A FEW GOOD CARDINALS

Exploring the truth about the rule, the key & human behavior

El Abra in Colombia is a cave system of considerable significance. It is estimated to be approximately 12,640 years old and reported to be one of the most ancient archaeological discoveries in the Western Hemisphere. The Muisca called El Abra their home between around 600 and 1600 AD. In around 1537 AD, the Muisca, an indigenous culture of the Altiplano Cundiboyacense, negotiated with an invading European power over the source of their gold.

There appears to have been a misunderstanding. To the Muisca, gold could have been a symbol of accomplishment because they owned lots of jewelry made of this precious and highly desirable metal. The conquistadores insisted the Muisca show them the source. The Muisca pointed to their salt mines, from which they extracted the commodity so desired by other tribes it made for excellent trading value. Frustrated, the invaders reportedly killed their counterparts in the negotiation and, to show how serious they were, almost everyone else in the tribe for “good measure.”

In hindsight, what the conquistadores failed to appreciate could hinder anyone today in getting ahead, being appreciated and loved just the same. Bias appears to have hindered them in considering that, to the Muiscas, salt was “gold” as it generated them abundant profit. The invaders, similarly, failed to appreciate that the presence of jewelry did not logically imply that a source of the precious metal was nearby or readily accessible. Perhaps the long, stressful journey, or the pressure from back home to return with abundant riches, prevented them from having an open mind. In addition, the impulse to retribute the Muisca’s perceived unwillingness to cooperate with capital punishment may be indicative of a utilitarian perspective held by the invader: “When no longer useful, discard.”

Manipulation to make a target do something they don’t want to do can be considered toxic behavior. If the end result mutually benefits each party, one could argue the target should have been more open minded. The question that inevitably arises is, “When does the benefit materialize?” while a follow up question may be, “Are there any stakeholders who stand to lose, regardless, but whose voice may never be sufficiently heard?” When passion dictates decision making, regret may come too late. It is said that to this day, the source of gold in the time of the Muisca’s run-in with the Spanish is yet to be found. Failure to obtain meaningful results from manipulative and coercive tactics appears not to have stopped anyone so inclined before or after the time of the conquistadores.

We could argue that the perpetrator of such tactics simply lacks intelligence to judge the potential impact of their actions. Research appears to show that this argument lacks standing. In modern times, often significant effort goes into perpetuating the use of manipulation and torture to make the target comply and yield, under the direction of sometimes highly educated and celebrated leadership. Such effort appears consistently contradicted in its efficacy by a body of research whose findings imply that manipulative and coercive behavior, in the long run at least, can have an effect opposite of that which was intended. What mechanism(s) may be in play that would perpetuate the often indiscriminate use of coercion and manipulation? It seems that it would be the concept of “learning by example,” perhaps in conjunction with the principle of self-justification. If one party initiates something, a second party may try it as well—while fixing any shortcomings in the process. If the result is not meaningfully challenged, self-justification may give a sense of permission to continue the now newly established practice as Carol Travis et al. argue convincingly in Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck, Nobel Prize winner: physics. April 23, 1858

 

Reporting on abuse may suffer from a different form of manipulation though perhaps not less impactful. Going back a few hundred years, the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, also known as the Spanish Inquisition, was introduced in 1478 by the Catholic Monarchs King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. If your recollection of history is similar to mine, you may not know that while the Spanish Inquisition condemned over a hundred individuals to death between 1559 and 1566, in the Netherlands ten times as many heretics were reportedly executed in the same period, and under Queen Anne’s Protestant reign in England about three times as many. If Protestants needed an excuse to go after heretics, apparently Catholics provided one. We are historical witness of the principles of “learning by example” and self-justification—they are doing it, I might do it as well—in action. These days, clergy may not go after heretics anymore, but they still go after children if a recently published list of cases between 2000 and 2019 is to be believed, accusing Protestant church leaders of having failed the community by mistreating sexual abuse victims and survivors.

