om Wootton’s The Bipolar Advantage goes into how those who must deal with considerable symptoms on a regular basis, could handle them optimally.  That GP Notebook webpage on Hyperthymic Personality Disorder defines this as, “tend to be rash and show poor judgement,” and that’s just the most problematic aspect of a tendency to behave in all sorts of ways that could be called mania diluted to the strength of a personality within the normal range.  My own personal definition of HPD is that the person acts as if he’s under the influence of stimulants that have the same disinhibiting effects as booze.  Rashness and poor judgment could mean the sort of thing that normal risk-takers would decide to do, or it could mean the sort of thing that someone impaired by cocaine would do, and HPD means the latter.  Addicts’ families are often told that they must accept that the addicts’ diseases made them do whatever the drugs make them do, as if addicts, by reason of their diseases of addiction, are not guilty by reason of insanity, yet the law doesn’t treat addiction as if it could make one not guilty by reason of insanity.  HPD impairs people to basically the same degree, in which those hurt by it could reassure themselves that those who have it didn’t choose do do those things as one would normally choose to do things that have big consequences, yet it really is hard to justify their having no responsibility for what they did, unless one has an attitude of, “Oh, well, everyone makes mistakes and has accidents, and once someone has already caused a problem then indignancy about it can’t change it, so we must be forgiving.”  You could call people like this “space cowboys,” since they could seem energetic and daring, but be radically oblivious about the consequences of their own behavior.

Since this rashness and poor judgment is as biologically impaired as the rashness and poor judgment that a functional alcoholic could have, this could be as dangerous as many celebrities’ poor judgment that leads to their deadly drug problems.  Yet HPD is the only personality disorder that, for the most part, could be excused away with, “Oh, well, everyone makes mistakes,” though the British term misadventure would be more appropriate.  (In fact, it’s pretty easy to think of HPD as “Mistakes Personality Disorder,” since to those who try to minimize destructive behavior in order to encourage a well-adjusted forgiveness, HPD looks like just a series of mistakes, which rash people with poor judgments would naturally make.)  These aren’t just random mistakes; they all go in the same direction, of the people believing what they want, usually about their favorite things they want to believe.  Yet  even if all that you do is hold this rashness and poor judgment accountable as reckless, this could seem to be just your opinion, since that poor judgment doesn’t intend to flirt with danger.  This blind acceptance of destructive behavior might seem insensitive, but pragmatists realize that sensitivity regarding mistakes is maladjusted.  Other cultural norms that say that we shouldn’t hold people morally responsible if their intent wasn’t malicious, such as, “But I forgot about that!”“But I believed that I was right!” etc. often come into play, since it’s very easy to forget something, to believe that oneself is right, etc.

Plus, while it would seem only natural to expect depressed people to have their own thinking straightened out through cognitive therapy, HPD is übermensch, red-blooded, so expecting those with this sort of thinking to have it straightened out could easily seem to be a repressive attempt to re-engineer human nature.  HPD in men could look like an extremely self-certain version of “Boys will be boys” behavior, which unintrusive realists would of course accept, so this sociopathy-esque pathology could seem self-justified.  Though hyperthymia might sound a lot less impaired than mania or hypomania, all that it takes to cause some huge problems is to believe that something that’s actually unsafe, is safe, and to act accordingly (which is also why most people are able to see and appreciate the dangers).  This really does mean a lack of a sense of responsibility when this suits them, a lack of a sense that if they ignore these responsibilities, this would be more than just life’s inevitable imperfections that the victims must accept.  Since mistakes certainly aren’t immorality or social problems, it seems only natural that they evade responsibility.  Though la vida maníaca might look excitingly rebellious, such problems are actually what it boils down to.

As Rick Perlstein wrote in Nixonland, Tricky Dicky defended his own red-blooded tactics through a form of verbal “jujitsu,” in which, when people would try to hold him accountable for them, he’d respond as if he were their victim, a victim of their untermensch WILLFULNESS.  For example, the day after the Watergate burglary, “And then, the old Nixonian jujitsu.  ‘We have our own security problems,’ Mitchell said, hinting darkly, positioning Nixon as the one attacked, the victim of false and hasty charges.”  The behavior characteristic of HPD could usually be defended through the same sort of jujitsu, as if those holding the person responsible for it are: whiny, manipulative, unforgiving, resentful, demanding, etc.



Unlike the distortions in thinking that depression could lead to, the distortions in thinking that HPD could lead to could seem to fit the American norm, maybe even seem attractive in a daring sort of way.  As Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in The Power of Negative Thinking, a September 23, 2008 Op-Ed for the New York Times about the 2008 economic crisis, the optimism that our culture encourages could make one believe, “You will be able to pay that adjustable-rate mortgage or, at the other end of the transaction, turn thousands of bad mortgages into giga-profits if only you believe that you can.”  Also, “Everyone knows that you won’t get a job paying more than $15 an hour unless you’re a ‘positive person,’ and no one becomes a chief executive by issuing warnings of possible disaster.”  Paulson said on September 23, in front of the Senate Banking Committee, “Some said we should just stick capital in the banks, take preferred stock in the banks.  That’s what you do when you have failure.  This is about success,” as if he based his incautious overly-optimistic decisions on being about something “positive.”  As Frank Schirrmacher wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine about the Great Crash of 2008, “There must be some madmen walking around who up until Monday had not been spotted because their madness was identical to the logic of the established system.  They destroyed fortunes equivalent to entire national budgets....”  Even after we’ve seen the dangers of this, it would probably continue to seem attractive.  The same would go for plenty of cowboy-type behavior, which would also be typical for HPD.  At the very least, objections to Wall Street greed that wouldn’t seem unambiguously bad, could seem judgmental and opinionated in a whiny sort of way.

One excuse that’s very common for both the financial meltdown, and the consequences of HPD behavior, is, “But this is so unusual, that, unless you treat this as a fluke, so it doesn’t bother you as much, you’re too negative!”  Regarding the financial meltdown, we keep hearing, as Alan Greenspan began his prepared testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 23, 2008, “We are in the midst of a once-in-a century credit tsunami.”  Of course, not only does there seem to be no need to prove that the financial meltdown is that unusual, but it should be very obvious that what led to this is that too many financing and investment firms made the same overly-optimistic mistake with a herd mentality, which is very likely to happen often enough.  Yet to claim that something would happen only once in a century could seem to minimize just about anything.  It seems only natural to figure that those who disagree with such minimizations are too “negative.”  And since most of the destructive behavior that results from HPD could be mistaken for normal or slightly excessively normal human imperfection, it would be impossible to prove that it’s unusual.  Yet chances are very good that those hurt by it, unless it’s too obviously normal, would be encouraged to “be positive,” “be productive,” etc., by believing that it’s unusual, that that particular series of events are very unlikely to happen again.

Another excuse that Greenspan alluded to is but it happened in the past.  He said, “What I am saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw [in market discipline not working as it’s supposed to].  I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I have been very distressed by that fact.”  In other words, all that has to happen is that the big banking firms would say that they now realize that they’d better make sure that their risk-taking policies are sound and are followed, and it would seem that the flaw that caused this crisis wasn’t permanent, so acting as if it’s still a danger would seem silly offensive and destructive.

Also, as can be seen in the Great Wall Street Bailout, people would be willing to accept a lot of problems, if they’re told that they have to in order to be realistic.  That was the reason why the Congress, and bodies of other governments that bailed-out their own financial institutions, were willing to fork over so much money to those who played such a big part in causing the financial meltdown.  Realistically speaking, either we did that, or the economy would likely have done a lot worse.  Whatever they did, shaped what realism is.  And when it comes to the HPD behavior that we’d encounter in our day-to-day lives, probably the only choice that we’d have, in realistic terms, is that either we adjust and adapt to those realities, or we’d have to suffer the consequences of being maladjusted and maladaptive, not taking dealing with reality.  Whatever they did, shapes what realism is.

When this doesn’t look particularly pathological, it could look like one of the headgames that Dr. Eric Berne described in Games People Play, the Schlemiel.  Berne wrote that the word schlemiel is “a popular Yiddish word allied to the German and Dutch words for cunning,” and that what Berne means by the game of Schlemiel is that, intentionally on a subconscious level, “He breaks things, spills things, and makes messes of various things,” so that he could get the satisfaction of being forgiven.  Of course, this could include accidents and mistakes with far more serious consequences.  Ever since the Reagan era, the Schlemiel could pretty much take for granted that, at least ultimately, he’d be forgiven, since those hurt by him don’t want to be resentful, maladjusted, whiny, judgmental, manipulative, restrictive, etc.  What they’d be expected to forgive would have been reckless at worst.

Yet, like the rashness and poor judgment of functional alcoholics, HPD is just as likely to lead to impulsivity that hurts oneself, as it is to lead to impulsivity that hurts others.  The same goes for celebrities’ irrationally outrageous behavior, e.g. Ike Turner.  Even much of the “selfish” behavior of functional alcoholics is selfish in such a banal and short-sighted sense, that those who “sin” like that would actually be happier if they stopped it.  Therefore, HPD really does deserve to be taken as seriously as is the more overtly manic behavior.  Plus, with hyperthymic personalities we could see even more of the bipolar advantage, since hyperthymic temperaments tend to come with the charisma motivation genius and creativity, but without the huge problems of mania.

HPD is a lot like milder addictions.  Both involve behavior that might look selfish in the short term, but have such serious obvious consequences to oneself in the long term that psychoanalysts could think that, on a subconscious level, these people are self-defeating.

