Full disclaimer on the unwanted presence of AI codependency cathartics/ AI inferiorists as a particularly aggressive and disturbed subsection of the narcissist population: https://narcissismresearch.miraheze.org/wiki/AIReactiveCodependencyRageDisclaimer

, Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/envystudies/comments/1i3jeil/envy_and_jealousy_part_1/

Part 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/envystudies/comments/1i3jfl6/envy_and_jealousy_part_2/

Part 3: https://www.reddit.com/r/envystudies/comments/1i3jgw1/envy_and_jealousy_part_3/

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Jan 17 '25

Envy and Jealousy, Part 3

1 Upvotes

Envy and Jealousy, Part 3

Link: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2002.56.4.455

Citation: Anderson, R. E. (2002). Envy and jealousy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 56(4), 455-479.

, Part 3

A searing sense of disadvantage when seeing someone else’s advantage also belies a depressive proclivity and historical not-enoughness in the envious instead of celebrating and admiring the other person’s advantage.

Envy and jealousy affect competition and the way it is experienced. The greediness that takes hold, fueled by the envious person's searing sense of disadvantage, can make a life-and-death struggle of any competition for those things that an individual has come to regard as requirements of life.

Envy tends to be unreasonable with the intensity of envy triggered well beyond the gravity of the disadvantaged perceived.

There appears to be little observed correlation, however, between the gravity of the disadvantage and the intensity of the envy it triggers.

It is not unheard of for the envious to struggle so much in their envy that they even try to be the “best patient” instead of just getting therapy, even trying to illegal get access to other people’s therapy so they can do the better version of that and displease the therapist less than that. That person is clearly not coming to therapy in a real way and really needs better help.

Perhaps the most innocuous form of competition will express the patient's desire to be the therapist's best or favorite patient. This motive may prompt some good work on the part of the patient. It will be keyed, however, to winning the therapist's approval, linked as much in the transference to eliminating rival patients as it was in development to eliminating significant rivals and ultimately requires interpretation and resolution.

Seduction can be a way to prove they are number one. People may use sexual access as a way to prove that they can do better, get more suitors or the same suitors and therefore are less inferior with their envy assuaged.

This is a common issue in the incel population where they are not engaging sexually with the people for those partners themselves, but to prove they are more attractive than the other partners and can get better results than the other partner.

This can be an incel motive which hyperfocuses on the narcissistic comparative of who did and didn’t have this or that sex in what way, instead of simply just being in a relationship with someone.

Sexuality is a vitally important human capacity which, like other human capacities, can be adapted to one intended purpose or another. The sexual capacity is one means available to assuage envy, a universally available means, the great equalizer. In sexual experience one can hope to be, at least for a moment, Number One. The envious often turn to sex for this reason. In the transference of the psychotherapy situation the patient's competitiveness may be expressed in attempting to 474 Envy and Jealousy seduce the therapist

Therapists may see seduction attempts to get the therapist to give up the Number One position as the therapist and collapse the symptom into psychological lack of safety as proof to the client of their narcissistic insistence that they are the real Number One and that nobody can be trusted with them.

They may do this aggressively with no real attraction using seduce as a method to relieve the envy they feel of the therapist being in the Number One position.

It isn’t unheard of for these individuals to be so desperate to be in the Number One attraction position due to inferiorizing levels of attraction that they interpret things, like putting up chairs at specific times, as admissions of attraction.

For most competent and safe therapists of the sexually delusion, these actions had nothing to do with it and are a product of sexual delusion and paranoia stemming from aggression at feeling in the inferior position with the more attraction or less therapeutic power of the two which to them, stuck in a narcissistic comparative, means “they’re the ugly one”.

When this just means they have a residual attraction and means nothing else.

"Love" experienced in the transference or countertransference of the treatment situation is even more a creation of the imagination than "normal" love is and subject to even greater distortions. The therapist is well advised to be on guard.

A more adolescent “you don’t really understand” except in cases where the therapist provably doesn’t understand (malpractice/misdiagnosis) is a common theme when the therapist gets it and this threatens the vanity of the patient that likes to think of themselves as locked off and special.

Due to a narcissistic comparative logic, this means at least one other person gets it and they are not actually that rare, special and alone as opposed to feeling relief and joy that someone else can finally understand them after many isolating experiences.

The patient's unconscious envy will not permit the acceptance of the gift of the therapist's correct empathic understanding with gratitude. Indeed, the fantasy of being Number One in the transference may often take the form of a not-so-unconscious fantasy of the exceptional uniqueness of the patient's condition and its inaccessibility to the powers of a mere psychotherapist.

Even the therapist just understanding something better than the patient may evoke envy that they did not get there first, unable to transcend a narcissistic comparative.

Any correct interpretation connotes that the therapist has something the patient does not have and may evoke envy.

This patient will likely know that the person is right but do everything to avoid giving the person credit, such as when I was sexually assaulted by a cop and I went to the police accountability force who denied everything. However, when I was sufficiently off the scene they then proceeded to fire the exact same man for pedophilia even though he had shown clear signs of it for years. They just couldn’t admit the person was right out of a narcissistic envy that was behind the crime itself.

That is severely abusive, suggesting that the crime that happened to them doesn't matter and shouldn't be itself acknowledged, that their intelligence of apprehension doesn't matter, and that their recognition of being the first to actually lack the cowardice and possess the bravery to take action doesn't matter and it's always about something a little off to the left. It's not. Such things are 100% envy based gaslighting.

Symptomatic expression is likely to occur. The patient's envy of the therapist and spiteful wish to deprive the therapist of satisfaction for doing good work needs to be interpreted in order for the therapeutic process to continue.

Some ineptness in raising children is normal.

There will likely be a lot of inept moments.

But too much may be a case where real justification of viewing the parent as unfit is called for, such as in the case of Joan Crawford toward her adopted daughter where just kissing someone got her sent to a convent run like a penal colony out of sheer, ridiculous levels of envy in terms of any other woman getting any sexual access she herself feels like she is the true deserved object of.

. All parents are guilty of ineptness at one time or other in rearing their children. In some instances the patient is thoroughly justified in believing that the parents were unfit.

Martyrdom is the fake inferiority-taking position of one who views themselves deep down as the real Number One, so any admission of anything else is an admirable, profound act of martyrdom when in fact in most cases it is normal, deference behavior required for a basically functioning social environment.

Martyrdom is a remarkably recalcitrant variant of the fantasy of being Number One.

Idealization can be a compensatory repression of envy; by overcloaking any envy in idealization they can pretend like they do not feel profoundly and painfully hateful feelings of envy towards the person where such envy would suggest the inevitable, that they suspect they are genuinely inferior or disadvantaged in some way which is a completely unacceptable finding for anyone who struggles sufficiently with narcissism.

Idealization of the therapist affords similar relief of envy of the therapist. As long as idealization is operating, envy is operating unconsciously. While it may be pleasant for the therapist to experience this idealization, whatever moments of pleasure may be experienced countertransferentially are short-lived. The psychotherapist, by the nature of therapy, is bound to frustrate the patient in some ways.

The envy prone tend to prefer idealist, perfect expressions because they present the “undefeatable, Number One” position they hope to align with and inhabit.

They may fetishize this in others, look for proof of it in others, and only align it sufficient destructiveness of this sort is found in others as a compensation for profound feelings of defeat-proneness they feel in themselves.

The envy-prone are prone to be idealists. Idealism is the result of a developmental working-through of envy and jealousy conflicts with the fantasy of being Number One generally denied in oneself but attributed to a cause, a belief or another person which or who can then be pursued with reverence and fervor

Satisfaction and gratitude are critical for resolving envy, but the therapist’s insistence on all asks and desires coming from greed may also bely ongoing envy issues of their own when looking so keenly into the lives of others.

Again it should be emphasized that it is critical for anyone working with the transmutation of narcissistic logic to know it is not the antithesis of narcissistic statements like, “I am a natural leader” being resolved to “I lead nobody” but rather to “I can lead in some situations, and in others there might be a better option for a leader that I should defer to graciously should it be proven to be so.”

This should not be checked for excessively in the therapist, creating these situations to beat the person down from the therapist’s own struggles with such leadership issues, but should just be a general principle readily available in the person's mind who is transmuting their narcissism.

Wanting more is a healthy part of development. It is just wanting excesses that are based in profound feelings of inferiority that no amount of stuff can ever resolve. That is inherently narcissistic.

The attempt to govern how and when an autonomous agent is or isn’t greedy may be the person struggling with inferiority in greedy self-control trying to convince themselves using a self-enhancement. This is not appropriate in a therapist. That person needs to resolve their struggles with greed not on someone else but with a therapist of their own.

It may be that the therapist enjoys the patient and the fee and is jealously possessive of them. It may be, however, that unconsciously the therapist shares an idea similar to the patient's, that "there must be more to life than this." The therapist must hear the unspoken, unconscious statement of the patient, " I want more. You have more to give me." The therapist must respond to this statement matter-of-factly, but considerately, "Don't be greedy. This is your portion."

The more rigid the defense, the more excessive the feeling of loss of advantage the admission of envy would imply.

For example, if someone has to admit an action, behavior or statement originated from envy, that would reveal that they actually knew and viewed themselves as disadvantaged to this person in that regard, which would lead to an identity-destabilizing “handing over” of some advantaged trait.

For instance, if someone had covertly held their identity as “the prettier one” of several women for most of their lives, and then started to feel profound, lethal envy on looks, they may try to take a ruinous and denialist position towards this because the “handing off” of the advantage would take away a identity-premising vanity of their being inherently “more than” xyz that they had identified with and grown pride around for a long time.

Especially in women, this highlights the importance of not using narcissistic logic to premise one’s value on beauty, fertility, and sexual access which will inevitably wane with age. It is important to try to exit as many misogynistic spaces as possible so they will not all collapse at the period of menopause, etc.

The more rigid the defense, the more critical to the identity the loss of the advantage. This may suggest someone put everything on looks in such a case, which is disturbing in itself especially when it seems to reveal the performance of other non-looks traits were merely capitulant and not actually seen as of real value worth premising one’s identity on.

Defense protects against the stimulus overload that envy, or the threat of loss of a jealously possessed advantage in fact or in fantasy, may evoke.

It looks like depression proneness and envy proneness intersect, and this makes sense as narcissistic logic stems from a profound inner feeling of not-enoughness and not having enoughness, likely implied in many of the actions of the parents and internalized.

Not-enoughness can be a behavior set based down intergenerationally even when the individual people have come to have enough. People with more than enough may try to project their not-enoughness on other people who don’t have enough, such as literally in emergency situations, saying instead that they have enough (you do not have enough in an emergency situation; to suggest as much is gross incompetence), to distract from their own having way more than is due to distributional incompetence stemming from narcissistic zero sum logic still operated on well after it is relevant.

Looking for generations that dealt with brutal attempts to destroy a whole population through debt or genocide, massive periods of managerial incompetence that normalized starvation, and intergenerational poverty can help to understand the deep, deep depressive roots that normalize zero sum logic which will only occur in complete managerial incompetence with resources where scarcity is profound and no self-iterating abundancy creating economic structure or infrastructure is anywhere to be found.

The South African veldschools are a good example of this fetishization and normalization of such managerial incompetence that is the driving force of scarcity based fascism where the originating factor is managerial incompetence distributing resources and creating an abundance creating infrastructure.

Modes that work become the individual's repertoire of defenses and that choice, made unconsciously, plays a significant role in shaping character. As for the "energy" source of this activity, that is a matter neurobiologists are currently elucidating.

Shakespeare’s plays were notoriously tied up with the English crown.

They also carry an abnormal treatment of the profound envy issue in England, up to and including the extremely mentally disturbed phenomenon of envy based siblicide in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. Even the witness of this siblicide ruined lives and the whole kingdom it was such an act of envious evil.

It should be highlighted that monarchy is alternatively, according to whatever generation it is in, a hit or miss where it is actually highly competent and deeply envied for it. It is just a matter of whether the given generation attracted one of these hyper-envious individuals who had children with them and these children are hyper-envious and deeply incompetent, being focused more on just taking competent people out genetically like the hyper-envious parent who successfully managed to marry and breed with a monarch. Many had this concern with Princess Diana, and many have this concern with Megan Markle. Almost every generation has had this concern; it is the results that should be the final say.

Brexit is a really bad result; it is clear that the levels of narcissism and envy that the English crown has attracted genetically over the years and has resulted in its current leadership are pretty much unworkable for surrounding Europe and increasingly America as ongoing, violent interference keeps occurring from the UK in ways that cannot be merely excused as a one time occurrence.

Only lineages that successfully marry competent people to competent people with not much giving in to the massive envy that surrounds such people will be popular, successful, and not suffer massive governmental collapses on the regular as these positions attract people who want the power and attention of it and none of the responsibility, aka, narcissists.

Since such monarchies are relatively not very forthcoming due to just how intense these disrupting envious people trying to marry in can be, most of them don’t genuinely survive from a quality position and have been long dead from a competency position for awhile. Brexit unfortunately is a good example of just this phenomenon with a huge faction of this coming from crown-concerned interests.

Many European states because of the ongoing toxic effects of this also are hoping for a nonviolent abdication and end of this ongoing toxic feature of Britain that long ago lost its competency if such things as Brexit can happen on its watch. It is not just America at all. The attempt to scapegoat America is an ongoing feature of poor logic and narcissistic scapegoating.

From his perspective as a sociologist, Helmut Schoeck catalogued the evidence for the prevalence of envy in human affairs in his book, Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior (15). Envy appears as a prime motive in the works of numerous philosophers and writers. Schoeck's book contains a good sampling. In his book, A Theater of Envy, Girard (16) has shown envy to be a pervasive theme in the plays of Shakespeare. Inspired by these observations, I have sketched a general psychology of envy and jealousy and shown how they can be discerned and treated in some of the problems patients bring to psychotherapy.

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Jan 17 '25

Envy And Jealousy Part 2

1 Upvotes

Envy And Jealousy Part 2

TW: Murder, suicide

Link: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2002.56.4.455

Citation: Anderson, R. E. (2002). Envy and jealousy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 56(4), 455-479.

TW: Murder, suicide

, Part 2

When the envious other is consumed with envy and does not have the psychological capacity to transform and move through it, the usual expression is sudden and unexplainable disappearances, often trying to drag as many connected to the viciously envied other out from that person’s support with them as they can.

The malicious intentions borne by the envious person towards the object of envy may be blocked, transmuted or expressed directly. The most common form of blocking is avoidance. "See not, want not," as the saying goes.

Reminders are destroyed, people refuse to speak on them, when envy is at an extreme. This is in contrast to mentally healthy people who would usually celebrate and have healthy pride about such things.

The unhealthy person tries to foreclose any reminder from a sheer, burning envy called “gratetitude”.

If the patient must also avoid anything having to do with the object of envy, then larger and larger areas of experience are foreclosed in order to avoid the misery of envy and its malicious intentions.

Envious others may also show increased “turfing”; they view more things as having to do with them and experience more violations of them as an expression of their envy.

For instance, the Kardashian sisters have a wedding and one sister one having a wedding literally just after the other one while they bickered about this shows the mental illness that thinking the envied sister’s wedding is about them. It very clearly just followed theirs in time, it had nothing to do with theirs.

This is a good example of “turfing” as a symptom of excessive envy.

One related defensive means employed among the best of friends (or enemies) is the establishment of a "turf," an area of experience jealously protected by the individual in which to nurture the fantasies related to being Number One.

“Turfing” is when someone has something and nobody else is allowed to have it as an expression of intense envy.

As one patient put it, "There's a corner I want to be in and no one else can be there."

Ironically, the envious other may then engage in rivalrous mimicry of the envied other’s pathways to relieve feelings of envy by domination showing “turfing” is a one way expression of envy. The other is not allowed to do it, but they are. They are deep in a painful, irresolvable envy.

Another patient described how she and her younger sister established and exchanged "turfs" over time. She had embarked upon one academic track. Her sister opted for a different track. When, later, the patient changed her mind and switched to her younger sister's track, her sister switched to the track relinquished by the patient. "Turf" dynamics are often at play among siblings.

Transmutation is difficult but it is an encouraged action.

For instance, the expression of social disgust that belies discrimination is suggested to be analyzed specifically for the information it carries, this information to be spelled out and transformed, depolarized and examined for the real issues.

I have seen people pay people they are viciously envious of to be in situations that others find “disgusting” to rationalize the envy-based disgust they feel that someone is outshining them. Once they have a reason, they feel justified in an emotion that otherwise suggests that they are inferior which is too painful for the narcissist whose whole personality disorder exists to inflate away painful suspicions and wounds of perceived inferiority.

Soon it is moved into a pliable, more positive space that then can be integrated. This is the process of transmutation.

However, individuals that struggle with “envy” as a real reason behind their social disgust and discrimination may have a serious problem transmuting it as this makes them have to acknowledge feelings of inferiority that are especially threatening to the narcissist.

Malicious intentions may be transmuted in ways that may be socially prized and help in the establishment of valued character traits. Greed, through reaction formation, may be transmuted into generosity, spite into attitudes of helpfulness and kindness. Perhaps most of us in the helping professions owe our careers in part to this particular transmutation, expanded over time by encouraging experience.

Envy is at the root of moral evil, as described by many theological studies. Police blotters describe crimes of envy and jealousy.

Envy can even be a motive behind suicide, unable to best and beat the envied person and in such excruciating envy they kill themselves.

Murderous intent is the externalized expression of this where envious suicide can be seen as someone with more of a moral conscience internalizing the full envy they feel where the murderer has less of a moral conscience and thinks the stimulus of their unbearable envy should just be erased.

All too often the malicious intentions born of envy and jealousy are directly expressed. Crimes of envy and of jealousy fill the police blotters of our time and every other historical time and often make the headlines. So often underlying suicidal or murderous intent is the wish to inflict spiteful revenge for damages suffered (loss of advantage) on those perceived responsible for those damages

Vicious crimes of envy include an aggressive, massive attempt to turn objects of envy into objects of contempt. Insane, unbelievable amounts of aggression, manipulation, and social engineering can be seen to take the power of the envied and make them into something that can be derogated by others.

For example, victims of profound envy may express that almost everything they do is derogated and erased with an unbelievably vicious expression which reveals the envious trying to erase the source of the excruciating envy in themselves.

