|
Book Review
The Human Magnet Syndrome: Why We Love People Who Hurt Us by Ross Rosenberg Published 2013 Reviewed December 2018 |
Click image for author's site
In 2015 I read a book that changed my life: The Narcissism Epidemic. Click here to read the review.
Before I read that book, I presumed that Narcissism is deviant, that it's an annoying exception, because I had come from a background of stoic Scandinavian culture, Boy Scouts, church, and military service, all of which emphasized norms of duty and selflessness.
I didn't understand what was normal in society at large. I just understood what was normal for me. Until then, I had looked at life through my own eyes because they're the only eyes I had . . . that is, subjectively. That book helped me become more objective, get out of my own head, and see life as it really is.
After, I came to understand that Narcissism is not the exception. It's the rule. We're suffering a Narcissism Epidemic, and have been all of my life time, since the 1960s.
Before, whenever I encountered narcissistic behavior, I was indignant. Now, I'm not. Instead, I'm pleasantly surprised when I don't encounter it. Reading that book made me a lot less irritable and a lot more calm, circumspect, and appreciative of unselfish people.
One of the things I learned from that book is that Narcissism has dire economic consequences. The authors of The Narcissism Epidemic demonstrated how the financial crisis of 2006-2008 was caused by Narcissism.
So for me, as an Economist, Narcissism isn't just hurtful, annoying, or offensive. It's also relevant to my work. If I am to help people develop their economies, we need to face Narcissism squarely and overcome it. If we don't, it threatens to sabotage our best efforts, rendering them futile.
To achieve our goals, to do our work, we can not afford to tolerate Narcissism. We must confront it and defeat it.
Before I read that book, I presumed that Narcissism is deviant, that it's an annoying exception, because I had come from a background of stoic Scandinavian culture, Boy Scouts, church, and military service, all of which emphasized norms of duty and selflessness.
I didn't understand what was normal in society at large. I just understood what was normal for me. Until then, I had looked at life through my own eyes because they're the only eyes I had . . . that is, subjectively. That book helped me become more objective, get out of my own head, and see life as it really is.
After, I came to understand that Narcissism is not the exception. It's the rule. We're suffering a Narcissism Epidemic, and have been all of my life time, since the 1960s.
Before, whenever I encountered narcissistic behavior, I was indignant. Now, I'm not. Instead, I'm pleasantly surprised when I don't encounter it. Reading that book made me a lot less irritable and a lot more calm, circumspect, and appreciative of unselfish people.
One of the things I learned from that book is that Narcissism has dire economic consequences. The authors of The Narcissism Epidemic demonstrated how the financial crisis of 2006-2008 was caused by Narcissism.
So for me, as an Economist, Narcissism isn't just hurtful, annoying, or offensive. It's also relevant to my work. If I am to help people develop their economies, we need to face Narcissism squarely and overcome it. If we don't, it threatens to sabotage our best efforts, rendering them futile.
To achieve our goals, to do our work, we can not afford to tolerate Narcissism. We must confront it and defeat it.
From page 33, beginning of Chapter 5, "Introducing the Continuum of Self Theory."
Click to enlarge.
Since I became aware of this, I've continued to research the subject of Narcissism now and then. This ongoing research led me to the work of Ross Rosenberg, author of The Human Magnet Syndrome.
Of course I was also interested in this book at a personal level, as I have had a tendency to love people who hurt me. And, I've had others in my life, friends and family, who've suffered the same problem.
Why do I do that? Why does this keep happening? What is going on?
I began trying to address the problem by seeking help from religious leadership. But it turns out that positions of religious leadership attract Narcissists. They like being the center of attention.
They engaged in Victim Blaming: "Since the one thing all of these failed relationships share in common is you, you must be the problem." They proved to be useless and abusive.
Indeed, I found that a lot of religious teaching perpetuated the problem by producing masses of codependent, masochistic, martyric victims for narcissists to abuse. Sheep for wolves to devour, as it were, who are taught to abandon self-preservation by doing things like giving the shirt off their backs, turning the other cheek when they're attacked, and forgiving 70x7 or 490 times. To solve the problem, I had to look beyond cookie-cutter, boilerplate religious teaching that condemns selfishness and extols duty, sacrifice, and obedience, conditioning people to be "sheeple."
