Author: Alycia

A busybody is defined as “a nosy, meddling person, who’s very interested in what other people say and do”, and “a person who is too interested in things that do not involve them.” Busybodies have no problems with speaking their minds about something that does not concern them, and sometimes give unsolicited advice on matters that they may not be as knowledgeable about as they think they are. People who are controlling, on the other hand, will do more than just intervene in the lives of others.

People who are controlling actively try to control the lives of others. While a busybody may give unsolicited advice, a controlling person may force the other person to follow the advice. Controlling people use methods of control such as manipulation, threats, intimidation and even physical force.

The intentions of a busybody are sometimes good and sometimes evil. For example, say that someone is about to park in a handicapped parking spot without a handicapped parking sticker. The so-called busybody may shout out to the person that he is not supposed to be parking in that parking spot, because it is for people who actually have disabilities, and who really need that spot available for them to use. In this scenario, the busybody is not necessarily doing anything wrong, in my opinion. Laws regarding handicapped parking spots are there for a reason. One may not appreciate these laws until one sees things from the perspective of a person who is handicapped and needs that parking spot.

Two individuals could both do the same deed, yet one may do the deed with good intentions, and the other with bad intentions. Take the handicapped parking scenario. The busybody may have good intentions in that he/she may genuinely care about people who are disabled. He/she may even have a disabled family member, and not want to see someone violating laws regarding handicapped parking spots at the expense of handicapped people. On the other hand, the busybody may have bad intentions. Such a busybody may not care about disabled people at all, and is rather making the comment to the stranger for the purpose of self exaltation and establishing moral superiority.

Busybody behavior becomes a problem when the busybody does not know the full situation. For example, if a busybody sees someone park in a handicapped parking spot without a handicapped parking sticker, and the driver gracefully comes out of the car without any visible sign of disability, the busybody can easily believe that the driver is breaking the law. After the busybody explains to the driver that he is breaking the law, she may then see him escort his disabled mother from the passenger seat. He then explains that the handicapped parking sticker fell on the floor of the car, and got stuck somewhere. Here, the busybody’s intervention was in vain, even if the intentions were good.

In other contexts, busybody behavior can be more than just a nuisance. It can cause unjustified damage to another person’s reputation, particularly when the busybody behavior is in the form of gossip. When busybodies spread gossip, they may blow things out of proportion in such a way as to stir up trouble. For example, say Peggy, Jane and Busybody Betty are all members of the same church. Busybody Betty overhears Peggy telling someone that she is concerned about Jane because Jane is obese and needs to lose weight. Busybody Betty comes to Jane and says “did you know that Peggy called you fat?”

Here, Busybody Betty is making it sound like Peggy is being judgmental of Jane, when in reality Peggy is just concerned about Jane’s well-being. Meanwhile, Jane’s feeling may get hurt, and resentment may brew up between Peggy and Jane that was just based on a misunderstanding — which Busybody Betty created. Busybody Betty rationalizes her behavior by telling herself, and others, that she needed to tell Jane the “truth” about what Peggy thinks of her. Even if Busybody Betty finds out later that she had perverted the truth, she will still stubbornly defend her behavior by saying that at least her intentions are good; but were they? There is a good chance that Busybody Betty was only spreading these toxic messages because she is unhappy with her own life, and likes to create trouble in the lives of others.

Controlling people and government dictators: not too different

People who are controlling, in my opinion, are more likely than busybodies to have bad intentions. There is a difference between meddling in affairs that are not your own versus forcing another person to live his/her life your way. When we think of people who are controlling, we may think of the possessive romantic partner. However, controlling behavior can occur in friendships and among same-sex family members.

Evildoers gravitate towards positions of power. While good people are more likely to see power as a big responsibility, bad people view power as something that they can enjoy. To bad people, power allows them to get their way all the time. In addition, great power feeds the bad person’s ego and sense of superiority.

The thing is that not all evildoers are able to elevate themselves to a position of high power. In order to be in a position of high power, such as that of a government dictator, one needs to be in the right place, at the right time, and have the right skillset. Most people, even if they want to be in a position of high power, would not be able to attain it. When evildoers cannot elevate themselves to a position of high power, they will instead seek power and control over individuals as is discussed in the Low Grade Villains article.

When an evildoer seeks oppressive control over the victim, the evildoer may rationalize, with the chief rationalization being “it’s for their own good” and “I care about them” and “I don’t want them to hurt themselves with their bad decisions”. Here is the interesting thing: government dictators have very similar rationalizations. When a government dictator exercises oppressive control over large numbers of people throughout a society, the government dictator may rationalize by saying “it’s for their own good”. Government dictators often see the masses of people as being too stupid to represent themselves or even run their own lives.

The controlling person expresses profound arrogance when he/she claims that he/she is forcibly intervening into the life of the other person “for their own good”. What this rationalization implies is that the victim is too incompetent to make his/her own life decisions, and needs to be under the control of someone who loves him/her. Decent people respect the autonomy of their fellow human beings, even when it is obvious that a fellow human being is making a bad decision. Bad decision making among other fellow human beings is, to the decent person, no excuse to forcibly intervene. To the self-justifying evildoer, on the other hand, it may be their obligation to intervene. An evildoer may bury him/herself in the delusion that he/she is needed.

Like busybodies, some controlling people are just unhappy with their own lives. They intervene into the lives of others because they do not want to have to deal with their own problems. Even worse, sometimes controlling people are losers, as is discussed in the Planet Loser article. They are prone to messing up their own lives with their bad decisions, and they actively try to drag others down with them by forcibly intervening in their lives. Sometimes controlling people may project their limitations onto other people, with the attitude “if I cannot do it, then you cannot do it either”.

Is the controlling people any less evil than a government dictator? Not necessarily. Government dictators such as Hitler and Stalin caused harm and suffering among much larger numbers of people than an average controlling person ever would. However, that is not necessarily because these dictators are any more evil. Rather, it is because the government dictator has more power than your average controlling person. With more power comes the ability to do more harm. In other words, the amount of harm and suffering one causes is not just a function of how evil one is, but also a function of how much power one has. What does this mean? It means that you can have people in your life, right under your nose, who are as evil as Hitler and Stalin.

Busybodies versus Good Samaritans

The term “Good Samaritan” originates from the Bible. Unlike busybodies, good Samaritans are seen as virtuous, but why? Good Samaritans intervene in the life of a stranger, too. Below is an excerpt from the Bible that illustrates what a good Samaritan is like, taken from Luke 10:30-37:

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down the road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise the Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day, he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?

The Bible describes busybodies in this way, taken from 1 Timothy 5:13

Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.

These excerpts from the Bible show that the good Samaritan is doing what is right while what busybodies do is wrong. While the good Samaritan’s behavior is motivated by compassion for another human being, the busybody’s behavior is motivated by idleness. The good Samaritan intervenes where intervention actually is needed. The good Samaritan does not need a rationalization to intervene. In fact, it is obvious to many that it would be wrong to not intervene.

Good Samaritan versus Busybody versus Controlling Person

Let us say that a family in the neighborhood has an unconventional diet, such as a vegan diet. A busybody may express concern that the unconventional diet may not be providing the children with enough protein or nutrition to grow properly. The busybody may discuss his/her concerns with other people in the neighborhood, and even bring his/her concerns to the attention of the family. A controlling person, on the other hand, would try to intervene in a more forceful way. For example, the controlling person may invite the family over for dinner, and secretly slip animal-based ingredients into the food. The controlling person may also try to frame the mother and father of the family as being unfit for raising children, and try to actively have the children taken away from them. The good Samaritan would most likely not intervene at all, but the good Samaritan would intervene if the children were showing signs to serious abuse and/or neglect.

Let us say that Martha is writing up an email at her work desk where she is expressing a view on something that many people would find to be controversial. A busybody may peak over Martha’s shoulder, read the email, and express his/her disapproval of the email message. If Martha still sends off the email, then the busybody would perhaps complain to some of the other colleagues about this ridiculous email that Martha wrote. A controlling person, on the other hand, would try to forcibly stop Martha from writing and sending off he email. The controlling wants his/her way all the time and does not want people doing anything that he/she does not like. That includes writing emails that contain points of view that he/she is not in agreement with. The good Samaritan would most likely not intervene because good Samaritans do not go peeking over people’s shoulders and watching what they are doing.

In both of the examples above, the busybody and the controlling person can find a rationalization for their behavior that sounds plausible in their eyes. They can easily convince themselves that their interventions are justified, and even necessary. In the case of the family eating an unconventional diet, the busybody and the controlling person can easily rationalize and say that they are looking out for the family’s better interests by making sure that they eat a proper healthy and varied diet. In reality, they are making the arrogant assumption that they know better than the mother and father of the family what a healthy diet is (even if they have no health-related degrees). They may not even care about the family at all, but rather about feeding their own ego.

One thing that controlling people do a lot of, which busybodies usually do not do, is manipulation. When the victim does not do what the controlling person wants him/her to do, the controlling person uses various manipulation tactics, such as threats, intimidation and imposition of guilt. Sometimes, the controlling person will go so far as to make the victim feel guilty for wanting to run his/her own life at all. When the victim tries to take charge of his/her own life, the controlling person may act like the victim is the control freak. “Oh, you just like to always be in control” the victim is told. The victim may also be called “stubborn”, “rebellious” or “stiff-necked” even if the thing he/she is refusing to do is morally wrong. Finally, the controlling person may call the victim ungrateful for the love that is being poured out to him/her. Once again, the controlling person wants everyone to think that the control he/she wields over the victim is motivated by love, and that even if harm is done to the victim, at least the intentions were good.

When we compare the good Samaritan to the busybody and the controlling person, only the good Samaritan’s intervention is warranted. Good Samaritan interventions can even save a life. The controlling person is the only one of the three who does not respect the autonomy of fellow human beings. The busybody respects autonomy of fellow human beings, but still meddles in affairs that do not concern him/her. Sometimes the busybody’s intentions are good, and sometimes the intentions are bad.

The term “evil healthcare lady” refers to a type of personality and set of behaviors that, based on my personal experiences, is most commonly found in the healthcare profession, particularly among nurses, physician assistants and nutritionists (positions that are held predominantly by women). You may have heard of some medical doctors being corrupt. They do not respect patient autonomy and they see patients as inferiors who need to be controlled “for their own good”. These behaviors and attitudes have been referred to as medical paternalism. Such attitudes among healthcare professionals are not necessarily confined to licensed physicians and surgeons. Nurses and physician assistants also can adopt the attitudes and behaviors associated with medical paternalism.

A common motivation people have when they enter the healthcare profession is the desire to help restore people to better health and help people live a higher quality of life. However, not all people in the healthcare profession are good people. Some people in healthcare may have ulterior motives. Evildoers like the feeling of someone being dependent on them. In this way, the evildoers have a sense of power and control over another person that they can enjoy. While licensed physicians are higher status than nurses and physician assistants, the nurses and physician assistants interact with patients a lot more. Therefore, patients depend on them to a significant extent.

The evil healthcare lady is college-educated, often middle aged and an occupier of a predominantly female profession: nurses, physician assistants, psychiatric therapy assistants and nutritionists. She is very good at outwardly fulfilling cultural standards for femininity — kindness, empathy, emotional sensitivity. She also is good at maintaining a professional appearance and professional demeanor. On the inside, she is a surreptitious being with questionable motives, and sometimes gives out harmful advice. She is not as smart or as knowledgable as a licensed physician would be, but she likes to think she is. As such, she likes to give unsolicited medical advice to patients that she is not qualified to give, unbeknownest to the medical doctor she is working for.

There are at least three kinds of harmful behaviors that evil healthcare people exhibit:

1) Seeing an abnormality that is not there
2) Dismissal of a complaint that is warranted
3) Giving out disempowering misinformation

Pointing out an abnormality that is not there

The evil healthcare lady may tell the patient that something is wrong with him/her, not because something actually is wrong with him/her, but rather because the patient is atypical in some way and does not fit a certain mold. For example, a patient may have an eccentric personality. In response, the evil healthcare lady may tell the patient that he/she seems to suffer from some psychiatric abnormality, and should be evaluated. The patient may express certain views that the evil healthcare lady is not in agreement with. In response, she may tell the patient that he/she may be suffering from some learning disability or cognitive impairment.

Dismissal of a complaint that is warranted

Sometimes the evil healthcare lady may try to convince a patient that a complaint is not warranted when it may, in reality, be early warning signs of a serious medical condition. For example, a patient may complain about some blood in the stool. The evil healthcare lady may insist that it is just a hemorroid or an anal fissure, and nothing to worry about. Meanwhile, it may be an early sign of bowel cancer. The patient should report such things to a licensed physician, but the evil healthcare lady may convince the patient that it is not worth reporting even though it is.

