Agreeing to disagree with a Narcopath ensures abuse continues. It is that simple. While generic advice proffered to 80% of the world’s population about how to be a good partner in a relationship might work for some, when it comes to dealing with an atypical personality type like that of an Abuser, truly — the wise interpersonal insight can leave already traumatized victims of things like workplace bullying and domestic abuse feeling hopeless emotionally while virtually guaranteeing that the person verbally, emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually abusing them will continue to escalate with absolutely no holds barred.
Agreeing to disagree with a person who displays covert traits of both Narcissism and Sociopathy is especially dangerous for so many psychological and sociological reasons that it’s difficult to summarize the gist. By suggesting that an abusive person’s intellectual stance on an issue is flawed, first and foremostly it typically enrages them.
Seething with rage underneath and compelled by a deep desire to win social conversations or in life (from a status perspective) at all costs, the passive-aggressive lashes out when and if the opportunity ever presents itself. Covert abusers may be the life of the dinner party who bolsters their own self-esteem at the expense of whoever their friendship circle elects to taunt. That’s just the start.
Expecting their opinions to be validated as something to consider even when and if they don’t actually reflect insight is Covert Narcissism 101. Pushing harder to prove their faulty point, the moment you try to avoid conflict is the time they are most likely to escalate verbal abuse against a target who does not think yelling about social groups like transsexuals or brown people reflects the complex, socially constructive expression of personal emotions based on thought.
On the defensive for being called out and suffering from “Narcissistic Injury Syndrome”, if they think you disagree with them or refuse to go along with their belief system and bow down to them, look out. The Narcopath suing covert situational abuse techniques on a victim will use gaslighting to suggest that it’s okay for them to use things like hate speech because they will claim they have a right to their opinion.
That they do.
But guess what?
People who use words like weapons to socially victimize others are not expressing their opinion. They are abusing. It’s no different to hit a person with your fist when you are angry that it is to start screaming schoolyard insults, hence making the “agree to disagree” about whether or not words used to provoke dismay are hurtful a ridiculously moot point to all people who are rational intellectuals.
Beware the grandiosity of an enraged, entitlement-based non-thinking person. The Narcissist with mild sociopathic or antisocial tendencies will definitely get their panties in a wad thinking that because you disagree with them that you are openly showing them disrespect. Arguments based on things like non-evidenced grossly misapplied stereotypical generalizations or things taken entirely out of context and used to create controversy are typical covert Narcopath conversational control tactics.
People who fail to realize that they are trapped in social engagement with a competitor (rather than a normal person) are victimized by Covert Narcopaths most often.
Once they [the Abuser] perceive you are acting in such a way that is disrespectful, chances are you are destined to be social and emotional toast. Since normal people don’t feel compelled to force everyone they know to share in their opinion, most people who end up targeted the worst for both covert and overt vendetta-agenda attacks by a Narcopath have no earthly idea why they are being targeted — and that is just for doing something like asserting a subjective opinion or taste preference.
If a Narcopath is being abusive to other people, there is NEVER a valid legal, social, or moral reason to support, endorse, overlook, or tolerate their opinion. If they are being abusive and you “agree to disagree” about whether or not what they are saying or doing actually IS abusive, you’re sunk. As in reclaiming objects from the Titanic takes less of a physical effort to do that to have to physically endure listening to hours, days, weeks, months, years, and sometimes decades of their endless, self-entitled and grandiose ranting.
In normal conversations, person A shares an opinion or reflective thought with person B. In a healthy exchange, the listener (person B), listens then typically does something to acknowledge the opinion of the other speaker. Sometimes this means they do something like nod in agreement. Other times, the speaker’s words are restated first by a listener to ensure that whatever point the speaker intended to make is being clearly understood.
Once a person’s words are understood, the listener in a conversation has a social obligation — based on the use of pragmatic empathy — to validate the thoughts, words, or needs of the speaker. Validation is key to all effective social exchanges, as the listener validating a speaker shows evidence of understanding, interest in what the other person has to say, and a level of fundamental respect for the speaker.
That does not mean validating a speaker requires you agree with their point. To validate means you understand where that person is coming from and shows you have a fundamental comprehension of both what they are saying or doing and why they felt compelled to behave or respond in any particular manner.
But validating an Abuser who already feels entitled to abuse is enabling, NOT validating.
Enabling yields more of the same.
Enabling represents a clear and present danger.
