Systemic Narcissism and the Dynamics of Online Engagement

I’ve touched on what I’m calling systemic narcissism in earlier posts/articles.?I’m not going to go deeply into what I mean in broad terms here, but instead focus on a pattern of engagement I’ve begun to view as this.

To be clear, I am not talking about literal, clinical narcissism here.?That term gets thrown about a bit too liberally for my tastes, based on my very up-close, IRL experiences with a person suffering from this very much legitimate and serious disorder.?Whatever my feelings on psychiatry and the modern medicine thereof otherwise, this disorder, no matter the cause attributed to it, is very real, and if you don’t realize the person suffers from it, very difficult to spot in your direct interactions with them, aside from a vague sense that they are really, really difficult to work/get along with.

My personal experiences with it are exactly of this variety.?I knew the person had some issues with mental balance, and was actively being treated for that, but I didn’t (and don’t) know his diagnosis.?A friend help me contextualize my experiences with this person when I described them to him, still rather perplexed and saddened by them.?He said something like “Oh, he was a narcissist.”?Honestly, whether or not that is clinically accurate (he does not possess the credentials or access to the person to assert such), it gave me the frame I needed to understand what’s going on.

So I’m not talking about persistent individual behaviors, but rather persistent social behaviors that are widely shared without much introspection about what they actually mean at levels of narrative underneath the surface, and what the target of this communication is intended to take away from it. From my perspective, without respect to your individual psychology, we are all inured in a system that is saturated with this, so it need not be core to you to affect your day-to-day behaviors.

I’m focusing on online interactions to keep the scope relatively tight here, but I see these sort of patterns everywhere.

Let’s start with my informal, lay definition of narcissism in behavioral terms, without respect to its permanence or transience in individual psychologies.

First, it’s fundamentally a defense mechanism.?It can be triggered by things as simple as the person being triggered feeling inferior to someone else in their proximity.?Notice I said _feeling_.?This person’s perception is what matters, not anyone else’s, nor any shared social perceptions (what “other people” think).?The threat does not in any way have to be actual or present except in the triggered person’s point-of-view.?This is part of what makes it so difficult on the other side of that to understand the other person’s behavior (I was fortunate enough to see an example extreme enough to make things clearer).

The person who I had may enlightening experiences with seemed to be triggered by my presenting an original idea, by my mentioning anything related to law (he has had legal troubles related to his psychological difficulties), relating an interesting personal story, and even attempting to use my deep, professional expertise to help him on a personal project. ?I was never interested in competing with this person, or making them feel less than good about themselves (I affirmed some of his experiences that many others would likely have scorned).?

I was genuinely interested in befriending this person.?But they seem to have felt so threatened by various aspects of me that they simply could not cooperate with this, even though it may have actually helped them if they could.?This is a pattern with this person; he just can’t keep friends because of it.?His defenses kick in so hard he won’t even let those who very much want to help him do so; he pushes them away systematically.?But again, his is a severe, but very illustrative case.?And here are some things I learned from my experiences with him (before walking away because he couldn’t change, couldn’t even see his behavior from my perspective).

The common perception of narcissism is that it’s about something like viewing other people as not having their own legitimate agency aside from supporting the narcissist.?There is truth to this, and on the surface I would say that narcissists believe this.?But the deeper truth is that it’s a smokescreen, not just for other people, but for themselves.?They are not ready to view their own limitations and flaws clearly, and accept them, whether or not others do.?They absolutely do believe it, and will push this act until it becomes obvious to others that there’s something going on.

Narcissistic behaviors center around three things:?antagonistic (often covertly so, e.g. passive-aggression) interactions with whatever/whomever they feel threatened by, drawing attention to themselves and away from whatever it is they feel threatened by, and persistently evasive tactics.

The antagonism can take on a wide range.?I personally experienced unwelcome competition, inappropriate impatience, constant interruption/disruption when trying to speak, in my case usually accompanied by insistence that I didn’t understand what they were saying (I did, very well, but they were not willing to hear my perspective or suggestions), gaslighting, and systematic refusal to actually engage any question or challenge to the narcissist’s views (in my case, that’s what much of the interruption/disruption was centered around).

I’ve mentioned him before, and I honestly don’t wish to slander/libel the man (I don’t believe I am), but I have to mention Jordan Peterson here because if you look both at the way he engages discussion and rhetoric, he is continually disingenuous (uses logical flaws, dirty tricks, etc without being called on it) and evasive, and his views center in a fear (of others, and what happens in the terrible circumstances that they have societal equality with him, and he no longer has a privileged platform). ?