A patient may come in with complaints about a persistent fever. The evil healthcare lady may assure him/her that a fever is a good thing because it means the body is fighting off an infection. Meanwhile, the persistent fever may be a sign of a persistent infection that requires antibiotic treatments, and could cause damage to the body if left untreated.

Perhaps the patient is an avid runner, and complains that he is not running as fast as he usually does, and gets tired more easily than usual. The evil healthcare lady may compare this runner’s overall level of fitness to that of the average couch potato, and tell the runner that compared to the average person, he is in pretty good shape. In actuality, the runner could be suffering from early stages of a serious disease that is treatable, but can cause more harm if it continues going undiagnosed and untreated.

Delivery of disempowering misinformation

The evil healthcare lady does not really care about her patients, so she is not going to go out of her way to make sure that the information she is presenting to them is correct. Sometimes the evil healthcare lady does not even have an understanding of basic high school level chemistry, but may still think she is qualified to discredit the science behind some treatment or dietary approach. She does not necessarily know enough science to understand the science, but she thinks that she does.

The evil healthcare lady, and many medical doctors, may tell patients that a health problem is lifelong. The evil healthcare lady will often ignore the role of lifestyle and other controllable environmental factors, and act as if our state of health is dictated only by factors that we cannot control — age and genes, as discussed in a previous article Too young to be in pain or too old to feel good.

The evil healthcare lady may shame young patients for having an ache or a pain, because they are “too young to be in pain”. Conversely, when an older patient presents a complaint characterized by a physical pain, the evil healthcare lady may to tell the patient that the complaint is a result of old age, and therefore, there is nothing he/she can do about it except “cope” and take pain medicines. Meanwhile, the complaint may be caused by an underlying problem that is perfectly solvable with the right interventions.

The bottom line is that, unlike a decent person, the evil healthcare lady does not necessarily like seeing patients restored to good health. Restoration to good health would mean one less patient dependent on her, and one less patient over which she can have some degree of power. Furthermore, she likes being exposed to other people’s problems because it makes her feel less bad about her own life.

Other abusive behaviors

Because the evil healthcare lady is a bad person, she will do things that other bad people will do. One example is gaslighting. When she gaslights, the evil healthcare lady will do so in such a way as to preserve her empathetic and emotionally sensitive façade. She may like to use the word “feel” quite a bit, which in certain contexts is an implicit way of saying It’s all in your head. It’s just how you feel. It’s not reality… If you tell her that you do not like how she is treating you, she may try to convince you that you are suffering from an episode of paranoia, and assure you that she is not out to get you.

The evil healthcare lady may also make certain judgmental comments or accusations. For example, when you present a complaint, she may accuse you of “just wanting attention”. She may call you foolish because you are not taking a drug that you were prescribed…even though the drug you were prescribed clearly is not working, or is making you feel worse.

How do you spot an evil healthcare lady?

The evil healthcare lady personality type is an extreme. In other words, you are not likely to find a person that completely matches this personality type, but you may meet people in healthcare who exhibit some of the behaviors described above. From time to time, you may see nurses give out unsolicited medical advice that they are not qualified to give. You may see healthcare workers dismiss complaints that are warranted. You may see gaslighting.

Admittedly, not all people who exhibit a certain behavior have evil intentions. Healthcare personnel sometimes show poor judgment at the patient’s expense when they are overworked. Even when healthcare workers are not overworked, they may be misinformed on certain issues. So when someone spreads misinformation, the individual may not know that the information is misinformation. The difference with the evil healthcare lady is that she does not care what is misinformation and what is correct information.

In my opinion, if the healthcare lady dismisses your concerns as being foolish, but presents no convincing argument to the contrary, that is a red flag. If the healthcare lady treats you with disrespect, that also is a red flag. If the healthcare lady tries to discourage you from trying an approach that has worked for a lot of other people, that may also be a red flag.

Ever hear the phrase “you are too young to be in pain at your age”? Conversely, if you are older, maybe you were told that your aches/pains/ailments are a result of old age. The implication is that there is nothing you can do about it because, after all, everyone gets old who lives long enough.

Some people seem to have this fixated notion that all young adults and adolescents are supposed to be robustly healthy, and that all older adults are doomed to suffer from aches/pains/ailments until the day that they die. These people unwittingly think this way based on a ridiculous premise — that aches/pains/ailments have only one cause, which is old age. By assuming that all young adults are supposed to be robustly healthy and all older adults are supposed to blame their physical problems on old age, one is implicitly assuming that only old age can cause aches/pains/ailments. Such people often admit that genes are a factor, too. In other words, they believe that physiological problems are always caused by something outside of our control.

In reality, there are a variety of factors that can cause aches/pains/ailments besides genes and old age. They include diet, over work, highly demanding physical activities and environmental toxins including radiation. Many of these other factors are within our control to some extent. Diet is something we can change. Over work also is something we can change, especially when we have the support of others. Also, by becoming aware of toxins in our environment, we can reduce our exposure to toxins, which will lead to reduced illness and reduced injury over time.

The assumption—that all young adults are supposed to be in great physical shape and that all older people are supposed to suffer aches/pains/ailments—is toxic to both younger and older age groups. It is toxic to younger age groups because it can make younger people feel like they are inferior and/or defective whenever they have a medical problem or bodily pain. In reality, many young people do highly demanding physical activities that can cause injury. When someone says that the young person is “too young to be in that kind of pain”, the implication is that the pain will only get worse as the young person gets older. Such a message is disempowering and is not necessarily aligned with reality.

This mindset can be quite toxic for older people because it gives them the often false message that any aches/pains/ailments they have are caused by something outside of their control, namely old age and genes. The implication is that there is nothing that they can do about it and they are doomed to suffer from their issues, which are only going to get worse, until they die. In reality, a major cause of these aches/pains/ailments is lifestyle factors. When you do things to your body that your body does not like, and you do it for a long time, eventually something happens. Many people will admit that their diet is not that healthy, and that they should be exercising more, but then when they get a diagnosable ailment, like migraines, they blame their genes and perhaps also their “old age”.

Why would people blame old age and genes for everything?

People who have this mindset—that all young people are supposed to be in great physical shape and all older people are supposed to suffer—do not have this mindset for the same reasons. Some people may have this mindset because of lies spread by the medical establishment. The medical establishment is corrupt (evidence not presented here) and only makes money by treating ailments. Alternatively, if an ailment is cured, then the patient no longer has the ailment, and therefore the patient is no longer a customer of the healthcare establishment. Because of the pervasive influence of the pharmaceutical industry, medical doctors are taught very little about any treatments besides drugs. You may notice that whenever you or someone you know goes to a medical doctor, the medical doctor usually just prescribes a drug. Some people call this “a pill for every ill”.

If the medical establishment can convince us to blame all of our aches/pains/ailments on genes and old age, then we become disempowered and we go into a state of perpetual dependency over a problem that would otherwise be permanently solvable.

Another reason people blame old age and genes for everything is that they want to be relieved of the responsibility for taking care of themselves. They want to keep eating their favorite foods, and they do not want to have to do the work required to build and maintain good health. If they can convince themselves that their ailments and pains are caused by something outside of their control, then they can give themselves a free pass to eat whatever they want and do whatever they want without the guilt. The problem with these kinds of people is that they sometimes try to drag others down with them by giving them the same disempowering messages as what is spread by the healthcare establishment. They may say things like “just wait until you get to be my age, then you will know what pain is!”

Sometimes people blame old age and genes because of their personal experiences and observations. Maybe you and your friends used to be pretty healthy when you were younger, and now you all have aches, pains and ailments. Such observations can give the illusion that old age and genes are causing all of your problems. What needs to be considered is what you and your friends were doing to your bodies all of those years. While old age is not the only cause of aches/pains/ailments, it is a causative factor. A young body is more forgiving of bad habits than an older body.

My personal experiences

Based on my personal experiences, you do not have to be that young to be considered “too young to be in pain” and you do not have to be that old to be told to blame your physiological problems on old age. In other words, one week you can be told you are too young to be experiencing this, and the very next week you could be told you are “just getting old”.

One time I had pain in my legs that was so bad that I went to the emergency room. They found evidence of arthritis in the knees on the X-ray. “You are not 15 anymore” the ER doctor said. The thing is, I was only 25 years old at the time, and I was already being told that I am getting old. What I found out later was that dairy and wheat gluten are the two biggest dietary culprits in rheumatoid arthritis. I realized that I had recently been eating very large amounts of wheat gluten in the form of seitan, which is a meat substitute consisting of purified wheat gluten. After just a few days of minimizing wheat gluten intake, the pain went away. So much for getting old.

Also when I was 25 years old, I was hospitalized with severe colitis. As I was lying in the hospital bed, the nurse said “you are awfully young to be in here”. I explained to her that colitis is actually more common among young people. “I didn’t know that” she said. I wonder what else she doesn’t know.

Sometimes I get told by older women just wait until you are our age, then you will get all of these aches and pains. Now I don’t know what my body will be like at a certain age until I am that age, but the fact is that they don’t know what my body will be like in years to come either. Furthermore, these women who tell me this do little to no exercise, and do not eat nearly as much fruits and vegetables as I do. Their diets also consist of more meat, dairy and processed foods than my diet does. Yet they are making assumptions about my body based on their experiences in their bodies. In addition, some of the women who tell me this have not gone to college, let alone understand the science behind where aches, pains and ailments come from. They seem to be making the over-simplified assumption that everybody has the same experiences in old age as they do, regardless of environment and lifestyle.

Chronic disease: which side are you on?

When people are diagnosed with a chronic disease, they often think of their situation as a battle that they are trying to win. In my mind, to win against a chronic disease means to get rid of the chronic disease entirely so that it never comes back. Some people, however, just cope with the chronic disease. They take medications that just mask the symptoms, and do not address the underlying causes of the chronic disease. They get flare-ups from time to time, but may still congratulate themselves on their fighting spirit.

Unfortunately, the medical profession is corrupt, and tends to only supply drugs that mask the symptoms of chronic disease. If you want to address the underlying causes of the chronic disease and get rid of the disease entirely, you often have to venture outside of mainstream medicine.

Lots of times, people with chronic diseases such as diabetes are told that what they are experiencing is a normal part of aging. In other words, there is nothing they can do about it. They may be assured that they can live a “normal life”, but the doctors’ definition of a “normal life” is often questionable, and often includes chronic dependency on pharmaceutical drugs.

Evidence in the science literature (not presented here) shows that diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes are curable with intensive lifestyle changes. In other words, there is something you can do about it. While some cases are more difficult to cure than others, blaming all of your health problems on old age is just wrong.

Some medical doctors may say that they have never seen a chronic disease be cured. What they do not understand is that chronic diseases are cured all the time, just not in their office. When a person’s chronic disease is cured, that person is not likely to go back to the medical doctor, especially if the medical doctor is not the one who helped them to cure their disease. Indeed, the only patients who return to the doctor’s office are the ones who still have the disease.

So does this mean we can prevent aches, pains and ailments entirely as we age? Probably not, but we can dramatically reduce the aches, pains and ailments by addressing the factors that we can control. Exactly to what extent can we prevent physical suffering as we age? I believe that the people who best know the answer to this question are the select few medical doctors who do aim to cure chronic disease and restore patients to good health. They are the ones who see the positive effects of healthy lifestyle in a sizable number of patients. The majority of medical doctors do not keep close tabs on the lifestyle of their patients, so they will not know to what extent these aches and pains with age are preventable.

Summary

Many people will admit that their lifestyle is not exactly a healthy one, yet when they get a disease diagnosis, they often blame their bad genes and/or old age. Common sense should tell you that if you do things to your body that it does not like throughout the course of your lifetime, then of course you will eventually get aches, pains and ailments. Yet culture tells people to blame all of their physical problems on “old age”. While old age is certainly a causative factor, it is only a factor, not the sole cause. Of course when given enough time, an unhealthy lifestyle will do damage. Younger people are just better off because their unhealthy lifestyles have not had enough time to do noticeable damage yet.

Ever hear of the term “kill them with kindness”? To kill someone with kindness means to cause discomfort to someone by treating him/her in a way that is extremely kind and helpful. This article describes what is meant by killing with kindness and it gives some examples. One example features a couple with a baby walking down the aisle in an airplane during boarding. The other passengers express visible disgust that this couple is bringing a baby on board knowing that the baby is likely to cry during the flight and disturb others. Some passengers do not even care whether the couple hears their rude comments. Instead of reacting with retaliation, the father goes around handing out earplugs to the other passengers, apologizing to each person for any noise that may occur during the flight. These acts of kindness can make the other passengers feel guilty for showing such visible disgust a moment earlier because the father is making it obvious that he and the mother genuinely do not want to disturb anyone.

When people are mean, they usually expect a retaliatory response. Refraining from being mean back is one thing, but responding with acts of kindness can catch the mean person by surprise. Sometimes these acts of kindness can reveal how bad the person’s behavior is and can be more likely to get the person to change his/her behavior than if we were to return meanness with meanness.

