Parsing The "High Conflict Personality" - Does Trump Qualify?

"Hey! I'm a high conflict guy! Deal with it!"


Evidently, there's a new subclass of psycho that has been flying under the radar and which needs to be integrated into the maelstrom of mentally unstable misfits, including malignant narcissists and authoritarians. That is, the "high conflict personality".   According to Bill Eddy, one of the 'high priests' of this specialty area:

"Narcissistic high conflict people like being unpredictable and beholden to no one. They hate rules and feel superior to them. So being consistent feels confining and they generally like to keep everyone else guessing. It’s rule by personality, not by logic or law. Sociopathic high conflict people will say (lie) and do whatever is convenient or appealing at the time, without conscience or consistency. They like instability because it keeps everyone else off-balance. This especially can be demonstrated with a lack of loyalty to his associates, discarding them at will and turning his attention to new shiny objects and people (wives, for example)."


This brand of looneytune sounds like Donald Trump and with good reason: it basically nails his unstable, predatory shtick to a tee. The question is: Can such an unbalanced person govern with any degree of efficacy - and the answer nearly 100 days into this misbegotten presidency appears to be a resounding 'no'.  Nothing Trump has done thus far, from his half-assed, juvenile "executive orders", to his impetuous cruise missile strike on Syria, to his bellicose rhetoric in confronting Kim Jong Un over the North Korea issue, shows he possesses the leadership mettle to inspire any confidence. He is more a buffoon, and totally ignorant at that. Hence, his only ploy or play is to try to keep others off balance. Or to use the phrase of one HuffPost contributor: "A mad monkey with a gun loose on the street".

He does this by constant appeal to conflict.  Is this a dangerous and demented shtick? Yes it is. According to Bill Eddy who wrote the definitive book on high conflict personalities,  Trump is  “…potentially the most dangerous person in politics since Adolf  Hitler.”  Got that? The most dangerous politico since Adolf Hitler.

 In an interview with a San Diego journalist,  referencing the quote, Eddy was asked: "Clearly a terrifying opinion — yet we do remember the ardent hordes of Hitler’s followers. Can you elaborate?"

Eddy replied:

"There are similarities regarding how he connects with his followers, so that they become more passionately connected when he and they are criticized. It strengthens their bond. It’s a major part of my book. In a nutshell, it’s because he uses emotions instead of logic, and uses repetition on a greater scale than most politicians since Hitler. He has conditioned his followers to his simple arguments from day one. Hitler was known for spewing ten times as many words as any other politician, and he used modern media for voice (daily speeches  on the radio) and face (movies of him speaking at his huge rallies). These emotional media projecting face and voice are much more powerful on our brains than printed words."

In other words, Trump has gone for the "lizard brains" of his doting followers and enslaved them wholesale. This is something that neuroscientist Robert Ornstein once raised, in his book, 'The Evolution of Consciousness' and later works, on how easily the limbic system is activated and overtakes reason. In fact, we are talking about an entire brain complex, referred to as the "R-complex" - for example by Carl Sagan in his book, 'The Dragons of Eden'.

The main aspect to note concerning the R-complex and its dynamics is that primitive emotion rules, and logic is far removed from any integration. It's as if reason doesn't exist. This is also why it's impossible to get through rationally to the Trump groupies and voters. Their brains are pitched to the emotional centers of the R-complex not to the neocortex higher thought centers. You could as well be
arguing with a Komodo Dragon.

It's unsettling enough to find these properties in ordinary citizens, but  absolutely terrifying for them  to be associated with leaders whose fingers are on the nuclear football.  This is because the lizard brain, i.e. R-complex, doesn't weigh responses in proportion to stimuli. If buzzed by a fly it will reach for a sledge hammer, and if a hornet's nest has been built on a deck it will take out the flame thrower. If  the house burns down "them's the breaks".  This is why having an unhinged "high conflict" nut like Trump at the helm for this Korean crisis ought to keep everyone up at night - even the fool who scribbled a recent NY Times piece to the effect there's nothing to worry about.  "Despite the showdown there won't be a war."  Will you place a bet on that, fool?

When the same SD journalist asked Eddy:  "Do you really believe that, per his leadership, 'sooner or later we will have a war on our hands?'”

Eddy replied by quoting a statement from his book:

“He tends to inspire violence and lack of restraint — which leads to lack of physical restraint, which leads to organized aggressive behavior — which leads inevitably to war. He will “split” the world into allies and enemies. We will have more chaos than we do now in the Middle East — and on American soil. Friends and family members will start hating each other, and school children will become disrespectful and violent towards people who look different from them.”

