A third possibility

"Attempts to confront or wake up patients during the events frequently lengthens the parasomnia episode and may induce resistance or violence from the patient."
-- WebMD's emedicine entry on Somnambulism

In comments for the previous entry, Doctor Science points us to an insightful post from Kit Whitfield (aka Praline) that suggests a possible third explanation for the insane popularity of the Munich Analogy -- an explanation other than the obvious ones of unbelievable stupidity or willful dishonesty.

To review, briefly, this analogy is employed to suggest that any response to hostile nations other than Kill All the Bad People is mere appeasement. This assertion is deeply confused and irreconcilable with the facts of any given case, with history and with any prospect for effectiveness. It claims that every enemy currently demanding our attention is ≥ Hitler and that therefore said enemy will respond only to the application of unrestrained lethal force (which is to say, they cannot be expected to respond, only to be exterminated in their unalterably non-responsive state). It claims that any approach other than such extermination is naive and ineffectual and thus the moral and practical equivalent of unconditional surrender. For proponents of the Munich Analogy, there is therefore one and only one possible response to hostility: extermination.

This is brutally, self-destructively stupid. The slightest thought or exploration exposes the idea as nonsense. It seems impossible that any sentient being could find the idea persuasive. The fact that someone is capable of speech, therefore, can be taken as proof that he is too smart to credibly believe what he is saying when he invokes the Munich Analogy.

In the previous post, I suggested there could be only one other possible option: that these people don't believe what they are saying, i.e., that they are saying something they inescapably know is not true, i.e., that they are lying.

But of course there is another option. When someone says something that they are smart enough to know is insanely false they may be lying, or they may just be insane. They may, somehow, have come to believe that this insane thing is true. (If insane strikes you as too strong a term, substitute "deluded" or "delusional." But keep in mind that we're talking about a form of delusion that leads inexorably to an exterminationist "Kill All the Bad People" mentality -- the same mentality that is universally described, in its aftermath from Sarjevo to Kigali, as "madness.")

Where does such delusion come from? How does someone become convinced that this unreal madness makes any kind of sense at all?

Here is where I will turn to KW/Praline, writing about "Macho Sue":

The essential story structure of a Macho Sue tends to revolve around untouchable pride. If love means never having to say you're sorry, being Macho Sue means the whole of reality loves you. Typically, Macho Sue's storyline follows a certain trajectory: he begins by acting egregiously, picking or provoking fights and causing problems. However much the ensuing difficulties can be laid at his door, Macho Sue is not about to apologize, in any way. So the problems continue -- only to be salvaged by some immense reversals that give the impression that he was right all along. The man he insulted turns out, suddenly, to be a bad guy. The woman who dislikes him falls into his strong arms when he solves a problem that is not the same problem he caused for her. People change their personalities, storylines shift and flip like a mechanical maze popping up new paths and lowering old gates in order to keep Macho Sue from ever, ever having to backtrack. As John Wayne says, "Never say sorry -- it's a sign of weakness."

Similarly, Macho Sue's suspicion of the unfamiliar is inherently right, because he already embodies all that is good and right: if something were good, he would already be doing it. Hence, anything new to him is some sort of corruption of the proper way of doing things. Usually it's assumed that Macho Sue has a code of honor that is at heart the right one, that if people disapprove of his behavior it's only because they don't understand him and his righteousness, that his code of honor is never found inadequate to a situation, and that he never falls below it. It's not only apologizing that's considered too emasculating for him to endure, it's learning. For his character to be improved and matured by encountering new circumstances would be a humiliating admission that he wasn't just as he should be from the beginning.

That passage is about a particular species of bad fiction, but it applies just as well to a particular species of bad person. The flaw in both cases is the same: characters incapable of change and growth. (I'm reminded of a saying from church: "God loves you just the way you are, but God loves you too much to let you stay that way.")

Characters that cannot grow, that see no need to grow, cannot adjust to reality and so they force reality to adjust to them. Funny thing, though, about reality: It doesn't care what you think. And it's got a nasty habit of reasserting itself with a vengeance. How does that proverb go? "Untouchable pride goeth before destruction, and a Macho Sue before a fall." Something like that.

