"By promoting conspiracy theories, narcissistic leaders can cause significant societal harm—be it discouraging political engagement, encouraging unhealthy beliefs and behaviors (e.g., the anti-vaccination movement), discrimination, or acts of violence."

submitted by [deleted] from psychologytoday.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Davethe_blank_ 25 insightful - 5 fun25 insightful - 4 fun26 insightful - 5 fun -  (19 children)

yeah because government propaganda is soooo much better.

[–][deleted]  (18 children)

[deleted]

    [–]brimshae 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    I've been a federal contractor on and off for years. I also visit VA facilities on a semi-regular basis. People directly employed by the fed fall in to three categories:

    1: Hopeless idealists (very rare)

    2: Useless fuckabouts

    3: Corrupt grifters lining their own pockets

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]brimshae 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      You're right, it doesn't focus on federal employees, but you're the one who brought them up, so it seemed relevant to point out that most federal workers are about on par with

      And I didn't just say the VA. You can also include the State Department, Interior Department, and a few others as well. Don't get me STARTED on DoD civilians......

      I know some of them personally, and would not think of them in this insulting way.

      That's nice. Thank you got the NAXALT comment, now go ask anyone else what their experience with federal works has been like.

      [–]chadwickofwv 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I work as a gov contractor, and was in the military long ago, i can confirm that this is completely true.

      [–]IridescentAnaconda 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

      I have a doctorate in a biomedical field. Worked in public health for a long time until moving to private industry. I have noticed that, regarding covid, experts who have contradicted the narrative have been silenced, often quickly and harshly. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have since come out documenting the statistical and/or biological evidence that the mRNA covid vaccines did more harm than good -- they do not get any press. Whatever the truth is about the covid vaccines, the opposing viewpoint is not getting any air time. Even if the official narrative turns out to be true, the silencing of opposing viewpoints (e.g. branding those who espouse them "narcissists") will only reinforce the so-called conspiracy theories.

      In short: you're doing harm to your own cause in the long run. The motives for articles such as this one are transparent, and people can see right through you.

      [–]Insider 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      They silence conspiracies because there is a conspiracy.

      Notice flat earth and moon hoax conspiracies aren't really silenced. COVID-19, geopolitical, government pedo conspiracies can get you banned and censored if you provide enough proof.

      [–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      That's right. I often judge whether or not a conspiracy theory is true based on how the establishment reacts to it.

      [–]Insider 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Gotta be careful with that strategy, because they set up agents in conspiracy circles as well. The military wrote a book on it, using partial truths to gain rapport and trust for psychological and information warfare.

      Alex Jones and Joe Rogan, for instance, are government agents. This is a pretty good breakdown of those two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PZnChP8W3I

      Tucker Carlson's also CIA (3 main indicators: participating in a CIA op in Nicaragua, participating in the CIA's media assassination of Gary Webb, his father Dick Carlson worked for the CIA front Voice of America).

      A lot of publicized trials are also likely farces (Kyle Rittenhouse, Depp/Heard, Alex Jones).

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        There are several peer-reviewed scientific papers that are "anti-vaxx". Point isn't whether one side is "right" or not. Point is to allow discussion around it.

        Even mainstream news is reporting about waning effectiveness, lack of effectiveness on kids, ineffectiveness against Omicron, ineffectiveness of multiple booster shots. If regular citizens say it, we're narcissistic conspiracy theorists. If the media says it, it's more Holy than the Bible.

        Multiple papers have noted increased risk of myocarditis. JAMA is one of the top journals in the world for instance:

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

        Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

        So why should you hold it against people who don't want to take that risk?

        https://www.tctmd.com/news/knowns-unknowns-vaccine-myocarditis-risks-summarized-living-review

        The largest evidence review to date addressing the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination confirms many of the same findings that have accumulated over the last 16 months: male adolescents and young adults are at the highest risk after an mRNA vaccine, the Moderna vaccine carries more risk than Pfizer’s, and delaying the second dose appears to provide some protection.

        Also, in the vast majority of cases, myocarditis symptoms were “mild and self-limiting,” the caveat being that longer-term data are still needed.

        Nature Communications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31401-5

        The largest associations are observed for myocarditis following mRNA-1273 vaccination in persons aged 18 to 24 years. Estimates of excess cases attributable to vaccination also reveal a substantial burden of both myocarditis and pericarditis across other age groups and in both males and females.

        Here's the thing. Sure, the risk is low, but long-term safety hasn't been established yet. The mechanism for the vaccine inciting myocarditis/pericarditis hasn't been established yet. If the vaccine could actually stop the spread, maybe a mandate would be justified, but it doesn't stop the spread.

        Supposedly, it reduces severity (there are studies showing it didn't and current mainstream opinion is that effectiveness doesn't last long), but even if it did reduce severity, getting vaccinated should be a choice. If an anti-vaxxer gets COVID and dies, then he just needs to accept the consequences and that's his choice. Him not getting vaccinated doesn't affect the spread of the virus.

        You can add another policy on top of anti-vaxxers, for instance, if they get COVID and want to get treated in the hospital, they go to the bottom of the priority list. That way they don't clog up the system. Numerous anti-vaxxers would agree to that over being forced to take the vaccine.

        [–]CreditKnifeMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        Are you posting this article as legitimate concept?

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]CreditKnifeMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

          I read it.

          Read this.

          The conclusions are 100% assumptions.

          No evidence it's provided to substantiate any of the conclusions. None.

          You could replace the accusatory label they've assigned, and insert the label of any alleged bogeyman that the author (and reviewer?) wanted to vilify.

          It's a hit piece.

          In general, psychology and psychiatry are unscientific.

          They're both pseudoscience.
          Both claim alleged chemical imbalances in people's brains, etc. Neither ever provide concrete evidence to substantiate these claims of immeasurable chemical imbalances.
          They cannot measure active chemicals in the brain of a living person. Period.
          It's all guess work. 100%.
          Not a hypothesis.
          Not a theory.

          Labels such as "narcissist" could not be more subjective, and are similarly immeasurable.

          These same social "scientists" also claim that males and females can modify their bodies, and become the legitimate opposite of what they are.

          It's far worse than pseudoscience.

          It's completely dogmatic, ignoring all evidence that contradicts the predetermined conclusions of the grant funders.

          It's the opposite of science; completely dependant on the silencing of actual critical scientific debate, to exist.

          Fundamental, shameless, and indefensible academic fraud.

          [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          This should be the top comment.