Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad the master of Idiotology in Narcissistism he got PHD in Extreme Redneckism

 

This is a school of thinking that is particularly appealing to dumb asses. No matter what happens Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad the master of  Idiotology in Narcissistism he got PHD in Extreme Redneckism 

Two days after the key Sarawak election, those batting for Barisan Nasional (BN) are talking about the loss of Chinese votes to DAP, with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad right in front calling them racists for drawing the community away from the ruling coalition.

The country’s longest-serving prime minister and one-time mover of Bangsa Malaysia is a fine one to talk. Since 2008, he has been the patron of Perkasa, the right-wing group that fights to preserve everything for the Malays at the expense of others.

For Dr Mahathir and Perkasa, everything is at risk from the non-Malays, although the Federal Constitution already provides safeguards through the Malay Rulers.

In his blog today, Dr Mahathir wrote, among others, “I congratulate the DAP for bringing its racist politics to Sarawak. Before this all races co-operated well with each other for the good of Sarawak. Now we see clearly that the Chinese community in Sarawak has rejected multi-racialism.

“Perhaps the SUPP are at fault but others in the BN also committed many wrong things. But the rejection is almost entirely by the Chinese community.”

In his world-view and through his writing, Dr Mahathir does not believe that people can make up their own minds and decide to vote for whoever they want — the essence of democracy.

Perhaps he does not see that the policies put in place by his administration, such as privatisation, has resulted in endemic corruption, abuse of power and the weakening of the country’s institutions — some of the factors which has caused Malaysians to lose faith in BN.

Dr Mahathir does not lead BN now. It is Datuk Seri Najib Razak, and before him, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Abdullah carried the baggage of Dr Mahathir’s rule but crumbled under the weight of his own unfulfilled promises.

Now it’s Najib’s turn, and his six days for the Sarawak campaign is a measure of what he had to do to counter criticisms against Dr Mahathir’s contemporary, Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud.

Yet, Dr Mahathir only sees what he sees.

“I will be called a racist for pointing this out. For more than half a century the races in Malaysia had worked together to build the nation. The world saw stable BN governments with power and wealth being shared by all races quite fairly.

“None of the races got everything that they considered they were entitled to — not the Malays, nor the Chinese, nor Indians, nor Ibans, Kadazans, etc. All had to give up something. That is the essence of sharing.

“Now the DAP has destroyed this power and wealth-sharing formula by separating the Chinese from the rest,” he also wrote today.

Thing is, Dr Mahathir is just not the right person to level any such accusations. When he and others talk about the BN style or formula, what they mean is keeping cronyism and institutional racism entrenched. He is no honest broker in this exercise of dissecting the Sarawak election and its aftermath.

Malaysians have a right to vote whichever way they want. Taib returned 35 out of 35 seats back to the BN. Presumably, there are people happy with his rule.

Yet, there are others who are not happy and want an alternative. Nothing racist about that. It’s simply called democracy — the right to differ, not defer.

Think of your friendly neighborhood narcissist: status-seeking, grandiose, loud-mouthed, brash and flamboyant. Have you ever noticed how he brags all the time, not only about his astronomical I.Q. and bulging pectoral muscles, but also about the fact that he is narcissistic? It's as if he is proud of it.

Lots of psychologists have theorized that a lack of self-awareness is a hallmark trait of narcissists. My personal experience with narcissists does not seem to support this. It seems to me as though they are not only aware of who they are, but also embrace it.

Luckily, I don't have to rely on personal anecdotes. To get to the bottom of this age-old mystery, Erika Carlson and her colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis conducted three very well-done studies to see whether narcissists have insight into their personality and their reputation. The results will soon be published in the prestigiousJournal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The researchers administered a number of different measures of narcissism to college students and looked at how high-scorers are seen by others, how they see themselves and how they believe they are seen by others. They looked across social contexts and interviewed new acquaintances as well as friends and family. There results across the three studies are strikingly consistent.

Unsurprisingly, they found that narcissists think they are hot stuff. Those scoring high in narcissism tended to rate themselves as more intelligent, physically attractive, likeable and funny than others. Interestingly, they also rated themselves as having higher levels of negative aspects of narcissism, such as being power-oriented, impulsive, arrogant and prone to exaggerate their abilities! Therefore, narcissists are aware they are narcissists.

There was also a strong positive correlation between narcissism and having a reputation for narcissism: narcissists were definitely perceived as narcissists. While other people didn't think the narcissists were nearly as hot as the narcissists thought they were, the narcissists were well aware of their reputation. When asked how others perceive them on the positive traits, their results were closer to how they were actually perceived than their own self-perceptions of the very same traits.

