*interrupts, speaking in unself aware narcissist*: Yeah, I remember 9/11. It was actually much worse for me, because I saw it on good morning America. So the trauma is much more real than it could've been for people who merely were there, but didn't have to see it on tv. Plus, I was on intense probation at the time.
Anyway, Athena, did I tell you about the time I was 5... maybe 6 years old, and at the breakfast table? I asked for a second helping of Count Chokula cereal and I was denied this by my own mother. What kind of person would do that to a 5 year old kid??! I hate this country sometimes, people are so apathetic to those of us who are really knowledgeable in suffering. Jesus, now I gotta do a load of laundry so I have a shirt to wear to work. I hope I've helped you with my reality here, and if you're still reading this... </sarcastic humor> I'm terribly sorry, lol. I am no stranger. I do sometimes find these folks entertaining. But I'm trying not to make this all about me. And failing. :-)
Oh dear, there are a LOT of Tanyas out there. I call them alligators, as they are all mouth and no ears. Apropos of all this, allow me to share with you a quick English translation (sorry for the errors, but I hope at least the main ideas are intelligible) of a passage from a wonderful book by French philosopher David Le Breton entitled "Du Silence" ("On Silence"), which I believe defines with great brilliance, irony and eloquence all the Tanyas and alligators of this world:
- The loquacious person's heaviness -
The loquacious person abuses verbiage and, above all, leaves no room for the other. He takes the ritual recourse to emphatic communication to its ultimate consequences, and goes so far as to caricature it by means of the symbolic annihilation of his companion, from whom he seeks only a complacent ear. In his stubborn struggle against silence, he achieves the feat of spending his life making the simple emission an indefatigable activity. He seeks to saturate time through the charm of a discourse in which the addressee matters little, since its content is not only empty of meaning, but also indifferent to the listener: its only objective is the reiterated affirmation of himself. The cogito of the loquacious speaker could be formulated as follows: "I exist because I continually break the silence with my proliferating word". He ignores the need for pauses in discourse and turns of speech, he alone consumes the time that the exchange lasts, and saturates the resources of silence with his poor speech, imposing on the other the ordeal of having to listen to him. He does not tolerate any interstice in speech. He needs his companion to complete the simulacrum, for being incapable of keeping silent, it is natural that he cannot hear him; he does not even realize that good manners require compliance with certain rules. He invades the mental space of his interlocutor, he overwhelms him with a series of uninteresting details that only concern him; and, not content with setting himself up as the master of ceremonies of the exchange, he suppresses any possibility of reply, settling for a denaturalized face to face, which is also conditioned by a forced acceptance. Kafka says in his Diary: "Is the forest still there? The forest was more or less there. But, as soon as my sight was ten paces away, I gave up, trapped once more by the dull conversation."
Since he is frightened of silence, and continually breaks the rule of reciprocity of language, the loquacious runs the risk of endless repetition of the futile. His tireless rhetoric on the insignificant exposes him to the boredom or impatience of an interlocutor, who is submerged under a closed verbal flow, without pauses, without silence, whose only reason is to proclaim: "I exist, I continue to exist now and always". The loquacious person speaks only of himself. But he needs the pretext of another, a double with an indifferent face; for, curiously enough, in spite of his thirst for discourse, no one is going to speak alone in front of a wall or a mirror: he demands the shadow of another to give body to his verbal assault. So that his interlocutor is practically interchangeable; for a simple modification in the orientation of the discourse solves the problem. Sometimes, he becomes so bold that he confesses that he is very talkative, thus disarming at the outset any reproach, and vindicates without a misunderstood embarrassment this profuse and uninteresting speech. "It is as if he wishes to annul his relationship with his fellow man the moment he brings him into existence; remembering (implicitly) that if he confides it is by means of an inconsequential revelation, addressed to an equally inconsequential person, by way of a language that excludes all responsibility and refuses any response," writes Maurice Blanchot.
The loquacious manifests a special passion for the emphatic function of language, and proclaims it. The characters of Clamence, in Camus' 'The Fall', and of Louis-René Des Foréts' 'The Charlatan', illustrate the inordinate fondness for a speech without a real interlocutor; the covert soliloquy that demands from the other only the appearance of attention, and whose preferred place is the bar of a bar.
To speak, to speak incessantly in order to oppose silence, to testify that the social bond has not been completely undone, and to affirm in this modest way his personal importance. Beckett says: "To talk fast, words plus words, like the solitary child who divides himself into several, two, three, in order to feel accompanied, and to talk accompanied in the night."
