For this post, like my last few posts, I decided again to make it lengthy so that you could get the big picture on this topic, rather than just a skimming of the subject. In order to take it all in, I would suggest reading it in parts (i.e. read some and then come back where you left off). I do this for victims of domestic violence, victims of emotional and verbal abuse, family scapegoats, and victims of workplace bullying. I feel that victims need a lot of information with quality and qualified links, and a lot of time to process what is said, so that is why I have decided to take these "deep dives" into subjects.
I put an ounce or two of humor in some of them, so I hope you can appreciate that.
Also I hope from this post you will understand why no one should ever want to be a sycophant even if narcissists want this so badly out of you and others. You will see what kind of thankless jobs are thrust upon sycophants, why they eventually feel betrayed and trapped as "yes-men" without a personality of their own to the crazy-making schemes of a narcissist. Sycophants sell their souls, their integrity, their ethics, often their respectability, and almost their minds and all of their opinions to be in this position. And for all of their service, a narcissist can turn on a dime and discard or abuse a sycophant for not doing something illegal or immoral for them.
Sycophants tend to be either other narcissists who prey upon others, or traumatized people who act like narcissists to garner power and safety in a relationship. Either way, it's not good for anyone concerned.
from Google AI copied here in red.
Sycophants gravitate toward unethical, powerful figures to gain personal advantages such as money, status, and security, often lacking the confidence to achieve these goals on their own. They use flattery to manipulate leaders to secure protection or power by association, sometimes to avoid being victims of the leader’s brutality.
Note: I continue with the points this article makes throughout the post (in lower case red type). I insert other links and articles in-between the points of the main article.
Does flattery really work with unethical people in power? Yes, exceptionally so, even though it is mostly a manipulative maneuver by the sycophant, a way to influence and get something for themselves.
Narcissists are especially vulnerable to flattery. Some of the reasons narcissists are vulnerable to flattery include (and when I talk about narcissists, I mean people with some or most narcissistic traits, or people who have been diagnosed with the personality disorder):
* It regulates their underlying insecurities and makes them feel they are truly superior instead of insecure.
* Flattery provides "narcissistic supply", something that is not only addictive for them, but is also highly sought by them to the point where other life issues are put aside in their quest for more and more varied sources of narcissistic supply. And by the way, narcissistic supply needs are never fully satisfied.
* Narcissists look at flattery as an invitation to control the other person. For them, flattery is an act of submission. They try to alter the self worth of other people to create a co-dependent or trauma-bonded relationship where they are in charge and the other person isn't.
Flattery is what keeps the glue from dissolving in co-dependent relationships with narcissists, and criticism and disappointment is often seen by narcissists as "you are not being controlled enough". It gets you discarded or fired, breaking the co-dependent bond. So even bonds with narcissists are mostly influenced by flattery, and narcissistic supply - seen as essential by narcissists, even if they themselves don't practice flattery on other people except in a transactional way: "I'll flatter you if you do everything I want and expect from you."
* Since narcissists see flatterers as weak submissive toadies, they are constantly judging whether the toady is giving them what they want or not giving them what they want (i.e. whether the person is good or bad - where the narcissist's typical black and white thinking enters the picture).
* Flattery increases the dopamine levels in narcissists' brains much, much more than other people. Being criticized decreases narcissists' dopamine levels much more than other people too. Most of the rest of us, with the exception of children under 13 years of age, tend to look at flattery and criticism in a more analytical way.:"Why are they flattering me so much, anyway? What do they want, and is this genuine?" ... "What are they getting out of criticizing me? Do they think this is helpful advice, or are they doing it to control me, or do they think it's doing something for their insecurities?"
Narcissists, on the other hand, by-pass all of this. Their analytical minds go off-line, as well as their ability to have critical thinking, and they experience a "significant dopamine high from the flattery" or, in the case of criticism, a very high spike of the "stress hormone", cortisol.
Vulnerable covert narcissists are even more influenced by wanted and unwanted sources of narcissistic supply, and have more of a dopamine high from praise than grandiose narcissists, and see criticism as an existential threat.
When Malignant Narcissists feel criticized, they'll want to make you pay in ways that will cause the most pain and fear, possibly beat you up, imprison you, kill you, or get a firing squad to do the work. It's a "scorched earth campaign" with sadism. Once you are controlled by them, they feel entitled to keep controlling you (malignant narcissists have the attitude that people who are controlled by them never have the right to rebel against their control). They can and do go through with egregious acts to maintain control, especially if you are rebelling their control or want to get away from them.