Sometimes killing with kindness comes with ulterior motives, but often in these cases no harm is done to the other person in the process.

Killing with Fake Kindness

Killing with kindness is something that a victim may do to a perpetrator in order to expose how bad the perpetrator’s behavior is and soften the perpetrator’s aggressive demeanor. Killing with fake kindness, by contrast, is something that perpetrator may do to the victim. Killing with fake kindness not only comes with corrupt motives, but also does potential harm to the other person.

Killing with fake kindness, here, means to put on a display of kindness for others to see with the intended effect of making oneself look like the kind and thoughtful one and making the other person look like the mean one. Sometimes it can be outright cruel. It is a perversion of the traditional killing with kindness concept. It is not overcoming evil with good, but rather overcoming good with evil by putting on an appearance of goodness.

Example: Two girls named Jen and Jill are good friends, but Jen is secretly jealous of Jill because she has a crush on Jill’s boyfriend. Jen decides to tell Jill’s boyfriend a lie — that Jill has a venereal disease and that Jill has been cheating on him. Jen’s plan works, and Jill’s boyfriend breaks up with her. Jill eventually finds out what happened, though, and she explains to Jen that she does not like her anymore. Instead of leaving Jill alone, Jen decides to “kill Jill with kindness”. Jen showers Jill with empty and insincere compliments, which Jill finds to be irritating. Whenever Jill accidently drops something, Jen picks it up for her. Despite how obvious it is that Jill does not like Jen anymore, Jen tells Jill in front of others that she still wants to be friends and that she forgives Jill. Jen tells others that she still likes Jill as a person, and that Jill is the one who doesn’t like her. Meanwhile, it should not be surprising that Jen still likes Jill. Jill did nothing to Jen that has given Jen any reason to dislike her. Jen is the one who did something wrong to Jill.

In the example above, note that Jen never owns responsibility for how wrong she was telling lies about Jill to her boyfriend. The acts of kindness from Jen are for the purpose of making herself look like the kind and loving one and making Jill look like the mean and intolerant one. Furthermore, Jen makes no efforts to repair the harm she has done to Jill, such as explaining to the boyfriend that those things she told him about Jill were actually lies.

Another Example

Marsha keeps getting harassed by her busy-body colleague, Nancy. Nancy sometimes criticizes how Marsha does certain things, and many of Nancy’s criticisms are ignorant and unwarranted. In her self-righteousness, Nancy is convincing herself that she is a great person who is only trying to help. In reality, Nancy is only criticizing Marsha to make herself look like the more competent colleague. On some other occasions, Nancy teases Marsha for having a swollen face. Marsha explains to Nancy that she is on medication for a serious illness, and a swollen face is one of the side effects. Nancy does not seem to care and still thinks it is funny. On still other occasions, when Marsha is speaking her mind at a meeting, Nancy tries to discredit Marsha in front of the group. Over time, Marsha grows to dislike Nancy and wants nothing to do with her. A dispute ensues, and the other colleagues are aware of it.

Nancy decides to handle the dispute by “killing Marsha with kindness”. So Nancy does a bunch of nice things for Marsha in view of the other colleagues. Even though Marsha wants nothing to do with Nancy and just wants to be left alone, Nancy follows Marsha around while talking — in her sweet silky voice — about how she just wants to be friends and cannot bare to part with someone on bad terms. She buys Marsha a bouquet of flowers, tries to do unsolicited favors for Marsha and sometimes places her hand on Marsha’s arm in an affectionate manner, which makes Marsha squirm away in response. When people are not looking Nancy continues her round of subtle quiet insults, backhanded compliments and microaggressions.

“I am sorry for whatever it is that I did” says Nancy. This apology is more like a back-handed apology. The “whatever it is that I did” part of this apology is Nancy’s way is playing dumb and acting like she has no clue what she did, but is so “kind” that she is willing to apologize anyway. While this apology is Nancy’s way of exalting herself for being so kind, it also serves as a harsh put-down to Marsha. It implies that Marsha is angry at Nancy for no known reason, thereby making Marsha look unreasonable and angry with somebody over nothing.

By being so kind to Marsha in front of other people, Nancy is attempting to make herself look like the kind one, and make Marsha look like the mean and grumpy one. When Nancy is mean to Marsha, it is too subtle for others to notice. As Marsha flinches in response to Nancy’s unsolicited “affectionate” physical touching, Nancy attempts to make Marsha look like the stubborn one who is not willing to get along. Nancy is petite, blonde and innocent-looking. She speaks always in a sweet, silky voice such that people may feel bad saying or thinking anything bad about her. She insists that she did nothing wrong, and does not know why Marsha just wants to find fault in her. Meanwhile, Marsha is left in a state of torment. If Nancy’s kill-with-fake-kindness tactics are effective enough, then Marsha may become convinced that she is just too sensitive and too grumpy, and needs to lighten up.

The General Pattern

The killing-with-fake-kindness pattern generally starts with the evildoer doing bad things to the victim that may go unnoticed by others. A dispute ensues between the evildoer and the victim. Next, the evildoer showers the victim with acts of kindness for others to see in an attempt to make him/herself look like the kind one, and make the victim look like the mean and intolerant one. Such behavior has the façade of overcoming evil with good, but in reality is just another form of overcoming good with evil. If effective enough, these tactics may even trick the victim into thinking that he/she is the mean and intolerant one, thereby making the victim feel guilty when acknowledging the wrongs done against him/her.

I wonder if women are more effective when killing with fake kindness. In culture, women are often expected to be thoughtful, empathetic, kind, more emotionally intelligent. Some women may mold themselves to meet these cultural standards on the outside while having evil intentions on the inside. Because women generally look more innocent than men do, women’s attempts at fake kindness may be more convincing to outside observers.

It should be obvious that acts of kindness do not replace holding oneself responsible for one’s previous bad behaviors, nor do acts of kindness absolve one from responsibility for one’s previous bad behaviors. Only admitting to the wrongdoing and giving a sincere apology suffices.

We have all known at least one person who is socially inept. Socially inept people sometimes say something that offends someone or do something that makes someone feel uncomfortable. They do not intend to cause such offense or discomfort to another person, but they sometimes do so anyway because they are lacking in social graces. Sometimes socially inept people can be mistaken as mean because of the unintended hurt that they can cause.

So when someone hurts another person, how do we know whether the hurtful behavior is a result of social ineptitude or a manifestation of evil inside of someone’s heart?

Evil can be mistaken for social ineptitude

Someone can be both evil and socially inept. Sometimes when people have a reputation for being socially inept or socially awkward, and they say something hurtful or offensive, there is a tendency to attribute most or all offensive/hurtful behavior to the social awkwardness without any consideration to the possibility that some of the bad behavior may be a manifestation of evil in someone’s heart. Indeed, people sometimes like to give others the benefit of the doubt, but as discussed in the Faux Peacekeepers post, giving someone the benefit of the doubt can have devastating consequences.

Below are two ways that one can tell whether hurtful behavior is caused by social ineptitude or evil inside someone’s heart:

1) How does the person react when he/she finds out that his/her behavior hurt or offended someone? Does he/she react with remorse? Or does he/she figure that because he/she did not mean to hurt anyone, it is the other person’s problem and not his/hers?

2) Is the socially inept behavior consistent across many scenarios? Or does the person act like a buffoon a lot of the time, but then become cunning and crafty when presented with an opportunity to fulfill a selfish desire at the expense of others?

Consider socially awkward Raymond from the Everybody Loves Raymond TV series. Raymond acts like a buffoon a lot of the time, but if we look closely, we notice that Raymond can be quite cunning and crafty when he wants to be. In one episode, there was a dispute between Raymond’s wife and Raymond’s mother. The dispute caused Raymond’s wife and Raymond’s mother to compete for Raymond’s affection. Raymond enjoyed this so much that he intentionally pulled off a scheme to prolong the dispute just so that he would be showered with extra affection for awhile longer. Eventually, Raymond’s family found out what he was doing, which Ray’s brother called “taking advantage of the situation”. I do not recall Raymond showing very much remorse for what he had done, and this is not the only time that Raymond did something wicked to fulfill his selfish desires, and at the expense of others.

The story of Mike

I once knew someone named Mike who had the reputation at our school as the “creepy stalker”. Whenever he tried to make friends with female students, he would make them feel like they were being followed. Some students complained that they had to kick him out of their dorm room because otherwise he would overstay his welcome for hours. People who knew Mike well, however, testified that he was innocent. He did not mean to hurt anybody. He was just socially inept.

I did not enjoy Mike’s company very much because he was not a good conversationalist. Even when I did try to force him to talk about something interesting, he would switch from being boring to being annoying by invalidating what I was saying for reasons that did not make sense. I sat with him at mealtimes anyway because he did not seem to have that many other friends.

Two other female friends of mine did not want him around because he made them feel like they were being followed. I told him that he should apologize to them for making them feel uncomfortable, and then they would likely allow him to be their friend again. He refused to apologize, however. Based on his reasoning, if he did not intend to make them feel uncomfortable, then he should not have to apologize. He did not seem to feel remorse for causing them psychological discomfort. I told him that he should try to see things from the other person’s perspective and put himself into the other person’s shoes. He explained to me that he cannot put himself into someone else’s shoes because to do that, he would have to be able to read minds.

Mike did eventually apologize to my other two female friends, but only after they continued to shun him. It appeared that he only wanted to do the right thing when there were adverse consequences to him.

Another female student who felt uncomfortable around Mike was one of Mike’s teammates on the university fencing team. Mike eventually got kicked off of the team for making this other female team member feel like she was being stalked. Mike decided to join the fencing team at a nearby university instead. He was bragging to me about how well he was performing in the fencing tournaments after joining this other fencing team. He said that the members of this other fencing team could not see why he would get kicked off of our university’s fencing team. He did not seem to understand that the reasons he got kicked off of the university fencing team had nothing to do with his fencing ability. The reasons had to do with the well-being of one of the team members, which, ethically speaking, should be higher priority than having the best players.

Mike was gleefully telling me about how our university’s fencing team was having this “civil war” over him because some of the teammates were on his side and some were not. The fact that Mike enjoyed this discourse, of which he was the cause, was yet another manifestation that Mike was not that good of a person. Good people do not want disputes to arise because of them. Mike, in his egocentricity, seemed to enjoy being at the center of attention.

In general, I found that Mike had other issues besides just social ineptitude. He also was egocentric, judgmental and self-centered.

Not all evildoers aim to hurt someone

Have you ever heard someone say “he did some bad things, but he has a good heart?” Sometimes I wonder what exactly the standards are for what constitutes a “good heart” when someone makes this statement. I wonder if people say “good heart” simply because the person in question does not really aim to hurt anyone.

Not every bad person wakes up in the morning thinking I think I will try to hurt someone today. What he/she make think is I aim to get what I want, and I am not going to put any thought into who gets hurt in the process. If someone does get hurt, that is their problem. I will explain that I didn’t mean to and then carry on…

In the case of Mike, he did not aim to hurt anyone. Supposedly, he made females feel uncomfortable around him because he was socially inept and did not know what affect his behavior had on others. If you ask me, I think that the reason he did not know what affect his behavior had on others was that he did not care. He also figured that as long as he did not intend to make someone feel uncomfortable, he was absolved from responsibility. If he were a better person, he would not have adopted this attitude.

The story of Jeffrey

Jeffrey was another person I knew who had the reputation for being socially awkward. On a couple of occasions, he said something to me that I found to be judgmental and offensive. On one occasion, we were talking about an upcoming potluck dinner. I expressed concern that I may not have enough to eat at this potluck dinner because I was vegan and did not eat wheat. In response, Jeffrey accused me of “just going for the food”. I thought that was a mean and judgmental thing to say. The question is: did Jeffrey say this because he was socially awkward and did not know any better, or did he say this simply because he was a jerk?

I had a friend who frequently held potluck dinners in his apartment. He told me that he decided to not invite Jeffrey attend the potluck dinners anymore because Jeffrey was not bringing any potluck dishes, and was instead eating other people’s potluck dishes. My friend thought that it was unfair for me and the others to put effort into making potluck dishes while Jeffrey ate the food and brought no potluck dish of his own. Here, we can reasonably assume that Jeffrey really was an inconsiderate jerk, and not just “socially awkward”.

Bad with women? Or just a bad person?

Ever hear of men (in television or real life) who have a reputation for not knowing how to talk to women? These kinds of men are known for pissing off women left and right. Sometimes culture makes this out to be funny, presenting the image of a man having yet another interaction with a woman where he says the wrong thing at the wrong time, and then walks away with his iced coffee inverted on top of his head. Culture often believes that pleasing women is this special skillset, maybe even an art, that only the most fortunate and savviest of men have.

The truth is that being “bad with women” may be a sign that the man is actually just a bad person. Take the Howard Wolowicz character from The Big Bang Theory TV series. Howard Wolowicz likes to be a playboy, but he is pretty bad at it. We viewers are expected to laugh as he interacts with women and keeps getting rejected, and sometimes even pisses them off.