The loquacious one sometimes provokes the dispersion of the group when he approaches, or the sudden departure of those who went towards him without having recognized him. Before him, silence suddenly acquires an unexpected value, even for those who had not considered this question before. Plutarch, with great skill, speaks of the emptiness that surrounds the speaker the moment they see him approaching -at a show or in the square-, and the sudden silence of the group surprised by his arrival, who are afraid to give rise to his speech before finding a good reason to leave the place: "Everyone is horrified by hurricanes and dizziness .... That is why no one is at ease with these people: neither their table companions at the banquets, nor those who share their tents with them in the army, nor any of those who come across them in their travels by land and sea". The proximity of the loquacious is a guarantee of noise, the impossibility of finding in oneself a propitious interiority. His infinite speech is a declaration of war without quarter to silence.
Even if he says nothing, the loquacious person says a thousand things; the content is of little importance, since the aim is to maintain the distance, to occupy the time, to conjure up the arrival of silence. All this in exchange for a constant nod, and a gaze that does not leave him, even at the risk of suffering painful muscular tension. This minimum of listening stimulates his loquacity and even, sometimes, as he notices that he has awakened a modicum of attention, his words become more animated as if he were making a plea, all the more convinced of what he is saying the lesser the transcendence.
M. Blanchot also says: "Chattering destroys language by totally preventing speech. When one speaks incessantly, nothing is really said; this does not mean that what is said is false: what happens is that one is not really speaking". But speech is not as inexhaustible as silence, and it is understandable that such an attitude leads to verbal inflation. Nothingness is infinite and, therefore, always remains to be filled. If verbiage is a necessary and amusing factor of daily life, an elementary form of complicity, the loquacious, on the other hand, causes great harm to language, since it is fundamental for the establishment of social ties. By denying the other, without realizing it, his place, what he does is to continually project himself, hiding his ability to communicate and interest his interlocutor. Since he has not a shred of silence, the loquacious person's speech is excluding and oppressive, lacking reciprocity. It tries to ward off the threats of silence, and is doomed to always be empty and endless.
You are describing competitiveness in the human race which is taken to an extreme state of believing that unless there is a 'win' that there is no 'me'. This is the current pandemic.
That’s a trap I make a real effort to avoid falling into (I’ve had plenty of all-about-me moments - as an adult, no less).
You commented in a post on Quora that you’ll be the best friend anyone’s ever had, once you’ve let them into your circle. Not many NTs can make that claim, even if they get an ego boost from being ‘Such a great friend, and overall person!’ - even if this appraisal is self-generated. Once again, someone who - by nature - really doesn’t care about others trumps NTs with mature, pro-social behavior. Quite the bitter pill for ‘empaths’ to swallow. I do my best consistently, but the ego still whines about it.
In my mind, friendship and the value of it is weighed by the actions that the other person is willing to undertake for you. If they have a lot of support to speak about, but when needed they disappear, there is nothing to that friendship.
However, if they are there when you need them without fail, that is the friend that has intent on being so.
This last paragraph sums everything up. I have three people in my life like this. They are my family. Each of us will unquestionably be there for the other (despite travel costs, work, other conditions. )
Do they treat those around them consistently the same way, or do they treat me well, but have negative things to say to others the majority of the time.
They know how to keep other people's secrets. I do not care for someone that happily shares other people's secrets with me knowing that these secrets should have been kept to themselves. If they will do it with you, they will do it to you.
They are emotionally stable. I don't have the patience for someone that is hot and cold on a daily basis.
They would fare better if they are low in emotional volume. Otherwise they will struggle with how I am.
I dunno. These people don't trump me. I'm an NT I guess; hate labels. Perhaps a solution is to let ego go and let the person go. Makes room for others who truly care about you to enter and enhance your life.
OMG, I haven't even finished reading this post but I totally know what you're talking about and, TOP THIS, one of them was SO toxic he threatened to bankrupt the company I worked for when people didn't respond to him the way he thought they should! And let me tell you just how rough that was for me!
Just kidding. I mean, sort of. I could not care less who has had it more rough -- well, actually, the less rough it's been for me the better, lol. I have known very few toxic-level people in my life, though the person I referred to is real. And it was his own company! It was a startup he owned 50/50 with a business partner (the person who actually had it rough). He was (THANKFULLY) the most toxic person I've known.
He did not make things up wholesale, but rather stretched the truth to try to make himself seem more important. For example, "I've given talks at X conference," but it's lightning talks that anyone could sign up to give. Yes, it fed his internal narrative about his life and made him feel important, made him feel special. That's exactly what it was meant to accomplish. However, because it was driven by a profound sense of insecurity, a deep-down belief that he was NOT important, it didn't accomplish it very well. But that made him all the more desperate to try.
There was definitely a lack of (or, perhaps more accurately, a denial of) self-awareness.
