If people don't want to hear what you have to say, it is normal for you to not want to hear what they have to say either. Comes with a discussion on narcissism

 

I asked Google Search and Google AI this question: "If people don't want to hear what you have to say, is it normal for you to not want to hear what they have to say?"

The answer to that is "absolutely". 

What that link reveals:
* Your brain tends to perceive some form of "rejection" from people who do not want to hear what you have to say. 
* Emotional distance starts to happen. Unless establishment of "caring about the other's views and feelings" has been established in most other conversations, you will start to distance yourself from that person. In other words, disagreements have to be rarer than agreements, otherwise you will not feel connected or understood. 
* If there is a chronic inability to listen to you, people start to distrust others who do not listen to them. 
* Respect for the person who will not listen to you begins to fade and can create "a fading away" of the relationship as well. 

The result is:
   Listening has to be a two-way street in order to maintain a relationship. Otherwise, the person who is not heard will seek other relationships where they are more seen and heard than in the relationship where their opinions, thoughts and feelings don't matter. 

Narcissists do not understand this principle because they rarely listen to others, or they "listen and distort". Everything is filtered according to whether the other person is providing the right kind of narcissistic supply they crave, and whether the other person can be "thought-controlled" by the narcissist. 

They also consider their voice, their opinions, and their viewpoint to be the most important in any relationship. - that link says they look at what they have to say as "the law". Once a narcissist thinks they know you, conversations become one-sided (they dominate the conversation). They invalidate - differing opinions and insights are not considered, and they deem them wrong, irrational and disrespectful of them. They maintain rigid, harsh opinions and try to condition you to be quiet or to remain quiet when they are opinionating, making decisions for you or the two of you, deciding how to narrate their dominant position over you.  They also condition you to be quiet lest they rage, create a conflict, or dismiss you over your difference of opinion. 

That link about trying to "thought-control" others is interesting. It basically says that they test new sources of narcissistic supply by:
* testing if you'll agree with them 
* to see if you put up boundaries (i.e. how much you'll stand up for yourself)
* to see if you'll follow their demands
* to see if you'll question their behavior (to see how much "bad behavior" that they can get away with)

It also talks about what kind of narcissistic supply they want:
* easy targets that will not argue, not question them and their motives, and who will easily "give in"
* targets that will tend to flatter them and tell them what they want to hear 
* targets that will change their feelings, opinions and thoughts to adopt theirs
* targets who have exceptionally poor boundaries where the narcissist can "take over", "call the shots" (i.e. control), "make the decisions in your relationship" (i.e. dominate you) and "achieve more and more power" (i.e. watch you cave into every single one of their demands ... eventually - they keep testing how far you'll go without push-back) 

But since this requires them not listening to you or caring what you are going through (and they really do not care), the relationship tends to have a "point of no return", because at some point the defenses you experience, "turning off their voice when they speak", having trauma symptoms when they push you to perform for them, not respecting your boundaries (almost no narcissists respect the boundaries of others), becomes a brain issue for you. 

What happens to your brain is the beginning of PTSD symptoms, and it is the main reason why people stop listening to a narcissist, distance themselves from a narcissist, and leave narcissists. 

Also being in one-sided conversations where you are not listened to, not heard, not understood, and where the other person is pushing their agenda on you is exhausting. 

If you get a headache, stomach ache, feel tense and anxious, feel like your mind is drifting away from what they are saying or only absorbing parts of what they are saying, those are the beginning signs of PTSD. Feeling sad can also be part of these symptoms, though there are better remedies for sadness than for these other symptoms. 

Here is a bit more on narcissists' strong tendency to listen and distort:

* Narcissists do not listen to understand; they listen through the filter of their ego.
* When you speak, they selectively absorb only what validates or threatens their inflated viewpoints, intelligence, opinions, views and feelings on subjects, and their self-image. They often twist your words to validate their own perspectives or angles or to rewrite reality. They often sound like politicians with an agenda to win arguments, or to win validation of their own views. 
* Most narcissists operate with ego-filtered listening. They briefly listen to the facts you are presenting or your feelings, but they don't listen long enough; they try to find an angle, often interrupting and treating your words as an attack or personal criticism (narcissists rage when they feel criticized). They make it your fault that they don't listen to you, because they will take any disagreement of facts as an attack on their self esteem and feelings of grandiosity and control. In other words, they react emotionally when you present facts that differ from theirs. And emotions from narcissists tend to be highly dysregulated. 
* They indulge in "defensive editing": they find instant ways to edit what you said so that it aligns with their narrative (even if it is not what you said), or they take the opposite tack and edit your agenda so that they can villainize you. They often try to make a disagreement into an accusation about your character.
   "You are crazy" is a common one. So is "You're too sensitive." So is "You're ungrateful for treating me this way" (over a disagreement of facts - keep that in mind). So is "You brought this upon yourself" if they try to punish you for disagreeing with them (punishments over disagreements are mostly reserved for malignant narcissists who can perceive any and all disagreements as a giant threat to their control over you, not just their ego). And note: the punishments can be severe. 
* If you express hurt, they hear it as an accusation. 
* They will almost always reframe what you are saying so that they can turn conversations into what they believe, or what they want to believe, or to attack your character. 
* They often use the DARVO tactic to get you to question your own memory of the conversation, and so that they can play the victim if your facts are too strong, if the argument has caused a rift between you, if they unsuccessfully "lost" an argument, if they've punished you too severely over a disagreement. 

Some of the reasons they do it:
* Exerting power, control and domination, and obtaining narcissistic supply is all that is important to them in relationships, and in any discourse. They are not happy unless they are managing and controlling other people, and getting away with distorting reality. If they feel any of this is slipping away and not advancing, they will make life very difficult for you and any other people who appear to "side with you". 
* Admitting fault shatters their feelings of superiority and omnipotence, that they are the "strong leader" who can divide and conquer people, that they are the smartest person in every room, that they can manipulate any person with ease, that they can crash through any boundary (and for malignant narcissists, any legal boundary), that they can do things that most people can't do and that they deserve much more admiration and special treatment than other people do. 
   When you see hypocrisy and entitlement in their actions what do they do? What that link reveals: they play the victim, deflect, respond with hot or cold rages, or attempt to rationalize and make excuses for their behavior. 
* In distorting reality, they try to keep you off-balance. They feel they must maintain control over you by getting you on the defensive all of the time; i.e. they hope you try to prove your point to deaf ears. 
* For a narcissist, conversations are about "winning". In other words they see conversations as competitions with only one outcome: they are always right, and you're only right if you agree with them or coddle their distorted beliefs and attempts to distort reality. Otherwise, you are viewed as the enemy who is always wrong. For them conversations are a zero-sum game with only one outcome, and only one winner, them. And if they feel that they won't win, they will have a fit and resort to some form of attacks, emotional outbursts, or playing the victim.
 

MORE WARNINGS

With malignant narcissists (also commonly referred as dark triads), they dis-respect your words, character and autonomy of making your own decisions about anything in your own life, and if you decide to exercise your freedom to counter their distortions, most of them don't even respect the sanctity of your body, your belongings, your privacy, your home - any boundary at all. 

