I may well think- I'm not willing to put up with that! Sorry but- you'll need to find someone else. Because- I have my own issues going on that may clash with that.

For instance- I'd say I'm prone to becoming overly attached to people. Most especially those who send out the signals they want to be bff. So- someone who openly told me they were Borderline and tended to blow hot and cold on people- I could just see that ending badly! It's not like we argued or anything. It was just a preliminary sussing out of who each other was and what we needed. I think that's sensible. It saves some hurt further down the line.

But, it's if I recognised traits that I would become wary of a person. Most especially if they seemed oblivious. I imagine it's also kind of rare for someone in real life to openly disclose they are a narcissist. I've only witnessed that here.

I wouldn't just assume someone was one unless there were multiple reasons to though. Why would I? I don't tend assume everyone is until proven otherwise. But then, I suppose my own bias means any mention of abuse and, I'm looking for narcissistic traits.

If someone else suspected they were and told me, I'd be more wary around them but, I wouldn't necessarily be certain till I could see it myself. There again, truthfully- I'm very willing to believe the person accusing. They must have behaved in some (likely awful) way to have been accused.

I wouldn't necessarily fully diagnose them in my head too. I realise I'm not qualified to do that. If I'm around them a lot though and they show multiple traits then- I'll feel more sure in my suspicion.

I agree on the one hand that the label 'narcissist' has become this umbrella term for a whole bunch of behaviours we find toxic. Which, I do agree with- isn't necessarily helpful. I also agree that not all narcissists will act in the same way. Which again I'm sure- makes it hard for them- continually being portrayed as the villain.

There again- speaking as someone who believes they've been through specifically narcissistic abuse- it helped me. Because- for a long time, their gas lighting partly worked on me. I genuinely wondered if I was in some way, guilty! What had I done to receive this level of hate and spitefulness? They would lie about me- falsely accusing me of all sorts of things. Including vandalism, swearing- hand gestures and, theft.

At the time, I was considering- had I done anything they could have honestly misinterpreted? Had I even slept walked maybe and stolen from them? It was utterly crazy!

I firstly began to question whether they believed their own lies. Were they simply psychotic and believed these things had happened? They didn't seem psychotic in any other way though. They seemed however, tremendously impressed with themselves so- that's why I initially looked at narcissism.

It was actually a comfort to read that that behaviour was typical of a narcissist though- to wrongly accuse others. To pretend to be the victim. To get other people (flying monkeys) on side. It's actually hard to express how validated I felt in that moment. Kind of a penny dropping moment. All of their crazy, abusive behaviours were there! Is that truly just coincidence?

The stranger thing is- I've heard on the grape vine- they believe themselves to have ADHD. Which truly- doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they've changed but, asides maybe from being hyper and self centred, they never seemed to struggle to focus on one thing at a time. Interesting though. They clearly realise they're different in some ways to others.

While it doesn't excuse any of it- at least it means it isn't our (the victim's) fault. It may not even be personal. Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A 'them' problem- rather than us. I'd say- if you've ever been on the receiving end of it- that can be a relief.

It's not really even about removing blame from them. Although- that could help in forgiveness- which is perhaps best- to be able to move on. Otherwise, they just continue to hurt us because we can't let go.

I suppose I just see it like- this person has problematic traits. (Whatever they may be.) If we absolutely have to be around them- let's try and figure out what they are and try to not become a victim here.

I'm not meaning to be overly vindictive or representing myself as entirely innocent here. I'd say I also have some problematic character traits that it would be understandable others might wish to protect themselves from. And, I wouldn't blame them.

Perhaps labels can be too broad, innacurate and- even hurtful but then- they're almost inevitable. Because it's a scale too- what are we willing to put up with? Exactly how 'dangerous' is this person? Is someone merely a bit bitchy now and then or, are they showing signs of being capable of truly mallicious acts? Is someone just bad with boundaries or, are they deliberately pushing boundaries in order to overstep them completely?

