Personality

[intellectualammo]

I have read elsewhere, and through a little quick online searching, for where it actually says that Alan Blumenthal supposedly diagnosed, (though I don't think she saw a psychologist...well...she did, but that was in a different sense) her as having Borderline Personality Disorder and the like. Anyone know? Or where Branden specifically, if he even does, or others, go into her personality, psychology?

I'd like to do one day some rereading of Rand, looking for possible narcissistic traits in characters, which might be subtle, obvious, or not even there - or arguable. It's a little hard for me to distinguish all the time in every act or every dialogue the lines between high self-esteem, self-centeredness, and narcissism (traits and/or personality), between passion, and narcissistic supply, but I'm not really trying to start a topic on that, if I do this early, probably wouldn't be fruitful, but others are more than welcome to if they want to.

But what I'd really like to find out more about is if you know anywhere that psychology is applied to Rand's characters, or her, by people who knew her, (though their credibilty is arguable in itself) or others now, that'd be great. Maybe ARB has lectures on the psychology of her characters or something.

I'm just curious.

[intellectualammo]

I didn't find anything on ARB about the psychology of the characters.

I've been making my way through the following by some guy named Bob Wallace, that I found while Google-ing tonight:

The Narcissism and Scapegoating of Ayn Rand

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

What I've been reading is really interesting to me so far, kind of what I was looking for, though I have never heard any references to these by anyone here or Bob Wallace (whoever he is, anyone know?), but upon my reading of some of Part 2, I came across Lonnie Leonard, and wonder if anyone knows more about him:

One psychopath did make himself very well-known in Objectivism: Lonnie Leonard, the Objectivist "psychotherapist," sexual predator, and serial rapist. He made a career verbally, emotionally and physically abusing his emotionally fragile patients. His being an Objectivist is not coincidence: narcissistic philosophies attract narcissistic (and psychopathic) people. Leonard received the highest approval from the top ranks of the Objectivist movement.

Unsurprisingly, Leonard claimed he was "the perfect man," one whose career was ended after he was sued by an abused patient, Ellen Plasil, who wrote her autobiography, Therapist, about his brutal degradation of her and his other patients. This book should be read by anyone interested in Rand. Leonard was not an anomaly; he is the logical end result of Objectivism.

Plasil's parents were true Objectivists: her father molested her and her sadistic mother hated her without reason. Perfect Randroid examples of not taking another's feelings into account -- even their daughter's.

Edited May 31, 2009 by intellectualammo

[Myself]

How can you take this crap seriously?

[intellectualammo]

How can you take this crap seriously?

Because I was interested in seeing psychology applied to her fiction and Rand, to some extent. That is what is being done in those parts, but whether or not it's applied correctly throughout, is for the reader to decide, as with anything. When reading and studying narcissism on my own at the beginning of this year, some things I remember from her fiction, characters traits, personality, interactions with others/society, makes me wonder if said things, could be argued rightly or wrongly as being narcissistic, being self-centered, more than just simply selfish. I'm just trying to understand the lines and distinctions between them all. If one is to argue either way, one must have a clear understanding of all the distinctions - applying self-esteem, rational self-interest, passion correctly and/or being able to demonstrate that is/or is not narcissistic, or self-centered, lack of empathy. I find it hard to do in some cases, so I need to learn more, broaden my understanding on as many sides/interpretations as I can.

[Grames]

Lumping together all varieties of ethics and psychological behavior that seem to have something to do with a self is an error. In attempting to form a concept from a set of elements gathered together on the basis of a nonessential, the mind will inevitably recognize a more essential attribute and use that as the real basis of the idea. Integrating self-centered, selfish, self-esteem, rational self-interest, passion, narcissism, lack of empathy all into one idea on the basis of "self" implicitly transforms into "ways to be crazy" because there is only one right way to go about attending to the self and innumerable ways to get it wrong. Right and wrong, or true and false is the first, most fundamental and most essential distinction to be made when sorting out ideas.