These results suggest that narcissists do indeed have self-awareness of themselves and know their reputation. This raises the question: how can narcissists maintain their inflated self-image even though they know full well how they are perceived by others? The researchers suggest a few intriguing possibilities.

Perhaps narcissists assume that others are just failing to realize how bitchin' they really are. They may think that people are just too dim to recognize their brilliance. Another possibility is that narcissists may think critics are just envious of them. Narcissists may take negative feedback and think to themselves, "Those haters are just jealous!"

This may explain why narcissists behave in arrogant ways. Instead of compensating for some deep-seated insecurity, bragging may be their way of demanding the recognition they truly believe they deserve. Narcissists score up the wazoo in entitlement. As the researchers note, this idea is consistent with self-verification theory: "Narcissists believe that they are exceptional people and may behave in arrogant ways because they are attempting to bridge the gap between their self perceptions and their meta-perceptions."

The researchers also suggest it's possible that narcissists maintain their self-image by misconstruing the meaning of narcissism. When told they are arrogant, instead of thinking they are "someone who is confident without merit," they may take it as a compliment, thinking to themselves, "Well, duh I'm arrogant, if by that you mean 'deservedly confident!'" As the researchers note, "Narcissists seem to choose honest arrogance when describing themselves and their reputation."

The results of this study as well as prior studies suggest that narcissists do care more about being perceived as superior on agentic traits (e.g., industriousness, assertiveness, dominance) compared to communal traits (e.g., agreeableness and honesty). Narcissists don't seem to care whether they are perceived as good people; they'd rather be admired than liked. So perhaps the narcissists in their study construed supposedly negative aspects of narcissism (e.g., arrogance) as desirable.

Of course, it's also possible that narcissists are fully aware of the meaning of narcissism and the negative impact they have on others, but just don't care as long as it doesn't get in the way of their goals.

The researchers also found that new acquaintances viewed narcissists more positively than well acquainted others. Those who just met the narcissists did tend to have a favorable impression of the narcissists, whereas those who knew the narcissists much longer tended to have a much more negative impression of the narcissists.

Again, the narcissists in their sample were fully aware of this! The results suggest that narcissists understand that they make positive first impressions that deteriorate over time. These results are consistent with prior research that has shown that narcissists have trouble forming long-term relationships. Narcissists tend to think they are "too good" for most people and are always seeking "better" relationship alternatives.

The results are also consistent with research showing that narcissists are masters at first impressions. As researchers have suggested, the narcissist's success at creating initial attraction may make short-term contexts more rewarding for them than longer-term contexts: "It is possible that narcissists discontinue relationships early on because they cannot bridge the gap between their positive self-perceptions and relatively negative meta-perceptions."

Practical Implications

It's well known that narcissists rarely change, mostly because they don't want to change. They love their lifestyle. Researchers trying to reform narcissists have noted that a major impediment is their lack of self-awareness. They have speculated that if narcissists received true feedback, they would change. The study by Carlson and colleagues suggests that this is not the case. Narcissists are fully aware that they are narcissistic and have a narcissistic reputation.

Instead, the researchers suggest that a better intervention would be to "emphasize the interpersonal and intrapsychic costs of being seen as narcissistic by others." Narcissists are unlikely to change unless they think changing will benefit the things they desire, such as status and power.

Are You a Narcissist?

Many of you are probably reading this and wondering whether you are a narcissist. An implication of the results I just reviewed is that if you are a narcissist, you probably already know it!

In reality, all of us are at least a little bit narcissistic. In the studies just reviewed, the researchers administered a narcissistic questionnaire to college students. Even though they found that the students scored all across the spectrum, it's not as if there was anyone who was completely non-narcissistic. All of us, throughout our day, ebb and flow in and out of the narcissistic mindset.

When asked about the impact of her draconian policies on British society, then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is reported to have said, "There is no such thing as society."

The current U.S. budget confrontation raises the same issue: Is there such a thing as an American society? The Oxford dictionary defines society as: "the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently" and as "the customs and organization of an ordered community."

The current confrontation between parties and ideologies is over the role of government. But even more deeply it is a foundational disagreement over whether we are a society, a community, or whether we are a collection of individuals inhabiting the same geographical space.

 Two days after the key Sarawak election, those batting for Barisan Nasional (BN) are talking about the loss of Chinese votes to DAP, with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad right in front calling them racists for drawing the community away from the ruling coalition.

