Ran into this at the public library this afternoon:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/ ------------- The Mind of Donald Trump Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity -- a psychologist investigates how Trump's extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency. By Dan P. McAdams
. . .
Trump’s personality is certainly extreme by any standard, and particularly rare for a presidential candidate; many people who encounter the man—in negotiations or in interviews or on a debate stage or watching that debate on television—seem to find him flummoxing. . .
The psychologists Steven J. Rubenzer and Thomas R. Faschingbauer, in conjunction with about 120 historians and other experts, have rated all the former U.S. presidents, going back to George Washington, on all five of the ["Big Five"] trait dimensions. George W. Bush comes out as especially high on extroversion and low on openness to experience -- a highly enthusiastic and outgoing social actor who tends to be incurious and intellectually rigid. Barack Obama is relatively introverted, at least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low on neuroticism -- emotionally calm and dispassionate, perhaps to a fault.
Across his lifetime, Donald Trump has exhibited a trait profile that you would not expect of a U.S. president: sky-high extroversion combined with off-the-chart low agreeableness. . .
Researchers rank Richard Nixon as the nation’s most disagreeable president. But he was sweetness and light compared with the man who once sent The New York Times’ Gail Collins a copy of her own column with her photo circled and the words “The Face of a Dog!” scrawled on it. . . From unsympathetic journalists to political rivals, Trump calls his opponents “disgusting” and writes them off as “losers.”. . .
[Andrew] Jackson rode the wave of public resentment to victory. . ., marking a dramatic turning point in American politics. . . Washington insiders reviled Jackson. They saw him as intemperate, vulgar, and stupid. Opponents called him a jackass—the origin of the donkey symbol for the Democratic Party. In a conversation with Daniel Webster in 1824, Thomas Jefferson described Jackson as “one of the most unfit men I know of” to become president of the United States, “a dangerous man” who cannot speak in a civilized manner because he “choke[s] with rage,” a man whose “passions are terrible.” Jefferson feared that the slightest insult from a foreign leader could impel Jackson to declare war. Even Jackson’s friends and admiring colleagues feared his volcanic temper. Jackson fought at least 14 duels in his life, leaving him with bullet fragments lodged throughout his body. On the last day of his presidency, he admitted to only two regrets: that he was never able to shoot Henry Clay or hang John C. Calhoun. . .
More than 100 years before social scientists would invent the concept of the authoritarian personality to explain the people who are drawn to autocratic leaders, Jackson’s detractors feared what a popular strongman might do when encouraged by an angry mob. . . ====
Ran into this at the public library this afternoon:
Op. cit. ------------- (The Mind of Donald Trump By Dan P. McAdams)
. . .
For psychologists, it is almost impossible to talk about Donald Trump without using the word **narcissism**. Asked to sum up Trump’s personality for an article in _Vanity Fair_, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, responded, “Remarkably narcissistic.” George Simon, a clinical psychologist who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is “so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example” of narcissism. “Otherwise I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.” . . .
The fundamental life goal is to promote the greatness of the self, for all to see. “I’m the king of Palm Beach,” Trump told the journalist Timothy O’Brien for his 2005 book, _TrumpNation_. Celebrities and rich people “all come over” to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s exclusive Palm Beach estate. “They all eat, they all love me, they all kiss my ass. And then they all leave and say, ‘Isn’t he horrible.’ But I’m the king.”. . .
In a 2013 _Psychological Science_ research article, behavioral scientists ranked U.S. presidents on characteristics of what the authors called “grandiose narcissism.” Lyndon Johnson scored the highest, followed closely by Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton were next. Millard Fillmore ranked the lowest. Correlating these ranks with objective indices of presidential performance, the researchers found that narcissism in presidents is something of a double-edged sword. On the positive side, grandiose narcissism is associated with initiating legislation, public persuasiveness, agenda setting, and historians’ ratings of “greatness.” On the negative side, it is also associated with unethical behavior and congressional impeachment resolutions. . .
In business, government, sports, and many other arenas, people will put up with a great deal of self-serving and obnoxious behavior on the part of narcissists as long as the narcissists continually perform at high levels. Steve Jobs was, in my opinion, every bit Trump’s equal when it comes to grandiose narcissism. He heaped abuse on colleagues, subordinates, and friends; cried, at age 27, when he learned that _Time_ magazine had not chosen him to be Man of the Year; and got upset when he received a congratulatory phone call, following the iPad’s introduction in 2010, from President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, rather than the president himself. Unlike Trump, he basically ignored his kids, to the point of refusing to acknowledge for some time that one of them was his.