What this means:

* Your body: They believe your body is exploitable, either for pushing and bossing around, for mishandling, unwelcome touching, sex at their command, physical punishments (domestic violence and/or physical manifestations of child abuse), threats of bodily harm, death threats. They also don't care about your body and health unless not caring is obvious to others, and unless their reputation takes a hit from not caring. 
* Your belongings: a lot of malignant narcissists destroy your belongings, throw things away that are important to you, or sell them, or steal them.  
* Your privacy: Most malignant narcissists do not feel you have a right to privacy. What that link reveals is that they really do believe that they own you, that they do not see you as a separate person, that you are like an employee or slave, and they are the boss or slave master. Whether they believe they are the boss or slave master has to do with whether they reward you for doing what they want. If they reward you, they see themselves as your boss, if they don't, they see themselves as your slave master.
* Your home: malignant narcissists do not believe in the sanctity and protection of your home from them. They see it as another boundary to crash, or another challenge that they will see if they can invade. As far as they are concerned, your home is a boundary to overrun, to enter, to control and disrupt. They believe your home is their home because they feel they deserve it in their distorted perception that they are so superior that they have a right to be in it, or own property that is not theirs. This is true even when they cry like a baby if they experience a home invasion themselves. 

Malignant narcissists push, and push, and push you to adopt their perspectives or threaten you that you will be put on their enemies list. The pressures to get you to give into them can be endless.

You can see why therapists would never suggest you stay in a relationship with a malignant narcissist. There is too much danger of quick and devastating escalations of abuse, and since malignant narcissists are usually sadists, you won't survive very well in any relationship with one. Most people go to domestic violence centers to get help assessing the dangers, and for drawing up plans of escape. 

Things to remember: A lot of malignant narcissists are criminals. 

They also want to punish you if you disagree with them. What that link reveals:

* They want total control over every person and every situation.
* They view any boundary to their desires as a major threat. 
* They will never care about people they hurt; they will justify every invasion, every criminal offense, every law-breaking activity, even indulge in stalking or death threats if they feel it suits their agenda.
* They will use every arsenal at their disposal to weaken you, silence you, disenfranchise you, and to make you feel afraid of the consequences of "going against them" in any manner, even in opinions. Rage, intimidating others, planning revenges, fear-mongering, smear campaigns and sadism rule every malignant narcissist's thoughts.  

WHY EMOTIONAL DISTANCE HAPPENS
WHEN OTHERS REFUSE TO LISTEN TO YOU

What the sentence of the heading reveals in terms of this link: 

* Another person chronically not listening to you or silencing you makes you feel your safety is compromised (unless you have people in your life telling you that your voice is needed for a worthy cause). But still, you will not feel safe. People who do this often assume authority, that your visions, opinions, feelings, experiences, sense of safety and peace, and perhaps your very life do not matter (to them anyway). You will be able to tell if they are assuming authority because they will laugh at you, roll their eyes, or mock you when you talk. There will be a general atmosphere of bullying you, ordering you around, or smearing your reputation. 
* Talking to them seems exhausting, with little or no acknowledgement of your viewpoints or feelings. 
* Quiet resentment takes over. If they are putting you into a cycle of letting you talk, then not letting you talk, back to letting you talk, then not letting you talk, this puts the authority of "what will be talked about" totally in their hands, and never in yours. That's not a relationship; that's someone who is trying to have power over you, trying to control you and dominate you.
   If they assume authority over every narrative, and every conversation, and expect you to give into them, this also shows heavy traits of narcissism in this person.
   And warning: Punishing you by not letting you talk can turn into a scapegoating situation, where you will be targeted for the blame of "not keeping the peace".  However, keeping the peace does not mean silencing yourself about important matters. It can mean you are free to bring up these important matters with others instead.
   At any rate, you will probably not feel trusting or friendly with people who are not interested in what you have to say. This is normal.
   In my view, however, they deserve politeness (a mild short form of friendliness and acknowledgement), as all human beings do. 

If another person chronically does not want to hear what you have to say, and you are silenced a lot, and you are invalidated, you will probably experience the beginnings of PTSD or trauma symptoms. What that link reveals:

* The stress at the very least, will put your body through fight, flight or freeze reactions. The other person will be associated with giving you those symptoms as well. 
* You will feel hypervigilant before or during interactions with the person.
* You may feel numb, hopeless, dizzy or exhausted after talking to them.
* Your mind may wander off of the topic they bring up and you'll feel a sense of heightened anxiety, and you may even experience your own thoughts taking over instead. The sadistic narcissists will enjoy seeing this in you, so beware. 
* Physical symptoms like rapid heartbeat, stomach aches, and headaches may appear when around this person
* The brain views chronic silencing, especially of your feelings, as a threat to your survival. Even mild forms of "social outcasting" are generally viewed by the brain as "these people will not protect me and I'll be the first one sacrificed when the group is attacked" - it comes from our human past when people lived in tribes, and where relationships built on safety and trust in one another were a "must". 
   It may be beneficial not to become too attached to people who chronically refuse to listen to what you say, or who refuse to listen to important matters (such as your safety). If you are emotionally attached, you may find that your emotions and mind start detaching more and more, that you stop sharing, that your sense of trust and safety begin to lower, that your respect for the other person lessens, and your anxiety heightens. If this person dominates a group, finding your own group becomes important as "the alarms" in your mind that you are not safe with this person are real. 
* Over time, the chronic stress of being around such a person can effect everyday activities and mere chores, putting your mind in fight, flight and freeze reactions even when there is no one in your immediate environment who is silencing your voice or emotions. The mind also "re-lives" these kinds of adverse experiences in nightmares and in waking reality as well. Your mind is often called upon to review troublesome situations you are in. 
   People who want to control and dominate you, and do not care about you or your feelings count as a "troublesome situation". 

Solutions:
* If your symptoms seem to have a life of their own and you cannot control them, trauma therapy may be able to help. 
* Limiting or ending engagement with the person is always a road you can take too.
* Telling your story to others who show consistent care of your feelings and insights is better than talking to people who do not care about you. 
* Feel free to express yourself in other ways and with other people. It is not wise to keep talking to people who are not willing to listen, who are not willing to consider other people's points of view, or feelings, who assume authority over you or others even though you haven't given them permission to have authority, who don't care about you or others ... these people will never have your best interests at heart, and dare I say it, probably no one who disagrees with them. 

You have a right not to listen to them, even though, I bet, they will not like it, and insist that their voice, their desires, their way of looking at situations, their impetus to over-run you, shout your voice out of existence, over-dominate your voice is "their right". However, I doubt anyone's voice matters to them with this attitude, accept agreeing with them. 

This is to say that if it is "chronic", or over dire issues, it is more of a "them problem" than a "you problem". 

No one has the right to authorize a leadership position over you if you don't want it. You have a right to reject their leadership any time you want, and you are not a bad person for doing so. 

FOUND ON FACEBOOK:

An Update: New Studies on Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families, Wills and Narcissistic Parents, Dissociation, and Some Other Topics of Note

Last time I did an update, I promised the post on hoovering (a very common tactic in the world of narcissism), and yet, it is still not published. I thought other posts I was writing were quite a bit more important and compelling, and that is one reason it got pushed to the "back burner", and the other reason was because I thought it needed the kind of links that my most recent posts have to legitimize the claims I write about. 

So I don't think I need to say "publishing a post soon" kinds of statements since I didn't follow through the last time. The basics that people write about when it comes to narcissism I have already written about with the exception of the isolation tactic, arrogance, grandiosity and haughtiness in narcissism, heightened envy and jealousy in narcissists, the shame-rage spiral, bread-crumbing, intermittent reinforcement, some more punishments narcissists are highly likely to use to get their own way, and of course, hoovering. 