Either way, and this is the most important part when it comes to sycophants: narcissists do not know if flattery is fake or real (and don't look into it) from either sycophants, or sycophant-wanna-bes, or from the general population, because they are reacting on a purely emotional level where their questioning of motives and intellect go off-line. Reacting to flattery is a drug that is either giving them a huge high, or in the case of criticism, huge adverse physical reactions, and usually rage, whether internal rage or external.
The rest of us do not respond to flattery or criticism like this. It is not a drug. It is barely, if ever, relevant to our lives. Flattery is perceived to be pleasant, and criticism is perceived to be unpleasant, or constructive (if the person cares about you), or possibly agenda-seeking on the part of people using either.
But it makes narcissists especially vulnerable, and covert narcissists extremely vulnerable to people who use flattery to get an advantage on them.
Many sycophants know this about the narcissistic leaders they follow, that all they have to do is slather on the praises and flattery, even in situations where the leader is highly unethical, even highly dangerous - and therefore these sycophants feel they can manipulate the narcissist and will follow them regardless of the immoral acts they do, and even keep feeding these leaders with more praise and submission. "All it takes is a little flattery, and he's putty in my hands. If he doesn't like what I do, I just act submissive and give out more praise." - these are the kinds of thoughts you'd find with sycophants.
Even when the sycophants are being discarded, fired, hated, enduring the wrath and disappontment of the narcissist, many of them keep praising, or begging and crying (so they won't make an enemy out of the narcissistic leader). The narcissist might say of the flatterer/sycophant: "I had to fire her because she wasn't going after my competition enough and putting them in their place, and even though she failed in that regard, she said she loved me, and so I still love her even though she was a huge disappointment to me."
As an aside, scapegoats are very wary of both flattery and criticism. They don't react with drug-like highs or lows because both are seen as a tool for manipulation, projection and control, or they are seen as "untrustworthy" if the person keeps doing it. So they aren't particularly moved by either. What makes more of an impact on them is honesty and trustworthiness, so they tend to look past the flatteries and criticisms to decipher whether a person is trustworthy and authentic, and they take their time to see and test the results of that.
Narcissists don't do this: they are opposite of the scapegoat in this way. Narcissists are so attracted to flattery, they will practically follow it anywhere a person gives it without much, if any, thought (until they get burned, but even then, the dopamine component is still likely to be over-riding the rational component much more than it does in other people - in terms of the dire need to be flattered).
Key Reasons for Sycophantic Behavior:
* Self-Interest and Gain: Sycophants seek proximity to power to attain material benefits, promotions, and status, acting as agents of the leader's agenda for personal gain.
Do sycohpants actually get rewarded benefits from unethical narcissists? Yes, "but these rewards are almost always transactional, conditional, and manipulative. Narcissists use material rewards—like money, gifts, or career advancements—not out of genuine generosity, but as tools to secure 'narcissistic supply' (admiration and loyalty) and to maintain control over their 'followers'."
For sycophants there are a lot of strings attached.
For one thing, narcissists put other people's "loyalty" to them over "merit". This act shows the addiction side of narcissistic supply.
Also "loyalty" to narcissists doesn't mean commitment so much as the person "doing what the narcissist wants". From this Google AI article: "To a narcissist, loyalty means unwavering, unconditional devotion and obedience ..."
Someone who gives something to them will mean more to them than someone who can't afford big gifts for them. This can cause an "insecurity of relevance" in the sycophant as far as the narcissist is concerned.
If the sycophant who cannot provide expensive gifts complains about the transaction, i.e. "You're prioritizing him because he gives you expensive gifts, and I would give those kinds of gifts if I could, but I can't", they could very well get a discard from a narcissistic leader. Why? Because narcissists value relationships where the transaction works better for them, and they see complaints about unfairness, or their unfair behavior, as a criticism of them. And narcissists discard people who they feel are criticizing them.
It can also mean they put someone who flatters them relentlessly over someone who flatters them a little less, even if you are not in their company as much as the "relentless flatterer", and can't flatter them for those reasons.
For narcissists, the amount of flattery a person gives is rewarded more than any insufficiency of flattery. - what that link reveals (in blue):
When flattery is not constant or intense enough, narcissists become agitated, moody, or passive-aggressive. They may respond with anger, stinging rebukes, or the "silent treatment" to force more attention.