Then of course- it's going to depend on the person's own history. If they have had bad experiences with a certain type of person- they may become excessively frightened of anyone who displays even one of those behaviours. That's sort of understandable too.

It probably depends on how much we feel the need to mix with one another too. I'm content being a loner now so- thankfully, I don't have to negotiate the minefield of trying to be social. I'm usually not around people long enough now to even really consider what's going on with them. It's mostly professional or small talk now.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

There again- speaking as someone who believes they've been through specifically narcissistic abuse- it helped me. Because- for a long time, their gas lighting partly worked on me. I genuinely wondered if I was in some way, guilty! What had I done to receive this level of hate and spitefulness? They would lie about me- falsely accusing me of all sorts of things. Including vandalism, swearing- hand gestures and, theft.

At the time, I was considering- had I done anything they could have honestly misinterpreted? Had I even slept walked maybe and stolen from them? It was utterly crazy!

I firstly began to question whether they believed their own lies. Were they simply psychotic and believed these things had happened? They didn't seem psychotic in any other way though. They seemed however, tremendously impressed with themselves so- that's why I initially looked at narcissism.

It was actually a comfort to read that that behaviour was typical of a narcissist though- to wrongly accuse others. To pretend to be the victim. To get other people (flying monkeys) on side. It's actually hard to express how validated I felt in that moment. Kind of a penny dropping moment. All of their crazy, abusive behaviours were there! Is that truly just coincidence?

Host here, last alter is taking a front break. But yeah, this is what he meant when he sid it "comforts the monkey brain."

Because statistically, there is no evidence that narcissists are more likely to do any of the things that the narc abuse believes taught you we do. But you know who the statistics do say tend to do this?

Cis, often white, privileged men in general. Cult leaders. Child predators (can confirm from multiple experiences). Cops in particular have high rates of domestic abuse. People boil this down to "beating their wives," but they are also highly controlling at times, weaponizing their position as a cop to say "you can't esccape me, the law won't believe you because I am the law."

Believing in narcissistic abuse is a cheat code to breaking victims out of fawn response and the consequences of gaslighting, but it is just that—a cheat code. In the long run, I find it is psychologically unsustainable, and a large amount of people in the "narc abuse survivor community" develop narcissistic traits of their own. In particular, the criterias regarding "thinking others envy you," and "only associating with special people."

Now, you're probably one of the luckier ones. I haven't seen you mention many traits in yourself that could be on the narcissistic spectrum. But overall, I don't think appealing to the monkey brain is a good way to uplift victims. I'm super glad it helped you (/gen), the damage just outweighs the positive om average.

I use the term "controlling abuse" instead because it doesn't boil down these traits to a disorder that they have no evidence of being connected to outside of armchair diagnosis.

You have previously described things in your particular abuser that can happen in NPD, but gaslighting, "flying monkeys," and the other things are not connected in any way. If that were true, than the majority of people I've met in my life have NPD. Considering I've met these abusive people in real life, online, in completely different areas of my state, at schools, and churches, people who just moved from different areas, etc, that would imply that NPD is the most common disorder in the world aside from depression/anxiety. To truly believe that, you kind of have to ignore all logic

But yeah in general I agree with a lot of your message and respect your experience. No one can force you to stop believing in narc abuse. A few friends of mine who did simple things like mentally shift away from that term and focus more on noticing the inherent pattern of this stuff in colonization and the patriarchy in general did tell me they felt an overall benefit.

But it can take a LOT of cognitive restructuring and considering you're on this site, I somehow doubt you have the mental time/resources to essentially put yourself through a type of therapy when you aren't really the worst offender of stigmatization anyway

 

[Forever Sleep]

Host here, last alter is taking a front break. But yeah, this is what he meant when he sid it "comforts the monkey brain."

Because statistically, there is no evidence that narcissists are more likely to do any of the things that the narc abuse believes taught you we do. But you know who the statistics do say tend to do this?

Cis, often white, privileged men in general. Cult leaders. Child predators (can confirm from multiple experiences). Cops in particular have high rates of domestic abuse. People boil this down to "beating their wives," but they are also highly controlling at times, weaponizing their position as a cop to say "you can't esccape me, the law won't believe you because I am the law."

