The Law of Self-sabotage

| jaylazzo

Robert Greene describes the Law of Self-sabotage as what happens when internal conflicts and unconscious biases lead individuals to act against their own best interests.

Image: https://community.thriveglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/self-sabotage.jpg

The Law of Self-sabotage suggests that often, due to unresolved internal conflicts, negative self-talk, or deeply ingrained beliefs and fears, people can sabotage their chances of success and happiness. This law underscores that many of our biggest obstacles are self-created and highlights the importance of deep self-awareness to avoid such self-defeating behaviors.

As I’ve been researching a little more intensively on Transactional Analysis (TA), I put here an example, explain self-sabotage from the point of view of TA, and suggest interventions. The analysis is made on two levels: structural (looking at the contents of Parent, Adult, and Child), and functional (looking at their behaviors, specifically through scripts and games).

Image: https://kingamnich.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-Psychology-of-Self-Sabotage-%E2%80%94-The-Self-Plotting-Against-The-Self-819×1024.png

The Case. Sophia has been working hard in her job and has the opportunity to present her project to the company’s board. However, despite having sufficient time to prepare, she procrastinates until the night before the presentation. Consequently, she doesn’t perform well, and the board doesn’t approve her project. Jane feels defeated and believes she’s not good enough for promotions or major responsibilities.

Analysis using TA: Structural

  1. Parent Ego State:
    • Jane might have internalized critical messages from authoritative figures in her past (e.g., parents, teachers) that she’s not good enough or that she doesn’t deserve success.
    • These messages now form her “Critical Parent” voice that tells her she will fail or shouldn’t even try.
  2. Adult Ego State:
    • This is the rational, data-processing part of Jane. The Adult ego state knows that with adequate preparation, she can do well in the presentation.
    • However, if not strong enough, the Adult can be overshadowed by the Parent and Child states.
  3. Child Ego State:
    • The “Adaptive Child” within Jane might feel overwhelmed and anxious about the presentation, leading her to avoid the task.
    • Alternatively, the “Rebellious Child” might resist the pressure to perform and thus deliberately procrastinate.

In this scenario, Jane’s self-sabotage (procrastination and poor performance) is a result of her Child ego state acting out based on past experiences and beliefs reinforced by her Parent ego state. The immediate relief of avoiding preparation is a short-term gain for the Child ego state but leads to long-term pain and reinforces negative self-concepts.

Intervention using Transactional Analysis: For Jane to overcome this pattern, she could:

  1. Strengthen her Adult Ego State: By seeking factual evidence of her capabilities and past successes, she can counteract the negative beliefs she holds about herself.
  2. Dialogue with the Parent Ego State: By identifying and challenging the source of the negative beliefs (e.g., “Who told me I’m not good enough?”), she can begin to separate outdated messages from her current reality.
  3. Nurture the Child Ego State: Addressing the fears and anxieties of the Child ego state is crucial. This might involve self-reassurance, seeking external support, or breaking tasks into manageable parts.

Analysis using TA: Functional

We now look into the behaviors of those three states, specifically in terms of scripts and games in Transactional Analysis:

Scripts. A script in TA is a life plan, decided in childhood, influenced by parental messages, and reinforced by experiences. This script dictates how a person lives their life, including their patterns of decision-making, relationships, and self-worth.

  1. Jane’s Life Script: Given her reaction to the situation, Jane might have an underlying “I’m not good enough” or “I’ll fail” script. This script might have originated from negative messages she received during childhood about her capabilities or worth. The opportunity to present to the board may activate this script, leading her to act in ways (procrastination) that make the script’s outcome come true.
  2. Script Reinforcement: Every time Jane procrastinates and then faces negative consequences (like the board’s disapproval), her script gets reinforced. It strengthens the belief in her narrative of “See, I knew I couldn’t do it.”

Games: In TA, a game is a series of transactions that lead to a predictable outcome. This outcome often confirms a person’s life script. Games are repetitive patterns of behavior that may seem irrational but serve to reinforce an individual’s script. Jane might be playing the Wooden Leg game.

A little more about the Wooden Leg game

The “Wooden Leg” game is a classic example of how individuals might use an external excuse or perceived limitation as a justification for not taking responsibility or for failing to achieve certain tasks or outcomes. The name “Wooden Leg” refers to a clear and obvious disadvantage, like having a wooden leg, but it can represent any number of self-perceived limitations or weaknesses.

Game Description:

  1. Starting Position: The individual, often operating from the Child ego state, presents a limitation or an excuse for why they cannot do something or why they performed poorly. This limitation (e.g., “I have a wooden leg“) is offered as the main reason they can’t meet a particular standard or expectation.
  2. External Response: People around the individual, often responding from the Parent ego state, might feel compelled to be understanding, compassionate, or lenient due to the presented limitation. They might say, “That’s okay, considering you have a wooden leg.”
  3. Game Payoff: The individual successfully avoids responsibility or lowers expectations due to the perceived limitation. They feel justified in their inability to meet the standard or achieve the task.

Underlying Dynamics:

The “Wooden Leg” game serves several psychological purposes:

  1. Avoidance of Responsibility: By focusing on the limitation, the individual avoids taking responsibility for their actions or inactions.
  2. Validation of Script: If the individual’s life script contains beliefs like “I’m not capable” or “I’m always at a disadvantage,” the game reinforces and validates this script.
  3. Gaining Sympathy: The game allows the player to receive sympathy, care, or lowered expectations from others.

Critique:

While it’s crucial to acknowledge and accommodate genuine limitations, the “Wooden Leg” game uses these limitations as consistent crutches to avoid responsibility or growth. Over time, this can limit personal development and maintain unhelpful life scripts.

In the context of therapy or self-growth, recognizing and challenging the “Wooden Leg” game can be a step toward taking more responsibility and seeking growth beyond self-imposed limitations.

Thus, we describe Jane’s game.

  1. Jane’s Game of “Wooden Leg”: The dialogue of this game might go:
    • Critical Parent: “You should be preparing for this presentation; it’s important.”Rebellious Child: “I can’t do it now. I need the right mood, and besides, I’ve always struggled with presentations.” Adaptive Child: “I’m too stressed to start now; I’ll do it later when I feel better.” Critical Parent: “Alright, we understand.”
    The predictable negative outcome is that Jane is unprepared and fails to impress the board. By playing this game, Jane reinforces her script of “I’m not good enough” or “I’m destined to fail.”
  2. Game Payoff: The payoff for Jane in playing this game, although seemingly negative, can be a reaffirmation of her life script, thus providing a perverse sense of rightness or familiarity. For example, Jane might feel a sense of relief thinking, “I knew I’d mess up. I always do.” Jane is winning at her game. It provides a sense of security because it’s a narrative she’s known and lived with for a long time.

Intervention using Scripts and Games:

  1. Recognize the script: Jane needs to identify and challenge her life script. Through therapy or self-reflection, she can trace back the origins of her “I’m not good enough” narrative and work on changing it.
  2. Disrupt the game: Once Jane recognizes the games she plays, she can work on interrupting them. Instead of giving into the “Wooden Leg” excuses, she can use her Adult ego state to question the script, counter the procrastination, and start her preparation early.
  3. Seek external feedback: By seeking feedback from trustworthy colleagues or friends, Jane can start getting an objective perspective on her capabilities and challenge her internal script.

Self sabotage is fairly common.

Procrastination at work or in school. An individual might delay starting a project or assignment due to an underlying fear of failure. Even if they’re fully capable of completing the task successfully, this internal resistance can lead to unnecessary stress, last-minute rushes, or missed opportunities.