In my opinion, the "making things about oneself" behavior is a common one that exists on a spectrum. I certainly have engaged, but most often in childhood. Especially since adults can be indulging, "Oooh, you're so fast" or "Oooh, you're so smart" when you're too young to understand the "playing along" tone. In adolescence I got a better understanding of the perspective of other people, and also came to dislike attention, so I found other ways to deal with insecurity. (Not always better ways, but less annoying ways, I hope.) I also have decreased my level of insecurity over time.
So, I have a question. What sort of mask do you put on when encountering these behaviors? Does it change when you figure out, "This person is only interested in making things about themselves," or do you just keep a sort of status quo, or ... ?
The reason I ask is that I think about my own "neurotypical mask" (ie. I keep my emotions to myself by default), and I am happy to listen and let other people talk. I'll throw in nods or questions if I want to demonstrate interest (usually due to genuinely being interested). But if I sense that someone wants validation from me that I don't want to give, I shift to more stoic so as to not reward the behavior. This is not effective on the determined types (and never effective on those who don't really care about validation and actually only care that I have boobs), but for others... Well, I don't seem to have as much of a problem as you do with people just telling you their life story because you don't say anything.
But it could be that I'm just less annoyed by it when it happens. Or maybe I'm less stoic than I think. Or more stoic than I think. Not that it matters, I'm just curious. :)
I don't tend to talk about myself much anyway, so there isn't a whole lot of one upping that they are going to be able to participate in. I simply watch how they interact with others and try to glean exactly what it is they are seeking and why.
LOL. That's funny. I mean that someone managed to find a way to try to one-up you despite your relative silence on such matters. I'm referencing your "I apologize..." which is priceless.
On what Athena says to these people ... she once said, "I apologize to you if at any time I gave you the mistaken impression that I give a damn what. you. think." Awesome.
I had an uncle like that. he and his wife routinely intruded on my parents vacation trips by inviting themselves along. I'd frequently get phone calls from dad asking if I could book him an airline ticket so he could fly back and not have to travel in the car with them.
The last time I saw that uncle alive it was at a family gathering and I was explaining some physical therapy that I was undergoing for a knee injury and he became livid and launched into a heart attack story since he wasn't sure how to match my treatment.
Those sorts of people are just exhausting to deal with and I avoid them if it's possible
This is unrelated to your post , Athena, but I wanted your opinion.
There is a close friend I know who absolutely refuses to stand up for himself. His extended family is trying to completely usurp his share of property, citing lies like he did not look after his ageing parents like his other brothers , along with harrassing his wife and kids. Rather than agressively fighting for his right and respect, he likes to pretend that everything is fine, life is in complete harmony . He believes that God will look out for him since he clearly is the good guy here. He also refuses to give up his share in lieu of mental peace, because it is his birthright and things will resolve on their own because good guys always win, right?
I used to fear he was brainwashed by all these movies which showed that good always triumphs over evil, but now I really think he has a psychological problem. His wife had been suffering mentally because of this for years, but he refuses to, and I mean actively refuses, to do anything to exit this situation. Their fights were so blown over that I felt they would have divorced a long time ago if they didn't have kids. See, he does not have a plan or even a valid argument. All he says is that God will see to it that justice is delivered. Apparently that means that things will get better without him lifting a finger, because he is a .... good guy.
Since you have seen alot of types of people in your lifetime, I wondered whether you had met someone like this and had figured out why they were like this?
Sorry for the long post, I wanted to flesh out this person's behaviour to the best of my capacity.
I have people like this and it seems to trace back to denial. I have seen people be taken fully advantage of by their family or friends, but they are unwilling to see it. Often this has to do with them being in need of love and acceptance. They would rather be treated like garbage than to alienate people that give them any sort of attention, and will excuse this behavior by saying things like, "they're just joking", or, "I know that they love me, they just don't know how to share it".
They are entirely able to convince themselves that their friends and family hold them in high regard, and that they would never do anything to harm them despite the fact that they already have. They will say, "that's in the past", or "they didn't mean to", or give them any excuse as to why it wasn't really their fault, but rather somehow instead of people taking advantage, either you just don't understand the other person, or the person who is getting taken advantage of convinces themselves that they are partially or mostly to blame.
Or until there is no way for him to avoid the truth, such as his family outright telling him that they consider him an easy to use idiot, and nothing more. But, if he is an easy to use idiot who only sees the good in people, and he still has things to be taken from him, then there is little chance that will happen.
How do you deal with someone like Tanya at a workplace? Someone who constantly wants to be the centre of attention and have things go their way alone. Would you call a person like that a narcissist?
I wouldn't call them anything, but I have no time for someone wasting my time droning on and on about their importance. I dealt with someone like this, and one of the times they were going loudly complaining about whatever was raising their ire, they made the mistake of asking me,
"Do you know what I think?"