The choices that such a person makes are often impaired, but not to the degree that he’d be considered not guilty by reason of insanity.  Addicts’ family members are supposed to accept what addicts do due to their addictions, as if they were not guilty by reason of insanity.

Yet the law, at most, only mitigates crimes committed due to addictions.  Family members are supposed to accept that addicts won’t be deterred by artificial punishments or other efforts to pressure them, but would be deterred by letting the natural consequences of their actions happen, though a truly debilitating mental disease probably wouldn’t care if the attempts to deter it were natural or artificial.  Addiction specialists keep trying to come up with new ideas for therapy that would be more effective, i.e. persuasive, in getting addicts to get and remain sober.  Since this disease is relatively rather than absolutely disabling, different addicts could be persuaded to different degrees.  The family members certainly should realize that the addicts didn’t choose to hurt them that badly in that they deserved it, and that they can’t persuade addicts as typical people can be persuaded.  The law realizes that addicts aren’t passive victim of their diseases as Alzheimer’s patients are, and family members are certainly supposed to take advantage of the ways in which they could pressure the addicts into recovery, but as long as they can’t pressure them, the family members simply must accept the diseases.

The picture of HPD is amazingly similar.  Some measures to deter those with HPD from acting impulsively (especially those measures that would have the power of the law behind them) would be more effective than others.  Possibly, letting the natural consequences of their actions happen would deter them more than would artificial punishments and pressures, since they’d likely seem authoritarian and controlling, while the natural consequences would seem laissez faire.  Possibly experts could come up with more effective approaches to persuade those with HPD to stop acting out.  Different people would have HPD to different degrees, so different people could be persuaded to different degrees.  To whatever degree any case of HPD isn’t brought under control, family members would have to realize that those with the HPD didn’t choose to act impulsively at their family members’ expense in that they deserved this, or that they could persuade those with HPD as typical people could be persuaded.  Very typical of HPD is, “I didn’t realize that I went too far, before I was already there and it was too late to go back.”

HPD usually has far more to do with negligence or recklessness, than malice.  The law judges whether one is negligent, by asking if a reasonable person would have seen the dangers, whether a normal prudence would have cared.  HPD means that the person certainly doesn’t have a reasonable caution, and would think that a normal prudence is prude.  As Dr. Richard Restak’s The Secret Life of the Brain says, “So strong is this emphasis on reason that our entire legal system is based on it.  Judges and juries perennially search for an answer to, ‘What would the reasonable man or woman do under such circumstances?’

“But a moment’s reflection on our own and other people’s behavior confirms that few of us are always as reasonable as we would wish others to believe.”

At the same time, the reason for expecting people to live up to this standard is that we have to have some sort of standard that we’d hold people to, other than just, “If what you did had an unambiguously malicious intent, then one could objectively say that it was bad, but other than that, we really must remember the importance of being well-adjusted and forgiving.”  As I go into on another of my webpages, people have long noticed that HPD behavior could even go into the sociopathic range, yet not quite have a sociopathic intent.  The “Characteristics and Typical Behavior of the Antisocial Personality” listed by Dr. Benjamin Kleinmunst in the textbook Essentials of Abnormal Personality, are: “Inability to form loyal relationships,” “Inability to feel guilt,” “Inability to learn from experience, special attention, or punishment,” “Tendency to seek thrills and excitement,” “Impulsiveness,” “Aggressiveness,” “Superficial charm and intelligence,” “Unreliability and irresponsibility,” “Pathological lying,” “Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior,” “Egocentricity,” “Poverty of affect,” “Lack of insight,” “Casual but excessive sexual behavior,” and “The need to fail.”  HPD is a lot like being under the influence of uppers that have the same disinhibiting effect as booze, and such a person could do all of the above without having any truly malicious intent.  As Allen Ginsberg wrote about cocaine, “When it snows in yer nose, you catch cold in yer brain,” along with the added energy that the cocaine would give.  This would distort one’s perceptions in the same ways as would moral insanity, one of the older terms for sociopathy, meaning that the person acts normal for the most part.

Also, the person might just seem to have a need to fail, just as Ike Turner didn’t really need to OD on cocaine.  The Harder They Fall, a collection of celebrity addicts’ stories of addiction and recovery by Gary Stromberg and Jane Merrill, begins, “ABOUT THE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE IMPULSES NATIVE to the Age of Aquarius...,” but just because they were self-destructive doesn’t mean that they arose from needs to fail.

Paul Gilbert’s Depression, The Evolution of Powerlessness, is one of the few that talks about our rampant depression as largely legitimate reactions rather than brains malfunctioning.  You might be used to ads, books, etc., that treat our rampant depression as if it’s just among the diseases that are parts of the natural order, such as the Learning About Depression webpage on the Zoloft website, which says, “If you have depression, this sad mood along with other symptoms can last weeks, months, or even years if not treated.  Depression isn’t a sign of weakness or a character flaw.  It’s a real medical condition, but there are ways to successfully treat depression....  Depressive disorders affect about 34 million American adults.”  It seems that this consists of either 34,000,000 rather severe character flaws, or 34,000,000 rather severe medical conditions.

One of the possible sources of psychological pathology that Depression, The Evolution of Powerlessness talks about, is failures regarding normal give-and-take, “The hypotheses here are that people can become disturbed when they feel they are giving more than they receive, receiving more than they can repay, or that they can damage relationships because they are exploitative and don’t recognise that they will stir others’ anger/withdrawal by failure to reciprocate.”  Those who are close to someone with HPD will probably give more than they receive, so much so that they could seem codependent.  Those with HPD would receive more than they repay, since those who are as reckless as would be people under the influence of disinhibiting stimulants would damage a lot more than they could rebuild without a good deal of effort.  The choices that come from HPD don’t intend to exploit; they’re only truly aware of what oneself feels like having or doing, so they truly don’t recognise that they will stir others’ anger/withdrawal by failure to reciprocate.

Sure, rashness and poor judgment are relative, and most adults have them to a greater degree than we might think.  As “Alternative Medicine” and the Psychology of Belief says, “All humans are to some degree magical thinkers.  Until recently, most psychologists used to think that textbook logic and reasoning practices were the ‘default mode,’ and that when people engaged in magical or superstitious thinking it was some kind of pathology, a deviation from the inbred norm.  Research has taught us, however, that magical thinking (i.e., ‘quick-and-dirty’ reasoning tactics that get it more or less right a sufficient portion of the time to be useful) is our first line of attack when reckoning with the world—logical, analytical reasoning is a fragile add-on that must be painstakingly learned.”  Attempts to distinguish between this and a pathological poor judgment, could be called just whiny opinion.



It may seem only natural to assume that if something feels very good, especially if your feelings that want or need it are very strong, then it’s what’s right for you, and expecting you to do without it would be psychological repression.  Even if someone who’d just engaged in HPD behavior has the sort of amoral attitude toward it that you might expect of sociopaths, many of those around us would agree with this, since a sense of impunity would very likely be correct, since being punitive, vindictive, or even requiring amends, would very likely seem bad.  For example, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., whom the New York Times described as a “hard-charging former Wall Street deal maker,” responded to the virtual economic meltdown of 2008 by saying, “This is a humbling experience to see so much fragility in our capital markets,” but he also said that the proposed bailout program shouldn’t deal with reforming excessive executive compensation since, “In order to have this program work, we don’t want to make it punitive.”  No matter how shocked he might be about this crisis and fragility it shows, caring and doing something about blame would concern punishment, and to a hard-charging former Wall Street deal maker, that would seem bad.  If you care that little about blame, then systems based on trust would be fragile!

Everyday problems like this tend to be so banal, that everyone would rather ignore it.  HPD has a cowboy appeal, and even if you  don’t actually like the cowboy appeal, you could still be very reluctant to try to restrain or punish cowboys.  He’d be absolutely helpless to undo what he did in the past, so holding him accountable could seem to be hitting below the belt.  The intent was probably a lot less severe than the consequences were, and those who’d think that they’re entitled to his making amends to them would be holding him responsible for the consequences.  Fixing them could require a good deal of effort, and our cultural norms are far more willing to expect someone to do a lot in order to take response-ability for his own welfare, his own problems, than our norms are to expect someone to do a lot in order to take moral responsibility.  Unless what happened was so extreme that this would sound untenable, trying to correct the person who caused the problem, even assertively, could very easily seem or suggest: unrealistic, unreliable, others-helping, naïve, stupid, conditional, optional, half-hearted, limited, judgmental, troublemaking, “on principle,” moralistic, unattractive, sophistry-rewarding, altruistic, controlling, whiny, mollycoddling, intellectualist, philosophical, pathetic, resentful, maladjusted, negative, blaming, subjective, unproven, emotionalistic, manipulative, passive, etc.  Trying to correct the person who has the problem in ways that would help him “take care of himself” better, could very easily seem or suggest: realistic, reliable, self-helping, natural, wise, necessary, vital, steadfast, limitless, forgiving, peace-making, pragmatic, trendy, marketable, achievement-oriented, “getting on with life,” self-empowering, gutsy, achievement-oriented, down-to-earth, material, proud, competitive, well-adjusted, hopeful, solving, objective, self-justifying, practical, self-reliant, active, etc.  And if what happened was extreme, it could seem that expecting the person who did it to take moral responsibility for that much would be unrealistic: as a saying in the financial world says, “If you owe the bank $50,000 and can’t repay, you have a problem; if you owe the bank $50,000,000 and can’t repay, the bank has a problem.”  The worse was what he did, the more that expecting him to take moral responsibility for that much could seem draconian, naïve, etc.  This is red-blooded self-responsibility, not tyranny, submission, etc., so few will respond to this as if it’s extremist. 