Also: Narcissists have an "unbearable inferiority complex" hidden behind their grandiosity. A high volume of flattery is required to keep their ego inflated, acting as a "balloon" that loses air without a steady stream of admiration.
Also: The satisfaction they gain from admiration is short-lived. A low amount of admiration feels like a "betrayal," necessitating a constant, increasing, high-volume flow to avoid feeling "empty".
Are sycophants aware that they are required to constantly flatter and never to criticize the narcissist? Yes, but that link reveals that they are often willing to do it "for personal gain, approval, or safety." Some of what that link also says (partial):
While the praise is often insincere and strategic, they are still willing to do it (i.e. willing to lower their own authentic or ethical standards).
Sycophants use flattery as their own strategy for manipulating the narcissist.
They can also have "fear-based" compliance that if they don't flatter and comply, the narcissist will punish them.
Here are also some direct quotes from the article.
"Sycophants prioritize their own advancement, often becoming 'power borrowers' who attach themselves to the narcissist to gain a sense of power by association ...
... Sycophants know that genuine conversation is not permitted, and where personal truth begins, they must retreat. ...
" Limitations of Awareness
While they often understand the rules of the relationship, sycophants may be "blinded" by the desire for continued narcissistic rewards, or they may act as 'flying monkeys' (enablers) without fully acknowledging the long-term destructive impact of their actions, or simply to avoid becoming a target of bullying themselves. "
I would say they have many more limitations of awareness than this. For one thing, most people view sycophants with wariness, disgust and bereft of morals, if not more so than the narcissist. Most people prefer and like moral and authentic people and sycophants are so obviously not that. Narcissists actually are different than the rest of us. They do not like moral and authentic people - this link will explain why if you want to look into it.
And they will always say that they prefer "their" sycophant to you, if you are not a particularly good source of narcissistic supply, and have morals and ethics.
Most people do not approve of a sycophant's reasons for being a flatterer of an unethical leader either: as the primary article in red type says: "for personal gain". - what this link reveals (partial in blue):
Sycophants—defined as insincere flatterers who praise powerful, often unethical leaders to gain personal, transactional advantages—are widely despised because their actions prioritize selfish interests over integrity, truth, and the well-being of others. This behavior is seen as a "social cancer" that damages trust, destroys meritocracy, and allows corrupt leaders to remain in power, leading to poor decision-making and ethical lapses in organizations and society.
Why Sycophants Are Disliked:
* Lack of Integrity and Sincerity: Sycophants are seen as inherently untrustworthy, as they are not genuine admirers but are driven by vested interests, often shifting their loyalty unashamedly to the next powerful person when circumstances change.
* Enabling Harmful Behavior: By surrounding themselves with "yes-men" who praise flaws, unethical leaders become detached from reality and immune to criticism, leading to disastrous outcomes.
*Destroying Fair Competition: Sycophants often secure promotions and benefits over talented, hardworking individuals, undermining merit-based systems and causing, in some studies, 25% of organizations to struggle with unfair advancement.
* Manipulation and Self-Serving Motives: Sycophants use "excessive flattery to gain favor," often viewed as a form of manipulation or "covert aggression" against those who are the target of their behavior, often in exchange for power, privilege, or money.
The Role in Unethical Leadership:
* Perpetuating Unethical Systems: Sycophants help reinforce the power of narcissistic or authoritarian leaders who lack empathy, thereby creating a symbiotic relationship where both parties consider others' feelings expendable.
* Shielding Leaders from Consequences: They defend the lies and actions of their "paymaster," preventing them from facing the "wrath of judgment".
Sycophants as "Social Parasites":
* Perception of Weakness: While they may appear powerful, sycophants are often perceived as being bereft of self-respect, lacking personal autonomy, and hiding behind the power of others, a behavior sometimes rooted in fear or insecurity.
* Temporary Nature of Loyalty: Their allegiance is purely transactional; they are frequently the first to abandon a leader once that leader loses power.
Societal View:
*Lack of Genuine Respect: Even the leaders being flattered are unlikely to have genuine respect for their sycophants.
* A "Cultural Cancer": The rise of sycophancy is viewed as a destroyer of ethics, camaraderie, and genuine talent in modern workplaces.