To which I finally turned my attention to them and replied,
"I apologize to you if at any time I gave you the mistaken impression that I give a damn what. you. think."
I hadn't heard of Tania Head (or rather Alicia Head) before. Interesting to learn about. Have to wonder if making money (as well as gaining widespread attention) was a major aim here!
I’m guessing you mean in that the tragedy of others might have seemed the perfect way for her to find positive validation/attention (whether consciously or unconsciously )when she had trouble getting it otherwise?
I mean someone that views unfortunate events, or whatever the current social issue that is garnering a lot of attention, as ego fuel, but there aren't enough of these things happening naturally to feed this need, so they invent them, or insert themselves into things for their emotional payoff.
I remember reading all about Tanya and stumbling across a discussion forum page about her where someone described: “It’s like Münchausen syndrome but instead of pretending you have cancer for sympathy, it’s a terrorist attack.” What stuck out to me the most was that no one seemed to have a definitive motive for Tanya’s actions. Was it money? Fame? Did she just want to be part of something ‘bigger’ and saw her opportunity? I have no idea and I probably never will since she pretty much went off the radar after being exposed.
Interestingly, despite finding it annoying myself when people seemingly try to ‘one up’ what I’m telling them with a story of their own, I do it at times, but for very different reasons. I never noticed until someone pointed it out, but it’s apparently a common thing for people with ADHD, ASD and other similar diagnoses.
You tell me a story and even though I know it’ll be interpreted as trying to talk over someone, my instinct is to try to show that person I’m paying attention, I care what they have to say, and look, I can even relate because X thing happened and we have a shared experience! It’s not that I’m trying to tell a better story or think I deserve attention more, it’s just a weird communication quirk that I’ve always had, and didn’t even realize it could be related to my ADHD until I discovered the comics by ADHDAlien and was like, ‘Wait, that’s a THING? I just thought I was bad at conversation, wild.’
Spot on commentary. I call these folks "Penelopes" after a character Kristin Wigg created on Saturday Night Live to satirize the absurdity of this kind of behavior. The best episode to watch is when Anne Hathaway is the guest host. They are serving at a soup kitchen for Thanksgiving and Penelope is "one upping" everything. Perfect illustration of how annoying this behavior is.
Oh my, Tanya lost her husband and almost lost her arm? Same for me but I lost both my arms and my two husbands!
Jokes aside this post really sets a perspective about "vampire" people. They only suck your energy and give nothing back. My short experience with these people is to either be unpleasant so they won't bother you anymore or you use it to your advantage if they are in a position of power.
First case happened when I was looking for drawing classes. At first glance the professor was nice and cordial but as the time passed he was only talking about himself again and again and it started to tire me out to hear this "egocast". He was always the center of conversation and when he showed me two drawings I thought it were both his drawings so I said "the one on the left is better" but HIS drawing was on the right and he wanted to hear HIS version was better. Oh my, what a crime I'd committed.
So what happened is he immediately cut the conversation and went to talk to another person. It was very abrupt, like switching channels. And I was left out of the conversation for the rest of the day. I initiated a conversation with a woman and he inserted himself and started to talk about him again and I thought "these people are crazy for standing someone like him". As a NT, I need to feel part of the group and talk to people.
So I decided to switch professors, and the one I have know is truly pleasant and nice and everybody in the classroom likes to talk to him.
Tell me something Athena. NPD is a personality disorder which itself occurs as a coping mechanism, which is ultimately masking insecurities in self esteem. I also know that this condition has to be diagnosed by a psychologist. But not everyone suffers from NPD ,right?
Yet there are people who appear narcissistic without having NPD. So then why are they the way they are?
Well, there is a difference between narcissistic traits, which everyone has, and narcissistic personality disorder, which is a diagnosable issue. NPD is a very specific thing.
What people tend to not understand is that "neurotypical" does not equate to "without pathology". There are many NTs that have problems in their lives that will manifest in the world in a variety of ways. Many of them are unhealthy.
*interrupts, speaking in unself aware narcissist*: Yeah, I remember 9/11. It was actually much worse for me, because I saw it on good morning America. So the trauma is much more real than it could've been for people who merely were there, but didn't have to see it on tv. Plus, I was on intense probation at the time.