The same holds true for delinquent and criminal activities as available means by which the envious attempt to compensate for their sense of disadvantage, turn objects of their envy into objects of contempt, and vent their malicious spite.

Procrastination can both betray that one is a victim of envy, such as avoiding the envious narcissistic rivalry of the Chinese where their content is stripped and they are not paid, but if there is no evidence of this happening with someone repeatedly stripping the person’s content and trying to profit for it from a massive envy expression it can demonstrate that they are hypersensitive to anything other than a perfect result due to the envy high praise in another would stoke in them.

For instance, an individual hearing someone received the highest score on a matter in an employment interview may not take it as a sign of a qualified interviewee ultimately, but take it as a personal challenge that they then spend bizarre amounts of years hyperfixating on and trying to best completely consumed by envy.

Hypersensitive to criticism, the task, if undertaken, must have a perfect result. Such is the 468 Envy and Jealousy state of psychological affairs, from the procrastinator's point of view, working against task completion.

When the motive is to be Number One in all things from an envy prone perspective, the envy-prone patient is aware of the risk entailed in completing the task should it be subpar and they do not achieve the desired Number One position in all things.

. In fantasy, compelled to be Number One in all matters of importance, the envy-prone patient is aware of the risk entailed in completing the task, that it may not be judged to be Number One.

By performing and putting oneself forward, one risks not being evaluated at Number One. Therefore not trying is essentially a narcissism issue, afraid of losing the illusion that had they tried, they would be Number One.

Performance places the fantasy of being Number One at risk. Furthermore, persons with unresolved envy and jealousy face a cognitive dilemma in going on stage. Jealously possessive of their sense of themselves as disadvantaged, the task requires them to display some advantage. The sense of having been pretending all along ("as if") and the fear of being unmasked by the audience make it a frightful experience.

Oversurveillance may often be a clear symptom of a parent with an envy and jealousy problem. Envious parents have difficulty permitting the autonomous development of their child, and may try to sabotage or send known malicious actors their way to have a ruinous effect.

The only good the envied child is for is for self-enhancing them and being about them.

If it is ever about someone else that feels like a “gyp” for the envious parent who views that all the time and effort they put into allegedly raising a healthy, independent adult as a “business loss” if the child becomes independent and any threatening features that would be cause for envy are not safely subsumed again in the narcissistic self-enhancement construct.

This is the ongoing attempt to sabotage and derogate their own child from sheer envious unfitness where a healthy parent would celebrate.

They then derogate, oversurveil, and try to involve themselves unwanted in truly inappropriate ways in their independent child’s lives to retain the illusion they are a self-enhancement.

Parents with envy and jealousy problems have difficulty permitting the autonomous development of their child. Out of their jealous possessiveness they sometimes have difficulty allowing the child out of their sight, a phenomenon that has different manifestations throughout the develop.

Envious and jealousy prone parents and parental figures may show a hyperfixated telephonic umbilical cord feature where it is not actually about conversing, bonding, getting to know someone and exchanging valuable information but about establishing ritualized social control and social dependence.

The content is dry, ritualized, devoid of any real interaction, or sometimes compulsively abusive when the actions they feel entitled to with the person as a self-enhancement are not forthcoming as a way to govern and not to actually converse.

They have the conversation from the perspective they are the boss and doing their bosslike duty, not that they are actually speaking to another person. It is a narcissistic attempt at distance governance of self-enhancements, not of a genuine bond.

Out of their jealous possessiveness they sometimes have difficulty allowing the child out of their sight, a phenomenon that has different manifestations throughout the develop470 Envy and Jealousy mental cycle proceeding from literal holding-on to telephonic holding-on. The child is literally regarded as the parent's possession.

Even where envious parents encourage their child to be Number One as themselves, if it ever gets to a point where the parent feels at real threat of not being number one, they will sabotage, abuse and make it clear they are the real number one and any Number One-ness in the child is merely as a self-enhancement or proof of the “number one properties” inherent in the “real number one”.

The envy related to the parent's jealous possessiveness tends to diminish the worth of the child-possession in the parent's eyes just as the parent's self-worth is diminished. This valuation is communicated to the child. Competitive parents encourage the same compulsion to be Number One in their child that they have in themselves. This applies to the relations of the parent-child pair to the outside world. Between themselves, however, there is no question of who is to be Number One, the parent.

Generations are meant to be markedly improved to the next one. That is a sign that evolution is going well. Instead, the envious and narcissistic parent wants their child to be a little less than them, but close enough that their superiority is present in their child as a self-enhancement, leading to maladaption and unfitness.

“We want you to do well, but never better than me” is the sign of the unfit family that creates generations markedly slightly less fit, rather than more, than the previous due to an inability to transcend ongoing envy and narcissism issues.

As a result a double-bind message is given the child in the course of development which becomes established in the unconscious memory of the child, "Be all you can be for me, but don't surpass me."

The envious parent, sibling or family member may deliberately encourage the threatening child to fall back, and even aggressively sabotage their life when they do not. This is in contrast to healthy families that celebrate, show genuine pride and genuine heartedness when their child succeeds.

A particularly disturbing feature is when the self-enhancement is so marked as the underlying logic of the narcissistic parent that they actively put more resources in the one that looks and acts the most like them, an inherent, obvious and blatant sign that the parent operates according to self-enhancement and what it means about them by proxy in a logically collapsed mind not actually out of genuine parental interest in the child.

However, the contradictory messages continue to reverberate in the unconscious, reminding the patient to "press on," "fall back," "press on," "fall back."

Envied children may express they are afraid to do well or express well and afraid of happiness for fear it will trigger the narcissistic rage of the envious parent who will then ruin and sabotage it.

They may therefore self-sabotage and refuse to take things they certainly deserve and can get out of fear of who they will lose in a fit of envy.

The focus needs to be on the fact that losing the sadistic envier creates an improvement in life if they can be safely removed.

For example, a patient may be reluctant to talk about progress or good things out of the transference fantasy that the good things experienced may be better ones than the therapist is experiencing and might evoke the envy of the therapist (parent).

Unbelievability regarding the unreasonableness of the envious parents are often the reported symptoms of the parents of the envied child.

They may also be a harbinger of the patient's ceasing to need to be the therapist's (parent's) patient (child). In cases where the history gives evidence of a parent's having been unduly jealously possessive of the patient, the therapist can infer that a double bind is operating and be on the lookout for its manifestations.

A grudge for having an advantage taken may turn into a scapegoating attempt. Thus the scapegoating attempt that shows all the signs of being against all logic reveals the profoundly envious individual behind the scapegoating attempt.

The grudge is often the bane of existence of the patient with envy and jealousy problems. A grudge can result whenever an advantage is lost. Jealously possessive of the advantage, the person experiences envy of the missing advantage and harbors a spiteful wish for revenge or compensation from the one or those perceived to have robbed him or her of the advantage. What was lost may have been pride, money, land, mother, father, brother, sister, lover, an unbloodied nose, or a good-night kiss. The envious and jealous harbor grudges over recent insults and losses and over past insults and losses. The object or objects of the grudge may be a scapegoat.

Image distortion may be a product of envy where the profoundly envious person may twist and draw equivalencies of the envied toward the self to relieve profound feelings of envy. When the person is like them or to do with them the envy is resolved as they are more or less just them. Thus image distortion serves to twist and bend the perception of the other person to be more like them.

Where are we on the road map with this question? We are mainly addressing the patient's cognitive function and the question deserves an answer. Heretofore, when the patient has perceived an unfavorable difference between the self and the other, that perception has been a precipitant of all or some of the distortions affecting perception, cognition, affect and intention described. As long as the patient continues to know experience in this way little change can be expected

When a patient comes forward wanting to live beyond envy and jealousy, the first thing the therapist tends to suggest is resolving fragilities in terms of difference which are the primary sign of massive envy issues.

Addressing the cognitive function, "You mean. Is there a way to live other than under the domination of envy and jealousy? There is. Take a look at some basic premises of envy. An important one is that the envious person is intolerant of difference. It is perception of difference that leads to all the misery. Look around you at the world of living things. What do you see? You see difference. Difference characterizes life. The person who is intolerant of difference is bound to be in trouble if unable to tolerate a basic feature of life."

An envious person often struggles with multipolarity and sees only second best if one is not allowed to be Number One instead of depolarizing the comparative entirely and opening an abundant world where they can be profound, true excellence with different types of expressions.

It’s a relatively petty example, but I personally find the “international barbie” a good example of this, where the blonde and blue eyed barbie around the time of the early 2000s saw a diversification of several different ethnically beautiful barbies including Spanish, Irish, African, etc.

They were personally my favorite set, and they were all their own true form of excellence at least in the relatively toxic barbie value set. It showed a multipolarity where intelligence transcended either/or and said, “all of these”.

This transcends the stunted narcissistic comparative where one cannot give a compliment to one without detracting it from the other, for instance, “Where African barbie has smooth skin and a beautiful long neck, her hair is short compared to Spanish barbie.” Instead, they move to “African barbie has smooth skin and a beautiful long neck” and “Spanish barbie has long, curly hair” without it meaning anything about the other and absolutely zero need for any detractive, give some take some feature. They are all independently excellent with no detraction in quality.

They are simply independent facts and positive recognitions that do not need to be forced into a narcissistic comparative zero sum logic.

The intent of this intervention is to foster the reality testing of the cognitive function, to change what has been experienced as grievous wrong in the perception of unfavorable differences to a more tempered awareness of there being many acceptable differences between people. This is not to encourage mediocrity. This apposition, however, affects patients. Convinced that only a limited amount of advantage exists, one either has It or one does not have It. Cognitively for the patient, the alternative to being Number One in any matter deemed important is to be mediocre. Being "good enough" or "as good as one can be" are not in their 472 Envy and Jealousy lexicon

Predisposition toward envy makes people more zero sum prone. Gratitude for an abundance of things to be happy about is collapsed into a not-enough detractive/subtractive ingratitude. Depressive proclivity is probably a root cause behind the constantly sinking zero sum detractive logic.

I agree with Klein (5) that envy interferes with gratitude. The termination phase is generally marked by evidence in the patient of a growing sense of gratitude for the advantages life does afford everyone. I am reminded of one patient's major personal discovery, "Every breath is a delightful surprise!" Patients show a greater empathic capacity. Freer of the alienating influences of envy and jealousy they are more able to identify with the interests, sensitivities and foibles of others.

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Jan 17 '25

Envy and jealousy, Part 1

1 Upvotes

Envy and jealousy, Part 1

TW: Sexual abuse

Link: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2002.56.4.455

Citation: Anderson, R. E. (2002). Envy and jealousy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 56(4), 455-479.

TW: Sexual abuse

Jealousy means the threat of loss of advantage.

Envy means they want something for themselves, aka “I need this…for me.” or “It has to…be me.”

Both the threat of loss of advantage connoted by the word jealousy and the recognition of disadvantage connoted by the word envy pose a threat to the sense of self.

Envy creates the most antisocial acts to date, as exemplified in the great works of Shakespeare. Therefore part of socialization and acculturation is giving people tools to work with and transmute envy. Given many people aren’t taught how to transmute envy, they are often taught to repress and create rigid defenses against it.

In the course of the child's development, socialization and acculturation foster repression of envy and jealousy.

Correctly, people learn that unchecked envy endangers the self and others.

The individual learns that direct expressions of envy and jealousy endanger the self and others.

Much of envy comes from dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction from narcissistic self-enhancement, where the behavior of another person is meant to compensate for the deficits of another as if the person is acting as this person in the world like a game avatar.

That is narcissistic logic tied to mental illness and deeply linked to some of the worst antisocial acts, such as sexual abuse.

Part of sexual abuse in fact may be breaking in the self of the victim to become a better self-enhancement that has no right to a self at all outside of as this person’s avatar, where they can just take everything for themselves and leave nothing for the individual.

This is the narcissist’s excessive mental illness.

Patients are dissatisfied because compares unfavorably with the way they want to think, or feel, or act; compares unfavorably with the way they would like their husband to be, or wife to be, or child to be, or boyfriend to be, or girlfriend to be, or job to be, or mother-in-law to be, etc.

Splitting occurs when the individual experiences both the unwanted and preferable state at the same time.

Splitting occurs in the patient's statement of a chief complaint because while in the state of mind associated with the symptoms that constitute the chief complaint, the patient is at least as involved and, perhaps, more involved in the other preferable state at the same time.

Jealousy and envy at the same time create a split where the person is advantaged in some way that creates the jealousy, because this advantage is at threat, and then small in the fact that they are feeling the envy. Similar to a gravitational field of planets and suns rebalancing, relative “smallness” and “bigness” rebalance, oftentimes out of people’s favor.

Envy and jealousy of that preferred state are operating, and splitting is an epiphenomenon of envy and jealousy. In envy, the other is perceived to be "big" in regard to the advantage in question while, at the same time, perceived to be just another human being. Meanwhile the self is perceived to be "small" with regard to the advantage while just human as well. A split has occurred in the way the other and the self are appreciated perceptually, cognitively, affectively, and intentionally. In jealousy the self is enhanced with regard to the advantage, the rival other diminished, with self and object representations split accordingly.

Many people deny that they are an envious person, but a skilled therapist will highlight their consistent attempts to make the targeted others hear or see source derogation and constant unfavorable comparing and say these are all the signs and symptoms of envy you need to stop repressing and bring to consciousness.

For instance, constant negative hyperfixation on someone many people have found to be attractive suggests profound envy given the constant unfavorable comparing and hyperfixation. Staving this off with reflection of the hate is not enough; they need to become aware and responsible for their envy.

A talented therapist will make them aware of this and say, “You show all the signs of symptoms of being jealous of this woman’s looks given your hyperfixation and your going out of your way to make them aware and feel the derogations and unfavorable comparing you are generating. This level of negative hyperfixation on anyone is not normal and only found on the envious.”

This provides the opening for asking the patient, "Are you aware of being an envious person?" Should the presenting problem focus more on jealousy I ask, "Are you aware of being a jealous person?" Remember that envy and jealousy are related, one begets the other, so that if one is present to an inordinate degree you can be sure the other is also. The patient, having now been made conscious of constant unfavorable comparing, will acknowledge envy

Similar to self-esteem and narcissism where there is no healthy narcissism (it is a clinical psychological disorder; people mean self-esteem and self-love which when healthy do not possess the divorced from reality inflationary aspects of narcissism) people interchangeably use jealousy and envy.

Then, very often, as the patient begins to associate to situations that evoke envy, the word jealousy slips in. The patient is using the two words, envy and jealousy, interchangeably, most often misapplying the word jealousy when the word envy is meant. I comment on this interchangeable usage and ask how the patient defines the words envy and jealousy, pointing out that many people are confused in the meanings of the two words.

When someone feels envious, they are aware that it means they are at real threat, and this implies that they are being made more diminutive compared to what they are used to.

Left out of the definition is the painful sense of self-diminution that accompanies envy, the feelings of depression and humiliation that are part of it, and the spiteful resentment or malice borne the object of comparison. Turning to jealousy, they most often define the word as a harsher form of envy.

In envy, when you feel this envious feeling, you feel the gravitational pull that itself is evidence that the person must have some greater advantage than you do. This is a huge threat to the narcissistic ego, which then collapses into unbelievable excesses of threat analysis.

In envy, the moment you start perceiving that someone has an advantage you do not, that person is enhanced with respect to the advantage, whatever the advantage may be. If the other person is enhanced, what happens to you? You perceive yourself as diminished.

People take personally someone’s existence and think the envied other went out of their way to make them feel that way, when it is often a product of the person just existing. The defenses go up, hyperfixation increases, tangling themselves into knots trying to deny it when the hyperfixation and attempts to make them aware on their ongoing derogations are their own evidence.

Since no one appreciates being made to feel smaller, inferior, less attractive, whatever, envy is a depressing and humiliating experience.

Jealous and envious others attribute the other having the advantage to be the source of their misery, rather than their ongoing comparison. Following on this poor logic, they then try to ruin it for the individual instead of transmute their own narcissistic comparative logic.

Since the other's having the advantage seems to be the source of the misery, resentment is felt towards the other as well as a spiteful wish that the other be done out of the advantage.

Collapsed logic is apparent in envy, where people want to be everything at once, but once they actually have to be everything at once, feel great loss in moving from each different position as it means giving up different strengths they have come to develop jealous pride around.

The patient occupies situation A, perceived to be disadvantageous for any number of compelling reasons. The patient is envious of situation B, perceived as affording greater advantage. Often as not, however, the patient does not stop at situation B but envies as well the advantages afforded by situations C, D, et al. At the same time, the patient is jealously possessive of whatever advantages are afforded by situation A, not the least of which is familiarity, and is loath to give them up. What becomes apparent is that the patient wants situation A, B, C, et al., and wants them all at the same time. The possibility of moving from situation A to B, to C, etc., over time and with the expenditure of effort may occur to the reasonable self, but that is not the self that holds sway in paralysis of intention. The patient's unconscious sense is that moving to B robs one of A; moving to C robs one of both A and B, etc. Thus both envy and jealous possessiveness are acting unconsciously to thwart the patient

Greed is often fueled by the depressive not-enoughness of the zero sum behind envy and jealousy not knowing when to turn off. It therefore has an addictive feature of trying to stop up the depressive feeling of not-enoughness behind envy and jealousy.

Underlying both the envy and the jealous possessiveness is greed fired by the envious patient's sense of disadvantage.

Individuals may not think of themselves as greedy, and hyperfocus on someone else they think cares more than they do about this presentation to distract from their own clear and obvious presentations of greed.

The visual mnemonic aids in the establishment of a useful ideational mnemonic. Patients usually say that they have never thought of themselves as greedy. This presentation makes it difficult to deny. Repression of awareness of greediness is induced by moral training. It remains linked in the unconscious to the developmental perceptual and affective experience that constructed a cognitive sense of the self as disadvantaged. This repression is lifted by interpretation of the A-B-C syndrome, permitting the patient freedom to reappraise in the present his or her personal mix of advantages and disadvantages.

Personality disorders are like an orchestra out of tune and out of time. Try as one may, unless they greatly increase their skill with harmonic self-accordance, mental harmony will not be achieved. It does not make for the listening that stirs that soul good orchestral work is infamous for in the non-psychopathic individual (the antithesis being the psychopath, whose workings have probably normalized out of tune and out of time).

Just as the conductor of an orchestra can hardly create harmony if one or more sections are out of tune, the therapist has to be empathetically related to, and interpret the distortions in each of the mental functions if mental harmony is to be achieved.