That's not a lot to finish and those posts are primarily done except links and some graphics. So why can't I just "push through" and publish them? 

At the moment I'm way more interested in what family scapegoats have in common (they have a lot in common with one another as it turns out), healing strategies for scapegoats, and what PTSD does to the brain and body, why dissociation can become a big problem for scapegoats and why that can impede healing and human connection even though it is an involuntary trauma response. I'm also interested in "the no contact" trend of Generation Z with their parents.

I'm also busy writing about other issues that I think are more compelling for me to cover in terms of the subject of narcissism: the psychology of their sycophants, common prejudices in narcissists and sycophants, the communication and filtering styles of narcissists, and what to do about the kinds of destructions narcissists wreak on society and on younger generations (is there hope for assimilation, or is the best strategy always "no contact" to protect society and other generations from destruction)?

And then there is the subject of "forgiveness" when it comes to narcissists and their destructions - it happens sometimes even without pressure from others or even pressure from within. It can take some survivors by surprise even.  So what is behind that?

And that's why I haven't published these more common traits of narcissism. You can also read them anywhere, on just about any blog on narcissism.

But first some compelling news: 

PRESENT STUDIES IN COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LABS
ON SCAPEGOATS
AND HOPEFUL METHODOLOGIES FOR HEALING

There are some remarkable studies being performed in universities and college labs to get an understanding of how family scapegoats are being impacted in childhood. These studies are being run by all kinds of specialists in the medical field including neurologists, immunologists, rheumotologists, lymphologists, cardiovascular specialists, and so many others. Naturally psychiatrists, psychologists and trauma therapists are leading these experiments. 

What they are finding is that family scapegoats are showing that their autonomic nervous systems are being much more compromised (and destroyed) than originally considered by the mental health community and physicians. While it may not surprise any adult scapegoat, it surprised doctors how impacted these children were. 

As of the present day, most adult scapegoats and some child scapegoats are being treated with healing modalities meant for a broad spectrum of traumas from war, accidents, all kinds of child abuse, kidnapping, rape, trafficking, slavery, extreme forms of incarceration, and so on. This is such an array of types of trauma, and unfortunately, using the same forms of treatment for one form of trauma does not necessarily work for another form of trauma in all cases. For now, all of these forms of trauma get the same kinds of therapies. 

In America PTSD and CPTSD are still being lumped together as "PTSD" even though the chronic form (CPTSD) shows some dramatic differences from a one-time traumatic event (usually reserved for PTSD). European nations, in contrast with the U.S.A., recognize PTSD and CPTSD as distinct diagnoses formalized by The World Health Organization. Apparently the U.S.A. can't formalize it because too many physicians see it as a severe subset rather than a separate diagnosis. 

I'm not sure if that has been bungling research on child abuse victims or not. It's remarkable that studies weren't taking place on what child abuse does to all parts of the physical body of child victims until recent times. There have been a lot of studies about what it does to a child psychologically, and to the brains of children. Then what it did to some of the major organs followed in the 1990s, and very recent studies have unveiled what it does to the immune system. 

Certainly Bessel van der Kolk, the leading psychiatrist on trauma, has found that trauma affects the entire body, and his team of trauma experts keep coming out with more and more studies about what trauma does to various parts of the body, even in the first seconds a traumatic event occurs, so those discoveries led other teams to study what has not been discovered yet, even going into specific types of traumatic events, and in this case, scapegoating children.

Anyway, this research is taking place in labs now. And what is more, some studies are not just being done on any child abuse victims; they are being done specifically on scapegoats and for scapegoats, the ones who endure systematic abuse from a parent or caretaker on a regular basis while growing up, and sometimes from their entire family.  

There are obviously standards that have to be reached to be considered "a scapegoat" of your parent and family, and a lot of those standards come from Rebecca Mandeville's book, "Rejected, Blamed and  Shamed". It is a book meant for therapists to help them diagnose whether an adult has the experiences and symptoms that would define them as a "family scapegoat", and for child abuse survivors to help them decipher whether they are a scapegoat or not, and then legitimize that they've been scapegoated by their family of origin if they can say "yes" to the questionnaire in the book. 

I have scoured enough child abuse forums to know that EMDR, CBT, CPT, PE, Somatic exercises and pharmeceuticals, and even controversial therapies like CBD, low dose LSD, Ketamine, and Ibogaine do not work for all scapegoats, the healing methods used for people who have been traumatized. When the trauma is too pervasive, too deep, or too intense during childhood, it seems that sometimes nothing works. 

Case in point: I met a woman on-line. Her case was this: 2 parents with all of the symptoms and traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and an older brother who sexually abused her throughout her childhood. She was dissociating a lot during episodes with her family and ended up with Dissociative Identity Disorder (what used to be called "Multiple Personality Disorder" - which according to a team studying this disorder at Harvard these days, is not so uncommon after all - more about this in later posts, I hope).

She was scapegoated by her family.

Her family took her brother's side, and at 20, she was rejected by her nuclear family. Another family member that was not part of the nuclear family put up money for her to get therapy. It was during therapy that she decided she wanted to be a therapist herself, so she took out loans to get a degree in trauma therapy, and eventually learned the techniques of EMDR and some of the other ones I've mentioned. 

Anyway, after around thirty years of going to therapy and administering therapy to others, she felt that she could never heal, that no therapies had worked on her, that she would always feel broken and dealing with amnesia, severe depression, and splitting between alters, and short-changing her patients because she couldn't heal herself. Also, organizing anything in her life was extremely difficult. She didn't remember where she put things (because of the alters), and sometimes, even if rarely, displaced her patients' folders. She found that one of her alters had contacted her family even, and her older brother who had abused her for all of those years, which she experienced as a horror in terms of her main alters, and in terms of advising her patients to limit or break with their abusers for the duration of trauma therapy. 

Anyway, she said she found she couldn't live with herself doing these things to "f" up her life. She said she was in chronic emotional pain all of the time. The on-going hypervigilence she found herself in when "betraying myself", and the alters taking charge of the betrayals, she said she couldn't live through any more of it. "I can't even trust myself! Most people don't have to worry about that, but when you have alters, self betrayal is a big problem! And I can't go back to my family to take a break, or get help like other people can because they are so much worse than the worst of my alters!"

There is nothing I could say to her to get her to re-think her decision to be lethally injected in Europe because she had tried everything she could to heal. Every therapy had already been tried. And then I never heard from her again. 

What a tragic story!

She had been brought up in a time when Child Protective Services, established in 1974, could be functionally ineffective, especially in its earliest days. Between 1962 through 1967, the mental health establishment had discovered that child abuse was producing some unacceptable outcomes for society and for families to the point where there needed to be a nationwide way to protect children. Here is the Google AI version of that (partial, through the same link, and copied in blue): 

The mental health establishment concluded that child abuse requires protective orders because overwhelming empirical evidence shows childhood maltreatment causes long-lasting psychiatric, physical, and developmental damage, often resulting in severe adult mental disorders and high mortality risks. Protective orders are necessary to immediately interrupt violent cycles, prevent further trauma, and offer legal safe boundaries.

The article also discusses emotional abuse and neglect. 