Believing in narcissistic abuse is a cheat code to breaking victims out of fawn response and the consequences of gaslighting, but it is just that—a cheat code. In the long run, I find it is psychologically unsustainable, and a large amount of people in the "narc abuse survivor community" develop narcissistic traits of their own. In particular, the criterias regarding "thinking others envy you," and "only associating with special people."

Now, you're probably one of the luckier ones. I haven't seen you mention many traits in yourself that could be on the narcissistic spectrum. But overall, I don't think appealing to the monkey brain is a good way to uplift victims. I'm super glad it helped you (/gen), the damage just outweighs the positive om average.

I use the term "controlling abuse" instead because it doesn't boil down these traits to a disorder that they have no evidence of being connected to outside of armchair diagnosis.

You have previously described things in your particular abuser that can happen in NPD, but gaslighting, "flying monkeys," and the other things are not connected in any way. If that were true, than the majority of people I've met in my life have NPD. Considering I've met these abusive people in real life, online, in completely different areas of my state, at schools, and churches, people who just moved from different areas, etc, that would imply that NPD is the most common disorder in the world aside from depression/anxiety. To truly believe that, you kind of have to ignore all logic

But yeah in general I agree with a lot of your message and respect your experience. No one can force you to stop believing in narc abuse. A few friends of mine who did simple things like mentally shift away from that term and focus more on noticing the inherent pattern of this stuff in colonization and the patriarchy in general did tell me they felt an overall benefit.

But it can take a LOT of cognitive restructuring and considering you're on this site, I somehow doubt you have the mental time/resources to essentially put yourself through a type of therapy when you aren't really the worst offender of stigmatization anyway

I'm not without some narcissistic traits. I pursued a career in art. I don't think you can do that without having a reasonable level of self worth and grandiosity- to even hope others will value what you do. I hate being criticized- so, that too. I can get pretty defensive.

That's interesting- the whole: 'I only associate with special people.' Those of us who aren't hugely gregarious likely all do that though. Not necessarily 'special' as in- better but- people we find it comfortable to be around. Not actually massively narcissistic I would say- necessarily. Perhaps a little fragile in the ego department but then- why don't we want to be around these other people? Why do we feel less than comfortable around them? Is that more us or them or, just a bad mix of the two? You can choose not to be around someone and know part of the problem is you.

I have other traits which I would describe as potentially 'toxic' though for sure. Either to me (limerence- the shy obsessive type- no stalking.) Or, to others- a very deep cynicism and pessimism. A tendency to become over dependent in friendships. Sometimes, a spitefulness. Nothing healthy there!

That sounds like prejudiced labelling too though- cops, cis white men, cult leaders. Isn't it more likely someone who has narcissistic or- whatever you want to call it- let's drop the label. Let's go with- a superiority complex, a need for power, a need to dominate and belittle others. People with those traits are surely drawn to jobs or positions in life where they can exercise what makes them happy. Positions of power. So- they had those traits before they did that job most likely. The job didn't necessarily create all that.

You also can't say that ALL cops, ALL religious leaders, ALL political leaders are ALL a bunch of monsters. (I know you aren't saying that necessarily.) Although- it does seem fair to ask the questions- how did they get those jobs? Do they seem to enjoy the power? Do they abuse that power? Those jobs will of course attract people with those traits.

But then- I'm curious. How do they diagnose a narcissist if they aren't showing any traits? If they aren't showing traits or symptoms- why are they considered a narcissist? Because of how they feel? Their experiences?

But then, I tend to wonder how often they get diagnosed anyway. Are they really going to say to a therapist- I can't seem to stop lying about people? I feel like I'm constantly belittling others to make myself sound better? Surely- they are putting on a 'face' to their therapist too? Presumably- a similar one they put on to other people.