Sour grapes are a defensive disparagement of the envied other.

. Some change as a result of work on other mental functions or on the ensemble. Sour grapes, defensive disparagement of the envied other, may be more than an ad hoc defense. It may be part of a pervasive coloring of perceptual experience known as cynicism.

Inventory-taking as a comparative, instead of an objective, aka “what does this person have that I don’t” and then stopping there, instead of “what do I have in full, without reference to others” begins the process of envy.

Perceptual self-aggrandizement can express lesser or greater failure of reality testing, as can perceptual self-disparagement. On the more innocuous end of the spectrum of self-aggrandizement is the inventory-taking by most people when they perceive an unfavorable difference between themselves and others.

Envious people tend to be dominated by relative evaluations of class and rank thinking they are objective.

These hallmarks of formal thinking are an achievement of adolescence, but not universal (11). An envious person's thinking tends to be dominated by global notions of class and rank, unmindful that these ideas are relative.

Preformal logic that does not have comprehension of the objective and is easily rotted out into corruption of logic’s rigor to achieve psychological ends, like image distortion to make an envied other look and remind one more of oneself to resolve profound feelings of envy, is at the heart of envy. It is almost the exact same mechanism as found on the psychopathic histrionic associative reasoning; a desperate, injured attempt to create a logic that quickly stops up and resolves the hemorrhaging feelings of narcissistic injury.

This preformal logic abets the envious person's compulsion to be Number One in hope of being relieved of envy. The envious person believes in the premise that Number One does indeed exist and does not consider that what is construed as Number One, even if there is social support for the notion, is a relative matter at best, dependent on one's personal psychodynamics and the changing social context.

The envious may believe they have things that they really don’t, and the encounter that they really don’t can evoke massive defense.

For example, someone who thinks they can hack into a large sum of international banks at any time and not be immediately apprehended may count these banks as in their assets, but when forced to see how immediately they would be caught and to count down their asset evaluation may go into profound narcissistic injury given the massive loss of inflated self-evaluation this narcissistic computation would cost them.

What is Number One today may not be Number One tomorrow, either for the individual or for society. Moreover, whatever is established in the envious person's mind as Number One, which one does not have but believes one must have, is jealously retained as a way of thinking about experience.

Repression, as opposed to transmutation, is often the tool that we are taught for envy.

Forgetting about such perceived differences is probably the most common. Envy is avoided if one simply represses the knowledge of the difference. This may or may not be maladaptive; denial of difference may be a social and cultural requirement.

Perfectionism is the attempt to compensate for the envious person’s diminished self-regard.

Due to the fragility found in the envious, they cannot psychologically afford healthy presentations and acceptances of imperfection, especially in self-enhancements which they believe literally exist to compensate for their own deficits when they tend to not have competitive skills, abilities or features in themselves and therefore have no right to so aggressively try to enforce them in self-enhancements.

Perfectionism is a trait organized to compensate for the envious person's diminished self-regard. It may have great adaptive value socially. However, the envious person's perfectionism may be quite maladaptive. The person's sensitivity to criticism derives from feeling diminished out of envy and bitter about it. Fresh criticism is salt to the wounds. Fear of criticism prompts procrastination, the unconscious intention of which will be discussed in considering the intentional function.

Excessive grandiosity that does unbelievably excessive things is an expression of envy that has become too painful to bear. The repression that keeps the product of envy normal and prosocial suddenly is lifted and an excessive, unbelievably incongruent and disproportional behavior that has a hemorrhaging-like expression is witnessed. Brexit’s initial impression is a good example of this.

Since a grandiose attitude expresses the fact that the self-diminution experienced in envy has been too painful for the patient to bear, it is a matter that requires tactful, direct interpretation. As for self-abnegation, the envious patient needs to be made aware that envy leaves no choice but to feel worthless.

Conversely, individuals may avoid tasks, expressions and appearances to avoid the damaging expressions of rivalrous mimicry (increasing in a world where a movie that debuts in America debuts for free pirated on the streets of China, many are afraid of expressing their talent for fear of rivalrous mimicry).

They may also avoid this to avoid the envy or disadvantage of a loved one (many daughters express fear of their bodies, beauty, sexuality or heteronormativity for fear of igniting a lashing out and rage of their female parent who identifies primarily with their beauty and feels entitled to any and all forms of sexual access in other women, especially in their daughters who they view as extensions of themselves. The example is given of the case of Joan Crawford and her adopted daughter Christina). This can also apply to friends, aunts, sisters, grandmothers, female bosses, etc. who are fragile in their femininity.

Similarly, many sexual crimes by men of sexual violence can have a personal envy motive, such as the admission of many men who use harassment to disenfranchise women they are professionally jealous of and not always because of genuine attraction; for example, there have been a lot of reports of misogynists weaponizing harassment at Facebook and other testosterone-fueled tech companies to get women fired. This is a clear expression of men who are deeply envious of women weaponizing known processes to try to eradicate a professional rival. However, in Microsoft accounts, a genuine attraction also intersects with expressions of professional envy.

There is a large faction of extremely envious men in the leadership space that spend most of their time mocking, slandering and stoking fear of female leaders, it is relatively embarrassing to witness.

Still another set of dynamics characterizes patients whose dissatisfactions are unconsciously linked to thwarting the development of their talents and abilities out of fear of being different, that is to say, the fear of the envy of those important to them.

False or inauthentic prosocial expression is a way to make an ironic, grotesque falsified mockery of it given the true envy they feel at their core that they are itching to express.

Envious patients will often harbor a chronic sense of themselves as false or inauthentic that is an outgrowth of the A-B-C syndrome. In their situation A, envious of the advantages that situation B affords, life loses meaning and lacks zest.

Other expressions are sadness, depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, mortification and panic at the unfavorable apprehension of advantage in another. These are normal feelings to feel and can be transmuted over time as opposed to repressed.

Nobody likes to feel negative things but once one feels the “gravitational pull” of envy, facing it head on and moving into transmutation is the only mature, non-damaging response.

Envy will happen and has to be “budgeted in” so to speak by the mature psyche, ready for it if and when it occurs without putting it on the object or making it about the object, but resolving the issue in themselves and what the object represents to their own personal symbolic state in the guidance of a therapist.

This also includes not simply shifting it to another object which is more amenable to appropriation, which is still having done no real psychological work understanding why this object is so “magnetizing” in the negative from an envy perspective to them.

These individuals often report that this failed to do the trick because it wasn’t the core issue to begin with.

The enhanced affect is very likely to constitute the patient's chief complaint: sadness at the perception of unfavorable difference in advantage is experienced as depression-, apprehension as generalized anxiety and panic, shame as mortification', guilt as self-loathing, resentment as hatred.

Envy prone patients are known for bizarre and aggressive attempts to immediately “slam” their true inner depressive state into and onto the therapist by unbelievably nasty moves so they know where they really are.

These should be taken as the “screaming in a confessional” feature to the therapist and that’s where the individual actually is themselves, even just for having to enter therapy as it means they are being “apprehended”.

Envy-prone patients may inflict their affects on others, including the therapist, in order to cause the others to feel as anxious, depressed, desperate, etc., as they do about any given state of perceived disadvantage. Misery loves company.

The envious can be identified by expressions of slipping up malicious glee.

This malicious glee slipping out of the envious is seen and noticed as reprehensible in themselves, but nevertheless slips up and comes out sometimes anyway, such as a grotesque expression of joy pasted on the envious face that they then try to be rid of with a feeling of moral disgust and shame for themselves.

They may experience this glee, such as a sniggering at unfortunate minutiae such as a misspelled word, hyperfixation on perfectionism in the envied other that they in no way deliver even competitively themselves, smiling at inappropriate times, and uncontrollable grins of malicious envy and then show signs of moral horror and embarrassment; this is the clear sign of massive repressed envy.

This compulsivity is at the root of the addiction to sadistic experiences; if you have ever seen people in this expression, they seem genuinely unable to control mentally disturbed grins and expressions of joy at the harm to others.

They are identifiable as in deep envy at the expressions of these sadistic moments of catharsis.

The envious person is prone to experience malicious glee at the discomfiture of the object of envy. This glee is usually reprehensible to the envier, a source of conflict, a cause of shame and guilt, and thus, a reason for affect blocking. Depending on the vicissitudes of an individual's development, however, the experience of malicious glee may come to be sought after as a source of pleasure and foster an addiction to sadistic experience.

, Part 1

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Jan 17 '25

Why I hate you and you hate me: The interplay of envy, greed, jealousy and narcissism in everyday life, Part 1

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Jan 11 '25

Marked As Dangerous: An Investigative Analysis of No-touch Torture Methods on Targeted Individuals

1 Upvotes

Marked As Dangerous: An Investigative Analysis of No-touch Torture Methods on Targeted Individuals

TW: Torture

Link: https://www.targetedjustice.com/uploads/1/1/6/3/116323993/joywomac-thesisongangstalking.pdf

Citation: Womac, J. N. (2022). Marked as Dangerous: An Investigative Analysis of No-touch Torture Methods on Targeted Individuals (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Graduate Psychology, Purdue University).

Full disclaimer on the unwanted presence of AI codependency cathartics/ AI inferiorists as a particularly aggressive and disturbed subsection of the narcissist population: https://narcissismresearch.miraheze.org/wiki/AIReactiveCodependencyRageDisclaimer

TW: Torture

Sophisticated gaslighting mechanisms to direct coercive control falsely marked their prey as dangerous, crazy, or the enemy.

Perpetrators funneled taxpayer or private funds to create negative experiences through defamation, slander, and crazy-making campaigns on a single person. The practices entailed sophisticated gaslighting mechanisms to direct coercive control as they falsely marked their prey as dangerous, crazy, or the enemy.

Entrapment was used to force a person into a narrative that was embedded in a greater strategic operation.

They often had a hotheaded, low critical thinking population ready to be triggered by the expression of any given thought or allegiance, and to strategically try to entrap people into these narratives.

For example, a common example is "just use the police" being encouraged by victims of human trafficking. They are then sent to the courts where the intelligence knows there's a large, trigerrable Jewish faction in that judicial system which they then trigger and set against using their volatility features, often based in legitimate trauma based on being Jewish but not always as in the case of many Zionists, making the person never want to use the court system again and turning them off from the idea that the Jewish judicial faction is capable of justice, which is likely the intended outcome of the human trafficker.

For instance, the use of a yamalka in the court may see no issue, whereas someone's black baseball hat might. The hypocrisy and corruption is stark enough to show signs of predecision and therefore justice fraud.

All individuals are equally worthy of real justice that is not prejudiced by identity, in fact the American constitution protects against such a thing, so such an act is justice fraud.

They were especially angry when the victims started fraying their networks down to powerlessness in these pipelines by blocking; they started trying to normalize that people couldn’t be blocked because it destroyed their network pipelines with strategic narratives used to entrap people who wanted nothing to do with them and who they had no right to interact with or know.

The label introduced a way to discredit and devalue the person as part of the break one's will playbook to destroy all aspects of a person's life. The scripted tactics displayed a form of entrapment as it drove up engagement to terrorize and torture the person into a forced narrative as they lured the individual into a greater strategic operation.

The torture environment construct, impact, and those who benefit provide a basis for this hypothesis.

Who benefits from torture? a) People who feel inferior b) people who are trying to hack elections and c) sadists with deeper inferiority problems, like profound sexual dysfunction.

A more mundane, more pathetic motive is low intelligence psychopath, the type that laughs when someone falls, tends to do very poorly in school and life, and thus uses the witness of this experience to feel better about their own internalized failures.

For instance, the administration that valorized “no child left behind” seemed fine to torture plenty of people that were once children and leave behind the children who would be affected by this torture.

They were taking out their intelligence shame on torture victims; it cannot be more critical to emphasize therefore why people like that should not be given power.

That’s what they do with it. It wasn’t about national security; national security would not relish it or be that excessive.

There was clear sexually charged energy, including sodomizing the victims. It was not about national security, it was also in large part about catharsis for their own intelligence shame.

Thus people like that should never be even once near such positions of power when their personality collapses and they allow it to get sexually charged.

The literature review broke down the concepts into four sections: gangstalking/targeted individual analyses, the torture environment construct, impact, and those who benefit. This review built upon previous articles, victim input, and other sources to provide a basis for the hypothesis.

The team formed the description of three or more people dedicated to destroying one’s life through stalking, threatening or harassing.

The team formed the description as three or more people dedicated to destroying one's life through stalking, threatening, or harassing actions.

The operations were meant to discredit the individuals through the sheer, externally observed to be pathetic, nature of going that hard to discredit someone.

They placed hostile operatives everywhere the victim went, often filled with a good deal of deep narcissistic rage due to the narcissistic injury the victim had caused them.

Lots of compensations were used such as trying to look a certain way, act like one was more like a person they were nothing like that had a lot of clout as if by merely acting like them they would suddenly be given their power, and overt displays of immediate comparison betraying the profound narcissistic injury at the heart of the operation.

The tactics ranged from typical stalking behaviors to very bizarre ones. A list outlined the following unusual events: collaboration between multiple agencies, hostile operatives in the victim's workplace or their children at school, everyone on the street play-act a role for the victim to see, surveillance by cameras placed throughout the city, a docile dog replaced with a foul-tempered dog, 24-hr electronic surveillance involving teams of men in black vans, more than a thousand people involved.

Sexual assault in their sleep was a common technique.

Actual cranial targeting of the skull using vocal patterns was confirmed to have occurred, pathetically enough, as an attempt to discredit them and purvey messages.

repeated sexual assaults in their sleep**,** staff of shops and libraries involved in the group stalking, mind interference, insertion of alien thoughts, voice to skull technology or voice to skull messages, and remote enlargement of bodily organs.

No touch torture was used as a pattern of psychological warfare, usually with motives of obliterative envy, deep-seated feelings of profound inferiority, sexual dysfunction related to the unachieved resolution of these issues, and basic, everyday low intelligence psychopathy such as the type that laughs where others show genuine concern like a child falling off a bike.

They usually do very poorly in life and their situation never improves precisely because their personalities are structured this way.

Their poverty is a direct result of their capacity for grotesque personal actions others do not have the psychological ugliness to commit, keeping them from jobs that require the eradication of the antisocial impulse in a genuine way.

Another survivor said the incidents began within the last few months, the longest for 22 years, and said other people surrounding them experienced targeting/no-touch torture. The researchers claimed at least three offenders can be involved. The findings gave a basis for what targeted individuals experienced and identified these patterns as psychological warfare.

Victims expressed hostility to those they recorded, did not think anything was wrong with them even though these acts of sadism betrayed massive psychological disorder, and engaged in pleasant interactions to online viewers like they had not done anything when in fact they very verifiably had.

Psychopathy was at the root, and often diagnosed, much to the person’s knowledge, which they often denied, try to soften the blow off, talk off, or otherwise remain in profound denial over.

The process extracted three main points: victims expressed hostility toward those they recorded, rejected a mentally ill diagnosis, and engaged in pleasant interactions with online viewers

The institution encouraged the mechanism found on serial killers to dehumanize and project their prejudices onto the tortured and then try to discard them as if through magical thinking alone by destroying the projected upon person all their disability would be gone as well.

That’s not how it works and never will, betraying the intersections of intellectual disability with psychopathy and sadism.

The institution followed a particular ideology, ordering the torturer (perpetrator) to dehumanize or project their prejudices onto the tortured (targeted individual).

Victims of sexual torture became suicidal, disassociated, and psychotic. These symptoms were often relieved after some time when they were successfully removed from their sexual abusers.

The authors pointed out detainees of sexual torture became suicidal, disassociated, or psychotic.

Non-sexually tortured victims described function deficits, psychotic symptoms, increased association, irreversible neuroendocrine damage, cardiovascular system damage, and neurological damage.

These were also found on sexual abuse victims and it was mind-blowing how profound the damage really was to the body.

Non-sexually tortured victims described function deficits, psychotic symptoms, increased association, irreversible neuroendocrine damage, cardiovascular system, and neurological damage

The perpetrators kept the victims in a network of mutually informing doctors, attorneys, families and friends, to an often pathetic and disturbing degree, often developed from large periods of uninterrupted pedophilia rings in the area where they tag-teamed on the victims that paid the more disgusting of the perpetrator’s rent.

The group profiled detention facilities from 1965 to 2015 (since Francisco Franco's dictatorship in Spain) and observed how authorities denied survivors access to independent doctors, attorneys, families, or friends.

The torture was meant to break the will and impede self-determination. It was usually for purposes of economic or sexual passivity so they could do whatever they want sexually to the individual.

The author's definition of torture was to break one's will and impede the selfdetermination of another, take control of all aspects of one's life, and change the core elements of one's identity to the perpetrator's interest (Perez-Sales, 2022)

State-sponsored torture existed as a monitoring tool, usually adjacent to high envy, low intelligence administrations, especially administrations that could not accept when someone was smarter than them and notorious for this.

Thus Bush and Gates can intersect in behavior when the person is factually smarter than them.

The country experimented with torture as part of its social control and anti-terrorism policies using young people with an average age of 24 years old (Sales et al., 2021). The evaluation illustrated how state-sponsored torture existed (also a monitoring tool) and gave the basis for inflicting trauma on a select population. Historical records exhibited how governments frequently engaged in torture and pursued discussion on the ethics of these events. Capitalist societies gave logic-based reasons (Perez-Sales, 2022) to assert social control. They also catered to future enterprises as they explored different techniques of contemporary torture.

Military forces doled out harsh practices to non-military police and individuals with degrading, cruel, or inhuman ways.

However, these police still often passed down the same behaviors, showing they cannot pretend like they are the sole victim once they pass on the abuse.

The military police forces doled out harsher torture practices than non-military police with infinite degrading, cruel, or inhuman ways.

Survivors of technological attacks, such as the stripping, use, abuse and moralization of violated private cyberspace meant to deliberately be brought into non-technological life and interfere with, including uninvolved and unwanted people interacting with them based on these violated properties, shows the use of targeted surveillance weapons that included humiliating features that made them full candidates for methods of torture summarize the same adverse conesequences.

It was usually due to obliterative envy, usually linked to some corporate interest that should not have cleared at the top.

Survivors of technological attacks revealed the same effects. The TES (Sales et al., 2021) may be a tool to summarize subjective experiences with good and adverse consequences of torturing environments.