Even if it wouldn’t take him much effort to fix the problem, but he won’t, those hurt by it must serenely accept what they can’t change.  If we were just as ready to forgive not dealing with one’s own problems, as we are to forgive destructive behavior, no one would take care of plenty of problems.  Moral responsibility is always subjective, so they could seem to want to believe that they’re entitled to what they want. 


George Becker wrote about the Romantic era, “The aura of ‘mania’ endowed the genius with a mystical and inexplicable quality that served to differentiate him from the typical man, the bourgeois, the philistine, and, quite importantly, the ‘mere’ man of talent; it established him as the modern heir of the ancient Greek poet and seer and, like his classical counterpart, enabled him to claim some of the powers and privileges granted to the ‘divinely possessed’ and ‘inspired.’”  When you consider that the Romantic Era was when Western culture first began to like might-makes-right, distrust the weak, etc., so much, it may not be so surprising that this love of strength and distrust of the weak are exactly what self-righteous (“If you try to restrict, control, or get anything from me, you’re bad!”) hyperthymic obliviousness would be most at home with.

This would apply even to normal give-and-take, where there would be no objective measure of how much one person had to give the other, which excuses for not doing it are acceptable, etc.  In certain types of inter-personal relationships, a good deal of selfishness should be expected some or all of the time, so the victims should have known.  In others, moral responsibility would usually be expected, so if the victims assertively stand up for their own rights, this could seem to be a manipulative play upon the moral responsibility.  Of course, women’s romantic relationships and marriages could qualify as both of these, where women who assertively defend themselves from their problem men could both be told that they should have known, and that they’re playing upon the men’s moral responsibilities.

When men act like this, it could seem that of course we must accept it, since “Boys will be boys.”  Resentment never did anyone any good.  As can be seen in Nietzsche, the weak could easily seem to be the dangerously WILLFUL ones, since everyone’s beliefs regarding what they deserve are shaped by their own SELF-WILLS, and the weak can exercise their supposed SELF-WILLS only in ways that would seem mollycoddle, “dishonest” and “ignominious,” whereas red-blooded strength is “honest,” proud, and at least forgivable (i.e. must be forgiven).  We must appreciate all the hidden dangers of unchecked “victim-power.”  As Niebuhr wrote, power, which would include victim-power, “cannot be wielded without guilt, since it is never transcendent over interest,” over (hidden and surreptitious) SELF-WILL, though we dare not talk in such overgeneralized terms when passing judgment on overt sinful power.  We fear fearmongering, but not greed-mongering.  “Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it,” could happen to anyone.

As one could see in the Great Crash of 2008, such a laissez faire concept of personal response-ability could seem good ’n’ gutsy, until you see the consequences of the moral bankruptcy.  (Of course, this self-response-ability must include the same self-justifying, fatalistic, conformist, simplistic, “upbeat,” absolutist, unconditional, predictable, and dogmatically necessary illusions as laissez faire economics has, the very illusions that got our economy into such trouble; after all, people will do only what they feel motivated to do.)  Economist Steven Landsburg said, “Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’  The rest is commentary,” and that’s also how this sort of self-help could be summarized: You’re the only one who has a reliable incentive to solve your problems, and nothing that disagrees with this “natural” pragmatism could matter, no matter what chaos and helplessness result.  Realism simply must be oriented around the fact that you absolutely can change what’s tactically wrong with your own reactions, and absolutely can’t change what’s morally wrong with others’ actions; not being realistic would be ridiculous (said sardonically, or maybe to encourage victims to empower themselves in what laissez faire economists would call “tough love,” though the expression “tough love” originally meant the authoritarian and coercive approach that parents could use on their teenagers who have drug problems and the like).  Our economy reward$ those who think like this.  And even if this sort of thinking leads to a worldwide economic catastrophe, it could always be blamed absolutely on the supposedly mollycoddle weak.  (We all know how insidiously dangerous they are!)  All relationships and marriages considered codependent are treated just as fatalistically, whether or not the problem person is addicted.  As Greenspan said, that’s what works; even behavior problems who aren’t addicted aren’t motivated to change so expecting them to do what they don’t feel an incentive to do won’t work.  Victimhood doesn’t produce anything, so why should we give it any credit?  The ends justify the means, since the ends, functionability and good coping skills, are necessary.  Is someone sociopathic?  Avoid him since you’re incompatible!  End of story!  NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO ENDURABILITY!  Endurability has to come from somewhere.  Either we have self-responsible self-reliance, or we have nanny-ism, whining, trauma-drama, etc.  Both the economics that led to the financial crash, and self-help for anyone in trouble including addicts’ family members, wear the cloak of realism, which is both all-important and expected of all red-blooded people.  After all, we must have an un-ignorable incentive to do certain things that we may or may not be able to do.  One could say that the fix is in, not in the sense that a conspiracy put the fix in, but in the sense that our untermensch-bashing cultural norms did, so it’s predictable that if you’re the one with the problem, you’d be held response-able for “empowering yourself,” “taking care of yourself,” etc., by solving it.


THE GREATEST RISK IS NOT TAKING ONE, AIG ad from 2001, so if you tried to restrain this you’d seem profoundly: weak, whiny, defeatist, controlling, unrealistic, counterproductive, opinionated, manipulative, negative, moralistic, etc.  Sure, post-scandal AIG CEO Edward M. Liddy said, “I have seen the good side of capitalism.  But over the past six months, since agreeing to take the reins of AIG and reviewing how it was run in prior years, I have also seen instances of the bad side of capitalism,” but one could also call the gutsiness of AIG in its PIG era, “character-building,” giving plenty of backbone and fortitude.



In theory this means self-responsibility, self-reliance, gutsiness, anti-controlling, good coping skills, realism, conventionality, respectability, etc., but in practice this means that nothing except, “Can I change this?” including the most basic morality and concern for the weak, can really seem to matter.  Sure, you could recognize that destructive sinfulness is destructive sinfulness, but in the end you’d have to forgive it, or you’d be maladjusted and suffer the consequences of this weakness.  (“YOU VILL ENJOY!”)  Frank Buchman, leader of the Oxford Groups, the club on which AA and then Al-Anon was based and until recently was called “Moral Re-Armament,” (Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here, from 1935, includes Buchman in its list of currently trendy “Messiahs.”) said, “D’you know Heinrich Himmler?...  Say, you ought to know Heinrich.  He’s a great lad....  [Hitler] lets us have house-parties whenever we like.”  Anti-Nazi British travel-writer and journalist Robert Byron, who got a chance to observe Nazism up close, wrote in his diary, “Himmler apparently dotes on the Oxford Group [How cute.] and writes to its English members discussing their troubles with them,” so he was their Dear Abby.  If Himmler had sent you some “Dear Abby” letters that didn’t mention the Nazi practices that Buchman didn’t like, the advice that the letters would have given would have helped you become more resilient, courageous, self-responsible, realistic, and abiding by Gelassenheit (a fatalism that teaches that willfulness leads to self-defeating frustration if you’re helpless to get what you want or need), so you would have ended up with a stronger character.  Victim Correction as a Panacea, is Gelassenheit and similar all-encompassing attitudes about physical response-ability for one’s own problems, exactly what a society with rampant depression, anxiety disorders, etc., would most need.  The wave of the future, the “new economy” of self-responsibility, requires that we want to be responsible members of society, take response-ability for our own welfare.

Sure, Niebuhr wrote that he was shocked about Buchman’s admiration of Hitler, though The Serenity Prayer summarizes the book that most shaped Hitler’s thinking, Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation:   As with a panacea, we must see the entire world in terms of the ineradicable SELF-WILLS of the sinful, the ignominious and surreptitious SELF-WILLS of victims who don’t represent their own bad experiences to themselves as being as innocuous as possible (“Those manipulative whiners want to believe that someone owes them something!”), and, therefore, our responsibility to do this.  Niebuhr wrote that Buchman’s faith that dictators, business tycoons, etc., should use their power to push Christianity, vapidly ignored how realpolitik would affect the outcome, “The slightest acquaintance with the history of Christian thought on the problem of the relation of the absolute demands of the gospel to the relativities of politics and economics would prove its childishness,” but the same could also be said about applying a simplistic sloganeering spirituality to the situations that contribute to our rampant depression.  It isn’t possible to get any more vapid than, “Serenely accept everything that happens to you in a society with rampant depression, that you’re helpless to change.”

This was the same Himmler who said, in his speech on October 4, 1943 to the SS Group Leaders in Poznan, “Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand.  To have stuck it out and at the same time—apart from exceptions caused by human weakness—to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard,” but that personal strength concerned one of the Nazi practices that Buchman didn’t like.  It’s pretty obvious what the “Dear Abby” version of that would advise those in trouble, who are members of an honored group of people who are working on their own resolute and impassively accepting attitudes.  Anything less than, “Happiness is an inside job,” (in general), or, “Things happen.  It’s what we do when they happen that’s key,” (in general), would have been too weak-spirited and blaming for Himmler, so he was their perfect “Dear Abby.”  The only suggestions that Himmler would have made in a Dear Abby letter would have been, (1) courageously change what you can, and, (2) serenely accept what you can’t, since anything else would have mollycoddled WEAKNESS.