When  Eddy was asked if we ought to scared, that is those of us with functional higher brain centers, he replied:

"Yes. Moderate Republicans  may limit his damage and keep him tied up in procedural  knots but it won't be enough."

What we need is the Dems to take over the House next year and begin impeachment proceedings as soon as feasible. It is clear we can't depend on the Reepos to do their jobs. They have too much invested in this maniac to help push through their radical agenda. Stay tuned.

Did Any Of The Reeps Grasp Obama's Message?

It is incredible that so many believe in "the Flynn effect" which insists IQs of average humans today are inexorably increasing when the evidence is all around us that this is a myth. Most people don't even possess the basic thinking skills to parse BS from fact, and too many are misled by screechifying, splenetic idiots into reinforcing their bombastic tropes. WHERE is the evidence for higher IQs? I don't see it!

As a case in point, with all the huff and puff from the Republicans based on braggadocio and playing upon people  with weak minds,  the latter appear to believe there's a Muslim terrorist behind every door and their kills are whoppingly large. The most high profile Reep in this regard is Donald Trump whose "strongman shtick and nonchalance over the beating of a protestor" as well as his "zeal for waterboarding" caused The Economist (Nov. 28-Dec. 4, p. 24) to pronounce Trump:

"giving off an incipient whiff of bouffant fascism".

Couldn't have said it better! I also like that "bouffant' touch given I label him "the Donna".

 The facts, as spelled out in a front page NY Times editorial two days ago,  say the opposite to the hysteria 'the Donna' and his collaborators are sowing, e.g.:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all legally sold with the benediction of the NRA. So don't hand me any bollocks that we are "safer" from terrorists because we can own an AR-15 or Bushmaster .223 when we are fucking killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains have taken control and they are being ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason. Well, when you read some of their hysterical, reactionary blogs - or even comments on forums like The Financial Times (in which I was called a "statist traitor troll" yesterday by a dunce nicknamed "Trollbo" for god's sake, for mentioning the loophole in the gun laws permitting those on the no fly list to buy AR-15s).. Don't these jackasses hear in their minds' ears how they sound? Are they mentally tone deaf? This is not a matter of "free speech" - but of being responsible and mature enough to use one's right to free speech in a responsible way!

In respect to (2), I note it was Arthur Koestler in his 'Ghost in the Machine' who first elaborated on the "paleocortex" as the most primitive region of the brain, harboring the most primitive impulses including territoriality, conquest, lust, and tribal demarcations, i.e. explaining the current yen to isolate and ostracize Muslim Americans from the rest of us. It was Carl Sagan, in his 'Dragons Of Eden', who made similar points by referencing the "R-complex". And it was Robert Ornstein in his 'Evolution of Consciousness" who noted the reptilian region of the brain as a regressed "simpleton". This was as part of his general theory of brain dynamics based on the "simpleton" concept, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/secret-lives-of-brain-been-there-done.html

Well, it appears that the response to President Obama's speech last night (on American reaction to  San Bernardino and ISIL) shows a plurality of Americans are operating with their reptilian brains as opposed to their higher brains (the neocortex). The GOP response especially shows that they are either all under the spell of regressive collective simpletons, or the R-complex.

None of them grasped, for example, that part of Obama's speech DID embody security strategy, namely warning us not to treat fellow Americans differently because they are Muslims. Not calling them "ragheads" or using other hateful epithets. Why? Because it simply is stupid and doesn't redound to our national security interests. Indeed, as he explained, "this is just what ISIL" wants. This "cult of thugs" which represents an extreme end of Islam, profits handsomely when it can tell all Muslims living here in the U.S. they are not wanted. This then can pave the way for them to acknowledge it, as when they're called "ragheads" or worse on social media posts, thereby justifying (in their minds ) waging jihad. After all, what are they gaining from living amongst us? Only hate and predjudice.

Neither have these boneheads grasped that dispatching large numbers of Americans into another ground war is not the answer. Yet in a poll presented on CBS Early Show 53 % of Americans want Americans sent in for a ground force invasion.  And some seriously buy that these morons are the beneficiaries of the "Flynn Effect" - which I already dissed in an earlier post, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-flynn-effect-are-we-all-becoming.html

In respect of ground forces being used on ISIS, as I noted in my post of Nov. 16:

"the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).

But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders",   Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.)  Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all"

The problem with the U.S. mounting a unilateral ground war invasion is that we'd then be seen as marshalling a "crusade" against Islam - and instead of just having the thugs of ISIS against us, we'd have the entire Muslim world and Islam. How hard can this be to drive through the brains of Americans? Well, pretty difficult if they are operating at reptilian brain level.