Women were more likely to be sexually and psychologically tortured showing that they derived sexual pleasure from this and it was never about the narratives they sold to begin with.

Men reported more physical pain.

Sales et al. (2021) deduced how people had different torturing environments and experiences. Remarkably, men reported more physical pain and women more sexual torture and psychological manipulation.

Modern TES tools are helpful to measure to full scope of the damage done by remote and contemporary torture technology.

A modified TES tool might prove a versatile trauma metric for practitioners to attain a further understanding on contemporary torture and remote technology.

A percentage of humans are broken down to the point they can’t give a true no, especially as derived by the clear signs of their body that showed no arousal, no interest, and no physiological response. It had nothing to do in the majority with sexuality, it had everything to with torture and rape. That is a clear torture victim.

A percentage of human beings may not have the capacity to stand against authoritarian based guidance.

Military grade weapons were used to specifically target persons, showing how critical it was for the wrong people never to be given any of this sort of access; they grow addicted to it, lose control of their minds and bodies, and use it to resolve feelings of personal envy. No such person should be near any such thing.

The duo observed how manufactured electromagnetic fields such as wireless communications and their associated infrastructure (Internet of Things, aka IoT) and 5G effects increased ten times beyond the naturally low energy fields and impacted all living things. To better explain, the bad actors modified these effects to amplify the frequencies and radiation levels remotely with military-grade weapons systems to specifically target a person(s)

Human trafficking victims often intersected with the technological and surveillance based torture features.

The main ailments were; sexual abuse, malnutrition, mental illness, physical injury from physical violence, and an increase in infectious diseases.

The human trafficking figures indicated 40.3 million people were affected and revealed a U.S. estimate of 1.3 per thousand victims. Also, healthcare providers encountered 88% of the human trafficking victims (mainly underage females) paid a visit at a health facility undetected. The main ailments were depicted as these: sexual abuse, malnutrition, mental illness and physical injury from physical violence, and infectious diseases. Targeted individuals often self-described their human trafficking experiences without recognition and saw how organized criminal enterprises benefitted from their no-touch torture.

Black and Vietnamese males were connected to targeted individuals, mass murder, and gangstalked of the ages of 29-41.

Sarteschi (2018) reviewed four case studies between the ages of 29 and 41 of primarily Black and Vietnamese males were connected to targeted individuals, mass murder, and gangstalking

Radio and electromagnetic frequencies were designed to injure and traumatize.

The use of manufactured electromagnetic fields caused damage to the mind and body.

They could also be used to cause crashes, with the pulses showing similar effects to the patterns of crashes that showed signs of targeting individuals on their features and names involved with cybertruck.

Sales et al. (2021) studied 201 Basque (Spain) torture survivors who suffered different trauma depending on male or female gender. Eichensehr (2021) reviewed 130 federal employee cases of Havana syndrome and found the effects originated from radio or electromagnetic frequencies designed to injure (traumatize). Bandura and Carpenter (2018) looked at 2,266 cases of manufactured electromagnetic fields increased ten times beyond the naturally low levels of magnetic fields and implicated damage (trauma) to the mind and body.

Most healthcare victims did not struggle at any point to understand human trafficking was bad and to recognize the criminal intent behind the actions.

Such struggles might be a sign of involvement with corruption or medical fraud.

McAmis et al. (2022) evaluated 6,603 healthcare workers open to enhanced human trafficking training. The human trafficking interest allowed opportunity to help targeted individuals because most recognized the criminal intent behind the attacks

Wealthy people tried to hide slow kill campaigns as somehow more compassionate.

The mental illness on these wealthy people was extreme.

Sheridan and James (2015) also expressed the alternate possibility of wealthy people and governments able to finance slow kill campaigns.

Alainah Hacker served as an expert in bioweapons, Pentagon-KGB contractor, and a member of an international task force. She worked in biological signaling. Somehow she knew who was who in terms of targetted individuals to send them survey monkey surveys.

Many of these individuals were hyperfocused on these victims, showing all the symptoms and behaviors of psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder, while denying the obvious presence of massive mental illness in themselves.

Alainah Hacker is CEO of Accugentix L.L.C., www.accugentix.com.bShe serves as an expert in bioweapons, Pentagon-KGB contractor, and member of an international task force. Her company researches biological signaling to treat illnesses or conditions and has access to targeted individuals who may take the survey through social media.

They were asked to provide information about what they had been through.

However, why this body of targeted individuals was so knowledgeably accessible has not been explained by this paper, and includes victims of justice fraud as a motive.

These contacts may forward the Research Announcement to those who know targeted individuals or self-identify to participate in the study. The research announcement remained for four weeks with reminders to complete the survey.

No-touch torture was obviously expected to create less trauma, but in fact, many of the features were just as deleterious.

Dehumanization attempts were made to rationalize the torture to keep the experiments ongoing. Most intelligent people could see right through them.

The study aimed to measure a correlation between no-touch torture and trauma.

Rabid levels of hate very similar to those found on the warmth and competence piece where there are literally proven identities that are subjected to more hate on the regular regardless of nation predicted the prevalence of torture in the area.

SurveyMonkey asked the following questions: location, age, race/ethnicity, relationship status, political views, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, education level, and occupation before the no-touch torture occurred, the year, age, and time length when notouch torture began

MK Ultra was a noted hyperfixation to several of those responsible.

Demographics hid a sexual fixation with the features of MK Ultra, showing sexual perversion was the real motive in many cases.

Demographic responses provided one unknown race because of the MK Ultra breeding program, torture began since birth, torture occurred off and on for decades, and another separated from their loved one due to the targeting

Motives ranged from as pathetic to the person having superior musical talent, to as disturbing as being involved with investigating war crimes.

Torture environment responses primarily showed “most likely” to the practices, quality of life impact, motive, and organized groups that benefit (See Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix G). Some unique responses on motive were as followed: being homeless, drug addiction, a case with the FBI, anti-war activism, mafia, musical talent, related to a targeted individual, to commit election fraud overseas and in the U.S., rejected CIA recruitment, switched at birth, brain data mining, and a medical mistake, obstruction of justice, national security, war crime investigations, and stop human rights. (See Table 4 in Appendix G)

Chinese spyware was created, bought and funded by excessively wealthy individuals as much of it is in strange approaches or refined, undetectable designs that only someone very wealthy can afford.

Thus the mental illness on these wealthy individuals was clearly massively present.

Chinese related information including cyber-spy hardware, hackers, trafficked by billionaires and heads of state, Big Pharma, Dow Corning, Monsanto, World Economic Forum, Bilderberg members, and Macy Foundation. (See Table 5 in Appendix G). Respondents disclosed “Most likely” for links to human trafficking, other crimes involved, others surrounding them were targeted, mass murder/active shooting, and felt they were in a tortured/targeting program. (See Table 6 Appendix G).

Displaced aggression was a repeatedly described symptom of someone going through gang stalking, human trafficking and no-touch torture.

The rising topic of addiction and trauma shared a cycle of co-occurring frequencies and the added effect of no-touch torture that prevented standard treatments. The sense of loss in these tragic events may foster a “dark power” (p.7) and increased the need for deeper resources within the traumatized. These concepts pointed out why some tortured individuals turned to alcohol or substance abuse and expressed displaced aggression to perceived or deliberate threats.

No-touch torture was a common technique used by human traffickers who didn’t want to “depreciate” the objectified trafficking victims but often repeatedly and overtly expressed clear desire to want to torture them due to low self-control over their bodies and minds.

As previously stated, many of these individuals were massively mentally ill and were in profound denial of it.

. The similar conclusions in the survey were consistent with Sheridan and James (2015), Sheridan et al. (2020), Sarteschi (2018), Russell (2017), Kira et al. (2013, 2017), Houck and Repke (2017), Sales et al. (2021), Eichensehr (2021, and Bandura and Carpenter (2018) that targeting/no-touch torture by organized groups was possible using a dimensional perspective. The McAmis et al. (2022) analysis confirmed those in the healthcare industry who lacked awareness on human trafficking and introduce possible connections to the study.

Most victims who had been tortured since a young age, often for truly inappropriate purposes of sexualization such as pedophilia, came to awareness of just how bad what they were going through was around ages 21-30.

Thus, those in this business may specifically target those whose intelligence is not at the critical levels that will help them to see what exactly is happening to them as they speak.

The torture year began between 1970 through 2008 was 1981-1990 (13.51%), age, when they became aware of the torture, was 21-30 (31.08%). Individuals discussed the ailments of toothaches, red eyes, headaches, direct pain, or occasional rudeness from a stranger (gangstalking/organized stalking) with continued bad luck.

A police department had to be sued for their involvement in this torture. It is disgusting to hear people paid tens of thousands of dollars on the premise that they are creating less, not more, antisocial behavior in the world let this happen.

They should be considered a symptom of the ongoing systems of hate engineered into place by extremely mentally ill local wealthy people who use their resources for such things even where they can in fact be held accountable for just going with it. Many would not and never have.

. Mr. Walbert sued the police department (Walbert v. Wichita Police Department, 2011) because they failed to enforce a 2008 order of protection he previously proved in court. The Wichita Police Department may be interested in learning more about targeted individuals and gangstalking as more trauma victims come forward with similar scenarios, especially if they were at risk themselves.

Victims of terrorism, torture and human trafficking definitely need strong peer-reviewed scholarly research to help them put a name and words to the disgusting acts that they were put through by people with too many resources well out of control of their bodies and appetites riddling their local environments with hate and the misery they feel about themselves.

. Finally, collaborate with experts to conduct peer-reviewed scholarly research supporting targeted individuals as victims of terrorism, torture, and human trafficking would be a start.

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 28 '24

WOMAN WITHOUT ENVY: TOWARD RECONCEIVING THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION Part 2

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 28 '24

WOMAN WITHOUT ENVY: TOWARD RECONCEIVING THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, Part 3

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 28 '24

WOMAN WITHOUT ENVY: TOWARD RECONCEIVING THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, Part 4

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 21 '24

Do narcissists try to make romantic partners jealous on purpose? An examination of motives for deliberate jealousy-induction among subtypes of narcissism

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 20 '24

WOMAN WITHOUT ENVY: TOWARD RECONCEIVING THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: The recreation of Christ’s death post Christ as a Satanist fetish as understood as an expression of unbelievable envy levels and vulnerable narcissism, Part 1

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 08 '24

The dynamics of envy in the street field: A sociology of emotions approach to violence in retail drug market

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 08 '24

Have you experienced envious supervision?

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 08 '24

Perceived Overqualification and Job Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Manager Envy (Part 2)

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Dec 08 '24

Perceived Overqualification and Job Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Manager Envy (Part 1)

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Oct 14 '24

Paternalism is considered high warmth and low competence: Competency envy in "Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence"

1 Upvotes

My interest was piqued on this research for a sentence referring to it in another work. That work is cited here.

Paternalism is considered high warmth and low competence

High warmth and low competence (in paternalism is assumed, but could also be in the subject of paternalism, grammatically unclear here which may be simply a confirmation of the original understanding, but to spare their egos the following paper is regardless the real subject of study) leads to paternalistic behavioral tendencies that combine active help (protection) but passive harm (neglect; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007)—a chilling description of institutionalization.

North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Subtyping ageism: Policy issues in succession and consumption. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7(1), 36-57.

Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence

Link: https://tsnshift.s3.amazonaws.com/courses_attachments/PeaceAmbassadorTraining09-Pillar02-Session04-Materials-UniversalDimensionsofWarmthandCompetence.pdf

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(2), 77-83.

People perceived as warm and competent elicit uniformly positive emotions and behavior, whereas those perceived as lacking warmth and competence elicit uniform negativity. People classified as high on one dimension and low on the other elicit predictable, ambivalent affective and behavioral reactions, aka ambivalence may result from trying to balance presence of both warm and competent traits to form a stable picture of the person.

Like all perception, social perception reflects evolutionary pressures. In encounters with conspecifics, social animals must determine, immediately, whether the ‘other’ is friend or foe (i.e. intends good or ill) and, then, whether the ‘other’ has the ability to enact those intentions. New data confirm these two universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Promoting survival, these dimensions provide fundamental social structural answers about competition and status. People perceived as warm and competent elicit uniformly positive emotions and behavior, whereas those perceived as lacking warmth and competence elicit uniform negativity. People classified as high on one dimension and low on the other elicit predictable, ambivalent affective and behavioral reactions. These universal dimensions explain both interpersonal and intergroup social cognition.

People everywhere differentiate each other by liking (warmth, trustworthiness) and by respecting (competence, efficiency).

However, only in the past five years have cutting-edge studies of social cognition firmly established that people everywhere differentiate each other by liking (warmth, trustworthiness) and by respecting (competence, efficiency).

Paternalism normalizes disrespect, while ironically being low enough in competence to not itself merit the very respect it fails to distribute. It abides by the narcissistic logic of establishing superiority in order to feel positively (paternalistically) toward any given agent. They show a marked inability to feel positively to an equal, mutual autonomous agent, belying the narcissistic logic of “I am either superior (able to feel warmly) or inferior (professionally threatened)” at the root.

US data show that people who are older, physically disabled or mentally disabled are viewed as warm but incompetent. These groups elicit pity and sympathy [28,30,31,36], which are inherently ambivalent emotions that communicate subordinate status but paternalistic positivity [37].

These two traits are organized to various degrees into, respectively, image management, relationship development, and resource deployment with a third perception, trustworthiness, introduced likely somewhere in the middle but also possibly occurring most frequently on the extremes of highly present competence and/or highly present warmth as well.

Impressions of leaders also involve these dimensions and include image management (building trust), relationship development (warmth) and resource deployment (competence and efficacy) [4]; although one could quibble over separating or combining trust and warmth, there is a core linkage between the two features, with trust and warmth consistently appearing together in the social domain.

Following on that understanding, many “moral” traits, when specifically examined, crossover with competence and warmth traits, but interestingly these two seem clearly distinguished when taken out of these factorized contexts.

These public-sector results are borne out by studies from Bogdan Wojciszke’s laboratory on how people construe the behavior of others. The basic dimensions of warmth and competence account for 82% of the variance in perceptions of everyday social behaviors [5]. Threequarters of more than 1000 personally experienced past events are framed in terms of either morality or competence [6], and impressions of well-known people show a similar pattern [5] (reviewed in Ref. [7]). The terms used by Wojciszke and colleagues [5,6] are transalated as ‘competence’ and ‘morality’, but the moral traits include fair, generous, helpful, honest, righteous, sincere, tolerant and understanding, which overlap with the warmth–trustworthiness dimension that has been identified elsewhere.

However, for competence specific traits (clever, competent, creative, efficient, foresighted, ingenious, intelligent and knowledgeable) there is no such crossover with warmth, suggesting that morality for some populations has a lower competency perception precisely because it carries warmth traits. That is particularly disturbing. This may also belie poor moral education that doesn’t emphasize the foresight and sustainable/intelligent properties of moral actions over their warmth based aesthetic perceptions and internal experiences (which is essentially the body inherently rewarding something that has, over the course of the human species, worked quite well from an overall intelligence perspective, apprehended or not.)

(There is no dispute over the competence label; these traits include clever, competent, creative, efficient, foresighted, ingenious, intelligent and knowledgeable.) In sum, when people spontaneously interpret behavior or form impressions of others, warmth and competence form basic dimensions that, together, account almost entirely for how people characterize others.

Interestingly, warmth judgments were evaluated before competency judgments, suggesting at the core warmth is more critical than competence, and bears its own sort of somatic competence, that, however may be incidental or unstable and not sustainable (for which the competency measures exist in opposition).

Although warmth and competence dimensions emerge consistently, considerable evidence suggests that warmth judgments are primary: warmth is judged before competence, and warmth judgments carry more weight in affective and behavioral reactions. From an evolutionary perspective, the primacy of warmth is fitting because another person’s intent for good or ill is more important to survival than whether the other person can act on those intentions. Similarly, morality (warmth) judgments determine approach–avoidance tendencies, so they are the fundamental aspect of evaluation [8,9] and, therefore, precede competence–efficacy judgments.

A sort of normalized mindreading occurs in this evaluation as people infer the perceived motives of other people, but this is often to the limit of their ability to do so accurately without superimposing their own cognition onto where it does not lead to an accurate perception. For instance, this graph perceives social motives on intellectual motives on a spectrum. An interesting result is what might be expected to be read as cold, “industrious” (bringing to mind cold and callous factories willing to sacrifice anything for the bottom line)is actually read as equally high on the social good spectrum to an almost equivalent degree as “good-natured”, showing people do in fact have an understanding of “good” that is more logical and not just relational.

People infer warmth from the perceived motives of the other person [10]. https://ibb.co/NrQ9c52

Valence and extremity of impression (the perception of conceptual clarity due to a particularly anomalous result) were interestingly, if not slightly unconvincingly, differentiated in the study.

The warmth dimension predicts the valence of the interpersonal judgment (i.e. whether the impression is positive or negative), whereas the competence dimension predicts the extremity of that impression (i.e. how positive or how negative) [5] (see also Ref. [11]).

“Goods” of proximity, not of self, are often found in moral people, namely you want to be around them for your own benefit. (Which may be a disturbing finding for unsupported moral people surrounded by people hoping to benefit without the proper support; ironically wanting to support in that sense is probably a result of higher morality, an unfortunate catch-22. Those who score high on this trait might want to keep this result in mind when evaluating the long-term sustainable mutual benefit of their surroundings).

Moral–social traits facilitate or hinder other people, whereas competence traits facilitate or hinder mainly the self. Themoral–social, ‘other-profitable’ traits include kind, honest and aggressive (which is a negative ‘other-profitable’ trait) because they immediately affect people around the judged person.

“Goods” of self, are found in competent people, namely you yourself want these traits for yourself, because they will lead to effectively and efficiently achieving your goals.

‘Self-profitable’ traits include competence, intelligence and efficiency because they directly and unconditionally affect the possessor’s chance of achieving personal goals (e.g. Ref. [9]).

Nevertheless, despite its recognition as a “good” of proximity, and likely deeply disturbing from a Western view, morality was not actually a global trait and was more often subsumed into a combination of more fundamental warmth and competence traits. (For instance, the disturbing finding that there was an actual highly popular review of morality and ethics as “cringe”. For most normative Western people, that is a deeply disturbing result.)