Himmler Logic, after all, would focus on whether the person with the problem seems to have a weak (as in literally WEAK) character, and would be quick to interpret inadequacies in problem-solving as weaknesses of character, so the weak seem contemptible, blameworthy, and, possibly, insidiously dangerous.  This self-responsible self-help approach is also like the “exemplary dualism” of the Militia Movement, like classifying people as redbloods or mollycoddles, or as übermenschen or untermenschen; this preaches that those who seem to have (literally) strong characters are the allies of decent people so are at least forgiven, and those who seem to have (literally) weak characters are the enemies of decent people.  This leads to some predictable distortions in our conceptions of right, wrong, shame, etc.  Take the Nazi might-makes-right ethos, remove the racism and war crimes, and you’d have what Western culture considers to be the only conception of personal responsibility that works, which is what Hitler’s, Wagner’s and Nietzsche’s main inspiration, Schopenhauer, actually wrote about.

The question of whether “it” can happen here, all depends on whether or not “it” includes the aspects of Nazism and Himmler that Buchman’s formula for living didn’t include; if not, “it” happens every day.  The “it” in It Can’t Happen Here included merely an ambiguous, covert, attitude-of-gratitude racism (“It was understood... that all Jews of all conditions were frequently to sound their ecstasy at having found in America a sanctuary, after their deplorable experiences among the prejudices of Europe....  The allegiance of all such Negroes as had the sense to be content with safety and good pay instead of ridiculous yearnings for personal integrity Sarason got by being photographed shaking hands with the celebrated Negro Fundamentalist clergyman, the Reverend Dr. Alexander Nibbs, and through the highly publicized Sarason Prizes for the Negroes with the largest families, the fastest time in floor-scrubbing, and the longest periods of work without taking a vacation.”), so the “it” in modern America could include merely an ambiguous, covert, attitude-of-gratitude form of the strong horrifying the weak.  A classic cliché expression is, “There is no alternative,” to the power dynamics of our economy, and another way to say this is that there is no alternative besides dictatorship and/or Zimbabwe-style economic failures, so every time that these power dynamics horrify us, we should be grateful that we’re not instead dealing with dictators’ outrages, and/or economic failures including massive unemployment, irrespective of any indefinable abstractions such as integrity.  If you’re in a Wagnerian conflict, and you simply must deal with your realities, then you simply must deal with them as Schopenhauer prescribed.  The psychology of, “You don’t want to think/act like a weak person, do you?” could be called a form of neo-Nazism.





Yet, in a society with rampant depression, one could just as easily call that “pragmatic logic”: the weak courageously change what they can (themselves) and serenely accept what they can’t (everyone else), and what one deserves is completely irrelevant.  You can’t change your enemies, except for one.  Yet the limits of the threshold of human endurance are a fact, and if we don’t deal with it, it will deal with us.

“Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it,” is all about what the weak should do, believe, and take responsibility for.  Even sophisticated psychology tends to classify people, aspects of human nature, desires, etc., into categories that are very German, Freudian: übermensch means ineradicable so at least forgivable, while untermensch means true shamefulness, suspiciousness.  (And, of course, treating this moral bankruptcy as necessary for realism seems a lot better than does treating this as admirably open-minded and gutsy.)  These Oxford members no doubt tended to take his ideas about coping skills, to heart, since they wanted self-improvement that would build fiber.  After all, we must accept that if you win, you win, and if you lose, you lose.  That self-responsible self-motivation is also how, and why, market discipline works; we must discipline even perfectly innocent failures.  The more that the weakness of the weak is blamed (What exactly is to blame when someone doesn’t protect himself well enough to succeed?): the more that they’d be motivated to take responsibility for taking care of themselves, the more hope that they’d have that they could change what causes their problems (themselves), and the more that we could all have faith in this red-blooded worldview.   Prejudice against the weak means an optimistic and patriotic faith in The System, and focusing on how the weak could hopefully solve their own problems if only they made themselves worthy, changed what they can.   “Personal strength,” “strength of character,” etc., tend to mean literally strength, transcending “weak” but natural and warranted feelings.  As Langdon Gilkey’s On Niebuhr says, “Thus transcendence is perhaps the key word in Niebuhr...”  Übermensch imperfection such as sinfulness would have to seem at least forgivable, while untermensch supposed imperfection would have to seem to be an insidious (as in “the hidden lie,” and, “We are all victims of victims.”) expression of weak people’s SELF-WILLS.  Dictator or no dictator, just about all of those in any society must define “personal responsibility” in basically the same predictable way and truly believe it, or different people would play by different rules, and plenty of people wouldn’t take the rules to heart when fortitude would be most necessary.  No doubt plenty of Oxford members who weren’t Himmler’s advisees, could have been just as easily, since they were just as free of whiny resentment; all “good” members followed the same school of psychology.

Everyone knows that maturity includes adjusting to reality, and not whining about human imperfections.  To say, for example, “It’s impossible to be a morally-wronged victim of recklessness or negligence, since it’s impossible to be a morally-wronged victim of mistakes or accidents,” has plenty of good old-fashioned American backbone.  VICTIM POWER is horrifyingly insidious.  Both the resolute amorality of the person who caused the problem, and the resolute well-adjusted tolerance of those who minimize it, are as absolute as sociopathic “moral insanity,” but being well-adjusted isn’t supposed to be partial conditional optional or half-hearted.  The only real difference between HPD and its excusers, and textbook sociopathy, is that the intent of sociopathy can sometimes be cold-bloodedly malicious while HPD wouldn’t, so sociopathy would allow some amoralism that HPD and its excusers wouldn’t.



The big problem is that some of the things that those with Hyperthymic Personality Disorder would strongly desire, are very destructive.  Just because something feels “just right for” you, can’t give you the right to do it.

For example, take all the good feeling of the following:

T’was perfect plan of deviant pleasure so bold on that
     Spring nite
My inner felling hot with propension of the new
     awakening season
Warm, war with inner fear and rapture, my pleasure of
     entanglement, like new vines at night
Oh, Why Didn’t You Appear
Drop of fear fresh Spring Rain would roll down from
     your nakedness to scent the lofty fever that burns                    
In that small world of longing, fear, rapture and
     desperation, the games we play, fall on devil ears.
Fantasy spring forth, mounts, to storm fury, then winter
     calm at the end.
Oh “Why Didn’t You Appear”
Alone, now in another time span I lay with sweat
     enrapture garments across my private thought.
Bed of Spring moist grass, clean before the sun, enslaved
     with control, warm wind scenting the air, sunlight
     sparkle tears in eyes so deep and clear.
Alone again I trod in pass memory of mirror, and ponder
     why you number eight was not.
Oh, “Why Didn’t You Appear”

That poem was written by BTK serial killer Dennis Rader, about a woman whose house he broke into in order to kill her sadistically, but she took so long to get home that he had to get back to his own home in order to avoid his wife noticing that anything was wrong.  A pursuit might look very healthy, full of vitality, but that wouldn’t make it safe.




As Dr. Emil Kraepelin wrote in 1921,

Manic-depressive insanity... [includes] certain slight and slightest colourings of mood, some of them periodic, some of them continuously morbid, which on the one hand are to be regarded as the rudiment of more severe disorders, on the other hand pass without sharp boundary into the domain of personal predisposition.  In the course of the years I have become more and more convinced that all the above-mentioned states only represent manifestations of a single morbid process.

Manic-Depressive Illness by Drs. Frederick K. Goodwin and Kay Redfield Jamison says, “ in the case of full-blown bipolar patients, those with spectrum diagnoses in the cyclothymic—bipolar-II realm are equally likely to engage in dramatic and socially inappropriate behaviors.”  Also, regarding overt mania, “The psychological and interpersonal consequences, as well as the economic ones, can be devastating.”  A pathological rashness and poor judgment that’s within the normal range could also cause a great deal of psychological interpersonal and economic consequences, since the person has his whole life to do it in, and has the same opportunities as a normal person would have.

On my Commonalities webpage, I have a list of the manic traits that I’ve seen among those with HPD, diluted to the strength of normal or slightly excessively normal human imperfection:

  • selfishness

  • exploiting others

  • narcissism

  • sense of entitlement

  • less ability to interact, engage in normal give-and-take, “fit in”

  • lack of a sense of others’ personal boundaries

  • strong motivation and strong will behind what they do

  • irritability and/or angry demeanor, either chronic, labile, or just plain “nasty temper” or “curmudgeon”

  • good-natured some of the time and agitated in others, as in the “Jekyll and Hyde personality,” or the emotionally erratic state of mind, sort of like Donald “Rummy” Rumsfeld, who’s been described as both “avuncular” and “abrasive”

  • contentiousness

  • uncooperativeness

  • poor conflict resolution

  • projecting responsibility onto others

  • starting more things than finishing

  • getting agitated about trivial things, by going hysterical for a few seconds to a few minutes, and then suddenly acting like everything’s normal again

  • other dysphoria, such as anxiety

  • over-optimism that’s acted-out, oblivious to dangers

  • Pollyannaism

  • bubbly and humorous talkativeness (looks stereotypically Irish)

  • provocative tendencies

  • hypersexuality

  • disinhibition

  • doing or believing what they feel like doing or believing, in a short-sighted sense

  • delusions of the sort that Manic-Depressive Illness describes as having a “tendency to be wish-fulfilling,” and/or “grandiose optimism”

  • one-dimensional cognitive distortions

  • obliviousness to consequences

  • because of this, not learning from experience

  • lack of insight into the pathology of one’s own behavior

  • self-justification rather than self-reflection: If one wants to believe that what he wants to do or believe, is at least justified, he will, even when self-correction would make far more sense.

