You are afraid that a single mistake will cause them to leave you. They absolutely refuse to respect your boundaries. They have a vested interest in your uncertainty. Their friendship is subject to their terms.
They are unable to show you tough love. Sometimes toxic friends are intentionally awful, but the hardest to spot are the ones who are not.
“There’s a big imbalance between what you’re giving and what you’re getting [in a toxic friendship].” — Dr. Andrea Bonier, clinical psychologist.
Just had an amazing 12 days with my loving, caring, hardworking empathic grandson. Despite the insults, false allegations and cruel comments he has endured over the past 3 years he has flourished and grown into a responsible, loving young adult.
He is old enough to make his own decisions now and voted with his feet to live surrounded by love and empathy.
Who says blood is thicker than water? Absolutely not the case in this situation, I experienced it first hand.
Alienators believe that money overrides TOXIC behaviour
Love over wins over hate and toxicity every time, and no amount of money can buy true LOVE.
In “A Study of Stalkers” Mullen et al. (2000) identified five types of stalkers:
Rejected stalkers follow their victims in order to reverse, correct, or avenge a rejection (e.g. divorce, separation, termination).
Resentful stalkers make a vendetta because of a sense of grievance against the victims – motivated mainly by the desire to frighten and distress the victim.
Intimacy seekers seek to establish an intimate, loving relationship with their victim. Such stalkers often believe that the victim is a long-sought-after soul mate, and they were ‘meant’ to be together.
Incompetent suitors, despite poor social or courting skills, have a fixation, or in some cases, a sense of entitlement to an intimate relationship with those who have attracted their amorous interest. Their victims are most often already in a dating relationship with someone else.
Predatory stalkers spy on the victim in order to prepare and plan an attack – often sexual – on the victim.
In addition to Mullen et al., Joseph A. Davis, Ph.D., an American researcher, crime analyst, and university psychology professor at San Diego State University investigated, as a member of the Stalking Case Assessment Team (SCAT), special unit within the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, hundreds of cases involving what he called and typed “terrestrial” and “cyberstalking” between 1995 and 2002. This research culminated in one of the most comprehensive books written to date on the subject. Published by CRC Press, Inc. in August 2001, it is considered the “gold standard” as a reference to stalking crimes, victim protection, safety planning, security and threat assessment.
The 2002 National Victim Association Academy defines an additional form of stalking: The vengeance/terrorist stalker. Both the vengeance stalker and terrorist stalker (the latter sometimes called the political stalker) do not, in contrast with some of the aforementioned types of stalkers, seek a personal relationship with their victims but rather force them to emit a certain response. While the vengeance stalker’s motive is “to get even” with the other person whom he/she perceives has done some wrong to them (e.g., an employee who believes is fired without justification from a job by a superior), the political stalker intends to accomplish a political agenda, also using threats and intimidation to force the target to refrain or become involved in some particular activity regardless of the victim’s consent. For example, most prosecutions in this stalking category have been against anti-abortionists who stalk doctors in an attempt to discourage the performance of abortions.
Stalkers may fit categories with paranoia disorders. Intimacy-seeking stalkers often have delusional disorders involving erotomanic delusions. With rejected stalkers, the continual clinging to a relationship of an inadequate or dependent person couples with the entitlement of the narcissistic personality, and the persistent jealousy of the paranoid personality. In contrast, resentful stalkers demonstrate an almost “pure culture of persecution“, with delusional disorders of the paranoid type, paranoid personalities, and paranoid schizophrenia.
Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The term stalking is used with some differing definitions in psychiatry and psychology, as well as in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.
Domestic violence (DV) — also called dating violence, intimate partner abuse, spousal abuse, intimate partner violence (IPV), and domestic abuse — takes many forms. Maltreatment that takes place in the context of any romantic relationship is abuse as described by the above specific terms. It therefore affects men, women, or teen girls and boys, whether in a married or unmarried heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Intimate partner violence may consist of one or more forms, including emotional, psychological, physical, sexual, or economic abuse and is defined as one person in an intimate relationship using any means to put down or otherwise control the other. Types of domestic abuse include physical, verbal (also called emotional, mental, or psychological abuse), sexual, economic/financial, and spiritual abuse. Stalking and cyber-stalking are also forms of intimate partner abuse.
Physically abusive behaviors include assault of any kind, ranging from pinching, pushing, hitting, or slapping to choking, shooting, stabbing, and murder. Verbal, emotional, mental, or psychological violence is described as using words to criticize, demean, or otherwise decrease the confidence of the wife, husband, or other intimate partner victim. Sexual abuse refers to any behavior that uses sex to control or demean the victim, like intimidating the victim into engaging in unsafe sex or sexual practices in which he or she does not want to participate. Economic or financial abuse is described as threatening or otherwise limiting the victim’s financial freedom or security. Spiritual abusers either force the victim to participate in the batterer’s religious practices instead of their own or to raise mutual children in a religion that the victim is not in favor of. Stalking refers to repeatedly harassing and threatening behavior, including showing up at the victim’s home or workplace, placing harassing phone calls, voicemail, email or postal mail messages, leaving unwanted items, or vandalizing the victim’s property. It is usually committed by perpetrators of other forms of domestic violence.
Dr. Daniel Langleben, a psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania, asked himself the same question awhile back. He searched the web for answers and, of course, found nothing. He soon realized that fMRIs (functional magnetic resonance imaging) could reveal what has so far remained a mystery. In the journal NeuroImage, he concluded that “a neurophysiological difference between deception and truth” could be detected.
Since then, the science behind fMRI lie detection has quickly and significantly expanded. Because fMRIs enable researchers to map the brain’s networks as they engage in the process of deception, they can be considered fairly accurate lie-detection devices.
Wired’s Steve Silberman wrote about his experience in Columbia University’s fMRI Research Center. Joining forces with Joy Hirsch, the head neuroscientist and founder of the facility, Silberman traced the process of how brain mapping actually works by completing several different tasks while inside the scanner.
“The first phase of the procedure is a baseline interval that maps the activity of my brain at rest. Then the ‘truth’ phase begins. Prompted by a signal in the mirror, I launch into an internal monologue about the intimate details of my personal life … I focus … on forming the words clearly and calmly in my mind, as if to a telepathic inquisitor … Then, after another signal, I start to lie … I plunge deeper and deeper into confabulation, recalling incidents that never happened while trying to make the events seem utterly plausible.”
There was a clear difference in brain function when Silberman lied and told the truth. Because he internally spoke his dialogue, the area of the cortex devoted to language lit up. Yet there was one stark difference: Scans showed increased activity when he was lying. When he was telling the truth, parts of the brain associated with emotion, conflict, and cognitive control — that is the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), caudate, and thalamus — were inactive, but when he wasn’t, they were on fire.
While the elevated activity in the ACC and its precise function are still somewhat unclear, Silberman noted that the caudate serves a similar function as an editor by assisting the brain in the balancing act of truth telling and fabricating lies. Key staples of fMRI deception mapping occur in the prefrontal cortex, just behind the forehead.
Because most paradigms used in studying deception involve an experimenter telling the subjects to try to be deceptive in some way, they are not a real reflection of why some people engage in the behavior. Yet much insight into the neuroscience of lying has been accessed this way.
Further research explains that three main areas of the brain are stimulated during deception – the frontal lobe works to suppress the truth, the limbic system activates due to the anxiety that comes from lying, and the temporal lobe activates in response to retrieving memories and creating mental imagery (fabricating a believable lie).
You must be logged in to post a comment.