Reporting often fails victims by misconstruction of facts or simply by hiding them. In the case of misconduct against Africans and Chinese in America—with respect to slavery and exclusion from citizenship, respectively— there appears to be an equal sense of complacency regarding the actions of the judiciary and others who fought against discriminatory policies. Good deeds may sometimes not go unpunished as the saying goes, they may also go unreported. The impulse for the exhibition of behavior is arguably in some part the result of context. If one had not studied law at the time of slavery in America, for instance, one might not have been as passionate and effective about abolishing the practice at the core. There were others who argued in favor and felt justified by entering into a Civil War for it, while a third demographic continued or took up the practice in Africa and elsewhere after slavery was officially abolished in the West. It is the at times heated debate over the history of slavery that seems to obscure a more sinister aspect of behavior: even the smallest, seemingly insignificant impulse can have an effect.

Every time I feel compelled to do something, there must be a reason behind it. I may think logically about why I eat when I do, for example, but there is arguably a biological impetus for it as well. Survival is a strong motivator, and so is the will to live. For humans, in contrast to animals, having a meaning for life may also play a role as Viktor Frankl surmised after he spent some time in a Nazi concentration camp and developed his Logotherapy based on the experience. With behavior closely associated with context, we might be tempted to add a host of other factors as well, most of which may be of psychological and biochemical origin therefore falling outside of scope of this book. Research appeared to reveal that behavior seems to be quite similar across certain people if we group them in a particular way.

The counterpart of the toxic person must be the empath. It is recognized that empathy manifests in three different ways: cognitive, emotional and compassionate.  Cognitive empathy may be considered the closest in nature to narcissism, while compassionate empathy embodies the most wholesome qualities of empathy, instilling in the subject to not just feel what another person is feeling but also to take action to perpetuate constructive emotional wellbeing. The person who exhibits toxic behavior may be called a toxic person. Experts seem to agree that the toxic person does not consider their behavior and its impact in the same way as a compassionate or emotional empath appears to do. Unfortunately, to date, those same experts purportedly have failed to identify in a meaningful way, at least for the victims of abuse, where toxic behavior comes from. The closest we seem to get is by identifying toxic behavior in terms of, for example:

1. A fear of being unable to meet the demands of a higher authority—whether a person or a deity;
2. A deep rooted conviction that one should pursue a goal whatever it takes; and
3. A sense of separateness or physical dissociation from one’s environment—the inability to perceive the effect of one’s actions as interconnected to a social structure.

Karma is a fundamental law that promises us to “reap what we sow.” When I do a good deed, I (or at least, my ego) may expect a reward. However, if it is indeed my ego expecting said reward, the good deed may be considered objectionable because it does not originate from the right frame of mind: genuine altruism. Philosophers have debated the issue of good deeds for thousands of years and may very well continue the discussion. Meanwhile, as ordinary citizens, we have to put up with, or benefit from, day to day toxic, not so toxic or genuinely benevolent neighborly actions. How are we supposed to know which to expect?

“Everything can be taken from a [hu]man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” – Viktor Frankl, MD, PhD.

There are local, individual instances of abuse such as that between two people, a toxic person and their target. Domestic abuse, for instance, surfaces practically regardless of religious affiliation. In order to acquiesce the inevitable cognitive dissonance with the original premise of religious doctrine, church leaders, current or historical, cleverly decreed that sins may be forgiven under certain conditions, or that one gender is considered superior to another. Similarly to their behavior at home behind closed doors, toxic people can operate as a team or organization in order to perpetuate their agenda on a wider scale.

Anybody who has ever had to deal with a bureaucratic organization intent on pursuing its agenda—against better knowing—may be able to attest to the challenges such institutionalized toxicity brings. The world as we know it, thanks to globalization of trade, a population of just about eight billion, the technological capabilities of a significant number of countries, and the environmental effects of two hundred years or so of an “industrial revolution” appears to be at a tipping point. Yet, the closer we live together, and the more impactful the footprint is of those in power, the more I seem to experience the effect my neighbor has on me.