  • refusal to be talked out of their behavior problems, as if you’re trying to talk a paranoid person out of paranoia

  • inadequate reality-testing

  • decreased need for sleep

  • panic disorder

  • problems maintaining attention

  • chaos, often glorified as if it’s free-spirited Bohemian fun

  • When they get into a particularly pathological mood, pursue a particularly pathological interest, etc., their decision-making judgment becomes more pathological.

  • what John Custance, in 1952, called “freedom from restraint,” in, “I can, for example, walk about naked out of doors on quite cold nights—to throw off my clothes is incidentally a strong impulse and presumably symbolises the freedom from restraint which is a feature of the whole condition.”  This prized rebelliousness that’s characteristic of hyperthymics, in connection with drug abuse, is what Fractal associates with the “Romantic Renegade”, “We tend to be renegades by nature and not by design....  So, if you find you’re often the charismatic leader of the pack, perhaps it’s a combination of your genetic birthright and an abundance of legal and illegal chemicals that made you so.  Beware the bravado doesn’t land you in jail or the hospital—it’s done both for me...but I always had my fans cheering me on.  And you know what?  Sometimes it was awful goddamn fun too!”

  • In that same paragraph, he also wrote, “I fear nothing—freedom from fear is another notable symptom—so nothing seems to hurt me.”

Maybe the reason why HPD is defined as the rashness and poor judgment, is that if it weren’t for that, none of the rest would be severe enough to constitute problems.



The problems that come with HPD, really do have to be taken seriously despite all the pro-freedom social norms that would defend them.  Depression is the only dread disease of which many of the causes seem sacrosanct, seeming sacrosanct due to these red-blooded and anti-mollycoddle norms.  The list of the negative aspects of bipolar disorder near the beginning of The Bipolar Advantage, includes: lost friends, reckless behavior, bad driving [which probably means speeding and the like], intolerant, self righteous, lost jobs, overreacting, dominating, etc.  These certainly don’t suggest that the person must be overtly manic to do them.  From personal experience, I could tell you that this sort of behavior is common enough among hyperthymics, especially at times that, for one reason or another, they’re particularly excited.  And the millions of dope and booze problems among hyperthymics, would really let you know how such behavior really doesn’t deserve to be defended as pro-freedom.  The intent behind rashness and poor judgment isn’t malicious, and fixing the consequences could be very burdensome, so holding the person who did it morally responsible could seem outrageously draconian, not to mention naïve.

Exactly how one would get such tendencies under control, though, may be a problem.  Since what’s wrong with HPD behavior is a lot more ambiguous than is what’s wrong with outright mania, it’s pretty easy to, at the very least, excuse away HPD behavior as if we simply must give everyone the right to make mistakes.  Since a main element of HPD is a diluted version of the egotism of mania, those with the HPD could be very self-righteous about them, and about defending themselves from attempts to violate their freedoms.  Many hyperthymics have particular penchants about which they’d get particularly pathologically adamant, and they’d involve, even more than usual, mania-esque: irrationality, failure to learn from past mistakes, obliviousness of consequences, believing what one wants to, labeling those who try to talk some sense into them as conforming to what some sort of “Establishment” wants them to believe, etc.

HPD is a lot like “Boys will be boys,” behavior.  The whole idea behind the excuse, “Boys will be boys,” is that simply because a man wants to do something very much, all must understand that expecting him not to would be just too controlling.  Even if the current research into neurology would prove that natural selection has made many men feel a need to treat women astoundingly unfairly, it would still seem that we must accept that that’s what these men need.  (Of course, if similar research proves that natural selection made many women feel a need to treat men astoundingly unfairly, that would seem to prove that women’s nature couldn’t be trusted!)  Being true to oneself along the lines of HPD, looks a lot like being true to oneself along the lines of “Boys will be boys.”  In fact, if a hyperthymic man wants to act in a way that would exploit or otherwise hurt his lover or wife, he could “justify” this along the lines of, “She’s just got to accept that what’s natural for her isn’t natural for me.”

One example of this is the commitment-phobic men who I went into on the previous webpage.  Freud wrote in Mourning and Melancholia, in 1917: “Manic-depressives show simultaneously the tendency to too-strong fixations on their love-object and to a quick withdrawal of object cathexis.  Object choice is on a narcissistic basis.”  Not only narcissistic but, since this involves manic thinking, very willful.  On my Men Dying for Love webpage, I have the suicide notes that happened to have ended up in the appendix of a certain book, wherein several of the men who killed themselves did so because of the ending of one romantic relationship or marriage, and the only woman who did this was a lesbian.  This certainly goes against the stereotype of men being a lot less committed to their relationships than women are, though men with HPD could very easily have very self-serving narcissistic attitudes toward their relationships, and then act absolutely shocked and insulted when this drives their partners away.



Steven Carter wrote in the modern self-help book for women about commitment-phobic men, Men Who Can’t Love, that the “pursuit-panic syndrome” means, “All that really means is that the guy does a one-thousand-degree pursuit until he feels that the woman’s love and response leaves him no way out of the relationship—ever.  The moment that happens, he begins to perceive the relationship as a trap,” a perfect opportunity for adamant manic self-righteousness.  Sure, some pedophiles defend pedophilia by saying that human sexuality in general is pretty childish, but when a man acts childish like this with a woman and she tries to stop it, he’d adamantly accuse her of trying to trap him, and others would at least accept this as “Boys will be boys,” and for her own good  she shouldn’t want to stay in a committed relationship with someone like that.  Commitment-phobia would be one of those penchants about which a hyperthymic who has it, would get particularly excited, and, therefore, particularly manic.

To a lot of people, commitment-phobic behavior and attitudes have a very “Boys will be boys,” quality to them.  Yet when you see how they have the quality of Hyperthymic Personality Disorder, you could also see how they also have a quality that has been called an abomination, by a rather strong-willed man, not a moralist.  The eldest son-in-law and most aggressive salesman of Madoff’s main feeder fund Fairfield Greenwich, Andrés Piedrahita, wrote when canceling his fiftieth birthday party just after Madoff’s confession, “What this monster [Madoff] has done to so many people including us is known in the bible as ‘an abomination.’  It means an act so alien to our values and our natures that it cannot be understood or explained.”  (Those familiar with the Madoff case know that Piedrahita is the guy who’s aggressive and charismatic enough to have gotten plenty of his very rich European friends to invest in Fairfield’s funds with Madoff.)  What Madoff did, at the very least, has the character of sociopathy-esque HPD behavior, i.e. the person acts “selfish,” but in a way that would seem to most people, to be so alien to our values and our natures that it cannot be understood or explained.  You could say that any self-indulgence extreme enough to be pathological, is a genuine abomination, and would have the grotesqueness of an abomination, terrifyingly alien.  To someone who engages in HPD behavior it might not seem grotesque, but to most people, it likely would.  To most people, developing a romantic relationship, maybe even a marriage, and then suddenly feeling and acting as if it constitutes a trap, would seem to be exactly that.

Conservative Catholic Leon J. Podles, in Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, wrote about pedo-priest Bruce Ritter, founder of the Covenant House, that he seemed to like to flirt with danger, and that this isn’t so unusual since, “Danger increases sexual pleasure for many people: why do people have sex in public places, why do they commit adultery when the consequences could be catastrophic?”  The same book includes a list of “some of the characteristics of narcissists,” the last of which is, “Self-destructive patterns of behavior,” just as the last characteristic of Antisocial Personality Disorder in the above list is, “The need to fail.”  This is the self-defeating quality that’s characteristic of Hyperthymic Personality Disorder, as well as commitment-phobia.  Chances are that if you asked most non-commitment-phobic adulterers why they did it despite the catastrophic consequences, their logic would have to be like the logic of a commitment-phobe who’s honest about the consequences, that sure, what they did was petty while what was hurt by it was important, yet their need to do it was so strong that everyone must understand.  And, in the end, probably most people would understand, since all that someone has to do is want to leave a relationship or marriage, and those who aren’t very religious would have to figure that expecting him to stay in it would be a form of imprisonment that would affect his life in more intimate ways, and ways that would require that he act warmly toward his supposedly unworthy (and probably supposedly manipulative) “trapper,” than a prison sentence would.  (At least the cops use honest strength to imprison criminals.)  This certainly wouldn’t require a desire to flirt with danger.

Arthur Schopenhauer, a philosopher who greatly influenced Hitler, Nietzsche and Wagner, wrote in The World as Will and Representation, the book that most influenced Hitler, “The concept of good is divided into two subspecies, that of the directly present satisfaction of the will in each case, and that of its merely indirect satisfaction concerning the future, in other words, the agreeable and the useful.  The concept of the opposite, so long as we are speaking of beings without knowledge, is expressed by the word bad, more rarely and abstractly by the word evil, which therefore denotes everything that is not agreeable to the striving of the will in each case.”  The World as Will and Representation also includes, “Wrong through violence is not so ignominious for the perpetrator as wrong through cunning, because the former is evidence of physical strength, which in all circumstances powerfully impresses the human race.  The latter, on the other hand, by using the crooked way, betrays weakness, and at the same time degrades the perpetrator as a physical and moral being.”

