"Tell me about yourself"
I said to a woman applying for an investigator's position.
This question (in the imperative) lets her choose:
1. Her own language rather than be influenced by mine
2. Tell me what is a priority in her life
She began with the usual, but soon came to a point of priority for her. She said that when she worked at Walmart while in school she found that they sold gun magazines for hunters.
She said she removed all of the magazines from the shelves and put them back in storage. Although not "statement analysis", her self satisfaction was tangible.
I said, "Oh, I am a hunter."
She was unfazed.
I asked her if she was told to do this by her supervisor.
No, she did it on her own, and did not tell her supervisor.
She was proud of this, enough to tell it to me in a very specific setting.
I am not a hunter and told her so in order to know her reaction to my retraction.
Result: She did not seek any conciliatory tone with me, even though she was in a distinctly subordinate position knowing that I was one of three interviewers who would have an opinion on whether she should be hired. (the vote was 3-0 against).
Her lack of self awareness was overshadowed by her high view of her own morals. A lack of self awareness does not bode well for sales, nor does it bode well for office morale. When one has a heightened sense of one's own morals, the underlining guilt and need to be superior is very tender. By not acknowledging her superiority, the inherent 'insult' is taken as humiliation, which does not abate much with time.
Recently, I recommended an applicant not be interviewed. It would be a waste of resource. He wrote in his employment questionnaire about a social cause that personally, I felt strongly in agreement with him about.
It was, in context, inappropriate and his inability to see this would mean that it would not be long until a co worker disagreed with him and his 'cause'. His identity was meshed with his cause. It is fine for him to hold to such, but it does not go well for those who hire.
Employment Analysis saves businesses money.
It saves money from theft, fraud, lawyers, insurance and payouts. It saves businesses professionals valuable time and it saves business reputations. It saves co workers and managers from the stress of conflict.
It is, in this sense, the best form of insurance.
In 2001, the Dept. of Justice reported that about 40% of those who stole from their company, admitted planning it in the interview process.
What does this number not include?
This number does not include the fraudulent claims made against companies for various "offense" taken by the employee.
The cultural shift to "victim mentality status" and the marxist ideology against business has led to a normalization of court judgements against business. "You didn't build that" remains the institutionalized envy of this ideology that has taken root in Western civilization. It says, "you 'need' government" and "you cannot build it without guidance and assistance from your government" versus "government is hindering and robbing you through taxes, regulations and bureaucratic intrusion. " In its worst, government not only lectures on life, but refuses to allow a different opinion.
The government also exempts itself from the rules limiting what questions you can ask potential employees.
Employment analysis effectively screens out deceptive applicants. Deceptive applicants are willing to lie before they are hired. They will be willing to lie after they are hired.
Employment analysis identifies many things about the applicant beyond simple deception, including:
Applicants who are addicted to substances;
Applicants who have experience in theft;
Applicants who have quarrelsome contrarian personalities;
Applicants who are 'the best and brightest', honest, hard working;
Applicants who have an inappropriate motive for seeking employ. Specifically within this realm:
Applicants who intend, or are who are most likely, to defraud the company out of money by claiming victimization.
A company does not want to hire a thief, but every year, tens of thousands of HR professionals gather to learn, usually from lawyers, what questions they are not allowed to ask. It is frightening. They want good employees. Professionals in HR don't care about skin pigment, religion, politics, or whether or not an applicant practices yoga. Businesses are in business to make money, and do so by providing good product and service. Bureaucracy exists to exist which is seen in their insulated failures and guilty projections upon successful business men and women.
A company does not want to hire a man who is domestically violent towards his wife, or who is using heroin, or who has a history, whether convicted or not, of theft. Yet, in most cases, a company cannot ask these questions.
A company does not want to hire someone who is likely to claim to be a victim who is "hurt" and needs lots of the company's money to feel better.
With the growing list of questions business cannot ask, the use of Statement Analysis in the hiring process ("Employment Analysis") reveals the information employers need to make decisions.
Employment Analysis is specifically designed for each business' needs. As each business is unique, the "expected" must shift, in analysis, to the context. Entry level positions and senior management positions hold very different expectations. Both want honest and both want the best of the applicants, but the expectations within language is very different.