I'm not sure that the self-deluded exterminationist is in an entirely separable category from the mere liar. The primary audience is different, but the act is the same. Yet where the liar is wholly willful, the self-deluded fool is only partly willful, and that "partly" may provide a toe-hold of hope ("There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead ..."). Neither utter stupidity nor wholly willful duplicity can be engaged, but delusion suggests at least the possibility of a productive response.

Here is where I wish I could tell you how best to present such a response. Instead, annoyingly, this turns out to be one of those posts where I conclude by asking you to supply the conclusion. Is such delusion something that can be engaged? And if so, how? Anybody found an approach that works?

Comments

[hapax]

Is such delusion something that can be engaged? And if so, how? Anybody found an approach that works?

Mad props for the Princess Bride reference. Because honestly, I think, "It would take a miracle..."

So often in the past eight years I've been finding myself referring back to Festinger's WHEN PROPHECY FAILS, a brilliant study of a UFO-Cult which turned into an examination of why people cling to ideas that are manifestly not true. In an over-simplified nutshell, Festinger argued that once people have invested a certain portion of their self-identity into a belief system, disconfirmation will pardoxically force them to pour more and more of their identity and resources into it, until they reach a point of collapse.

Whether that collapse is survivable, either for the individuals or for their social circle, depends on numerous factors, not excluding dumb luck.

So, sure, there are approaches that work. Let the mad-Munich-mutterers drag us into hopeless destructive wars without end, until millions upon millions are dead, our economy is ruined, our political system in tatters, and the disgusted populace finally rises up and throws them against the wall at gunpoint.

Or forget about arguing with the delusional, and concentrate on the not-quite-convinced, before they have a chance to invest too much of THEIR personal capital into these insane worldviews. Give them a graceful and face-saving way to back out into reality. And instead of giving the frothers a national platform, cordon them off in a section of the park where they can't hurt themselves or others.

Yeah. I'm bitter and cynical this morning.

[Keith]

The only solution I see is to keep Macho Sues away from positions of power and influence. But at least in the US, the game is rigged so that only Macho Sues can attain positions of power and influence. Anyone not Macho Sue enough to pass the electability threshold (as defined by the Macho Sue worshiping media) gets weeded out early on.

It could be argued that the current Democratic primary kerfluffle is between a Macho Sue (Clinton) and a rare case of a non Macho Sue (Obama) who has managed to elude elimination. Not that the media hasn't tried to smear him away (didja hear?! Obama's got a black daddy! A Muslim middle name! A wacky pastor! No lapel pin! The ability to speak in whole sentences!).

But yeah, this is a doozy of a problem.

So, sure, there are approaches that work. Let the mad-Munich-mutterers drag us into hopeless destructive wars without end, until millions upon millions are dead, our economy is ruined, our political system in tatters, and the disgusted populace finally rises up and throws them against the wall at gunpoint.

Playing Devil's Advocate to Win

As for your question, Fred, I don't know. There's badly misinformed, and then there's wilfully misinformed. At one point I was attempting to work on an Intelligent Design believer who I knew to be a normally thoughtful and reasonable person. I eventually gave up in the face of an apparently invincible refusal to listen to counterarguments or evidence. Macho Sueism is much too big a delusion for me to tackle.

[jamoche]

"It was amazing, this mystic business. You tell them a lie, and then when you don't need it anymore you tell them another like and tell them they're progressing along the road to wisdom. Then instead of laughing they'll follow you even more, hoping that at the heart of all the lies they'll find the truth. And bit by bit they accept the unacceptable." -- Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!

And some of them don't even wait around for con artists; they tell themselves the lies.

[jamoche]

"tell them another lie". Sheesh. I even previewed.

[Dorothy]

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important
They don't mean to do harm-
But the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.

T.S. Eliot

[hf]

In an over-simplified nutshell, Festinger argued that once people have invested a certain portion of their self-identity into a belief system, disconfirmation will pardoxically force them to pour more and more of their identity and resources into it, until they reach a point of collapse.