If we take a closer look, however, we see that Howard’s intentions towards women are malicious. He is a sexual predator at heart. He even gets excited at the prospect of meeting women who have low self-esteem from years of being fat and ugly because he figures that it will be easier to get them to have sex with him. We find out in one episode that he lost his virginity to his cousin. As a sexual predator, he may not be good at fulfilling his evil desires — after all, he is not “sexy” — but he still is acting on those evil desires all the time nonetheless. To put frosting on the cake, we viewers are expected to believe that the reason women do not like him is that he is physically less attractive and too dorky. In reality, women have much deeper reasons to not like him and to avoid him. He is an evil, sexually malicious creature. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are other areas of his life (besides his interactions with women) where he behaves in ways that are wrong.

So when a man is a bad man, why would we not notice how horrible he is when he is around other men? For example, when we see Howard Wolowicz around his friends Sheldon, Leonard and Raj, he seems to act like a perfectly nice person most of the time. How he treats Penny, however, is a different story. In one episode, Penny felt treated so badly by him that she punched him in the face.

For one thing, women are the primary target of sex discrimination. Therefore, when a man has sexist behavioral tendencies, it will show the most in how he treats women. Sexism can be subconscious, so many men who are sexist do not know it. They treat women with a certain kind of disrespect that they would not exhibit towards other men. Then they may wonder why they seem to always be pissing women off. Meanwhile, other men may not notice such a man exhibiting offensive behaviors because they are not the target, women are.

Another factor is that a regular heterosexual man can only fulfill his sexual desires with women. Therefore, a man who is a bad person will have a reason to harass and victimize women that he does not have to harass and victimize other men. Such a man may see women as just sexual entertainment rather than as fellow human beings.

Still another reason that a man’s evil nature manifests itself more in how he treats women is that women are more vulnerable and easier to overpower than men are. Sometimes when someone is evil, his/her true evil nature manifests itself the most when he/she is around vulnerable individuals such as women and children. Take Miss Hannigan from the film Annie. Any of us who watched the movie Annie would recall how cruel Miss Hannigan was to those orphans; but when Miss Hannigan was around adults, she generally behaved much nicer. The reason, I believe, was that she had no position of power or authority over other adults. The orphans, on the other hand, were under her power and authority. They also were smaller and easier to overpower physically. Furthermore, they had no parents to protect them, so Miss Hannigan could treat them any way she wanted, and they had little means to fight back.

Women are a vulnerable group because, like children, they are physically smaller and easier to physically overpower. They also are underrepresented in positions of political power, economic power and social power. Furthermore, they tend to be the prime target of sex discrimination in a variety of settings from the workplace to just everyday conversations. To top it off, as is discussed in this previous post on treatment of women in popular culture, women are sometimes expected to welcome any sexual attention that comes their way because it means they are “pretty”. Such expectations place women into a bad position where men can harass them without feeling any guilt.

Not all men who have bad luck with women are bad people. There are many possible reasons for why a man would have bad luck with women, sex differences being one possible reason. For example, when men are friends with each other, they do not share their emotions with each other as much as women do. Therefore, a man who transitions to being in a relationship with a woman is going to have certain things expected of him that his male friends do not expect of him, such as emotional availability. The woman may want to spend time with him and talk about her feelings with him. He may not be ready for that kind of time commitment.

Summary

A good person will genuinely care about what affect his/her behavior has on others. Even if the good person is lacking in social graces, the good person will put some honest effort into avoiding offending or hurting someone. When offense or hurt does happen, I do not think that the good person would adopt the “I didn’t mean to, so that’s your problem” attitude. The good person would feel remorse.

A lot of people like to be seen as positive and uplifting rather than being viewed as Negative Nancies or Debbie Downers. People generally do not want to have the reputation for killing the mood or being a grouch. Fear of being the Negative Nancy or Debbie Downer can be exacerbated when we are met with people who welcome “good vibes only” into their personal space. Ever get criticized for being too negative when in reality you were just being honest? Ever feel guilty or shamed simply because you were feeling down in the dumps while people around you seemed perfectly content? Ever feel like you could not really talk about something that was bothering you without being judged as being too negative? If so, you were likely at the receiving end of toxic positivity.

Toxic positivity can be really horrible and deadly. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: a young woman has been experiencing some gastrointestinal issues. She expresses grave concern that it could be serious. Her boyfriend, however, believes she is just another woman who worries too much. He insists that she probably just ate the wrong food or maybe just needs to take some probiotics. He even convinces her not to jump into the doctor’s office so fast. He says she is sweating the small stuff. He figures it will just clear up eventually and then be yesterday’s news.

Months later the gastrointestinal issues continue. If anything, they get worse. Woman finally goes to the doctor and finds out that she has stage 4 bowel cancer. Still, the boyfriend tells her to stay positive and assures her that everything happens for a reason. He also brings up the point that she is young, and should be able to get through this more easily than an older person. However, because the diagnosis is at a later stage of the disease, the treatments do not work as well. The woman dies a slow and painful death with side effects from chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments. Her two young children watch her die. When she dies, her suffering may be over, but not the suffering of her parents who have to bury her, or her siblings and friends who will never see her again, or her children who may have to go into foster care.

Now the boyfriend who insisted she was just “sweating the small stuff” and that “everything happens for a reason” does not look so smart. Furthermore, his insistence that she was worrying too much and being too negative only caused her to delay going to a doctor, meaning delayed treatment and reduced chances of survival.

This scenario is an illustration of how destructive, and even deadly, toxic positivity can get. While worry is a negative feeling that is not fun, it does sometimes perform a vital function. It drives us to action when there is something urgent that needs our immediate attention. It is true that people do sometimes sweat the small stuff, but that does not mean that worry has no place in our world. Bad things do happen all the time, and often we can do something about it. Worry, like many emotions, is a form of energy that drives us to action. It is a survival instinct.

Now some toxic positivity people may argue that bowel cancer is a rare cause of gastrointestinal complaints, and that the boyfriend had no way of knowing it was that serious. In my opinion, this is not a justifiable reason to dismiss someone’s worries and concerns as being “sweating the small stuff”. We should accept people for who they are, and these negative emotions are a part of who they are. Furthermore, bowel cancer and other cancers are becoming more common among younger people, so a doctor visit is warranted when one has suspicious-looking symptoms.

What is the toxic positivity mindset?

The toxic positivity mindset is the belief that no negative emotions are to be felt or expressed. They all can be avoided by just “staying positive.” If you are feeling a negative emotion, then according to toxic positivity, you are choosing to think too many negative thoughts and are not focusing enough on the good things in your life.

This article presents the point that dismissing negative emotions is just not healthy. A healthy functional human being is going to feel negative emotions as well as positive emotions. A human who does not feel or express negative emotions is the one that we would need to be concerned about. In my opinion, lack of negative emotions can be a sign of apathy. When there are people and things in this world that we genuinely care about, we are bound to feel a negative emotion at some point in time when bad things happen to the people or things we care about. When these bad things happen, we need to go through a grieving process. Otherwise the negative emotion will not resolve. Toxic positivity people do not allow others to go through this necessary grieving process, or at least not in their presence. If you want to grieve, you would have to make sure that no toxic positivity people are present. They do not want you killing their joy and good vibes.

This blog post discusses some more of the damaging affects of toxic positivity and how to spot it. These two ladies site studies showing that failure to express or acknowledge negative emotions will elevate the level of physiological stress that the negative emotions have on the body. What this means is that if we have a bad experience that causes a negative emotion, such as the loss of a loved one, and we try to “stay positive” by smiling and only thinking happy thoughts (like what Peter Pan’s friends do when they want to fly), the level of stress on our body increases. Conversely, if we take time to grieve and be miserable for awhile, eventually the negative feelings resolve. It may take a year or two, but we will be better off than if the negative feelings never resolved at all.

The following statements are red flags that you may be at the receiving end of toxic positivity:

• “Don’t think about it. Just stay positive”
• “Don’t worry. Be happy”
• “Hey, it could be worse”
• “Failure is not an option.”
• “Everything will work out in the end.”
• “Positive vibes only”
• “Everything happens for a reason”

“Don’t think about it. Just stay positive”

This statement represents the delusional notion that problems will somehow go away when we ignore them. However, not thinking about a problem means we will definitely not do anything about it. This is a bad idea when the problem is urgent and requires our immediate attention. Recall the scenario described above about the young woman’s gastrointestinal issues that turned out to be signs of bowel cancer. I know that when I have a problem, nothing makes me feel better than solving the problem. This cannot happen if the person makes the false assumption that the problem will just go away on its own. If solving a problem is not in your vocabulary, and ignoring a problem is the only thing that is feasible to you, then you just may be from Planet Loser.

“Don’t worry. Be happy”

This statement, like the previous statement, dismisses a negative emotion called worry. In reality, worry is a survival instinct. Dismissing it can be deadly, depending on the context. Though I do admit that people often worry more than they should, and sometimes people do worry about petty things, like what the neighbors will think when they fail to mow their lawn this week or if they wear that weird outfit that is out of style.

“Hey, it could be worse”

No matter how bad and painful your situation is, it always could be worse. However, that does not mean that your situation does not warrant negative emotions. For example, when a loved one dies, do we say to ourselves that it could be worse and then rejoice that at least only one loved one has died rather than two or three. What if three of our close loved ones died all at once? Do we rejoice that it was not four or five? It really always could be worse no matter how bad it is. This does not mean that negative emotions are unwarranted.

“Failure is not an option”

Like what the ladies in this psychology blog explain, failure is a part of life. Saying that failure is not an option implies that if the other person fails, then he/she is inadequate or he/she has chosen failure. It implies that failure can be avoided as long as we try. In reality, sometimes we fail even when we do try, and that is okay.

“Everything will work out in the end”

Often everything does work out in the end, but not always. Recall the sad story of the young woman with terminal bowel cancer. This statement is a statement of false reassurance. To show support for someone going through a difficulty that is ridden with uncertainty about the future, we should acknowledge the seriousness and uncertainty of the situation rather than downplay it or deny it.

“Positive vibes only”

Here, the person is creating a space in which conversation topics are limited. Such a space is shallow. If you have something that is bothering you, and you need someone to talk to, then you are essentially not welcome in this space. Talking about something that is bothering you would be dismissed as negative talk. Instead, you would be told to move on (before you are ready to) or get out.

“Everything happens for a reason”

It is true that something good sometimes comes out of something bad, but in reality, this is not always the case. Tragedies do happen. Many times, we will never see anything good come out of a tragedy. This statement is yet another example of the distorted view of reality that is characteristic of toxic positivity. Distorting reality does not help. It may even create disappointment when the other person never sees the good things that he/she was told would come.

The intentions behind toxic positivity

Sometimes people exhibit toxic positivity behaviors because they really have good intentions and believe that making positive statements will help the other person and/or make the other person feel better. They do not understand that making positive statements that are false or that minimize the seriousness of a situation just does not help.

Some people are just not mentally ready to take on another person’s burdens. Such people may make toxic positivity statements to relieve themselves of the other person’s burden that they are not ready to deal with.

People may feel a sense of guilt when someone around them is going through grave difficulties and/or hardships. To relieve themselves of that sense of guilt, they may selfishly exhibit toxic positivity to make the other person’s plight seem lesser than it is.

Sometimes toxic positivity comes from evil in someone’s heart. For example, toxic positivity folks are sometimes judgmental. As discussed in the Judgmental People blog post, judgmental people like to jump to negative conclusions about people off of the basis of little to no information. In the case of toxic positivity, the person may jump to the conclusion that the other person is only sad or angry because he/she is a grouch, not because there is a situation that warrants such anger or sadness. In this way, the judgmental person relieves him/herself of the sense of moral obligation to show compassion for a fellow human being. In addition, he/she can give him/herself a pat on the back for having a sunnier disposition than this grouch over here.

People who have had unusually easy lives may be more likely to exhibit toxic positivity behaviors. Some people experience more hardships in their lives than others. When someone has never lived in poverty, always had everything handed to him/her, has never had serious health issues and has not had to go through that many difficult situations, his/her ability to show sympathy for the suffering of others would be diminished. It is generally easier to show compassion and empathy for others who are going through a hardship when one has gone through the same hardship oneself. Conversely, it is easier to dismiss negative emotions associated with a hardship when one has not gone through that many hardships oneself.

Toxic positivity can exacerbate and even cause mental illness

This Ted Talk video discusses how toxic positivity thinking can exacerbate, and even cause, mental health issues such as depression. In the video, Mahmoud recalls the bad affects toxic positivity on his own life back when he held to the toxic positivity mindset. Whenever he experienced a difficulty or hardship, he would keep saying to himself “Stay positive…stay positive…” while to others he would say “positive vibes only”. Yet he was unable to chase away these negative emotions, and he fell into a depression, followed by suicide attempts.