Psychological research demonstrates that many narcissists come across as charming, witty, and charismatic upon initial acquaintance. They can attain high levels of popularity and esteem in the short term. As long as they prove to be successful and brilliant -- like Steve Jobs -— they may be able to weather criticism and retain their exalted status. But more often than not, narcissists wear out their welcome. . . ====
Lyndon Johnson. Tee hee. Remember that scene in _The Right Stuff_ with LBJ in the limo?
The Right Stuff - Glenn's Launch Aborted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xps7YE4Hlc
> Barack Obama is relatively introverted, at > least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low > on neuroticism -- emotionally calm and dispassionate, > perhaps to a fault.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/hillary-clinton-nominee.html ---------------- Hillary Clinton, a Reluctant Star of Her Own Prime-Time Show By AMY CHOZICK JULY 26, 2016
. . .
[A]s Democrats piled on the accolades for Hillary Clinton here, she was not just offstage, or holed up in a nearby hotel suite. She was at home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
Naturally guarded, unusually private and hard-wired to avoid the boastfulness and hagiography that are so typical of political conventions, Mrs. Clinton has seemed, halfway through this four-day celebration of her life and life’s work, a reluctant star of her prime-time production. . .
“She’s an introvert,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a Democrat. “The spotlight is pretty glaring, and she likes to deflect it.”
She was even deflecting attention at the end of Tuesday night’s program: “This is really your victory,” Mrs. Clinton told delegates in a brief live video greeting. “This is really your night.
“And if there are any little girls out there who stayed up late to watch,” she added, “I may become the first woman president, but one of you is next.”. . .
If polls show that most Americans do not trust her or like her, Mrs. Clinton’s strategy appeared to reflect confidence that even jaded voters would not be so hasty to dismiss people who spoke compellingly of the deeds she had done on their behalf. . .
Even before she met her husband, Mrs. Clinton — who emerged as a leader in her college class — had shown misgivings about the glad-handing expected of an aspiring politician. As a student at Wellesley College a few years before, she had mused in a soul-searching letter to a friend that she felt like a “compassionate misanthrope.”
“Can you be a misanthrope and still love or enjoy some individuals?” she asked. . .
Though a caricature emerged of her as a Machiavelli in heels, scheming her ascent, to others she seemed more desirous of powerful obscurity.
“I’d be happy in a little office somewhere, thinking up policies, making things happen, refining them,” Mrs. Clinton told her friend Diane D. Blair when she was first lady, according to Ms. Blair’s notes. . .
So many years later, Mrs. Clinton still seems energized by policy, and adept at appealing to people up close, but ill at ease with the showmanship of politics.
And she is up against a reality television performer who cannot get enough of it. ====
> “She’s an introvert,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, > a Democrat. “The spotlight is pretty glaring, and she likes > to deflect it.”
That's definitely a headwind, if you're a politician.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-crouch/why-does-america-love-its_b_4456437.html ----------- Why Does America Love Its Extroverts? 12/17/2013 (Updated Feb 15, 2014) Chris Crouch
It’s hard being an introvert in our extrovert culture. Not because it’s easy being an extrovert, but because of the association our modern American culture has placed on greatness and extroverts. . .
On November 23 2013, The Atlantic‘s Don Peck reported on research recently conducted by Sandy Pentland and MIT’s Human Dynamics Laboratory. . . The conclusion of Pentland’s research was that he claimed he could predict which individuals would be natural leaders by identifying the data points of what he called “charismatic connectors.” The key traits of “charismatic connectors”? They just happen to be what many of us would define as extroverts. . .
USA Today recently ran the headline: “On the Job: Introverts, Extroverts CAN Get Along.” I didn’t realize [there] was a battle raging in the personality wars. . .
Of course the history books are full of the introverts, extroverts and ambiverts that rose above his or her personality traits and accomplished great things. But American culture is unique in the world, because we systematically build and encourage extroverts over all the other potential personality types. . .