Repeating unhealthy relationship patterns. Someone might consistently choose partners who don’t treat them well because of deep-seated beliefs about their self-worth. Despite consciously desiring a loving, respectful relationship, their unconscious patterns lead them towards unsatisfactory or toxic relationships. Again, they are winning at it, and the way out is to decide to redefine “winning”.

Avoiding opportunities due to fear: A person might be offered a promotion or a chance to lead a significant project but decline due to imposter syndrome or fear of increased responsibility. Their internal beliefs about their capabilities hinder their career advancement.

Here are some ways to manage the Law of Self-sabotage.

Reflect on one’s self. I provided TA as a tool that works, and this has been shown through numerous clinical research studies. Self-awareness could be achieved through meditation, journaling, or therapy.

Challenge negative self-talk: Become aware of the negative scripts in your mind and actively work to identify and challenge the games you might be playing.

Set clear goals. By having clear and actionable goals, you can develop a focused approach that diminishes the chances of getting sidetracked by self-sabotaging behaviors. This is what redefining “winning” means.

Be kind to yourself. Recognize that everyone has flaws and makes mistakes. Recognize that some of those flaws are deep-seated and automatic, having come from your parents and authority figures, and your emotional reactions as a child. Recognize that these are memories, and that you are able to question their current relevance.

Visualize success. Visualizing positive outcomes can help combat fears and resistances that lead to self-sabotage.

See professional help. If self-sabotaging behaviors are deeply ingrained or causing significant distress, consider seeking therapy or counseling.

By understanding and implementing the Law of Self-sabotage, individuals can recognize their internal barriers and work towards a more fulfilling, self-aligned life path.

Next up, The Law of Repression.

(Q.C. 230815)

The Law of Defensiveness

| jaylazzo

Robert Greene describes the Law of Defensiveness as the tendency to become defensive when one’s ego or self-concept is threatened, often hindering effective communication and mutual understanding.

Greene discusses how people, in their pursuit of self-preservation, tend to protect their ego and self-worth fiercely. When individuals feel judged, criticized, or under attack, they frequently react defensively, even if the threat isn’t genuine or malicious. This defensiveness can lead to conflicts, misunderstandings, and strained relationships.

Examples abound in daily life.

Workplace feedback. Imagine an employee receiving constructive feedback from a manager about their performance. Instead of processing the information, the employee might immediately list accomplishments, blame others, or find excuses – all in a bid to shield their self-esteem from perceived criticism.

Scientists, with all their logic and knowledge, are not exempt from the Law of Defensiveness. I have seen how colleagues have reacted to mere questions about their experimental designs, data, and statistical interpretations. Some of these emotional reactions are underlain by a history of bad vibes, as in one masters defense where members of the panel quarreled violently, leaving the candidate on the side.

Personal relationships. In relationships, if one partner brings up a concern or issue, the other might feel blamed or criticized and react defensively by pointing out the other’s flaws or shifting the blame, rather than addressing the original concern.

Marriage is a favorite target of memes and jokes. One advice I read went:

Marriage is a relationship in which one person is always right and the other is the husband.

Anonymous

Do remember that either the husband or the wife, or both, could be touchy, and that touchiness can come from stress: the husband from work, the wife from managing the house and kids. But just as the man traditionally leads, then he must lead by being the first to control his responses and just shut up.

The Law also plays out on the global scale.

Describing the Cold War through the lens of “hurt egos” involves humanizing the conflict by emphasizing the pride, mistrust, and desire for recognition and influence that characterized the interactions between the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Here’s a brief perspective:

Image: https://www.globaltimes.cn/Portals/0/attachment/2022/2022-10-12/b26087f8-e19f-41f2-80c5-4f8ecf4fe674.jpeg
  1. Origins. After World War II, both the U.S. and the USSR emerged as the most powerful nations. They each believed their respective societal and economic systems — capitalism and communism — were superior. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences saw both nations flexing their influence, aiming to shape post-war Europe to their benefit. Their mutual suspicions and distrust grew, with each viewing the other’s ambitions as threatening.
  2. Space race. The competition to demonstrate technological and scientific prowess was not just about space exploration; it was deeply rooted in the need for global recognition. When the USSR launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957, it was a blow to American pride. The U.S. felt the need to respond, leading to the Apollo moon landings and other space achievements. The “who gets there first” race was a tangible manifestation of these hurt egos competing for dominance.
  3. Arms race. The accumulation of nuclear weapons on both sides was partly about deterrence but was also tied to a display of power and dominance. Neither side wanted to be perceived as weaker or more vulnerable, even if this pursuit of dominance increased the risk of mutual destruction. The Cuban Missile crisis of 16-29 October 1962, where personal egos clashed violently on both sides and across sides, brought the world very close to a nuclear war.
  4. Proxy wars. Both the U.S. and USSR sought to expand their spheres of influence by backing opposing factions in various countries, like in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan. These conflicts can be seen as attempts to win validation for their ideologies and global strategies, often at the expense of the nations where these wars took place.

Viewing the Cold War as a history of “hurt egos” underscores the emotional and psychological dimensions of a conflict that spanned nearly half a century and brought the world very close to war. We must see, however, personal pride, fears, and aspirations of leaders against the backdrop of nuclear deterrence and ideological rivalry.

How might we manage the Law of Defensiveness?

Be self-aware. Recognize your triggers. Understanding what makes you defensive allows you to be better prepared and respond more rationally when such topics arise.

Listen. Before reacting, ensure you’ve fully understood the other person’s perspective. This can prevent misinterpretations that fuel defensiveness.

Reframe feedback. Instead of viewing feedback or criticism as an attack, view it as an opportunity for growth and learning. In fact, seek criticism.

Pause before responding. When you feel the urge to defend yourself, take a moment to breathe and think. This can prevent impulsive, defensive reactions.

Empathy. Try to see things from the other person’s viewpoint. Recognizing that their intentions might not be malicious can reduce the impulse to be defensive.

Clarify intentions. If you’re unsure about someone’s intentions, ask them to clarify. Jumping to conclusions can intensify feelings of defensiveness.

Cultivate open-mindedness. Accept that you, like everyone, have areas for improvement. An open mindset can diminish defensiveness and foster personal growth.

By understanding the Law of Defensiveness, individuals can enhance their communication skills and build stronger relationships,

Next, the Law of Self-Sabotage.

(Q.C. 230814)

The Law of Shortsightedness

| jaylazzo

In The Laws of Human Nature, Robert Greene describes the Law of Shortsightedness as the tendency to think in the short term, swayed by emotions and immediate needs, often at the expense of long-term success and understanding.

The law revolves around our evolutionary predisposition towards addressing immediate concerns – such as hunger or danger – while often ignoring long-term implications. This can manifest in a variety of modern situations. While these immediate reactions were beneficial for early human survival, they can be detrimental in our complex, modern world.

A classic military example of the Law of Shortsightedness is the Maginot Line before World War II.

The Maginot Line

The French constructed the Maginot Line in the 1930s as a line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapon installations along its borders with Germany and Italy. It was one of the most extensive lines of defense ever built and represented the French belief that it would deter a direct German attack or slow them down sufficiently for the French to mobilize their forces.

Image: https://i.insider.com/552d43f16bb3f7d25b05bfa5?width=1136&format=jpeg

Why was this shortsighted?