Anyway, not to get off-topic too much, it is clear that for the worst cases of scapegoating, there is nowhere to turn. While abusers are often satisfied with seeing a "freeze response" from their victims because it's not challenging them and no one is running away from them, and freezing can look like "submitting" or "capitulating" (even with a devastated facial expression on the victim), it is doing untold damage to the victim. This is where an individuated, integrated, authentic budding personality with preferences, likes, dislikes, interests and opinions, goes to die. The freeze response is also where dissociation begins to happen, and where the compartmentalization of events, even internal ones, begin to splinter into what seems like more autonomous episodes. 

With the new therapies being invented for the branch of trauma survivors one would call "family scapegoats", some of these issues are being addressed, and they are finding preliminary results to be "extremely effective".

Wow, some hope! That's great!

However, some therapists who have been privy to the preliminary results, are going out and saying they have the ability "to heal scapegoats and the particular kinds of trauma they have". So, I received a warning a couple of days ago that the results have not been officially concluded and the study is incomplete, and not to trust any therapist who claims they can heal the kind of trauma that scapegoats have. I guess there are the unscrupulous in every profession. 

I have no idea what is in store, but I would think one of the more stubborn aspects of trauma to treat are the folks who dissociate. Again, it's involuntary, so how did they solve it, if they solved it? I'm eager to find out. 

There is also something in the works in the labeling, something slightly different than the P.T.S.D. letters, but which have a lot in common with P.T.S.D. lettering too, which again would be used to diagnose scapegoats in particular, so that the scapegoat's medical team is more sensitive to their needs and requirements, and are offering more effective ways to deal with their particular traumas, than say, someone who has been in a car crash. 

As with CPTSD, there are likenesses in common with PTSD, but also some differences. 

For me, this is an interesting period to be alive, and I hope I see what is in store. 

In the meantime, if you want to explore trauma therapies that are being used now, for the most part they are really effective for the bulk of scapegoat trauma survivors. 

Here are some books you may want to check out too: 

"The Body Keeps the Score" - by Bessel ver der Kolk
- available on Amazon

"Rejected, Shamed and Blamed" - by Rebecca C. Mandeville
- available on Amazon

"Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving: A GUIDE AND MAP FOR RECOVERING FROM CHILDHOOD TRAUMA" - by Pete Walker 

- available on Amazon

"Growing Up as the Scapegoat to a Narcissistic Parent: A Guide to Healing" - by Jay Reid (Amazon)

"How Scapegoats Can Heal from Narcissistic Abuse: 3 Steps Towards Compassion, Protection & Freedom" - by Jay Reid (Amazon)

And if you want to know some of why women are scapegoated more than men, this is a book I highly recommend:
The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help (How to End Domestic Violence, Mental and Emotional Abuse, and Sexual Harassment) - by Jackson Katz (Amazon) 

ONE OF PEEP'S BLOG POSTS
(and searching for what ails you to see if it might have something to do with PTSD)

Peep, as I call her, runs the blog, Five Hundred Pound Peeps as an anonymous writer. She writes on a number of subjects, including posts about and for ACONs, lymphedema and lipedema (which can often be mistaken for obesity), poverty from the status of an ACON on Disability SSI, politics and the economic challenges for the younger generations. 

Anyway, she wrote this post on a lot of her health conditions, and I responded.

After I published this post, I found a video by Dr. Ramani that addressed health issues when you are around antagonistic people, or "hasslers". What great timing for this video! Anyway, I also imbedded that video below. 

Regardless, I thought I'd share with you the response I gave Peep in regards to a lot of her health problems, so that if you have any of these particular medical issues yourself, and you are also an ACON, you may be able to attribute it to PTSD (copied here in green):

We have talked about this before, but PTSD can cause significant weight gain:

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+ptsd+cause+significant+weight+gain

There is a strong link between PTSD and Lupus:

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+get+lupus+from+ptsd

PTSD can significantly increase the risk of getting Type 2 diabetes:

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+ptsd+cause+diabetes

PTSD can significantly increase the risk of getting allergies:

https://www.google.com/search?q=PTSD+can+significantly+increase+the+risk+of+getting+allergies

"physical or emotional trauma can act as a trigger for the onset or worsening of lipedema in genetically predisposed individuals.":

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+trauma+cause+lipedema

PTSD can significantly damage the endocrine system:

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+ptsd+damage+the+endocrine+system

Being an ACON causes so much undue stress ...

The point here is that PTSD (or CPTSD - the disorder generally relegated to scapegoats) often is going to impact the body in some adverse way. 

If you are a survivor of child abuse, you can look up what ails you in the same way I did for Peep and see if there are any correlations with the PTSD or CPTSD that you are experiencing. Since the Google search is American, using the word PTSD in its search is likely to get you better results for your questions because American psychiatrists still have not recognized CPTSD as "different" from PTSD (compared to European countries as I wrote at the beginning of this post). 

ANOTHER OF PEEP'S BLOG POSTS
(a discussion about leaving 30 percent of Gen Zers out of their parents' wills and trusts)

Peep likes to see what is going on with parents who have children they are estranged from. 

Apparently the sites she sees are full of wrath, with statements like: "How dare our children 'go no contact!' Even if it comes from a therapist, it's a bad way to treat those who have sacrificed their lives to bring up these entitled brats! Such ungrateful children! Leave them out of your Wills and give the money to charity! Teach them a lesson! Get a Trust because if you leave a Will, these kids are so selfish, they will contest it!" 

Thirty percent of Gen Zers are estranged from a parent, so a lot of charities will become absolutely flooded with money apparently. 

I haven't seen these boards on social media myself, nor do I want to. I have researched enough about narcissism to not be surprised by any of this. However, they do reveal these underlying issues:

* "Teach a lesson that will hurt them." - never works to establish or re-establish a bond, and it does not teach conflict resolution.  
* "Brats!" - an insult generally reserved for underage children. 
* "Ungrateful" - a "give-away" word that you may be dealing with a narcissist. It's also a cheap way not to have to think about what a child is going through. Narcissists use this phrase on children too much in forums (and it's about the only thing they have to say about their children), and because of that, it is eye-rolling. There are only so many punishments and pain a child will endure before running away. The phrase teaches nothing of value except that it puts all responsibility and blame on the child for the rift and none on the parent. 
* Narcissists will do the bare minimum in raising their children. 
   Narcissists are generally more interested in status and money than their children. 
   Narcissistic mothers are more likely to work outside the home, looking for high status jobs, than staying home to raise children.
   So narcissistic mothers are more likely to be working outside the home. 
   I'm not inferring anything here, but Peep talks about her days of growing up as a "latch-key kid". In Peep's case, she talks about her generation being more "latch-key-relegated" than past generations. Apparently they were kids who spent more time bringing up themselves than being in the company of their parents.
   She was also a baby-sitter and dinner planner and preparer, according to what she wrote in her post, at nine years old when her parents were out working. Some "sacrifice" is expected when raising kids, and there is also an expected sacrifice by the parents to have the kids' run the household, especially when "latch-key".
   Also latch-key kids who feel forced to provide for the family don't feel as valued as children whose parents sacrificed their "time" to be with their kids. So what kid wants to be with a parent who doesn't value them? And devaluation of children is, again, a narcissistic trait. 