Objectivism recognizes that ethics must be egoistic, but any form of ethics or psychological behavior that denies the value or even the reality of other people is false, usually pathologically so.

[Q.E.D.]

I am fairly sure I suffered from narcissistic personality disorder during my teenage years, so I will speak from my experience. Narcissism enables a victim to cope with low self esteem by way of conceited thoughts and behaviors. The less confidence a narcissist has in his own person, the more he will try to assert his tentative superiority over others. This condition is related to other self aggrandizing personality disorders such as sociopathy and borderline personality disorder.

This kind of characterization of Ayn Rand's "anti-social" characters doesn't really fit, because all of her characters have extraordinary self-esteem.

[themadkat]

I am fairly sure I suffered from narcissistic personality disorder during my teenage years, so I will speak from my experience. Narcissism enables a victim to cope with low self esteem by way of conceited thoughts and behaviors. The less confidence a narcissist has in his own person, the more he will try to assert his tentative superiority over others. This condition is related to other self aggrandizing personality disorders such as sociopathy and borderline personality disorder.

This kind of characterization of Ayn Rand's "anti-social" characters doesn't really fit, because all of her characters have extraordinary self-esteem.

This differs slightly from my understanding of narcissism. I thought that narcissistic personality disorder was simply a near-total focus on oneself and one's personality to the exclusion of nearly anything or anyone else (i.e. it's a focus issue), but that it in no way required high self-esteem or even the faking of it - someone could be constantly self-deprecating and still narcissistic.

It really doesn't sound like you had narcissistic personality disorder, it sounds like you were just an insecure teenager who decided to wildly overcompensate.

[intellectualammo]

This differs slightly from my understanding of narcissism. I thought that narcissistic personality disorder was simply a near-total focus on oneself and one's personality to the exclusion of nearly anything or anyone else (i.e. it's a focus issue), but that it in no way required high self-esteem or even the faking of it

That's the way that I am, but narcissism can involve a false self, which is a defense mechanism to protect self-esteem issues. I'm not an expert, I'm only self diagnosing (kind of easy when you have nearly all the qualifications for diagnosis) myself. It's really the traits that I so have, and it's not episodic or anything, but always a part of my personality since I can remember. I'm way more around the self-centeredness aspect of it, like what you mentioned. Sometimes, like now, it'd be worthwhile I think going to a psychologist to figure out where I am, not to get any kind of help, just place me where I am psychologically, or personality wise. But I think I already have a pretty good idea and can back it up with many many personal examples.

Edited June 1, 2009 by intellectualammo

[Ifat Glassman]

I've been making my way through the following by some guy named Bob Wallace, that I found while Google-ing tonight:

This guy sounds like a first class loser. It could still provide information, but requires a translation through the psychology of the reporter.

Example: "That guy was a self-centered bastard who thought he was better than everyone". Likely facts of reality: this guy has self-esteem, confidence and honesty about his evaluation of others.

It is more likely the reporter would resent someone with genuine self-esteem than some Roark-wanna-be who tries to put everyone down to gain self-esteem.

Anyway, two more things to say: 1. I think the best source to learn about Ayn Rand (other than her books) the person is Leonard Peikoff. For example "My thirty years with Ayn Rand" (he has a free online audio recording of this somewhere on the ARI website), or interviews with people who knew Ayn Rand, like this.

2. As for narcissism: How would you define it or identify it in someone? I think you first need to know enough narcissist people to develop a solid concept of it.

Personally, I would be very careful approaching this. Because I find a lot of value in self-admiration, especially for creating art involving projection of a character.

You don't want to mix all self-centered behavior and make it into a single category because that will destroy the concept of the good kinds of being self-centered.

There is one kind of bad self-centerdness that I noticed, and that is holding as the standard of good one's own self. Such a person cannot love anyone else (including him/her-self ironically) because he cannot develop admiration for other people unless they resemble himself. Of course, no person is a replication of another, and so he is incapable of truly admiring/ loving another human being. This kind can go on and on about how wonderful he/she is, and usually have no genuine interest in what you say (well, unless it relates to them in some way).