  1. Fixed defense was outdated: The fortifications were built with a static defense mentality, based on the trench warfare experience of World War I. However, warfare was evolving, and mobile warfare (such as the German Blitzkrieg or “lightning war” strategy) would prove to be a dominant strategy in World War II. This should have been clear since highly mobile weapons like tanks and airplanes had already been used in World War I.
  2. The line could be bypassed easily: When World War II broke out, instead of attacking the heavily fortified Maginot Line directly, the German forces went around it, attacking through the Ardennes Forest in Belgium—a route that the French believed to be impassable for a large army. This outflanking maneuver led to the rapid defeat of France in 1940.
  3. The line caused diversion of resources: The significant resources, both in terms of money and manpower, diverted to building and manning the Maginot Line might have been better spent on more mobile and flexible defenses or on better equipping and training the French military for a different kind of warfare.

In hindsight, the Maginot Line represents a clear example of shortsightedness. While it was a formidable defensive structure, the French over-relied on it and failed to anticipate the evolution of military strategy and tactics. The decision to invest heavily in this static defense, without considering potential alternative strategies by an adversary, proved disastrous.

Another prominent environmental example of the Law of Shortsightedness is the introduction of Africanized honeybees.

Introduction of Africanized Honeybees

In the 1950s, biologists in Brazil imported African honeybees to crossbreed with local bees, hoping to boost honey production in South America’s tropical climate. Some of these bees escaped from the experimental apiaries in 1957 and began to breed with local bee populations, resulting in the Africanized honeybee.

Why was this shortsighted?

  1. The project focused on an immediate goal: The primary objective was to increase honey production without sufficiently weighing potential consequences or implementing secure measures to prevent the African bees from mixing with the local population. But the phenomenon of introduced species resulting in large negative impacts had already been known. Notable examples were the introduction of rabbits to Australia (1859) and the introduction of the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) into the United States in 1890.
  2. Underestimation of Adaptability: The scientists underestimated the aggressive nature and rapid spread of the Africanized bees. The hybrid bees were not only more aggressive but also highly adaptable to various environments.
  3. Lack of Containment Protocols: Insufficient measures were taken to contain the bees, leading to their escape and eventual spread throughout the Americas.

The “killer bee” incident serves has helped to put in place more rigorous measures for monitoring, research, and stricter regulation on the importation and experimentation with non-native species.

A common area of shortsightedness is in interpersonal relationships, especially infidelity.

Infidelity in a Relationship

The dynamics of interpersonal relationships can certainly be impacted by the “Law of Shortsightedness”. One such common scenario is prioritizing immediate emotional gratification over long-term relationship health.

Infidelity or having an affair while in a committed relationship or marriage is a frequent example of shortsighted behavior in interpersonal dynamics.

Why is this shortsighted?

  1. Infidelity aims for immediate gratification: Immediate gratification is always a red flag. In this case, the cheating partner might be driven by the immediate emotional or physical satisfaction of a new relationship or encounter without considering the long-term consequences. People in the know are also aware that you can’t really keep a secret for long; someone will always slip up eventually.
  2. Infidelity merely avoids of relationship issues: Instead of addressing issues within their primary relationship, the individual might seek solace outside, seeing it as an easier alternative to confronting and resolving internal conflicts.
  3. Infidelity underestimates consequences: The individual might believe they can keep the affair secret, underestimating the emotional toll of deceit on themselves and the risk of causing severe pain to their partner. One so driven to be unfaithful is subject to so many cognitive biases: they are not thinking properly.

The lure of immediate emotional satisfaction can often obscure the long-term implications of actions, leading to decisions that one might regret.

How can we manage shortsightedness?

Develop perspective. Instead of just reacting to immediate stimuli or emotions, try to envision the bigger picture. How will a decision impact you or others in a month, a year, or a decade?

Slow down: In an age of rapid communication and instant gratification, it’s beneficial to slow down your decision-making process. This could be as simple as taking a few deep breaths, sleeping on a decision, or setting aside time for regular reflection.

Seek feedback. Consulting with others can provide alternative viewpoints and might highlight long-term considerations you hadn’t thought of.

Study history. By understanding historical events, patterns, and outcomes, you can better predict and consider the future implications of current actions.

Practice foresight. Actively train yourself to think long-term. This could involve setting future goals, playing strategy games, or engaging in activities like chess that require thinking several steps ahead.

Control your emotions. Cultivating practices like mindfulness, meditation, or journaling can help in recognizing and managing impulsive feelings and reactions.

By understanding and acknowledging our predisposition towards shortsightedness, we can take active steps to think more long-term, leading to better decisions and outcomes.

Next up, the Law of Defensiveness.

(Q.C. 230814)

Fraternity, understanding & class

| jaylazzo

This essay is adapted from a talk I delivered about fraternity, understanding, and refinement. Let’s break this down.

Image: https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C5612AQEEUcOXelObRg/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1652288017534?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=5rZoCacjn6PTq65y_doTp9fQWKovkDfK7-0Rz4DO63g

We’ve got three big players in the game of relationships: fraternity or brotherhood, understanding one another, and a touch of class, or refinement. But the secret sauce? Knowing where to draw the line – that’s boundaries and respect.

Brotherhood is like the ultimate friendship. It’s that feeling that says, “Hey, we’re in this together.” Literally, in the same house, the same clan, the same whatever group you consider to be made up of your brothers and sisters. But, just like you wouldn’t want your sibling rummaging through your stuff without asking, the same rule applies here. It’s about having each other’s backs, sure, but also giving each other space. Respect the individual, and the group vibe stays cool.

Understanding each other is like, “I get you.” You don’t have to agree on everything, but you get where the other person is coming from. However, this doesn’t mean pushing too far or getting too nosy. It’s more like letting your buddy share their playlist, listening to it, and saying, “Cool tunes,” even if it’s not really your jam.

Being Classy (or Refinement) isn’t just about wearing fancy clothes or using big words. It’s like having that inner rulebook that says, “Maybe don’t say that out loud.” It’s knowing how to act, or not act, in different situations, making sure you’re not stepping on toes, or, worse, making a total fool of yourself.

I recently found a YouTube short about 15 Rules for Men [women readers are invited to find similar ones]. Not dogma but a useful reference on refinement as it applies to MEN.

The 15 Rules for Men are:

a. Never go back to the woman who cheated.
b. Never let a woman disrespect you.
c. Never shake a hand sitting down.
d. Never go broke to impress others.
e. Never eat the last piece of something you didn’t buy.
f. Always have the ambition to be better.
g. Protect who’s behind you, and respect who’s beside you.
h. Take 1-3 seconds pause after getting asked a question. [Comment on this rule: When smoking wasn’t universally banned people went, “What time do we leave?” [Other guy goes, pause, put cigarette in mouth, inhale, exhale] “5 minutes.”]
i. Don’t beg for a relationship.
j. Work out at least 4x a week.
k. If you’re not invited don’t ask to go.
l. Always carry cash.
m. Dress well no matter what the occasion.
n. Listen, nod, and most of all, make eye contact.
o. Find multiple ways to make money.

Trivia: The video features clips from Peaky Blinders, a gangster series starring Irish actor and former rock star Cillian Murphy. By the end of this long series Murphy, a non-smoker, had smoked 15,000 cigarettes.

We don’t often talk about boundaries. But we all have met people who made us feel uncomfortable. Like straight-up deny saying something when you know they did. It could be a random guy standing way too close in line or someone prying into your personal business.

Just because we’ve been taught to respect boundaries doesn’t mean everybody does. Doesn’t mean they’re mental, they just don’t know. We have to help them, by indicating clearly what our boundaries are. But maybe we ourselves don’t know what our boundaries are. So here’s a clue. You know you’ve had a boundary crossed when you feel off or just drained after dealing with someone.