And frankly, all of the endless copy-cat narratives about this subject miss the mark of why children leave their parents. What kid actually thinks: "I am ungrateful, and that's why I left." "Ungrateful brat" is also self serving. And it doesn't get to the truth of any matter, not even close. It shuts out the real issues (a type of silencing of the child) and it shows a high propensity of these parents to control the narrative in such a way that it totally benefits them, with no benefit to the child, and totally wipes out any of their perspectives: "Vilify the child, never let them be right, ban all communication, batten down the hatches, and punish them all!!! Arggh!!" 

If you read the adult children's versions, there are major differences. They are usually something along these lines:
   "I tried my best with my parent(s). I'm not after their money, but when I have 60 - 80 hour work weeks with very little to show for it except a one bedroom apartment, I don't have time for the kinds of things they want from me. And frankly, what they want from me is time that is not productive, like arguing endlessly about a slight they feel, or telling me how to run my life, or gaslighting me, or insulting me, or demanding that I do things around their house. With the long hours I work? I can't survive the load I am dealing with and them at the same time. So I don't see my parents any more. Frankly, I feel traumatized by them, and that nothing matters to them except what they want. Something had to give." 

So let's say the government can't take care of the enormous amount of Gen Zers when they are old. Perhaps the government will look to the incredibly wealthy charities these parents have endowed them with to provide financial assistance. It could happen - after the administrators try to give themselves a big fat raise to distribute the funds.

The cynicism is intentional. 

A STORY:
WHEN HUMOR IS IGNORED

This is about a couple, I will call Mr. and Mrs. 

Mr. and Mrs. were/are both family scapegoats. They are a " happy couple", and love the peace and tranquility that they find with each other, and that they have built together.  

One thing that Mr. finds is his wife not listening to him at times. He doesn't know why, and she doesn't exactly know why either except she says she "lives in her own head" a lot of the time, a common condition for scapegoats.

However, for important matters, the Mrs. decided that he should use the term, "Breaker, breaker!" just in case she's with the thoughts in her own mind rather than listening to him, and in order to get her full attention. It works. 

Anyway, they went for a walk one day and she again blanked out on him and what he was saying (meaning her own thoughts took over so that she didn't hear him - also a sign of dissociation). 

He was in a joking, jolly mood, and talking about how dogs were going to "log on" to the internet to get what they wanted, and a whole story ensued with a lot of quips and double entendres. 

His wife was nodding her head in agreement to these wild tales, but she had only heard the part where dogs were going to "log on". 

After he was done, he asked her, "Do you agree with me on that?" 

She answered "Yes." 

He asked her again, "Oh, no! Do you actually agree with me?" 

She answered, "Yes, I totally agree with you. I already said 'yes'."

He asked, "What is going on with you? You got lost in your own thoughts again, didn't you?" 

She answered, "Yes, I'm sorry. I did. I'm embarassed and didn't want to admit it."

He asked, "Why does this keep happening? Am I boring you to such an extent that you switch off?" 

She answered, "No. It's not you. It really isn't." 

He said, "Well explain what's happening." 

She answered, "I really don't know all of the answers, but I'm thinking it has to do with PTSD." 

He said, "I have PTSD too, but I don't do that. So why do you think you're doing that and not me? And why are you blanking out on me? I love you and I'm devoted to you. There isn't a reason to blank out, is there?" 

She answered, "No, absolutely not. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the abuse for you ended abruptly when you were thirteen years old. There were certainly gaps of better times for me, but the on-going trajectory was they wanted me hurt, and tethered to the family. That's all I can think of as to the reason why this is different for you than it is for me." 

He said, "But where did you go while I was telling all of these jokes?" 

She answered, "I noticed my thoughts got really loud right after you started talking about the dogs logging on to the internet."

He said, "You mean intrusive thoughts? Like hypervigilent experiences of worrying about whether your family still wants to attack you?" 

She answered, "Nothing like that. I wasn't thinking about them at all. I have intrusive thoughts all of the time about all kinds of things, like how I'm going to tackle a room in our house in terms of organizing it and clearing it out in some sort of perfectly satisfying way that it won't ever get that messy again." 

He said, "But why are you blanking out when I'm joking with you? Why would joking be scary for you?" 

She answered, "I'm not afraid of the joking, at least I don't think I am. I'm not exactly sure why. Let me think about this for awhile." 

When she thought about it for awhile, she said, "My mother used to lie to me a lot, and gaslight me, and try to convince me that everything was my fault. I know I blanked out on her a lot during those times. I'm pretty sure that she decided I was crazy based on these episodes, because for all I know, I might have even said 'I believe you' as an auto-pilot response, just like I did with you, because not to believe her lies was to invite her wrath. So telling a wild tale about dogs being on the internet might have been a trigger, and the mind then reacts as if it is a lie, and it's like "We have to flood the mind zone with something else!" I do know that my thoughts felt loud. I know it's involuntary to dissociate, so I don't know what to do about this. I'm okay most of the time, right?" 

He answered, "You are, but you're doing it more than you maybe should. I just worry about you doing this with the wrong person, that's all. I'm still wondering why I don't do this if it is part of PTSD." 

She said, "Well, the abuse was different. Your mother's abuse was violence, to whip you, and kick you and to make you bleed. She didn't gaslight you a lot, right?" 

He said, "No, that wasn't in her lexicon, though she was convinced everything was my fault when my sister and I were at odds. However, I was never pressured to say everything was my fault. She assumed it was my fault without investigating anything because she had the attitude that boys hit girls, that boys tell girls what to do, that boys need to be taken down a notch or two. My sister was the main instigator of lying to appear innocent of something, so she wouldn't get punished and so that I would instead. She did the sinning and I would pay for it. So, in a way ---."

She said, "But you weren't constantly being lied to by your mother, right?" 

He answered, "Not lying directly. She believed what my sister told her. I guess that's not really a lie.  Anyway, I understand what you're saying, and it's good to know why there are differences between your version of PTSD and mine. I'll have to be sure to be in touch with you and what you're going through when I'm joking." 

Perhaps you can see that the differences matter in terms of treatment for PTSD. 

New edit on 4/27/26: the video: 

VIDEO

"Is a Narcissist Making You Age Faster? The Science Says Yes"
by psychologist, Dr. Ramani Durvasula: 

THE PROFESSIONAL PAPER THAT THIS VIDEO REFERENCES

Negative social ties as emerging risk factors for accelerated

aging, inflammation, and multimorbidity 
by Byungkyu Lee, Gabriele Ciciurkaite, Siyun Peng, Colter Mitchell, and Brea L. Perry

And an article in The Atlantic Magazine that talks about this study:

There’s a Name for the People Who Drain You

“Hasslers” make life more difficult—and we can’t escape them. - by Olga Khazan for The Atlantic

Note: this is a different study than the one I talked about earlier in this post. 

FOUND ON FACEBOOK

When There is Favoritism of a Child in a Family, It is Usually a Sign There is an Abused Scapegoat Child Too. Comes With a Discussion for Teachers and Mandated Reporting.

 

"Trapped but Resilient"

c Lise Winne

This post is mainly written for teachers who are mandated reporters.
Note: I am a certified teacher and a mandated reporter who decided to research and study subjects on abuse. 

To get to the subject ... 