Ah, the Anakin Skywalker problem.

I don't know the answer. I only have one known example from my life of someone who changed his mind in such a big way. And he never seemed like a true Macho Sue, nor did my influence seem remotely decisive. I guess if the people in question have high "Right-Wing Authoritarian" scores (and the very worst of them probably do) then just meeting different people and having new experiences might improve their thinking. (As I've mentioned before, this seems to account for the psychological effect of college.) Anakin actually points to one real-world solution, albeit an impractical one -- oppressive governments attacking non-violent protesters tend to reduce RWA scores when every other crisis does the opposite. This may have played a role in America in recent years (though Abu Ghraib didn't quite save us in 2004). Finally, Keith suggests one way to reduce the problem in the media: give $ to new media that don't behave this way.

[joXn]

The only time I've seen people who were not given to reflection or open to learning make such big shifts in thought has been when they've experienced a Life-Changing Event. 9/11 was one such event for a certain class of "former liberals" (the ones who are now outraged by Chappaquiddick, to use Bérubé's turn of phrase).

This is a sadly defeatist position, though, because no individual person can "engage" this kind of delusion because you can't be someone else's Life-Changing Event on demand. It's essentially admitting that if God loves them enough to let them stay the way they are, God will have to be their prime mover.

[joXn]

"loves then TOO MUCH to let them stay the way they are". And I hit preview, too. :-\

[Jos]

Is such delusion something that can be engaged? And if so, how? Anybody found an approach that works?

No, but I've found lots of approaches that don't work.

The problem is, unless you can somehow create epiphanies on demand, you're gonna have to talk about reality. And reality is a mess.

Those invoking Munich, in my admittedly very limited experience, don't want reality to be a mess and deal with it by pretending it isn't. It's Us and Them. We are Good, They are Bad. Black and White, that kind of thing.

So the first step would have to be making them understand shades of grey do exist and are not necessarily bad. Unfortunately, I haven't found the way there yet.

But perhaps I'm selling them short. Perhaps they too see reality as a kind of Gordian Knot and simply go for the solution that works.

Well... for the Gordian Knot, anyway.

[emjaybee]

It depends on the person--how old are they, how invested are they in their delusion, what will changing their minds cost them?

For example, there is hope for a 19 year old libertarian who's never been sick or tried to support himself or deal with real life--he might grow out of it once he's grown a little.

For a 60-year-old preacher known for his thundering denunciations from the pulpit, it's much harder--although he always has a "new revelation" option to tell his flock. But then, a life-changing event like, say, discovering his beloved kid is gay might either make him change or make him harden his heart and throw the kid out as a "sacrifice to the Lord."

For the Worst President Ever, I truly believe he's more likely to have a complete mental breakdown then ever admit a fraction of his mistakes and sins.

For your average person, I find that you can seldom tell. I have seen hardened, bitter types soften suddenly and wake up to reality, and seen people who seemed only mildly objectionable become mouth-frothers. The only real thing I think we can do is keep the exits open. If someone who has been a zealot shows the slightest wavering, listen, encourage, and don't judge, at least not at that moment. Keep your ears open for opportunity, and try to find the chinks in their armor, where reason might sneak in.

[Tonio]

Anybody found an approach that works?

I imagine Captain Kirk driving NOMAD crazy with illogic...

"God loves you just the way you are, but God loves you too much to let you stay that way."

A good sentiment expressed in a horrible way. Regardless of the speaker's intention, the wording implies that it's the speaker, not the speaker's god, who views the person as needing to change. It sounds like the speaker is attributing his opinion to his god in order to give it more force. That implication exists because when the speaker regards the person as needing to change, it's merely a subjective opinion grounded in the speaker's subjective expectations of others. There very well may be something about the person that needs to change, but it's not the speaker's place to point this out or to judge what is best for the person. The person is justified in suspecting the speaker of having an agenda.