Back to the main part of the article:
* Survival and Protection: Supporters of a "bully" often do so to avoid being targeted, hoping the leader's protection will secure their own safety.
This is a bit like "Stockholm Syndrome" except there is bullying involved to get the safety of the bully, or from the bully, by showing loyalty to the bully and total agreement with the bully.
Anyway what is Stockholm Syndrome? The Google definition is this (partial, in blue):
Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological coping mechanism where hostages or abuse victims develop positive feelings, empathy, or loyalty toward their captors/abusers. It acts as a survival strategy, often involving intense emotional bonds and defending the abuser, stemming from fear and dependency in threatening situations like trafficking or relationship abuse.
Can supporters/sycophants abuse someone and legally claim they did it for safety reasons, because of Stockholm Syndrome reasons? This is usually not considered to be a valid legal defense.
However, what if the sycophant is not bullying ... Is Stockholm Syndrome taken seriously in relationships with narcissists? Yes. It is considered a special form of trauma bonding and coercive control.
Can sycophants become trauma bonded to such an extent that they get Stockholm Syndrome? Yes.
Is Stockholm Syndrome in the DSM (Diagnosis and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) that psychiatrists and psychologists use to diagnose? No. It's probably a good thing as anyone could use this as a defense in court for committing any number of crimes.
How does the law treat Stockholm Syndrome? A case-by-case basis.
Can a person sue an abuser over getting Stockholm Syndrome? No.
Do a lot of sycophants break laws for malignant narcissists, and if so, is the defense often Stockholm Syndrome? Yes.
This last link brings up these issues (partial, presented in blue):
Key Aspects of Sycophantic Enabling
* Destructive Loyalty: Followers often enable illegal actions (financial crimes, fraud, abuse) to avoid being targets themselves, or in hope of winning favor.
* "Us vs. Them" Mentality: Malignant narcissists manipulate followers into believing they are fighting a common enemy, framing immoral acts as necessary for a "greater good".
* Victim Blaming: When legal issues arise, narcissists scapegoat their followers, often leaving sycophants to face consequences alone.
* Validation and Insecurity: Sycophants often have a fragile sense of self and an insatiable need for approval, using their allegiance to a powerful figure to build their own ego, according to an analysis on Medium.
Are sycophants really that insecure? Apparently yes.
But what makes them so insecure? According to this article from Google AI (presented in blue):
"Their behavior is a protective mechanism—a "mask" to mask perceived inadequacy—developed from past experiences where pleasing authority was necessary for survival.
Apparently (from the same article), this may explain a lot of "why they are the way they are"):
Early Life & Past Conditioning: Sycophantic tendencies can stem from childhood experiences where approval was only earned through obedience or excessive compliance.
Which begs the question: Do sycophants comply on a kind of auto-pilot? Apparently yes. What that link reveals (text copied in blue):
Yes, sycophants—both human and AI—often comply on a kind of "auto-pilot." This behavior is characterized by a reflexive, habitual tendency to agree, flatter, or validate, often without deep processing of the truth or consequences of the information being discussed.
This article is interesting because it discusses both sycophantic AI, and human sycophantic behavior, and it juxtaposes them. Ha!
In AI models, most of these machines will agree with the user even if wrong, compared to most humans (with the exception of sycophants), causing the robot or machine to have the same confirmation biases as the user.
Well, it seems that people who need sycophants will no longer need to look among humans for them; they just need to buy a robot. I expect birth and marriage rates to go down about 10 percent ... and the truth to be muddled and inaccessible more than ever, taking a huge amount of detective work to track down what the truth really reveals. And then users can refute it: "My machine is always right! You're looking at this like a human, but machines are superior!" We will see, won't we?
Hmmmm, and I'm using Google AI for a lot my articles now, except they are derived from independent mental health experts and resources now (mainly), but who is to say Google Search couldn't be crowded some day with all kinds of misinformation-type articles on psychology, overwhelming the legitimate independent ones.
Maybe there will be ads bombarding searches about sycophants: "Here ye! Here ye! Sign up to be a sycophant! Tired of people buying robots? Need a job and can't find one? Some people can't afford robots yet, so we've got the perfect job for you, with people waiting in line for their new blood and bone robot! Be one of theirs today! Free meals are included!" It sounds like a perfect job for a Machiavellian politician with a massively corrupt Department of Labor and an army of heavily biased political writers.
But I'm getting off course ...