That’s certainly stereotypically Nazi.  It’s also exactly the sort of logic that commitment-phobic men would use.  Even if they’re married, the problem would seem to be that the women who are trying to “trap” the men, want to believe that they should be committed to them.  The men, the supposed free spirits, would seem to be the proud and honorable ones, and the women would seem to be the ignominiously cunning (or, as current self-help psychology would put it, manipulative) ones.  And with the commitment-phobic men, this logic seems very acceptable, since it seems that of course we must accept anyone’s right to leave any relationship, so those who’d oppose this would really seem dangerously manipulative.  Even expecting someone to stay in a marriage could seem heinous, as long as he feels uncomfortable enough in the marriage.  (Of course, the main reason for this would have to be psychoanalysis, which arose in the same Germanic atmosphere.)

This would have to be the ultimate opportunity for both Germanthink, and a hyperthymic aggressive self-satisfaction.  As long as a  commitment-phobic man has strong enough, and phobic enough, desires to leave, his leaving would seem legitimate, even necessary.  His fear would be of what could be called “slave morality.”  Expectations that he stay would seem illegitimate, both repressive of him, and unrealistic regarding what the real results would be for the woman.  Everyone would at least ultimately accept that strong selfish feelings equal legitimacy.  Before it happens to you, you might think that this is the sort of thing that no one would find acceptable (commitment-phobic = ruthlessly exploitative), but once it does happen to you, you’d see everyone telling you that of course you’d have to accept someone leaving you if he wants to, even leaving a marriage with you if his feelings are strong enough.  Sure, by far most men are able to get through life without showing the explotivity of a commitment-phobe, but when one does do that, people would likely respond, “Oh, well, you’ve got to accept that human nature is like that,” and “Boys will be boys.”  The chapter on psychopaths of the book 50 Psychology Ideas You Really Need to Know, by Adrian Furnham, says, “They seem completely ungrateful for the help and affection of others.  Other people are seen as a source of gain and pleasure irrespective of their discomfort, disappointment, or pain,” and when a commitment-phobe acts exactly like this, it could seem that he’s only trying to defend himself from his partners' attempts to manipulate him through guilt trips and, “But you owe me!”

Yet as commitment-phobics claim that their supposed trappers have all these bad (usually insidiously diabolical) attributes, this simply reflects what the commitment-phobics’ SELF-WILLS want to believe, since then they could do as they please and feel that they’re the righteous victims.  This means, of course, that they’d judge their partners by the Schopenhauer-Nazi standard, insisting that what they say as they assertively stand up for their own rights is a reflection of their own SELF-WILLS, their wanting to believe that they have a right to be treated better.  Yet, of course, the old German-Romantic thinking would say that sure, those who behave aggressively want to believe that they’re at least forgivable, but that’s the sort of SELF-WILL that we’re just going to have to take as a given, since we must be realistic, and aggressive SELF-WILL seems “honest,” not cunning.

If the abandoned partners stood up for what they believed is right, they’d talk like whiny, guilt-tripping, manipulative untermenschen, but if the commitment-phobics stood up for what they believed is right, they’d talk like gutsy, determined, pro-freedom übermenschen.  Even if one never engaged in any cunning to manipulate someone, “trap” someone, etc., what she did could still be labeled as reflecting her own SELF-WILL whether she admits it or not.  It would seem that she wants the world to be as she’d have it, so she should instead choose to represent the world to herself in a positive light, what modern terminology would call choosing to have a positive and resilient outlookGiuseppe Roccatagliata’s A History of Ancient Psychiatry’s account of Aretaeus of Cappadocia, “the clinician of mania,” who lived in the second century AD, includes, “He described a kind of cyclothymia which presented only intermittent stages of mania: ‘It arises in subjects whose personality is characterised by gayness, activity, superficiality and childishness,’” and “I’m standing up for freedom!  Don’t try to control me!,” and, “Be realistic!  Don’t try to control me!,” are two rationales that would excuse plenty of übermensch childishness!

This is the heading of the section of Al-Anon’s workbook Blueprint for Progress, Al-Anon’s Fourth Step Inventory, for those who seem to be codependent to take a fearless moral inventory of behaviors, including helpful ones, that are labeled as “controlling.”  Those who’d supposedly be controlled would be addicts, but attempts to control them through supposedly being nice, would still seem ignominiously cunningly untermensch, which doesn’t seem excusable.  If you object to sinfulness, that’s really your will-to-power.


Sure, the appendix of Men Who Can’t Love is titled, “IF HE ASKS FOR HELP: A Guide to Treating Commitmentphobia,” and suggests that he go in for some sort of psychotherapy, if he wants to, though with people like that, there’s no guarantee that any therapy would work.  Here you could see why those with HPD could, in the end, get away with basically any destructive behavior in which it could possibly seem that letting them get away with it is realistic, well-adjusted, etc.  Commitments to romantic relationships, including marriages, are the commitments that seem the most expendable.  As long as anyone’s desires to leave such a commitment are strong enough, expecting him to stay would seem to be trying to trap him, enslave him.  It would seem that if women try to control men through guilt and shame, that’s especially bad.  Those who’d disagree with this would seem to be unrealistic about human nature at best, draconian at worst.  Sure, this is exactly the sort of attitude toward commitments that we tend to associate with antisocial personalities, but when one is trying to slip out of one particular relationship, he could no doubt come up with plenty of convincing logic as to why expecting him to stay in it would be too repressive.  Yet to apply the psychoanalytic idea of repression to this though Freud himself wrote that it’s pathologically narcissistic, really does make relevant the definition that The Dauntless Geezer has for the word progress in his Devil’s Dictionary Updated, “Change which purports to solve one problem while it causes another that is worse.”  Sure, it could seem very attractive that hyperthymics refuse to be

Yet rebellion that would qualify as nihilistic, is very likely to contribute to our rampant depression.

Necessarily, when one tries to leave a relationship/marriage, the time in which he entered into it would have happened in the past, so at the time he wants to leave, he could self-righteously claim that at present he’d be completely helpless to undo his mistakenly getting into the relationship/marriage.  Ever since the Reagan era, he could pretty much take for granted that, at least ultimately, you’d forgive him, since you wouldn’t want to be resentful, maladjusted, whiny, judgmental, manipulative, restrictive, etc., especially since what you’d be expected to forgive wouldn’t have had an unambiguously malicious intent.  Sure, Men Who Can’t Love says near the beginning, “[The women] could find no other explanation for behavior that was not only bizarre and unpredictable, but downright insensitive and cruel,” yet as long as the getting into the commitments in the first place is labeled mistakes, the explanation would be that attempts to get the men to stay would be manipulative guilt-trips, so must be resisted as hitting below the belt.  Of course, simply because the men get strong commitment-phobic feelings, none of the women partnered with them should want to stay with guys who, from then on, would inevitably treat them badly.  Sure, the title is Men Who Can’t Love, but chances are that most of these guys would insist that they could and do love, but in the real world, sometimes love suddenly ends for no good reason.  (Another statement that’s typical of HPD is, “In the real world, things like this sometimes happen, so if you’re normal, you’ll accept it.”)  No doubt, many of those who recently entered into unsound mortgages for reasons that weren’t overtly malicious, could give similar excuses, though since it seems only natural to hold people responsible for entering into loans, they couldn’t evade responsibility through such morally bankrupt excuses.  They could also say that if only they could turn back the clock and undo those mortgages they would but now they’re completely helpless to, etc.  (In fact, they could say that even if their intent was malicious!)

Those with hyperthymic personalities could be the most likely to be concerned about, and want to go against, social problems.  The book also says, “Today, unlike any other period in our history, the fear of commitment is destroying the fabric of society,” and, “the very changes that helped to bring men and women closer together are simultaneously tearing them apart.”  This whole scenario wouldn’t be able to happen so easily if it weren’t for a “Boys will be boys,” mentality.  Yet, of course, mistakes aren’t social problems.  This is the crux of why holding people responsible for the destruction they cause due to their HPD, seems so offensive unless the impulsivity was so extreme that the intent would seem unambiguously malicious.  (Of course, any ambiguities mean that your objections are your “trapping,” “controlling,” “judgmental,” etc., opinion.)  To a typical person with HPD, some giving and sacrificing seems moralistic (for example, “pro-family”), and you could only hope that yours doesn’t.  The book that accompanies the HBO program, Addiction: Why Can’t They Just Stop, by John Hoffman and Susan Froemke, quotes recovering addict Joe as saying, “I have been in after-hours clubs where there were guns and drugs on every table, and I was never afraid of walking in.  But when I first walked into rehab, I had never been so scared in all my life.”

Commitment-phobic behavior, like any other HPD behavior, could be defended by giving the victims of it who object,



That is, treated as Ayn Rand would have treated someone who said, “But I’m a victim, so you owe me better!” (as if he’s: whiny, manipulative, pity-partying, controlling, etc.).  In fact, since Ayn Rand wrote in the poetic cadence that’s common among hyperthymics, for example, “Every form of causeless self-doubt, every feeling of inferiority and secret unworthiness is, in fact, man’s hidden dread of his inability to deal with existence.  But the greater his terror, the more fiercely he clings to the murderous doctrines that choke him,” and since that’s a very accurate and heartfelt description of the victim self-blaming that’s characteristic of modern Western depression, and since she showed a particular hostility toward the idea that differences in our brains could lead to mental problems, as in, in the chapter Racism of her book The Virtue of Selfishness, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.  It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry,” she very likely was hyperthymic, which could also explain her treating selfishness as a virtue.