[Tonio]

In "12 Angry Men," the jurors who held out the longest against Henry Fonda's argument were the ones who had the deepest prejudices. As much respect I have for Reginald Rose, I questioned his script's assumption that the heated debate in the jury room would be enough to overcome those prejudices.

[hapax]

Well, yeah, Tonio. In this case, I think the agenda is to not have our political class lead us into an insane mutually-destructive war.

To you that may look like "subjective opinion grounded in the speaker's subjective expectations of others." But to me it looks like simple self-preservation.

Sometimes, you just gotta be intolerant of insanity.

[Technomad]

George Orwell's essay "Notes on Nationalism" might well be germane to this discussion.

[kodiak]

Ok, this only incidentally applies to this discussion, but every time I listen to politicians or pundits who hold ridiculous positions I think of my sisters*. In particular, the things we used to do during arguments while we were teens. Example:

me - why didn't you clean the kitchen
her - the Queen was over for tea and I didn't have time between serving her scones.
me - ...

It's a total argument winner/ender... specifically if they stay on their ridiculous fantasy and don't let you move them into reality. The person arguing from a fantastical point of view can just *keep making things up* and the person being the rationalist/realist is stuck either a) trying to address the fantasies, one at a time and disprove them or b)arguing from a non-intersecting world-view and (inevitably) getting crazy yourself trying to get the fantasist to address reality.

There's nothing to be done in that situation except walk away (in familial cases, walk away muttering unflattering names under your breath). These ideas are being clung to for a reason, and unless you can resolve the underlying reason (without ever addressing it directly since doing that puts the fantasy back into play) nothing can be accomplished.

*we would all make remarkable pundits if we were just a tad less ethical

[Tonio]

Sometimes, you just gotta be intolerant of insanity.

You're describing a situation where the insanity can lead to suffering for millions, which is exactly why that insanity should not be tolerated. I was suggesting situations where people presume a right to make personal decisions for you, such as where you should live or what career you should have or who you should marry. Such a presumption would only be warranted if your decisions would clearly lead to harm for yourself or others. Both situations involve the same general standard.

[Raka]

Is such delusion something that can be engaged?

I find it a little odd that we're talking about self-delusion as this anomalous, externalized phenomenon. Show me a person who has never held a deluded belief, and I'll show you someone who's never believed anything. Hell, we'll probably be showing each other someone who's never eaten without mechanical assistance.

Delusions rely on the perpetuation of ignorance. Ignorance is always perpetuated for a reason. Simple inertia of belief shouldn't be disregarded, but the more significant reasons generally involve satisfying some universal human emotional need: comfort from fear, confidence in the specialness and superiority of one's self and community, explanation for misfortune, etc. As long as some part of us is relying on the delusion to satisfy this need, we'll play all sorts of cognitive tricks to support and protect the delusion. Any information or individual that supports the delusion will be given more credence, and any troubling contradictions will be dodged or dismissed.

Hapax mentions the self-reinforcing and escalating nature of such an emotional and cognitive investment, and by and large I agree. I don't, however, believe that the structure will inevitably collapse. When circumstances change and the delusion is no longer needed or is no longer feasible (eg after a successful campaign of ethnic cleansing), it often just sort of fades into the background. People continue living their lives and mostly don't think about the former deluded belief. When they do, reactions may range from rueful embarrassment to defensive self-righteousness, but very rarely will the individual truly acknowledge that they were (and, by implication, still are) capable of completely accepting something that was objectively and obviously wrong.

The best way of changing deluded beliefs is not to confront them directly, which just triggers internal defense mechanisms. Instead, identify the need they fulfill and work to show that this need is not truly being served by the delusion (since this is invariably true), and if possible try to find an alternative way of satisfying the need. Above all, don't proceed from the patronizing and incorrect assumption that the deluded people are doing something that you're not capable of yourself. Some of us have higher thresholds for xenophobia and violence than others, but when we're scared and desperate enough any of us can embrace that which would otherwise repulse us.

[Tonio]

These ideas are being clung to for a reason...