Analysts are taught to shift the paradigm of principle to the context of the employer's needs. It is complex and one must be proficient in detecting deception and content analysis before venturing into this specialized field. Once there, the analyst's worth will soon be realized by the company.
While companies remain handcuffed in questions, the analyst needs only a few questions including the most powerful:
"Tell us everything you'd like us to know about yourself. USE FULL PAGE."
When this is skillfully analyzed, the results often amaze employers. Here are some recent samples:
"This person has a history of low level drug trade in another state."
As he attempted to impress with his "sales skills" he used his own experiences not realizing that he was giving away his criminal history in another state which would later on be verified, even though the company only runs a state background check.
"This person uses the language of addiction."
The language of addiction is something the analyst is trained to spot. It is a specialized field, all within itself.
What makes it a variable is this:
Someone in sobriety can make an excellent employee. Those who maintain their sobriety often indicate so by very strong personal responsibility. They 'speak their own language.'
Yet, trauma can trigger relapse. The employer cannot ask, "Hey, what are your strengths and by the way, are you using cocaine currently?"
While one will simply parrot "client-speak", the one guarding his or her sobriety will use distinctive language showing strong personal responsibility.
I once hired a nurse who's license to practice nursing was suspended due to alcoholism. She took a position, while awaiting the return of her nursing license, that was entry level care of patients at just above minimum wage.
She proved to be an excellent work, obtaining a wage that was almost 3 times less than her normal pay. It was a job that required no college education and some employees did not have high school diplomas.
As the months passed, I watched her quietly and patiently take lectures on "how its supposed to be done" from those 20 years younger than she, with no medical experience, education or training.
She listened politely and continued to work diligently, at near minimum wage, for the best of her clients. Her humility was inspirational to behold.
When her license was up before the board, I wrote a lengthy letter describing her openness, honesty, and humility that once reduced me to being teary-eyed. Her license was restored and I was a better person for having known her.
Good companies want honest people who learn from their mistakes.
Liars bring trouble.
Lots.
In the language of addiction, the sober knows that truth must be maintained as lying is a gateway to relapse.
We screen for violence. This is handled for law enforcement in an entirely separate chapter, yet it is important for business.
"This applicant uses the language of violence and no interview is recommended" was ignored by a company, desperate for entry level positions. The language showed poor impulse control combined with one easily insulted. The employee first threatened and then assaulted a client and was escorted off premise by police. This was within the first 90 day probation period. The analysis concluded that it was not "if" but "when."
The Moral Narcissist
Moral Narcissism is not a diagnosis but a descriptive term in which the applicant has a very high view of his or her own moral and/or ethical opinions. This high view is such that the one cannot help but hold those who do not share her high view in contempt. It is a disaster for companies. The "social justice warrior" is a moral narcissist with a specific agenda of which he will "crusade" upon while at your company. It is not a question of "if", but "when."
We all feel good when we volunteer to help others. Even listing this on a resume is appropriate. But when one identifies himself or herself by such activities, (point 1) we often find point 2 to follow:
A mandate for others. "I think everyone should work at a food pantry..." which is fine to hold to, but our context is the employment hiring process. "I teach my wonderful children that this is the key to life; giving back to the community!"
Giving back to the community is great, but its inclusion in the interview process should be carefully considered, especially at lower paying jobs where the applicant may not have professional success and has an acute need for recognition...a recognition that may not be in the company's material interest.
Moral narcissism is as a result of guilt and an acute need to feel morally superior to others.
1. the person has a need to feel morally superior;
2. The person has the need to broadcast to obtain attention;
3. the person has the need to despise and insult those who do not agree.
It is more evident when standards of morality are not embraced, or are destroyed or removed entirely. In its vacuum, human nature is both uncomfortable and vulnerable. Those with a powerful need to be seen as "special" specifically in the realm of comparison to others, fall prey more readily than others.
This is not lost on the politician.
The humorous, "But who will save the children?" cry is used to divert and it is an insult to the intelligence, but it works. It says "if you agree with me, you are superior to others" which, by consequence, leads to contempt for others.
Moral narcissism boasts of tolerance while being exhaustively intolerant.