Anyway, Athena, did I tell you about the time I was 5... maybe 6 years old, and at the breakfast table? I asked for a second helping of Count Chokula cereal and I was denied this by my own mother. What kind of person would do that to a 5 year old kid??! I hate this country sometimes, people are so apathetic to those of us who are really knowledgeable in suffering. Jesus, now I gotta do a load of laundry so I have a shirt to wear to work. I hope I've helped you with my reality here, and if you're still reading this... </sarcastic humor> I'm terribly sorry, lol. I am no stranger. I do sometimes find these folks entertaining. But I'm trying not to make this all about me. And failing. :-)
Oh dear, there are a LOT of Tanyas out there. I call them alligators, as they are all mouth and no ears. Apropos of all this, allow me to share with you a quick English translation (sorry for the errors, but I hope at least the main ideas are intelligible) of a passage from a wonderful book by French philosopher David Le Breton entitled "Du Silence" ("On Silence"), which I believe defines with great brilliance, irony and eloquence all the Tanyas and alligators of this world:
- The loquacious person's heaviness -
The loquacious person abuses verbiage and, above all, leaves no room for the other. He takes the ritual recourse to emphatic communication to its ultimate consequences, and goes so far as to caricature it by means of the symbolic annihilation of his companion, from whom he seeks only a complacent ear. In his stubborn struggle against silence, he achieves the feat of spending his life making the simple emission an indefatigable activity. He seeks to saturate time through the charm of a discourse in which the addressee matters little, since its content is not only empty of meaning, but also indifferent to the listener: its only objective is the reiterated affirmation of himself. The cogito of the loquacious speaker could be formulated as follows: "I exist because I continually break the silence with my proliferating word". He ignores the need for pauses in discourse and turns of speech, he alone consumes the time that the exchange lasts, and saturates the resources of silence with his poor speech, imposing on the other the ordeal of having to listen to him. He does not tolerate any interstice in speech. He needs his companion to complete the simulacrum, for being incapable of keeping silent, it is natural that he cannot hear him; he does not even realize that good manners require compliance with certain rules. He invades the mental space of his interlocutor, he overwhelms him with a series of uninteresting details that only concern him; and, not content with setting himself up as the master of ceremonies of the exchange, he suppresses any possibility of reply, settling for a denaturalized face to face, which is also conditioned by a forced acceptance. Kafka says in his Diary: "Is the forest still there? The forest was more or less there. But, as soon as my sight was ten paces away, I gave up, trapped once more by the dull conversation."
Since he is frightened of silence, and continually breaks the rule of reciprocity of language, the loquacious runs the risk of endless repetition of the futile. His tireless rhetoric on the insignificant exposes him to the boredom or impatience of an interlocutor, who is submerged under a closed verbal flow, without pauses, without silence, whose only reason is to proclaim: "I exist, I continue to exist now and always". The loquacious person speaks only of himself. But he needs the pretext of another, a double with an indifferent face; for, curiously enough, in spite of his thirst for discourse, no one is going to speak alone in front of a wall or a mirror: he demands the shadow of another to give body to his verbal assault. So that his interlocutor is practically interchangeable; for a simple modification in the orientation of the discourse solves the problem. Sometimes, he becomes so bold that he confesses that he is very talkative, thus disarming at the outset any reproach, and vindicates without a misunderstood embarrassment this profuse and uninteresting speech. "It is as if he wishes to annul his relationship with his fellow man the moment he brings him into existence; remembering (implicitly) that if he confides it is by means of an inconsequential revelation, addressed to an equally inconsequential person, by way of a language that excludes all responsibility and refuses any response," writes Maurice Blanchot.
The loquacious manifests a special passion for the emphatic function of language, and proclaims it. The characters of Clamence, in Camus' 'The Fall', and of Louis-René Des Foréts' 'The Charlatan', illustrate the inordinate fondness for a speech without a real interlocutor; the covert soliloquy that demands from the other only the appearance of attention, and whose preferred place is the bar of a bar.
To speak, to speak incessantly in order to oppose silence, to testify that the social bond has not been completely undone, and to affirm in this modest way his personal importance. Beckett says: "To talk fast, words plus words, like the solitary child who divides himself into several, two, three, in order to feel accompanied, and to talk accompanied in the night."
The loquacious one sometimes provokes the dispersion of the group when he approaches, or the sudden departure of those who went towards him without having recognized him. Before him, silence suddenly acquires an unexpected value, even for those who had not considered this question before. Plutarch, with great skill, speaks of the emptiness that surrounds the speaker the moment they see him approaching -at a show or in the square-, and the sudden silence of the group surprised by his arrival, who are afraid to give rise to his speech before finding a good reason to leave the place: "Everyone is horrified by hurricanes and dizziness .... That is why no one is at ease with these people: neither their table companions at the banquets, nor those who share their tents with them in the army, nor any of those who come across them in their travels by land and sea". The proximity of the loquacious is a guarantee of noise, the impossibility of finding in oneself a propitious interiority. His infinite speech is a declaration of war without quarter to silence.