If one wants to validate an abusive person, the right way to do it is to understand it is their emotional perspective that led them to reacting or responding to external stimuli in any particular manner. While the Narcopath is not likely to tell you they were led to believe as children that the world is a cold, cruel, and competitive place where being the stronger person (rather than the wiser or more intuitive) was smart, getting them to talk about the formulation of their toxic opinion can be a real eye-opener for a broken heart.
But agreeing to disagree with them on a point — to a narcissistic person — comes across as competitive. There might be two sides to every story regarding people’s OPINIONS on any particular subject or matter, but when one person is lying and abusing and the other is asking for abuse to stop and their pain to be validated as having impacted them, there’s simply NOT.
People who are abusive by nature include religious zealots, bigots, misogynists, people who live according to a fear-based perspective, con artists, pathological liars, people who use others for their own personal gain without regard to the cost to the person who is or was being used, control freaks who have sadistic personality types, Somatic Narcissists, Covert Narcissists, people who have been raised to believe that they or their peer group are “special” and entitled to being treated better than others, and folks who simply for whatever reason lack the ability to process complex emotions in general.
Sometimes their Narcopath tendencies show in public, while most of the time people with NPD and ASPD comorbid conditions simply come across as charming, self-confident, and dominant in the way they approach life with regard to both personal lives as well as in their professional behaviors.
The trouble with agreeing to disagree with a Narcopath is most will take your agreement as a challenge to break you. If you disagree with one on something like a religious or political perspective for instance and they know that you believe their “opinion” about how to socially treat others is cold-hearted, reflects short-term thinking, or is straight-up abusive, get ready for it.
Expect to see a Narcopath clog up your Facebook feed with negative, undermining, and traumatizing commentary on any pro-social comment you make. They will see you as weak-willed, weak-natured, and most importantly weak-minded.
Narcopaths delight in pushing buttons. They are worse than Dee Dee on “Dexter’s Laboratory” and are HUGE fans of cyber trolling.
But online is safe. They can say or do anything they want to intimidate, show abject disrespect, and to provoke you into engaging in a time-wasting, soul-sucking, ultimately pointless debate while using a computer, but the real problem lies with the way they are likely to treat someone who “agrees to disagree with them” face to face.
Narcopaths, as both Narcissists and Anti-Social predators, tend to have a seriously long memory for what they perceive to be NARCISSISTIC INJURY. They also all tend to have quite a bit of a mean streak, noting that all typically perceive every social interaction as a competition of sorts.
If they are more sociopathic by nature than narcissistic, chances are they will claim they were simply having a spirited debate. Saying things like them verbally or psychologically abusing others was “just a joke” or all in good fun is their responsibility avoiding social norms.
But if a Narcopath is more narcissistic by nature than they are anti-social? Look out.
The “narcier” the Narcopath is by psychological and social design, the more likely they are not just to run around making blanket statements to abuse their preferred scapegoats and targets but to persistently and compulsively strive to get even with, socially and emotionally destroy, embarrass, and humiliate any person who dared to have the capricious audacity to agree to disagree with them about whether or not the values they hold dear actually are based on toxic thinking, reflecting ABUSE.
One sees such examples from all sides of the political fence and coming out of the mouths of Cluster B people from every religious order mankind has ever dreamed up to pursue. Islamic, Christian, Republican, Democrat, Gay, Straight… it does not matter.
A person who aligns their thinking socially and emotionally with one of the groups then uses whatever the platform is to socially bully and verbally accost other human beings for sharing different lifestyle values or having a different opinion is a toxic thinker, one whose opinions are to be disregarded entirely when and if their commentary and remarks serve no purpose other than to make themselves feel more prestigious or powerful and important than others.
Agree to disagree about things like which lunchmeat on a sandwich is the best — but only if and when you do so your words are used to share your own subjective opinion without feeling compelled to invalidate another’s. If Joe Billy Bob likes turkey but his wife Elsa Mae wants a roast beast, it’s simply bad form for him to deride her, telling her all the reasons why she is stupid, has bad taste, and that her subjective preference makes her less worthy of fundamental human rights respect than he.
On the flip side, if Elsa is a good person and cares about Joe, chances are she will make note of his opinion and preference. Elsa, as a loving wife, might stop and pick up sandwiches for lunch some day for the two of them, taking special care to pick up his favorite turkey sandwich while picking herself up a roast beef.
If they love one another and have a healthy working relationship, Joe would feel appreciation for Elsa trying to meet HIS taste and personal preference needs without feeling the need to spend the entire lunch hour telling his mate all the reasons why her sandwich is never going to be as good as his, she’s going to hell for liking it, or that she’s stupid and is beneath him socially for preferring dark meat.