People need to force their brains to act in accord with their higher cognitive centers in this time of terror hype and ramped up hysteria over remote risks, and not allow themselves to be pawns for demagogues or histrionic bloggers. This means that reason must be in the forefront of how we deal with the world today, and that includes processing that we are slaughtering far more of each other with easily purchased lethal weapons than the radical Muslims are.

That means, btw, that the probability of being shot and killed by a fellow American is far greater than being killed in an Islamic massacre such as happened in San Bernardino! People need to bear that in mind before allowing their reptilian brains to seize control and go ballistic.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/65150/gutless-wonders-america-gladly-thrusts-its-neck-under-the-jackboot

Want A Better Future? Then The 'Evil Brain's' Tendencies Must Be Controlled

As we commence a new year the probability is we will see as many crimes, wars, mass murders, serial killings, political betrayals, and economic obstruction as we have seen in 2013. This brings up the issue of evil, and what can be done about it. To the Physicalist or Scientific Materialist, of course, there is no such thing as "Satan" or  "the Devil" - those are merely cartoon copouts for the unthinking.

Evil exists, but not as an infinite negative absolute, or personified in a spirit entity, but rather as a dynamic of our own brains. What most ordinary people refer to as “evil” is easily explainable by the scientific Materialist in terms of brain evolution. Thus, Homo Sapiens is fundamentally an animal species with a host of animal/primitive instincts residing in its ancient brain or paleocortex.


The paleocortex sits evolutionarily beneath the more evolved mesocortex and neocortex, the latter of which crafts concepts and language[1]. One clever person has compared this tri-partite brain structure to a car design welding a Lamborghini to a Model T Ford chassis, with a 1957 Chevy engine to power the Lamborghini. If an automotive engineer can conceive of such a hybrid beast, I'd be interested to know exactly how he thinks it would run.


Given the preceding brain structural defect, there is much evidence that human behavior will get progressively worse as the complexity inherent in technological and globalized societies increases, but brain evolution is unable to keep pace with it. Basically, we are a species with the capability of making nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles but with an R-complex imbued with reptilian tendencies[2].

Indeed, in terms of adaptability to technological society, the hybrid brain design is already theorized as one major cause of depression and mental illness in such societies[3] .

The behavior resulting from this hybrid brain is bound to be morally mixed, reflecting the fact that we literally have three brains contending for emergence in one cranium. Behavior will therefore range from the most selfless acts (not to mention creative masterpieces) to savagery, carnal lust run amuck and addictions that paralyze purpose.

The mistake of the orthodox religionist is to associate the first mode of behavior with being human and not the latter. In effect, disowning most of the possible behaviors of which humans are capable.- and hence nine tenths of what makes us what we are. Worse, not only disowning these behaviors – but ascribing them to some antagonistic dark or negative force (“Satan”) thereby making them into a religious abstraction.

The neocortex then goes into over-drive, propelled by its ability to craft words for which no correspondents may exist in reality. Suddenly, our “souls” are at risk of being “lost to Satan” who will then fry us in “Hell” if we don't grab the right afterlife insurance policy. In effect, the religionist’s higher brain centers divide reality into forces of darkness and light, just like the ancient Manicheans.

As the divide grows and persists, certain behaviorally idealistic expectations come to the fore, and a mass of negative or primitive actions is relegated to “evil”. Humans tune in to this Zeitgeist, which is soon circulated everywhere, and begin to suppress all behaviors that they regard as defective or "sinful". They don’t realize or appreciate that humans are risen apes, and not fallen angels.

Are we all sinners as assorted fundamentalists and zealots claim? No, we’re an animal species saddled with a tri-partite brain whose higher centers often become self aware of the chasm between the base, atavistic and primitive behaviors (emanating from the reptilian brain) and the ideal  behavior conceived by the neocortex. The neocortical language centers then craft the term sin to depict the gulf between one and the other.

In this context, the concept of sin makes eminent sense. Sin emerges as the label placed on specific brands and forms of evil. In reality, sin is predicated on an exaggerated importance of humans in the universe. Thus, it elevates (in a perverse way) the importance of humans in an otherwise meaningless cosmos. With sin the overly self-important and morally smug, self-righteous human has at least the potential of offending his putative deity – thereby getting its attention – as opposed to being relegated to the status of a cosmic cipher. Sin is thus an attention getter to a mentally conceived Big Cosmic Daddy.


