Is Taylor Swift A Psychopath?

Part two...

All right guys, it’s time to dive into part two of this article, and I think it’s going to be wild. Let’s do this.

Psychopaths have a need for constant stimulation, exhibit high levels of attention-seeking behavior and are prone to boredom.

How do you soothe all of these urges at once? World tour! Psychopaths also seem to have a “stress immunity” because they don't have normal fear or anxiety responses. That's probably helpful in this situation, no?

Psychopaths do have issues with boredom. There is no doubt about that. I do like a fair amount of stimulation, but that doesn’t mean that I cannot sit in quiet and peace. We are certainly capable of that, so the idea that we need “constant stimulation” is incorrect. The next sentence, that we exhibit high levels of “attention seeking behavior”… No. That’s not psychopathic, that is narcissistic.

Now, you might be thinking that I am calling Taylor Swift narcissistic, but, as I have mentioned previously, I do not know her at all, and trying to assess a celebrity for anything when you are evaluating a persona that is being put on as part of an entertainment career is ridiculous.

The next part, “How do you soothe all of these urges at once? World tour!” is nuts. Taylor Swift has to tour because that is her job. She isn’t touring for her ego. They are some of the most sought-after shows on the planet. It isn’t as though she is renting out arenas and paying people to show up. People are paying insane amounts of money because she’s showing up. As a musician, this is her freaking job. Also, she didn’t get to the level of world tours by just deciding that was what she was going to do. She worked for it and I imagine that work was grueling. Not to simp for Taylor Swift, but respect the game at least.

Psychopaths also seem to have a “stress immunity” because they don't have normal fear or anxiety responses. That's probably helpful in this situation, no?

Yes, it would be helpful, sure. However, Jamie has no idea what Taylor is like backstage. She might get off stage and be emotionally drained and physically exhausted. She might have stage fright before performing. The fact is, a lot of people never get over that no matter how many times they perform and how happy the crowd is to see them. In fact, there are a number of musicians who have become addicts because they utilize drugs and alcohol to get over that fear. Jamie is assuming that Taylor Swift is just fine all the time because she is able to appear to be fine when the cameras are on or she is around her fans. That doesn’t make her a psychopath, it makes her a professional.

Psychopaths fail to feel remorse or guilt and will only accept blame if it somehow benefits them.

Swift has had more than a few famous fights. First there was Kanye West (where she insisted that we watch her repeatedly take the high road), then came Katy Perry (who she apparently stole tour dancers from and then got mad when Perry stole them back) and most recently it was Nicki Minaj. This fight played out on Twitter. Minaj had a valid complaint about MTV's Video Music Awards and Swift took it personally. Swift then realized her error and issued a classy apology that effectively squashed all of the bad press that she was getting related to the argument. That's the closest that Swift has ever come to a serious media blunder.

…She didn’t start the fight with Kanye West. That was all him. I don’t know a lot about her career, but that one doesn’t take anything more than eyeballs to know how that whole thing began. As for Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj, a lot of “celebrity fights” or beefs are manufactured for the purpose of generating press. I don’t know, nor do I care about some fight over background dancers. Frankly, I don’t think anyone really does. I would, however, be surprised if any of these women are exclusively, or perhaps even partially in control of their social media accounts.

It is just as likely that the next insult that people are hanging in anticipation of reading on socials is coming from an intern, not the celebrity themselves. That would also be a good reason why Taylor hasn’t had any real social media blunders. It’s one thing when you are the actual celebrity that might get some blowback for what is said. It’s quite another when your entire career might be over because you messed up by emotionally responding.

Psychopaths use others to their advantage and engage in superficial friendships.

Swift's hyper-stylized video for “Bad Blood” contained a selection of her famous friends— including quite a few supermodels. She received much attention for assembling a modern girl-gang and inspired many uses of “#squad.” Swift also used this video to really push the idea that she's a sexy girl leading a sexy life with her sexy girlfriends. One problem: Taylor Swift is not sexy. She's supremely pretty. She's sometimes even gorgeous, but she is never sexy. She uses these women and all of the people that she drags up on stage every night to try to display that she is well-liked and interesting and talented. She might be all of those things, but not because of her superficial BS bragging-rights friendships.