This is a logical expression because the moral narcissist, herself, is enslaved to her own emotions, with emotions a cruel taskmaster due to transiency.
If you've ever volunteered your time to help others, you know it feels emotionally satisfying to do go in this world. We all experience this. Yet:
Do you elevate your morals above others? It is likely that most of us do, but are you open to alternative opinions? Are your viewpoints able to be given to scrutiny?
Do you view others as morally inferior to you personally? Not their view points, but others, as people, on a personal basis.
Here comes the kicker:
Does it lead you to insult or want to insult those who disagree with your opinion?
Do you need to silence those who do not share your "moral highground"?
This is why the "tolerant" and "moral" most often resort to violence. While labeling those who disagree "fascist", they literally seek to coerce the opposition into silence: the very definition of fascism.
Having tolerance does not mean acceptance, but it means you are willing to hear and if disagree, abide difference of opinions.
When your position leads you to despise another, you've been exploited by the moral narcissist.
When your position leads you to silence debate, you've been taken.
When your position leads to attacking others, not others' positions, but to attacking others, you've been exploited by a clever and successful politician.
A read an interesting tweet :
"If you tolerated the vulgarity on display in the "March for Women" forgive me for ignoring your outrage over Trump's indecency.
The point being that the response to the crude and inappropriate remark was not measured.
Have your morals undergone a dramatic change in the last few years?
Does embracing these morals from politicians or hollywood make you feel proud of yourself that those things you were raised with are now not just obsolete but immoral?
Have things you have long believed to be right, now appear wrong, but only in recent years?
Have you echoed the deceptive politician's stance of "evolving positions"? This is what used to be called "flip flopping", "pandering to polls" or outright deception, within politics. Now it is considered a valued trait.
When one has a very high view of one's own morals; so high that he or she is incapable of refraining from addressing them during the employment hiring process,
The results for employment are predictable.
This is something that employers should carefully understand as the threat to the company posed by the moral narcissist is acute. The moral narcissist most always gives herself away in the first question where she is asked, "Tell us everything..." or in the interview process.
Regarding the inappropriate comment by Donald Trump:
1. Have you ever made an inappropriate comment?
2. Do you know someone who has made an inappropriate comment?
The lure to talk about one's own moral superiority is central to the moral narcissist's satisfaction: 'I am above all others and you, potential employer, are wise enough to spot this.'
The extreme reaction to it projects guilt of a far deeper and immoral nature.
When the moral narcissist applies for the job, he or she is often incapable of restraint. Because the moral position identifies her as a person, even resistance to it ("hey, I don't want to talk politics") can cause an unmeasured response, including violence from the one advocating "peace."
Recall the 50 something woman who had to be removed from a plane. She was so "moral" that she could not sit next to someone who disagreed with her choice of politician. It sounds absurd because it is absurd.
Would you hire her?
What if a customer walked in wearing an American flag pin?
Would she be able to contain her self righteous pedantic way?
In the opening "Tell us everything you want us to know about yourself" the analysis begins with the presupposition:
"I am going to hire this person." In analysis, the applicant is going to go from Questionnaire to Interview appointment unless he or she talks us out of it.
What is typically found is this:
"My name is Jane Doe. I live in ****** with my husband and two children.
I am a hard worker and enjoy learning new things. I love dealing one on one with customers. I worked through high school and college as a waitress and enjoyed the interaction with customers. After I graduated from college, I moved to **** where I took a position as a line manager. I supervised cash registers and inventory. I also had to do those employee evaluations. It was here that I learned how to deal with difficult employees. I am very good at deescalation of both upset customers and irate employees. When my second child was born, she had complications, so I had to leave my job to care for her. When she was a few years older, I returned to work..."
The pattern is typical:
1. Incomplete Social Introduction. The applicant does not want to give personal information because this is a job application not a Facebook post. ISI is (+) This speaks to professional boundaries.
Minimal personal information with the reason for not being in the work force given (appropriate).