He never, ever legitimately addresses questions or challenges to his views, but finds every evasive trick to avoid doing so.?And what he advocates educationally amounts to voluntarily remaining in ignorance out of fear that your expanded knowledge might invalidate your current limited views.

I only bring him up because he is a public figure in whom anyone can, if they watch carefully, see these sort of patterns playing out.?I do not wish to shame the man or otherwise exacerbate his obvious fear of our rapidly changing world.?I just want us all to see it for what it really is, and not just his behaviors (not even specifically his), but how commonly this sort of dissembling tactic is used in our social world.

With that long but necessary preface out of the way, I’ll get to my point, and it’s less to point out problematic behaviors in others than to encourage everyone to take enough pause to consider their own.?I believe that most of these patterns are being acted out effectively unconsciously because the problematic dynamics of them are hidden under the surface, and most simply don’t notice or consider it.

Commenting on a post for the purpose of shouting it down or adding noise to its signal seems to me to match this narcissist pattern I’m trying to describe, specifically as an inappropriately disruptive behavior.?This doesn’t mean I expect nobody to disagree with anyone else (very far from it), but it means consider whether you are posting primarily for that purpose, which is also covertly drawing attention back to you.?Are you offering them some real insight??Are you just parroting existing views that they probably already know disagree with them??

There’s grey area here, of course, because there’s not necessarily a broadly agreed upon definition of where the line is between strong disagreement that is still centered around reaching a meaningful, agreeable consensus or solution, and belligerence driven by your own personal distaste. Only the individual can truly say for themselves, when it comes right down to examining motive and intent.

It's also important to consider the distinction between open to different viewpoint and being open to engage in debate or heated discussion of them. So if you are presenting a contrasting view or a view from disagreement, are you attempting to force them to debate with you? What is your objective? Are you trying to be right? Are you trying to convince the other person to see the world in the "right" way? Are you trying to make sure nobody else will agree with them?

Antagonism is usually not an effective persuasion tactic. If you're going to use it, I would recommend using it strategically. You won't convince most people by disagreeing with them, even respectfully, and you won't convince someone not interested in discussing/debating with you, regardless of how persuasive and logical your arguments. It can be effective to initiate the spread of ideas, perhaps, but you won't win that battle, even if you shift the balance of the war a bit, so to speak. I would further recommend saving antagonism for things like systems because most of your fellow human beings wouldn't be as annoying as you think they are if they were relieved of the invisible stresses and constraints of the old systems and meta-narratives that we often forget or never notice drive the surface narratives that cut across our lives, especially where power dynamics live, such as in work life, or literally anywhere significant amounts of money are involved, or reputation, clout, status, etc are or are perceived to be at stake.

I have to admit, I’ve been guilty of some of this myself.?Some may even believe I still am, but I hope will at least grant me the trust that I believe I am bringing an important alternative point-of-view to the table, not merely attempting to shout down what I disagree with (I just don’t have the time or energy for that anyway, nor do I think it ever gets us closer to real solutions or consensus).?I’m just hoping to pose this question to others for consideration because I don’t think we find consensus by intentionally diluting each others’?signals, and it’s very easy in this day and age, and in the relative anonymity of social media to discard such deeper considerations about our interactions. I also always try to make it about systems and institutions, not individuals in them that are enmeshed in the same relative darkness about these patterns that I am trying to illuminate.

There’s a flip side of this, too, which is just commenting on someone’s post in a positive manner without actually adding anything.?It’s far more innocuous, but still sometimes seems to be about drawing attention back to the commenter.?Obviously there’s grey area here, too, even more than with antagonism.?I have no wish to stifle positive interactions, so take this one with plenty of salt.?But maybe ask “Am I adding anything here?”?Maybe you are.?Maybe your comment is funny, or that person just really needed to get that tiny signal from you that day. But maybe just ask and consider before adding it, regardless of what conclusion you come to. ?

It’s really not for me or anyone but you to say.?But to me these seem like a questions worth asking yourself before commenting, especially if you don’t actually know the other person.?And if you’re willing to ask it there, considering casting your net a bit wider and applying the same principles to how you interact with others regardless of platform or venue. I can only offer my own subjective, anecdotal account of my success in this, but this is what I'm attempting to do before commenting (even if some disagree with the dispositions I arrive at).