Blaming the Victim, ponerology in action?

[Cyre2067]

I've been reading Salter's book on Predators and the follow section struck me:

A Just World

When we are confronted with bad news, it seems we try desperately to make sense of it, to put it in some framework that allows us to explain , even to rationalize it, while maintaining our overall positive worldview. Most of all, it seems, we want to believe the outcome is just.

A researcher and teacher named Melvin Lerner first framed the notion of "a just world". He had once taught medical students in a state with large mining regions. As part of their training, he had the task of introducing them to the impact of poverty on health care; for example, poor housing, hygiene, nutritution and the like. Even thoughthe extensive poverty in that state was undeniably due to circumstances beyond the workers' control -- demand for coal had gone down, mines had been automated and unemployment had soared -- nonetheless the students blamed the victims

Typically, very early in that kind of presentation, one of the students would let me know what he grew up with "those people," and I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Those people were happy living like that. They were just the kind of folks who would cheat and connive and let their kids go hungry rather then go out and get a decent job. There was plenty of work for everyone if they just wanted it -- if they'd just go out and look for it. No one had to go hungry. They were lazy, irresponsible.

To his credit, Lerner did not simply stereotype the staff or medical students that he worked with by labeling them "insensitive" or "callous." he asked himself the question instead of why staff and students were reacting that way.

And thus began a program of research that culminated in a book called The Belief in a Just World, which he subtitled A Fundamental Delusion. The research showed time and again that people blamed others for whatever outcome occurred, regardless of whether there was any logical relationship between the behavior and the outcome. Even when the students were told the outcome was randomly assigned, they still rated victims lower on a variety of traits and characteristics than they did others in the same experiments who they were told were randomly selected to have a better outcome.

So I could go on with the quote, but the point is there and the question that popped in my mind was: Is this evidence of psychopathic traits being transmitted to nonpsychopaths? Could we use this as a marker of sorts to gauge 'infection by pathological material'?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

So I could go on with the quote, but the point is there and the question that popped in my mind was: Is this evidence of psychopathic traits being transmitted to nonpsychopaths? Could we use this as a marker of sorts to gauge 'infection by pathological material'?

Unjustly blaming the victim could be a result of a naive/illusory world view, but also a result of intentionally hiding the real culprit of the victim's misery. The latter is obviously consciously psychopathic, but the former I think is a result of the pathocracy pretending that the world is just/fair/balanced/equal opportunity to hide itself, but also people's inherent wishful thinking that "all is well" with the world at large. So in this case it looks like a combination of wishful thinking and pathocracy's influence to maintain this illusion.

But this also can go the other way - people can incorrectly blame the world (or some other person) when someone's problems really do originate inside their mind. That too is a defense mechanism of our predator to avoid taking responsibility for our actions and seeing ourselves objectively, and I think that this seemingly opposite illusion is also promoted by the pathocracy to prevent people from doing anything that resembles "the Work" on themselves.

As an example (that we sometimes see on this forum for example) - if there's a misunderstanding and in reality it is my inability to understand what is being said, the pathocracy (and my own predator) will actually blame the speaker for not being clear or making sense instead. But if in reality the speaker IS talking nonsense, the pathocracy (and my pathocracy-encouraged low self esteem perhaps) will blame ME for my inability to grasp what is being said.

What seems to be a common thread here is that whatever the illusion may be, the pathocracy will promote this illusion to hide the truth. So if the truth of a problem resides outside, then the victim will be blamed. If the truth of the problem lays inside a person's mental/emotional state, then everything BUT that will be blamed and the person will be given pills and all kinds of solutions that have nothing to do with the real issue. In both cases, the point is to prevent the real solution from being implemented whether it is internal or external by reversing people's perception of what the real problem is so they can never address it in the right way, and therefore never get anywhere.