The toxic positivity mindset makes people feel like there is something wrong with them whenever they feel anything but positive emotions. They are prevented from going through grieving processes that are necessary for true emotional healing to take place. Usually, talking with people about your negative feelings helps with healing, but when a toxic positivity person says “good vibes only”, the emotional conversation immediately shuts down and can prevent people from seeking the psychological help that they need to get well.

Talking about “negative things” can be a pleasurable experience

Let us say that whenever you travel by air, something seems to go wrong. Whether it be trouble checking in, a long security line that makes you almost miss your flight, rude staff, misplaced baggage, bad food, etc. It makes you almost dread the coming of the next trip. Now imagine you are chatting with some people at work and find out that they have had bad experiences on their more recent trips, too. Next thing you know, you are all exchanging interesting stories about your wacky experiences.

Suddenly, just when you are feeling better knowing that you are not alone in your struggles while simultaneously laughing at some of the other entertaining stories from your colleagues, someone else interrupts the conversation and says something like “you guys all sound so negative…you are just a bunch of complainers…can we talk about something happy instead?” What would be your reaction? You may not like this. Now you can no longer hear more of the amusing air travel stories from your colleagues. You can no longer be reminded of how much you are not alone in your struggles whenever you travel by air. The reason is that the conversation is now confined to only “happy stuff”.

The truth is that talking about “negative stuff” can be quite a pleasurable experience — whether it be talking about how bad someone’s jokes are or camping trips that went wrong — negative stuff can create really amusing and fulfilling conversation topics that can promote bonding among the participants in ways that happy stuff just cannot.

Summary

With all of the bad things happening in our world, creating a positivity-only bubble and expecting oneself to feel little-to-no negative emotion is just not realistic. To feel only positive emotions all the time, one would have to be in a state of apathy. When you “only see the good”, you fail to acknowledge the bad. Often it is necessary to acknowledge the bad so you can, say, solve a problem, psychologically heal from a traumatic experience, or just help people who are suffering.

We tend to think of peacekeepers as good-doers. Peace is certainly better than war and fighting. Nonetheless, there are certain evildoers that aim to promote an appearance of peace, but not true peace.

Let us say that Jen initiates a friendship with Jill just so that she can use her. Jen stabs Jill in the back (figuratively speaking), says things to Jill that humiliate her in front of other people, and borrows things from Jill without returning them. One day Jill decides to stand up for herself and confront Jen. Gus, who is standing nearby, sees these two women arguing and decides to stop it. He overhears Jill calling Jen a horrible person who is not worthy of being her friend. Gus steps in and says “That’s not cool, Jill! That was not a very nice thing to say. You should apologize. I am sure that Jen did not mean anything bad…”

In the encounter described above, Gus is essentially siding with the perpetrator, and is suggesting to the victim that the victim apologize to the perpetrator. Why would Gus do this? Perhaps because Gus does not care why Jill would call Jen a horrible person, or even whether Jill has a good reason to call Jen a horrible person. Gus wrongfully believes that it is always wrong to tell someone something bad about him/herself, and that we should be “nice” and only tell people good things about themselves. However, if we operate by such beliefs, then standing up to evildoers is next to impossible because when you stand up to someone who is a bad person, it will involve telling said bad person bad things about him/herself. In order for Jill to stand up to Jen, Jill has to point out things about Jen’s behavior that are wrong. Jill will have to tell Jen something about herself that is negative.

Gus is an example of a faux peacekeeper. He believes that all confrontations are bad and should be broken up. He believes that nobody should tell another person something that would get the other person upset. He may even be making the judgmental assumption that Jen and Jill are only having a dispute because they are two people who just happen to not get along, and therefore just need to settle their differences.

The reality is that certain confrontations are supposed to take place, such as when an evildoer is doing harm to people on a regular basis, leaving others morally obligated to stand up to him/her. Standing up to someone who is doing wrong, and calling him/her out on his/her evil deeds is going to involve some degree of confrontation. It will also be necessary to point out things about the person’s behavior that are wrong. Even being gentle is not always appropriate because in some cases, the person doing harm to others has evident malicious intent. The people standing up to someone with malicious intent need to assert that they mean business, and being gentle would not necessarily work or be appropriate.

By breaking up a confrontation that is meant to take place, the faux peacekeeper is essentially protecting the evildoer from accountability and potentially allowing the evildoer to continue inflicting harm on others.

The true peacekeeper, by contrast, makes an evaluation as to why the confrontation is taking place and acts accordingly. Unlike a faux peacekeeper, a true peacekeeper fosters more effective communication between the two parties in an attempt to allow for a true resolution of the dispute. Unlike a faux peacekeeper, a true peacekeeper attempts to collect facts about what happened, and is willing to acknowledge when one side is truly the cause of the problem while the other side is just the victim. The faux peacekeeper does not necessarily care why the confrontation is taking place, and/or may just make narrow-minded assumptions about why the confrontation is taking place.

When a altercation is forcibly ended, we may not get true peace, but rather an appearance of peace. Forcibly stopping an altercation just stops whatever communication was taking place, and thereby renders it impossible for the dispute to resolve.

Faux peacekeepers tend to make everything worse, not better

When Gus intervenes in Jen and Jill’s dispute, he does some things that are wrong and harmful. For example, he tells Jill to apologize to Jen for telling her bad things about herself. Jill does not owe such an apology to Jen. As far as Jill is concerned, Jen actually is a horrible person, and Jill believes that she has a right to say so.

Another bad thing Gus does is tell Jill that he is sure Jen did not mean any harm. Gus does not know the facts, and is in no position to make an asseration about Jen’s intentions. Gus is only telling Jill something about Jen that is, though positive, completely false. Gus’s intervention is obviously one that makes the situation worse, not better.

Even worse, Gus may also suggest that Jill “forgive” Jen, and continue being friends with Jen as before. This faux-peacekeeper move also is harmful and wrong. Jill’s continuing to be friends with Jen would only cause Jill to be subject to more abuse. Even Jen would not benefit from such an arrangement because Jen would be given false messages that her behavior is okay when it really is not. Jen certainly knows how to be nice. She is just freely choosing to be mean and exploitative.

Do faux peacekeepers at least mean well?

If you assume that faux peacekeepers always mean well, you may have some of the mindset of a faux peacekeeper. Faux peacekeepers like to make unfounded positive assumptions about every person. Once again, true peacekeepers would rather collect the facts, and are willing to acknowledge when someone’s intentions actually are evil.

I try not to make assumptions about people’s thought processes, but I would imagine that faux peacekeepers only aim for an appearance of peace for the following reasons: 1) They do not like being present when there is a confrontation, because they want peace and quiet. 2) They are self-righteous and arrogant. They believe they are gods of peace that are better than those silly people who are bickering with each other. 3) They are afraid that the confrontation may pose an immediate danger to the ones who are involved and to others present, and they believe it is necessary to break it up immediately regardless of why the confrontation is taking place.

The first two possible intentions described above are selfish and wrong while the third item is a good intention.

Another scenario

Let us say that there is a dispute between two parents and their son. The parents view the son as an extension of them, and want the son to be a certain way, which may not be aligned with the son’s true inner identity. Perhaps the parents expect the son to follow a certain career path, and they express grave disappointment otherwise. Throughout the son’s life, the parents always expected the son to get perfect grades in school. 98% on an exam was not good enough. All exam grades had to be 100%. As an adult, the son is fed up and wants to live his own life. He has decided to confront his parents about their continued attempts to control his life and tell him how to live his life.

A faux peacekeeper may say something like “you should be grateful that your parents at least love you”. Here, the faux peacekeeper is telling the son something about his controlling parents that is, though true, irrelevant. Regardless of whether his parents love him, their behavior towards him is still overly controlling, harmful and with selfish intentions. Furthermore, the faux peacekeeper’s statement is like an implicit put-down to the son because it implies that the son is somehow ungrateful that someone loves him. The faux peacekeeper has no business judging the son as being ungrateful for his parents’ “loving involvement in his life”.

Strangers are not the only ones who can be bad people. Close family members of ours can be bad people, too. As is discussed in this article, bad people can intentionally inflict harm on the people that they love. Some possible reasons are lack of empathy, self dislike, low self esteem or just wanting to get what they want regardless of the harm done to others in the process. Because bad behaviors from those close to you can be so harmful, such bad behaviors need to be acknowledged and addressed before more harm is done. Faux peacekeepers make things worse by drawing attention away from the bad behavior, which needs to be addressed, and onto something positive, but irrelevant. In the case of the son and the controlling parents, it is irrelevant that the parents love the son. Their behavior is still potentially harmful, and is being done with bad intentions. Adding to that an attempt to convince the son that he is somehow being ungrateful for his parents’ love would place guilt onto the son where guilt does not belong.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt can be deadly

Saying “I sure he is a nice man” when you know nothing about the other person not only does not help, but also is toxic. We may think we are being kind when we say such a thing, but we are not necessarily promoting an accurate perception of reality.

A lot of people — even those who are not faux peacekeepers — believe it is a virtue to see the good in people and give them the benefit of the doubt. In other words, when there is doubt as to someone’s intentions, just assume that the intentions are good by default. This sounds nice until we see the contexts in which assuming the best of someone can have devastating consequences.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt can involve trusting someone who is not meant to be trusted. When we trust someone who is not meant to be trusted, bad things happen. Let us say that there is a neighbor down the street. Word has it that he has been guilty of sexual misconduct, but it sounds like it is only gossip. Maybe you want to give this neighbor the benefit of the doubt and figure that he seems like a nice guy, and those things you heard about him are just gossip. Would you allow him to babysit your children while you and your spouse go out for the evening? Such a move may result in your children being sexually molested if indeed it turns out that the rumors are true. This scenario is just one of many scenarios where giving someone the benefit of the doubt can have devastating consequences.

In another scenario, let us say that you are engaged to be married, but you suspect that your fiance has been having sexual relations with someone else during your engagement. Your fiance insists that he/she has been faithful, but you suspect that he/she is lying. Do you give your fiance the benefit of the doubt, figure that he/she is good at heart and marry him/her anyway? Many people would agree that the answer is no. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, and marrying the wrong person can have very bad consequences, including ugly divorces, loss of large amounts of money and years of bitterness and heartbreak.

Faux peacekeepers may try to tell you to “see the good in people” and give people the benefit of the doubt. Assuming the best in people can appear to promote peace, but the costs can be very high depending on the context. Any peace that seems to come from assuming the best in someone can result in more harm later on.

Is it good to get along with everybody?

Let us say that someone is terrorizing you and your family to the point that on a few occasions, you and your family have to stay at a hotel in order to feel safe. Let us then say that someone, who you thought was your friend, gets along pretty well with the person who is terrorizing your family. You mention to your friend the bad things that this person has been doing, to which your friend replies “Hey, I just get along with everybody.” Is this friend still your friend?

Getting along with everybody is nothing to be proud of. Never being angry at anybody or anything does not make one a god of peace. Rather, it can be a sign of apathy. An individual who truly cares about people is going to get angry at someone and/or something because there is always someone or something that is harming innocent people. This does not mean that we should be angry all the time. What it does mean is that when there are things we truly care about, there is going to be something somewhere that will make us angry at some point in time.

Summary

The true peacekeeper will care about why a dispute or confrontation is taking place because the true peacekeeper is concerned with coming to a resolution to the conflict. The faux peacekeeper, on the other hand, may not care why the confrontation is taking place, as long as it is interrupted and stopped. The faux peacekeeper may even make judgmental assumptions about why the confrontation is taking place, such as assuming that the confrontation is just two people who don’t get along for whatever reason.

The true peacekeeper will recognize that certain altercations are meant to take place, such as when someone is doing something wrong that is harming others and needs to be stood up to. The faux peacekeeper may not recognize that certain altercations need to take place. After all, if the faux peacekeeper cared about why the altercation was taking place, then the faux peacekeeper would recognize the necessity of certain altercations. Faux peacekeepers would rather force everyone to cover everything up with nice words than go through the harder work of actually resolving the conflict. Faux peacekeepers may take an issue, which is meant to be brought out into the open, and lock it away into a state of dormancy where it does not belong.

True peace is not to be confused with an appearance of peace. We can put on an appearance of peace by acting like everything is okay, but such a move can allow any underlying problems to worsen.