One example (if you read Harry Potter) is Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter. That is really an exaggerated description of this certain kind of self-centerdness and is good to capture the essence.

I don't think Ayn Rand is anything like that. The fact that clearly shows it is that she was most capable of admiring other people - for things that did not resemble herself (yes in essence were reducible to the things she admired). She also had genuine self-esteem which is only possible when someone holds a standard of good/ bad which is not concrete-bound to their self. i.e. "Rationality is good/admirable" - I value myself and others as good to the extent I am rational. The other kind would think: "My way of thinking is good, anyone who thinks like me is good" - there is no way to have self esteem because there is no standard by which to judge oneself.

Edited June 1, 2009 by ifatart

[intellectualammo]

This guy sounds like a first class loser.

I probabay will try to find a copy or buy Therapist, to have a first hand account of her experience, to find out more. Can't find much on the net.

I think the best source to learn about Ayn Rand (other than her books) the person is Leonard Peikoff. For example "My thirty years with Ayn Rand" (he has a free online audio recording of this somewhere on the ARI website), or interviews with people who knew Ayn Rand, like this.

Yes, I am familiar with it, he gets really emotional in it towards the end. I looked at his account, NB, BB, et al.

2. As for narcissism: How would you define it or identify it in someone?

Well, what really qualifies is a diagnosis by a mental health professional, who goes by the DSM-IV-TR and/or ICD-10, as far as I have gathered. Now one can have narcissistic traits, but are Borderline Personality Disorder, or under some other personality disorder too. I think that of anything I have read on personalities, narcissism fits me perfectly. Just now I was sent an electronic letter by a woman I used to see around the time I was divorcing my wife, and she thinks, but said it in other words, that I would be AvPD, instead - she has some "piece of paper" that qualifies her somewhat and she works in a mental health facility and is some kind of therapist, but college didn't teach her much about narcissism. But she certainly doesn't know everything about me, and I have discovered so much about me in the last few months. learned a lot from a guy named Sam Vaknin, though he doesn't have the "piece of paper(s)", but in the many many pages I've read of his, or online, I see myself. I read so much from various writers about it, that it's hard to keep it altogether, I just keep going on and on, finding more and more and can't slow down - this happens a lot when I am interested in something, like being manic about it - and I have so much I pulled and gathered that I'll have to eventually look at all of it, but their's so much more I want to read!

I have to find a way to distinguish more explicitly selfishness, rational self-interest, self-centeredness, narcissistic traits. In Objectivism, I thought being self-centered was not the same as being selfish, or having rational self-interest. I think it was Dan egde, something he wrote on precisely this in relationships, that I first saw a difference between the two, which he mentioned was a common mistake among O'ists or folks in general. Self-centeredness then is either the bridge to, or is narcisstic, depending on what it is, from what I gather.

There is one kind of bad self-centerdness that I noticed,

I don't know if there is a good self-centeredness / bad self-centeredness. If going by what I read of Dan's (i'd have to search for what writing of his it was) self-centeredness is not rational self-interest/selfishness.

This kind can go on and on about how wonderful he/she is, and usually have no genuine interest in what you say (well, unless it relates to them in some way).

He addresses that in the article, as that being self-centered.

Found it, this is what I am talking about, but he says it so well.

I'm new to this field of psychology, and it's a young field to begin with, according to Rand:

As a science, psychology is barely making its first steps. It is still in the anteroom of science, in the stage of observing and gathering material from which a future science will come. This stage may be compared to the pre-Socratic period in philosophy; psychology has not yet found a Plato, let alone an Aristotle, to organize its material, systematize its problems and define its fundamental principles.

[intellectualammo]

I am fairly sure I suffered from narcissistic personality disorder during my teenage years, so I will speak from my experience. Narcissism enables a victim to cope with low self esteem by way of conceited thoughts and behaviors. The less confidence a narcissist has in his own person, the more he will try to assert his tentative superiority over others.