And since psychopaths and the pathocracy at large uses our own mechanicalness against us by promoting and encouraging our natural tendency to wishfully think and create feel-good lies, I think whenever there is a lie like blaming a victim when it's not their fault, it's almost always a result of both, our mechanical/predatorial/selfish mind that likes comfortable illusions like imagining a fair world AND the pathocracy that promotes and encourages these illusions and those aspects of our mind.

So maybe it would even make sense to see any subjectivity or emotional attachment to a lie (or an irrelevant/time-wasting/unimportant truth) as a result of the pathocracy's influence.

This dynamic seems to be present in every aspect of our lives, amazingly. Do you hate your job because you're just a selfish person that is hard to satisfy, you are anti-social and lazy, and just want something for nothing so use that as an excuse to blame your job? Or is it because your job is mindless busywork with psychopathic boss or coworkers, maybe it really is unfair and unnecessarily painful, etc? Probably a pretty common dilemma, and how does the world help people deal with this and a million other similar "is it me or is it outside of me" dilemmas? By convincing you of the wrong one, of course. Then you end up with people getting psychological counseling when there is nothing wrong with them, they just happened to work with psychopaths. Maybe you grow to really hate that person, and your psychologist keeps telling you "You see? Your hate, all this negative emotion, it is killing you, it is making your life miserable" and stuff like that when your emotion and even hate can be perfectly justified. This sort of misdirection is very common, and ends up with wasting the person's time addressing a problem that doesn't exist, over and over and over again.

And to borrow what Laura wrote before - if we were all just flipping coins on guesing where the problem is, we'd get it right 50% of the time. But because the world is SO miserable, people are consistently shooting themselves in the foot and spending their lives in illusions that leave billions in poverty and millions dead and suffering, why? How is it possible that we're wrong about the problem more like 90% of the time? The inevitable conclusion is, say hello to the pathocracy.

 

[Novelis]

Some very interesting insights here that I've enjoyed chewing over.

Typically, very early in that kind of presentation, one of the students would let me know what he grew up with "those people," and I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Those people were happy living like that. They were just the kind of folks who would cheat and connive and let their kids go hungry rather then go out and get a decent job. There was plenty of work for everyone if they just wanted it -- if they'd just go out and look for it. No one had to go hungry. They were lazy, irresponsible.

I’d say that bunching everyone in that situation in one category and referring to them in negative ways as “those people” is an over simplification, but saying that they are ALL victims is also an over simplification. Maybe the student over generalised but could justify his reasons for arriving at these conclusions because of bad personal experiences dealing with people who were indeed “lazy and irresponsible”, and DID cheat and connive and let their kids go hungry?

I’d think it’s likely that there are those –probably the majority- within the group of miners that are genuinely trying their best to earn an honest living but cannot due to events that are beyond their control,but then again, there might also be individuals who do see the problems facing them, but who nonetheless refuse to submit to it and find other ways to have a better standard of living?

There might also be those within the group who are happy to “blend in” and use the reasons that they hear all around them as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

Quite often when people HAVE to support their families due to their consciences, they often take enormous risks and do everything in their power to provide for their families. There are countless stories of people living in extremely bad conditions who immigrate even though there are no certainties that their lives will improve – for example – and who find innovative and creative solutions in chaotic situations most would claim to be beyond their control.

Maybe the only choice that the most morally responsible people can take would be to leave their familiar lives behind in search of a better life elsewhere? Maybe then the ratio of psychopathic/irresponsible/lazy individuals in the mining community rises against normal people?

Is this evidence of psychopathic traits being transmitted to nonpsychopaths? Could we use this as a marker of sorts to gauge 'infection by pathological material'?

Maybe it could serve as a general indication of how advanced a said groups’ state of ponerization has become, but what could one DO about the situation with such general data? Wouldn't it be better to take into consideration the individual cases for blaming the victims?

This dynamic seems to be present in every aspect of our lives, amazingly. Do you hate your job because you're just a selfish person that is hard to satisfy, you are anti-social and lazy, and just want something for nothing so use that as an excuse to blame your job? Or is it because your job is mindless busywork with psychopathic boss or coworkers, maybe it really is unfair and unnecessarily painful, etc?