2. Distancing Language with customers: the word "with" between people indicates distance. Here, the distancing language is seen, even in high school and college, and it suggests professional boundaries. (+)
3. Assertions. We want to hear that one is hard working. With "very good", we note that "very" modifies "good" and generally indicates comparison. Above, she said she was "very good" in deescalation skills. We now know to ask,
"Have you ever worked with those who were not good in deescalation skills?" because she is comparing herself to someone else. This is true for "very hard worker", meaning "hard work" is sensitive to her: it may be because she has been lazy (-), or it may be that she has worked next to lazy workers (+). She teaches us what questions to ask.
What follows is typically seen, with perhaps more than 20% of applicants:
"My name is Jane Doe. Me and my wonderful long term partner have lived here for 2 full years now. We have a wonderful relationship and love doing all sorts of charity work in our community. There are 4 lovely and wonderful children between us who bring the most delight to us, even in the darkest times! We love them more than anything! We give ourselves and our lives for them, as all parents should! We are totally into the outdoors, but also care for our cats. We have 7! Mr. Sprinkles is the oldest. We rescued him from an abusive place where we personally paid for lawyers to help clean this horrid excuse for a shelter clean up. I believe we are to take care of this planet! Besides this we believe in helping others and doing good. My morals come from my wonderful mother who raised us children by herself. It was there I learned the valuable lessons that give me my strong moral compass today. I also love to cook! No, I am not a chef, but I do love to make some of the most promising meals. This past Thanksgiving, my partner and I delivered Turkeys to the homeless veterans of our great country, at the ******** Shelter.... I believe everyone should do their fair share. People need to live and let live, and do what is right at all times, no matter what. This is how work should be done by everyone, together, for a common goal in team building."
She then added two lines about work characteristics. The second line shifted from "I" to the universal "you" which indicated a very poor and spotty employment history.
If you work the statement from the beginning, and let it guide you, you will quickly see what to expect from this applicant should you hire her.
Social Justice Warriors (moral narcissists with a specific agenda) will either find or create the very event that they stand for. You, the company, will pay for it.
Without going into deep analysis, she has given us some strong insight into her personality, via statement analysis including:
"My name is Jane Doe" is expected and a norm. From there, she wrote, "Me and my wonderful long term partner" raising several concerns:
1. Gender neutral. Companies do not want to know about your partner. They want to know about your work ethic. They do not ask the gender of a partner. By using gender neutral, this far in the beginning, the applicant wants you to consider why she is concealing the gender. Therefore, the gender of her partner, unknown here, is a priority.
One applicant thought he should be hired because of the high salary of his wife!
Another thought he should be hired because he had "...a good relationship w gf."
With "wonderful partner" even the new analyst knows that this may be problematic, including possible domestic violence.
Object: "I would describe my partner as wonderful!"
Answer: On a job application?? Remember the context. This is not a Facebook Social media smiley face: it is the job application process in which companies are looking for honest, good workers.
The analyst is now on 'alert' for any possible social crusading and the potential for claims of discrimination.
2. "long term" is unnecessary and when taken in context with "2 full years now" you are seeing possible instability.
3. "my wonderful partner"
This is a vital insight into the applicant.
Not only does she want you to consider why she is concealing the gender of her partner but she wants you to know that her partner is "wonderful."
We are not hiring the partner!
There is nothing inappropriate or unusual about this statement until you place it in a professional setting: this is an employment application; not a public Facebook compliment for the world to see.
The employer must now consider 'moral narcissism' to see if this need for 'grandiose' (often an indication of a troubled relationship) is going to continue in the statement.
If disagreed with, the moral narcissist is going to claim the co worker or customer is mentally ill (phobic) and morally reprehensible (hate) and unworthy of being heard.
If you do not agree with her, you have not insulted her belief about ___, but you have declared her to not be a person.
Expect a formal complaint filed with "justice" being in the form of money.
Companies do not want to know about a partner: they want to know work ethic! But her need to use descriptive terms in the employment process show a distinct low self awareness.
The applicant went on to boast of her charitable work and lectures on morality.
These may all be true and may be all fine attributes and there is nothing wrong with them except the context: employment.
It begs the question: if this person is so wonderful, why is she applying for this position?
She gave very little information about employment characteristics deliberately. Her language elevated self and her own moralizing.
Pedantic
The moral narcissist lectures others. She elevated her own emotions and opinions above others. She even lectured what other people should do. Again, this is not wrong, within itself, but it is most inappropriate in the job application process.