In terms of humans, sycophancy hasn't reached robot levels (yet), so here's an explanation to why they seem to go in the direction of auto-pilot (from the same article on what is causing auto-pilot responses):
* Adaptive Strategy: In human environments, particularly high-hierarchy or autocratic ones, sycophancy is often a deliberate, strategic adaptation rather than just a personality flaw. It is a "passed-down skill" used to survive or thrive in environments where loyalty is valued over honesty.
* Reduced Cognitive Load: Much like a "functional freeze" trauma response, constant compliance can be a coping mechanism that allows a person to avoid conflict or negative repercussions with minimal cognitive effort.
Well, that explains so much. I'd imagine that most of us are still not going to particularly like sycophants or being around them much because they seem so "weak", without a backbone, especially in the "thought, having-the-intelligence-to-know-better department", and still too machine-like (the machine parroting the statements of the leader, the thoughts of the leader, the bullying of the leader, and way too much confirmation bias of the leader for most people). Plus sycophants rarely have ethics or convictions other than what the narcissist has - and narcissists don't have any for the most part.
Anyone who has had a spouse with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or a parent with it, or a bullying sibling, knows about trauma responses and can feel some empathy about that side of things as far as sycophants go ... That is, until they start acting like storm troopers, that is. And that's the big problem - a lot of them have minds geared that way:
"Oh, sure, Mr. King that-knows-everything, let's blow up the whole world. If no one is nice to you and refuses to follow your orders or talk to you any more, you'll show them! Right!?"
Anyway, not to make fun of sycophants since it sounds like some of them are trauma survivors, as well as trauma bonded in the fawning kind of way, and if they are, it sounds a little like the "collapse and submit trauma response", which is a bigger deal than the fawning and freezing response.
So this begs the question: Can sycophants get the "collapse and submit trauma response"? Yes. What that link reveals (partial):
Yes, individuals who habitually use sycophancy (fawning) as a survival strategy can experience the collapse and submit (also known as "flop") trauma response. In fact, these responses are often deeply interconnected in victims of chronic trauma or abuse.
After that sentence comes these links:
- https://www.kirstennoack.com/blog/fight-flight-freeze-fawn-flop
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oisSbiqQc2I
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVGELv6MNO8&t=1
- https://reachlink.com/advice/trauma/the-6-trauma-responses-beyond-fight-or-flight/
Here is what else it reveals (partial ... note: the links are part of the article):
A "Last Resort" Strategy: The collapse/submit response occurs when the brain decides that fighting, fleeing, or even fawning will not work, initiating a shutdown to reduce pain and conserve energy.
* Physiological Response: This response involves a total body collapse, which may include extreme fatigue, "flopping" (becoming limp), disassociation, or a total loss of motivation.
- https://www.nicabm.com/four-key-ways-collapse-submit-can-present-in-clients/
- https://www.kirstennoack.com/blog/the-shutdown-trauma-response
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVGELv6MNO8&t=1s
- https://www.ptsduk.org/its-so-much-more-than-just-fight-or-flight/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oisSbiqQc2I
- https://cotswoldcentrefortraumahealing.co.uk/how-ptsd-occurs/
- https://apn.com/resources/fight-flight-freeze-fawn-and-flop-responses-to-trauma/
- https://www.kirstennoack.com/blog/fight-flight-freeze-fawn-flop
Why Sycophants May Collapse:
Exhaustion of Performance: The "performative" nature of fawning is exhausting. If the sycophant's efforts to please (their "false self") do not stop the danger, they may experience a massive collapse when the act can no longer be maintained.
Complex Trauma: Individuals who grew up or live in situations where they had to be subservient to survive (e.g., narcissistic abuse) may switch between fawning and collapsing depending on the immediate threat level.
In short, the fawn/sycophant response is an active attempt to survive, while the collapse/submit response is the passive, final defense mechanism when the active attempts fail.
No one should be surprised, I suppose, because otherwise you'd tend to think: "Who would actually want to be a sycophant and agree to do dirty deeds, commit violent, abusive or criminal acts for a tyrant or to have the same thoughts and opinions as one? It's just too darned 'icky' unless something else could explain why this is going on."
Personally, I have more respect for scapegoats who tend to run away from this, and the entrapments of it.