*Head on desk*… Oh Jamie, celebrities hang out with celebrities. It is not only the crowd that they are around, it is what is expected of them. They are supposed to date certain people, be seen with other certain people, be known to associate with other people, be at the party, be in the tabloids, have that public breakup, etc.

I, again, do not think that Miss. Swift is the one deciding on the direction music videos are taking. She has a team for that. She has a whole team who are creating the persona of Taylor Swift. They are going to make videos that resonate with her fans. As for her “squad”? *Sigh* Image. This is all about image. Taylor Swift is doing what all celebrities do. There is nothing about this that is psychopathic in nature. It is just show business.

One problem: Taylor Swift is not sexy. She's supremely pretty. She's sometimes even gorgeous, but she is never sexy.

Umm…are you sure about that?

Cuz… all it takes is a quick Google image search, Taylor Swift sexy, and you will get a number of shots that are specifically meant to be “sexy”. I have no idea where the notion that she doesn’t do sexy comes from, but Jamie already demonstrated that she knows that Google images exists, but in this instance decided to ignore that fact.

She uses these women and all of the people that she drags up on stage every night to try to display that she is well-liked and interesting and talented. She might be all of those things, but not because of her superficial BS bragging-rights friendships.

Celebrity friendships tend to be about mutual benefit so I am not certain that “using” is a correct term in this context. It’s pretty much an agreed-upon arrangement based on their celebrity status. Jamie then admits that Taylor might be “ well-liked and interesting and talented”, but then insists that it isn’t because of her, “superficial BS bragging-rights friendships”.

I can guess that the friendships are superficial to at least some degree. If Jamie understood what kind of lifestyle it takes to become someone like “Taylor Swift”, she would understand that normal friendships aren’t exactly easy to maintain. She hangs out publically with others who have similar lifestyles. I meant… wouldn’t you? How many people would genuinely understand her situation? Not a lot. Other people who have similar situations are going to relate to her better than the average individual.

Psychopaths will appear normal to unsuspecting people.

Taylor Swift just likes to hang out at home, you guys. Sometimes she goes shopping. She's just a regular girl.

Does she think that she did something with this paragraph? There is literally no point here. Maybe Taylor would very much like to be a regular girl. The grass is always greener. Maybe she does like hanging out at home. Did she ask Taylor? I doubt it would matter, because she would just assume that Taylor is lying with whatever response she had.

Psychopaths are supremely narcissistic.

Swift recently became the most followed person on Instagram. That won't help control her narcissistic tendencies at all.

Again, this is not a point. Taylor Swift being popular on Instagram means nothing. She is enormously popular off Instagram as well. One tends to translate to the other, and again, she has a social media team. I am very much sure that she does. Psychopaths are not supremely narcissistic either. That would be *gasp* narcissists. I know, go figure, right? Jamie makes no argument for Taylor Swift’s supposed “narcissistic tendencies”. She simply says that she has them, and we all know that, “because I say so”, is a very compelling argument. *Shaking my head*

Good lord, this article just keeps going. Sigh, all right, let’s trudge on with this. Sooner or later we will get to the end.

Psychopaths cannot attach emotionally.

Swift has cats for pets. What better pet for a person who can’t attach emotionally? Most cats DGAF about their owners, so it totally makes sense for their owners to not GAF right back. Cats will manipulate you into getting whatever they want, they will blatantly disobey you and have no compunction about going all Fancy Feast on your face pretty much immediately after you take your last breath. Cats are psychopaths.

Jamie has never had a cat, has she? Cats are very affectionate. The only people that I have ever met who say that their cats are not affectionate are people who don’t understand cats. They tend to be the same sort that asks questions on Quora like:

I’m going away for three weeks. Will my cat be fine alone if I leave them a bowl of food and the toilet seat up?

Or:

My vegan cats are bony and sickly. What can I do differently?