Despite this, sin is an invariably localized and reactive behavior at the personal, individual level. Sin impinges on and affects the deity (God-concept) that so many believe in. Take away the deity, and sin loses its allure and quickly becomes redundant. How can there be sin if there is no deity to offend or to notice sin and to tote up all the little black marks in its book of future judgment?

The Devil or Satan is simply the mental projection of the most primitive brain imperatives onto the external world. And yes, this imperative  is capable of  rape, economic exploitation and mass murder as well as genocide. A supernatural Satan need not be invoked, only the ancient brain residue of reptiles – acting collectively – aided and abetted by a language -obsessed neocortex, which finds it as easy to create neologisms to represent non-existent phantasms as to think. It thereby does the reptile brain’s bidding, manufacturing sins, as opposed to attempting to halt it.


If we know all this, how might we bring the "evil brain" as it were, under control to at least mitigate its sudden explosions of violence? Those manifested in terrorist bombings such as we've seen in Russia, or in mass killings such as Newtown last year, or in the mass slaughter now going on in Southern Sudan or the Central African Republic.

F0rtunately, we may well be on the cusp of controlling and regulating (at minimum) these atavistic brain tendencies which have produced everything from the Inquisition, to the Crusades, and even genocides. No human in his or her right mind could possibly dispute the fact that our species would be much better, operate more compassionately and perhaps even effectively in the social arena, if the brain could at least be subject to more regulation. At least the brains of those who need it. This has been exposed in the further development of quantum dot technology (see, e.g. 'The Quantum Dot: A Journey Into the Future of Microelectronics') .

The beauty of quantum dots is they can be specifically located in the exact brain regions where the most control is needed. If a feasible neural network mapping can be applied first, say to select input-output processing of hate and intolerance (as transmitted electro-chemical signals) in the brain's amygdala, is it not also possible to "disinfect" this tendency by altering the neural pathways and responses? Could the electro-chemical transfers effectively be cut off? Consider the most elemental input and output situation given by:


O o----------(e1)------(e2)------O (Z)

where e1 and e2 are two components by which an input at O yields a current (throughput)transferred to Z with information. The structure function of this would be: f(x1, x2) = x1 x2. But now suppose the component (e2) is negated or co-opted with another device. Then e2 = 0 and f(x1,x2) = 0. In other words the normal output one would expect is nullified.

We already know electro-chemical signals (via action potentials) are conveyed to  receptor neurons in the region of the amygdala. We note that when an axon is in its resting state it maintains a constant potential difference, or ‘resting membrane potential’ of –70 mV. When it is excited, it rises to a peak voltage of around 40 mV.  The latter basically arises from an uneven distribution of K+ (potassium) and Na+ (sodium) ions across the axon cell membrane relative to a collection of negatively charged protein molecules inside the cells.

Now, if neurons are stimulated – say by an electric shock from implants -  an electronic monitoring device will show the 40 mV ‘action potentials’ on the traces. An interesting phenomenon associated with this, is that no matter the size of the stimulus applied, the action potential peak remains the same. What this shows is that even an appliance, device or artificial neural network (to "train the brain's receptors") placed in the immediate pathway will not stop the signal propagation. Like solar x-rays that can incept total communication blackouts, a way or mode must be found to short circuit the whole transfer process.

Note further that each pulse peak for the action potential coincides with a polarization change in the axon. Thus, as the pulse moves to a given site on the axon, Na+ ions move into the axon. Though technically both potassium and sodium ions are involved, there is actually a preferential bias. This bias is what we'll need to exploit in creating an adequate neural network to regulate the reception of impulses. This particular bias inheres in a preferential transferal of Na+ ions through the axon membrane by a ratio that varies from 3:1 to 3:2 relative to K+ ions.

Thus, one way to engender a short circuit would be to alter the bias by altering the ion concentration at the axon membrane, say to 1:1. The synapses also have a role, of course, specifically the synaptic cleft. As I noted above, action potentials are constantly generated in an ‘all or nothing’ kind of way, and their endpoint is the synaptic cleft of the neuron. But here is where the ‘buck’ or rather the pulse, stops. Because as the axon has no choice in propagating the action potential, the neuron on the opposite side of the synapse (the post-synaptic cell) does have a choice of whether to fire or not fire when the potential arrives. If post synaptic neurons fired predictably with arrival of each and every action potential they’d be totally deterministic.

And boring. The fact that they need not fire, indicates a high degree of probability factored into the process. This process is depicted in the diagram (Fig. 2)  below in simplified view, based on treating the axons as simple electrical ‘cables’ and the ends as ‘terminals’. This is perhaps the essential modus operandi for the brain acting as self-programmable von Neumann machine, particularly since quantum mechanics can easily be factored in.