We should be able to trust the media based on the premise that journalism’s first obligation reportedly is to tell the truth. How disappointing it must have been at the time, when the radio show War of the Worlds led to the birth of modern day fake news. Newspapers reported an alien invasion in October of 1938, an invasion that didn’t happen. The reason? Publishers apparently feared competition from a “new” medium, radio. Apparently, it was case in which it was okay to abandon one’s principles given a strong enough threat to one’s survival. Did everyone suddenly lose trust in reporters? It seems a new generation of readers and listeners grew up instead and all was forgotten…

When we are acutely aware of the effect of karma, it may strongly direct our behavior. How does that work for the person who ignores karma or claims it does not apply to them? Apparently, there is a great sense of freedom. A contributing factor is the ability, when the inevitable consequences of their behavior catch up with them, to shift blame to another person or situation. When they run out of options, they may beg for forgiveness from you or the community, promising they will “never do it again.” Or, like the 37th President of the United States exclaimed after the Watergate scandal tainted his administration, they may simply deflect any criticism by exclaiming, “I am not a crook!” Karma may be considered the uncomfortable consequence of behavior, but it may be best, and most conveniently, forgotten by those who stand to lose the most.

A factor that adversely impacts behavior and that gets very little attention may be exposure to stress over an extended period of time. Long-term stress seems to have a strange way of affecting my mind: it can make me tune out things I have become accustomed to due to repeated exposure. When I least expect it, I might be caught off guard when an amygdala hijack strikes in response to an unexpected “threat.” Repeated exposure to low grade trauma—trauma that someone who did not have the same experience might call “inconsequential” and “harmless”— may result in a condition called complex post-traumatic stress disorder (cPTSD).

“Empathy is an important step towards compassion. Compassion for ourselves must be part of that, it must come first even. Once we have compassion for our mind and body, we can reimagine how society should function.”

Some people have always sought to gain control through pressure. It wasn’t until fairly recently that an effort was made to study the psychology of control. Labels were conceived: narcissism and empathy, psychopathy and altruism, sociopathy and echoism. The ultimate medium through which psychopathy and sociopathy express themselves as character traits may be war. War does not have to be violent nor does it have to involve many people. I may suggest that I am “at war” with the neighbor if I don’t like the new fence he put around his yard, for example. War may be constrained in time, or it may extend indefinitely. There is a “war on drugs,” for instance, that has been going on for decades.

How much does narcissism cost us? Maybe a lot financially—if the 2008 financial crisis was any indication and you did not live in a First Nation tribe isolated from “western” society. But what about the emotional and mental toll on our lives? Do the effects of narcissism extend to trauma inflicted on their victims, and does it affect one gender more than another? There are many voices that suggest men seem more narcissistic by nature. In fact, when I searched online and typed, “are men more narcissistic than women” the auto-fill suggested “why are men more…” instead. Yet, despite the widely held belief that men are more narcissistic than women, no systematic review to establish the magnitude had apparently been conducted until a few years ago. A recent meta-analysis of the available data appears to establish that the differences seem less well pronounced or even non-existent.

In real life, we deal with narcissism from either men or women—or both at once. What about the mother who cannot provide for her young children after the father abandons them—is she a narcissist if we learn that she kicked him out even though he has a good job and excellent standing in the community, and, perhaps most importantly, did not abuse her? How should we judge infanticide statistics when we learn that some studies suggest mothers kill their offspring at a much higher rate than fathers do —and what do those numbers tell us about pre-natal conditions? The overall picture of the origin of abuse may be far more complex than any expert could ever have imagined. It may be so complex that no reasonable research could ever establish a reliable cause and effect, at which point most people might abandon the effort and go on with their lives—until something meaningful affects us personally.

When we focus on one particular aspect of history and find justification for our cause today, it may be convenient to ignore other aspects. It may be even more convenient when the culture whose history we seek to ignore or celebrate didn’t write much down if anything at all. It is no secret that some of us appear to be infinitely creative and inventive. Yet, we may never know how creative and intelligent some illiterate tribes were in the centuries after the birth of Christ because they were wiped out by the Romans. The Vikings did not write much down either, yet archaeological research with today’s laser scanning technology is able to paint a more accurate picture of their advanced astronomical and agricultural practices than ever before.