At the same time, we can’t be too sensitive naman. It’s a stupid boundary to say no one should ever give you a correction, even a public one, just because you were drained by the experience. Or that no one should EVER scold you. Or say that no one should EVER joke to you about your weight. Wokism is just that: oversensitivity. Or that no one should EVER talk behind your back or have a poor opinion of you, which by their nature are indefensible boundaries. We can’t be unreasonable and say that just because he or she did this we can no longer be friends, ever.

Finally, we can’t have boundaries that are too SMALL. Some don’t EVER voice their opinion because they were taught as kids never to speak unless addressed. Some boundaries are just neurotic rules.

Boundaries have to be reasonable as well as dynamic. The way I think about this is to think of CONTEXT. Three general contexts: I could be playful, or I could be authoritative, or I could be in problem solving mode. When I’m in problem solving mode I do not like that people goof around, something that’s perfectly normal when I’m in playful mode. I don’t like people acting like clowns when I’m giving a class. But some people might be living their lives in just a single mode, playful, authoritative, or problem-solving all the time. They need help, too.

So, what’s the game plan? Becoming a well adjusted man (or woman) starts by knowing we all deserve a respect for space. Then, adjust boundaries to different contexts and be clear about them. Then it becomes easier to seek the good of the others.

That’s why living in society is so important for becoming mature.

So, wrapping it up: Brotherhood, understanding, and a touch of class are the heart and soul of solid relationships. Throw in respect for personal boundaries, and you’ve got a recipe for getting along and having a good time together. Keep it real, and know where the line is.

It’s that simple.

(Q.C. 230813)

The Law of Covetousness

| jaylazzo

Robert Greene delves into human envy in his description of the Law of Covetousness. Envy, he explains, is an emotion that’s difficult for many people to admit they feel, primarily because it’s associated with pettiness and meanness. However, envy is a part of human nature. Greene suggests that by understanding and admitting our envious feelings, we can transform this potentially destructive emotion into a powerful tool for self-improvement and understanding others.

The Law of Covetousness addresses the human inclination to desire what others possess. This can be material items, status, relationships, talents. Often rooted in envy or insecurity, this desire can lead individuals to make irrational decisions, harbor resentment, or even sabotage themselves and others.

Envy can also lead to achievement. Rather than allowing envy to lead us into destructive behaviors or self-loathing, we should see it as a mirror reflecting our deepest desires and what we value. When we recognize our envy, we can analyze it and use it as a guide to improve ourselves.

Three examples.

Antonio Salieri (1750-1825) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791). Salieri, a contemporary of Mozart, was a court composer with a decent reputation. However, upon recognizing the sheer genius of Mozart, Salieri reportedly felt deep envy. In popular culture, like the play and movie Amadeus (1984), Salieri’s envy drives him to destructive behavior, illustrating the negative potential of unchecked envy.

The movie suggests that Salieri poisoned Mozart. However, Erin Blakemore writes (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/A-German-Composer-uncovered-collaboration-between-mozart-and-salieri-180958154/)

In 1824, attendees of a performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony were handed anonymous leaflets that described Salieri forcing Mozart to drink from a poisoned cup, and the rumor was so deliciously suggestive that it inspired a dramatic dialogue from Pushkin, which was later turned into an opera. “Amadeus”, which was adapted from a stage play by Peter Shaffer, carried the rumor into the present day. All this despite the fact that historians can’t really find any evidence for any ongoing personal hatred between the men.

E. Blakemore (in Smithsonian Magazine, 16 Feb 2016)

Blakemore also reported that in 2016, a German composer and musicologist searching for compositions of Salieri’s students uncovered a collaborative work between the two musicians, “Per la Ricuperata Salute di Ofelia” (“For the recovered health of Ophelia”).

Surely there was envy — from Mozart as well, who had expressed his displeasure at the strong Italian influence at the court, meaning Salieri — such feelings may also have pushed both musicians to higher achievements in their craft and, in at least one case, a collaborative project.

Coca-Cola and Pepsi. The corporate world provides ample examples of covetousness. The rivalry between Coca-Cola and Pepsi is as classic as their taste. The desire to outdo a close rival (or envy of their success) can drive innovation and marketing strategies. It can also lead to very bad decisions. Such is the case with the “Pepsi Number Fever” fiasco in the Philippines.

In February 1992, Pepsi Philippines introduced a promotion where numbers printed inside the caps of their beverage bottles, including Pepsi, 7-Up, Mountain Dew, and Mirinda, could win prizes. Prizes varied from 100 pesos to a grand prize of 1 million pesos, about US$40,000 at the time. The promotion boosted Pepsi’s sales and market share considerably to 26%. Winning numbers were broadcasted on TV nightly, and by May, 51,000 prizes, including 17 grand prizes, were claimed. Due to its success, the campaign was extended five weeks beyond its original end date.

In May 1992, the networks announced number 349 as the grand prize number. PepsiCo had produced only two bottles with that winning number, each with a unique security code. However, due to an oversight before extending the contest, 800,000 bottle caps were printed with number 349 without the security code, theoretically worth US$32 billion. Thousands flocked to claim their winnings. After an emergency meeting, PepsiCo offered 500 pesos ($18) to each holder of the incorrectly printed caps as goodwill, ultimately costing them US$8.9 million.

Many holders of the 349 bottle caps rejected Pepsi’s compensation offer and formed the 349 Alliance. This group boycotted Pepsi products, held protests, and rallied outside Pepsi and governmental offices. Although most protests were peaceful, violence ensued when a homemade bomb aimed at a Pepsi truck killed a schoolteacher and a child in Manila in February 1993. By May, three Pepsi employees in Davao died from a grenade attack in a warehouse. PCPPI faced further hostility with death threats, and nearly 37 company trucks faced damage or destruction. Some 689 civil suits and 5,200 criminal complaints for fraud and deception were eventually filed against Pepsi. In 2006 the Philippine Supreme court laid the issues to rest when it ruled that “PCPPI [Pepsi] is not liable to pay the amounts printed on the crowns to their holders. Nor is PCPPI liable for damages.”

In the immediate aftermath of the scandal, sales of Pepsi products in the Philippines plunged from 26% to 17% of the total market share but recovered to 21% by 1994, which remained steady to this day (Coca Cola has 75%).

Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890) offers a vivid exploration of the dangers and seductions of envy as a vice waiting to consume the soul. In the novel, Dorian Gray is introduced as a figure of innocence, a blank slate, whose beauty attracts admiration from all quarters. However, it’s this very beauty that becomes the root of his envy.

Under the influence of Lord Henry, Dorian becomes acutely aware of the transient nature of youth and beauty. Faced with a portrait that captures his youthful perfection, Dorian is not filled with pride or gratitude, but with a searing envy for the unchanging visage on the canvas. His desire to remain as unspoiled as the image in the portrait, while letting it bear the scars of his sins, symbolizes the destructive nature of envy. Dorian’s wish is granted, but at a severe cost. As he indulges in every vice and sin, free from the repercussions on his appearance, the portrait becomes more and more grotesque, mirroring the corruption of his soul.

Image: https://victorianvisualculture.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/image-27.png

Wilde uses Dorian’s tale to warn against the peril of envying what one has, of desiring permanence in an impermanent world. Envy, rather than leading to satisfaction, results in an insatiable hunger for more, pushing the envious further from contentment. Dorian’s downfall is not just due to his hedonistic pursuits, but stems from his envy of a painted image, an unattainable ideal.

In the end, envy proves to be Dorian’s undoing. Unable to bear the sight of his true self, as reflected in the portrait, he destroys it, inadvertently ending his own life.

Wilde’s narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of envy, illustrating that it not only corrupts the soul but can also lead to one’s downfall. In seeking what we do not have or cannot be, we risk losing ourselves.