I can think of two commentators who went from being smugly self-righteous liberals to smugly self-righteous conservatives - David Horowitz and John Stossel. This suggests a different variety of incapability of change or growth, where the point is zealotry for its own sake. Any ideas on why such people would switch causes without giving up their zealotry? Are they like addicts who switch addictions?

[Keith]

Are they like addicts who switch addictions?

Na, they just realize it's more lucrative to be assholes.

[MikhailBorg]

Ah, the Anakin Skywalker problem.

Are you referring to Anakin's refusal to face reality in the prequels, or George Lucas'?

Thanks much to those who sent good thoughts my way. My mom's got a teeny tiny bit of movement on the injured side, which this soon for a stroke victim is apparently full of win. Thanks again.

[Caravelle]

I questioned his script's assumption that the heated debate in the jury room would be enough to overcome those prejudices.

Did they ? As I recall, of the last two and most difficult holdouts, one finally went on a rant demonstrating his prejudice and was basically shamed into silence by everyone else's stony reaction, and the second got to the point where he admitted to them and to himself this was all about his son, and from that moment on (and what with him being the last holdout) he could only say "not guilty". I'm far from sure they overcame their prejudices. They just put their prejudice enough in the open that they could be peer-pressured into saying "not guilty" despite them.

[Hawker Hurricane]

For David Horowitz and John Stossel, it was a case of needing power... when the Liberals told them to stop being Trotskyite Authoritarians, they switched to Corporatist Authoritarians without blinking an eye.

For them, it wasn't about ideology, it was about power. They couldn't get it as communists, so they became...

[grendelkhan]

emjaybee: For example, there is hope for a 19 year old libertarian who's never been sick or tried to support himself or deal with real life--he might grow out of it once he's grown a little.

I can attest to this from personal experience. Seriously, everything I wrote for a period of roughly five years is wallbangingly awful in that peculiarly libertarian way. I'm amazed that no one ever tried to talk me out of it. I suppose they knew better.

[Tonio]

They just put their prejudice enough in the open that they could be peer-pressured into saying "not guilty" despite them.

You're probably right. When I saw the film, I didn't pick up on many of the group dynamics that are part of the film's reputation.

[Tonio]

They couldn't get it as communists, so they became... authoritarianism addicts, soon to be appearing on "Celebrity Rehab."

[Edo]

@Tonio: Any ideas on why such people would switch causes without giving up their zealotry? Are they like addicts who switch addictions?

I'm going to second Hawker Hurricane on this. I read a bunch of essays by Kenneth Rexroth, who mentioned the exact same thing happening in the American left milieu a generation before Horowitz was born: ideologues who couldn't hack it in the Communist Party left it to duckspeak for another ideology, sometimes any other ideology, with no personality change at all.

Alternately, perhaps Unknown Armies got it right, and Horowitz, Stossel & Co. are simply more obvious victims of the House of Renunciation...

[Tonio]

perhaps Unknown Armies got it right

I would like to think that my deficiency in RPG knowledge is due to my age - I recently passed Meridian 40.

[Monkay]

Being the sane person who knows the correct response to the imminent threat; that is a very attractive idea, it makes one important. If this also involves arguing with foolish (if well-meaning) liberals, who simply don't understand the real world, all the better. I'm looking in your direction, Heinlein . . .

[DN]

Fred: Is such delusion something that can be engaged? And if so, how? Anybody found an approach that works?

Jos: No, but I've found lots of approaches that don't work.

Me too.

I've found Twelve-Step philosophy to have a lot of good ideas about ways to not engage with other people's delusions. Ultimately, I don't think delusion can be reasoned with. But lots of people in this world live in various kinds of delusions (including perhaps me at times!), so we've got to live with them. I'm still looking for more effective approaches as to how.

[Nick Kiddle]

"God loves you just the way you are, but God loves you too much to let you stay that way."

I read the "you" as being general rather than specific: God loves us all so much he wants us all to grow and change.

[Consumer Unit 5012]

"YOu can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into." (Don't remember who said that, but it sounds about right.)