If you are a teacher, you are probably not going to find out who is a favored child by talking to a favorite child. Favorite children usually do not boast that they are a favorite. Some of the reasons for this are the following:
* "You're a Mommy's boy!" from jeering, teasing peers
* resentment from siblings
* shock and dismay from teachers
* disapproval of the favoritism by other parents 
* Parents who favor a child often deny that they do. 

In terms of abusive parents who use favoritism to hurt one or some of their children, it is often perpetrated by parents who display personality disorders such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder (the Cluster B personality disorders). Abuse can also be perpetrated by people with Cluster C personality disorders (dependent, avoidant and obsessive compulsive). 

Since the Cluster B personality disordered perpetrate abuse more than those with Cluster C personality disorders, and because my blog is more focused on the Cluster B personality disorders, I will be referencing the Cluster B personality disorders for this particular post.

Borderline Personality Disorder is a complex disorder as there are four types of it, and one type can differ quite a bit from other types. One type can display abusive behaviors and another type can primarily express suicidal thoughts or behaviors, loner status, isolation, PTSD and depression to the point where they are too disabled to work or study. If you're not studied up on the four types, you may assume that all Borderlines are abusive if you know of a Borderline who is abusive. Or you might deny that Borderlines are abusive at all if you know of a Borderline who is suicidal and doesn't interact with many, if any, people, let alone partake in abusing them. 

To complicate matters Borderline Personality Disorder is often comorbid with other disorders. It can be comorbid with Dissociative Identity Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, ADHD, Autism, PTSD, Agoraphobia, Social Anxiety Disorder (very prevalent), Separation Anxiety Disorder (also very prevalent), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (which can have many physical effects on the body and be painful, leading to Borderlines feeling hopelessness and self destruction), clinical depression (highly prevalent), suicidality (highly prevalent), eating disorders (also highly prevalent), and addiction (also highly prevalent). 

Because comorbidities are so highly prevalent among Borderlines, it makes it difficult to talk about them in terms of if they abuse, and how they abuse. A Borderline with a comorbidity with Antisocial Personality Disorder is going to act quite differently than a Borderline with hopelessness, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and suicide ideation. 

There is nothing simple about talking about Borderline Personality Disorder in terms of how they abuse children (if they abuse them at all), as they can have comorbidities with the more unempathetic and violent types of Cluster B personality disorders, such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Antisocial Personality Disorder, or have no comorbidities with these disorders at all and can show deep empathy for others. 

Most Borderlines have empathy, so that distinguishes them from the other Cluster B personality disorders. Their brain scans tend to be a little different than the other Cluster B personality types also and tend to have more in common with people with PTSD than the other Cluster B personality disorders. 

If I had to take a simplistic approach to how Borderlines abuse children, for those who do abuse, the simplistic take on it is that they tend to reactively abuse and primarily stick to emotional abuse. 

Some of them can abuse if someone disagrees with them, or if they feel they are in danger of being abandoned. However, people whom they believe are close to them and disagreeing with them can sometimes be seen by them as abandoning them too. In other words, Borderlines can become easily triggered and afraid of "the possibilities" of being abandoned.  

Do people with Borderline Personality Disorder show favoritism of children? Definitely yes, but again, this does not apply to all Borderlines.  

However, the more likely personality disorder to show favoritism are those people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. And they tend to show it blatantly and do it cruelly, at least as far as the disfavored child is concerned. For them it is often a manipulative scheme, with a single-minded ambition for power, control and domination and narcissistic supply. Favoritism also tends to be transactional. They also tend to hurt disfavored children intentionally. In other words favoritism can come with a lot of abuse (not just from the parent, but the favorite sibling can partake in it too). 

As for the other Cluster B personality disorders, there is no research that indicates Antisocial Personality Disordered individuals have "favorites" beyond extortion, and for the Histrionic Personality Disordered folks, they are generally too inconsistent to have a consistent favorite child. 

If some of these personality disorders are comorbid with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is common (another link) then it is more likely. 

For the sake of awareness, it is good for any teacher to know the traits associated with the Cluster B Personality disorders, particularly from the DSM-5:
Borderline Personality Disorder
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder

Note: the statistics for people with Cluster B personality disorders in the general population only counts those who have been clinically diagnosed and reported, and since many people with these personality disorders do not seek help from mental health professionals, the numbers are probably much higher. Dr. Ramani Durvasula, an expert psychologist on narcissism, said that as many as 1 in 6 people in the United States could have Narcissistic Personality Disorder in one of her videos (meant to include narcissists who do not go to therapy and therefor never get diagnosed - this seems more accurate to me too than the 1 - 3 percent generally stated in textbooks ... however I would guess it is more like 10 percent). 

Anyway, to get back on-topic:

Since it is doubtful we teachers will ever learn of favoritism from a "favorite child" or a parent "who is favoring a specific child", we may learn about it from the child who is dis-favored and coming to us with complaints about it. 

Because I know that favoritism can come with abuse, and often does, I tended to take children who complained about favoritism seriously. Sometimes it turned out to be a one-time situation, or did not warrant drastic action, but in general, I thought that issues of favoritism deserved constant vigilance and oversight to make sure the child was not being abused. 

But anyone could see how favoritism could be a set-up for abuse to happen. The favorite can get special privileges while the disfavored does not. The favorite can get to go on special trips with Mom or Dad,  while the disfavored is told to stay home.

And then it has a way of escalating from there unless the parent has a conscience and stops it: the favorite is constantly praised, while the dis-favored becomes the child who is constantly criticized. When one child is praised most of the time, and the disfavored child is enduring criticism most of the time, it's more or less when the abuse of the disfavored child begins. Since abuse almost always tends to escalate rather than de-escalate, I believe it is important to watch out for this first sign. 

How I tended to deal with "the favoritism issue" as a teacher:

I often tried to dig deeper to find out how the favoritism was being manifested. Was the favorite getting more resources while the child standing in front of me got less? Was the favorite getting more affection while the child talking to me got little or none? Was the favorite getting away with punching the child standing in front of me? Scratches? Verbal abuses? Were they called crazy at all? How many times? Were they singled out to be by themselves while the favorite was invited to be part of family activities? Were their feelings being ignored while the favorite's feelings were always taken into consideration? Were they blamed for what others did (DARVO'd)? 

Then I got into the physical abuse specifics. How were they touched by others in their family? I tried to dig deep if they were revealing any aggressive forms of touching (like punching, grabbing, scratching, biting, etc). 

How much were they blamed for things they didn't do, that the parent or a sibling did instead? How much were they made to take responsibility for what others do? Were they accused of having traits that the accuser(s) had (as this might show projection on the perpetrator's part, which is often an indication of Cluster B personality disorders)?

If I felt it warranted a report to Child Protective Services, that is what I did. 

This is to say that a child talking about the favoritism of a sibling rang the first alarm bells for me as to whether they were being abused in their family of origin or not (and most of the children who talked about favoritism of a sibling largely were). 

Usually when there is favoritism of a sibling, there is a scapegoat in the family too. I am providing some articles and links below that address that issue, as well as two Google AI articles (where you can access other articles on the subject through the articles). 

The other thing I noticed about child scapegoats being abused is that when answering questions, they were emotional and appeared exhausted when giving the answers.

If they got into a "I can't tell" phase with their answers, I tried to find a backdoor way of getting an answer. For instance, if I asked whether they were punched, they might tell me that they can't say, or that they don't want to talk about it, so I'd let it go, but then as I gained their trust, the backdoor way I got an answer was to ask, "If you get punched by someone, how do react?" ... "How do you protect yourself?" ... "How do you make plans to keep safe?" ...