Even if he says nothing, the loquacious person says a thousand things; the content is of little importance, since the aim is to maintain the distance, to occupy the time, to conjure up the arrival of silence. All this in exchange for a constant nod, and a gaze that does not leave him, even at the risk of suffering painful muscular tension. This minimum of listening stimulates his loquacity and even, sometimes, as he notices that he has awakened a modicum of attention, his words become more animated as if he were making a plea, all the more convinced of what he is saying the lesser the transcendence.
M. Blanchot also says: "Chattering destroys language by totally preventing speech. When one speaks incessantly, nothing is really said; this does not mean that what is said is false: what happens is that one is not really speaking". But speech is not as inexhaustible as silence, and it is understandable that such an attitude leads to verbal inflation. Nothingness is infinite and, therefore, always remains to be filled. If verbiage is a necessary and amusing factor of daily life, an elementary form of complicity, the loquacious, on the other hand, causes great harm to language, since it is fundamental for the establishment of social ties. By denying the other, without realizing it, his place, what he does is to continually project himself, hiding his ability to communicate and interest his interlocutor. Since he has not a shred of silence, the loquacious person's speech is excluding and oppressive, lacking reciprocity. It tries to ward off the threats of silence, and is doomed to always be empty and endless.
You are describing competitiveness in the human race which is taken to an extreme state of believing that unless there is a 'win' that there is no 'me'. This is the current pandemic.
That seems like a strange thing to base the entire concept of self on.
This reminds me of the phrase "suffering is not a competition".
That’s a trap I make a real effort to avoid falling into (I’ve had plenty of all-about-me moments - as an adult, no less).
You commented in a post on Quora that you’ll be the best friend anyone’s ever had, once you’ve let them into your circle. Not many NTs can make that claim, even if they get an ego boost from being ‘Such a great friend, and overall person!’ - even if this appraisal is self-generated. Once again, someone who - by nature - really doesn’t care about others trumps NTs with mature, pro-social behavior. Quite the bitter pill for ‘empaths’ to swallow. I do my best consistently, but the ego still whines about it.
In my mind, friendship and the value of it is weighed by the actions that the other person is willing to undertake for you. If they have a lot of support to speak about, but when needed they disappear, there is nothing to that friendship.
However, if they are there when you need them without fail, that is the friend that has intent on being so.
This last paragraph sums everything up. I have three people in my life like this. They are my family. Each of us will unquestionably be there for the other (despite travel costs, work, other conditions. )
I consider myself extremely fortunate
It sounds like you very much are.
Can you give examples of situations you used to judge whether someone is "friend" worthy or not?
Do they share what I tell them with others.
Do they treat those around them consistently the same way, or do they treat me well, but have negative things to say to others the majority of the time.
They know how to keep other people's secrets. I do not care for someone that happily shares other people's secrets with me knowing that these secrets should have been kept to themselves. If they will do it with you, they will do it to you.
They are emotionally stable. I don't have the patience for someone that is hot and cold on a daily basis.
They would fare better if they are low in emotional volume. Otherwise they will struggle with how I am.
Not complainers.
Those are some that are off the top of my head.
Fair enough.
I dunno. These people don't trump me. I'm an NT I guess; hate labels. Perhaps a solution is to let ego go and let the person go. Makes room for others who truly care about you to enter and enhance your life.
OMG, I haven't even finished reading this post but I totally know what you're talking about and, TOP THIS, one of them was SO toxic he threatened to bankrupt the company I worked for when people didn't respond to him the way he thought they should! And let me tell you just how rough that was for me!
Just kidding. I mean, sort of. I could not care less who has had it more rough -- well, actually, the less rough it's been for me the better, lol. I have known very few toxic-level people in my life, though the person I referred to is real. And it was his own company! It was a startup he owned 50/50 with a business partner (the person who actually had it rough). He was (THANKFULLY) the most toxic person I've known.
He did not make things up wholesale, but rather stretched the truth to try to make himself seem more important. For example, "I've given talks at X conference," but it's lightning talks that anyone could sign up to give. Yes, it fed his internal narrative about his life and made him feel important, made him feel special. That's exactly what it was meant to accomplish. However, because it was driven by a profound sense of insecurity, a deep-down belief that he was NOT important, it didn't accomplish it very well. But that made him all the more desperate to try.
There was definitely a lack of (or, perhaps more accurately, a denial of) self-awareness.
In my opinion, the "making things about oneself" behavior is a common one that exists on a spectrum. I certainly have engaged, but most often in childhood. Especially since adults can be indulging, "Oooh, you're so fast" or "Oooh, you're so smart" when you're too young to understand the "playing along" tone. In adolescence I got a better understanding of the perspective of other people, and also came to dislike attention, so I found other ways to deal with insecurity. (Not always better ways, but less annoying ways, I hope.) I also have decreased my level of insecurity over time.