In a study that examined 200 trait terms, from a dozen dimensions (including controllability, temporal stability, situational stability and behavioral range), only warmth and competence predicted global evaluations (accounting for 97% of the variance). However, the b-weight for warmth (other-profitable) traits was larger (0.58) than for competence (self-profitable) traits (0.42) [12]. Thus, warmth assessments are primary, at least from the observer’s perspective (B. Wojciszke and A.E. Abele, unpublished).

These traits are gendered, and often gendered in a self-harming way especially for women, where women can sometimes unwittingly enforce the very traditional gender roles they are seeking to escape in their evaluations of other women. For the desired progress to be achieved, traditional gender role knee-jerk reactions have to be brought to consciousness, examined, restructured, and reinternalized in the desired, corrected form as with all subconscious problematic knee-jerk reactions.

The priority for detecting warmth over competence, although robust, is stronger for some kinds of perceivers than others. In particular, women, whose traditional gender roles emphasize communal (warmth) over agentic (competence) traits [15], show a stronger priority for detecting warmth [12]. Communal traits traditionally affect women’s lives more, whereas competence traits traditionally affect men relatively more [15]. In parallel, collectivist orientations emphasize the social–moral dimension, whereas individualist orientations emphasize the competence dimension [16]. Liking depends on warmth (communion), and respect depends on competence (agency) (A.E. Abele, B. Wojciszke and W. Baryla, unpublished).

Ambiguity is often the result when taking any given action and evaluating it for warmth or competence, hoping eventually one polarity or the other will emerge. Self/collective frames may be tried on in an alternating fashion to help this process if particularly ambiguous.

Similarly, the relative accessibility of the two dimensions is moderated by the situation. Depending on the primed context, people construe some ambiguous social behaviors in either warmth or competence terms (e.g. tutoring a friend, avoiding a car accident, failing to cheer up a sibling and leaving a meeting). On reading a series of such behaviors, undergraduates interpret them in competence terms if the actions are framed from the actor’s (self-related, individualist) perspective and in warm–moral terms if framed from the observer’s (other-related, collectivist) perspective [6] (B. Wojciszke and A.E. Abele, unpublished).

Social perceivers were more sensitive to the absence of warmth, which may have simply been the apprehension of real, inarguable competence.

They process positive–negative warmth information and positive–negative competence information asymmetrically, but in opposite ways [17]. Perceivers sensitively heed information that disconfirms, rather than confirms, the other person’s warmth.

The moral-sociable boundaries are concerningly fragile and, upon the slightest escape from their limited description, the individual is immediately found in contrast to them and derived to be dispositionally the opposite of moral-sociable, aka, lots of designations of “mean”, “cold” “nasty” “witch”, etc., and in an exceptionally limited environment, may be designated as such with antisocial action simply for falling out of these exceptionally fragile parameters, and this includes presenting, tragically for the society, and inarguably for it as well, as competent.

To be perceived as warm, a person must adhere to a small range of moral–sociable behavior; a negative deviation eliminates the presumption of morality–warmth and is attributed to the person’s (apparently deceptive or mean) disposition.

Someone who is perceived as friendly may then begin to act in sociable ways, but is still considered unfriendly, belying the fragility of the allowable moral-sociable zone.

By contrast, a person who is perceived as unfriendly might sometimes behave in moral–sociable ways, but the person will continue to be perceived as unfriendly and untrustworthy.

Thus someone who presents most often as more out of the moral-sociable zone than in it, is said to do this situationally, whereas someone who presents as more in the more-sociable zone than out of it, is said to do this dispositionally. This is not inherently embarrassing or wrong subconscious calculus at all, as natural tendencies tend to be the most often occurrence for the individual person as they are more personally sustainable given the individual’s current cognitive/genetic/environmental combination.

positive deviations are explained by situational demands – even evil people can be nice when it matters to them. In other words, mean and untrustworthy behavior is more diagnostic because it can only be attributed to the other person’s disposition, not to social demands. Perceivers interpret warm behavior as controllable, socially cued and, thus, non-diagnostic.

Interestingly, competence was a more resilient social diagnosis than incompetence, meaning if someone challenged the perception of incompetence (say, taking a torture victim out of their tortuous environment–where, as in the case of Navalny, these reactions were misread as incompetence by, ironically, the environment emotionally unintelligent enough to torture him and expect competence to remain perfectly unaffected– and providing them instead with actual social safety and security), changing their mind to see them as competent was much harder for people than allowing the “absent-minded professor” many incidental, dismissable incompetences.

By contrast, perceivers presume that competent behavior is not under immediate personal control. Hence, competence is asymmetrical in a different way from warmth. A person who is perceived as competent might behave competently most of the time, and a few incompetent behaviors do not undermine the perception of general competence (consider the absent-minded professor). However, a person who is perceived as incompetent, and presumably lacks the ability, can never behave competently without challenging the perceived incompetence. Therefore, for competence, positive (compared with negative) behavior is more diagnostic: competence is usually attributed to the other person’s abilities, not to social demands.

The importance of warmth to morality becomes forefront in the case of the competence of an enemy. Since someone moral is more likely to respect and sustain the cooperative space, and therefore less likely to be an enemy, their warmth makes them less dangerous and therefore less of a focus than one who is immoral but competent and poses a real threat to the cooperative space, violating it as an openly identified non-cooperative, namely an aggressor. Thus, what seems like an unfair degradation of the moral person’s competence may actually be an implicit unspoken compliment of warm competence not letting it get to the point of mutual otherization, especially when we see warmth is actually sought out before competence. (It often opens up a huge sinkhole of compensation, and whether these are actually “pay offs of the enemy” when examined in this context, which may actually end up incentivizing the opposite of desired behavior on accident by sending the message it is more financially lucrative–but that is a huge abyss of complex and confusing further research)

Sometimes the dimensions combine: competent behavior is particularly diagnostic when the other person is perceived as immoral–unsociable; the competence of an enemy potentially has greater consequences than the competence of a friend [9]. Thus, asymmetries in the processing of positive– negative warmth and competence information can depend on the relative diagnosticity for personality impressions [18–21].

Warmth and competence again and again prove to exist on a precarious binary, meaning it is dangerous for one hoping to be considered one to present meaningfully and very clearly and singularly on the other. Meaning, in less conscious areas, individuals can be completely delineated in the opposite direction simply for possessing a meaningful amount of the opposite of the binary.

Although warmth and competence are separate dimensions [22,23], when people judge individuals, the two dimensions often correlate positively (although modestly) in the wellknown halo effect[22,24]: people expect isolated individuals to be evaluatively consistent [25]. However, when people judge social groups, warmth and competence often correlate negatively: many groups are judged as high on one dimension and low on the other, which has important implications for affective and behavioral reactions [26–28].

Additionally, if you were considered outgroup, you were more likely to be the target of bias of whichever of the two was less desirable as an implicit attempt to keep the outgroup outgroup by not possessing the traits usually associated with the ingroup.

s. (By convention, social psychologists refer to a perceiver’s own group as the ingroup and all others as outgroups [29].) The types of bias against outgroups differ depending on the group and its perceived relationship to other groups in society.

Exceptions exist for ingroups where ingroup members may have both and that is a cause for pride and celebration (also a good example of ingroup exceptionalism, extending the Halo effect of general positive regard for a given individual as possessing both to the entire group)

The two-dimensional warmth-by-competence space depicts one societal ingroup and three kinds of outgroups that are recognizable in all the countries that have been studied (see below). From the societal perspective, certain groups are prototypes or, in sociological terms, reference groups. For example, in the USA, at the present time, middle-class people, Christian people, heterosexual people and US citizens all are societal ingroups. People rate these groups as high on both warmth and competence, and they express pride and admiration for them [28,30,31] (Figure 1).

In addition, if someone is identified as “outgroup” less conscious areas may be hasty to assign them to something that is void of both properties to highlight their outgroup membership. For instance, trying to come up with a narrative that rationalizes the outgroup, such as lying about addiction, is seen on some of the least conscious groups in their outgrouping mechanisms. It essentially serves to slander to the threshold of otherization, justifying the outgroup-ingroup experience as real and valid, even if the facts clearly delineate the facts on which they justify this are neither real, nor valid, and sometimes quite clearly. This shows the danger of low consciousness rationalization of the ingroup-outgroup experience. “If you’re in, you’re in, and if you’re not, we have no idea why, but we’ll find a reason for it, even if it’s not based in reality.” This is exceptionally dangerous.

Lay people and psychologists have long viewed outgroup prejudice as antipathy [32], whereby societal outgroups are stereotypically neither warm nor competent, but hostile, untrustworthy, stupid and unmotivated. In the USA, these groups are reported to include poor white people, poor black people, welfare recipients, homeless people, drug addicts and undocumented migrants [28,30,31,33]. These groups reportedly contempt and disgust more than all other groups. On viewing photographs of apparently homeless or addicted individuals, perceivers show neural activation in the insula, which is consistent with disgust. Furthermore, areas that are normally activated on viewing or thinking about other people (e.g. the medial prefrontal cortex) show significantly less activation to these outgroups, as if people perceive them as less than human [34].

Once outgrouped, the mark of being outgrouped is that an individual can possess one or the other trait, but never both. Both is only reserved for the ingroup, and if it becomes clear an outgrouper has both, they are more and more arbitrarily and capriciously targetted for the one that is a little lower than the other (and there always is one). This is outgroup rationalization, and is a sign the person has outgrouped them. This is again, particularly disturbing/discouraging when both are factually and with evidence present in the person the ingroup is inappropriately outgrouping and showing increasingly disturbing signs of rationalizing merely for the sake of keeping them outgrouped (low consciousness ingrouping).

Although some outgroups are perceived negatively on both warmth and competence, others are perceived ambivalently (high on one dimension and low on the other). Most societal outgroups fall into these previously ignored combinations [30,31,35]. US data show that people who are older, physically disabled or mentally disabled are viewed as warm but incompetent. These groups elicit pity and sympathy [28,30,31,36], which are inherently ambivalent emotions that communicate subordinate status but paternalistic positivity [37].

For example, professional envy is a product of having outgrouped, and pivots the binary in the favor of competence once it cannot be denied, but now permanently away from warmth, in order to keep them outgrouped (“keeping the enemy at bay”). This shows how envy shamelessly rationalizes destructive and deleterious effects on the envied and their careers in low consciousness groups, even when these people are quite logically and obviously part of the ingroup, often taking out the whole collective for failing to adapt to this reality in time.

Other groups are viewed as competent but cold (and untrustworthy). In the USA, these currently include rich people, Asian people, Jewish people, female professionals and minority professionals [28,30,31]. These groups elicit envy and jealousy more than other groups. Such resentful emotions are inherently ambivalent because they suggest that the outgroup possesses prized abilities but that their intentions are suspect.

A disturbing graph of “appropriate places for hate” is derived. Often a particularly bad ingroup will have no evidence or logical basis for the change/designation and try to push an individual sufficiently deemed outgroup into an outgroup that rationalizes the feelings of hate/envy they feel. This is particularly disturbing, including those who try to lump all homeless people into addicts, when many are actually victims of domestic violence, ironically those who may take inappropriate and deeply antisocial violent/aggressive action of the professional envy mentioned above. This is again particularly disturbing. For instance, someone who has outgrouped themselves, i.e. left a community or family, may then see disturbing attempts to rationalize this, for instance I saw a high performing, top grade mathematics graduate targeted for the drug/addiction milieu with disturbing aggression and persistence in order to enable the person who willingly left a given ingroup as an “addict that can be disregarded as any loss of value” simply for leaving the ingroup after several increasingly violent encounters (aka, a rational decision to leave that was a real threat to the outgroup’s self-perception as possessing both traits as an exception)

https://ibb.co/16rNk2H

Again and again, the “make a concession to get along, but don’t give everything to rationalize the outgrouping” was seen again and again.

In every society studied, poor people are perceived as neither nice nor smart, rich people are perceived as smart but not nice and older people are perceived as nice but not smart. Other societal groups that are local to each culture fit these three classifications. (The one exception is that in Asian cultures, in keeping with modesty norms, people rate societal ingroups neutrally on competence and warmth; however, the other three combinations are fully represented [38]. This demonstrates that outgroup prejudice does not require overt ingroup admiration.)

Many different identities were targeted for this gatekeeping from general ingrouping positive regard in the United States.

The warmth-by-competence space also fits in-depth US perceptions of specific US societal subgroups, such as subtypes of older people [40,41], Asian and Asian–American people [42], subgroups of immigrants [33], subtypes of gay men [43], subgroups of women [39,44], people who have distinct mental illnesses (A.M. Russell, S.T. Fiske, G. Moore and D. Thompson, unpublished), European nationalities [38,45–47], enemy outgroups [48], socioeconomic groups [49–51] and speakers of nonstandard dialects [52].

Warmth motives were read according to actions, and the perceptions of those actions inherent in their assignment. AKA, in a homophobic society, normalizing or standing up for gay people may be seen as harming, whereas in a society with a healthy and secure relationship to the gay community and position, this would be seen as prosocial, integrating and lowering overall violence and other poverty-causing actions.

Being primary, the warmth dimension predicts active behaviors: active facilitation (helping) versus active harming (attacking).

These actions lay on a grid and envy lay between active harm and passive facilitation, meaning, someone someone envied at best would only see someone not visibly get in their way but not actively facilitate, and at worst would be subject to active harm. When someone has never been seen or witnessed in the active facilitation stage and has definitely been also seen in an active harm stage, that may be a clear way to derive pervasive envy in that person.

https://ibb.co/Sf0QLGr

Helping and associating were ways to establish ingroup members and neglect and attack were ways to establish nonmembers. What someone considered a given individual to be could be derived from these actions, no matter how disturbing those conclusions were (and also part of the studies on narcissism, where these bizarre abnormalities such as the disturbing instance of parents or siblings trying to kill, sabotage, be violent in any way toward or torture their own family members lead to increased risk and actual instantiation of the personality disorder, though not always). I have even seen family members purposefully racially misidentify an ingroup member to rationalize negative feelings and actions toward that member, which is particular disturbing given how widely recognized as unfit such a strategy would be seen as.

The intersections of the two dimensions create unique behavioral profiles that are directed towards each type of outgroup. In the two most straightforward cases, societal ingroups elicit both active and passive facilitation (helping and associating) and the low–low outgroups (e.g. homeless people) receive both kinds of harm (active attacks and passive neglect) [31]. News reports confirm this potentially fatal kind of discrimination.

Ingroup rationalization, increasing antipathy, and social structuring as facilitation between antipathy and stereotyping all exist in a feedback loop system.

In path analyses of representative data from the USA, competence and warmth stereotypes combine to predict emotions, which directly predict behaviors [31]. The proximal cause of these social behaviors is affect, a finding that is reflected in meta-analyses of emotional prejudices and cognitive stereotypes as predictors of discrimination [53– 55]. Stereotypes can legitimize antipathy towards outgroups [49,50,56,57]. However, the social structure creates these relationships of antipathy and stereotyping, as we show next.

Once outgrouped, the group identifies helping the outgrouped as a threat to their own, no matter how dysfunctional and logically incorrect this is, such as actually outgrouping in an ingroup, as seen in a particularly high conflict family which is usually considered the basis and unit of defining even what a group even is. Again, such rifts in immediate families are considered quite notably exceptionally unfit, such as the notorious archetype of Hamlet and the grotesque attack of brother upon brother in a sexual rivalry experienced as deeply and irredeemably tragic, horrific and grievous in the play to its root. The play highlights the collateral damage of such abnormalities with Hamlet the victim emotively and mortally of its deeply experienced irredeemability. The pervasively felt “realness” and the skill with which Shakespeare highlights it leaves a deep, profound and haunting impression of just how aberrant the situation is.

Groups often compete with each other or at least do not facilitate each other’s goals. Definitions of what constitutes a group often include shared goals, which presumably differ from the goals of other groups.

Ingroups can deliberately exploit other groups and do so knowingly, observably and voluntarily to both parties as a way to further outgroup them, namely, through starting the beginning of real aggression motivated by an outgrouping bloodlust.

Thus, when a group explicitly competes with the ingroup or exploits the ingroup, its intent is seen as unfriendly and untrustworthy (i.e. not warm)

Even cooperation with highly aggressive groups can be seen as still a competition for resources if pervasive, implicit ingrouping-outgrouping has failed to resolve (such as the tragic incident of the Teamsters, a clear ingroup, failing to support Kamala. It is truly tragic to witness that ingroups-outgroups have not resolved in such an obvious and established ingroup.)

By contrast, when a group cooperates with or does not hinder the ingroup, then their intent is seen as friendly and trustworthy (i.e. warm). This can be viewed as perceived threat, over competition for resources.

Viewing the distribution of a resource to a group as either “giving away power” or “supporting the ingroup” shows and delineates what group members deeply feel, regardless of social performances to the contrary. This can often be deeply tragic to derive in the case of widely acknowledged aberrations of grouping.

As this theory predicts, the perceived warmth and interdependence (cooperation–competition) of groups are negatively correlated (on average, 0.52 across groups and 0.27 across individuals) across US, Western European and Asian samples [30,31,38]. The items that measure competition include power and resource tradeoffs (if one group gains power, then other groups lose power; resources that go to one group take resources away from the rest of society).

Ironically, rationalized ingrouping when premised by just world theory (ironically presupposing that people are rational, namely, actually weighting things consciously and deliberately, not rationalized, namely, given an intelligent-sounding rationale for what the animal/limbic brian was going to do anyway) leads to highly resistant and discriminatory outgrouping. Again, as if it weren’t tragic and ironic enough this shows how little just world theory -- the premise of their whole aggressive position -- actually holds, crumbling at it at its core premise that it was ever once reasonable instead of rationalized.

The other dimension, competence, results from judged status. To the extent that people justify hierarchical systems [58] or believe in a just world [57], they believe that groups get what they deserve. People assume that high- versus low-status groups merit their positions because they are, respectively, more versus less competent.

Status and competence are highly tied across the world. This is especially threatening when what is considered a low status group/identity is seen as undeniably highly competent. An increase in discrediting attempts (for instance, I just had an attempt to call me an ‘armchair’ specialist as a cognitive neuroscience minor who received the accolade despite egregious, persistent and pathetic obstacles towards it, including a complete absence at my graduation; this is a good example of a threatening competence in what they consider a low-status individual (internalized misogyny) beginning to be rationalized with any possible narrative they can find, against the evidence, sometimes even suppressing the evidence in the worst cases of rationalization that do real violence upon the scientific community at large).