In the diagram, we focus on Axon 1 and note that when the action potential arrives at the terminal it’s depolarized. This depolarization enables Calcium ions (Ca+2) already within the terminal to diffuse out into the mediating space. These ions follow a concentration gradient, unlike the case of the Na+ ions in the sodium pump. As the ions migrate, then diffuse to the post-synaptic cell (at Axon 2), they leave a channel in their wake that allows quantal releases of neurotransmitter (shown as a solid dot). These, like the Ca+2 ions diffuse across to the post-synaptic cell(s).

One neurotransmitter is acetylcholine. If the transmission of this or any similar chemical is rapid firing will occur, if not it won’t. Note also that Axon 2 must have a way of eliminating neurotransmitters almost as soon as they arrive. For acetylcholine, the enzyme cholinesterase acts to break it down into choline and acetate. In these inactive forms the neuron is spared being in a state of maximal and continuous excitation that would otherwise destroy it.

Generalizing the electrical cable analogy, the synapses act as switches in the system, the ‘on’ or ‘off’ positions denoted by information, in the form of chemical messages, to cross the synaptic cleft and trigger firing of the post-synaptic neuron(s) or not. Most probably there are bundles of similar neurons linked together by their respective connections, to perform critical functions. One might refer to the neuronal super-assembly or 'super-circuit’ within which considerations such as networks, and optimization of paths as well as 'adjacency and order' take precedence.  Again, this is almost absurdly oversimplified since there really are no neurons that have only one connection to another. Indeed, we expect the typical neuron to have something like 10,000 connections to others.

But a start to how we might proceed is depicted  in the Kohonen SOM (Self-Organizing Map) in Fig. 3.  below. Again, I reiterate, I'm keeping this at the most basic level. To reinforce this, trials performed quickly disclose Kohonen SOM  is too oversimplified. For example, it's applicable only to a single layer but the brain region under scrutiny is multi-layered. In addition, each "grid" neuron is an output neuron only. In real life, one must have both input and output neurons.Technically, we would need to examine and use the Multi-Layer Perceptron Network.

Anyway, as the Kohonen (SOM) is implemented, each input pattern gives rise to a localized region of activity in the feature map against a background of lower activity.For example, the activity may be registered as relative voltages, and these in turn may signify the ratio of Na+ ions to K+ ions. Once the Kohonen SOM is entrained, the aggregation of the input pattern should cause a localized group of neurons to be active.

However, the activity will almost surely not be what is desirable, because the simplicity of the map doesn't allow us to make drastic changes to the configuration of action potential thresholds.  In this case, using quantum dot implants - say for a religious zealot's or Islamic terrorist's brain - might well send him/her into convulsions, or worse. We certainly don't wish to have happen to the religious extremist what transpired with the main character in 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' (i.e. after he was lobotomized at the end) we merely want to see his most reactive behavior tempered, so that he's tolerable, and more tolerant to others!  At the lowest threshold this would mean not doing harm to others, i.e. the evangelical grandma in Colorado who immersed her grandson in a tub of boiling water to "cure" him of Satan some years ago, or Islamic terrorists using suicide bombers to blow up trains in Russia- because they regard the Sochi Winter Olympics as "Satanic".

We ought to note here that already amazing steps have been made in terms of electronic implants, to control everything from over -eating to alcoholism. If these aberrant behaviors are within our purview, it is only a matter of time before excessive, meme (mind-virus) -driven zealous religiosity and its hate-driven actions derived from it are controlled.

See the following for information on the progress in electronic brain implants thus far:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-brain-implant.htm


http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/david-manners-semiconductor-blog/2010/11/brain-implants-in-10-20-years.html

If progress in this area succeeds then perhaps we might expect looking forward to at least one new year in which rampant mayhem no longer dominates.

---

[1] Author Arthur Koestler, to the best of my knowledge, first coined these terms in the 1967 edition of his book, The Ghost in the Machine. Since then they’ve been revived in other books but with differing nomenclature. For example, Carl Sagan in The Dragons of Eden, incorporates the paleocortex –limbic system into what he calls “the R-complex”.  Robert Ornstein in his 1991 work, The Evolution of Consciousness, incorporates the haphazard neurologic expression of one or more of these regions as “simpletons”.

[2] R-complex is the term used by Carl Sagan to denote the brain region with the most primitive tendencies, i.e. “performing dinosaur functions”. See, Sagan: The Dragons of Eden, 60.

[3] Solomon, The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression, 401.