If homo sapiens originated in Africa, what happened that it took a European to develop the first electrical apparatus? Specifically, what took so long—the year was 1822—and why did it happen in a traditionally considered cold and damp area—does the brain work better in a colder climate? What contributed to Michael Faraday’s success? Was it because he was self-taught and thus free from expert bias, or was it divine inspiration? Were conditions right in that Faraday did not have to fight for survival as much as others before him? Or was he able to fit the pieces of the proverbial puzzle together in just the right way—Faraday may have drawn on research by Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère to devise his electric motor.

It seems we can deduct from history that not just colleagues pursuing a similar goal but many others also indirectly contributed to Faraday’s success going all the way back from the time humans left the hot and disease ridden continent of Africa:

1. Arabic and Greek philosophers and scientists developing math and logic;
2. migrations bringing people ever further north and west, while the Vikings ventured south, to
3. a structured society with a fairly reliable food supply and basic medical care developing in Western Europe.

What we also know, if recorded history is our guide, is that many challenges apparently stood in the way, natural and manmade. Viral and bacterial infections appear to be nature’s primary way to show us who is boss. The weather and fluctuations in our food supply are another challenge. A third major challenge appears to be of our own making: attitude. Whether someone agrees with our presence has throughout history either diminished our chances of survival or ensured them. How we promote ourselves, how many resources we have at our disposal, how attractive our contribution is, these are factors that determine who well liked we are.

“...the cost-conscious design of the four nuclear powerplants at the Chernobyl site in Ukraine was not an accident—pun not intended. When something leaves little room for error, the impact of one person can be quite significant.”

That we seem to be our own worst enemy should not have been a secret in the 1820s. Jealousy, honor killings, territorial disputes, and war were all very well established practices at the time Faraday invented his electric motor. However, since Faraday’s invention, things have accelerated rather rapidly both for evil and good. Occasionally, both principles were advocated by the same person. In 1918, Fritz Haber gave the world the Haber–Bosch process to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen gas, considered critical for the large-scale synthesis of fertilizers and explosives. Before that, Haber—allegedly against the advice of his wife—pioneered developing and weaponizing chlorine and other poisonous gases during World War I, resulting in the gruesome death of countless soldiers on the battlefield. A further developed form of Haber’s creation, Zyklon B, contributed to the Holocaust in World War II.

What makes one person seek destruction and another progress and prosperity? It seems the will to survive translates differently from one individual to another. In one personality, it presents as fear and manifests as insecurity. Insecurity, not to be confused with lack of confidence and worry, can, according to experts in the field, be compensated by embellishment of one’s contribution, bullying and imposing control on others.

In another person's life, the drive to survive presents as a free-wheeling approach: anything goes. Finally, for a third personality, the drive to survive can present as a respectful attitude to friend and foe alike. This person seeks results that are fair to all, while minimizing risk by self-regulating their behavior.

Life appears to be governed by rules. Karma is one of them, learning by example is another. There are many other rules and we learn them as we grow from infant to adolescent and adult. How does personality affect our interpretation of the rules? It seems we need a key. Can we somehow distinguish one person from another without having to learn everything about them and their history? Who is most likely to deny that something exists, that a rule has been broken or should apply?

Is it exposure to a certain ideology that influences someone’s behavior? Or is it a natural preference dictated by cultural conditioning? Is it related to someone’s profession, age, or social status? A personality assessment survey may yield results when properly structured and administered. Research for 11:59 appeared to point to a different indicator: a combination of the date of birth and certain other factors.

People have been looking for a key like this and turned it into a science. Reverse engineering and basic statistical analysis allowed us to come up with a workflow:

1. Take the date of birth of the subject and identify their insecurity profile;
2. Examine the situation at hand and the subject’s position and interest in the projected outcome;
3. Identify all other stakeholders; and
4. Propose a most likely behavioral outcome (MLBO).