Yes, that's part of it. From what I read (about a dozen books) is that there are different variations on narcissism, or you have a different personality disorder, with many narcissistic traits. And not all are malignant narcissist, as in being physically abusive to others, verbally abusive, etc.

This kind of characterization of Ayn Rand's "anti-social" characters doesn't really fit, because all of her characters have extraordinary self-esteem.

No, I do not at all see her heroes and heroines exhibiting ASPD, or being "anti-social", bvcause as I understand that, it has to do with manipulating and using people, which they do not. (nor are they AvPD) At best, perhaps unsocial, but that's stretching it, because they do talk to others, mainly kindred spirits though.

Quickly to add, I naturally chose Kira to study because I am most attracted to her, but at the same time this character incidentally is the most autobiographical of Rand's. I will go more into it, get the right passages out later on tonight, that I want to make sure I understand, but Rand wrote:

"her ideas, her convictions, her values were and are [mine]."

What about personality? Don't those effect personality/behavior? Is it safe to assume, or at the very least arguable that Kira's personality/behavior is Rands, too?

Edited June 2, 2009 by intellectualammo

[Tabitha]

Rand's characters can better be described as "asocial," not "anti-social." If you're anti-social, you've got some real problems, as being anti-social involves doing heinous things and feeling no remorse. Murderers are anti-social. Roark and other characters are asocial, or indifferent to others when it comes to "being social" for the sake of being social because it's the "nice thing to do." The two are totally different concepts. The first one is deplorable, the second is a value.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Tabitha

[intellectualammo]

Rand's characters can better be described as "asocial," not "anti-social." If you're anti-social, you've got some real problems, as being anti-social involves doing heinous things and feeling no remorse. Murderers are anti-social. Roark and other characters are asocial, or indifferent to others when it comes to "being social" for the sake of being social because it's the "nice thing to do." The two are totally different concepts. The first one is deplorable, the second is a value.

Thank you, Tabitha, for putting the distinctions more clearily than I had merely touched on before. I heard of asocial, but I'm not familiar with it so I will look it up right now. Maybe that is more fitting than "unsocial".

I would be way more characterized by being "unsocial" as in:

"Having or showing a lack of desire for the company of others."

Or a desire to have sex with them, I will add. I like to describe myself more like this: I'm most like Narcissus, but Pygmalion to some extent, but I would not want my silicone statue to come to life however, I'm Dickinsonian, Ibsenian, and have some of "Ego Hugo" in me - to name a few.

I just think I want to make sure that I am not trying to see in Rand's characters what's not there. Looking back a little on Kira, I can't argue that it was narcissistic traits that made her forget te bread, but it was meeting Leo that did, and she shows empathy, and apologizes too. At best, I could argue that perhaps she's self-centered, but that would be hard, because it's rational self-interest, selfishness, mixed with a seemingly all-consuming passion, that could only posibly cross over into self-centeredness, but not narcissism, at least from what I looked at. Maybe I see myself or want to see it reflected in those characters, and am trying to see that, instead of what they are. I do this with real life people, and I think that I am guilty of doing this to my dear Kira, but at least now I can identify what I do, since I have much more knowledge about myself. Come to think of it, I tink I read with certain lens's on, that help me see what I want to. Way back when I was a Satanist, I thought Kira exibited some traits of Satanic Witches, that she was witchy with Tagonov. But it's not like that. But again, that only shows that I do try to see what I want, or have them reflect me in a way. I would say, as I have said, that I not only write narcissistically (which is quite interesting just how far I go with it) and also read that way. I pull what I want, regardless of context, but I figure as long as I cite the source, I can make it work for me. But like I said, I am only trying to understand things correctly, about myself, about what I read. Now if Kira would have not just said that she'd forgotten the bread and apologized but did/said something else, then maybe I could build a casv for narcissism, but I have nothing. I just don't want to be a disservice to Objectivism, with the way that I am. I do not want people who know me think it has to do with Objectivism, as such, but that it is my personality, and not to be confused.