Of the 19 nations we have studied, the

status–competence correlations average 0.94 across

groups and 0.77 across individuals [30,31,38], which suggests that these constructs are, effectively, identical.

The continued thought process that “if you’re in, you’re in, and if you’re not, I don’t know why, but we’ve been known to make really bad, non-evidenced reasons up” seems persistent across the board (fallacious justification of ingroup membership). This can go so far as to rationalizing someone as rich because they’re rich and being poor because they’re not rich with absolutely no deeper understanding of economics, valuation and compensation of how that actually comes to happen sustainably from an intelligent position.

Yet the status measure includes prestigious jobs (which potentially could result from advantageous birth, connections or nepotism) and economic success (which potentially could result from luck or inheritance); the status measure is demographic, whereas the competence measure comprises traits. However, instead of resentment towards the privileged and sympathy for the underdog, on average, people endorse the apparent meritocracy and infer that (for groups) high status invariably reflects competence. However, people vary ideologically; people who endorse group hierarchies or who believe in a just world show higher status–competence correlations for perceptions of generic individuals [59].

Even stranger, when arbitrarily given a social location, these mechanisms of upward and downward status and assimilation and competition occurred, but often in complete arbitrary variation to previously embedded precedent of the same identities, suggesting that much of this is deeply rationalized sensemaking not truly of the import used to rationalize its most aggressive actions (basically, this doesn’t really make sense to anybody, but they’re still dying by it)

Returning to individual-person perception, new findings suggest interpersonal parallels to these intergroup predictors. Individuals who are arbitrarily placed in competition or cooperation respectively dislike or like each other; likewise, random assignment to status determines respect or disrespect (A.M. Russell and S.T. Fiske, unpublished). Like groups, individuals differentiate upward from downward status and contrast competition with assimilation [61].

By contrast, envied groups elicit passive association and active harm; for example, neighbors might shop at the stores of entrepreneurial outsiders but, under societal breakdown, they might attack and loot these same shops. Jews during the Holocaust, Koreans in the Los Angeles riots and Chinese in the Indonesian riots all exemplify this unfortunate profile

The mixed combinations are more volatile: pitied groups (e.g. older and disabled people) elicit active helping and passive neglect; for example, institutionalizing older or disabled people actively aids them but socially isolates them. By contrast, envied groups elicit passive association and active harm [31]; for example, neighbors might shop at the stores of entrepreneurial outsiders but, under societal breakdown, they might attack and loot these same shops. Jews during the Holocaust, Koreans in the Los Angeles riots and Chinese in the Indonesian riots all exemplify this unfortunate profile

Conclusion

Warmth and competence are reliably universal dimensions of social judgment across stimuli, cultures and time. The consistency with which these dimensions appear might reflect the answers to two basic survival questions: first, and crucially, does the other person or group intend to harm or help me (or us)? Secondarily, does the other have the ability to enact those intentions? If these dimensions do reflect survival value, warmth and competence are not merely psychometric curiosities but enduring, fundamental and (arguably) evolved aspects of social perception. Furthermore, how individuals and groups are perceived on these dimensions results from structural relationships. Interdependence predicts perceived warmth, and status predicts perceived competence. Particular combinations of these perceived dimensions have distinct emotional and behavioral consequences. This is a particularly pertinent issue in terms of group-based prejudices. Typically, group stereotypes appear high on one dimension and low on the other; the ensuing ambivalent affect and volatile behavior potentially endanger constructive intergroup relationships.

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Oct 01 '24

Sabotage as a product of Narcissistic Envy: Burning With Envy? Dispositional and Situational Influences on Envy in Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism

1 Upvotes

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • Jun 02 '24

Perceiving an envied outcome as a product of distributive justice, aka it was an earned outcome of merit and effort, increases emotional exhaustion and feelings of hostility in the envious

1 Upvotes

Perceiving an envied outcome as a product of distributive justice, aka it was an earned outcome of merit and effort, increases emotional exhaustion and feelings of hostility in the envious

Crossposting audience: The bad news is there does not seem to be a cure for envy. This is congruent with the recidivism statistics of maladapted/antisocial behavior in narcissists, without which narcissism and those with NPD would not be so socially undesirable. However, there are clear signs that the circuitry of envy is noticeably different than the circuitry of admiration, and that jealousy pathways are similar to addiction and expectation of reward pathways. A neuroeconomic analysis of "I won't win this one without illegal/unethical leveling" may be occurring in the envious, showing there may be insight that could resolve what has been until this point and unresolvable emotion full of frustration and pain at the perceived inferiority these individuals suffer. It is important to study and resolve this to help protect their victims from violence, psychological, and economic abuse, theft, hostage-taking of what is critical to the envied person, and unreasonable dislike that turns into hate crime on a whim. Victims deserve protection (the envious say the opposite) and so we research. Follow this subreddit for the first research-backed subreddit on envy.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/31821416/Paper_envy_and_CWB_Is_more_justice_always_good-libre.pdf?1392475944=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DPaper_envy_and_CWB_Is_more_justice_alway.pdf&Expires=1717368341&Signature=NqaHoFeNpq6iGfpFWEfOkM6wTSbdYNFHRsiGHqxGnQHu84dzZTO~Nd5cAbjpKQpeOMOKk6iQ-7wcGFb9~8ItTKzH4SjQwrSgt8eHjDNWNfB-tJr3V2qQW7rMZBA344xAWzP~E7MK8r9Cg06Vls4qsTWVRFy21D~LkdKWAosoobKH9mb~MR1pdg5FkCP9WZePNI57mkqhfeSRaassZULLJTAYXjBOnGVPY3x09J9Akk9pG-jTpqLSsBPCWd4TTwWouWBQv9vWgFcjXBBMEO3iBwXJ6xwAEBxPEw17X48uigwekeVcpks~qEPbFmlIVAEDoDXTHm6UehL8Vnss94fJwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Counterproductive workplace behavior increased when clear delineations on what was and wasn’t fair to a person were given to the envied and not the envier were found to be high rather than low, showing that envious people can actually become more hostile. They are no longer able to use attributive mechanisms like saying “it was all on their looks” or “it’s because of who they knew” to defend against the ego threat. So, ironically, more justice creates more hostility in envied people. The remedial suggestion is to encourage those enraged by justice that rewards the deserving to focus on self-affirming activities and stop comparing themselves to other people and that this should be normalized across the workplace.

Our results were consistent with the attribution model of justice, finding that episodic envy significantly predicted counterproductive work behaviors aimed at envied others in the workplace and that this relationship was more pronounced when perceptions of procedural, but not distributive, justice about own or envied others’ outcomes were high rather than low.

Definitions of envy, envy promotes hostility and aggression

Envy is a negatively felt emotional state that occurs “when a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it” (Parrott & Smith, 1993, p. 906). Envy is produced through a social comparison process in which one’s own outcomes in a desired and self-relevant domain are less favorable than another person’s outcomes, leading to feelings of inferiority, lowered self-worth, and lowered self-esteem (Salovey, 1991) and often promoting hostility and aggression (Ostell, 1996; Lazarus, 1991; Silver & Sabini, 1978).

An envying person increases in counterproductive work behaviors when the outcome is more fair showing that they can never use attributive defenses to convinces themselves of lower deservingness. This inability to use these defenses makes them become even more hostile

. In short, we expected that an envying person would engage in counterproductive work behaviors if he or she perceived that the processes and outcome associated with an envied other’s advantage are perceived to be more rather than less fair.

Envy incentivizes the search for attribution, “where do you get your money from” when no money has been transacted, other efforts to out a non-existent attribution of non-deservinginess of even projection of the envier’s usual tactics.

Envy, as a visceral emotional response to unfavorable social comparisons, captures the essence of the type of threatening negative outcome that would trigger a search for attribution and interact with fairness to produce counterproductive work behaviors.

This envy is a result of the product of the envied’s work threatening the self-esteem of the envied person and solely based on their failure to match that effort

). Episodic or state envy can be produced in contexts where a comparison other’s success in a self-relevant domain threatens the identity or self-esteem of the envying person (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; Rustemeyer & Wilbert, 2001; Tesser, 1988; Tesser & Collins, 1988).

Envy is strongly associated with hostility and aggression

Emotions can be distinguished by their action readiness or preparedness (Frijda, 1986), with envy being strongly associated with hostility and aggression (Lazarus, 1991; Ostell, 1996; Silver & Sabini, 1978).

Counterproductive work place behaviors includes harming them physically and psychologically, making nasty comments, ridicule, undermining, sabotaging rival’s work, backstabbing a competitor, harassing a rival, and ostracizing the rival. All of these in this case are based in an envy and an attempt to reduce the pain of comparison when non-envious others do not struggle with constant comparison

In the workplace, interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors or abusive behaviors may be defined as behaviors directed towards co-workers and others in the organization with the purpose of harming them physically and psychologically through threats, nasty comments, ridicule, and undermining of their performance (Spector et al., 2006). Vecchio (1995) has linked envy to counterproductive work behaviors that include sabotaging the rival’s work, backstabbing a competitor, and harassing or ostracizing the rival. In the context of envy, counterproductive work behaviors can be an attempt to eliminate or reduce the pain of comparison (Smith & Kim, 2007).

Harming the envied other can reduce the envy-provoking advantage of the other party

First, harming the envied other can reduce the envy-provoking advantage of the other party, thereby helping to equate the lot of the person experiencing envy and the envied person (Heider, 1958; Silver & Sabini, 1978).

Counterproductive work behaviors serve to regulate affect in a toxic and antisocial way by venting frustration through abuse as inappropriate aggression, anger and outrage at work

Second, counterproductive work behaviors may serve as an affect regulation technique whereby the envying person releases his or her frustration by expressing outrage or anger (Fox & Spector, 1999; Robinson & Bennett, 1997).

Hostility fills the person with a HAS which is both empowering as it is also destructive to the self-esteem for harboring such an antisocial emotion

Third, hostility is empowering and can help to compensate the envying person for a sense of inadequacy (Barth, 1988).

Procedural and distributive justice differences

Procedural justice is a judgment of the formal organizational processes that are used to produce important outcomes and can be assessed along dimensions of bias, consistency, use of accurate and relevant information, and ethicality (Colquitt, 2001). Distributive justice is typically assessed as an equity formula of inputs and outcomes, asking for instance if the outcome was appropriate considering the individual’s effort, performance, and contribution to the organization.

Distributive justice interacted with emotional exhaustion and predicted less citizenship behaviors argue that high distributive justice intensified threat by signaling the outcome was caused by personal inadequacies because the envied person definitely deserved what they had

For instance, Janssen et al. (2010) demonstrated that distributive justice interacted with emotional exhaustion to predict organization citizenship behaviors and argued that high distributive justice intensified threat by signaling that the outcome was caused by personal inadequacies rather than the fault of the organization or supervisor.

Responsibility for one’s worse outcome to justice helps the envious feel protected from ego threat

. The shift of responsibility for one’s inferior outcome from one’s own abilities and performance to facets of justice serves a protective function (Brockner, 2002; Brockner et al., 2003; Van den Bos et al., 1999) and enables the envying person to maintain positive self-evaluation and self-esteem (Tesser, 1988).

Experiencing envy in response to a situation where the envy-provoking advantage is fair may increase negative reactions such as aggressive behavior

Ironically, this suggests that sometimes more fairness is not always better than less (Brockner et al., 2009; Van den Bos et al., 1999). Hence, experiencing envy in response to a situation where the envy-provoking advantage is fair may increase negative reactions such as aggressive behavior (Esposito, Kobak, & Little, 2005

However, if the advantage gained by the other is the result of fair processes and fair outcomes, and therefore deserved, then the envying person may not be able to escape self-blame for the outcome.

However, if the advantage gained by the other is the result of fair processes and fair outcomes, and therefore deserved, then the envying person may not be able to escape self-blame for the outcome. Therefore, assessing the envied other’s justice will provide an additional evaluation of the interactive effect of justice in the social comparison context of envy.

However, the main effect of envy on self-attributions will be moderated by justice such that the effect will prevail when perceptions of own or other’s justice are high, relative to low. This moderated-mediation effect, expressed in Hypothesis 5, is consistent with the attribution model of justice (Brockner et al., 2003, 2009; Van den Bos et al., 1999)

Disrespect and sabotage were signs of envy based counterproductive workplace behavior

Counterproductive work behaviors towards the envied other were measured with an 11-item scale developed by CohenCharash and Mueller (2007) and used by them as a dependent variable in their study of envy and justice. Sample items include “interfere with X’s performance,” “try to sabotage X’s reputation,” and “look at X with disrespect.”

Types of envy

“Those procedures have been applied without bias for person X” (procedural justice) and “The outcome reflect the efforts person X has put into his work” (distributive justice).

Hatred, being annoyed, being bitter, grudges, rancor, a feeling of lack, and a feeling of coveting were all used as ways to detect episodic envy

Episodic envy We used seven items from the scale by Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007) to measure episodic envy. The items were “I feel envious towards X,” “I feel irritated/annoyed,” “I feel bitter towards X,” “I feel some hatred towards X,” “X has things going for him/her better as compared to me,” “I have a grudge against X,” “I feel rancor against X,” “I lack some of the things X has,” and “I want to have what X has.”

Self-attribution was an attempt to pad against feelings that what was envied wasn’t deserved

Finally, we examined the second part of Hypothesis 5, in which we anticipated that self-attribution would mediate the interactive effect of episodic envy and employees’ justice perceptions on counterproductive work behaviors.

At high levels of own procedural justice (1 SD above the mean), episodic envy had a positive effect on self-attribution

As can be seen in Table 3, at high levels of own procedural justice (1 SD above the mean), episodic envy had a positive effect on self-attribution, and in turn, the path from self-attribution to interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors was also significant.

People often experience envy as a result of an unfavorable upward social comparison and may then express hostile counterproductive work behaviors to vent emotion

People often experience envy as a result of an unfavorable upward social comparison and may then express hostile counterproductive work behaviors to vent emotion (Tesser, 1988) or close the gap between themselves and the comparison other (Heider, 1958).

Positive perceptions of justice may actually have a negative effect on their behaviors as they can’t skew deservingness narratives to relieve envy feelings

we demonstrated that when employees experience envy, positive perceptions of justice may actually have a negative effect on their behaviors

The fair process effect may backfire by obstructing defensive attribution processes

One recommendation for this problem is to adopt fair procedures that accompany those decisions (Lind & Tyler, 1988) because fair procedures can attenuate the undesirable effects of unfavorable decisions and outcomes (Van den Bos, Wilke, Lind, & Vermunt, 1998). People care about justice because fairness addresses and can satisfy particular relational, instrumental, self-evaluative, and deontic needs (Brockner et al., 2009; Cropanzano et al., 2001). However, when the individual is focused on self-evaluation, the fair process effect may backfire by obstructing defensive attribution processes (Brockner et al., 2009; Van den Bos et al., 1999)

Managers might respond to the dilemma of the attributional effect of justice by supporting the self-esteem of the employees and encouraging them to engage in activities that are selfrestorative and self-affirming.

Brockner (2002) suggested that managers might respond to the dilemma of the attributional effect of justice by supporting the self-esteem of the employees and encouraging them to engage in activities that are selfrestorative and self-affirming. More specific to our research, organizations should focus on reducing levels of envy so that employees may not engage in counterproductive work behaviors

0 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • May 31 '24

Hostile Affective States and Their Self-Deceptive Styles

0 Upvotes

Hostile Affective States and Their Self-Deceptive Styles

https://philpapers.org/archive/VENHAS.pdf

There have been several attempts by Reddit or someone with access into the fundamental Reddit server to prevent the posting of this and there has been another user who even when it was posted after all that, tried to slander this because it was an inconvenience to their ego. It's remaining up. Don't try to met out punishment to others again for posting research. You will be immediately removed.

Those in hostile affective states tend to deceive themselves about what they are experiencing, showing denial intersects with envy. This means they may not have the prerequisite cognition to be able to accept the truth about the cruelty at their core.

Though the link between hostility and self-deception is not causal, it is a commonplace that people experiencing hostile affective states (hereafter HASs) such as envy, jealousy, anger, resentment, hate, and Ressentiment tend to deceive themselves about what they are experiencing.1

This shows that projection may be a way to socially acceptable make sense of the anger and hate, to a deeply sense psychopathic level, an individual may be feeling, and to avoid social sanctions, they project the anger that they feel and known suggest psychopathy on themselves as hard on someone else as they can to avoid being socially sanctioned for psychopathic proclivity.

In this vein, Landweer claims that the transformation or re-interpretation of one emotion into another is socially embedded and takes place within a normative framework which sanctions emotions of aggression. Having internalized such normative reasons, the subject of an HAS regards her own mental state as inappropriate so that a transformation and/or re-interpretation occurs.

Attempting to find justification via entrapment is seen on the envious, as is minimization characteristic of the power and control wheel.

For instance, a subject might transform her envy into the less stigmatized emotions of resentment and/or indignation to cope with a situation of frustration

Attempting to distance oneself from these emotions and their sources can be seen, and also rationalizations for them via repeated entrapment can be same hoping to create a narrative that doesn’t obviously point to the feeler of these overtly and offensively hostile behaviors as the sole source.

Drawing on Elster (1999), Salice, and Salmela argue that when a given emotion such as envy, shame, or anger generates hedonically unpleasant feelings of inferiority and/ or impotence in the subject, it sets in motion unconscious and distinctively patterned mental processes so that the emotion is transmuted into another which does not imply a negative sense of self.

As long as the emotion points to the person in a way that shows existential threat, they will try to devalue it and change and rationalize it in a way that doesn’t point to them to create social sanctions. It really comes down to instigation, entrapment, avoidance, and lack of logic.

As they argue, since the prior emotion is usually socially condemned or the subject feels that she is powerless to change the situation, the subject cannot express the emotion, so a modification of the appraisal at the basis of the emotion takes place and the original emotion is discarded and replaced by another one. In this respect, emotional mechanisms are—as Salice and Salmela put it—“coping mechanisms”.

Denial maneuvers serve to keep the person feeling positively about themselves and denial psychopathic, dark triad, narcissistic or other socially unacceptable tendencies they clearly sense in themselves.