Maybe both?
Seeing how the former applies would probably help objectify the latter.

Then you end up with people getting psychological counseling when there is nothing wrong with them, they just happened to work with psychopaths.

If they work with psychopaths, and thereby pick up pathological material and suggestions, then there IS something wrong with them, which they must heal internally while also cutting ties with the external problem.

While a psychopath is ruining my life, I know that there are parts of me that in fact love and admire certain psychopathic manifestations of theirs and embody them to gain an advantage in certain respects; both of these considerations must be acknowledged and resolved.

Maybe you grow to really hate that person, and your psychologist keeps telling you "You see? Your hate, all this negative emotion, it is killing you, it is making your life miserable" and stuff like that when your emotion and even hate can be perfectly justified.

A psychologist unaware that the person in counseling has been abused/influenced by psychopathic individuals, and whom cannot see indications of such being the case might indeed give false advice like this, the worst ones being these “you create your own reality” psychologists that tell them to repeat mantras and ignore the problematic psychopath. Go to your safe place…

A good psychologist (preferably one familiar with Ponerology) might instead pinpoint where the problem is – ie, you are dealing with a psychopathic boss – and give advice accordingly, but would at the same time also give you advice and ways of understanding the psychopath to resolve the hate, because no matter how “justifiable” it might be, it still destroys you until you let it go.

 

[Color]

Hi Novelis,

I’d say that bunching everyone in that situation in one category and referring to them in negative ways as “those people” is an over simplification, but saying that they are ALL victims is also an over simplification. Maybe the student over generalised but could justify his reasons for arriving at these conclusions because of bad personal experiences dealing with people who were indeed “lazy and irresponsible”, and DID cheat and connive and let their kids go hungry?

I’d think it’s likely that there are those –probably the majority- within the group of miners that are genuinely trying their best to earn an honest living but cannot due to events that are beyond their control,but then again, there might also be individuals who do see the problems facing them, but who nonetheless refuse to submit to it and find other ways to have a better standard of living?

There might also be those within the group who are happy to “blend in” and use the reasons that they hear all around them as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

Although all this is possible and probable, it has little to do with the fact how, when a person chooses to see just a segment, a piece of the whole picture - it will lead him/her to all the wrong conclusions about the problem itself, and accordingly - his own inner programs, which SAO gave examples for - will activate and look for the blaming party. The fact that pathocracy supports and creates an environment for such one-sided thinking, ads to the circle. And we are exactly where SAO said: concentrating on the imaginary problem and looking for solution for imaginery problem. No matter what exactly we believe our problem IS, and how it started, in the first place. It's a mix of our current state of sleeping and the pathocracy supporting it and doing it's best to keep us that way.

It's not about many ways and examples of how this game is being manifested on individual levels, cause there's not much we can do for any of those persons, they have to do it for themselves. But the most of what you wrote I find to be just that - going around the circle naming possible individual examples, which, let's make that clear, we can go on and on and on and never name them all and never say anything important or learn anything, cause it's generalizing of somebody's possible experience, without knowing the exact facts..

I hope I didn't sound rude here, cause just wanted to react to what I find nowhere-going discussion.

 

[Cyre2067]

I think the main point Salter made was that we, as a culture, do often Blame the Victim. She quotes examples of women who were raped or assaulted and all the things they or those around them claim they should or should not have done in order to avoid the rape/assault. It's this primative defensive mechanism that reinforces our belief that we have control over our fate, and while we do to a certain degree, we tend to over exaggerate the amount of control we have in order to reinforce our positive illusion that 'the world is safe. This also removes culpability from the attacker/rapist unconciously.

What I was kind of openly pondering was is this a sign of ponerogenesis (infection by psychopathy), since it appears to occur in most, but not all of the population. I've been known to 'blame the victim' on more then one occasion, though it is definitely an issue of degree/circumstance.