Don't get me wrong: I'm not an atheist or an agnostic. I'm still a believer, still a Christian. But as a grown man, as a fairly mature adult now, I've come to see that there are problems in religious groups and teachings that must be questioned, challenged, confronted, and corrected. Heresies.
Lives, and the well being of the weak and the defenseless, are at stake. We must view religious groups and activities very skeptically. Wolves in sheep's clothing, and all that (Matt 7:15). Be cunning as serpents, and innocent as doves (Matt 10:16). Weeds can, and do, grow in the wheat (Matt 13:24-30).
Instead of turning a blind eye, adults must be prepared to notice weeds and deal with them. This is what it means to be a mature, active layperson. Think independently and critically. Emulate the Bereans. Have the courage to fight for what's right, even if you're the only one doing it.
(For more on this subject, see my review of Ross Douthat's book Bad Religion.)
The Continuum of Self model depicted above is really helping me understand what is happening in a way that religious teaching, marital counseling, and individual therapy never did. As a fifty-five year old, I wish I had known about it forty years ago, when I was fifteen, when I met my first wife, my high school sweetheart, whom I would marry five years later, and lose seven years after that. It's so simple that I know I would have understood it then; and it could have saved me from a tragic marriage decision that launched a chain of events that have afflicted me since.
It shows how some of us are "Others Oriented" while others of us are "Self Oriented." In the stoic, dutiful, self-sacrificing background that I come from of Nordic culture, church, Boys Scouts, and military service, we were taught to be on the left side of the scale - the further, the better with sainthood at the extreme left, being the goal. Being anywhere near the right was condemned as "selfish." At the time my wife-to-be was on the far left of the continuum, a Codependent. But because of my background, I thought she was a saint. I was blind to her affliction, an affliction that would later sunder my life.
Nobody is born perfectly balanced. We lean to the right or to the left. According to this model, being on the extreme left is not sainthood. It's a sickness called Codependency. Being near the middle is healthy, having a proper Love, Respect, and Caring (LRC) both for one's self, and for others.
People who were blessed with a healthy childhood in which they received unconditional love from their parents and were properly protected, nurtured, and taught, grow up to be healthy well balanced adults who are at or near zero on the spectrum. People who were not drift away from the center; and, in their love life, are attracted to their opposites.
This attraction is what people commonly call "Chemistry": that Ineffable Something that makes people seem attractive, giving that sense that "You complete me." This "Chemistry" is really an equal but opposite distance from center on the Continuum of Self. If a -3 meets a +3, the two will feel "Chemistry." Same when a -1 meets a +1, or a -5 meets a +5.
All will feel "Chemistry" and in all cases the relationships will last because the relationship is balanced.
That doesn't mean it's healthy, however. Healthy relationships are close to the center, say, two or less. Go greater than three, and you're going to be in trouble, in a toxic "I Hate You, Don't Leave Me" Codependent-Emotional Manipulator death-embrace relationship.
What determines where people are on the spectrum? Early childhood experience. And what causes people to "score" higher than two? How they dealt with Narcissistic parents as kids.
Codependents, on the left, succeeded at pleasing their Narcissistic parents, learning to master the art of people-pleasing and of hiding their emotions and lying with their facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, language of course, and other cues. In so doing they made their Narcissist parents look good, gained preference, and became "favorites" or "golden children."
They learned to be dishonest . . . pleasant, smiling liars.
Emotional Manipulators, on the right, failed. As children, they suffered the consequences of this failure: Narcissist Rage. Their Narcissist parents were hostile, cruel, abusive, and negligent. Consequently they became "selfish" out of necessity. Since their parents did not care for them, to survive they had to care for themselves.
They learned to be mean, ruthless scoundrels and fiends.
Either way - left or right - where one falls on the ends of the continuum is determined by how a child reacted to having Narcissist parents. The root cause of the whole mess is Narcissism - specifically, Narcissist parenting.