What would it be like if someone from the real world were magically transported into the land of television and interacted with the characters? The 1998 movie Pleasantville presents the story of a teenage brother and sister, David and Jennifer, who are transported into the world of a black and white TV show that takes place in the good old days when women worked in the home while the men went off to work. As David and Jen (now named Bud and Mary Sue) interact with the characters, they notice that certain things disrupt the order to this other universe. When Skip Martin, captain of the basketball team, talks to Bud about asking out his sister, Mary Sue, Bud — who is actually David from the real world — says that it may not be a good time to ask out Mary Sue. The reason he says this is that Mary Sue is actually Jennifer from the real world, and Jennifer is nothing like the good girl, Mary Sue. Nonetheless, Skip looks horrified at the thought of Mary Sue refusing to go out with him. He throws the basketball at the basketball hoop and it doesn’t go in. The other basketball players look in shock as the basketball bounces off of the basketball hoop without going in. The coach’s mouth drops open, and he tells everyone not to go anywhere near the ball. Why is this a big deal? Because in the land of this black and white TV show, the basketball team always wins and every time a team member throws the basketball at the hoop, it goes in. However, when something threw their universe out of whack in that moment, the ball did not go into the hoop.

As David and Jennifer — disguised as the characters Bud and Mary Sue — continue interacting with the characters, they throw the order to this other universe more out of whack. Jennifer teaches the mother of the family how to masturbate, something that is against the order of this universe, which presents only wholesome family values. When the mother masturbates, a tree goes up in flames. The firemen do not know what to do because there never was a fire in this town. The firemen only rescued cats out of trees. Then David’s charm wins over Marley, one of the cheerleaders. When Marley bakes cookies for David, David knows that this is wrong because according to the correct chronicling of events in the TV series, Marley was supposed to bake cookies for Whitey. Whitey is not happy, and he and his friends no longer behave the way that characters would behave in a simple black and white TV show of wholesome family values. Rather, they become a group of bullies.

What about the universe within Hollywood TV?

Let us say that 20-year-old Jenny from the real world enters the fantasy land of television. What would that be like? What would happen when Jenny interacts with the characters? What would it look like if Jenny were to throw off the order of their universe? Below is presented the hypothetical story of Jenny entering the land of television:

Once upon a time, Jenny takes advantage of an opportunity to be magically transported into the land of Hollywood TV. Jenny is not transported into any specific movie or sitcom. Rather Jenny shifts from one movie and sitcom to the next and meets different characters along the way.

Initially, Jenny is excited. She, like some other people, believes that Hollywood TV provides viewers with an escape from the harshness of reality, and presents a land with less cares and less concerns. Not to mention, the people on television are generally better looking, and Jenny is excited to meet some cute guys, even though they technically do not exist.

Jenny makes some new friends

When Jenny first enters the land of television, she takes on a job at a workplace where everyone is working in cubicles. She makes friends with one of the women there, and the woman introduces Jenny to her coed group of friends. After not too long, however, Jenny does not like the way that her new friends are treating her. Sometimes Jenny finds that something at her workstation has gone missing. Jenny does not know where it is, and because it is missing, Jenny is not able to get certain things done. Jenny’s boss expresses disappointment even when Jenny tries to explain to him that something at her workstation went missing and she does not know where it is. Throughout all of this, Jenny is vaguely aware that there is an audience from the real world watching everything. The audience seems to chuckle a little bit at Jenny’s workplace difficulties.

Eventually, Jenny finds out that her new friend was the one who took the item from her workstation. Jenny confronts her new friend about it, saying that she should not be taking something without asking first. “I was just borrowing it…” the woman keeps saying. “I was going to give it back.” It is obvious to Jenny that what this woman did was still wrong. Even though Jenny’s new friend planned on eventually returning the item, Jenny still did not have the item when she needed it, and because of that, she was unable to get some of her work done, and she got unfairly reprimanded by her boss. Jenny tries to explain all of this to her new friend, but her new friend just accuses Jenny of blaming her for her problems.

Jenny finds that many of the other people in her new group of friends are not nice either. Sometimes one of them says something to Jenny that humiliates or denigrates Jenny in front of other people. As Jenny gives an angry look in response, she can vaguely hear an audience chuckling in the background. Why would viewers find this to be funny? Jenny wonders. These people are obviously not very nice.

At one point, one of Jenny’s new male friends has a crush on Jenny. He decides to tell lies to the other guys about Jenny, saying that she is gay. This way the other guys will not pursue Jenny, and he can have Jenny all to himself. Jenny gets angry when she finds out what he did. To Jenny’s surprise, the audience that is watching finds all of this to be amusing.

People always “forgive” each other in the land of television

Eventually, Jenny decides that she does not want to be friends with these jerks anymore, so she stops hanging out with them. There is a problem however. It is against the order of the sitcom universe for a character to terminate a friendship with the other characters. Such a move would alter the status quo of the sitcom, and make the writers have to modify all of the succeeding episodes to accommodate this change. Instead, characters are to always forgive each other, and then continue being friends as if nothing happened.

Jenny finds more difficulty than she expected when she tries to stop being friends with these people. They begin to stalk her. They keep thinking that Jenny will eventually forgive them and become friends with them again, even though they obviously do not plan on changing any of their behaviors. One day, as Jenny is relaxing in the bedroom of her apartment, she hears a sound. She walks out of her bedroom to see what it is. What she finds is her X-friends standing in her living room. They have broken into her home, which should be against the law based on Jenny’s understanding. They don’t care what breaking and entering means, however. After all, they just wanted to talk to her. Yet they do not seem to care that Jenny does not want to talk to them, and does not want to have anything to do with them ever again.

At this point, Jenny’s X-friends call Jenny the mean and unforgiving one. They just don’t know why Jenny cannot find it in her heart to forgive people. They seem to believe that forgiveness requires a complete restoration of the original relationship to what it was before. Jenny is not in agreement. She believes that forgiveness just means coming to an inner peace and acceptance over what had happened and moving on. Jenny does not think that forgiveness needs to involve any restoration or even a continuation of the relationship.

Jenny gets tangled up with a protagonist character

As Jenny continues living in the land of Hollywood TV, she meets another protagonist character. This one seems to have a crush on Jenny, but Jenny does not like him. She finds him to be selfish and immature, as she does many other male characters that she has met. Yet, this protagonist character cannot seem to take “no” for an answer. He is known for being a smart guy, but he also is arrogant and judgmental. When he finds out that Jenny herself is a scientist, and is smart like he is, he develops very strong and irrevocable convictions that the two of them are meant to be together.

When other characters see how much Jenny does not like the protagonist guy, they (to Jenny’s surprise) also develop convictions that Jenny and this protagonist butthole belong together. Jenny does recall many stories where a man and a woman initially do not like each other, but then fall in love later. Certainly, though, dislike between two people does not mean that the two people are going to eventually fall in love. That would be a preposterous assumption.

As Jenny tries to get away from this selfish and egotistical guy, he starts to stalk her. To Jenny’s surprise, the audience is not bothered or offended by his behavior. Instead, the viewers find it to be romantic that the protagonist guy is going after the girl that he loves. Do they not understand that this man is a second-rate human being who is not good relationship material? Jenny thinks. Jenny feels isolated at this point. It is as if the whole world expects her to fall into the arms of this mediocre person, and the only one who sees this arrangement as a problem is her.

Then Jenny remembers that in movies and sitcoms, the protagonst always gets the girl that he wants (unless of course she turns out to be pure evil later on). Maybe if Jenny becomes a serial killer, he will go away.

Limitations on conversation topics

Jenny usually likes to talk to other people and get to know them. She likes to find out what makes people tick. When she talks with television characters, however, she finds that the conversation topics are pretty limited. In particular, almost every conversation seems to be about sex and/or romance. Of course if Jenny is in a horror or suspense movie where there is a big crisis or catastrophe, then the crisis or catastrophe is generally the topic of conversation. Otherwise, so many conversation seem to be confined to sexual and romantic relationships, or the lack thereof.

Jenny is one of those people who has decided not to have sex before marriage. This decision, however, is practically unheard of in the land of Hollywood television. Many of the men that Jenny meets seem to expect Jenny to have sex with them that very night. When Jenny tries to explain that she does not have sex outside of marriage, they simply say “So then, you are only having oral sex…” Jenny is surprised and a little offended. Based on her understanding, oral sex does qualify as sexual activity. Jenny explains to the man that, no, she is not having oral sex either. The man then assumes that she must be doing hand jobs. At this point, Jenny is fed up and realizes that this kind of talk is about private matters and is not fit for civilized conversation.

Other unexpectedly bad experiences

One day, while Jenny is trying to watch a movie in a movie theater, some woman behind her just won’t stop talking. Nobody else seems to notice that the woman is talking, but it still bothers Jenny. So Jenny decides to tell the woman to be quiet, but the woman ignores her. Jenny keeps trying to tell her to be quiet, but now the other people present are telling Jenny to be quiet. Apparently they did not notice the other woman talking, but they were bothered by Jenny talking even though all that Jenny was trying to do was tell the other woman to be quiet. Jenny does not understand why she is being treated so unfairly, but the audience from the real world seems to think that the scene is somewhat amusing.

Another thing that Jenny notices in the land of TV is that the children are sometimes smarter than the adults. Meanwhile, the authority figures are often stupid, whether they be parents, teachers, police officers, other government officials or scientists. Over time Jenny learns that when she is in certain movies where some evil force is trying to take control, she often gets more intelligent conversation out of children than from figures of authority.

The aftermath

Jenny’s journey through the land of Hollywood television has taught her how much she would not want to live in this alternate world. Indeed, the order to the TV universe is laced with evil, though it is not, itself, completely evil. Nonetheless, Jenny still has some healing to do after this experience. She finds that she is afraid to make new friends because she is afraid that they will not leave her alone in the case that she decides that she does not want to be friends anymore. Jenny also is apprehensive about meeting guys now because she is afraid that they will not take “no” for an answer, and furthermore she is afraid that the rest of the world will expect her to say “yes” just because of the world’s infatuation with new romantic relationships.

Though the protagonist always gets to be with his/her love interest eventually in the land of TV, Jenny notices that some protagonist characters are not very good people. There is Ron Burgundy from The Anchorman, Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City, Ferris Bueller from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Liz Lemon from 30 Rock, Malcolm from Malcolm in the Middle and the nerds from the Revenge of the Nerds movies. Do viewers actually think that it is representative of reality for these people always getting love interest? Jenny hopes not.

Unfortunately, many people model their behaviors after what they see on television. The more we model the behaviors we see on television, the more reality becomes like that horrible world on television that we do not want to live in.

A low-grade villain is a special kind of villain that is not powerful like other villains. Other villains tend to have a special kind of power, whether it be a super power, political power, economic power or social power. Low-grade villains, however, possess a level of power equal to or below that of the average person. Villains generally strive for large amounts of power, but low-grade villains, for one reason or another, have failed to acquire such power. Therefore, they remain in a position of average to below average power. In other words, they are average everyday people that you could find anywhere.

When we recall the villains we have seen in fairy tales, movies and sitcoms, we see that they often do acts of evil out in the open for all to see. Because they are so powerful and often have leagues of followers at their disposal, they can do acts of evil out in the open and still get away with it — that is until the good guys defeat them in the end. Low-grade villains, on the other hand, do not have this luxury. When they carry out their wicked schemes, it has to be done in an underhanded way; or the act of evil has to be a certain kind of evil that is not recognized by culture as being evil. Good people will refrain from a certain behavior when they see that it is hurting people, even if the surrounding culture views the behavior as being perfectly okay. Low-grade villains, on the other hand, will take advantage of their culture’s acceptance of certain immoral behaviors as a free pass to indulge in such behaviors and still view themselves, and be viewed by others, as perfectly decent people.

Low-grade villains do operate by a moral code, but it is a perverted moral code that they have crafted to suit their convenience and their desires. Take Tyler Down from the TV series 13 Reasons Why. In the first season, Tyler has a crush on Hannah Baker and decides to stalk her. After he takes pictures of Hannah and her friend through Hannah’s bedroom window, Hannah confronts him. He says he will not take pictures of her anymore, then he asks Hannah if she will hang out with him. Hannah laughs and says no. To seek revenge against Hannah, Tyler circulates pictures that he took of Hannah kissing her female friend. According to Tyler’s moral code, Tyler is entitled to hang out with Hannah simply because Tyler “loves her”. Hannah fails to fulfill Tyler’s false sense of entitlement by refusing to hang out with him. According to Tyler’s moral code, Hannah has wronged him and deserves to be punished.

Low-grade villains generally don’t know that they are villains

Compared to other villains, low-grade villains are more likely to bury themselves in the delusion that they are good decent people. They will even see value in being good, but they still want to give in to their desires to do evil. So they find a way to fulfill their evil desires while still seeing themselves as good and being seen as good by others. When someone tries to call them out on their evil behaviors, they will likely go to great lengths to maintain their disguise as a good person, even to themselves. One major thing they will do is try to discredit whatever person speaks out against their wicked behaviors. They may call the other person “crazy”, “difficult”, “overly critical”, “mean” or “judgmental”. Another tactic they will use is something along the lines of gaslighting. Recall the subjectivity blog post where the evildoer will try to convince the victim that his/her bad behavior is all in the victim’s head. Here, the evildoer will use statements such as “I am sorry you feel that way”, “How you feel…”, “I never looked at it that way before…” or “well, that’s your opinion”. Such statements seem innocuous to the naïve outside observer, but can be emotionally abusive to the victim because they can get the victim to question his/her reality.