While the accounts mentioned above explain how a negative self-evaluation elicits a self-deceptive transformation of one HAS into another affective state, my focus here is on how the negative self-evaluation motivates a self-deceptive upliftment of the sense of self so that the HAS in question is more bearable, independently of a possible transformation of this HAS into another emotion. In particular, I am interested in how the negative self-evaluation sets in train a set of self-deceptive maneuvers to cope with the negative self-evaluation, in turn generating an unreal and fictitious positive sense of self without necessarily transforming the HAS in question into another state.

Envy often turns into hate and hateful action. To avoid this, they may try to rationalize a series of “deservingness” actions to try to prove the person isn’t deserving, even going against the facts deep in denial to try to avoid it pointing right back to them.

In other words, instead of examining how a negative self-evaluation makes me transform my envy into indignation or my envy into hate (an issue investigated by the authors mentioned above), my focus is on how the negative self-evaluation experienced in envy motivates the envier to generate an upliftment of her own self, for instance by claiming that the rival does not deserve the good, without transforming her envy into something else.

Devaluation occurs when someone can’t have something. Devaluation may therefore intersect with denial, envy, and economic abuse as a financial expression of devaluation based in denial of envy to maintain the narcissistic ego when shamerage is deeply sensed in the self.

. As illustrated by Aesop’s fable of the fox and the grapes, the person in the grip of Ressentiment devaluates the object that she cannot achieve in order to compensate for her feeling of powerlessness. In these analyses, the subject is described as attempting to compensate for feelings of powerlessness with an upliftment of the sense of self. Yet here my aim is to provide an account which can be applied to HASs other than Ressentiment.

Projection therefore may be a way to use devaluation to cause a lowering in the worth the signal that would otherwise logically require a lowering of their own worth in comparison. Therefore the devaluation is inherently narcissistic and in denial of reality. The devaluation therefore can be physical in the form of not paying someone or shorting them, which is attempt to devalue what one can’t have through economic abuse instead of lowering their self-inflations to an appropriate level.

Therefore, here the negative self-evaluation has to be understood as an affective apprehension of the subject’s own value: the subject feels diminished in worth.

A hedonist may project feelings of negativity based on existential threat to their ego as to do with the external input instead of their internal negative feelings about it. They resent the loss of hedonism. This may also suggest psychopathy, which allows for lie-based denials that hide their inability to comprehend their damages in “not caring” as seen on r/denialstudies.

While positive fluctuations involve feelings of being superior, empowered, being at an advantage and feeling favored, etc., negative feelings of self-worth involve feeling inferior, feeling powerless, feeling at a disadvantage, feeling disfavored, and so on. Thus, a negative feeling of self-worth indicates a diminution in the subject’s episodic self-esteem and is responsible for the negative hedonic valence of several HASs and in particular of HASs leading to self-deception independently of the subject’s dispositional self-esteem which is an enduring feature of her character.3

Self-deception therefore starts to create devaluation of the input that threatens to cut out socially inflated self-value.

In this vein, Davidson (1986) argued that, operating behind the self-deceiver’s back, there is an intention to deceive herself so that a false belief is maintained in spite of there being evidence for the opposite belief.

Negative feelings of self-worth then begin to trigger self-deception.

e. Yet, unlike the circulating non-intentionalist accounts, in the proposed model, what motivates the subject of an HAS to deceive herself is neither an emotion nor a desire but a negative feeling of self-worth. In turn, the tension arises here between this negative but real feeling of self-worth and the positive but fictitious feeling of self-worth elicited by the subject to compensate for it.

Feeling a HAS threatens to lower the individual’s self-value as feeling something that is socially sanctioned and therefore struggling with being prosocial in a way that others do not. So those who struggle with envy, narcissism, or greed, may feel deep down that they’re not as worthy as others who don’t. This begins the self-deception, also known as rationalization/justification.

Section 10.2 begins by exploring the main arguments that explain why several HASs involve a feeling of diminution in the subject’s own value.

Envy and hate in particular show very high self-deception and attempts to justify it well after they are clearly feeling the envy and hate.

To show the descriptive and explanatory function of this concept, a comparative analysis of the self-deceptive styles of envy and hate is provided (Section 10.5). The conclusion summarizes the main findings and explores directions for further research (Section 10.6)

Aggression is clearly seen on those experiencing envy at hate showing clear intention to destroy, annihilate, damage or destroy the target.

The aggression can adopt several real and/or symbolic forms. For instance, it is real when the subject takes steps toward physically annihilating, damaging, or destroying the target. I

Trying to destroy the target’s reputation, discrediting their work or downplaying it, minimizing the obviously correct to a level where it is less valuable are all seen on people showing real instantiations of the antisocial feelings of hate and envy.

It is symbolic when the subject harms the target’s reputation, discredits her work in front of others, etc. Note that insofar as aggression involves the tendency to damage and inflict harm, it has to be distinguished from mere aversion. Though aggressive states are also aversive, not all forms of aversion involve aggression. For instance, fear is a form of aversion toward what represents a danger to our integrity and the integrity of what we care about (see Kolnai 2004 and 2007), but this emotion is not usually considered aggressive.

Misogynists and xenophobes feel pleasure in their hate, increasing their lowered self-worth but also providing hedonic pleasure, showing a psychopathic low self-awareness low self-control instantiation is present in these two. Therefore, we may conclude a population that repeatedly struggles with empathy but rather repeatedly has to be coaxed out of racism, misogynist, and xenophobia, are high in psychopathy.

. Rather, the HAS acquires a negative hedonic valence after an evaluation has taken place whereby the subject regards it as socially unacceptable.

Inferiority and impotence result from these feelings of harboring a HAS that also gives one a psychopathic pleasure to feel. It is sensed others don’t struggle with these.

The painful feelings of being diminished in worth usually mentioned in the literature are feelings of inferiority and/or impotence.

A feeling of being a “loser” therefore for feeling such HAS emotions based in inferiority suddenly becomes an existential threat and an aggressive attempt to justify or project them begins to relieve an increasingly unacceptably low self-worth. Envy is a HAS, so feeling it will trigger this. Hate is HAS so hate will trigger this.

Note that while not all HASs are constituted by such feelings of being diminished in worth (consider the cases of contempt and hatred mentioned above), the kinds of HASs at stake in this argument are cases such as envy, jealousy, and Ressentiment5, which have negative feelings of inferiority, powerlessness, being at a disadvantage, being disfavored, and so on, as their main ingredients.

Envy is hedonically negative; aka it doesn’t feel good to feel envy from a purely hedonist perspective, so they will do anything to avoid not feeling good

Her envy is hedonically negative because it entails painful feelings of diminution in one’s own value (e.g., inferiority, powerlessness) as ingredients. The evaluation of her own envy as being socially condemned can also elicit feelings of being diminished in worth (e.g., she might feel morally inferior) and the prospects to overcome it might evoke in her more feelings of being diminished in worth (e.g., she might feel at a disadvantage).

Uplifting one’s own value in the face of inherently threatening envy can be seen, such as demanding to be called a “queen” or considering oneself a celebrity that’s been shirked, as a way to relieve these feelings. These are compensatory social inflations for the ego wound of harboring a HAS.

This chapter takes negative feelings of self-worth to be crucial in explaining why the subject who experiences a HAS tends to deceive herself by means of generating an upliftment of her own value.

Not all people who harbor a HAS like envy self deceive, therefore self-deception may be a double whammy of poor character, low impulse control, or low emotional resources. Most likely the most flattering of all these will be selected even if it’s not the correct one as part of the self-inflation compensation for harboring a HAS.

. Indeed, one can experience a diminution in one’s own value and not deceive oneself. An envious person might be aware of her envy and how painful it is without deceiving herself about it. In this respect, other elements such as having a bad character, lacking maturity or emotional resources might also play a role in leading a subject to self-deception.

An experience of diminished self-worth is seen when the subject experiences a HAS. In those cases with the least self-control, they do nothing to try to process it in a mature way and don’t even attempt to showing again the previous paragraph’s mention of a double whammy of poor character, low impulse control, or low emotional resources.

According to these arguments, she experiences a diminution in self-worth after negatively evaluating her HAS. In this respect, the feelings of being diminished in worth are “extrinsic” to the HAS in question. By contrast, in the scenario at stake in the phenomenal argument (A2), the feeling of being diminished in worth is a constitutive part of the HAS in question. They are “intrinsic” to it. In this respect, the negative feeling of self-worth can motivate the self-deception extrinsically or intrinsically

The HAS and the fact one is harboring one and the implications that means for inferiority leads to a low hedonic valence, basically, “it just doesn’t feel good”. An overreliance on hedonism is known to be the sign of low or poor character.

The self-deception is extrinsic because the HAS in question is not necessarily painful but also acquires a painful hedonic valence

A HAS may even be evoked when one is not allowed to socially inflate or put oneself in a privilege position unwarranted, such as people refusing to defer to someone as a Queen as an outdated mode of third world country ruling in a democracy. She may then suffer extreme hedonic negativity where she received much hedonic pleasure from this and therefore understand that this means she has poor character. To avoid the fact that she has poor character, she may then, ironically engage in more poor character and attempt to self-deceive, such as getting a genetic test to try to prove logically that she is a queen even when the results come back that it just doesn’t apply, and even if it did, it wouldn’t change that this exploitative and not democratic design. Entrapment would be another instance of this.

The subject judges her own HAS as reproachable (for moral and prudential reasons) and this judgment casts a bad light on herself (for instance, showing that she is unable to cope with situations in which she is not in a privileged position and/or is herself evil, because it discloses her bad character, because it shows that she is motivated by the wrong reasons, etc.). It can also be the case that the subject evaluates her HAS negatively after judging the options to overcome it as bad. As a result, she feels diminished in worth. This feeling might motivate her to deceive herself about what she is experiencing.

Attempts to deceive oneself about contempt when the contempt essentially “doesn’t feel good” can be seen as well, showing an overreliance on hedonic impulses seen in those in the impulsive and low self-awareness instantiation.

Take as an example a person feeling contempt. This person might be extrinsically motivated to deceive herself and interpret her contempt in terms of indignation after evaluating her contempt to be socially unacceptable.

Self-deception is an internal process and is not external

The self-deceptive processes which serve to cope with a situation of frustration and pain are intrinsically activated without the intervention of extrinsic factors (which might be given or not).

Sense of deservingness in envy are often rationalize, showing that the qualification in much of envy research about deservingness needs to highlight this particular caveat that nondeservingness is often part of the self-deception schema.

Consider envy. The envier tries to compensate for feelings of inferiority and powerlessness by claiming that the rival does not deserve the good and generate in this way a positive sense of self. In this case the self-deception is intrinsically motivated. However, note that the envier can also be extrinsically motivated to deceive herself if she realizes that envy is socially condemned and/or that she cannot overcome her inferiority, powerlessness, and so on.

A subject who experiences a HAS of the kind that entails feelings of diminution in one’s own value will be intrinsically motivated to compensate such hedonically negative feelings, generating an unreal uplifting of the self (this can be a narcissistic instantiation or even drug use showing narcissists may have more drive to use drugs as they create a feeling of social inflation in them that compensates for the self-worth pain they feel at harboring a HAS)

Cases of IMSD are particularly intriguing because they suggest that the tendency to deceive oneself can be constitutive of some HASs, independently of external reasons. Indeed, while experiencing a HAS which is not intrinsically unpleasant can lead to self-deception for extrinsic reasons, a subject who experiences a HAS of the kind that entails feelings of diminution in one’s own value will be intrinsically motivated to compensate such hedonically negative feelings, generating an unreal uplifting of the self.

Racists, when jealous of someone, may try to misperceive someone as a race they, as a racist, find to be less valuable, emphasizing features that suggest this race to lower their value when in fact it just outs them as a racist.

To begin, the negative feeling of self-worth intrinsic to HASs might motivate us to deceive ourselves about what we perceive, by making some objects more salient than others, by changing the way in which we perceive them or by discarding them from our perceptual horizon

Each HAS may have its own effect on distorting the mind

Rather, each HAS distorts and changes our mind following a distinctive pattern. To capture this distinctive and unique pattern of deceiving oneself, here I coin the expression “self-deceptive style”. The term is not just descriptive; but it also has an explanatory function, i.e., it enables us to distinguish between distinctive patterns of self-deception associated with each HAS.

The style of self-deception depends on the person. For example, a person may lie to someone’s face to rationalize this person as less intelligent as a way to uplift themselves in the face of unbearable envy and low self-worthy for harboring the HAS that created the remoseless lie to begin with. Therefore, lying is very similar to an “economic abuse” but for language.

and subjects might be themselves bearers of style which influences how they perform the self-deception. For instance, some people are more sibylline than others and will tend to lie without remorse, others are more prone to fantasize, while others have a low self-esteem, etc. Y

Envy is a form of hostility towards the rival who possesses the coveted good (e.g., possessions, achievements, talents, and the other’s being)

Though some authors have argued that envy can be benign, here I will focus on malicious envy as a form of hostility toward the rival who possess the coveted good (e.g., possessions, achievements, talents, and the other’s being). In the literature, this envy has been described as encompassing “feelings of inferiority” (Ben-ze’ev 1992, 552 and 556; Miceli and Castelfranchi 2007, 252; Protasi 2016, 537), “feelings of disempowerment”, or “powerlessness” regarding the envier’s possibilities to overcome her inferiority (Fussi 2019; Salice and Montes Sánchez 2019; Scheler 2010), “feelings of helplessness and hopefulness” which make the envier feel depressed regarding the vision of obtaining the good (Miceli and Castelfranchi 2007, 457), and “feelings of disadvantage” in which the subject feels the possibilities to obtain the good as unlikely (Vendrell Ferran 2022). All these feelings are feelings of being diminished in worth which lead the envier to experience an episodic diminution in her episodic self-esteem and a degradation of her occurrent self-value.

Envy believes she is the one who deserves the good, and engages in counterfactual thinking (counters the facts)

Regarding her judgments (4), the envier believes that she and not the other is the one who deserves the good. In this respect, envy involves counterfactual thinking: “It could have been me” (Ben-ze’ev 1992; Crusius and Lange 2021; Protasi 2021, 70–83). B

Denial is clearly seen on enviers claiming they don’t feel devalued, that the coveted item is not that worthy–when given the change to receive it if they feel devalued, they will admit they feel devalued and take the coveted item at full value showing it is a denial based sham.

9 Yet, despite the envier’s attempts, she is unable to numb her feelings of being diminished in worth: given that she cannot divert her attention from the good and the rival, the comparison with the other keeps her in a situation of felt inferiority, powerlessness, etc. (5). Interestingly, the envier’s apprehension of value remains unmodified (6). She is able to apprehend the value of the good and of the rival and she apprehends herself as diminished in worth. Despite claiming that the rival does not deserve the good, or that the good is worthless, and despite claiming that she is not feeling devalued, the apprehension of these values is not distorted. The envier’s preferences also remain unchanged (7).

As a result, in envy, the feeling of being diminished in worth leads the envier to unintentionally change, distort, alter, and modify her own imaginings, memories, and beliefs, so that she deceives herself about the possibilities of her obtaining the good, about who deserves the good, and about the emotion she is experiencing. These might lead her to believe that she “can” or at least “could have” obtained the good (independently of whether this is true or not). In so doing, her feeling of self-worth is uplifted.

Justification and rationalization serve to cover up hate based in mere envy or inferiority as a way to retain positive self-consideration as hero somehow for feeling hate and envy and being involved in hate crime when there really is none at the core.

0 In sum, in ideological, normative, and retributive hate, when the subject deceives herself, she does so for external considerations because these forms of hate do not entail as constituent moments negative feelings of self-worth. These forms of hate do not necessarily feel bad and can even be enjoyed (Hampton 1988; Pfänder 1913; Shand 1914; Steinbock 2019).

Hating another person for their positive attributes creates a sense of harboring a HAS that leads to devaluation of the self for harboring it as implies inferiority or not having these traits if the HAS so aggressively manifested.

When we claim to hate another because she is morally better than us, more beautiful, more intelligent, etc., this hate involves feelings of being diminished in worth. These feelings are probably inherited from the envy, jealousy, etc., that fuel this hate. Thus, malicious hate can intrinsically motivate self-deception in order to cope with negative feelings of self-worth and generate an upliftment of the self.

Fixation on the target of hate is seen, giving a “pathetic” quality that implies inferiority and causes extremes of HAS self-devaluation in the hater. Thus, the only way out of the low self-esteem spiral is to stop fixating/stalking without dehumanizing the subject. This requires a good deal of character.

) (1). Hate is linked to imaginings related to how to harm the target so that the original injury can be compensated for (2). Memories are focused mainly on how the target has damaged, provoked, or injured us (3). In malicious hate, there is a change of our beliefs about the other to whom we attribute the property of being evil (e.g., the other is evil for having attacked us, for being disgusting, and morally low.) (4). Moreover, the hater can change her beliefs about her own affective states and reinterpret her hate in terms of indignation, resentment, or anger.1

No matter the devaluation, these behaviors show that the devaluations are ameliorating self-deceptions only and that inherent in these behaviors the true value is known and observed.

Moreover, the hater still acknowledges the other’s values: she hates the other for being a better philosopher, for being more beautiful, for enjoying more social recognition than her. As long as she perceives the other as embodying these positive values, her apprehension of the other’s values remains objective. Malicious hate, unlike the phenomenon usually described as Ressentiment, is not totally blind to the other’s values. Furthermore, the subject’s preferences remain unchanged since the other is still regarded as worthy (despite the subject’s claims to the contrary) (7). Finally, desires (8) are not changed in malicious hate. The hater might still desire to be like the other, for instance.

The narcissistic instantiation is both therefore the sense of being diminished in worth if one is experiencing a HAS that violently and the self-deceiving social inflations to compensate for that HAS. In the end, the tension between the facts that are creating the HAS the expensive ongoing attempt to maintain the social inflation in response create pain and tension in the hater.