[Praline]

Being brief, because I've been out all day and am about to collapse into bed: I think alternative role models can be a factor. Obama is popular largely because, when someone challenges him over this or that, he chides them for lacking the faith in This Great Country that he himself holds. Bill Clinton was good at that too: whenever an interviewer asked him a question he didn't like, he told them how unworthy of a democratic country it was that they'd asked him in the first place. In the same way that Bush challenges people's manhood, B Clinton and Obama challenge people's principles - and men are supposed to be principled, so it can form an alternative template of manhood. Macho Sue is an ideal you're supposed to measure up to; when confronting one, perhaps it's effective to hold up a different ideal and act all 'My ideal is the true one, you should want to be like mine rather than theirs'.

If people want heroes, give them better ones.

[Praline]

Oh, and all good wishes for your mum, MikhailBorg. :-)

And thanks for the kind words, Fred!

[Technomad]

Laird Wilcox, who's probably the foremost expert on American extremism of both the left and right varieties, says that a lot of the people you find in these groups are addicted to extremism per se more than they're slaves to a particular belief. He tells the story of the time he had some members of a very hard-core Left group go with him to hear a very fervent speaker for the American Nazi Party. At first, all of the leftists were horrified...but some of them grew fascinated with the fervor of the speaker, and a few of them ended up joining the Nazis.

[pointatinfinity]

The essential story structure of a Macho Sue tends to revolve around untouchable pride. If love means never having to say you're sorry, being Macho Sue means the whole of reality loves you. Typically, Macho Sue's storyline follows a certain trajectory: he begins by acting egregiously, picking or provoking fights and causing problems. However much the ensuing difficulties can be laid at his door, Macho Sue is not about to apologize, in any way. So the problems continue -- only to be salvaged by some immense reversals that give the impression that he was right all along. The man he insulted turns out, suddenly, to be a bad guy. The woman who dislikes him falls into his strong arms when he solves a problem that is not the same problem he caused for her. People change their personalities, storylines shift and flip like a mechanical maze popping up new paths and lowering old gates in order to keep Macho Sue from ever, ever having to backtrack. As John Wayne says, "Never say sorry -- it's a sign of weakness."

Similarly, Macho Sue's suspicion of the unfamiliar is inherently right, because he already embodies all that is good and right: if something were good, he would already be doing it. Hence, anything new to him is some sort of corruption of the proper way of doing things. Usually it's assumed that Macho Sue has a code of honor that is at heart the right one, that if people disapprove of his behavior it's only because they don't understand him and his righteousness, that his code of honor is never found inadequate to a situation, and that he never falls below it. It's not only apologizing that's considered too emasculating for him to endure, it's learning. For his character to be improved and matured by encountering new circumstances would be a humiliating admission that he wasn't just as he should be from the beginning.

That passage is about a particular species of bad fiction, but it applies just as well to a particular species of bad person. The flaw in both cases is the same: characters incapable of change and growth.

My reaction when reading this was "Praline was talking about a fictional character? I thought she was talking about my father!"

From quite a few years of observing and conjecturing about someone who acts precisely like a Macho Sue in real life, my theory is: deep down beneath this macho bravado is fear. A deep fear that admitting you're wrong will cause everything about your world to collapse. Because there is already a hole in your psyche that you are trying really really hard to build house-of-card walls around to avoid facing it.

The only way I can see of curing this is to have the Macho Sue's world collapse this way, and force them to see that although it's the end of the world as they know it, "there still will be rain on that plain down in Spain, even that will remain" with them being wrong.

But the thing is, only some of them could take that. Others would keep on building houses of cards in their imaginations no matter what adversity they face, since the human psyche is immensely powerful when it comes to defending its structures against assault.

[hapax]

A deep fear that admitting you're wrong will cause everything about your world to collapse. Because there is already a hole in your psyche that you are trying really really hard to build house-of-card walls around to avoid facing it.

Yeah. We have a term for the kind of literalist fundamentalist religion these people tend to adhere to: "Shroedinger's God."

They are so terrified to open the box in their heads and look inside, because they might discover that their God is actually dead...