And since psychopaths and the pathocracy at large uses our own mechanicalness against us by promoting and encouraging our natural tendency to wishfully think and create feel-good lies, I think whenever there is a lie like blaming a victim when it's not their fault, it's almost always a result of both, our mechanical/predatorial/selfish mind that likes comfortable illusions like imagining a fair world AND the pathocracy that promotes and encourages these illusions and those aspects of our mind.

That bit in bold to me represents Scio's inherent 'blame the victim' program. Remember, in this context we're talking about victims of economic downturn and rape/assault, in those cases you can never 'blame the victim'.

Unjustly blaming the victim could be a result of a naive/illusory world view, but also a result of intentionally hiding the real culprit of the victim's misery. The latter is obviously consciously psychopathic, but the former I think is a result of the pathocracy pretending that the world is just/fair/balanced/equal opportunity to hide itself, but also people's inherent wishful thinking that "all is well" with the world at large. So in this case it looks like a combination of wishful thinking and pathocracy's influence to maintain this illusion.

I'd agree with the bit in bold, but do you think it is the result of being exposed to pathology or just a natural human response? Trying to trace the etiology of the phenomenon.

I’d say that bunching everyone in that situation in one category and referring to them in negative ways as “those people” is an over simplification, but saying that they are ALL victims is also an over simplification. Maybe the student over generalised but could justify his reasons for arriving at these conclusions because of bad personal experiences dealing with people who were indeed “lazy and irresponsible”, and DID cheat and connive and let their kids go hungry?

Perhaps, however we aren't given that data, so it's an awefully big maybe. Further, recall what Salter said:

Even thoughthe extensive poverty in that state was undeniably due to circumstances beyond the workers' control -- demand for coal had gone down, mines had been automated and unemployment had soared -- nonetheless the students blamed the victims

So what I'm Seeing here is Novelis' 'blame the victim' program. Maybe I'm wrong, but Salter's research suggests we all do it to various degrees, I think this is just one of the lesser degrees of the same phenomenon.

Maybe it could serve as a general indication of how advanced a said groups’ state of ponerization has become, but what could one DO about the situation with such general data? Wouldn't it be better to take into consideration the individual cases for blaming the victims?

Well it could serve as a red-flag, something we could educate people about, it could also be useful in the Work as a program to identify and eradicate. I'd agree individual cases do matter, but even if a woman is walking alone at night, and is assaulted, that doesn't remove culpability from the attacker and place it on the woman. Further, in cases of economic downturn you also have a similiar situation, and we might see this 'blame the victim' ideology coming at us as a psychological weapon in the near future. Esp if only some quarters of the populace suffer.

I believe there is a parallel to the workers strikes in france: Sark-izzle is attacking certain government workers via their pensions and benefits, we see the populace Blaming the workers for having the pensions in the first place, and further, blaming them for strikes which interrupt their commute. The blame should be laid at the aggressor's feet - not the victims. The fact that the victims are being blamed is evidence of pathology, and thus ponerology - no?

Color - your spot on imho. Scio did pull out a lot of examples, he's good at that.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I think blaming the victim by itself is not necessarily evidence of ponerization, and the context should be considered. So I don't think it can be a useful marker in and of itself, as the devil is in the details.

And since psychopaths and the pathocracy at large uses our own mechanicalness against us by promoting and encouraging our natural tendency to wishfully think and create feel-good lies, I think whenever there is a lie like blaming a victim when it's not their fault, it's almost always a result of both, our mechanical/predatorial/selfish mind that likes comfortable illusions like imagining a fair world AND the pathocracy that promotes and encourages these illusions and those aspects of our mind.

That bit in bold to me represents Scio's inherent 'blame the victim' program.

I was just acknowledging that sometimes it IS the "victim's" fault. Blaming the victim is only wrong when it's not the victim's fault, and I don't think this can be decided by the mere fact that someone is a "victim" - but by looking at all the details of the situation.