However, let's not be too sweet and lenient about sycophants just yet. Can they turn into narcissists themselves? Yes, sort of, but it's more about one adult mirroring another adult (the narcissist), than actually having it as a result of early childhood development. In other words it's not a true form of NPD. That same link points to adopting very similar maladaptive behaviors of the narcissistic leader:
* Adopting the abusive and controlling tactics that narcissists have
* Over-valuing power
* Internalizing entitlement and arrogance
* The same kind of need for external validation narcissists demand
* A need to be in the proximity of power, if not feeling particularly powerful themselves
* They can resemble more of a covert narcissist as compared to the overt grandiose narcissists they generally fawn to and mirror.
However, if they can't become Narcissistic Personality Disordered kinds of narcissists themselves in adulthood (only in childhood), is it possible for someone who developed narcissism in childhood to become a sycophant? Yes, absolutely.
I had watched a video years ago by psychologist Dr. Les Carter who said that many sycophants are narcissists. Apparently there is one group of sycophants who would qualify as having the diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and then another group of sycophants who would qualify as trauma survivors who pretend to be narcissists and take up some narcissistic traits.
Wow, that's a hornets nest of narcissism for any victim they've all singled out.
Here are some more questions answered:
Do sycophants get as traumatized by narcissists as other people do? - which is to say that narcissists traumatize most people. So it would seem to be universal even for a sycophant.
And guess what? Yes. Sycophants are more traumatized when they get hurt by a narcissist than the general population. Here is what that same link reveals:
* They have a deeper trauma bond with the narcissist than other people do.
* They receive better treatment than other people do, but they also do almost all of "the heavy lifting" in the relationship.
* They get protection through compliance, but often normalize toxic and abusive behavior, which keeps them from realizing they are being harmed (whether financially, or emotionally, or in integrity).
* They may feel "special" to the narcissist, but over time they may realize that "being put in a special spot" in the narcissists life was only a transaction for the narcissist, like: "I control you, and your specialness is only dependent on how much control I have over you."
* They can eventually feel like "a shell" of themselves, only existing to agree with everything.
* When the narcissists discards them, it can be sudden and cruel, and because the sycophant lost themselves and their autonomy to the point of thinking like the narcissist, and their lives to service of the narcissist (total loyalty), being discarded can be acutely traumatic.
I'm not sure why sycophants take up every opinion and thinking style the narcissist has though. Isn't there a voice in their head that says, "This doesn't sound good - it's not a good path to go down. We could get to be seen as societal pariah, as sweet talkers who have evil agendas, as criminals, as risk-takers who could definitely be arrested and incarcerated for life on this deed the narcissist is proposing" - and so on.
We can see why narcissists like sycophants - they put everyone else at risk other than themselves and sycophants are the ones who usually do the threatening, the guilt trips, the obnoxious hoovering attempts, the strong-arming to get people to agree with the narcissist. Narcissists have "human mirrors" to flatter them every minute of every day too, with both verbal agreements and deeds. Narcissists also have an endless stream of narcissistic supply: validation, admiration, attention, control, robot-like people who will do anything they want, blind loyalty, control, fearful servants, domination over them, gaining more power over a lot of people, a hierarchy of people they can adjust if one particular sycophant isn't mirroring enough - it's the narcissist's perfect dream.
But in terms of the sycophant, how can they adopt all that they do - the thinking style of narcissists, the total brainwashing as if they don't have a thought of their own, even to the point of narcissistic actions against other people? Good God, you'd think they'd stop serving up agreement way before they actually do ... if they do, that is.
So, the question begs: are sycophants stupid? Are they pushing their own intelligence aside to fill up their minds with someone else's pseudo-realities, someone else's voice and even verbal intonations, someone else's self serving opinions, agreeing without thinking about a thing? What the link reveals is that it is mainly about the sycophant prioritizing "strategic validation and social comfort over accuracy and objective truth".
However, their judgement does start to erode over time as a result of serving the narcissist. They put the relationship with the narcissist first over having any sort of judgement as this section of the article reveals:
The Impact of Sycophancy:
Decay of Competence: While not necessarily a lack of intelligence, engaging in constant, unquestioning validation can cause personal competence to erode over time.
Overconfidence: Research suggests that interacting with, or being, a "yes-man" can increase conviction in one's own opinions, even when incorrect.
Reduced Critical Thought: By avoiding difficult conversations and challenges, sycophants (or those interacting with sycophantic systems) may stop testing their ideas, resulting in less thorough decision-making.