What is striking to me is that in either case, both the Codependent and the Emotional Manipulator view themselves as innocent, hapless victims . . . because in a sense, they are. Their formation occurred when they were being victimized as kids by their Narcissist parents. Each reacted and coped in their own way.
As adults, they carry this Victim Narrative around with them. They won't admit guilt because they believe they're innocent. If they are faced with clear evidence of their guilt (like being caught in a lie or stealing), they resort to defense mechanisms like denial, dissociation, projection, etc. They will not confess.
This is good to know. In the past I've caught people lying or stealing, etc. I've confronted them about it; and I've seen them kind of go blank, deny it (another lie), or in many cases try to turn the table or "flip the script" - displacing, dissociating, projecting - trying to accuse me of the very thing they did.
It has been surreal. "How do you even DO that?" I would wonder. "Why don't you just own up? I was dismayed, perplexed.
Now I'm not. I get it. Reading this short book will save me a lot of time, energy, and money in the future.
In Chapter Ten, "Codependency" (97), Rosenberg clarifies. He explains how during the days of Alcoholics Anonymous, "codependent" means someone who had a relationship with, and enabled, an alcoholic. Its definition was chemical. Alcohol had to be involved.
Since then, the definition of "Codependency" has become less chemical. Now it's behavioral, and it means, basically, people-pleasing and self-neglect . . . detrimental selflessness.
Be that as it may, he explains how the book is written for the Codependents in a dysfunctional relationship, as they're the parties more likely to seek help and be willing to change. The Emotional Manipulators are not.
Rosenberg points out that Codependents are drawn to the Helping Professions, like health care, especially nursing . . . teaching, social work, lesser ministries, and the like. So if you work in those fields . . . well . . . .
Stay woke.
Of course I was also interested in this book at a personal level, as I have had a tendency to love people who hurt me. And, I've had others in my life, friends and family, who've suffered the same problem.
Why do I do that? Why does this keep happening? What is going on?
I began trying to address the problem by seeking help from religious leadership. But it turns out that positions of religious leadership attract Narcissists. They like being the center of attention.
They engaged in Victim Blaming: "Since the one thing all of these failed relationships share in common is you, you must be the problem." They proved to be useless and abusive.
Indeed, I found that a lot of religious teaching perpetuated the problem by producing masses of codependent, masochistic, martyric victims for narcissists to abuse. Sheep for wolves to devour, as it were, who are taught to abandon self-preservation by doing things like giving the shirt off their backs, turning the other cheek when they're attacked, and forgiving 70x7 or 490 times. To solve the problem, I had to look beyond cookie-cutter, boilerplate religious teaching that condemns selfishness and extols duty, sacrifice, and obedience, conditioning people to be "sheeple."
Don't get me wrong: I'm not an atheist or an agnostic. I'm still a believer, still a Christian. But as a grown man, as a fairly mature adult now, I've come to see that there are problems in religious groups and teachings that must be questioned, challenged, confronted, and corrected. Heresies.
Lives, and the well being of the weak and the defenseless, are at stake. We must view religious groups and activities very skeptically. Wolves in sheep's clothing, and all that (Matt 7:15). Be cunning as serpents, and innocent as doves (Matt 10:16). Weeds can, and do, grow in the wheat (Matt 13:24-30).
Instead of turning a blind eye, adults must be prepared to notice weeds and deal with them. This is what it means to be a mature, active layperson. Think independently and critically. Emulate the Bereans. Have the courage to fight for what's right, even if you're the only one doing it.
(For more on this subject, see my review of Ross Douthat's book Bad Religion.)
The Continuum of Self model depicted above is really helping me understand what is happening in a way that religious teaching, marital counseling, and individual therapy never did. As a fifty-five year old, I wish I had known about it forty years ago, when I was fifteen, when I met my first wife, my high school sweetheart, whom I would marry five years later, and lose seven years after that. It's so simple that I know I would have understood it then; and it could have saved me from a tragic marriage decision that launched a chain of events that have afflicted me since.