[O]ur system of education has intentionally chosen extroverts as the preferred way of being. . . ====
This seems like a rather extreme response:
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/30/the_unapologetic_introvert_i_had_to_leave_the_u_s_to_stop_pretending_to_be_an_extrovert/ ----------- The unapologetic introvert: I had to leave the U.S. to stop pretending to be an extrovert
America values the bold and gregarious, but when I moved to Switzerland, I found my people -- no fake smiles required
Chantal Panozzo May 30, 2016 ====
http://news.bitofnews.com/hey-america-keep-it-down-over-there-the-dangers-of-our-increasingly-extroverted-culture/ ----------- Hey America, keep it down over there – the dangers of our increasingly extroverted culture Meghan Zwahlen August 19, 2015
We all have that friend with the idealized “winner personality.” He lights up the room, and always has a smile on his face and a joke up his sleeve. Maybe you know this individual better as the big man on campus? Little Miss Popular? The big Kahuna?
America is closing the door on the idea of the trusty and moralistic introvert. Like everything else we touch, we’ve cashed in our personalities in favor of the “bigger is better” mentality. Extroversion has become the newest ingredient to the American dream. . . ====
Etc., etc.
I didn't know you could "build" an extrovert. You can, however, certainly sabotage an introvert.
Cf. http://www.love-shy.com/lswiki/Wishbone_effect ----------- Visualize, if you will, a class of one hundred kindergarten boys. . . [E]very class of children has its "stars". These are the children who exude a very positive social stimulus value right from the very beginning. . . [N]egative social stimulus value is caused by three factors: (1) a melancholic inborn temperament represented by the first quadrant of the Eysenck Cross. . . (2) low physical attractiveness: these children are not handsome or muscular; and (3) residence with parents who are less than adequately competent at dealing with children. . .
The wishbone and social development
The major point of the "wish bone effect" diagram is that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. . .
[T]hree divergent groups of children, with large, average, and low. . . social stimulus values [are] labeled as A, B, and C respectively. A and B children continue to gain social stimulus value as they age, while C children. . . flounder and slowly lose social stimulus value as they age, quickly becoming social pariahs. . . ====
Trump's vulgar omnipresence in the RNC was historically anomalous. The DNC is proceeding with consummate professionalism and polish along well-established grooves, seems to me. I'm an introvert in a profession demanding extroversion (to do my job as well as my students and my institution deserves I need to draw and keep the attention of sometimes quite large audiences of young people with online access for hours at a time multiple times a week for months) and so it would tend to make me even more sympathetic to my already-preferred candidate to discover she struggles with these same issues that I do -- but I must say I do not much trust any of these journalistic caricatures and projections, I might like Obama as a person or I might not, same with Hillary, who knows? I try not to let such considerations shape my deliberations too much. There are is already so much celebrity fandom distorting the job interview that election campaigns should primarily be.
There's some deep dark shit going on here (what the pointy-headed academics call "a subtext" ;-> ), and it may well shape the course of history. (Well, duh! That's what "deep dark shit" is for, innit?)
Louann Brizendine, _The Male Brain_ ( http://www.amazon.com/Male-Brain-Louann-Brizendine-M-D/dp/0767927532 ), p. 23 -------------- The pecking order clearly matters more to boys. Studies show that by age two, a boy's brain is driving him to establish physical and social dominance. And by the age of six, boys tell researchers that **real fighting** is the "most important thing to be good at." . . . [B]oys are remarkably fast at establishing dominance in a group through rough-and-tumble play. . .
[T]his cruel _Lord of the Flies_ system still strikes horror in most mothers' hearts. . . Regardless. . ., though, boys instinctively know they must learn how to succeed within the male hierarchy. ====
More from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/ -------------- Ever since grade school, Trump has wanted to be No. 1. Attending New York Military Academy for high school, . . .Donald stood out for being the most competitive young man in a very competitive environment. . .
[His father] applauded Donald’s toughness and encouraged him to be a “killer,” . . . His decision to send his 13-year-old son off to military school, [was] to alloy aggression with discipline. . . As Trump tells it. . ., New York Military Academy was “a tough, tough place. There were ex–drill sergeants all over the place.” The instructors “used to beat the shit out of you; those guys were rough.”
Military school reinforced the strong work ethic and sense of discipline Trump had learned from his father. And it taught him how to deal with aggressive men, like his intimidating baseball coach. . .