[Prankster]

At the risk of going screechingly off topic, I have to kind of take issue with Praline's categorization of John Wayne in "The Searchers" as a Macho Sue--or rather, his contention that the film treats him in a way consistant with Macho Sues.

(SPOILERS for The Searchers)

Obviously the character acts that way, sure, but it seems to me most of the tension in the last third or so of the film comes from the fear that this crazy bigot is going to kill the girl when he gets hold of her, and that his redemption comes from not doing so--and even then, he ends the film by basically leaving polite society forever. Surely that's an act of growth and punishment beyond the capabilities of the usual Macho Sue-hosting story?

[practicallyevil]

Is such delusion something that can be engaged? And if so, how? Anybody found an approach that works?

I doubt such a delusion can be engaged, because it was custom built to avoid being engaged. When a great traumatic event takes place, say 9/11, or World War I for example, people will develop these kinds of delusions to avoid facing up to them. The end result for both of them were that America failed to properly gather intelligence that should have been an easy job for its various networks, and Germany failed to win the war that the believed they easily would have won. When the actual event occurs some people latch closer onto the beliefs they held before for support, and amplify those beliefs in such a way that rejects the failure.

For America post 9/11 the reality of the intelligence failure was thrown out and replaced with, "These Islamic extremists are the greatest enemy the United States has ever known, but we can't possibly lose because we are destined to spread Freedom and Democracy throughout the world." The delusion avoids the failure by making the enemy more than it is, and reinforces George Bush's belief that we are destined to spread freedom and democracy to the world, Dick Cheney's belief that the president should have unlimited power, and so on.

In Germany the reality of the lost war was rejected in favor of, "The other nations are oppressing us, but we can't lose because we are destined to become an empire that will exist until the end of time." It reinforced Hitler's hyper-nationalism, and his already existent prejudice against Jewish people.

These beliefs are necessarily evasive because if they did not have them then they would have nothing left to hold on to, no foot hold of belief. The people who are traumatized lump all their beliefs together and hold on for dear life, they've got nothing else to believe in besides the over the top false belief made out of scraps of the old.

The only way I can see to counter act it would be to give them something else to believe in, and then confront them about their other trauma spawned beliefs. That way they have something else to fall back on if they were to give up on their old values, but even then they may not be willing to let go.

[practicallyevil]

At the risk of going screechingly off topic, I have to kind of take issue with Praline's categorization of John Wayne in "The Searchers" as a Macho Sue--or rather, his contention that the film treats him in a way consistant with Macho Sues.

John Wayne's Character in the Searchers is an anti-hero to begin with. You're supposed to recognize that while he does have positive attributes, his character flaws should be avoided. That's why Praline used him as an example, the movie is saying don't be like him.

[Bosh]

I don't think that this sort of behavior is lying or insanity so much as not giving a shit about whether what you're saying makes any sense.

Its a lot like being on a debate team. You've got a position and you've got to defend it even if its a stupid position and you've got to attack all of your opponents arguements even if they make a lot of sense.

The people who spit out this rhetoric probably don't even think about how it fits in with reality, all they're thinking about is "how can we fit whatever the democrats say into our favorite narrative about how democrats are weak." If they have to make arguments that don't make any sense that's a small price to pay since in American politics not making sense is much less of a big deal than appearing to be week.

You can see this sort of behavior in a lot of people all the time.

[Cynic Sage]

An entry that not only adresses a problem in the US's current political climate but can also serve as a lead in to an LB-Friday entry.

Good job Fred.

[pointatinfinity]

You've got a position and you've got to defend it even if its a stupid position and you've got to attack all of your opponents' arguments even if they make a lot of sense.

The people who spit out this rhetoric probably don't even think about how it fits in with reality, all they're thinking about is "how can we fit whatever the democrats say into our favorite narrative about how democrats are weak." If they have to make arguments that don't make any sense that's a small price to pay since in American politics not making sense is much less of a big deal than appearing to be week.

You can see this sort of behavior in a lot of people all the time.