Instead of denying or repressing envious feelings, Greene suggests turning it into a powerful tool for self-awareness and growth.

Here are some ways to manage the Law of Covetousness:

Be self-aware. Recognize and admit when you’re experiencing covetous feelings. Understanding when and why you feel this way is the first step in managing these emotions.

Find contentment. Instead of constantly looking at what others have, cultivate gratitude for what you already possess. Keep a gratitude journal that focuses on your blessings. Be grateful for the not-so-good things as well.

Evaluate desires. Ask yourself if your desires are genuinely yours or if they’re shaped by external influences like societal norms, peer pressure, or fleeting trends.

Limit exposure. If you notice that certain platforms (e.g., social media) intensify your feelings of covetousness, reduce your time on these, take breaks.

Seek self-improvement. Instead of envying others, channel that energy into bettering yourself. Focus on personal growth, acquiring new skills, or pursuing genuine interests.

Shift perspective. Understand that everyone has their own struggles and challenges, even if they’re not visible. What might seem perfect from the outside often isn’t.

Practice generosity. Celebrae others’ achievements and be happy for their successes. This can also foster positive connections.

Reframe comparisons: If comparison is inevitable, compare yourself to your past self rather than others. Celebrate growth and progress.

Seek memories, not things. Focus on finding genuine happiness and fulfillment in your life’s purpose, activities, and relationships, reducing the need to covet what others have.

Set personal goals. Instead of desiring what others have, set your own goals based on what truly matters to you. Celebrate when you achieve them, irrespective of others’ paths.

The Law of Covetousness can work for you if you focus its energies on genuine personal growth and happiness. When you feel grounded in your journey and values, the allure of what others possess diminishes.

(Q.C. 230812)

Law of Compulsive Behavior

| jaylazzo

Robert Greene describes the Law of Compulsive Behavior speaks to the patterns of repetitive and often irrational behaviors that individuals engage in, driven by deep-seated emotional wounds, desires, or traumas. These compulsions often dictate actions without conscious awareness, leading to self-sabotage or consistent patterns of problematic behavior. Greene frequently underscores the idea that by becoming aware of these tendencies, we can channel them productively.

Three examples.

Steve Jobs (1955-2011). One of Jobs’ compulsive behaviors was his obsession with perfection and simplicity. This was evident in everything, from the aesthetics and functionality of Apple products to the structure and layout of Apple stores. This compulsion likely stemmed from his personal experiences and beliefs in Zen Buddhism and his inherent personality traits.

Image: https://www.christiancentury.org/sites/default/files/styles/wide_stacked/public/images/detail/100621steve-jobs.jpg?itok=adFXCitr

An amusing anecdote was related by Chris Hynes in 2011 (https://allaboutstevejobs.com/verbatim/anecdotes#). He wrote:

“After leaving my job at Apple, I dropped in for lunch one day. I was exiting the main building, Infinite Loop One, and just ahead of me was Steve Jobs, walking with the usual spring in his step that never seemed to go away even as he started looking more frail. Bumping into Steve was a surprisingly common occurrence for such a large company as Apple.

“Steve was heading towards a car parked next to the curb with its door open, waiting for him. The car was idling. A family was standing near the Apple sign outside the building, a common site for people to take photos of their pilgrimages to Apple.

“The father turned to Steve as he passed close by and asked, ‘Excuse me, sir, would you mind taking our photo?’

“Steve paused for a moment as an iPhone was extended to him, realizing that they didn’t seem to know who he was. With a hint of enthusiasm, he said ‘Sure!’ as he took the iPhone into his hands.

“Steve took a great deal of care composing the photo, backing up a few steps several times, tapping the iPhone screen to lock focus, then said ‘Smile!’ as he snapped the photo, grinning a little bit himselfto encourage the family to follow suit.

“He handed back the iPhone and they said ‘Thank you, sir’ as Steve stepped into his car, closed the door, and was driven away. The family looked at the photo that Steve had taken and all agreed that it looked great. Then the iPhone was pocketed and they were on their way.

“And that was the last time I saw Steve Jobs.”

Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890). The famed painter had a compulsion to express his emotional turmoil and perceptions through his art. This resulted in intense, almost frenetic painting sessions. Some believe this behavior was a result of mental health issues, but it could also be seen as a profound need to communicate and process his feelings.

It is told that Van Gogh was in love with one of his cousins, Kee. Regrettably for him, she turned down his overtures. Once, while visiting Kee’s parents, Van Gogh held his hand over a candle’s flame, aiming to draw their gaze and express his affection for their daughter. Sadly, this gesture of devotion failed to alter his cousin’s sentiments.

Howard Hughes (1905-1976): The business magnate exhibited compulsive behavior later in life, particularly around cleanliness and germs. This obsession influenced many of his personal and business decisions, isolating him from many in his life. Some speculate this was rooted in underlying mental health issues.

He once spent a few months in total isolation. In 1948, Hughes retreated to the film room he’d created in his residence and remained there for four months. Alone in the dimness, he disregarded the pleas of those who wished him to break his solitude. Hughes filled his hours by drinking milk and indulging in chocolate bars. Instead of using a restroom, he used empty bottles for his needs, arranging them meticulously on the ground. Apart from viewing films, he busied himself by constantly rearranging stacks of tissue boxes. When he finally left his self-inflicted confinement, his physical state was alarming: He hadn’t cleaned himself, trimmed his hair, or clipped his nails in all that time.

These examples, rooted in real-life figures, echo the broader themes of Greene’s work: the idea that understanding our nature and inherent tendencies can lead to greater mastery over our actions and decisions. Again, management, not elimination.

Here are some ways to manage the Law of Compulsive Behavior.

Be self aware. Recognize that you have compulsions without judgment.

Trace the Origins. Try to understand where these compulsive behaviors come from. Perhaps they’re rooted in childhood experiences or past traumas. Caution: do not overdo looking for roots in the past; you risk putting it all down to one incident, perhaps even to a false memory of a true but meaningless incident.

Reflect. Take a step back when you notice a pattern arising. Pause, breathe, and reflect on the action you’re about to take.

Seek professional help: Therapists or counselors can offer valuable tools and insights to help you understand and manage your compulsions if these are severe.

Limit triggers. If certain situations, people, or stressors induce your compulsive behaviors, it’s worth trying to manage or limit your exposure to these triggers.

Practice mindfulness. Techniques such as meditation can increase your awareness of the present moment, allowing you to recognize when you’re slipping into compulsive patterns.

Replace negative patterns. Work to replace harmful compulsive behaviors with positive habits. For example, if you compulsively snack when stressed, try taking a walk instead.

Acceptance yourself. Understand that changing deeply ingrained behaviors takes time. Celebrate small victories and be compassionate with yourself during setbacks.

Build a support system: Share your goals and challenges with trusted friends or support groups. They can offer encouragement, provide accountability, or just listen when you need it.

Educate yourself. Study, read up on psychology and human behavior. Knowledge can be a powerful tool in recognizing and addressing compulsions.

Self-check. Regularly evaluate your actions and decisions to ensure they align with your true desires and values, not just compulsive patterns.

Create structures: Establish routines, environments, or reminders that help curb compulsive actions. This could be as simple as placing notes around your space to remind you of your goals or avoiding environments that fuel your compulsions.

Remember that change often happens gradually. Celebrate progress and approach setbacks as learning opportunities, not failures.

Next up: The Law of Covetousness.

(Q.C. 230812)

Transactional analysis

| jaylazzo

Transactional Analysis (TA) is a psychoanalytic theory and method of therapy wherein social transactions are analyzed to determine the ego state of the patient, whether parent-like, child-like, or adult-like. it’s a way to understand human behavior and communication. TA was developed by psychiatrist Eric Berne (1910-1970) in the 1950s.