Trump has never forgotten the lesson he learned from his father and from his teachers at the academy: The world is a dangerous place. You have to be ready to fight. . .
In Trump’s own words. . . “Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat.” The protagonist of this story is akin to what.. . Carl Jung identified in myth and folklore as the archetypal warrior. . . [H]is central life task is to fight for what matters; his typical response to a problem is to slay it or otherwise defeat it; his greatest fear is weakness or impotence. The greatest risk for the **warrior** is that he incites gratuitous violence in others, and brings it upon himself.
Trump loves boxing and football, and once owned a professional football team. In the opening segment of _The Apprentice_, he welcomes the television audience to a brutal Darwinian world. . .
The story here is not so much about making money. As Trump has written, “money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score.” The story instead is about coming out on top. ====
Will America let "a warrior", "a killer", be beaten by a **girl**? Oh, the shame! :-0
Answer: if so, it's because American has been taken over by a bunch of pussified faggots. And feminazis. And "cucks". Just ask the Neoreactionaries. Just ask Michael Anissimov!
http://www.moreright.net/the-purpose-of-reactionaries/ ------------ The Purpose of Reactionaries Posted on May 27, 2014 by Michael Anissimov
. . .
Another trend is the rapidly falling testosterone among American men, which has gone so far as to cause some men to. . . pretend they are women. . . This behavior is destructive, a form of self-indulgence and escape which contributes to the breakdown of societal fabric. . . ====
A vote for Trump is a vote for Testosterone. T! T! T! https://michaelstvtray.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/testicles.jpg
Ran into this at the public library this afternoon:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/
-------------
The Mind of Donald Trump
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity -- a psychologist
investigates how Trump's extraordinary personality might
shape his possible presidency.
By Dan P. McAdams
. . .
Trump’s personality is certainly extreme by any standard, and
particularly rare for a presidential candidate; many people who
encounter the man—in negotiations or in interviews or on a
debate stage or watching that debate on television—seem to find
him flummoxing. . .
The psychologists Steven J. Rubenzer and Thomas R. Faschingbauer,
in conjunction with about 120 historians and other experts,
have rated all the former U.S. presidents, going back to George Washington,
on all five of the ["Big Five"] trait dimensions. George W. Bush comes
out as especially high on extroversion and low on openness to experience --
a highly enthusiastic and outgoing social actor who tends to be incurious
and intellectually rigid. Barack Obama is relatively introverted, at
least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low on neuroticism --
emotionally calm and dispassionate, perhaps to a fault.
Across his lifetime, Donald Trump has exhibited a trait profile that
you would not expect of a U.S. president: sky-high extroversion combined
with off-the-chart low agreeableness. . .
Researchers rank Richard Nixon as the nation’s most disagreeable
president. But he was sweetness and light compared with the man who
once sent The New York Times’ Gail Collins a copy of her own column
with her photo circled and the words “The Face of a Dog!” scrawled
on it. . . From unsympathetic journalists to political rivals,
Trump calls his opponents “disgusting” and writes them off as “losers.”. . .
[Andrew] Jackson rode the wave of public resentment to victory. . .,
marking a dramatic turning point in American politics. . .
Washington insiders reviled Jackson. They saw him as intemperate,
vulgar, and stupid. Opponents called him a jackass—the origin of
the donkey symbol for the Democratic Party. In a conversation
with Daniel Webster in 1824, Thomas Jefferson described Jackson
as “one of the most unfit men I know of” to become president
of the United States, “a dangerous man” who cannot speak in a
civilized manner because he “choke[s] with rage,” a man whose
“passions are terrible.” Jefferson feared that the slightest insult
from a foreign leader could impel Jackson to declare war.
Even Jackson’s friends and admiring colleagues feared his volcanic
temper. Jackson fought at least 14 duels in his life, leaving him
with bullet fragments lodged throughout his body. On the last
day of his presidency, he admitted to only two regrets: that he
was never able to shoot Henry Clay or hang John C. Calhoun. . .
More than 100 years before social scientists would invent the
concept of the authoritarian personality to explain the people
who are drawn to autocratic leaders, Jackson’s detractors feared
what a popular strongman might do when encouraged by an angry mob. . .