And then are shocked when people are horrified at this notion. Seriously, rehome your cats. Now, I will say, I have cats. My cats are very attached to me, and while I can’t bond with them in the same way, I still really like having cats. Wherever I go in the house, they are generally right behind me, next to me, or under my feet not trying to murder me but nearly succeeding in doing so anyway. Nothing about being a psychopath means that you cannot have and enjoy pets.

Taylor having cats might be because they do handle absence slightly better than a dog, and perhaps, just perhaps, she thinks that this is a better choice of pets. Or, maybe she just likes cats more than dogs. Lots of people are cat people or dog people, but then again, it is obvious she just doesn’t care about her cats at all. I mean, look at this:

Thus, by our estimation Taylor Swift is probably a psychopath. But how do we help Sister Swift? Well, we can't. Psychopaths can't be cured.

By what estimation? Seriously, there has not been a single convincing argument made thus far. Also, I am waiting to find the, “Ha ha, just kidding. This article is just for laughs,” part of this post. Where is it? It looks like we are almost at the end, and there is no way that this article is serious… right?

Please say that I’m right. The parody part is the next paragraph. It has to be.

Nope. Wrong apparently.

But check out these quotes from this informative article:

“Psychopathy is probably the most pleasant-feeling of all the mental disorders. All of the things that keep you good, morally good, are painful things: guilt, remorse, empathy.” - Jon Ronson, author

“Psychopaths can work very quickly, and can have an apparent IQ higher than it really is, because they’re not inhibited by moral concerns.” - James Fallon, neuroscientist

Starting with Ronson’s quote:

“Psychopathy is probably the most pleasant-feeling of all the mental disorders. All of the things that keep you good, morally good, are painful things: guilt, remorse, empathy.” - Jon Ronson, author

Psychopathy is not a mental disorder. It is a difference in the brain. Nothing keeps a person “good” or “morally good”. Most people are neither, and they are certainly living unexamined lives. If the assumption is that your brain formation is what makes you “good”, you aren’t good. You have a far higher chance of being evil because you are operating on a false assumption of moral superiority. That is the recipe for disaster. There have been a ton of examples of people who believe that they are “morally good” for no other reason than the fact that they live and breathe, and the moment that they have the opportunity to commit atrocities jump at the chance, all the while justifying their actions as correct and righteous.

Brain formation does not make a person good or morally better. You still have to evaluate your impact on the world and what matters to you as an individual. You create the world in which you want to live. If you don’t examine your role in that, you are destined to make a mess.

Now for Fallon’:

“Psychopaths can work very quickly, and can have an apparent IQ higher than it really is, because they’re not inhibited by moral concerns.” - James Fallon, neuroscientist

Nope. Sorry, this is far too overreaching to have any semblance of being truthful. Psychopaths might work quickly, but that isn’t a blanket statement that can be applied to everyone. There are plenty of us who will struggle with concepts or learning something. Nothing about psychopathy removes the learning curve of life.

Psychopaths can have a higher IQ? Sure, we can, but we can also be dumb as rocks, which leads me to the next part of the statement.

…can have an apparent IQ higher than it really is, because they’re not inhibited by moral concerns.

That is a double-edged sword. It just is. A psychopath who is smart might very well not be bogged down by things that emotions might interfere with and be able to make a correct decision based purely in logic instead of uncertainty due to those emotions. However, on the other hand, but a very important hand to keep in mind, if a psychopath is stupid and lacks the emotions that might stand in place of moral consideration, they might make very poor decisions because they are self-interested and self-focused. You cannot have one, without the other, and it bears mentioning.

Back to Taylor Swift and why this article must have been written by throwing darts randomly at a board.

Sounds pretty nice, actually. So don't even (pretend to) worry about our hypothetical diagnosis, Ms. Swift. Just... uh... shake it off.

Whoooo is we? I only see one name on this article, and that is Jamie Lees. Also, Miss Lees, you have done nothing but trash Taylor throughout this entire article, and are concluding by stating that it sounds pretty nice? That seems disingenuous and dismissive.