It shows how some of us are "Others Oriented" while others of us are "Self Oriented." In the stoic, dutiful, self-sacrificing background that I come from of Nordic culture, church, Boys Scouts, and military service, we were taught to be on the left side of the scale - the further, the better with sainthood at the extreme left, being the goal. Being anywhere near the right was condemned as "selfish." At the time my wife-to-be was on the far left of the continuum, a Codependent. But because of my background, I thought she was a saint. I was blind to her affliction, an affliction that would later sunder my life.
Nobody is born perfectly balanced. We lean to the right or to the left. According to this model, being on the extreme left is not sainthood. It's a sickness called Codependency. Being near the middle is healthy, having a proper Love, Respect, and Caring (LRC) both for one's self, and for others.
People who were blessed with a healthy childhood in which they received unconditional love from their parents and were properly protected, nurtured, and taught, grow up to be healthy well balanced adults who are at or near zero on the spectrum. People who were not drift away from the center; and, in their love life, are attracted to their opposites.
This attraction is what people commonly call "Chemistry": that Ineffable Something that makes people seem attractive, giving that sense that "You complete me." This "Chemistry" is really an equal but opposite distance from center on the Continuum of Self. If a -3 meets a +3, the two will feel "Chemistry." Same when a -1 meets a +1, or a -5 meets a +5.
All will feel "Chemistry" and in all cases the relationships will last because the relationship is balanced.
That doesn't mean it's healthy, however. Healthy relationships are close to the center, say, two or less. Go greater than three, and you're going to be in trouble, in a toxic "I Hate You, Don't Leave Me" Codependent-Emotional Manipulator death-embrace relationship.
What determines where people are on the spectrum? Early childhood experience. And what causes people to "score" higher than two? How they dealt with Narcissistic parents as kids.
Codependents, on the left, succeeded at pleasing their Narcissistic parents, learning to master the art of people-pleasing and of hiding their emotions and lying with their facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, language of course, and other cues. In so doing they made their Narcissist parents look good, gained preference, and became "favorites" or "golden children."
They learned to be dishonest . . . pleasant, smiling liars.
Emotional Manipulators, on the right, failed. As children, they suffered the consequences of this failure: Narcissist Rage. Their Narcissist parents were hostile, cruel, abusive, and negligent. Consequently they became "selfish" out of necessity. Since their parents did not care for them, to survive they had to care for themselves.
They learned to be mean, ruthless scoundrels and fiends.
Either way - left or right - where one falls on the ends of the continuum is determined by how a child reacted to having Narcissist parents. The root cause of the whole mess is Narcissism - specifically, Narcissist parenting.
What is striking to me is that in either case, both the Codependent and the Emotional Manipulator view themselves as innocent, hapless victims . . . because in a sense, they are. Their formation occurred when they were being victimized as kids by their Narcissist parents. Each reacted and coped in their own way.
As adults, they carry this Victim Narrative around with them. They won't admit guilt because they believe they're innocent. If they are faced with clear evidence of their guilt (like being caught in a lie or stealing), they resort to defense mechanisms like denial, dissociation, projection, etc. They will not confess.
This is good to know. In the past I've caught people lying or stealing, etc. I've confronted them about it; and I've seen them kind of go blank, deny it (another lie), or in many cases try to turn the table or "flip the script" - displacing, dissociating, projecting - trying to accuse me of the very thing they did.
It has been surreal. "How do you even DO that?" I would wonder. "Why don't you just own up? I was dismayed, perplexed.
Now I'm not. I get it. Reading this short book will save me a lot of time, energy, and money in the future.
In Chapter Ten, "Codependency" (97), Rosenberg clarifies. He explains how during the days of Alcoholics Anonymous, "codependent" means someone who had a relationship with, and enabled, an alcoholic. Its definition was chemical. Alcohol had to be involved.
Since then, the definition of "Codependency" has become less chemical. Now it's behavioral, and it means, basically, people-pleasing and self-neglect . . . detrimental selflessness.
Be that as it may, he explains how the book is written for the Codependents in a dysfunctional relationship, as they're the parties more likely to seek help and be willing to change. The Emotional Manipulators are not.