Here’s a brief overview:

Ego States: Parent, Adult, Child

Parent: This state contains the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings copied from our parents or parent figures. It can be nurturing (positive) or controlling (negative). It is sometimes referred to as our taught concept of life, learned and argued from authority.

Adult: This is our ‘direct response’ state, which is concerned with the here and now. In this state, we act based on the data we receive and computations we make, behaving rationally and objectively. It is sometimes referred to as our thought concept of life, learned and argued through evidence.

Child: This state contains the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings replayed from our childhood. It can be free and expressive or adaptive and compliant, or even rebellious. It is sometimes referred to as our felt concept of life, learned and argued through feelings.

Transactions: Transactions refer to the communication exchanges between people, which are seen as coming from one of the three ego states. There are several kinds of transactions.

Image: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fd6e1967cc78ad0b644a90f8705d04a5-pjlq

A complementary transaction occurs when the sender’s message gets the expected response from the receiver. The communication lines are clear, and both participants are “on the same page.” For instance, if a Parent ego state gives a directive and the Child ego state complies or reacts, the transaction is complementary. An Adult to Adult is also complementary. These transactions tend to be harmonious and can continue indefinitely unless interrupted. In most TA literature a complementary transaction is a parallel transaction.

A crossed transaction happens when an unexpected response is given to a message, leading to a breakdown in communication. Essentially, the response comes from a different ego state than the sender anticipated. For example, if the Parent ego state gives a directive (expecting a Child response of compliance or rebellion), but the recipient responds with an Adult ego state (e.g., providing logical reasoning or questioning), the lines of communication “cross.” Crossed transactions often result in misunderstandings or conflicts.

A parallel transaction of the type shown above is a fairly straightforward communication where the ego state addressed in one person is not the one that responds in the other. For example, if Person A’s Adult ego state asks a question to an Adult B, and Person B’s Child ego state answers it to Adult A, this is a parallel transaction. This can sometimes be fun.

An angular transaction is one in which one person gives an open message accompanied by a hidden message, and the second person gives an open message which is a response to the hidden message. Salesmen are experts with this. They convey their message ostensibly as Adult ego-state (factual), but the overt message contains a covert message addressed to the feelings of the Child ego-state of the customer. The Child ego-state (feelings) of the customer is seduced. However, at both levels the ultimate transaction is complementary since the customer’s reply is accepted at face value as an Adult purchasing contract.

An ulterior transaction is complex because it involves dual messages, with both an overt (explicit) and covert (hidden) message. The overt message might be coming from one ego state, but the covert message, often non-verbal, comes from a different ego state. They can be manipulative or game-like in nature. For example, Person A might offer a compliment from their Adult state (overt message) but might have a sarcastic tone indicating a negative message from the Child state (covert).

Games People Play: This is the title of Berne’s popular book on TA. Berne defines a “game” as a series of transactions that is repetitive, predictable, and often ends in some form of negative outcome for at least one participant. These games are subconscious ways people interact based on their learned life patterns. Here are some of the most important games described in the book, analyzed in terms of the ego states involved:

  1. “Why Don’t You, Yes But” (YDYB)
    • Description: One person (Player A) presents a problem. Every time someone (Player B) offers a solution, Player A responds with a “Yes, but…” statement, explaining why that solution won’t work.
    • Ego States: Player A typically operates from the Child ego state, seeking attention and validation, while Player B is in the Adult ego state, trying to solve the problem. The game satisfies Player A’s need for attention without the responsibility of solving the problem.
  2. “If It Weren’t For You” (IWFY)
    • Description: Player A finds fault in Player B for preventing them from doing what they want. Yet, if Player B were to change, Player A would feel lost or scared.
    • Ego States: Player A’s Child wants to do something but fears the consequences, so their Parent state blames Player B. Player B might initially respond from their Adult but may eventually shift to a defensive Child.
  3. “Uproar”
    • Description: A cycle of noisy but superficial arguments between two parties, which prevents discussion of a deeper, more significant issue.
    • Ego States: Both players oscillate between their Child (expressing raw emotion) and Parent (authoritative, scolding) states. The Adult state is conspicuously absent, leading to a lack of resolution.
  4. “Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch” (NIGYSOB)
    • Description: Player A finds or waits for a mistake made by Player B, then uses it as an opportunity to berate or retaliate.
    • Ego States: Player A is often in the Parent state, seizing on a mistake to assert dominance or moral superiority. Player B might react from the Child state, feeling shamed or defensive.
  5. “Kick Me”
    • Description: Player A behaves in ways that invite criticism, then acts hurt or indignant when criticized.
    • Ego States: Player A’s Child state seeks negative attention, fulfilling a belief in their own worthlessness. When others criticize, their Parent state is validated, and Player A can feel wronged.
  6. “Ain’t It Awful”
    • Description: A game of shared complaining, where players bond over mutual grievances.
    • Ego States: Both players operate from their Child states, seeking validation and camaraderie in shared victimhood.
  7. “Look How Hard I’ve Tried”
    • Description: Player A goes to great lengths to solve a problem, often more than necessary, but ensures the efforts do not succeed, aiming to gain sympathy for their hard work.
    • Ego States: Player A’s Adult and Child states are in conflict. The Adult wants to solve the problem, but the Child wants recognition and sympathy for the effort rather than success.

Understanding these games can help individuals recognize and break patterns that lead to negative outcomes. Transactional Analysis aims to shift interactions away from these games, toward more direct, healthy communications using the Adult ego state.

If all this might be a little complicated, let’s simplify. The following schema comes from the book I’m OK, You’re OK by Thomas Anthony Harris (1910-1995).

Image: https://www.matthewradley.co.uk/userfiles/blog_page/image/1280×720/216339460.jpg

The aim of TA is to promote more Adult to Adult transactions (upper right), leading to more direct, clear, and non-manipulative interactions. Use evidence, and address yourself primarily to the logical and reasonable side of your listener. As listener, respond to your partner also with evidence and reason, both of you grounded in the present.

Cultivating Adult-to-Adult communication requires awareness, practice, and commitment. Here are some ways to nurture this mode of communication:

  1. Be self-aware. Recognize your own ego states (Parent, Adult, Child) and understand when you’re operating from each. Awareness is the first step in shifting to an Adult stance.
  2. Stay in the present. The Adult ego state is grounded in the here and now. Avoid dredging up past grievances or predicting future conflicts. Focus on the current facts, needs, and circumstances.
  3. Use “I” statements. Express feelings, needs, and perceptions from a personal perspective to avoid sounding blaming or accusatory. For example, say “I feel concerned about this deadline” instead of “You’re not taking this deadline seriously.”
  4. Ask open-ended questions. Encourage clarity and understanding by asking questions that promote discussion rather than yes/no answers.
  5. Avoid emotional triggers: Be aware of topics or phrases that might shift the conversation to a Parent-to-Child or Child-to-Child mode. Navigate or avoid these triggers when you notice them.
  6. Listen actively. Truly listen to the other person, without interrupting or preparing a response in your head. Reflect back what you’ve heard to ensure understanding.
  7. Seek feedback: Occasionally check with others to understand if your communication is perceived as being from the Adult ego state. This helps in refining your approach.
  8. Avoid blame: Focus on problem-solving and understanding, rather than assigning blame. This promotes a collaborative atmosphere.
  9. Practice assertiveness: Be clear about your needs and boundaries without being aggressive or passive. This ensures mutual respect in the communication.
  10. Continuous learning: Read, attend workshops, or participate in group activities that focus on Transactional Analysis. The more you understand about TA, the better you can implement it in real-world situations.
  11. Mental rehearsal: Before challenging interactions, visualize the conversation going well with both parties communicating as Adults. This mental preparation can help guide the actual conversation.
  12. Limit emotional reactivity: When emotions rise, take a moment to pause and breathe. This can help reset the mind and return the focus to Adult-to-Adult communication.
  13. Seek external support: Consider seeking a coach or therapist trained in TA to provide guidance, especially if you find certain patterns challenging to break.