People born during four distinct periods in the year have a personality characteristic that sets them apart from everyone else: the ability to focus on something intently. The object of their choosing seems to become them. Born between December 21 and January 20, March 21 and April 19, June 21 and July 22, and between September 23 and October 22, they appear to have a kack for expertise in their chosen field. The downside of their natural sense of direction is that they tend to think rather highly of their own capabilities. In other words, these people appear to have a significantly higher risk of developing narcissistic behavior traits than others. Contributing factors may be childhood development, trauma, and exposure to narcissistic behavior from others

“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” — Anne Frank, German-Dutch diarist and Holocaust victim

.

Narcissistic behavior that turns toxic includes denying the presence and contributions of others. Peer pressure can apparently legitimize such denial. When toxic narcissists operate together, their manipulation of relationships can turn into institutionlized abuse, corruption and worse. 11:59 provides a deeper explanation of the association between someone's birth date and other factors from an astrological and psychological perspective.

Irrespective of intellectual capacity, the anti-social behavior of the toxic narcissist appears to have an adverse impact on our collective quality of life. How can we identify avenues to promote responsible behavior that eliminates risk and prevents objectionable harm? Someone with a utilitarian mindset may never be able to judge nor be accountable for the consequences of their actions. How suitable would such an individual thus be for a leadership position that impacts the lives of hundreds, thousands or millions? Perhaps a solopreneur business as a merchant, artist, inventor or expert with a small support team—where they are accountable to themselves—their talent, skills and dedication may be a much more fertile ground for the fulfillment of their life purpose.

Time may be our biggest friend if we let it. Change may sometimes be desired instantly, but it may be imprudent to implement it when we do not yet have the best perspective on a situation. Our vested interest may prevent us from seeing the possibilities someone else suggests are feasible. Where people are hurting, it may pay off to examine if the hurt is imagined or real. Psychology has a term for a condition that prevents us from properly identifying the options: bias and it comes in many forms. Giving yourself time to digest a call for action may be something that saves the day.

If the toxic narcissist perceives life as a theater of war, how does the healthy, adaptive narcissist consider life? The adaptive narcissist, and the cognitive empath, may see life as an adventure, whereas the somatic empath who is capable of feeling what others feel, and the affective empath, who responds to people’s emotions, may see life and all of its manifestations as a big puzzle to be solved.

There may be no wrong or right answer to anything. The situation itself, or the prompting of others, may fool us into thinking immediate action is required. Self-regulation, discipline and silence are three avenues that can clear the mind. My behavior may be at the mercy of context if I don’t watch myself. The toxic narcissist may do everything at their disposal to throw me for a loop: convincing me to consume unhealthy processed foods, breathing toxic air, and drinking polluted water. For the psychologically toxic person, the goal warrants the means: if I am less productive or die after breathing toxic air, there will always be another to take my place. If one person fights for a cause that appeals to some, others may simply relocate the offending practice to another location. An example might be America shifting its manufacturing operations to China in order to circumvent environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

Both the result of the implementation of such measures, clean drinking water and better air quality, and the effect of the offshoring critical national manufacturing capacity, appear lost on the toxic narcissist. To them, them a less productive worker, as a result of disease, is a source of income for the medical industry. For the narcissist, the enjoyment of clean air, for example, may not be an immediate benefit. It seems best to see their every action, no matter how small or how big, from this perspective. How can we thus not appreciate the urgent need to adjust our appreciation of the toxic narcissist’s contribution to society?

Get your copy of A Few Good Cardinals now:

WANT TO HELP EMOTIONAL TRAUMA SURVIVORS?
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAMPAIGN TO DONATE
HARD COPIES OF "A FEW GOOD CARDINALS "
TO NEIGHBORHOOD BOOK EXCHANGES ALL ACROSS THE U.S.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE GOFUNDME CAMPAIGN!

References