So, I have a question. What sort of mask do you put on when encountering these behaviors? Does it change when you figure out, "This person is only interested in making things about themselves," or do you just keep a sort of status quo, or ... ?
The reason I ask is that I think about my own "neurotypical mask" (ie. I keep my emotions to myself by default), and I am happy to listen and let other people talk. I'll throw in nods or questions if I want to demonstrate interest (usually due to genuinely being interested). But if I sense that someone wants validation from me that I don't want to give, I shift to more stoic so as to not reward the behavior. This is not effective on the determined types (and never effective on those who don't really care about validation and actually only care that I have boobs), but for others... Well, I don't seem to have as much of a problem as you do with people just telling you their life story because you don't say anything.
But it could be that I'm just less annoyed by it when it happens. Or maybe I'm less stoic than I think. Or more stoic than I think. Not that it matters, I'm just curious. :)
I don't tend to talk about myself much anyway, so there isn't a whole lot of one upping that they are going to be able to participate in. I simply watch how they interact with others and try to glean exactly what it is they are seeking and why.
LOL. That's funny. I mean that someone managed to find a way to try to one-up you despite your relative silence on such matters. I'm referencing your "I apologize..." which is priceless.
On what Athena says to these people ... she once said, "I apologize to you if at any time I gave you the mistaken impression that I give a damn what. you. think." Awesome.
I had an uncle like that. he and his wife routinely intruded on my parents vacation trips by inviting themselves along. I'd frequently get phone calls from dad asking if I could book him an airline ticket so he could fly back and not have to travel in the car with them.
The last time I saw that uncle alive it was at a family gathering and I was explaining some physical therapy that I was undergoing for a knee injury and he became livid and launched into a heart attack story since he wasn't sure how to match my treatment.
Those sorts of people are just exhausting to deal with and I avoid them if it's possible
Agreed. What a waste of time they are.
Have you ever tried to create an increasingly absurd story to see if he would try to match?
This is unrelated to your post , Athena, but I wanted your opinion.
There is a close friend I know who absolutely refuses to stand up for himself. His extended family is trying to completely usurp his share of property, citing lies like he did not look after his ageing parents like his other brothers , along with harrassing his wife and kids. Rather than agressively fighting for his right and respect, he likes to pretend that everything is fine, life is in complete harmony . He believes that God will look out for him since he clearly is the good guy here. He also refuses to give up his share in lieu of mental peace, because it is his birthright and things will resolve on their own because good guys always win, right?
I used to fear he was brainwashed by all these movies which showed that good always triumphs over evil, but now I really think he has a psychological problem. His wife had been suffering mentally because of this for years, but he refuses to, and I mean actively refuses, to do anything to exit this situation. Their fights were so blown over that I felt they would have divorced a long time ago if they didn't have kids. See, he does not have a plan or even a valid argument. All he says is that God will see to it that justice is delivered. Apparently that means that things will get better without him lifting a finger, because he is a .... good guy.
Since you have seen alot of types of people in your lifetime, I wondered whether you had met someone like this and had figured out why they were like this?
Sorry for the long post, I wanted to flesh out this person's behaviour to the best of my capacity.
I have people like this and it seems to trace back to denial. I have seen people be taken fully advantage of by their family or friends, but they are unwilling to see it. Often this has to do with them being in need of love and acceptance. They would rather be treated like garbage than to alienate people that give them any sort of attention, and will excuse this behavior by saying things like, "they're just joking", or, "I know that they love me, they just don't know how to share it".
They are entirely able to convince themselves that their friends and family hold them in high regard, and that they would never do anything to harm them despite the fact that they already have. They will say, "that's in the past", or "they didn't mean to", or give them any excuse as to why it wasn't really their fault, but rather somehow instead of people taking advantage, either you just don't understand the other person, or the person who is getting taken advantage of convinces themselves that they are partially or mostly to blame.
Ah, that seems possible. So the situation is hopeless, right? Things will continue as they have for as long as he's alive?
Or until there is no way for him to avoid the truth, such as his family outright telling him that they consider him an easy to use idiot, and nothing more. But, if he is an easy to use idiot who only sees the good in people, and he still has things to be taken from him, then there is little chance that will happen.
Thank you, Athena. This has been most helpful.
You are quite welcome
Thank you for this "way over the top" story and great illustrations!! WoW.
Thank you for reading it
How do you deal with someone like Tanya at a workplace? Someone who constantly wants to be the centre of attention and have things go their way alone. Would you call a person like that a narcissist?