My guess, as there is no mention that this is a joke written for a laugh, is that this was just a clickbait article meant to incense Swift fans and drive traffic. The comments section is pretty good evidence of this and believe me, we are going to talk about that a little bit. There is nothing in this writing that demonstrates anything about Taylor Swift, but it does give a lot of insight into the person writing it and that insight seems to me to be driven by jealousy and resentment. That’s unfortunate, but it isn’t unusual.

This is just another example where someone is using the term “psychopath” to get some attention. I think the article could have been amusing if Miss Lees had made it a parody article, but that isn’t the case. Either she felt that it was a genuine subject that warranted exploration or she was told by her editors to get clicks however necessary. My guess is that it’s the second. It’s a pretty normal thing. Generate content that generates traffic, regardless of the truthfulness or lack thereof. Psychopaths are constantly reminded that we lack empathy as though somehow neurotypicals’ possession of it makes them better.

This article lacks empathy. Sure, Taylor Swift is a public figure, and that, in a lot of people’s minds, makes her a fair target. I don’t agree that is the case, however. Jealousy of a public figure of the caliber of Swift is normal, but the need to tear her down with the idea that she is a “psychopath” complete with all the myths that come along with that and that are included in this piece, that’s another story.

Also, let’s assume that I am correct that the reasoning for this article is clickbait to enrage her fans and bring the haters to argue with them in the comments section. Why is it so attractive to trade in outrage? Because it works, but it’s also emotionally manipulative and damaging to the world. People living in a perpetual state of anger are unhappy people. Articles like this propagate that emotion and keep people in an unhappy place. Either they are gleeful about tormenting those who come out to defend Swift, or they are emotionally wounded because someone that they like and respect is under attack.

It is obvious that the intention of the post is to make people upset on one side or the other based on the tenor and the contents of it. Nowhere in this article, until the very end, is psychopathy presented as anything other than something terrible to be. The author tries to wipe all the disdain that is all throughout the article by the final sentence claiming that psychopathy sounds nice and all of this is hypothetical anyway, so it doesn’t matter. It does matter.

It is intellectually dishonest to think that disparaging someone as well as a clearly not understood concept is fine because after all, this is all hypothetical. The same type of person who believes that is often the very same type of person who would be deeply offended if this was directed at someone that they know, such as themselves or a family member or friend, or if it was detailing something that they themselves deal with. Think, instead of psychopathy it was something like autism followed by a bunch of factually incorrect nonsense. They would be angry about that, but are more than happy to do it when it doesn’t directly affect them. That is logically inconsistent.

Let’s take a visit to the comments section. I won’t spend a lot of time here, as you can all go read the comments for yourselves, but they are exactly what I assumed they would be. Here is a sample:

ijay13

8 years ago

To the Author: YOU ARE the Psychopath. LOL!

oceanfloor1→ ijay13

4 years ago

And you are a fool. One of way too many who are making this vicious predatory little bitch filthy rich and now able to foist her warmed over political "revelations" on her army of squeeing little teenie fans. Sad.

Bri Ericksen→ oceanfloor1

2 years ago

She has fans of all ages. Kinder, smarter, better people than you who don't rip apart a female for doing nothing worse than exercising her Freedom of Speech. Even when a dj tried to give her hell and he lied because he was a pos, she won, and history shows she was telling the truth.

Outrage and anger, fighting and discontent, defensive and gloating.

All of this is mentally destructive, and articles like this thrive on that. Keep that in mind when you read. What is the author’s intention? Is it to convey information that gives you pause and something to consider, or are they seeking to emotionally guile you into an emotional reaction because it drives advertising traffic? One has value, the other is just standard operating procedure for publications of our current age.

Side note guys, I have turned on paid subscriptions. The paid subscriptions are simply to support the work I am doing and for those of you who want to assist with it. I will be coming up with specific perks for those subscriptions, and suggestions are welcome. If you are inclined to subscribe, think of what would make it worth it to you, and let me know. I haven’t figured out the terms quite yet.