You know how someone can be right for all the wrong reasons? Someone could make an ignorant assumption based on their programming and ponerization, but they could accidentally be right. Doesn't mean it was right to make that assumption. So in the example you cited, I don't know the real reason the miners had difficulty and how much of it had to do with them, and how much of it had to do with things outside of their control. I don't have enough data to make that determination. But it did look like that the guy was making a generalization - he may have been right about some of the miners, but I doubt he'd be right about all of them. And so it seemed like he has a bias of some sort. I don't know what this bias is because I don't think there is enough data. Does he not like miners? Maybe he had bad experiences with a miner(s) in the past? Maybe he has illusion that the world is fair? I don't know, maybe the data does exist and I'm not seeing it. But I can't really draw any conclusions without this data, therefore I decided to speak in more general terms about the concept of blaming the victim, and not so much about your specific example.

Don't forget that while someone can have the program of "blaming the victim" prematurely (and I'm not sure if I do, please let me know if you still see it), it is just as possible to have the opposite program of "pitying the victim" when the person may not be as much of a victim as it may initially appear. And it is the details of the situation that must be used to make that determination, osit.

I honestly think this consideration applies for rape and assault as well. Sometimes it is not rape or assault to begin with but is presented as such. And if it is, of course the attacker cannot be excused, but the victim may have done things to put themselves into this situation. Not in the sense of blaming the victim for what the attacker/raper did, but in the sense of just doing something that might've increased the possibility of it occuring.

On a mass scale we have pathocracy ruling the world. Are normal people the victims here? Are they to blame? I think both. I think the same thing can be said about people who consistently get themselves into a situation where they are exploited, manipulated, abused, maybe even raped or assaulted. Sometimes there really is nothing they could do, perhaps, but again, should we not judge a situation on the details of who/what/where/how/why etc before assuming how much or how little control a "victim" really had, whether he/she really is a "victim" at all, and all that? Sometimes psychopaths play the victim role too, in fact they often do as one of their strategies for manipulation.

 

[Color]

I think the main point Salter made was that we, as a culture, do often Blame the Victim. She quotes examples of women who were raped or assaulted and all the things they or those around them claim they should or should not have done in order to avoid the rape/assault. It's this primative defensive mechanism that reinforces our belief that we have control over our fate, and while we do to a certain degree, we tend to over exaggerate the amount of control we have in order to reinforce our positive illusion that 'the world is safe. This also removes culpability from the attacker/rapist unconciously.

What I was kind of openly pondering was is this a sign of ponerogenesis (infection by psychopathy), since it appears to occur in most, but not all of the population. I've been known to 'blame the victim' on more then one occasion, though it is definitely an issue of degree/circumstance.

About that and the rest of your post, for not quoting it all, I would like to give my 'take' on the issue. First of all, what strikes me as the primary reason why somebody would blame the victim is pretty simple: if one admits there's something really wrong and evil happening out there, near him/her, then he/her, if wanting to keep up the picture of being a 'good human being' - has to react and actually do something about that. And that needs a lot of work cause the one has to first investigate all the facts and then take a stand and fight for what found to be the right thing to do and making sure to deal, in some way, with the 'wrong'. But how can you do that if you're not willing to investigate ur own 'wrongs'? Once taking into consideration what is evil - you have to examine your own role in it.

It's simple, as I see it - blaming the victims is announcing to the world : 'All is great about me, I'm a good person!' and then continue with ur life, without a need to change anything around you or inside of you. All 'is fine' ;)

Edit: I forgot to mention the take of New Age beliefs, as another possible reason why somebody would blame the victim, although I don't think that's what Cyre is wondering about... It's obvious where that kind of thinking leads to: 'If it happened to them - they were not 'aware' enough and not thinking 'positive' enough so therefor - they attracted this event on themselves...' Which brings us right back to the point of not feeling 'obligate' to think or do anything about that matter anymore.