She thinks very highly of her own morals.
In the hiring process, the applicant presents his or her best front.
If she boasts here with her best presentation, what do you think she will be like on the job?
*What do you think will happen the first time a co worker does not hold her in the high esteem she holds herself in?
*What do you think will happen the second time a co worker disagrees with her?
Employees talk to each other. It is natural.
What do you think would happen when an employee tells her that he voted for a candidate she was against?
Emotions are notoriously unstable. At any given moment, our heart rate can increase at the spoken word of another. We can have a dramatic change of emotion at the sound of music, the taste of food, or even color observed.
When one believes that their morals, stemming from self, (no standard) are higher than all others (this is their religion, even when claiming atheism), the standard is not only highly changeable, but any disagreement (or lack of acknowledgement) is an insult to the subject, personally.
How long until the moral narcissist gives her pedantic lectures to customers?
How deep is the insult?
The moral narcissist defines herself by her current and often fashionably and politically correct belief system. The rage that comes from disagreement can drive her to do things she normally would not do.
Disagreements
We see this in social media and we see this in life, where the moral narcissist breaks off relationships because someone voted for someone he or she did not vote for. The reaction is not measured.
We saw this recently in the McCann case. Rather than say "I disagree with Point A in the analysis", the moral narcissist feels personally attacked by disagreement. It is as to say
"Your analysis fails to recognize who I am, as a person, and insults, not my intelligence, but me, in my core..."
This leads to insults, attacks, slander, libel and even threats of violence.
Hence, the responses ranging from "you have hate" to attempts to embarrass, harass, stalk, to even threats of violence.
Over the years I have had those who disagree with analysis make threats of violence, call my employer, call police, photoshop pictures of me and my children, and so on. The rage within them was deep. Rather than disagree, the moral narcissist attacks. Some attacks are meant to humiliate into silence, while others are more coercive. In this, they reveal themselves.
They project their own character and lack of morals, without realization:
Instead of disagreeing with a point, they assign a motive.
"He just wrote that to get clicks on his site"
When motive is attached without evidence or even suspicion, the analyst should recognize projection. The moral narcissist is a slave to emotions and demands this tyranny upon others.
She sees illicit motives everywhere because he or she, personally, would illicitly capitalize on a case should the opportunity arise. She reveals herself.
This is also precisely how thieves are discerned in the interview process and why he specifically ask for opinions on theft, often using a sliding scale of morality.
"Have you ever witnessed someone stealing from a company you worked for?"
"What should happen to the co worker who stole $100 from the cash register?"
"What do you think should happen to the co worker who took $5 out of the cash register because he forgot lunch...?"
Moral Narcissism and Suits
Because the person's morals all come from within (her own emotions) there is an elevation of the importance of emotions. This is obvious when emotion trumps reality. If a tall white male "feels" that he is a "short black female", society used to offer professional intervention. Why? Because the disconnect between perception and reality indicated misalignment and the consequences are to be avoided.
Absurdity the Result of Competition
Today, it is "celebrated" by politicians and media. Should someone want, willingly, professional intervention, it is very doubtful that anyone, psychological or religious, will be willing to help.
Why?
Why is there no freedom of choice?
The answer is key to understanding and protecting your company.
The moral narcissist shortly reveals the most exhaustive intolerance for others. This is often following assertions of tolerance.
Emotions are, by nature, tyrannical for all of us. We are often counseled to "take a breath" and "wait 24 hours before hitting send!" and other such advice that is designed to overrule emotion with logic.
We used to prize self control and its lack of practice, including in child raising and sports, is directly related to domestic violence.
(We have a most specific way of weeding out those who should never carry lethal force in a position of authority.)
Moral narcissists take emotions to levels that, once they overrule reason, logic and science, must either be bowed to, or they will bring acute negative consequence.
Most "fake hate" events come from moral narcissist/social justice warriors. They reveal themselves to be liars; pragmatic liars, who, when it serves their own needs, will bring deep lasting and even irreparable harm to others. This includes risking an innocent person go to prison just to satisfy an emotion within.
If she is wiling for three innocent males to go to prison for many years just to satisfy a fleeting emotional need of hers, what do you think she will do to your company?