Then that might lead to other questions such as: "How do you think this problem can be solved, or do you think there is no way to solve it?" ... "Has any grownup ever defended you?" ... "Does any grown up listen to your concerns and what do they do after you have told them that you feel hurt by their actions?" ... "Has your sibling always been a favorite, or does it pass around to you sometimes? And are you treated better during those times, or does it just seem like you are the favorite because your parent is trying to punish your sibling?" .... "Does the favoritism go back to the prior favorite sibling when they do what your parent wants?" ... "Do you feel seen or heard, or do you feel invisible?" ... "What do your parents punish you for?" Note: if it's something like a look on their face, their tone of voice, accusing them of feeling or thinking in certain ways, or accusing them of evil plans to hurt others - that is a huge red flag! I would not ignore this, because so often it is "perpetrator fantasy", an excuse to abuse - perpetrators who have fantasies about what their victims are feeling and thinking escalate abuse very rapidly - they are more prone to act out abuse fantasies that bring them "sadistic pleasure" than other types of abusers do (it's in the link) - and since teachers are usually mandated reporters (with not enough training, in my opinion, or enough workshops in up-to-date research), it is really, really important to know what children are being punished for and whether it resembles anything like this. 

And finally I would ask: "Does your parent ever apologize for the hurt they have caused you? And how long does that apology last in your opinion?" and "Does your sibling ever apologize for the hurt they caused you and how long does that apology last in your opinion?" 

These are just some of the questions I asked when teaching kids who let me know in some way that there was trouble at home. When younger children are acting out, I think it is important to get to the bottom of "why". Some will say, "I'm just a bad kid." Or "I'm just crazy" or "I'm going to try hard not to act that way. Can I go now?" I don't think any of these are good enough answers in the least bit. They may have been taught to think that way about themseves or to say that. So questioning gets to the bottom of what is truly ailing them, and how they think about things. 

"I care about how you feel and think about things" sometimes works wonders ... I often got sheepish or teary smiles when saying that. If you find out they are abused, probably very few people are caring what they think or feel.

I usually pointed out good qualities that I saw in them too, even if they had the reputation of being "a bad kid".

I think that if you focus on the good qualities of children, that gives them a future incentive and the beginning thought processes to focus on those qualities. The more you focus on those qualities, the more they will too.

If they were teenagers, I focused on their potential, their talents, their intelligence, and suggested activities that they might be interested in, and if they showed a lot of interest in something, I might mention a few careers, although I left a lot of that to guidance counselors as that is their specialty. However, the one thing about a teacher starting the conversation about careers, it shows that you have confidence in them, that they can "make it" in those careers. That kind of focus can continue to help them to think of the future instead of the present ("life as an adult"). 

Abused children and teenagers often think of themselves as losers, that they can't do anything right. Many of them are taught that they are inept - abuse is primarily a power and control issue, and if a parent or caretaker can convince a child that they are inept, it gives the parent or caretaker greater control to make life-long decisions for the child.

Obsessing over gaining more power and control is a "hallmark narcissistic trait" which often carries other issues like lack of empathy for their child, being antagonistically inclined, and a parent can blame shift on to a child when they exhibit unethical behaviors as a way to avoid their own accountability, and a host of other issues that can lead them to abuse their child (called narcissistic abuse, although narcissistic abuse usually escalates to other forms of abuse).  

Many people who seek more and more power and control, and put that agenda first in their lives, treat their children in such a way that will damage or break their child's self esteem, especially if the child is put in a scapegoat role.

Children often feel helpless, inept and hopeless to change their self esteem because part of being in a scapegoat role is that they are criticized a lot for what they don't do (unfairly blamed). They can often feel there is no way out of the constant unfair blaming and shaming, and no action to take to change the trajectory of their parent's bad opinions of them.

But if you have the time as a teacher to teach them something different about themselves, then that can be an impetus for them to think they are more special and valuable to others than they hitherto believed, rather than only valuable for the sake of a sunken self esteem in their families.

I will say it is an uphill battle to get them from sinking again and again into a lousy self esteem, especially if they are going home every night just to have it bashed up again, but I will say that I felt I  had some success, as a teacher in building some of it back up, especially if I kept reminding them of their best qualities.

Granted it worked better for younger children than for teenagers, but teenagers still have the ability to dream, to perk up when feeling valued, to imagine a life of being accepted, to feel they have something to offer than just a walking-on-eggshells, repressed, and a silenced persona with no traits other than what other people give them in a hounding or bullying way. 

The other thing you get by continuing to focus on their better qualities is a better behaved child because they aren't as likely to get attention and reactions by "being bad".

A good paying career and better self esteem can also be a way not to "have to put up with" abuse and low self esteem entrapments, and teenagers are aware of this, at least on some level.

Again, their focus on the abuse at home hijacks their mind to think only in the present: how to deal with the abuse, how to defend themselves, how to get away from the abuse, how the abuse is making them feel "hunted down", how the abuse is continuing to make them feel in general (or destroy them - a lot of abused teenagers feel hollowed out). 

A lot of abused children also feel they are being treated as though they are much younger than their age. In other words, they are treated as though they are seven when they are seventeen. 

When you focus on the fact that they'll be adults in xx amount of years and that skills will help them to survive as an adult, it challenges them to look at themselves as 17 again, rather than as a child (it's an ingognito way of saying "You aren't seven any more, and I'm not treating you like you are seven.").

During school hours, they can start to imagine a future without emotional abuse, where they are in charge of their own lives, interests and ambitions if they are not too gripped with fear about what they will encounter at home.

If they felt competitive with the "favored sibling", I usually asked questions like this (mainly to teenagers): "Do you think your parents or a sibling set up a competition between you? Or is it something you actually and honestly feel is being generated in yourself?" I find that abused children really do not feel competitive, unless they feel they have a chance at some sort of advantage, and most of them don't. Possibly because the scapegoat role is a role which basically makes this clear: "You're the lowest on the hierarchy and I'm going to make sure that you stay there."

There are children who are so abused they don't even know that they are being set up to compete, who try to mediate and compromise a way forward instead so that both people are happy with the outcome. 

If they are from a narcissistic family, that just won't work.

If these teenagers did feel competition with a sibling, I told them that it could end by focusing on their own positive traits, talents, etc., and that it could be more of a choice of theirs on whether or what to compete about, or whether to distance themselves from the sibling. And guess what? When given that choice, most abused children prefer not to compete, and to distance instead. 

In fact, with teenagers in particular, I was focused on their adulthood a lot, and the temporariness of the teenage years. "You'll be out of here in two years, right? What skills would you like to acquire before leaving here so you can live your best life?" - I doubt that highly emotionally abused teenagers are asked these kinds of questions in their families, or even think about these questions. Again, their minds are hijacked with: "How do I keep safe? How do I get them to stop? What do I need to do to keep from being abused? How can I talk about the abuse without the abuse getting worse? I just wish they'd stop already."

Unfortunately, abuse escalates (usually no matter what).

I would like better emotional abuse laws in the USA, but for the meantime, we teachers only have present laws to work with.

Granted, school psychologists can make a big impact and should be part of any of these types of conversations, but since the USA has such poor emotional abuse laws, emotional abuse can go unaddressed aside from what schools can do to open up possibilities of a better future.