====
Ran into this at the public library this afternoon:
ReplyDeleteOp. cit.
-------------
(The Mind of Donald Trump
By Dan P. McAdams)
. . .
For psychologists, it is almost impossible to talk about Donald Trump
without using the word **narcissism**. Asked to sum up Trump’s personality
for an article in _Vanity Fair_, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard,
responded, “Remarkably narcissistic.” George Simon, a clinical psychologist
who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is “so classic
that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s
no better example” of narcissism. “Otherwise I would have had to hire actors
and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.” . . .
The fundamental life goal is to promote the greatness of the self,
for all to see. “I’m the king of Palm Beach,” Trump told the journalist
Timothy O’Brien for his 2005 book, _TrumpNation_. Celebrities and
rich people “all come over” to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s exclusive Palm Beach
estate. “They all eat, they all love me, they all kiss my ass.
And then they all leave and say, ‘Isn’t he horrible.’ But I’m the king.”. . .
In a 2013 _Psychological Science_ research article, behavioral scientists
ranked U.S. presidents on characteristics of what the authors called
“grandiose narcissism.” Lyndon Johnson scored the highest, followed
closely by Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. Franklin D. Roosevelt,
John F. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton were next. Millard Fillmore
ranked the lowest. Correlating these ranks with objective indices of
presidential performance, the researchers found that narcissism in
presidents is something of a double-edged sword. On the positive side,
grandiose narcissism is associated with initiating legislation,
public persuasiveness, agenda setting, and historians’ ratings of
“greatness.” On the negative side, it is also associated with unethical
behavior and congressional impeachment resolutions. . .
In business, government, sports, and many other arenas, people will
put up with a great deal of self-serving and obnoxious behavior on the
part of narcissists as long as the narcissists continually perform at
high levels. Steve Jobs was, in my opinion, every bit Trump’s equal
when it comes to grandiose narcissism. He heaped abuse on colleagues,
subordinates, and friends; cried, at age 27, when he learned that _Time_
magazine had not chosen him to be Man of the Year; and got upset
when he received a congratulatory phone call, following the iPad’s
introduction in 2010, from President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel,
rather than the president himself. Unlike Trump, he basically ignored
his kids, to the point of refusing to acknowledge for some time that
one of them was his.
Psychological research demonstrates that many narcissists come across
as charming, witty, and charismatic upon initial acquaintance. They can
attain high levels of popularity and esteem in the short term. As long
as they prove to be successful and brilliant -- like Steve Jobs -— they
may be able to weather criticism and retain their exalted status.
But more often than not, narcissists wear out their welcome. . .
====
Lyndon Johnson. Tee hee. Remember that scene in _The Right Stuff_
with LBJ in the limo?
The Right Stuff - Glenn's Launch Aborted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xps7YE4Hlc
> Barack Obama is relatively introverted, at
ReplyDelete> least for a politician, and almost preternaturally low
> on neuroticism -- emotionally calm and dispassionate,
> perhaps to a fault.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/hillary-clinton-nominee.html
----------------
Hillary Clinton, a Reluctant Star of Her Own Prime-Time Show
By AMY CHOZICK
JULY 26, 2016
. . .
[A]s Democrats piled on the accolades for Hillary Clinton
here, she was not just offstage, or holed up in a nearby
hotel suite. She was at home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
Naturally guarded, unusually private and hard-wired to avoid
the boastfulness and hagiography that are so typical of
political conventions, Mrs. Clinton has seemed, halfway
through this four-day celebration of her life and life’s work,
a reluctant star of her prime-time production. . .
“She’s an introvert,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack,
a Democrat. “The spotlight is pretty glaring, and she likes
to deflect it.”
She was even deflecting attention at the end of Tuesday night’s
program: “This is really your victory,” Mrs. Clinton told
delegates in a brief live video greeting. “This is really your night.
“And if there are any little girls out there who stayed up late
to watch,” she added, “I may become the first woman president,
but one of you is next.”. . .
If polls show that most Americans do not trust her or like her,
Mrs. Clinton’s strategy appeared to reflect confidence that
even jaded voters would not be so hasty to dismiss people
who spoke compellingly of the deeds she had done on their
behalf. . .