Consistent practice and commitment to these strategies can strengthen Adult-to-Adult communication, leading to healthier and more constructive interpersonal interactions.

Next up: The Law of Compulsive Behavior.

(Q.C. 230811)

The Law of Masks

| jaylazzo

Robert Greene describes the Law of Role-Playing or Law of Masks as the idea that people constantly wear masks: i.e., they play roles, consciously or unconsciously. The masks representing these roles are powerful given how our culture, being a visual culture, is moved by images. Images can be shaped by expectations, personal ambitions, or the desire to fit into particular groups or situations. By understanding the roles and images that people adopt, we can better interpret their behaviors, motivations, and potential future actions.

We illustrate the Law of Masks with three examples.

First, politicians. Of course. Politicians often adopt a persona or play a role that aligns with the expectations of their electorate or base. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) concealed the severity of his polio to project an image of vigor and strength. While in private he used a wheelchair, in public, he ensured that he was mostly seen standing with the support of aides or braces, preserving his role as a strong leader.

But it was his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), who started the systematic use of the media to promote a specific image of the president. David Greenberg’s Republic of Spin highlights the profound transformation in the relationship between the American presidency, public opinion, and the media during the turn of the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt’s approach to media relations and the cultivation of a public image was groundbreaking and ushered in a new era of presidential publicity. Some key highlights of Roosevelt’s strategy:

  1. The age of publicity: Roosevelt introduced a period where politicians recognized the power of media attention. Instead of shunning the spotlight, politicians embraced it to gain support for their agendas and bolster their public image.
  2. Power of personality: The presidency shifted from being purely about policy and leadership to also about personal charisma. Politicians utilized the media to project crafted personas, underscoring the shift from a focus on character to one of personality.
  3. Use of technology: Advances in technology, especially in media and communication, were utilized effectively by presidents to reach a broader audience. This also allowed them to bypass traditional gatekeepers and communicate directly with citizens.
  4. Progressive ideals: Both Roosevelt and, later Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), were progressives who believed in the potential of informed public opinion to drive social and political change. Media was seen as a tool to enlighten the masses and promote a more democratic society.
  5. Committee on Public Information (CPI): Under Woodrow Wilson, the CPI demonstrated the potency of organized media campaigns. While it was effective, it also drew criticism for its propagandist tendencies, leading to skepticism about government-led media campaigns.
  6. Distrust in media messaging: The effectiveness of the CPI also had a downside. It made people more aware of, and sometimes cynical about, the potential manipulations of public opinion by those in power.
  7. Bypassing traditional power structures: Media allowed reform-minded politicians to challenge established power centers, like party bosses and corrupt political machines. This further democratized political discourse.
  8. Redefining “The People”: As media became the dominant mode of communication, journalists, newspaper editors, and interest groups began to play an influential role in shaping public opinion and defining the “will of the people.”

In essence, the early 20th century was a period of massive change in the U.S., both politically and culturally. The rise of mass media and the ways in which politicians adapted to and exploited this new tool reshaped the American political landscape. This transition had both positive and negative repercussions, and the challenges and debates of that era surrounding media and politics continue to reverberate today.

Second, celebrities. Many celebrities cultivate public personas that may differ significantly from their private personalities. A notable example is Marilyn Monroe (1926-1962). Born Norma Jeane Mortenson, Monroe’s public image as a blonde bombshell was in many ways a role she played, distinct from her private persona which battled insecurities and sought intellectual validation. Actor Don Murray said that Marilyn was not comfortable in front of the camera, and that she would often miss her marks and forget the technicalities as well.

Marilyn Monroe reading Ulysses by James Joyce, a book considered by many to be very difficult to read. Image: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cxY0LCIl1-U/U4oQqkfuptI/AAAAAAAACYM/Rs_SZzbBR-c/s1600/21dea1094f0fb669df10c49b5da23ee16e.jpg

It has been suggested, however, that Marilyn Monroe may have been very intelligent; one estimate of her IQ put it at 165, higher than Albert Einstein’s (1879-1955). She never took an IQ test, probably missing it because she stopped school at 16. But Lois Banner says in The Passion And The Paradox the actress read a lot despite not graduating high school. She had over 400 books in her library, most of which were about art, drama, poetry, politics, psychology, philosophy, theology, and history. She also wrote poetry.

Sarah Churchwell, a professor at the University of London and the author of The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe said, “The biggest myth is that she was dumb. The second is that she was fragile. And the third is that she didn’t know how to act. She was far from dumb, although she had no formal education, and she was very sensitive about it. But in truth she was very smart — and very tough… She had to be both to beat the Hollywood establishment in the 1950s… The dumb blonde was a role—she was an actress, for God’s sake! Such a good actress that now nobody believes that she was anything other than what she portrayed on the screen.”

 Third, the world of work. In professional settings, individuals often adopt roles that may not fully represent their true personalities. An individual might play the role of a confident leader in a business meeting, but outside of work, they could be shy and reserved. A real-world example can be seen in the Silicon Valley tech culture. Startup founders often play the role of the eternally optimistic and visionary leader, even when privately they may have significant doubts or concerns about the trajectory of their company. This “fake it till you make it” attitude can be seen in figures like Elon Musk or the early days of Steve Jobs, where the public persona was carefully cultivated to attract investors, motivate employees, and gain public trust.

Recognizing the roles that individuals play allows for deeper insights into their behaviors and can enable more effective interactions, negotiations, and relationships. It’s vital to be aware of the roles we ourselves adopt and the implications they have on our interactions with the world around us.

Here’s how to navigate and manage the Law of Masks:

Be self-aware. Recognize the roles you play in different scenarios and with different people. Understand why and in what circumstances you adopt certain roles, and decide if they’re beneficial or restrictive.

Be grounded to your core values. While we all play roles, strive to be as authentic as possible. Ensure that the role doesn’t suppress who you truly are or force you into behaviors you regret.

Observe others without judgment. Recognize that others are playing roles too, sometimes out of necessity or fear. Instead of judging, try to understand the motivations behind their masks.

Listen. Pay close attention to what people say, how they say it, and their non-verbal cues. These data provide insights into the roles they’re playing and whether they’re being genuine.

Be flexible. While consistency is important, also be flexible in your roles. Adapt to situations, but remain grounded in your core values.

Communicate openly. If you feel someone is not being genuine with you or is stuck in a particular role, open channels of communication. Sometimes, just discussing the roles we play can lead to mutual understanding.

Avoid getting typecast. If you feel you’re being pigeonholed into a particular role, especially one you don’t enjoy or agree with, actively work to diversify how you present yourself.

Seek genuine connections. Engage with people on a deep, genuine level. When you’re real with others, it often encourages them to drop their masks with you.

Regularly take time to reflect on the roles you’ve played. Are they aligned with your goals and values? Do they bring you closer to or push you away from genuine connections?

Set boundaries. If you find that a particular role is draining or harmful, set boundaries to protect your mental and emotional well-being.

Practice empathy. Everyone has their own battles, insecurities, and reasons for the roles they play. Knowing this allows you to approach situations with understanding and compassion.