For some low-grade villains, it may be impossible to reveal to them the truth of how horrible they really are. They may even think that being so thick-skinned is a virtue to be admired. Yet, their thick-skinned nature is really just narrowmindedness, and a refusal to see a truth that they do not want to see. If you try to prove to them how bad they are, you may find yourself running around in circles, and keep hearing them say, again and again, “well, I guess that’s just how you see it…” or “hey, stop acting like your opinion is fact!”

Unlike many other types of villains, low-grade villains are more likely to torment others with the approval of their own conscience, and may even convince themselves that it is “for your own good”. There will never be any remorse. There will never be any end.

Which is worse: when a classic villain hates you, or when a low-grade villain loves you?

In both of these scenarios, the villain has chosen you as the target of his/her malice. Classic villains are usually filled with hate. They may attempt to harm their victims because they hate them and/or because they view their victims as being inferior. Low-grade villains, on the other hand, will use love as a justification for their malice. At first glance it does not seem to make sense. Why would someone do evil to a victim because of his/her love for the victim? Are we not supposed to care about those we love? As was discussed in the blog post on love, the definition for the English word “love” is very broad, and sometimes love can be the motivating force behind evil behaviors.

Because low-grade villains do not have any more power than the average person, they often need to establish a sufficiently close relationship with their victims in order to inflict harm. They will cite “love” as their reason for forcing a relationship upon the victim. When the low-grade villain speaks of love, he/she may just be referring to an emotional attachment, but note that emotional attachment is not the same thing as caring about one’s better interests.

Sometimes, however, low-grade villains may say that they are trying to sabotage you because they want to protect you. Once again, love is used as a rationalization for their wicked acts. The “threat” that they are trying to protect you from most likely does not exist.

“Are you okay?”

Low-grade villains like to ask this question sometimes. It is an easy way of showing concern that does not actually exist. Note that this question itself is not evil. There are plenty of scenarios where asking this question is warranted. Good people ask this question when they have concern for a fellow human being. When a low-grade villain asks this question, however, the last thing that is on his/her mind is whether or not the other person is actually okay.

Low-grade villains may even ask this question as an implicit form of condescension. For example, let us say that someone is trying to stand up to the low-grade villain and call him/her out on his/her destructive behaviors. Rather than owning responsibility for his/her actions, the low-grade villain may ask “are you okay?” as if to imply that the person standing up to him/her may not be in his/her right mind and may need help. In this context, the “are you okay?” question is used as an implicit way of discrediting the other person who is speaking up. At the same time, the low-grade villain is putting on a façade of concern for the other person to make him/herself look like a good and caring person that he/she is not. When the other person complains about the inappropriate question, the low-grade villain may just say “Hey, I am just trying to see if you are okay”. Here, the low-grade villain is trying to frame the other person as being ungrateful for villain’s concern for his/her well-being.

Low-grade villains sometimes frame their bad behaviors as being the norm

Low-grade villains like to make themselves blend in with everybody else so that they are not singled out for their wicked behaviors. They may use phrases such as “Hey, I am not perfect” or “well, you know, there is some evil in all of us after all…” Low-grade villains are more than happy to admit that they are not perfect. It is an easy way to put on a façade of humility, but without admitting anything of any significance. Obviously nobody is perfect, so admitting that one is not perfect does not say much.

Sometimes low-grade villains will frame the good guys — who do not exhibit the same toxic behaviors — as being the weird ones. The low-grade villain will try to make his/her bad behavior look more common and mainstream than it actually is in some ploy to get his/her victims to tolerate him/her despite his/her wicked behaviors.

Low-grade villains love scandals

Low-grade villains just love it when skeletons are found in someone else’s closet. While a good person would feel bad about darkness in someone’s past and genuinely hope that the person can move on to a better life, the low-grade villain rejoices (at least on the inside). While low-grade villains love scandals, they don’t necessarily care about whether the scandal is based on truth. As long as the other person is put into a bad light, the low-grade villain has a chance to look like a saint in comparison. Scandals among other people take attention off of the low-grade villains’ own hidden darkness, and not only help low-grade villains appear as good people to others, but also appear as good people to themselves, thus feeding their delusions that they are good people.

Nice Guy Syndrome

Nice Guy Syndrome is an example of a low-grade villain personality prototype. It is a pathological behavioral pattern where a man is a good friend to a woman, and is always there for her, but then feels entitled to a romantic/sexual relationship in return. The man is kind to the woman, always listens to her, and provides a shoulder for her to cry on. None of these seemingly altruistic deeds are done with good intentions. Rather, the man is expecting something in return which he is, in reality, not entitled to.

Not only are his intentions bad, the end effects also are bad. If the woman succombs to the nice guy’s mind games, then she will feel obligated to have romantic and sexual relations with the man that she has no feelings for, and who, in reality, is only pretending to care about her. I wonder what a romantic relationship that starts with Nice Guy Syndrome would be like in the long term. Would the guy continue to act nice, or would he eventually not act nice anymore once he knows that he has her? Would he eventually resort to other kinds of mental abuse and manipulation? How long would such a relationship last given that the woman has no feelings for him to begin with?

These “nice guys” do believe that they are truly good people, and that women should be flocking to them in droves instead of dating the jerks. What they do not understand is that they are at least as evil, if not more evil, than the so-called jerks. They are indeed a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and all that they see when they look in the mirror is the sheep. According to their perverted moral code, acting nice automatically makes one a good person (even if it is just an act). Also according to their moral code, being a good person and doing nice things for someone means that one is entitled to get what he wants in return.

There is a love that is called agape love. It refers to acting in the better interests of another without expecting anything in return. It is what you do when you really care about someone and are willing to do whatever you can to help them. This agape love is not in the vocabulary of the guys with Nice Guy Syndrome. Their good deeds come with an expected return on investment.

Losers

Losers also can be villainous, as explained in the Planet Loser post. Losers are people who were given some great opportunities and assets in life, but messed it all up with their bad decisions. They are prone to insecurity and low self-esteem. To cope, they like to form an environment around themselves where being a loser is the norm, and anyone who is happy and thriving is an alien and a threat. Losers can easily get jealous of family and friends who are making something of themselves.

Losers may just try to avoid the people who outshine them, but other times they may do wicked deeds to bring other people down. They may sabotage other people to prevent them from achieving their goals, or they may try to control people — particularly vulnerable people such as women, children, disabled people and chronically ill people. Wielding control over a victim gives the loser a feeling of power and status that he/she does not have to earn. Such a feeling of power and status helps losers to reduce their insecurities and make them feel less insignificant.

The Villainous Suburban Mom

Another low-grade villain personality prototype is the villainous suburban mom. The suburban mom villain has children, not because she has a lot of love to give, but rather because she wants a brood of human beings to be under her control. Villains gravitate towards positions of power because they like to control their environment and they like to control other people. When a villain cannot acquire a position of high power, the villain will try to acquire whatever power he/she can over individuals in his/her vicinity. What better a way to have power over someone than to have children under one’s custody.

To the suburban mom villain, the children exist for her sake, not her for their sake. She likes to establish superiority over them by patronizing them, and calling it discipline. Because her children are younger and less knowledgable about life, it is easy for this evil mom to feel superior to them. They are like her personal property rather than separate human beings that have rights. She likes to taunt them for the sake of entertaining herself. When her children get angry with her, she always frames their emotions as being invalid. To her, they are just kids. They don’t know anything. Therefore, nothing about them is to be taken seriously. If they get upset, just give them a hug. Don’t address why they are upset. Children are always upset over nothing as far as this evil mom is concerned.

The suburban mom villain does not want her children to accomplish anything extraordinary. After all, she never did, and personal property cannot be superior to its owner, as is explained in the People as Private Property post. The suburban mom villain especially does not want her daughters to accomplish very much because of her internalized mysogyny. She may even favor the son over the daughter, in which case she may allow the son to be cruel to the daughter without disciplining him, but not let the daughter be as mean to the son.

The suburban mom villain is very good at hiding her true evil nature underneath that simple loving mom exterior. She even believes her own lies. Her loving, simple mom façade is very compelling and can make anyone feel bad for even suspecting that such a loving mom would be capable of any evil at all. Even if you tried to address the way she treats her children, she may say in her meek, sweet voice “I don’t understand…”, thus placing the burden on you to further explain yourself when she should be explaining herself.

Let us say that despite the odds, one of her children does manage to achieve some great accomplishments. In such a scenario, the suburban mom villain would never want to be in her child’s shadow. Instead, she would try to latch onto her child like a tick and try to receive credit for her child’s accomplishment (even if the accomplishment is not hers). “That’s my girl…that’s my girl…I’m her mother…I raised her” she would keep saying. She would essentially demand whatever credit she can get for her child’s accomplishment even if the accomplishment was done regardless of her abuse and not because of her.

Low-grade villains from television

Some characters we have seen on television are not known for being villains, but they are actually low-grade villains. The nerds from the 1984 movie Revenge of the Nerds are an example. At first glance, they just look like the underdog protagonists who are sometimes bullied by the jocks, who are the jerks that get all the girls. If we take a closer look, though, we see that they do exhibit villainous behaviors, with women as their primary victims. Many, though not necessarily all, of them do not view women as fellow human beings worthy of human rights, but rather as conquests and sexual entertainment. Numerous viewers have complained of the infamous rape scene where one of the nerds dresses up as the boyfriend of an attractive women so that he can trick the woman into having sex with him. Though the woman responds favorable when she finds out that he is not really her boyfriend, no woman in her right mind would respond so favorably to such horrible treatment in real life.

Another low-grade villain, whom I have mentioned in some of the previous posts, is Howard Wolowicz from The Big Bang Theory. He is always on the prowl looking for women to victimize. He may not be proficient at attracting women, but his intentions are still evil. He seeks the opportunity to take advantage of women, and particularly gets excited when some of the women have low self-esteem because it means he can get easier sex.

Low-grade villains sometimes disguise their evil as stupidity

Another character, Ray Barone, from the show Everybody Loves Raymond, is not consistently evil enough to be a villain, but does exhibit a particular kind of low-grade villain behavior: he acts like a buffoon a lot of the time until he is presented with an opportunity to take advantage of a situation for his own personal gain, but at the expense of his loved ones. When presented with such an opportunity, he becomes cunning and crafty.

These kinds of low-grade villains look like buffoons to most people, but are actually pretty intelligent. Their true intelligence manifests itself when they are presented with an opportunity to do an underhanded form of evil. One example with Ray Barone is the episode where Ray’s wife and Ray’s mother are having a dispute. Amidst the dispute, Ray’s wife and Ray’s mother are competing with each other for Ray’s affection to see which one of them can win more favor with Ray. Ray likes this kind of attention, so he deliberately prolongs the dispute in an underhanded way so that this attention he is receiving can continue. Eventually, Ray’s family sees what Ray was doing, which Robert calls “taking advantage of the situation”. However, I doubt that Ray would have done things any differently if he went back in time. He did not receive much of a punishment for his behavior, and his whole family continues loving him anyway.

Low-grade villains that put on this buffoon facade just love being called an idiot. When someone shouts “idiot!” at them, they inwardly rejoice, not because they are humble, but rather because it means that their disguise is working.

The low-grade villain’s evil laugh

We can all recall the wicked laugh of the villains from stories. The villain will let out his wicked laugh or cackle when everything is going to plan and it seems to be just a matter of time before the villain’s wicked scheme is accomplished.

Low-grade villains also have an evil laugh, but the low-grade villain’s evil laugh does not occur in the same context as that of the other villains. A low-grade villain’s wicked laugh may occur in regular everyday conversation as a way of conveying disrespect. For example, you may be speaking your mind on something that is important to you. Just when you thought you made a great point on something, the other person just laughs. It is obvious that you were not making a joke. Instead, you feel disrespected and mocked. Yet the other person tells you to just chill out, and that laughing is just a part of every day casual conversation. This is what it feels like to be at the receiving end of a low-grade villain’s laugh.

Low-grade villains may not be able to pull off any impressive schemes like other more powerful villains can, but they still can put people down and make fun of people for the sake of entertaining themselves and for the sake of feeling better about themselves.

The low-grade villain support system

Though low-grade villains have no more power than the average person, they still have a substantial support system. Mainstream culture in itself provides a support system for low-grade villains as it overlooks many kinds of harmful and destructive behaviors. Wicked behaviors are often portrayed as being normal and acceptable on television, and many scenes on television entice the audience to laugh at people getting hurt and at people intentionally hurting each other. Such a culture gives low-grade villains a free pass to participate in certain harmful behaviors while still being viewed as regular decent people by others.