Even before she met her husband, Mrs. Clinton — who emerged
as a leader in her college class — had shown misgivings about
the glad-handing expected of an aspiring politician. As a student
at Wellesley College a few years before, she had mused in a
soul-searching letter to a friend that she felt like a
“compassionate misanthrope.”
“Can you be a misanthrope and still love or enjoy some individuals?”
she asked. . .
Though a caricature emerged of her as a Machiavelli in heels,
scheming her ascent, to others she seemed more desirous of
powerful obscurity.
“I’d be happy in a little office somewhere, thinking up policies,
making things happen, refining them,” Mrs. Clinton told her friend
Diane D. Blair when she was first lady, according to
Ms. Blair’s notes. . .
So many years later, Mrs. Clinton still seems energized by policy,
and adept at appealing to people up close, but ill at ease
with the showmanship of politics.
And she is up against a reality television performer who cannot
get enough of it.
====
> “She’s an introvert,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack,
ReplyDelete> a Democrat. “The spotlight is pretty glaring, and she likes
> to deflect it.”
That's definitely a headwind, if you're a politician.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-crouch/why-does-america-love-its_b_4456437.html
-----------
Why Does America Love Its Extroverts?
12/17/2013 (Updated Feb 15, 2014)
Chris Crouch
It’s hard being an introvert in our extrovert culture.
Not because it’s easy being an extrovert, but because of
the association our modern American culture has placed on
greatness and extroverts. . .
On November 23 2013, The Atlantic‘s Don Peck reported on
research recently conducted by Sandy Pentland and
MIT’s Human Dynamics Laboratory. . . The conclusion of
Pentland’s research was that he claimed he could predict
which individuals would be natural leaders by identifying
the data points of what he called “charismatic connectors.”
The key traits of “charismatic connectors”? They just
happen to be what many of us would define as extroverts. . .
USA Today recently ran the headline: “On the Job: Introverts,
Extroverts CAN Get Along.” I didn’t realize [there] was a
battle raging in the personality wars. . .
Of course the history books are full of the introverts,
extroverts and ambiverts that rose above his or her personality
traits and accomplished great things. But American culture
is unique in the world, because we systematically build
and encourage extroverts over all the other potential
personality types. . .
[O]ur system of education has intentionally chosen extroverts
as the preferred way of being. . .
====
This seems like a rather extreme response:
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/30/the_unapologetic_introvert_i_had_to_leave_the_u_s_to_stop_pretending_to_be_an_extrovert/
-----------
The unapologetic introvert: I had to leave the U.S. to
stop pretending to be an extrovert
America values the bold and gregarious, but when I moved to Switzerland,
I found my people -- no fake smiles required
Chantal Panozzo
May 30, 2016
====
http://news.bitofnews.com/hey-america-keep-it-down-over-there-the-dangers-of-our-increasingly-extroverted-culture/
-----------
Hey America, keep it down over there – the dangers of our increasingly extroverted culture
Meghan Zwahlen
August 19, 2015
We all have that friend with the idealized “winner personality.”
He lights up the room, and always has a smile on his face and a
joke up his sleeve. Maybe you know this individual better as
the big man on campus? Little Miss Popular? The big Kahuna?
America is closing the door on the idea of the trusty and
moralistic introvert. Like everything else we touch, we’ve
cashed in our personalities in favor of the “bigger is better”
mentality. Extroversion has become the newest ingredient
to the American dream. . .
====
Etc., etc.
I didn't know you could "build" an extrovert.
You can, however, certainly sabotage an introvert.
Cf.
http://www.love-shy.com/lswiki/Wishbone_effect
-----------
Visualize, if you will, a class of one hundred kindergarten boys. . .
[E]very class of children has its "stars". These are the children
who exude a very positive social stimulus value right from the
very beginning. . . [N]egative social stimulus value is caused
by three factors: (1) a melancholic inborn temperament represented
by the first quadrant of the Eysenck Cross. . . (2) low physical
attractiveness: these children are not handsome or muscular; and
(3) residence with parents who are less than adequately competent
at dealing with children. . .
The wishbone and social development
The major point of the "wish bone effect" diagram is that the
rich get richer while the poor get poorer. . .
[T]hree divergent groups of children, with large, average,
and low. . . social stimulus values [are] labeled as A, B, and C
respectively. A and B children continue to gain social stimulus
value as they age, while C children. . . flounder and slowly lose
social stimulus value as they age, quickly becoming social pariahs. . .