If Elsa reports to Joe that when he makes derogatory comments about her taste, lifestyle preferences, and intellect she feels hurt and abused, there is absolutely not two sides to the story. Elsa stating her opinion about the emotions and intellectual processes she goes through each and every time Joe starts putting other people and social groups of red meat eaters down is an incontrovertible truth.
Elsa feels abused by Joe when and if he uses dismissive, angry, negative, invalidating, socially abusive, and self-esteem undermining words. Joe’s opinion on whether or not Elsa feels abused has absolutely nothing to do with it; furthermore, there is no way for Joe to “disagree” with the subjective experiences of his wife unless he is some sort of crazy psychic or cyborg robot capable of reading Elsa’s mind and thoughts, feeling emotions inside her body, and coming out publicly to say that when his wife says she felt hurt or emotionally attacked by Joe she was LYING.
Sadly, most toxic thinkers who compulsively enable because their parents, grandparents, and toxic peer groups have all told them that was cool to do will tell Elsa — never Joe — that ELSA is the problem.
Telling her that every argument has two sides when really in many specific situations such as whether or not someone was being abused starts from an empirical evidence perspective of one can not only completely socially disempower Elsa from being able to heal from Narcissistic Abuse but it can put her directly in the path of angry Joe — a man who, if he has a Cluster B personality type, is likely to engage in even more direct abuse of her following having his so-called “right” to abuse be essentially sanctioned by people who gave generic advice and misapplied it in a grosser manner than physically running their hands through piles of poo and smearing it on the person who was on the receiving end of his pack animal style attack.
Agreeing to disagree about whether or not someone’s WORDS are abusive is STUPID. If someone states they felt abused, it’s important to hear about why they felt that way, to acknowledge their feelings, and if at all possible to rectify the situation in such a way that offers sincere apology by way of non-contemptuous changed behavior, most rational human beings will happily strive to change whatever habit or action was perceived by another to be damaging interpersonal behavior.
Noting that changed behavior is the only valid form of sincere apology is key to both ending Narcissistic Abuse of others as well as to helping trauma victims heal from things like PTSD.
But agreeing to disagree about whether or not someone’s words, actions, or inactions traumatized another person? Especially when a victim is sitting right there saying they felt abused, harmed, or invalidated by another person? It’s not only enabling situational abuse of victims by angry predators lashing out like Overt or Covert Narcissists with psychopathic vendetta agendas.
It’s willingly aligning yourself socially and morally on the side of an Abuser to enable abuse as well as acting like an Abuser By Proxy when and if a well-intentioned friend or family member (or creepy Machiavellian person) strives to gaslight an abuse victim into believing they are not rational, accurate, or honest about their subjective life experiences and witnessed response behaviors.
Overt Enablers are oftentimes themselves weak Narcissists or Narcopaths with all the same personality traits as obvious abusers. In the 20th century, Covert Narcissists were referred to as Passive-Aggressive people, and no person who is themselves bound to protect a person with a personality disorder at all costs does themselves or anyone else by invalidating victims or promoting the continued fantasy of a Narcopath that when they act abusively they are simply sharing their opinions in a benign, socially righteous manner.
People who support or condone social abuse of others in order to land favor with an aggressive personality type they think might elect to befriend or protect them is egocentric. It’s foolish and absolutely short-sighted because in the long-run enabling abuse fails to protect the human rights of all victims. If the victim is a person that is NOT the Enabler, the easier it is for that person to support a toxic person’s nasty behavior.
But doing so leaves the enabling person as well as targeted people in direct harm’s way without any social support, safeguards, or protection when and if an Abuser escalates. It’s like keeping a wild animal alive that is a carnivore that has lost its natural fear of humans and developed a taste for human flesh. Can you do it? Yes. Should you? Not if the greater good of all concerned — including the Lion Tamer — is respected for the best.
Had someone simply validated Elsa — specifically Joe but if he’s incapable then any person who might have overheard him tirading or heard about the sandwich bashing from his wife — then there would be a chance that Joe could get some social skills help. If he’s a ranter with entitlement issues by NURTURE rather than by nature, some simple logic applied by him to analyze how to improve his communication skills would definitely be something he may seek to pursue.
People who are narcissistic thinkers and desensitized emotionally by their family of origin at a young age are not the same sort of Narcissist, Sociopath, or Narcopath as someone who has no biological ability to perceive the world around them and process complex emotions like empathy.