The applicant, or subject, is telling you:
My feelings are more important than the material needs of your company.
With all this emphasis upon feelings, once disagreed with, not only is the moral narcissist insulted, but he moral narcissist is so hurt (remember, nothing is more important to the person than the person's own feelings) that he will be filled with resolve to seek "redress" by the company who "offended" him.
This is seen when even lawyers say, "you don't have a legal leg to stand on" but the subject will not relent.
This subject is capable of all unknown damage, including not only your bottom line, but your reputation because it is not that you have insulted her, but you have de-humanized her entire center of living: her very being. In a religious sense, you have "insulted her god" or her most "sacredly held beliefs."
A suit will follow and a failed suit will be followed by bitterness, possible harassment, stalking, violence, protests, and so on.
The moral narcissist is exhaustively intolerant.
This is because disagreement with an issue is, to the moral narcissist, a delegitimization of the person, herself.
He or she does not entertain opposing views due to the lofty self view and practice of subjugating reason, but immediately declares the one who disagrees to be suffering from both mental illness, and moral depravity. They have learned this from their leaders. Hence, it is now frequently seen in suits the words "phobic" and "hate."
Projection
Donald Trump's "Grab them by the *****" was a crude, inappropriate remark.
Yet, our reaction to it reveals us.
First: How we reacted to this crudity tells others about us.
I have heard this expression before used about males, ('grab them by their b****s'). Would media have played it up, as central to the leadership of the United States had it been to male genitalia?
Secondly, this question must be asked of ourselves:
Have you ever made a crude remark using genitalia?
then, ask:
Do you know anyone over the age of 21 who has not?
The extreme reactions reveal two things:
1. Political expediency
2. Projection
1. Political expediency is the crass misapplication for political gain. It is hypocritical, knows it is hypocritical , and does not care. The actress who 'cried' over it is an example of moral narcissism; the "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel." Think of the CNN host who "cried" when her guest used a word that she was so far above, that she could not bear to hear, even when the context was something she believed in "No, no, no, I don't care. Do not use that word on my show!" The guest was left utterly undone in the race to see "who is the most moral" on the show.
It was an example of how quickly human nature, in the vacuum of right from wrong, has the need to compete with another.
Mark Fuhrman put his and on the Bible and lied about "never using the N word."
What should he have said?
The truth: "yes, I have, thousands of times. Sometimes in anger, sometimes in joking, sometimes to friends, sometimes in music..." and take the weapon of political correctness out of the hand of the lying attorney. Instead, he lied under oath and a killer walked free.
2. Projection
We reveal our own hypocrisy in how far we carry our 'insult' over this crude remark.
Abortion is, perhaps, the most dreadful decision a family and doctor could ever face. Yet, it is the wholesale slaughter of unborn children sold for body parts in a billion dollar industry that is defended. Planned Parenthood butchers make the few psychopathic nazi who harvested human hair, skin and teeth of the Jews look almost harmless in comparison.
"...you strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel."
The "gnat" and the "camel" is intended to highlight absurdity. Those who disagree with Planned Parenthood are "hateful" and "nazi" but especially "misogynist", that is, they specifically "hate women" even though half of the babies ripped apart are female.
Readers here know that when a position is only defended by labeling those who disagree mentally and morally unfit, the position, itself, is weak.
Can you imagine being told that if you disagree with my analysis conclusion that you are suffering from mental illness and are so morally depraved that your opinion cannot be heard? What would you think of such a science that needs to be defended by coercion, insult, arrest, loss of job, and so on?
Would you want to hire someone like this in your company?
Would you like to attend meeting after meeting with the all knowing, all righteous pedantic moral narcissist and then have to deal with the morale being destroyed?
Hire one who holds to absurdity and count the weeks it takes to have the first "incident of offense" and note the reaction. The supervisor or manager will now be charged with "soothing the hurt feelings" of the "morally superior" employee who cannot understand why the manager does not share his or her outrage. It is very stressful.
Which poses the greater threat?
The man who raped a woman, or the man who made an inappropriate comment?
Which is the greater crime?
The ideology that prescribes and executes the rape of women, or the person who identified and exposed the ideology?