I wouldn't call them anything, but I have no time for someone wasting my time droning on and on about their importance. I dealt with someone like this, and one of the times they were going loudly complaining about whatever was raising their ire, they made the mistake of asking me,
"Do you know what I think?"
To which I finally turned my attention to them and replied,
"I apologize to you if at any time I gave you the mistaken impression that I give a damn what. you. think."
They never bothered me again.
Haha. Oh my god! wow.
Awesome! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Sometimes you just have to stop and acknowledge them, saying 'Okay, okay... I admit it- you're much more important than me!'
First!
I hadn't heard of Tania Head (or rather Alicia Head) before. Interesting to learn about. Have to wonder if making money (as well as gaining widespread attention) was a major aim here!
It seemed to me that she might be a tragedy addict.
I’m guessing you mean in that the tragedy of others might have seemed the perfect way for her to find positive validation/attention (whether consciously or unconsciously )when she had trouble getting it otherwise?
I mean someone that views unfortunate events, or whatever the current social issue that is garnering a lot of attention, as ego fuel, but there aren't enough of these things happening naturally to feed this need, so they invent them, or insert themselves into things for their emotional payoff.
Thanks for the confirmation, makes sense.
I remember reading all about Tanya and stumbling across a discussion forum page about her where someone described: “It’s like Münchausen syndrome but instead of pretending you have cancer for sympathy, it’s a terrorist attack.” What stuck out to me the most was that no one seemed to have a definitive motive for Tanya’s actions. Was it money? Fame? Did she just want to be part of something ‘bigger’ and saw her opportunity? I have no idea and I probably never will since she pretty much went off the radar after being exposed.
Interestingly, despite finding it annoying myself when people seemingly try to ‘one up’ what I’m telling them with a story of their own, I do it at times, but for very different reasons. I never noticed until someone pointed it out, but it’s apparently a common thing for people with ADHD, ASD and other similar diagnoses.
You tell me a story and even though I know it’ll be interpreted as trying to talk over someone, my instinct is to try to show that person I’m paying attention, I care what they have to say, and look, I can even relate because X thing happened and we have a shared experience! It’s not that I’m trying to tell a better story or think I deserve attention more, it’s just a weird communication quirk that I’ve always had, and didn’t even realize it could be related to my ADHD until I discovered the comics by ADHDAlien and was like, ‘Wait, that’s a THING? I just thought I was bad at conversation, wild.’
That makes sense to me, that you are demonstrating that your attention is with them. That is a fair point.
People such as you've described are very - extremely insecure.
Best walk away and never look back.
Agreed
Spot on commentary. I call these folks "Penelopes" after a character Kristin Wigg created on Saturday Night Live to satirize the absurdity of this kind of behavior. The best episode to watch is when Anne Hathaway is the guest host. They are serving at a soup kitchen for Thanksgiving and Penelope is "one upping" everything. Perfect illustration of how annoying this behavior is.
Oh my, Tanya lost her husband and almost lost her arm? Same for me but I lost both my arms and my two husbands!
Jokes aside this post really sets a perspective about "vampire" people. They only suck your energy and give nothing back. My short experience with these people is to either be unpleasant so they won't bother you anymore or you use it to your advantage if they are in a position of power.
First case happened when I was looking for drawing classes. At first glance the professor was nice and cordial but as the time passed he was only talking about himself again and again and it started to tire me out to hear this "egocast". He was always the center of conversation and when he showed me two drawings I thought it were both his drawings so I said "the one on the left is better" but HIS drawing was on the right and he wanted to hear HIS version was better. Oh my, what a crime I'd committed.
So what happened is he immediately cut the conversation and went to talk to another person. It was very abrupt, like switching channels. And I was left out of the conversation for the rest of the day. I initiated a conversation with a woman and he inserted himself and started to talk about him again and I thought "these people are crazy for standing someone like him". As a NT, I need to feel part of the group and talk to people.
So I decided to switch professors, and the one I have know is truly pleasant and nice and everybody in the classroom likes to talk to him.
That must have just made him feel those flames of anger and embarrassment on his cheeks.
Poor thing.
Tell me something Athena. NPD is a personality disorder which itself occurs as a coping mechanism, which is ultimately masking insecurities in self esteem. I also know that this condition has to be diagnosed by a psychologist. But not everyone suffers from NPD ,right?
Yet there are people who appear narcissistic without having NPD. So then why are they the way they are?
Well, there is a difference between narcissistic traits, which everyone has, and narcissistic personality disorder, which is a diagnosable issue. NPD is a very specific thing.
What people tend to not understand is that "neurotypical" does not equate to "without pathology". There are many NTs that have problems in their lives that will manifest in the world in a variety of ways. Many of them are unhealthy.
I see.