====
Trump's vulgar omnipresence in the RNC was historically anomalous. The DNC is proceeding with consummate professionalism and polish along well-established grooves, seems to me. I'm an introvert in a profession demanding extroversion (to do my job as well as my students and my institution deserves I need to draw and keep the attention of sometimes quite large audiences of young people with online access for hours at a time multiple times a week for months) and so it would tend to make me even more sympathetic to my already-preferred candidate to discover she struggles with these same issues that I do -- but I must say I do not much trust any of these journalistic caricatures and projections, I might like Obama as a person or I might not, same with Hillary, who knows? I try not to let such considerations shape my deliberations too much. There are is already so much celebrity fandom distorting the job interview that election campaigns should primarily be.
ReplyDelete> Cf.
ReplyDelete> http://www.love-shy.com/lswiki/Wishbone_effect
And also cf.
http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-supernatural-solution-to-worlds.html
http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2011/08/every-jock-is-puke-and-why-this-matters.html
There's some deep dark shit going on here (what the pointy-headed
academics call "a subtext" ;-> ), and it may well
shape the course of history. (Well, duh! That's what
"deep dark shit" is for, innit?)
Louann Brizendine, _The Male Brain_
( http://www.amazon.com/Male-Brain-Louann-Brizendine-M-D/dp/0767927532 ),
p. 23
--------------
The pecking order clearly matters more to boys. Studies show that
by age two, a boy's brain is driving him to establish physical
and social dominance. And by the age of six, boys tell researchers
that **real fighting** is the "most important thing to be good
at." . . . [B]oys are remarkably fast at establishing dominance
in a group through rough-and-tumble play. . .
[T]his cruel _Lord of the Flies_ system still
strikes horror in most mothers' hearts. . .
Regardless. . ., though, boys instinctively
know they must learn how to succeed within the male hierarchy.
====
More from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/
--------------
Ever since grade school, Trump has wanted to be No. 1. Attending
New York Military Academy for high school, . . .Donald stood out
for being the most competitive young man in a very competitive
environment. . .
[His father] applauded Donald’s toughness and
encouraged him to be a “killer,” . . . His decision to send
his 13-year-old son off to military school, [was] to alloy
aggression with discipline. . . As Trump tells it. . .,
New York Military Academy was “a tough, tough place.
There were ex–drill sergeants all over the place.”
The instructors “used to beat the shit out
of you; those guys were rough.”
Military school reinforced the strong work ethic and sense
of discipline Trump had learned from his father. And it taught
him how to deal with aggressive men, like his intimidating
baseball coach. . .
Trump has never forgotten the lesson he learned from his
father and from his teachers at the academy: The world is
a dangerous place. You have to be ready to fight. . .
In Trump’s own words. . .
“Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a
series of battles ending in victory or defeat.” The protagonist
of this story is akin to what.. . Carl Jung identified in
myth and folklore as the archetypal warrior. . . [H]is
central life task is to fight for what matters; his typical
response to a problem is to slay it or otherwise defeat it;
his greatest fear is weakness or impotence. The greatest risk
for the **warrior** is that he incites gratuitous violence
in others, and brings it upon himself.
Trump loves boxing and football, and once owned a professional
football team. In the opening segment of _The Apprentice_,
he welcomes the television audience to a brutal Darwinian world. . .
The story here is not so much about making money. As Trump has written,
“money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score.”
The story instead is about coming out on top.
====
Will America let "a warrior", "a killer", be beaten by a **girl**?
Oh, the shame! :-0
Answer: if so, it's because American has been taken over by a bunch
of pussified faggots. And feminazis. And "cucks". Just ask
the Neoreactionaries. Just ask Michael Anissimov!
http://www.moreright.net/the-purpose-of-reactionaries/
------------
The Purpose of Reactionaries
Posted on May 27, 2014 by Michael Anissimov
. . .
Another trend is the rapidly falling testosterone among American men,
which has gone so far as to cause some men to. . . pretend they
are women. . . This behavior is destructive, a form of self-indulgence
and escape which contributes to the breakdown of societal fabric. . .
====
A vote for Trump is a vote for Testosterone. T! T! T!
https://michaelstvtray.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/testicles.jpg