Which is more important:
The document that revealed world wide conspiratorial theft and subsequent deaths of thousands, or
the messenger?
Hence, insight into main stream media. With the overt deception, it is no longer "partisan" politics; it is survival of a war for freedom.
This highlights the personality traits of those most vulnerable to the politicians who gain their support. It "feels" good to feel superior to others and this, in human nature, always leads to tyranny. For ancient examples, look at the Apostle Paul's stinging rebuke to a church in Galatia. In their race to who was "the holiest", human nature took over and their short little comments ("biting"), would lead to destruction ("consumed one of another") if not halted. It is human nature plainly displayed.
If we cannot feel good about our accomplishments, we will celebrate the failure of another and now have a tool to which measure ourselves favorably.
The one who says, "I cannot even see the person who did not vote for my candidate" is revealing his or her own nature. Just how much fun do you think it will be to work with such?
It is a true assertion: our transgressions always look so much worse on someone else.
Competition
Humans compete; it is in our nature. To give all the children first place ribbons in a race is to betray them to the cruel realities that await them.
Once one implements a "rule" for themselves, and feels smug about it, the person next to them will often feel inadequate and quickly imitate or adopt the same "rule" or practice or belief. Then, it will not take long for a third one to come along and make the rule even a bit larger to be "really" righteous. Then comes the copying stage and then the competitive stage.
The end result is they turn on each other. They "bite" at each other, in small amounts, until the end result of "devouring" one another.
Moral narcissism can impact us all. We are all subject to it and all will feel its consequences.
Companies now fear courts more than ever. They fear "hurting the feelings" of employees and will, at times, be forced to hire those who do not serve their best interests just to avoid fraudulent suits. Lawyers fear "hurting the feelings" of a judge, and insurance companies would rather pay out than risk running into a moral narcissist judge who 'legislates from the bench' and 'dictates morals.'
Companies routinely make payouts in exchange for dropping the allegation while the accuser has fabricated the allegation.
Moral narcissism has no ceiling and it has no basement. Once the dramatic line has been crossed where "reality" is now determined by "feelings", rather than by logic, reason and scientific determination, tyranny follows. This person will not be reasoned with and the facts are of no consequence.
Alignment takes place, leading to the next stage of Competition.
The vacuum is quickly exploited by the politician and the victim aligns herself with a politician/cause movement and must surround herself with it. Yet, even with 95% of all media and 99% of Hollywood, the person is not satisfied. She must go on the attack and find the tiny minority that disagrees with her and post
"you have hate! you hate!" or in the case of a disturbed millionaire who plays pretend for a living, "he will not divide us, he will not divide us" as he is taken away in handcuffs. To show his tolerance and love, he assaulted someone who disagreed with him.
The violence we have seen post election tells us the tyranny we escaped.
Human Competition.
The moral narcissist's need to be "moral" underlines the deep immoral feelings and guilt from such. It is not enough to just assimilate or embrace that which is "politically correct" (this wording reveals the very source of the illogic)
In a race to see:
Who is the most moral?
and soon:
Who is the most victimized?
leading to: Who gets the most compensation.
With "identity politics" the politician divides us. We are no longer Americans, but now must have a specific identification that is uniquely different from others, to 'feel special.' Of course, once identification is embraced, we are now hyphenated and competition follows suit.
Every "good guy" must have the "bad guy."
Hitler's "moral narcissism" targeted the Jews.
Today it is the "deplorables", often white, male, or working black, middle class.
The competition seeks to learn which one of us is the most uniquely moral?
We must "one up" each other.
...the most victimized?
the most under appreciated?
...the most in need of special status?
The division takes place, competition steps in and we are divided and the only one who benefits is the politician.
With the competition, where does it end?
Hence, we now take the absurd as truth and we are left with:
"57 genders."
Try avoiding offense and subsequent 'discrimination suit' at the work place with that!
If someone is so psychologically damaged to embrace this, do you think a simple apology for using the wrong word will suffice$ ?
Absurdity
Absurdity is the result of submission to emotions.
I "feel" like it is raining out, and even though the sun is shining, those who dare say "but the sun is shining" are nazi, phobic, hateful and deplorable.
When police departments have to hire under arbitrary mandates by politi