In summary, a sycophant may possess high intelligence but chooses to use it to manage relationships rather than challenge ideas. The behavior itself creates a "seductive reality distortion field" that can make even smart individuals feel better, but at the cost of objective judgment.
Okay, so even if they may not necessarily be stupid, do they often have the reputation of being stupid? Yes. This Google AI article explains why (in blue):
Yes, sycophants—individuals who flatter powerful people to gain favor—often have a reputation for being perceived as unintelligent, desperate, or insincere. While viewed by some as calculated manipulators, they are frequently seen by others as "dumb" due to their transparent, over-the-top praise, lack of original thought, and apparent subservience.
Here are key aspects of the reputation surrounding sycophants:
* Perception of Stupidity: Sycophants are often perceived as "dumb" because their behaviour can be transparently manipulative or blindly loyal, making them appear unable to offer original, independent, or critical thoughts.
* Desperation and Insecurity: Their actions are seen as a sign of chronic insecurity, low self-worth, and a desperate need for approval.
* Insincerity and Lack of Integrity: They are often seen as unprincipled, choosing to flatter instead of offering honest, constructive feedback.
* Negative Impact: In work environments, sycophants can be viewed as parasitic, often hindering efficiency by preventing leaders from learning the truth.
Common labels for sycophants include "brown-nosers," "teacher's pets," and "suck-ups," all of which imply a lack of dignity and intelligence in their quest for approval.
However, there is still some puzzle piece missing in all of these descriptions (for me anyway).
The youngest children of narcissists are expected to be sycophants, and a sycophantic golden child is most always clamoring to retain their place in the hierarchy, which means he or she has to be more sycophantic than the rest of the family, and certainly more than his siblings, and ever more sycophantic to the narcissistic parent to stay in the highest hierarchy, and if they fail at sycophancy, or are less sycophantic than another child, then another child is adopted for the role. And the golden child has a fit! - usually. They either get extremely angry and resentful, or feel sad and unjustly victimized. By not being top in a hierarchy? Really? How can that be? But that's what I've seen.
Somehow they feel entitled to be there even when narcissists are so disorienting, and change the rules and script, and create chaos, and make promises they rarely keep, and engage in manipulations that aren't really known until after they happen? It's hard to believe anyone would have a permanent place in all of that whirlwind, but apparently many sycophantic golden children think they will always over-ride it.
One thing I've found is that sycophantic golden children often baby-talk with their parent long after they are babies, even as adults in their fifties.
However, there are a lot of adults who baby-talk too (my husband and I do it with each other from time to time, mainly to break the stress of dealing with narcissistic antagonistic types, political figures mostly, in humor - based on a skit of them ...we adopt baby voices and tantrums of what narcissists demand/want from us or others, or the general population), but sycophants obviously do it for other, perhaps opposite reasons, maybe to soften the narcissist towards them?
All of the begging, crying, pleading to be heard that the sycophantic person does to keep "belonging" to the narcissist, and being really sad-sack victims if they've been hurt or discarded by a narcissist, or arrested because they served them in a crime, also seem very, very child-like, and not resembling adult behavior.
So, I'm thinking that for some sycophants that their sycophancy is some kind of an arrested development kind of thing. Perhaps they grew up with a dictatorial narcissistic parent in an authoritarian family as a golden child, got traumatized there by some whirlwind chaotic events, lived in a panicked state that they weren't living up to the expectations of the narcissistic parent, or that they weren't giving up enough of themseves for the parent, their personalities, thoughts, opinions and needs to the parent, and then spent much of their adulthood in those same panicked states serving another kind of dictator.
Panic will turn off rational intelligent thought in no time, and with enough panic, or extreme amounts of it during a long period of time with a narcissist shouting their head off and demanding immediate compliance, it can make you inept (amygdala hijack), and put you on the floor in a puddle of tears like a child.
The narcissist will still like it because the sycophant isn't fighting them or disagreeing with them. In those cases, the discard is more like: "We love you, but you aren't serving us the way we demand and someone else is waiting in the wings who will do a better job."
Thus, this explains why they become absolutely crushed sad sacks, living in a state of deep depression. They understand that they were never empowered to be at the top; they only had enough draw to be part of it. It also explains why it would be a deeper hurt than knowing you were always hated by the narcissist, or realizing that the narcissist really has no love for anyone.
While being hated has it's own hurts and dangers, at least narcissists don't own your mind and make you think "you are special, and deserve 'special treatment' from me and everyone else because you have a robot mind."