Low-grade villains also provide support systems for each other. Let us say that on two different occasions, you stand up to two different people who are exhibiting harmful behaviors towards others. These two people you spoke to may know each other and may even start talking to each other about you. One may say to the other “He told you that? He said the same thing to me, too. I wouldn’t take it personally. It looks like he says that to a lot of people…” Here, the two low-grade villains are supporting each other in their delusions that they are justified. They have decided to operate under the premises that the side with more people must be the side that is right. If there are two or more of them on their side and only you on your side, then you must be in the wrong. Indeed, if the three of you took a vote on which side is “right”, you would lose.

What’s worse, when a low-grade villain has chosen you as his/her target, you do not have as much of a support system as you would if you were targeted by a more powerful villain. The reason is that low-grade villains are generally good at concealing their identities as villains. You may be one of the only ones that notices that this low-grade villain is a villain. Furthermore, the low-grade villain who has targeted you may be trying to make you out to be the villain, or at least some crazy person, behind your back.

In the previous blog post, I discussed the potential harm and even deaths that can result from the spread of misinformation. Here I will discuss lying, which is, by definition, the intentional spread of misinformation. When people lie, they are spreading information that they know is misinformation. To many people, lying is just a part of life. Lying makes their world go round. People may lie to secure a business deal, get a job, attract a potential romantic partner, or just make things easier. In all such scenarios, people are spreading misinformation.

Why do people lie?

Below are some reasons for why people lie:

• spare someone’s feelings
• tell people what they want to hear
• evade responsibility for one’s actions
• make oneself look good or make a friend look good
• avoid trouble and/or make a situation easier
• keep other people out of one’s business
• avoid a harsh punishment (such as being executed for one’s religious beliefs)
• tell a joke

Lying to spare someone’s feelings

There is the classic scenario where the woman asks the man “do I look fat in this dress?” and where the man is expected to say no. So what if the woman does look fat in the dress? Should the man tell the truth or tell what is called a “white lie”? The problem with telling the white lie is that it gives the woman false information about how she looks in the dress. It causes her to go out in public feeling confident that her outfit is flattering when it actually is not. She may be walking along and unbeknownist to her there may be other women whispering to each other about how much her butt is hanging out. If she were to hear these whisperings, she may be mortified. This white lie that her man told her has caused her to go out into public and embarrass herself.

Another example of a white lie gone wrong is from the TV series The Good Place where one of Chiti’s colleague (and friend) asks Chiti what he thinks of his new boots. Chiti thinks those boots look horrible on him, but to spare his friend’s feelings, he says that the boots look good on him. Because of this white lie, the man walks around in his new boots with confidence that he looks great, and meanwhile people who see him may be snickering under their breath. Later on, Chiti finds out that the man loved the boots so much that he bought a pair for Chiti. Now Chiti has to either wear the horrible-looking boots or run yet another risk of hurting his friend’s feelings.

There are many situations where telling a “white lie” to spare one’s feelings can lead to a bigger embarrassment for the other person later on. These kinds of white lies can give a person false confidence in something that he/she is doing, and then cause him/her to go out into the world with this false sense of competency or attractiveness only to be eventually met with unfriendly fire.

Telling people what they want to hear and calling it love

Sometimes people mistakingly think that when we love somebody, that we will do whatever it takes to protect them from any kind of pain, discomfort or harm. The problem with this is that pain and discomfort are a part of life. Also, it is better for someone to go through temporary pain in the process of accepting a truth than to remain in the dark. Furthermore, there is a difference between what someone wants to hear and what someone needs to hear. When you truly care about somebody, you will tell him/her what he/she needs to hear even if it causes him/her pain to hear it. When parents discipline a child, they are intentionally causing the child discomfort, but that does not mean they do not love the child. They are causing this discomfort because they do love the child.

Some people choose to keep themselves in the dark. They have decided for themselves that they do not want to know the truth and that they would rather live in a lie. That is their person decision. When one person lies to another, however, the liar is assuming the right to decide on behalf of the other person that it is better for the other person to not know the truth. In my opinion, the liar has no right to make this decision on another person’s behalf. The liar is failing to respect the other person’s autonomy and the other person’s right to make decisions for him/herself. It is the same as if a doctor decides not to tell a patient about a viable treatment option because the doctor has assumed the right to decide on behalf of the patient that the patient is not to undergo that particular treatment. The doctor is not respecting the patient’s right to decide on the treatment option.

Lying to evade responsibility for one’s actions

When people lie to evade responsibility for their options, it is obvious that their intentions are bad. Good people take responsibility for their actions, especially when their actions harm others. Bad people would rather indulge in their desires to do evil, and without paying the price (a.k.a. have your cake and eat it too). A previous blog post “I didn’t mean to” discusses the various tactics that evildoers use to evade responsibility for their actions, many of which involve willful deception. These tactics include fake lip-service apologies, playing dumb, gaslighting, being double-tongued, and/or claiming they don’t remember the incident.

Lying to make oneself look good or make a friend look good

One major reason for lying is low self-esteem. When people are insecure about themselves, they like to make themselves look good to others. In this way, they can deflect their own insecurities. Other reasons people have to make themselves look good is if they are applying for a job or trying to win over a new romantic partner.

Sometimes people lie about their qualifications in order to land a new job. This can be bad both for the company and for the job candidate. The decisions that a business makes have a big impact on the business’ chances of success. Hiring the right people is among those important decisions. When people lie about their qualifications, the business is more likely to hire the wrong people. Even if the business eventually finds out that this person is not the right person for the job, the business will still have to repeat the process of putting out another search for candidates to fill the position, which consumes company resources. In addition, the person who gets fired will have bad job performance added to his/her employment record, making it potentially harder to land another job.

When you lie about your qualifications for a job, you may be more likely to get the job, but that does not mean you will be able to perform at the level that you said you can perform at, nor does it mean that the job is the right job for you. When you fail to perform adequately, you can get fired and wind up worse off than before, because now your sub-par job performance and recent firing are added to your employment record. As a rule, if you have to lie in order to get a job, then that likely means the job is not for you.

Some people lie about themselves on a date in order to impress the other person. A man may hope that by telling a woman what she wants to hear, he can win her over and get a new girlfriend. Here, the man is trying to use lies as a starting point for a relationship. The problem is that relationships need trust. When we lie, we make ourselves untrustworthy. Furthermore, even if the woman believes all of the man’s lies about himself, she will eventually see his true colors when she is in a relationship with him for long enough. Then a painful relationship breakup is likely, followed by long-term hatred and resentment that we hear about so often with exes.

When you lie to make yourself look better than you actually are, and your attempts at deception are successful, people’s expectations of you will increase, and you will not be able to meet those expectations. When you fail to meet those expectations, you are setting yourself up for embarrassment, failure and hard feelings.

Lying to avoid trouble

Sometimes people may lie in order to prevent a confrontation from taking place. What we are missing here is that sometimes confrontations have to take place to resolve a conflict or to hold someone responsible for his/her wrongdoings.

One time, I had to select an overseas moving company. After I had chosen a moving company, one of the competing moving companies called me. When I told him that I had already chosen another moving company, he tried to make me regret my decision. He asked for the name of my moving agent. I said it was Stuart, and immediately he said “That’s the guy!” He said that Stuart had been fired from his previous job for stealing money from customers. When I told him I had already given Stuart my payment information, he said in his British accent “Oh dear..Oh dear..” He told me that Stuart did so many bad things that the police were after him.

Other people in my situation may have dismissed what this man had said as a lie and moved on with their move as if nothing happened, but I spoke up. Even if these statements about Stuart were lies, Stuart’s employer should still know what others are saying about Stuart. So I told Stuart’s employer about what this other moving company had said, and the director wrote a scathing letter to them, accusing them of slander.

I imagined some people thinking that I was causing trouble by spilling the beans on what was being said about Stuart. I imagined them thinking that I was causing conflict between the two moving companies when I could have just kept quiet. Such a mindset makes the assumption that all confrontation is always bad when really certain confrontations are supposed to take place. When people are pulling off wicked schemes for their own personal gain and at the expense of others, their schemes need to be brought out into the open and dealt with before they cause more harm.

Lying to avoid severe punishment

When the punishment for a wrongdoing is severe, the temptation to lie one’s way out of the punishment is high. Nonetheless, exemption from a punishment for a wrongdoing is not right. People with character and moral integrity face the responsibility for their actions, even when it is hard. Punishment for a crime may be many years or even life in prison. Yet if we do not come forward and confess, someone else may get wrongfully convicted and undergo a severe punishment for a crime that he/she never committed. Such a situation would be a grave injustice. When we try to lie our way out of the punishment for a wrongdoing, we are adding to our wrongdoing another wrongdoing.

Some governments severely punish behaviors that are not wrong, such as observing a certain religion that is not hurting anybody. In some countries, observing Christianity is punishable by long imprisonment or even death. Does that mean the Christians should lie and deny Christ before the authorities in order to save themselves? Such a lie violates the commandments of the Christian God. The Bible teaches that if we deny God, He will deny us on judgment day.

Lying as a joke

Ever hear someone say “Don’t believe anything I say…I am always joking!”? Sometimes people tell a joke by saying something that they know is not true. If the other person believes it, they say “Gotcha!” For example, the joker may tell someone that the word gullible is actually not included in the dictionary. The joker then sees if the other person tries to look it up. Such joking actually qualifies as lying, though the lie may only last a moment before the joke teller presents the truth. So how can this form of joking that so many kids like to do be bad?

In certain contexts, lying as a joke can lead to a chain of events that results in someone’s death. Let me explain. When the joker lies as a joke, the other people who know him will eventually start thinking twice before believing what he says in order to prevent themselves from being seen as gullible. The more often the joker tells a temporary lie as a joke, the more other people will question everything he says, especially if he says something that is unexpected.

My brother told me about a book he read about a boy who liked joking all the time. Towards the end of the book, the boy got stung by a bee. Unfortunately, the boy did not know that he was allergic to bees until he got that bee sting. When he started to suffer from a reaction to the bee sting, his friend would not do anything because he thought it was another one of the boy’s joking acts. Once his friend realized that this was not a joking act, the boy was dead.

In situations that are a matter of life and death, every second counts. Those precious seconds get lost during the amount of time it takes for the people around to figure out that this is not a joke. The more often you tell a lie as a joke, the less likely people will be to take you seriously when you are serious. If you are in trouble and need help, you may not receive life-saving help right away because of the length of time it takes for the people around you to determine whether or not you are joking. The more often you tell a lie as a joke, and the more realistic your temporary lies are, the harder it is to convince people you are serious when you are serious.

Sometimes “gullible” people get made fun of for believing every joke statement they hear. Yet if you are known for being a jokester, and you are choking while people around you are rolling their eyes under the impression that you are joking, the gullible person in the room may be your best bet for survival because he/she is the only one who believes you.

Your lie-based jokes can put others in danger, too. For example, if you are the first to notice a fire in the building, and you shout for someone to immediately pull the fire alarm, certainly nobody wants to embarrass him/herself by pulling the fire alarm when there is not actually a fire. That would make them gullible laughing stock of the week. What if there really is a fire, though? How much precious time would it take for the other people to realize that the fire is real and is not a joke?

Even if you tell a lie as a joke only on occasion, you are still delivering some dose of poison to your credibility, just a lower dose than if you told lies as jokes all the time.

What liars do not seem to understand

Liars (that is, people who tell lies) do not seem to understand that by lying, they are giving other people an legitimate reason to not trust them or take them seriously. They seem to lie and just expect others to trust them and take them seriously anyway.

Liars also seem to not understand how much lying ruins relationships. By lying, they are setting themselves up for relationship problems. The other person will never know what the liar is hiding from them. The other person also will not know when to believe his/her partner and when not to.

You can be highly intelligent and very knowledgable, but once you are found to be a liar, your credibility diminishes. Some liars take on the stance “well, you will just have to trust me anyway…” This is a load of crap. There is literally no reason to trust a liar. The obligation to trust someone who is untrustworthy is nonexistent. Liars just like to make this up so that their words will still carry some weight despite their tendencies towards deception.

As a person continues to lie, the person can start to lie without realizing it. Liars often lie more than they think they do because they lie without thinking about it. Lying becomes second nature to them, and telling the truth can become the foreign language. You know when telling the truth becomes a foreign language to a person when you see the person lying when telling the truth would have been easier. I see this in characters on television.

Liars sometimes like to say “If you are human and breathing, then you are a liar”. While pretty much everybody has told a lie at some point in his/her lifetime, that does not mean that everybody voluntarily lies on a continuing basis. Being human is no excuse to lie as a part of life. Often lying is a sign of character weakness. Maybe the liar is afraid of the truth or maybe the liar just wants to get whatever he/she wants without having to earn it. Maybe the liar just wants to be well-liked by only telling people what they want to hear. In all of these scenarios, the liar is, out of weakness, choosing the easy way out.

The above examples show that lying comes with a price, which is often hidden, across a wide variety of contexts. Lying causes harm to oneself and to others.