From what I have seen of this behaviour, I disagree with you on them being aware that their arguments don't make sense, although there may be variations. The people I have seen behave like this, and not just the example of my father above, are consciously convinced that their arguments make perfect sense, even as they themselves twist their arguments out of the original shape to try to match counterarguments. If they heard a tape-recording of their own conversation, they will probably be horrified at how little sense it makes, but they are dissociated enough that they are convinced they are saying nothing but pearls of wisdom.

It's kind of like writing what to you seems like a beautiful text, showing it to an impartial friend, and her replying, "This makes no sense at all, and neither does this, nor here and here, and this one can be taken completely differently from how you seem to mean it." The people like that themselves don't hear that what is actually coming out of their mouth doesn't match the beautiful, sensible, rational and logical idea in their head (accompanied by the meta-idea that this idea is beautiful, logical, etc. of course; I admit I am having a hard time phrasing this.)

[hf]

The pundits saying it may or may not believe what they say, but they depend on other people at least appreciating it.

[Doctor Science]

unless you can somehow create epiphanies on demand

We call that "story-telling". As Praline said, If people want heroes, give them better ones.

We need *better stories* -- not just in blogs, but books and movies and TV shows. And I think there's a specific need for better stories about men:

In the same way that Bush challenges people's manhood, B Clinton and Obama challenge people's principles - and men are supposed to be principled, so it can form an alternative template of manhood.

I've seen some tentative speculation that "Iron Man" could be the start of such a template, and that may have something to do with the film's huge and immediate popularity. I'm not sure yet, myself.

[Boze]

they can't be engaged with; they must all be slain.

[Bosh]

[i]From what I have seen of this behaviour, I disagree with you on them being aware that their arguments don't make sense, although there may be variations. The people I have seen behave like this, and not just the example of my father above, are consciously convinced that their arguments make perfect sense, even as they themselves twist their arguments out of the original shape to try to match counterarguments.[/i]

Right they think that their arguments make sense even when they're very stupid. This isn't because the people making the arguments are stupid or crazy its because making sure that their arguments make sense isn't really a top priority.

I imagine the thinking goes like this:

A is true, I know it is true.
B occurs. B is related in some way to B.
Since A is obviously true, in what way is B evidence of A being true?
Hmmm, how about C. That sounds good, I'll go with C.

People like this are sure that C is a good piece of evidence for A but there's really non analysis at all of whether C makes any sense at all.

[Laima]

pointatinfinity, I think you're doing a good job.

Praline's Macho Sue not only describes my father, but my mother, 2 of my 3 siblings, and at least one of my cousins. Once I realized, on some level, what they were all like (alas, without Praline's elegant phrasing), my entire worldview collapsed. But arguably, I'm better off. I got to rebuild my worldview from scratch, leaving out the delusions (well, most of them :-/), and after years of therapy, I'm now reasonably well-adjusted, and actually happy, seeking growth and always learning. They're still emotionally stunted, and miserable. Back when I was talking to them, they kept insisting I was a horrible failure, but I guess their worldview sort of requires seeing things that way, doesn't it? Sad.

[Dahne]

Fascinating points, both here and by Praline. I have to wonder whether the inspiration for the latter was Terry Goodkind or oh John Ringo no. Though examples are depressingly rampant.

Attempted threadjack, as I would consider that anybody who starts yelling "APPEASEMENT! APPEASEMENT!" honestly isn't worth talking to anyway;

Are there many Macho Sue deconstructions? The falliabilities of the archetype would be interesting to investigate, I think.

The first I can think of offhand is Solid Snake. Fits all the badass stereotypes, supersoldier, gruff, taciturn, loner, etc. But, as it turns out, has actually been affected by a life of being the gruff, loner, super-soldier badass. The best part is the extension of that Halo Effect; he seems like he should be so much of a traditional, infalliable macho badass that a lot of people don't notice.

But then, that's just one of the reasons the Metal Gear series makes my pupils transform into little heart shapes.

[Chris]

Alas, I think Praline is absolutely right.

It's depressing, and no, I have no idea for how to reason with them. How can you reason with people who only need to respond: "Well, you would say that because you're a sissy."?