'I'M the victim here- these other people have been persecuting me all my life.' Surely- the therapist will simply believe them too! Will they really be so skilled to see through it? And- how would they even react if they did? 'Sounds like you're lying to me!' I dread to think what the person in my life said about me to therapists! I'm surprised I haven't been arrested in a way. I don't think anything is beyond them in terms of lying about me. Sounds like they've moved on to other people now though... poor them.

I wonder that about psychopathic serial offenders in prison. Some seem to have convinced their therapists they had changed. They were no longer a danger. Maybe some do- I don't really know but then, these are some of the most skilled manipulators alive! Why do therapists think they'll be immune?

Isn't gas lighting, playing the victim, triangulation via flying monkeys common to narcissistic abuse? I suppose I don't quite get it. If someone is displaying multiple traits common to a single disorder, isn't it more logical to suspect they have that disorder? Again- emphasizing the word 'suspect' there.

But- it's like someone having multiple symptoms that suggest they have a cold but saying- it might be a cold and something else. I mean- it still could be but- all their symptoms point to it being a cold so- why couldn't it just be that?

I think we should all be careful though certainly. The whole: 'Don't judge a book by its cover.' That's kind of two fold with a narcissist. We may potentially not even realise they have NPD, get taken in by who they pretend to be and then get a (very) nasty shock. Or- we could hear an unpleasant rumour that someone is a narcissist, decide they are the devil incarnate and never actually find out they didn't behave in the expected way. So sure- I think we do need to be cautious we aren't just assuming things.

I've always found (predicted) diagnosis useful though. I know others think it is irresponsible and potentially dangerous sometimes. I've noticed people also sometimes wear it as a badge of honour when they have been OFFICIALLY diagnosed. I partially get that. Just about everyone seems to be diagnosing themselves with something these days and, it's got to piss the people off who have struggled so severely, they have been officially diagnosed.

But again- personally, I've found it kind of annoying. My Dad once told me- he knew I was struggling but, it wasn't REAL clinical depression like this other family member had. Because they'd been diagnosed- presumably. But that kind of thing- it does tend to run through your mind- how do you even know? What will you blame it on if I do kill myself? I bet then- you'll be grasping for it being due to depression!

So- I think it works in all directions. Not having a certified label in mental illness can actually just lead to people thinking you must automatically have a very minor affliction or, you're saying it for attention. Not maybe that you come from a background that mocked the whole idea of mental illness and hated doctors anyway so- never fully got diagnosed.

But- put it this way. Two issues I decided I had were (borderline) binge eating disorder and, limerence. Knowing or, suspecting I was prone to those two things helped me get them under (reasonable) control. So- I suppose I just think it depends on the person.

Labels helped my 'monkey brain' get a grip on myself. Come to terms with other people's behaviour. And just be less naive around people. That who they present isn't necessarily who they are. But sure- I'm sure it can have a detrimental effect too- if used to totally ostacize or prejudice others. Plus presumably- if we internalize labels. That can't be fun.

 

[Dejected 55]

Good and evil are really subjective anyway. What is evil to one person is good to another, and vice-versa. The "villain" usually does not see himself as the villain. The hero, however, always sees himself as the hero... even if he turns out to be the villain.

You might say, but murder is surely evil, right? It impedes on my right to be alive... Sure, that's your perspective. But from the perspective of the killer, maybe he feels like it is right to kill people he doesn't like, or he enjoys it... and who are you to take away his right to happiness?

IF one day the world tilted more towards self-survival and anarchy again, as in the beginning... things we consider evil today might just be the way of the world.

I'm not defending any particular action... just making the logical point that good and evil are largely defined by what most people thinks is good or bad for them... majority rule doesn't mean majority is right. Lots of times the majority get it wrong... Like slavery... most of us would consider slavery to be evil or at least very wrong... but for a long time, and even today for a lot of people, slavery is seen either as neutral or necessary... and for a while, the majority were on the side of slavery and perpetuated it. Many would have even argued it was good, giving their slaves "purpose" and such. Was slavery still evil? By today's standards, sure... and most would agree now... but it didn't used to be considered evil by the majority. The pendulum can always swing the other way.