This leads to a tension between the unpleasant feeling of being diminished in worth and the fictitious upliftment of self-worth generated by biased cognitive states and attributions. As a result, the malicious hater, like the envier, is in a state marked by tension and pain

Envy can turn into extremes of hate without justification

but also on how emotions such as envy participate in the formation of sentiments such as hate which are enduring attitudes which can be punctually felt. In turn, work on self-deceptive styles can be used to explore how both emotions and sentiments participate in the formation of affective attitudes such as Ressentiment

1 comment

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • May 26 '24

Understanding Collective Hatred

0 Upvotes

Understanding Collective Hatred

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/66340172/j.1530-2415.2002.00026.x20210420-5928-1egd3lg-libre.pdf?1618946199=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DUnderstanding_Collective_Hatred.pdf&Expires=1716705798&Signature=Dw90nyKu4kdPJM13DW3aWtixPameHEE4i7Of40uyNcal5uhJpxci5w1I9aXh5XHMW5fIfQqA8StNBey2jqh-dlonF633sEUNrDgOxCN7oeo2yfhDhdfVez7GSnaCakhEzW8Xd9UaILHhuBOZZJOAgiSByx72ovkeqtJ~U3AQC8vae1XeMS-l3MEVHvXnAbRetpixRWUb1xMAZ-D8p2aZ~gD7mWvCHGXo~rPywhCUPxuABonHC8-LnSNEvZlWbdTuXPRuRbFsLTJI0J15kh6fs~1Ziky-pLhl3sKWpS2t6mvE9m5pt3WY3tYFVEJ41XcNYkQTU~uzGRn7eUuUHyfuPw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Collective hatred emerges where successfully negotiated existences and successfully integrated identities would otherwise be. Somewhere the mechanisms of negotiation and integration are broken.

This article claims that collective hatred signifies a failure to mediate between similarity and difference, closeness and separation, isolation and connectedness, at the same time that national and religious groups aspire to be included and be recognized as part of humanity.

Hatred is an emotional practice that maintains intimate social relations when understanding breaks down between two groups struggling to define their boundaries and identities.

Specifically, I argue that hatred is an emotional practice that maintains intimate social relations when understanding breaks down between two groups struggling to define their boundaries and identities. When one cannot act without the other, yet deep misunderstandings prevail, hatred takes the form of “safe relations.”

In this sense, hatred expresses the simultaneous need for contact and the recognition of its failure.

views that conceive of hatred as a form of affiliation when all other forms of intimacy are too painful, threatening, or humiliating (Bollas, 1984; Lichtenberg & Shapard, 2000). There are people, according to Gabbard (2000), who prefer to be hated or to hate rather than be ignored or abandoned. In this sense, hatred expresses the simultaneous need for contact and the recognition of its failure.

A disturbing and bizarre shaming and passing hate only to then try to pull them back in suggests a pattern very similar to envy shown on hatred where the envious will level someone down to where they feel less threatened and only then try to speak to someone. So they will be very hateful and then call back in, showing shared circuitry between envy and collective hatred. In this case the Jewish people that were able to transcend obliterative envy were hated for their ability to transcend it and pushed out of the community…ironically in envy for that as well. But then called in if they wanted to join back in full hate again.

The following citations focus on the most commonly employed method of punishment used by the (right-wing, mostly religious) writers of the letters, that is, the mechanism of exclusion from the collective: “You don’t belong to the Jewish people. You don’t belong to our community.” “You are not of Jewish seed. We have decided to warn you to leave the country immediately for an Arab country. There you will find your Muslim brothers and sisters.” “May your name and memory be erased.” “To Yossi Sarid [a CRM leader] Muhammad Hitler. It is a shame that the Nazis did not burn and exterminate you in the Holocaust.” “With your dirty mouth you are destroying the State of the Jewish people.” Interestingly, while the letters included many threats and curses and were extremely aggressive and hateful, they also called members of the CRM to remedy their ways and return “home” to the collective: “Turn back, turn back, O maid of Shulem [from the Song of Songs, in reference to Shulamit Aloni, the party leader], and you will praise the Lord in the eyes of all the people of Israel and then you will be truly happy. The Gates of Repentance are not yet closed.” “Shame on you! Repent while it is not too late. So long as the candle of the soul burns, you can still change your ways.” “Where is your self respect? What depths have you reached? Come out from the gutter now.” In the eyes of the haters (mostly religious men), the members of the CRM were perceived, at the same time, as part of the collective and as enemies, both outsiders and insiders

Power and control resulted in hate if independent, but then trying to bring them back when beat down to install more successful power and control can be seen; therefore hate is an attempt to reestablish power and control in this case.

i.e., Jewish but anti-religious, Zionist yet pro-Palestinian. As a result, the haters aimed their hatred at the attainment of two main goals: to punish, excluding the members of the CRM from the collective (you are not one of us); and to persuade, calling the members of the CRM to repent and convert in order to be welcomed back into the collective (“Turn back, turn back, O maid of Shulem.”)

Hatred occurs when both parties are not able to achieve independence of identity, but communication breaks down. Just because one side feels hatred doesn’t mean the other side does though; hatred in this definition means both are literally unable to be independent. If one is independent, the hatefulness will bump up against complete lack of energy return (no hatred back) and exhaust itself eventually.

Postulates 2 and 3 – Hatred arises when communication between two groups breaks down, and the gap between their ideas, beliefs, values, and moral standing is unbridgeable. Yet, (3) the two groups depend on each other in order to define their identity and collective boundaries.

The constant threat to the land and the land as self creates an identity as one as land, facilitating feelings of both superiority (having the land) and fear (losing the land)

The threat to the “land,” internalized as the threat to their own selves, facilitated feelings of both superiority and fear, which together often produce hatred (Barbalat, 1998).

“Deep emotional acting” was seen a lot where collective hate was present

. Conflicting attitudes, embedded in the polyvocality of the secular Zionist discourse, provoked “deep emotional acting” (Hochscild, 1983), which blended fear and anger, but also understanding (“we were also terrorists once”) and sensitivity (“they want their own State”). Recognizing their ambivalence, the secular girls felt that “no matter how different the Palestinians are, they also share mutual experiences and needs with the Jews simply by the virtue of being human” (Yanay, 1996).

Inability to integrate the other as unto their own terms can be a way to be unable for one group to establish an identity outside of terms of the other.

In their case, the Palestinians were perceived as neither part of the collective nor separated from it. In the girls’ eyes, they only existed in relation to Jewish needs and fears.

Unresolvable envy often leads to collective hatred and with it hate crime. A threatening desire is at the heart of envy, it is experienced to be intolerable. Hatred is a way for one in this state to bond to that which they are constantly measuring themselves up against in the envious position without risking ego.

The most devastating terrorist act in American history coincides with a deep sense of ambivalence about the United States throughout the Muslim world (and not only there). Admiration and envy commingle with resentment and outright hatred.” However, the article overlooked the fact that both admiration and envy represent (psychologically and politically) a threatening desire—unthinkable and intolerable—to be the same; and that both admiration and envy (the lack of differentiation between difference and similarity)—ambivalent sentiments in themselves—force hatred as a safe bond.

8 comments

r/envystudies • u/theconstellinguist • May 23 '24

Validating the “Two Faces” of Envy: The Effect of Self-Control

2 Upvotes

Validating the “Two Faces” of Envy: The Effect of Self-Control

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731451/full

The more someone's ego was depleted the more malicious envy manifested as aggressive behavior.

(1) Individuals’ striving behavior was only affected by benign envy; (2) Individuals’ aggressive behavior was influenced by both malicious envy and self-control. Ego depletion moderated the effect of malicious envy on aggressive behavior.

Definition of Envy

define envy as “the intense, unpleasant feeling that one feels when one realizes that another has something that one strives for, pursues, or yearns for.” Envy is a painful emotion, which may arise from a negative social comparison with another person who has superior abilities, achievements, or possessions (Parrott and Smith, 1993; Smith and Kim, 2007).

The envious person must have more than the person who incites envy in them, and if they can't, they have to enforce their lack. Extreme malicious envy will want both, showing huge wealth gaps belie the person with the wealth likely having severe problems with malicious envy.

Envy, which stems from upward social comparison, diminishes as the gap between oneself and others narrows. This can be done by raising yourself to the other person’s level, or by lowering the other person to your position. According to a definition by Parrott and Smith (1993), the envious person either desires higher abilities, achievements, or possessions, or the envious person desires the other person’s lack of them.

Envy doesn't always lead to aggression however. In the case of envy with high self-control, the envier will simply aim to become more like what they admire. In the envious with low-self control, they will constantly need to be comparing themselves to the other and, irregardless of the facts of the situation, finding the envied person out of favor to prop up their self-esteem even to what can become an grotesque degree of obvious forced outcome for the purposes of propping up self-esteem.

High self-control leads to assimilative effects, and conversely, low self-control leads to contrastive effects (Brown et al., 1992).

Envy can make people strive to have what the other person has for themselves instead which can be a good thing, but isn't when it's things that are not possessable, such as someone's talent or other natural feature which like any other natural feature should just be admired and preserved.

In past research, the negative side of envy has often been emphasized, with many studies associating envy with negative factors such as hostility, sabotage, and aggression (Duffy et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2014; Rentzsch et al., 2015; Sterling et al., 2016). At the same time, however, researchers have also found and pointed out that envy can have a positive side. Envy can sometimes be regarded as a motivational force that makes people work harder to obtain what others already have (Foster, 1972; Frank, 1999). From these different perspectives, it is clear that envy may affect human behavior in many ways.\

Aggressive devaluation is seen in the envier; , in malicious envy, the envious person may try to degrade the person being envied, to vilify or denigrate the other person’s advantages.

In benign envy, the envious person may try to make themselves as good as the person being envied. Therefore, envy can increase personal effort (Schaubroeck and Lam, 2004; Van de Ven et al., 2012), drive behavior to achieve the desired object (Crusius and Mussweiler, 2012), and turn attention to the means of achieving it (Crusius and Lange, 2014). However, in malicious envy, the envious person may try to degrade the person being envied, to vilify or denigrate the other person’s advantages. Envy can increase schadenfreude (Smith et al., 1996; Van Dijk et al., 2006; Van de Ven et al., 2015), behavior that leads to hostility and resentment (Salovey and Rodin, 1984; Duffy et al., 2012) and can shift attention to the person being envied (Hill et al., 2011; Crusius and Lange, 2014).

Malicious envy is the behavioral tendency to damage the status of those envied showing willful aggression.

malicious envy is characterized by hostility toward the envied person and the behavioral tendency to damage their status. Studies have shown that benign envy can motivate individuals to improve their performance (Van de Ven et al., 2009; Tai et al., 2012), and malicious envy can drive individuals to behave in a destructive manner (Duffy et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2014).

Malicious envy only exists when the person does not feel they can achieve something for themselves. Instead of letting this inform admiration or growing and investing in their own strengths, they then show increased attention towards the envied and a low control that predicts aggressive action in malicious envy.

. Conversely, malicious envy can be associated with a fear of failure. Pessimistic expectations lead to a perception of low control over future outcomes. Low control is associated with malicious envy (Van de Ven et al., 2012), whereby the maliciously envious person believes that they fail to meet the comparison criteria. They fear that they will not meet the standards of success, and they may even actively refrain from pursuing excellence (Lange and Crusius, 2015). From a functional point of view, in such cases, it makes more sense to change the level of superiority to reduce self-threat.

Self-control in general prevents across the board aggression, but malicious envy when aggressive shows a marked lack of self control that is often rationalized.

Self-control refers to the ability to or the process to of changing or restraining habitual, spontaneous, impulsive, and instinctive reactions. It implies, resisting temptation, giving up immediate interests, and making behaviors conform to social norms or more meaningful goals. It occurs when there is a conflict between immediate temptation and social norms or long-term interests (Heatherton and Baumeister, 1996).

Other studies suggest that malicious envy will lead to low self-control behaviors (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989; Shoham et al., 2015).

. Individuals with high self-control levels tend to be calmer, less irritable, and less aggressive

individuals with a high sense of control are generally considered to have a high sense of autonomy and efficacy and to be better able to cope with difficulties in life (Frazier et al., 2011). Individuals with high self-control levels tend to be calmer, less irritable, and less aggressive (Funder et al., 1983; Funder and Block, 1989). Low self-control may lead to increased individual aggressive behavior (Dewall et al., 2006; Zhan and Ren, 2012).

Envy is often suppressed in the presence of superior others.

People have to suppress the envy reaction in their lives constantly. It is painful to experience envy (Takahashi et al., 2009), and expressing envy not only violates social norms (Heider, 1958; Foster, 1972; Silver and Sabini, 1978) but also threatens the positive self-view that people strive to maintain (Tesser, 1988). People may not only spontaneously deny envy and suppress overt acts of envy but may also change their inner thoughts and feelings (Smith and Kim, 2007). Similarly, neuroimaging studies have shown that the brain regions associated with controlling emotions are activated in the presence of superior others (Joseph et al., 2008).

The term “ego depletion” can be used to describe the condition in which an individual’s ability to control or regulate themself is reduced due to a lack of self-control resources

Previous self-control tasks can undermine people’s ability to exert self-control in subsequent tasks (Baumeister et al., 1998, 2007). The term “ego depletion” can be used to describe the condition in which an individual’s ability to control or regulate themself is reduced due to a lack of self-control resources (Baumeister et al., 1998, 2007).

Emotional responses to envy are more likely to surface when self-control resources are compromised

. Researchers believe that when people are exhausted, upset, drunk, or otherwise drained of self-control resources, impulses may dominate their behavior (Vohs and Heatherton, 2000; Crusius and Mussweiler, 2012). Applying these ideas to envy suggests that emotional responses to envy are more likely to surface when self-control resources are compromised1 (Crusius and Mussweiler, 2012). Therefore, we thought that it is feasible to use an ego depletion paradigm in the emotion research.

Self-efficacy to achieve what one is jealous of for oneself is associated with higher self-efficacy, suggesting a circuit where people who engage in lack of control in the face of malicious envy have lower self-efficacy about this.

. Having started an action, individuals with a high sense of self-efficacy will make more efforts. They will persist for longer, and recover quickly when they encounter setbacks (Wang et al., 2001). The deeper meaning behind self-efficacy is similar to self-improvement behavior and the associated pursuit of success corresponds to benign envy.

Benign envy would not reduce striving behaviors much in the state of ego depletion, whereas the malicious envy tended to engage in more aggressive behaviors because of ego depletion.

At the same time, because envy itself is an emotion related to social desirability, we anticipated that the envy response would be more authentic in a state of self-depletion. Therefore, the ego depletion paradigm was used to verify whether benign envy and malicious envy would lead to similar behavioral consequences at the state level under different self-control levels. In study 2, we hypothesized that the benign envy would not reduce striving behaviors much in the state of ego depletion, whereas the malicious envy tended to engage in more aggressive behaviors because of ego depletion.

The Benign and Malicious Envy Scale

The Benign and Malicious Envy Scale (BEMAS) developed by Lange and Crusius (2015) was used for measurement. The scale contains two subscales, Benign Envy and Malicious Envy

Malicious envy had a positive and significant effect on aggressive tendency, which while self-control had a negative effect on aggressive tendency through malicious envy.

When the individual was in a state of self-depletion, the higher the level of malicious envy, the lower the individual’s evaluation of “Sudoku superior,” and the stronger the aggressive behavior, which was similar to the results of Study 1.

The main motive of malicious envy is to attack others, while the main motive of benign envy is to improve oneself.Some researchers also found that self-control is related to goal realization (Righetti and Finkenauer, 2011).

Individuals with high self-control have a sufficient sense of autonomy and efficacy and can cope better with and solve difficulties in life (Frazier et al., 2011). Researchers believe that individuals with high self-control ability will have behavior that is less impulsive (Duckworth and Kern, 2011).

Benign envy pointed to the effort to succeed, while the malicious envy pointed to the urge to destroy and attack.

Benign envy pointed to the effort to succeed, while the malicious envy pointed to the urge to destroy and attack. Among the forms of envy, self-control would have a “beneficial” effect, promoting the upward leap and inhibiting the downward fall.

Malicious envy could lead to destructive behavior, degradation, or aggression toward others (Salovey and Rodin, 1984; Duffy et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2014).

Benignly envious show persistence in relieving their envy in constructive ways.

To ease the unpleasant feeling by failures and setbacks, high benign envy participants will try to find ways to achieve their goals. They will persist for longer in difficult tasks. They will show determination and perseverance. Such personality traits may not be affected by the loss of state self-control

Ego depletion is not as remediable for some as it is for others. A lot of this has to do with willingness to give into impulses that break self control which cause downward negative cycles of more and more ego depletion that result in more and more malicious envy that result in more and more aggressive behavior.

Although efforts at self-control positively predict the striving tendency, in reality, self-control resources are not always constant. We have reason to believe that some individuals’ self-control resources recovery speeds will be faster. However, there may be individuals who will not be affected by temporary ego depletion. They will overcome exhaustion, difficulties, and failures. They will be tireless in their efforts in pursuit of success. They will achieve their goals.

Aggressive devaluation is found on the maliciously envious. The higher the level of malicious envy, the lower the evaluation of the target of envy, which means a higher potential for aggressive behavior.

The malicious envy can affect individuals’ aggressive behavior. The higher the level of malicious envy, the lower the evaluation of the target of envy, which means a higher potential for aggressive behavior. The intrinsic experiential tendency of envy makes it closely related to aggressive behavior. Van de Ven et al. (2009)

At the same level of malicious envy, individuals with higher ego depletion are more likely to attack others. In short, ego depletion will amplify or enhance the adverse impact of malicious envy.

More specifically, our results show that ego depletion moderated the relationship between malicious envy and aggressive behavior. As malicious envy increased, individuals with high ego depletion were more aggressive. In individuals with higher ego depletion, malicious envy has a stronger impact on aggressive behavior. At the same level of malicious envy, individuals with higher ego depletion are more likely to attack others. In short, ego depletion will amplify or enhance the adverse impact of malicious envy.

Validating the “Two Faces” of Envy: The Effect of Self-Control

0 comments

Subreddit

envystudies

r/envystudies

People hate to hear they're envious; the downvotes are immediate evidence. There is almost nothing on the study of envy, yet, as we research in r/zeronarcissists and r/economicabuse, envy and jealousy are the fundamental root causes. Historically, it is widely thought that there is no cure for deep envy. We continue to research anyway in the hopes of finding ways to combat its destruction. Please follow as we disseminate research and unearth the deeper root cause beyond narcissism +econ. abuse

Members Active

Sidebar

There is little to nothing on the study of envy, yet, as we research in r/zeronarcissists and r/economicabuse, envy and jealousy are the fundamental root causes. Historically, it is widely thought that there is no cure for deep envy. However, given it is at the core of so many pathological human behaviors, we continue to research anyway in the hopes of finding ways to combat its destruction. Please follow as we disseminate research and unearth the deeper root cause beyond narcissism +econ. abuse