When commitment-phobic men try to justify their cutting-out on the relationship, to the women they’re cutting out on, the men could use the following excuses, and negative labels given to those who object strongly enough:

  1. The man who wants to leave, is completely unable to turn back the clock and undo the commitment he made.  Therefore, The Ayn Rand Treatment could treat any objectors as hitting below the belt, picking on him about something he’s now completely helpless to undo.

  2. When he got into the relationship, he did it mistakenly, not as some sort of Casanova-esque con job.  She’d probably feel better if she figured that what happened to her was an accidental mistake, than if she figured that she was a true victim.  The Ayn Rand Treatment could treat anyone who holds someone morally responsible for an innocent mistake, as way too draconian.

  3. He could say that he prematurely got into the relationship due to being overwhelmed by emotion.  The Ayn Rand Treatment could treat objectors as if they’re really hitting below the belt by treating him as morally responsible for a mistake like that.

  4. Expectations that he’d stay in the relationship would be based on morality.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat this as a form of slave morality.

  5. No matter how assertively the woman stands up for her rights, she’d seem to be trying to control him, and/or whining.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat her as if she’s that dangerously untermensch combination of too weak and too diabolically strong.

  6. And then there’s that classic line of commitment-phobes who are cutting out, that their partners who want them to stay are trying to trap them.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat objections as basically the objectors’ SELF-WILLS, wherein the partners who want them to stay are just trying to get what they want.

  7. When even a commitment-phobic man unilaterally ends a relationship, there’s really no way of knowing for sure that this wasn’t a legitimate ending of a relationship in which the former partners weren’t compatible.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat objections as if they’re just blame-finding opinions that the commitment-phobes were the ones at fault.  All’s fair in love and war, so romantic relationships have to be the ultimate anomie.  Of course, those who’d think that the woman codependently “let herself in for it,” could talk as if of course he’s commitment-phobic, since otherwise, how could they act as if of course she’s codependent?

  8. Objectors would expect him to stay in a relationship where he doesn’t want to be.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would naturally treat that as a form of slavery based on guilt-tripping, and of course, if he did stay, this would make him so angry that he couldn’t possibly make his ex-partner partner happy.  If he did stay, the worse that he’d treat her, the more that she’d seem responsible for causing this by pressuring him to remain committed to her.

  9. All that he’d want would be for him and his former partner to be independent of each other.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat anyone who objects to independence as horribly dependence-loving.

  10. It’s very easy to over-simplify and overgeneralize situations like this, cheering for freedom and independence, and booing moralism and dependence.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would fight for freedom against the anti-freedom villain.  Obviously, if they were married, this would be harder to do, but in the end, it would still seem that the only thing that really matters would be that we avoid dependence-loving controlling judgmentalism. 

  11. It could seem that in the real world, sometimes things don’t work out, and the ended relationships are just things that didn’t work out.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat those who act as if they have a right to have the real world to work out for them, as if they’re expecting the world to be as they’d have it.

  12. It could also seem that just because something is widely considered to be morally wrong, doesn’t make it unforgivable.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat those who don’t forgive something that seems forgivable, as if forgiving it is de rigueur, both to allow people the right to be imperfect and not have to pay greatly for it, and because that would make the victims more well-adjusted and productive.  If you don’t choose to adjust like this and your maladjustment ends up causing you a good deal of strife, that could be called self-defeating.

  13. While the woman would hear all about how forgivable his behavior was, any failure on her part to adjust and take care of herself, couldn’t be forgivable.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would treat her as if sinful behavior wouldn’t stop things from functioning since the victims could always fix any ensuing problems, but if they don’t, that couldn’t be forgiven, since who would do it?

  14. In the long run, the woman would have taken care of herself independently, and that’s all that would seem to matter.  The Ayn Rand Treatment would focus on whether or not the woman is resiliently taking response-ability for her own welfare, well enough.

And, of course, this means,



After all, anything else would seem to be abstract, manipulative, controlling, maladjusted, etc.  You could say that this involves two different profundities that are in conflict, what freedom and self-reliance mean, and what romantic commitments, even marriages, mean.  As usual, profundities involving freedom do seem to matter in a very profound way, and seem basic to life, whereas profundities involving one person’s responsibilities to another seem to be abstract, expendable, emotionalistic, dangerously manipulative, etc., luxuries.

Everyone knows that mental health means adjusting to reality, and that means whatever your realities are.  A big role model for self-help psychology for those in trouble (mainly women), is the ladies’ auxiliaries of Twelve-Step groups, those like Al-Anon, that were set up to use the transcendent spirituality of Twelve-Step groups to help addicts’ friends and loved ones self-reliantly cope with their own realities.  You mustn’t really care about “the elephant in the living room” if you can’t change the elephant.  Of course, one doesn’t question expectations that he be well-adjusted, self-reliant, non-controlling, etc.

(For more on this comic and how it applies to everyone, click here.)




Since as the Zoloft Learning About Depression webpage says,

having toward a commitment-phobic an attitude of, “You’re right.  Everyone around us knows that if I expected you to stay, I’d be bad: anti-freedom, unrealistic, manipulative, resentful, etc.,” would be trusting some very untrustworthy cultural norms.



Rampant depression, anxiety disorders, etc., couldn’t possibly go on in a society year in and year out unless what caused it seemed normal in that society.  Yet naturally people tend to trust their cultures’ expectations, even if they are morally bankrupt, and try to correct the wrong people.



The concluding chapter of Dr. Kay Redfield Jamison’s book Exuberance says that since hyperthymic personalities tend to be a lot more daring than most, those who immigrated to America were often hyperthymic, and, therefore, we have a lot of fearless people who’d give this country that adventurous spirit.  While this book doesn’t say so, both hyperthymics’ behavior problems, and the excuses that these red-blooded people would give and demand that you accept, are very similar to the unusually destructive behavior that leads to our unusual rate of depression and the excuses that our culture gives for this and insists that you accept.  Both types of excessive behavior could seem to be just normal or slightly excessively normal human imperfection.  The whole question of what destructive behavior goes too far is subjective, and (ignominious) whiny opinions seem revolting.  It seems so well-adjusted to serenely accept the consequences of recklessness as just mistakes or accidents, to accept that once someone has caused harm then he’s the helpless one since he can’t turn back the clock and undo it, to see how the victims aren’t really helpless, etc.  You’d be amazed what destructive behavior could seem self-justifying, or, at the very least, automatically and unquestionably excusable.  And while even sinfulness could be forgiven, not adequately dealing with one’s own problems couldn’t be, since someone simply has to deal with each and every problem.  Both sociopaths and realism would simply demand that people accept such excuses.  Both HPD self-justification and all-American pro-freedom ideology are very likely to have a tunnel-vision dedication to freedom, where those who disagree would seem to be trying to

people, guilt-trip, pass judgment, etc.

Frank Rich’s The Greatest Story Ever Sold, The Decline and Fall of Truth in Bush’s America, also tells of other Machiavellian manipulative tactics to sell the Iraq war, i.e., “Walter Pincus and Dana Priest of The Washington Post then filled in some specific details, reporting that Dick Cheney and his most senior aide, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, had frequently visited the CIA in the year before the invasion, pressuring intelligence analysts for assessments that backed up administration claims of Saddam WMDs and of an Iraq-Qaeda connection.”  This book says that just after Bush admitted that the documents on which, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” was based, were forgeries, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, “The president has moved on,” and, at another time, “Yes, the president has moved on.  And, I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well.”  Soon after that, as it became obvious that Saddam no longer had WMD, the Bushmen gave another meaning to moving on as well, that sure, before the invasion the supposed WMD were the big reason for invading, but, at present, we must move on to care only about winning against the Iraqi insurgency.  It’s pretty standard for remorseless sociopaths to “move on” after they cause big trouble.  Yet this is the sort of moral relativism that conservatives would like, the stolid and realistic variety.  Unconditional coping skills are

That’s also a perfect dodge for the problems that result from HPD.  Especially since the intent behind them was more oblivious than malicious, it would be very easy for anyone trying to excuse any of them to say, “I don’t care about that anymore.  I’ve moved on, and, frankly, I think that most normal, well-adjusted people would have moved on as well.”  The more that he’d abdicate responsibility like this, the more legitimate he’d seem, since the more time would have passed, and, therefore, the more that it would seem that normal people would have moved on already.  If you refused to accept such an anything-goes, unfalsifiable excuse, you’d seem neurotic, resentful, etc., since it would seem that YOU SHOULD BE “LETTING GO” .

You’d be amazed just how much could seem excused by the excuse, “But mature people accept that in the real world, things like this sometimes happen.”  Realism for women must be especially cynical.  An example of this that might still be very pertinent is that, as Ann Jones wrote in her book about domestic violence, Next Time She’ll be Dead, even when a battered wife leaves her husband, calls the cops on him, and gets a divorce, yet he comes after her and permanently injures her or kills her, people could ask, “Why didn’t she leave?” meaning why didn’t she move far away.  As Jones wrote, “What does it mean to ‘leave’?  How far does a woman have to go?  And how many times?”  Though now that extent of victim-blaming concerning any sort of violent crime might seem too unacceptable, one who thinks in pragmatic terms would have to figure that no matter what you must do to: adjust to, adapt to, function in, remain undisturbed by, compensate for, and fit in with, whatever happened to you; without: failing, losing the battle, trying to vindicate yourself, or using your best judgment as to whether or not you’re wrong, or acting like a muckraker; if you don’t succeed you’d seem to be just an: inadequate maladjusted maladaptive dysfunctional disturbed decompensated vindictive and judgmental misfit failure and loser who loves to rake through muck.  If a violent ex-husband would chase his ex-wife down, then “adequate protective measures” would have to mean adequate for that.  This same book satirizes the victim-blaming of wife-beating with, “Without the wife-beater’s wife there would be no wife beating,” which not only is true, but could offer the solution in which those solving the problem would have the most reliable motivation to do so.  While commitment-phobia might seem more understandable than violence since commitment could seem moralistic, in the end the realism that women must have towards commitment-phobia must be just as unconditional, so the acceptance of reality would always have to be just as absolute.