That means with psychotherapy, social skills training, and behavior management techniques, many socially hostile people like Joe can learn to control things like their temper (first) followed by sensitivity training that can help them take personal responsibility for the very real physical damage caused to people who are upset or traumatized by their verbal assaults.
On the other hand, if Joe is Cluster B, he will not care one iota about his wife’s feelings. Actually, he will see her pain and attempts to communicate with him on a ration, honest, and intimate emotional thought sharing level as HILARIOUS.
The more Elsa explains to Joe what hurts her, what triggers her to feel provoked or wounded, and the things she worries about or that make her feel insecure, the more likely Joe (as a Cluster B predator with narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies) is to tuck back that information into a metaphoric filing cabinet in his mind. Why shelf the information she shares?
Because a true Narcopath fancied themselves as a Puppet Master.
As the puppeteer, they constantly will seek out new and easier ways to psychologically and emotionally manipulate. Pulling his wife’s strings and making her feel small or upset releases a rush of pleasurable emotions in Joe, most likely, if he has not — for whatever his reason or logical “excuse” — got the ability to think spherically rather than according to a linear time model or vertical social structure graph.
Linear thinkers tend to be incapable or unwilling to acknowledge systems theory. They also tend to think according to a hierarchy, following social conceptions of pack animals.
One example of this is in a Christian household where the father is seen as the head of the household. If daddy is treated like his needs are more important than that of his wife while children are to be seen and not heard, the household falls to the same Alpha over alignment that a pride of lions shares.
If daddy acts more Confucian by nature, treating his wife and children with respect but assuming the role of protector, caregiver, and provider, then when and if his rule is obeyed respectfully, wife and children can take comfort in knowing he’s likely to make decisions that are in the best interest of the family as a whole — not just for himself.
Acting on behalf of the whole is the mark of a wise person who primed to be an effective family or community leader. Acting in the best interest of the group at the persistent expense of yourself or one scapegoat / left out party is NOT being an effective ruler.
Agreeing to disagree about how much money to apply to a child’s college trust fund per year — that’s a subject up for debate, one solvable by agreeing to acquiesce to one person’s preference or come to terms is appropriate. Agreeing whether or not Elsa has personally experienced feeling insulted, talked down to, bullied by, or intimidated by Joe when he starts frothing at the mouth, wildly complaining that all people who are college-educated are hippie-dippy freeloading liberal bureaucrats who deserve to die and choke to death on their own tree-hugging soylent green energy schemes and telling Elsa that she thinks she’s “so much smarter than him” or “better than him” for having gone to college and enjoyed the experience himself is not being a respectful person, effective family leader, a loving man, or in any way, shape or form a decent father.
If Joe uses logic, he might quickly realize that without all the college-educated, tree-saving, organic roast beef sandwich eaters in society, that chances are civilization would not be so resplendent or complete he has a chance of regaining control of his own emotions. At that point, things like competitive (rather than collaborative) thinking can be set aside. Joe can like turkey, enjoy working with his hands, and can contribute his machismo piece to the world around him while Elsa can curl up, read a good book, listen to NPR, and strive to limit her consumption of red meat products that are not made from organic, grass-fed beef.
Thanks to Elsa, Joe has all the hot air he wants to breathe. But thanks to Joe, Elsa is left feeling the weight of the world on her shoulders… and without respect or validation, is likely to end up agreeing to disagree to the point of winding up with a wicked bad case of C-PTSD.
Agreeing to disagree with a Narcopath ensures abuse continues, plain and simple. Validating other human’s subjective emotional experiences and calling Narcissistic Abuse out for what it is as a solitary, single TRUTH based factual occurrence is the only way to protect a victim and help the Abuser get an accurate handle on how to behave like a civilized, responsible, respectable, and ultimately moral human being.
Don’t let yourself (or anyone else for that matter) be the main course for an emotional vampire dining at a place like Joe’s Diner. There’s all the time in the world to rationally discuss the ins and outs of convergent questions without needing to falsely equate whether or not one person is acting abusively, being dishonest, or straight up gaslighting another by turning what should be a simple thing to validate into an illogically complex and divergent “he said” v. “she said” matter.
Avoid any and all future social or emotional entanglements with any person or toxic peer group who in any way, shape, or form encourages people to mindlessly accept and gloss over the collateral damage and direct physical and psychological impact of the socially harmful and traumatizing things that entitlement thinkers say or do. Agreeing to disagree with a Narcopath is a mind-control trick Covert Narcissists, Narcopaths, and most Enablers use to convince other people that overlooking them using aggressive hate speech tactics to shame others is right to do.