However, since abuse escalates, it's best to keep an eye on students who are emotionally abused, knowing that escalation is probably going to be going up. Once any physical abuse by siblings or parents start, then Child Protective Services will step in and give the family ultimatums, or take the child out of the home. Usually. So much depends on the state, the jurisdiction and the type of abuse taking place.

At any rate, before Child Protective Services can do anything (because of being hand-tied by present laws about emotional/psychlogical abuse even though emotional/psychological abuse is incredibly damaging and can have the longest effects), I felt duty-bound to help students who had the attitude of "I'm being told I'm nothing, so I guess I have no future." What a terrible thing to carry around in a place of learning skills, and a waste of human potential!

I think it is up to teachers that students see their potential and for students to reach goals they've set to be a highly functioning adult. 

Children should not be groomed to have a horrible self esteem, but tell that to any abuser. They don't care. Shame is what they prefer to dish out instead, and shame is what they will continue with. 

The best way for children to flourish and have a life that is meaningful, fulfilling, ethical and healthy is for them not to be abused. 

SOME FACTS AND WARNING SIGNS TO KEEP IN MIND

Characteristics of a family scapegoat

Characteristics of a child scapegoat with PTSD

How to tell if a child is being scapegoated in their family

Characteristics of abused children with very low self esteem

How to tell if a child is at risk for suicide

Abused scapegoat children often complain about favoritism of a sibling by a parent

Scapegoats often feel like they can't talk

Scapegoats often feel like they can't talk about the abuse they endure for fear of repurcussions

Scapegoats often feel they have to be silent about their pain

A radical drop in school grades is an indicator a child may be abused

Abused children often talk about the fact that they can't sleep

Abused childen often complain about stomach aches

Abused children often complain about headaches

Abused children often have a drastic change in weight

Abused children often complain about not feeling well

Abused children often seem distracted and confused

Abused children often appear as though they have learning disabilities

Abused children often cry easily

Abused children are often called crazy by their family

Abused children are often referred to as liars by their family

Abused children are often referred to as "too sensitive" by family members

Abused children often complain they are lonely

Abused children often complain they are being isolated from the family

Abused children can complain about neglect

Abused children may appear older than their age

Abused children cry more easily when they see pain in others

Abused children can suffer from a lack of identity

Abused children often show creative aptitude

A child who is crying from trauma is not the same as normal crying. How to tell the difference. 

Abusive parents often lack empathy

What are the signs of emotionally immature parents?

Can child abuse happen more easily with emotionally immature parents? 

Do a lot of immature parents have attachment trauma? Yes.

How to deal with emotionally immature parents - as a teacher

Dealing with difficult parents - for teachers

Dealing with a student's revelations about emotional or verbal abuse - for teachers

Dealing with a student's revelations about child abuse - for teachers

Six tips for teachers who see emotional abuse

Approximately 11 - 33% of girls are sexually abused before the age of 18. 

Approximately one in six boys is sexually abused before the age of 16. 

Approximately one in four children experiences some form of abuse or neglect over their lifetime

Infants and young children are at the highest risk for maltreatment and have the highest fatality rates from abuse

Fatal child abuse warnings

Article on: "Usually when there is favoritism of a child in a family, there is also a scapegoat child too" -  from Google AI copied in dark red (as of Nov. 2025; go through the link for present updates and articles):

Yes, favoritism in a family is often accompanied by a scapegoat, as these roles often coexist in dysfunctional family dynamics. In this pattern, one child is the "golden child," who is favored and praised, while another is the "scapegoat," who is unfairly blamed and criticized for the family's problems. This dynamic serves to project the family's issues onto one child while elevating another, creating a system where the scapegoat takes the blame and the golden child avoids it. 

Characteristics of the roles

The golden child

* Is favored and can do no wrong

* Has the family's hopes projected onto them

* May feel pressure to maintain their "perfect" status 

The scapegoat

* Is unfairly blamed and shamed

* Is often overlooked, dismissed, or disrespected

* May experience negative outcomes like low self-esteem or trauma 

Why this dynamic occurs

* Dysfunctional families: This pattern is common in families with dysfunctional or narcissistic parents who use favoritism to maintain control and project their own issues.

* Psychological projection: Parents may unconsciously project their own feelings of inadequacy or other undesirable traits onto the scapegoat child.

* Maintaining control: The scapegoating dynamic can be used to maintain control within the family and minimize the parents' own guilt or responsibility for negative events.

Hours after I posted the article above, I was given this new AI article, so it is good to go through the link I've provided if you really want more in-depth articles that are not just AI driven. Again, the same link: "Usually when there is scapegoating of a child in a family, there is also a favorite golden child too" - copied here again in dark red:

Yes, it is very common in dysfunctional families, particularly those with a narcissistic or emotionally immature parent, for the roles of a scapegoat child and a golden child to exist simultaneously. These two roles are often the inverse of each other and are essential for the family system to maintain its dysfunction. 

Here is how these roles typically relate:

* The Roles are Complementary: The golden child is idealized and can do no wrong, serving as an extension of the parent's ego and a source of pride (narcissistic supply). The scapegoat, conversely, is the recipient of all the family's negative projections, blame, and criticism. This dynamic allows the parents to avoid taking responsibility for their own issues, as the golden child makes them feel accomplished and the scapegoat allows them to ignore that they are the actual source of the family's problems.

* A Mechanism for Splitting: This dynamic is often a result of "splitting," a defense mechanism where the parent sees things as either "all good" or "all bad". The golden child receives the "all good" projections, while the "all bad" projections are cast onto the scapegoat.

* Pitting Children Against Each Other: Parents often triangulate the children, comparing the scapegoat unfavorably to the golden child ("Why can't you be more like your sibling?"). This creates conflict and rivalry between siblings, which helps the parent maintain control and remain the center of attention.

* Role Fluidity: While sometimes these roles are fixed for life, they can also be fluid and shift depending on who is currently pleasing or displeasing the parent. If a golden child asserts their independence or challenges the parent, they may quickly fall from grace and become the new scapegoat.

* Shared Harm: Both roles are harmful. The golden child lives with immense pressure to be perfect and often has an unstable sense of self, while the scapegoat suffers from low self-esteem, chronic shame, and is vulnerable to complex trauma. 

In essence, the presence of one role often necessitates the existence of the other to maintain the family's dysfunctional equilibrium.

Updated:
new article (12/23/25) fromThe New York Times called:
Do Parents Have Favorite Children? Of Course They Do.
And research shows the less favored children suffer for it. - by Teddy Rosenbluth
"Teddy Rosenbluth spoke to top favoritism researchers for this story. She is fairly certain she is not the favorite child."
(Note: this article is not about narcissistic family systems where favoritism tends to be much more "in your face" in terms of the unfavored child noticing severe differences, and even discards (discards meaning cruel, impulsive rejections). Rampant favoritism is also a given in narcissistic families, and a lot more research has been done on it than families without narcissism. In other families it is a lot more subtle, or not there at all. I grew up around plenty of my other peers that when I asked "Whose your mother's (of father's) favorite child?" they were shocked at the question and answered, "No one. Our parents love all of us. Why?" This article sheds some light on the more subtle displays of favoritism, like always spending the holidays with one offspring and their children).

FOUND ON FACEBOOK