Rosenberg points out that Codependents are drawn to the Helping Professions, like health care, especially nursing . . . teaching, social work, lesser ministries, and the like. So if you work in those fields . . . well . . . .
Stay woke.
For about fifteen months, from September 2017 to December 2018, I navigated the murky waters of online matchmaking. I found that matchmaking platforms are generally abused: while they're designed to help people reveal themselves, more often than not they're actually used to conceal some problem or defect that, In Real Life (IRL), would be a deal-breaker.
I find that, generally, online platforms are used by the incompetent . . . that is, those who can not compete in IRL. That is, if you met them in a room, you'd never consider approaching them; their defects would be obvious. So they use the online profile not to reveal their virtues and their gifts; they use them to conceal their defects.
Having read hundreds, possibly more than a thousand profiles over that time, I learned to notice a few commonalities. One was what I call Trifling: "Life is too short to be serious all the time. I am looking for a man who will make me laugh."
On the surface, this seemed benign to me. Who doesn't like to laugh, to be light hearted?
But I found there was a sinister side to this attitude . . . it was like being expected to play Jester to the Queen, to be her trivial play thing, an object that she could pick up or set down at her whim and for her pleasure, like a cat toys with a mouse.
I found out what it's like to be downrange from a Narcissist Stare. It's like looking into the barrel of a loaded gun. There's nothing benign about it.
A second commonality was that in these matchmaking profiles, everybody describes what they like to do, like travel, walks on the beach, sports perhaps (go Seahawks!), dining out, cooking, different kinds of exercise, curling up with a good book, etc.
What was missing was self-disclosure. While elaborating at length about what they like to do, they did not disclose who they are.
Where I come from, loving isn't doing. It isn't performance based. It isn't conditional. Where I come from, loving is knowing.
After a while I wrote a note about this on Facebook. Here's an excerpt:
"I sincerely believe most people do not want to know or be known. I think it terrifies them. I think that in most cases they don't know themselves, they don't care that they don't know, and they don't want to go there.
To them it's a frightening prospect to avoid at all costs, like opening a Pandora's Box. Too many skeletons in that closet.
It's a deal-breaker.
And knowing others? Empathy?
Well that's just too much work. Ain't nobody got time for that.
They'd rather just stay busy, constantly doing, constantly on the move like sharks, afraid that if they stop, they'll drown in the depths.
I can't do it. I can't stay in the shallows, constantly in motion. I think we all need depth."
A third commonality I noticed relates directly to this book: they all wanted "Chemistry."
Huh? What is that? Sometimes I would ask people what they meant by that. What are we talking about here, hormones?
No, they said . . . it's just That Ineffable Something . . . a feeling of just Knowing that this is The One . . . it's primal, inexplicable attraction.
This felt unsafe to me, like falling under a spell or being drugged, like somebody slipped a "Rufi" in my drink. I didn't like it.
According to Rosenberg, "Chemistry" is when a -3 meets a +3 . . . or a -5 meets a +5. It's opposites attracting. It's two whacked people balancing each other out on this seesaw of life. It's that feeling of, "You complete me."
If both are near zero, fine. But if they're beyond 2, watch out. As he says in the above video, today's "soul mate" becomes tomorrow's "cell mate." No thanks.
So in writing this book, Rosenberg cleared up this mystery of "Chemistry" for me, and I am forever grateful. But what's alarming is, it seems like everybody in the dating world (women, anyway) wants it. In so wanting, I really don't think they understand the suffering and misery to which they're subjecting and exposing themselves.
It's the same kind of foggy, absurd thinking that comedienne Amy Schumer, along with Bill Nye, lampoon in this video about "The Universe." (Warning, NSFW.) Like Narcissism itself, this mad quest for "Chemistry" is a self-defeating, self-harming epidemic, for which Rosenberg's book is an antidote.
I find that, generally, online platforms are used by the incompetent . . . that is, those who can not compete in IRL. That is, if you met them in a room, you'd never consider approaching them; their defects would be obvious. So they use the online profile not to reveal their virtues and their gifts; they use them to conceal their defects.