The country’s longest-serving prime minister and one-time mover of Bangsa Malaysia is a fine one to talk. Since 2008, he has been the patron of Perkasa, the right-wing group that fights to preserve everything for the Malays at the expense of others.

For Dr Mahathir and Perkasa, everything is at risk from the non-Malays, although the Federal Constitution already provides safeguards through the Malay Rulers.

In his blog today, Dr Mahathir wrote, among others, “I congratulate the DAP for bringing its racist politics to Sarawak. Before this all races co-operated well with each other for the good of Sarawak. Now we see clearly that the Chinese community in Sarawak has rejected multi-racialism.

“Perhaps the SUPP are at fault but others in the BN also committed many wrong things. But the rejection is almost entirely by the Chinese community.”

In his world-view and through his writing, Dr Mahathir does not believe that people can make up their own minds and decide to vote for whoever they want — the essence of democracy.

Perhaps he does not see that the policies put in place by his administration, such as privatisation, has resulted in endemic corruption, abuse of power and the weakening of the country’s institutions — some of the factors which has caused Malaysians to lose faith in BN.

Dr Mahathir does not lead BN now. It is Datuk Seri Najib Razak, and before him, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Abdullah carried the baggage of Dr Mahathir’s rule but crumbled under the weight of his own unfulfilled promises.

Now it’s Najib’s turn, and his six days for the Sarawak campaign is a measure of what he had to do to counter criticisms against Dr Mahathir’s contemporary, Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud.

Yet, Dr Mahathir only sees what he sees.

“I will be called a racist for pointing this out. For more than half a century the races in Malaysia had worked together to build the nation. The world saw stable BN governments with power and wealth being shared by all races quite fairly.

“None of the races got everything that they considered they were entitled to — not the Malays, nor the Chinese, nor Indians, nor Ibans, Kadazans, etc. All had to give up something. That is the essence of sharing.

“Now the DAP has destroyed this power and wealth-sharing formula by separating the Chinese from the rest,” he also wrote today.

Thing is, Dr Mahathir is just not the right person to level any such accusations. When he and others talk about the BN style or formula, what they mean is keeping cronyism and institutional racism entrenched. He is no honest broker in this exercise of dissecting the Sarawak election and its aftermath.

Malaysians have a right to vote whichever way they want. Taib returned 35 out of 35 seats back to the BN. Presumably, there are people happy with his rule.

Yet, there are others who are not happy and want an alternative. Nothing racist about that. It’s simply called democracy — the right to differ, not defer.

If we are all "in this together," then we share more than just an interest in collective security. And if we have collective interests, the instrument by which we pursue and promote those interests is the national government, not Wall Street or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

As we learned in 1929 and 2008, markets can fail, usually through greed and lack of regulation. Although a rising tide lifts all boats, a falling tide lowers all boats, except for the gilded yachts.

The Goldwater-Reagan-Gingrich-Tea Party revolutions all called into question whether we are a society and therefore whether we act through our national government to pursue our common interests. Though virtually all mature democracies have basically resolved this question decades ago, the people of the United States seem unable to do so. Many Americans continue to believe we can have the public services a very large majority wants without paying very much for them. Thus the "waste, fraud, and abuse" of the Reagan years. Or a recurring vocal minority continues to argue that we should do away with those services altogether and devil-take-the-hindmost.

It would be an interesting, though destructive, experiment to see how many Americans would like the nation the Tea Party seeks to construct.

The current, and perpetually recurring, confrontation is only symbolically about "spending." Public programs flow from policies. Policies flow from partisan ideologies. Ideologies flow from political philosophies. So long as the question of whether we are a society, a national community as Franklin Roosevelt believed, remains contested, so will budget wars continue carried out by factions waving one banner or another mostly decrying the evils of government.

Thomas Jefferson wanted our government to do only those necessary things that individuals could not do for themselves. That is quite a large territory. It includes transportation systems, public safety and judicial systems, public education, and national security, among many other undertakings. The real confrontation is over the social safety net constructed between the age of Roosevelt and the age of Johnson. Overwhelmingly, the American people wish to maintain this safety net. They simply do not wish to bear its costs, nor do they wish to accept its demise, which would involve taking our grandparents back into our homes.

In a perfect world we would have a great debate throughout the nation, not just in Washington, over the issue of whether we are a society, a national community, and, if so, what role we wish the national government to bear in maintaining that community. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world. So we let our elected officials struggle over budget cuts that are but symbols of our deeper dilemma and our unresolved definition of who we really are. Two hundred and twenty years should have been enough time to have resolved this question.

Please visit Senator Hart's blog at Matters of Principle.