Educate yourself. Read, discuss, and learn about human behavior and psychology. The more you understand about why people (including yourself) play roles, the better equipped you’ll be to navigate them.

On that note, an interesting model about roles comes from a book I enjoyed: I’m OK, You’re OK, by Thomas Anthony Harris. The author proposed a psychoanalytic model of interpersonal communication called Transactional Analysis. According to this model, we communicate through one of three masks: the Adult, the Parent, and the Child. Good communication happens when we and our partner are speaking in complementary roles, e.g., Adult to Adult, Parent to Child. In contrast, problems happen when the roles cross, e.g., Adult to Parent.

Next up: Transactional analysis.

(Q.C. 230811)

The Law of Narcissism

| jaylazzo

The Law of Narcissism as described by Robert Greene in The Laws of Human Nature emphasizes the idea that all individuals have narcissistic tendencies. While a healthy degree of self-love and self-preservation is normal and even beneficial, unchecked narcissism can lead to egocentric behaviors that negatively impact oneself and those around them. Greene suggests that one should be aware of their own narcissistic tendencies and be vigilant of extreme narcissists who might manipulate or deceive.

We illustrate this the law with three examples.

First example comes from ancient Rome. Nero (AD 37-68), the Roman Emperor, has been described as an extremely narcissistic leader. His desire for admiration and disregard for those in his empire manifested in acts such as allegedly playing his fiddle while Rome burned (Jul 18 to Jul 23, A.D. 64) (the fiddle part is a legend because they were invented about 1,500 years later) and executing those he saw as threats, including his mother Agrippina, although there is no proof he murdered her. The movie Quo Vadis (1951) dramatically portrays the man’s egocentric and violent personality.

However, much of what we know about him may have been from people who didn’t like him, and our modern image of the man comes from plays and movies. True, Nero, like many emperors before and after him, frequently found himself at odds with the senate that was seeing its power ever diminish. Historians from the senatorial class painted Nero as an unhinged dictator, but it’s crucial to understand their biases. Given their diminishing stature, it makes sense for these historians to portray Nero in a decidedly negative light.

The perspective shifts when you look at the common people. Graffiti discovered in Rome applauds Nero, with his name being the most frequently inscribed, surpassing any other ruler from the Julio-Claudian or subsequent Flavian dynasty.

Sketch of a male face in profile An illustration etched on a wall in a shop or tavern on Rome’s Palatine Hill, likely depicting Emperor Nero. Image: https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/styles/uncropped_small/public/2022-08/Nero-graffiti-909×1280.jpg?itok=J55ia52k

In Rome, Nero’s contributions greatly favored its inhabitants. He commissioned the construction of luxurious public baths and established a grand marketplace, enhancing the food supply routes between Rome and its port. Nero wasn’t just focused on the basic necessities; he also catered to the people’s leisure needs by setting up an erstwhile wooden amphitheater. After the Fire of Rome, Nero’s architectural reforms significantly uplifted the living standards for Rome’s residents.

Our second example draws from social media. The modern age, with the rise of social media, has given birth to “influencer” culture. While not all influencers are narcissists, the medium can sometimes amplify narcissistic behaviors. There have been instances of influencers faking trips or experiences (like the case of a travel influencer who staged her trip to Paris using a local IKEA store) purely for likes, admiration, and attention.

In 2019, a beach resort in the Philippines that was getting inundated by free-stay requests on the part of “influencers”, posted this on its Facebook page:

This post went viral and sparked a debate. Influencers from around the world defended themselves as professionals, adding that they work hard at making content. Which can be very useful. The resort responded that they were not against influencers per se, as long as they were the real deal.

But, are social media influencers narcissists? Not an easy question to answer, since there isn’t a single characteristic that defines someone as a narcissist. However, certain behaviors prevalent among social media influencers might hint at narcissistic tendencies.

One behavior is the pursuit of attention and affirmation from their audience. Influencers work towards gaining followers, likes, and interactions to bolster their presence and credibility in their domain and to increase their income. This desire for endorsement and recognition from followers can be a hallmark of narcissistic individuals, or business acumen, or both.

Many influencers frequently spotlight themselves and their ventures. They might use their platform to endorse their products, services, or endeavors. Where such behavior suggests a diminished consideration for their followers’ interests, it might be narcissistic.

Elizabeth Holmes of founder of disgraced biotech company Theranos is our third example of narcissism, this from the corporate world. Her belief in her own narrative and her desire for admiration and success allegedly led her to deceive investors, partners, and patients about the capabilities of Theranos’ blood-testing technology. As a scientist, I found it too good to be true at that time that an immunoassay for more than 40 conditions could be done accurately on a drop of blood. Turns out, the machine was fake.

Holmes has been described by former employees as a merciless leader, expecting much from her team, idolized Steve Jobs, had aspirations of immense wealth, and truly believed she was forging a dynasty.

In Bad Blood, John Carreyrou ponders if Holmes might be a sociopath, characterized by a lack of empathy. “While determining whether Holmes meets the clinical criteria is best left to psychologists, it’s undeniable that her ethical direction was notably off,” observes Carreyrou. In a 2018 conversation with Vanity Fair, he further expressed his view that “she certainly exhibits sociopathic inclinations.”

Holmes is serving an 11-year sentence in federal prison in Texas for defrauding investors.

These examples show tendencies we all possess to some degree. Furthermore, an enhanced sense of self-worth, possibly correlating to being highly motivated, and greater assertiveness can better lead to success in specific situations, greater stress tolerance, and a higher tendency to be happy. Hence, go for management, not elimination.

Leaders, check this out: https://hbr.org/2004/01/narcissistic-leaders-the-incredible-pros-the-inevitable-cons

Here are some ways to manage and navigate the Law of Narcissism:

Be self-awareness. Recognize your own narcissistic tendencies. Understand that it’s a natural human trait to some extent but must be kept in check.

Develop empathy. Actively try to put yourself in others’ shoes. Listen more than you speak and try to genuinely understand others’ feelings, perspectives, and needs.

Seek feedback. Encourage those close to you to offer honest feedback about your behavior. Listen without becoming defensive, and use this as a tool for growth.

Practice humility. Celebrate your achievements without belittling others. Recognize that everyone has their own strengths and unique paths.

Limit social media consumption. Social media can sometimes amplify narcissistic tendencies, as it often promotes a culture of self-promotion, comparison, and validation-seeking. Consume it in moderation and with awareness.

Serve others. Engage in service, whether through volunteering, helping friends, or other altruistic acts. This helps shift the focus from the self to the well-being of others.

Maintain genuine connections. Cultivate deep and meaningful relationships where there’s mutual understanding, respect, and vulnerability.

Acknowledge the role of luck. While your skills and efforts play a role in your successes, luck and external factors often do as well. Acknowledging this can help keep the ego in check.

Practice gratitude. Reflect on what you’re thankful for. This can ground you and shift your focus from what you lack or desire to what you already possess.

Seek continuous personal development. Improve not just your skills, but also your character. This includes learning, introspection, and seeking to better oneself in all aspects.

Avoid surrounding yourself with yes-men. Being surrounded by people who constantly validate and agree with you might feel good, but it won’t help you grow or see your flaws.

Cultivate self-worth internally. Instead of seeking validation from external sources, develop a sense of self-worth that’s rooted in your values, actions, and character.

Navigating the Law of Narcissism doesn’t mean suppressing healthy self-esteem or self-worth. It means cultivating a balanced self-view that acknowledges both strengths and weaknesses and emphasizes genuine connections and growth over self-aggrandizement.

Next up: the Law of Role-Playing.

(Q.C. 230809)