Having read hundreds, possibly more than a thousand profiles over that time, I learned to notice a few commonalities. One was what I call Trifling: "Life is too short to be serious all the time. I am looking for a man who will make me laugh."
On the surface, this seemed benign to me. Who doesn't like to laugh, to be light hearted?
But I found there was a sinister side to this attitude . . . it was like being expected to play Jester to the Queen, to be her trivial play thing, an object that she could pick up or set down at her whim and for her pleasure, like a cat toys with a mouse.
I found out what it's like to be downrange from a Narcissist Stare. It's like looking into the barrel of a loaded gun. There's nothing benign about it.
A second commonality was that in these matchmaking profiles, everybody describes what they like to do, like travel, walks on the beach, sports perhaps (go Seahawks!), dining out, cooking, different kinds of exercise, curling up with a good book, etc.
What was missing was self-disclosure. While elaborating at length about what they like to do, they did not disclose who they are.
Where I come from, loving isn't doing. It isn't performance based. It isn't conditional. Where I come from, loving is knowing.
After a while I wrote a note about this on Facebook. Here's an excerpt:
"I sincerely believe most people do not want to know or be known. I think it terrifies them. I think that in most cases they don't know themselves, they don't care that they don't know, and they don't want to go there.
To them it's a frightening prospect to avoid at all costs, like opening a Pandora's Box. Too many skeletons in that closet.
It's a deal-breaker.
And knowing others? Empathy?
Well that's just too much work. Ain't nobody got time for that.
They'd rather just stay busy, constantly doing, constantly on the move like sharks, afraid that if they stop, they'll drown in the depths.
I can't do it. I can't stay in the shallows, constantly in motion. I think we all need depth."
A third commonality I noticed relates directly to this book: they all wanted "Chemistry."
Huh? What is that? Sometimes I would ask people what they meant by that. What are we talking about here, hormones?
No, they said . . . it's just That Ineffable Something . . . a feeling of just Knowing that this is The One . . . it's primal, inexplicable attraction.
This felt unsafe to me, like falling under a spell or being drugged, like somebody slipped a "Rufi" in my drink. I didn't like it.
According to Rosenberg, "Chemistry" is when a -3 meets a +3 . . . or a -5 meets a +5. It's opposites attracting. It's two whacked people balancing each other out on this seesaw of life. It's that feeling of, "You complete me."
If both are near zero, fine. But if they're beyond 2, watch out. As he says in the above video, today's "soul mate" becomes tomorrow's "cell mate." No thanks.
So in writing this book, Rosenberg cleared up this mystery of "Chemistry" for me, and I am forever grateful. But what's alarming is, it seems like everybody in the dating world (women, anyway) wants it. In so wanting, I really don't think they understand the suffering and misery to which they're subjecting and exposing themselves.
It's the same kind of foggy, absurd thinking that comedienne Amy Schumer, along with Bill Nye, lampoon in this video about "The Universe." (Warning, NSFW.) Like Narcissism itself, this mad quest for "Chemistry" is a self-defeating, self-harming epidemic, for which Rosenberg's book is an antidote.
*** WARNING: NSFW ***
|
*** NSFW *** |
|
*** NSFW *** |
*** WARNING: NSFW ***
As I say, I wish this book had existed when I was fifteen years old, but it didn't. Better late than never. Armed with this new knowledge, I feel fortunate and much better equipped than I've ever been to navigate relationships in a way that is kind, humane, and empathetic, yet firm and protective both of myself and my loved ones: our time, our energy, our emotions, and our fortunes.
Bottom line: recognize the Continuum of Self. Know where you are on it, and if you're beyond a 2 in either direction, turn around. Move toward zero, that you might become a healthy balanced human being, eligible for a healthy relationship with another healthy balanced human being.
Reading this book really helped me. I hope this review helps you, too.
Thanks for reading.
Bottom line: recognize the Continuum of Self. Know where you are on it, and if you're beyond a 2 in either direction, turn around. Move toward zero, that you might become a healthy balanced human being, eligible for a healthy relationship with another healthy balanced human being.
Reading this book really helped me. I hope this review helps you, too.
Thanks for reading.