Though Freud cynically looked at hyperthymic commitment-phobia as pathologically self-obsessed, commitment-phobics could accuse those who expect them to stay in their relationships, of repressing them in the Freudian sense.  One could bring in another Germanic idea of psychology, the Serenity Prayer, which, in its entirety as originally written by Reinhold Niebuhr, says, “God, grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.  Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it; Trusting that You will make all things right if I surrender to Your will; So that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with You forever in the next—Amen,” and accuse those who insist that they take their commitments seriously, of resentfully wanting the world (or at least the commitment-phobics) to be as they’d have it (or them).  Neo-Buddhism means failsafe coping skills, which could seem essential, especially for those in trouble.

And, of course, since the commitment-phobic relationships started so quickly, those who have that conception of personal response-ability and self-help could always tell the women, “When he was so interested in you so quickly, you should have known that it was too good to be true.”  Intercultural studies have consistently found that depressed people who’ve lived in developed areas outside of the modern West have tended to feel paranoid (“He dare not come in company for fear he should be misused, disgraced, overshoot himself in gesture or speeches, or be sick; he thinks every man observes him, aims at him, derides him, owes him malice.”), but modern Westerners, whether depressed or not, tend to figure that even if someone did “get you,” that would mean only that you lost the battle so you’re a loser.  “God, grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference,” doesn’t necessarily mean, “Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it,” but is necessarily that unconditional, all-or-nothing, and

Whether or not the hyperthymics realize that their HPD made them do it, they could use this to their advantage, either, “Don’t try to control me by claiming that my choice that you don’t like, is diseased!” or, “But you’ve got to understand that my disease makes me need to do this.”  With all these potential excuses, it’s pretty easy for even those who at first try to get their commitment-phobic thinking fixed, to eventually decide that it’s right after all.

HPD behavior problems tend to be pathological and egocentric versions of what one could call extremely alive, vibrant tendencies.  One of these is the supposed free spirit involved in commitment-phobia.  Another is an all-natural and anti-establishment faith in alternative medicine.  Though it’s healthy to have a certain skepticism toward both restrictive morality and whatever the pharmaceutical companies are marketing, too much of both could be dangerous.  Yet the dangers of both are ambiguous enough that those who take them seriously could be condemned as too authoritarian.  When problems happen, “Oh, well, I made another mistake,” would work for both of these.  In fact, no matter how much or how firmly the person guaranteed something, if it turns out that these guarantees were unsafe, he could dismiss all those guarantees as “mistakes,” since they didn’t involve an intent to con.  Since both are particular penchants of certain hyperthymics, this could lead them to get particularly excited about them, and, therefore, particularly manic, with that tunnel-vision self-certainty.  Whatever he’d need to believe, he would.  Both of these are very self-centered and self-certain, yet the person would act as if those who oppose him are predators, doing this manipulatively, which we must understand reflects the ignominiously cunning hidden nature of man (or, especially, woman).



It’s pretty easy to get self-righteous in such fights against authoritarianism.  If those hurt by this stood up for what they believed is right, they’d talk like whiny, guilt-tripping, manipulative untermenschen, but if those who are fighting such supposed authoritarianism stood up for what they believed is right, they’d talk like gutsy, determined, pro-freedom übermenschen.  Though both commitment-phobia and quackery might seem very banal, it’s very easy to make a fight for either one seem like a profound fight against authority.  It’s also easy to get even more preachy than Pollyannaism.  Both of these HPD tendencies entail a desire to believe what one wants, which has a feel-good appeal to it.  An uncompromising gutsiness both is very characteristic of mania, and could feel exhilaratingly good to all sorts of people!

In general, the behavior patterns that are pathologically both rash and misjudged, and short-sightedly selfish, tend to have the same distinctive diagnosable qualities, the same common denominator, though to those who engage in them self-righteously, they’d seem to be the only right option.  Sure, these are dramatic and socially inappropriate behaviors, manifestations of a selfish morbid process, but at the same time, our culture so minimizes the moral responsibility for a problem and magnifies response-ability for one’s own welfare, that it’s likely that most if not all of those who address the question of who’s responsible for what, would insist that this is just normal or slightly excessively normal human imperfection, and we’re all response-able for dealing with such realities.  This unqualified serene acceptance could pretty much involve all of the rationales for victim correction as a panacea that I go into on my webpage of these rationales, since of course this is how well-adjusted people must adjust to life’s inevitable imperfections.  Manic Depressive Illness has a list of “...Factors Leading to Misdiagnosis of Bipolar Disorder as Unipolar Depression,” which includes, “Cultural positive feedback for manic/hypomanic symptoms,” which, conceivably, could have meant cheering only the positive attitude, though this would also probably have to include cheering the lack of restraint.  For example, Benjamin Kemball, president and CEO of Imperial Tobacco Canada, actually said on their 100th anniversary, “Even after one hundred years of passion and innovation, the future is still filled with challenges which Imperial Tobacco Canada will meet with success.  To do so, we must continue to understand and identify the needs of adult Canadian smokers and deliver on their expectations,” and that’s exactly the sort of appeal that both HPD and outright mania could seem to have.  “I’m standing up for freedom!  Don’t try to control me!,” and, “Be realistic!  Don’t try to control me!,” always work.

In fact, those with bipolar disorder fit the ideals of both the agrarian and the industrial eras of Western culture.  Those with bipolar disorder are very unusually likely to be able of have mystical experiences, to feel good even when they don’t have many material satisfactions, and to be “cutters,” those who’d cut themselves because this makes them feel emotionally more serene.  In the agrarian era, plenty of those who had mystical experiences, felt good despite a lack of material satisfactions, and felt emotionally more serene when they’d physically injure themselves, were literally called “saints.”  And, as outlined above, one could get a cultural positive feedback for manic/hypomanic symptoms, or, at the very least, a pro-freedom tolerance of them.  In both the agrarian and the industrial eras, an unconditional positive attitude like hyperthymics’, could be all-important.  Sure, Szasz wrote that though some Eastern societies mystify and revere some symptoms of mental illness Western culture stigmatizes all of them, but actually Western culture is very ready to revere those symptoms that are extreme versions of what it wants to revere in the contemporaneous era.

Since such hyperthymic tendencies look like just slightly excessively normal human imperfection, getting control over them might not look as important as this really is.  Some of the techniques that The Bipolar Advantage gives for getting control of overtly manic tendencies, such as introspection and the sort of meditation that aims for mystical experiences, could get control over HPD tendencies, too.  The first step, though, would very likely be to take them seriously as problems, rather than, in the end, figuring that those who consider them to be problems are trying to control you, believing in some repressive morality or elitist establishment, etc.  It might be good to learn from experience, that if a tendency of yours turns people off, then the problem isn’t that all those people want to control you.  Sure, conformity to certain elitist expectations does exist, as you could see from all those people who’d insist that something’s wrong with you if you disagree with The Serenity Prayer’s conception of personal response-ability.  At the same time, it should be pretty easy to use simple logic to see whether or not what’s really going on is potentially dangerous conformity.  Introspection would have to include self-doubt regarding the beliefs and attitude that follow the patterns of mania, just to a degree that looks like it could be just normal or slightly excessively normal imperfection.

This really comes into play regarding the advantages of hyperthymic personalities.  These advantages could really make a big difference in the social sphere, and one’s career.  On the other hand, as one could see in the lost friends and the lost jobs, the problems from HPD could lead to big conflicts in both of these areas.  An appreciation of the advantages that a hyperthymic personality could give you, could lead you to try harder to get any possible problems under control.  Or, it could lead you to figuring that you’re so desirable that you don’t need to let all those %$#@ people control you.  Yet in either case, those problems really are problems.  If you figure that of course depressed people should get their depressed thinking fixed through cognitive therapy, then the same would apply to HPD thinking.

Good luck!














   Home Page

   About Us, Introduction          

   About Us, the Summary

   About Us, Index

   My Story

    To The [Abuse] Survivors ♥♥♥♥♥

   Men Dying for Love

  On Doping

  “Oh, Yeah?” Upbeat Echoes from the First Great Stock Market Crash

    Victim Correction as a Panacea, the Summary

(Page 1), (Page 2), (Page 3)

     Cancer Victims Corrected Too

   Victim Correction as a Panacea

   Documentation On the Social Problem of Unnaturally Rampant Depression

   Standard Rationales for Victim Correction as a Panacea

   Schopenhauer on Predators

   Emphasis on Victim-Self-Blaming

  Darwinist Lehman Brothers’ INSIDE Sales Tips

  Darwinist Lehman Brothers’ INSIDE Introduction to Management Book

  Out of the Same Mold as the Great Crash of 2008

   Message for Intellectuals in the Islamic World

   Candace Newmaker’s Experience

  Breaking Important Confidences for Your Own Good

    A Glimpse Into the Soul of Victim Correction

   Cigarette Industry and Victim Correction

  Niebuhr’s Ideas on Our Nature and Destiny

   Herbal Experiences for Women

   Some Ideas for Rapport