This seems like a bit of a misrepresentative title. It's been well known for a long time that stress during pregnancy (high cortisol levels particularly) has a negative effect on the child's mental health throughout their whole life. Labeling this as epigenetic trauma feels like stretching the definition in a motte and bailey kind of way.
If giving your opinion, make sure you read the whole article.
For example:
"It suggested that trauma might have affected the mothers' eggs decades before her children were conceived, while she was herself a child."
"They gave a male mouse a mild electric shock as it smelled a cherry blossom scent, stimulating a fear response to the odor. The response was accompanied by epigenetic changes in its brain and sperm. Intriguingly, the male offspring of the shocked mice demonstrated a similar fear of cherry blossoms—as well as epigenetic changes in their brain and sperm—without being exposed to the shock. These effects were passed down for two generations. In other words, the lesson the grandfather mouse learned, that the cherry blossom scent means danger, was transmitted to its son and grandson."
>"Intriguingly, the male offspring of the shocked mice demonstrated a similar fear of cherry blossoms—as well as epigenetic changes in their brain and sperm—without being exposed to the shock. These effects were passed down for two generations. In other words, the lesson the grandfather mouse learned, that the cherry blossom scent means danger, was transmitted to its son and grandson."
It's going to take multiple teams replicating that before I even start to believe that claim.
You cannot solve your narcissism through introspection. Introspection will only lead you to thinking you've found the answer, and stopping there so you don't have to change. "I've figured it out, I know why I'm a narcissist," and then stopping there.
People can't tell you how to stop being a narcissist. If someone tells you exactly what to do, you'll do that thing, and then stop. "I'm doing that thing now, so I'm not a narcissist!"
Your mind will simulate the most awful pain imaginable just to protect against changing your behaviour. You think your suffering is making you a good person, that by looking at the painful parts of your mind you are no longer a narcissist, but you're at the same place as you were before. You haven't changed your behaviour at all.
This is a specific example of a more general critique of therapy, or at least, classical psycho-analytics. It conflates that moment of insight (the "breakthrough") with healing, similar to how making a big poop is hard work, but really satisfying.
The power of this introspective moment of insight has an interesting parallel with the similar concept of catharsis. However, catharsis is outward focussed. It is through the careful absorption of art (e.g. a stage play in antiquity), which is fiction, and divorced from the self, that a healing release may occur.
So for the neurotics trying to avoid the trap you described, try channel that curiosity outward, direct it towards the minds of others, by paying careful attention to fiction. It won't change behavior per se, but at least will help with stepping out of oneself.
This sounds nice and plausible, but is it any better than any other psychological theory or therapy? Does it have any data behind it? How exactly are you defining and measuring "healing release", for example?
Or anything else you claimed, by the sounds, no more than therapy or classical psychoanalysis or anything else anyway. Stepping out of oneself, channel curiosity outward, healing releases, etc. All just sounds exactly like all the other snakeoil to me. Unscientific mumbo jumbo that barely even means anything.
> There you go again, thinking about yourself. Your impulse wasn't to say, "am I doing this to my kids?" or "how will I act differently?" It was to wonder about your own nature.
Worthy of note, TLP did often harp on the fact that his view of 'narcissism' as a cultural phenomenon (I think he called it a "generational pathology") is NOT the same as the DSM definition. People are fooled into thinking every narcissist is the person with a self-inflated ego (I inferred the same from the OP, "Some of them are good enough to fool Jersey Shore candidates, while others can reach high executive positions and, in some cases, potentially win a presidential election..."). But TLP's definition was closer to someone who is completely focused on controlling others' perception of them. This could include a person who projects himself as a meek victim, but hyper-focused on relaying that image to others.
Although, this does fit quite well too: "I don't want to be with someone who doesn't care to drink tap water."
Anyway, not saying you said it was the same as the DSM definition, just adding some perspective since I read a lot of TLP and naturally compared what I read in the OP to what I remember from TLP's blog.
> You think your suffering is making you a good person, that by looking at the painful parts of your mind you are no longer a narcissist, but you're at the same place as you were before. You haven't changed your behaviour at all.
This is what I'm going through with my partner right now. She went through a program that made her really evaluate her past and behavior. After the year program she thinks she is "fixed" and everyone else needs to live their life according to how she thinks is best.
It seems like an impossibility for her to even change 5%. If I could even get her to accept that she has a mental health problem that she needs to face.
My understanding is it's generally un-curable since it's such a deeply rooted and ingrained coping mechanism for the ego. Like an addiction. But if I had to guess, someone would probably have to deeply work on true self-compassion (a lot of narcissists are, internally, extremely self-critical, if I understand the condition correctly) and build back from near zero. Sounds really difficult.
It's intractable. There is no solution except teaching people how to identify and protect themselves from narcissists, or institutionalization.
People with narcissistic traits can work towards undoing the damage done to them; but, once you're at the level of a personality disorder it becomes more about coping with the inevitable and continuous fallout. Genetics, trauma, and childhood abuse all come together to create a shell of a human being who, motivated by self-preservation, exists only to consume, exhaust, and expel other human beings.
There are no evidenced treatments, and there is no saving them. They are not capable of changing -- if they were, they wouldn't be (by definition) narcissists. The best thing we can do is teach people to identify and protect themselves from these lost souls.
There's no incentive for them to change. If they can use people and then discard them for new supply, maintaining their power over people with manipulation and games -- then why change? Change would involve becoming vulnerable, giving up their means of power, and confronting their harmful actions.
Interesting that he co-founded Periscope and they also just removed any mention of Periscope from their TOS. Maybe just an artifact of them considering removing him, or it has no meaning. Just found the timing notable.
This music would be extremely hard to sight-read. The only aspect of it that I like is that it is key-agnostic. It would be cool to see atonal music written in this notation system. But for professional musicians this isn't worth learning.
"he, like all board members, has to act in the best interests of the company and all our shareholders, was the best path forward."
Obviously Elon Musk continually openly criticizing Twitter, from the perspective of some of the board members, is not in the best interest of Twitter. He would have to join under some obligations that would prevent him from speaking openly about his criticisms, and he'd probably be kicked from the board at some future point. This is why they say it's in the best interest of Twitter that he doesn't join. Musk joining would only result in some kind of scandal months down the line.
Who even decides what's best for the company? One could argue him openly criticizing twitter is in its best interest. Like pouring alcohol in a wound, it hurts and kills off some bad parts of the system but it'll be stronger at the end of it than had you not done it in the first place.
I've used a Wacom tablet with Fedora for a while and it works really well! I find a lot of value in drawing while programming to work out problems, and being able to easily put those drawings then into Obsidian is just great.