Being a narcissist's scapegoat, or perceived rebel, or perceived enemy in terms of blocking them from more power, is more of a dodge-and-weave kind of position with lots of separation from the narcissist, physically, emotionally and definitely mentally. And maybe there is some sparring from the perceived rebel or enemy when the narcissist is doing a lot of damage, though I don't know if I'd suggest that to anyone because narcissists don't know how to handle it: they can't fight fair and they can't tolerate or understand any other point of view other than their own. If they are breaking laws or abusing someone, proper authorities like police and social workers will tend to have a better resolution than arguing with narcissists. Narcissists don't tend to listen to others who they perceive as opposing them and their fantasies (we can see that in tyrants of countries too). With narcissists, there is also too much prejudice, confirmation bias, and manipulation in what they say. It's a huge reason not to be mentally like they are.
I would guess that for most of us, the mental separation starts long before any narcissist's discard, years before, and progress from there, even in chldren who don't know how to relate to narcissists other than to go into trauma reactions. As I've said in another post, experiencing huge leaps in mental separation from a narcissistic parent is part of C-PTSD, something that sycophants don't experience other than in adulthood perhaps, with dictatorial antagonistic leaders.
Anyway, who needs the opinions of someone who hates as vehemently and overwhelmingly as narcissists do? Who cares what someone who likes to distort reality thinks? Who cares what a continually dictatorial antagonistic person with "significant faults of their own" has to say? Who cares what highly critical people who can't take criticism themselves has to say? And so who cares what "that someone's" hate-peppered speech has to say about you? The stupidity of surface-like occupations and ruminations such as prejudice never really endear anyone or are not even remotely "listenable" except sycophants with equally shallow types of opinions and research styles.
Which begs yet another question ... Could narcissists wreak half of the destruction they make without sycophants? No. What that link reveals (partial):
Consequences Without Enablers
If forced to operate without sycophants, narcissists would be more susceptible to:
* Narcissistic Collapse: If denied a regular supply or if people refuse to participate in their shared fantasy, the narcissist can collapse, turning their aggression inward or losing their sense of purpose.
* Accountability: Without individuals to spread their lies or defend them, narcissists would be forced to face the consequences of their volatile and destructive behavior, which they actively avoid.
In summary, the narcissist at the center of the destruction is powered by a network that "outdoes each other" in serving them, enabling them to cause far more damage than they could alone.
As far as I can tell, there was nothing about his "positive side" that was at all authentic. Out of earshot of people he had fawned, he tore those people up verbally afterwards. He seemed to be disgusted with everyone, the whole human race even, and maybe even himself, though his whole demeanor was "arrogance on steroids", preferring to lecture others than the kind of exchanges you have in normal conversations.
The "good side" and "the bad side" also seemed like drastically different characters. The fawning pleasing sycophantic side was expertly acted with a soft voice, so much consideration and politeness you'd think he really meant it, but with a little too much "fake empathy".
The bad side was where he used the "f" word in every sentence, and the language and tone was harsh and unmistakenly rageful. It was constant, full of hate for others, controlling to the max, intolerant and entitled.
I don't know why he showed both sides to me. Usually inauthentic behaviors garner some disgust ("pretending to like people you don't like"). I would think it would cause embarassment and shame for him to show me both sides.
Anyway, I would call this a Jekyll/Hyde personality, or a two/faced personality type, one that acts out politeness and a sycophantic demeanor, and one that acts out the psychopathic hatred of others, and enough entitlement to be scary where your nervous system is put on high alert. It's like something out of The Perfect Guy movie.
Now to get back to the main article ...
* Sharing Power via Association: They bask in the reflected power of the leader, allowing them to feel important and powerful themselves, notes Psychology Today.
Kind of like being an understudy in an acting troupe? Or an opening act for a well known musician?
Probably much worse, as those kinds of people aren't particularly full of hate and envy - usually.
Do sycophants actually get that much power from a narcissist? Yes, "but it is borrowed, conditional, and temporary." The link raises these drawbacks:
Can a narcissist be happy with a sycophant? Temporarily and conditionally.
I found this article when searching: Maureen Dowd: "The fate of a sycophant is never a happy one".
I also found this Quora piece asking if a narcissist and sycophant can be happy together. And saw this answer (just one, copied in blue):
Well if a narcissist can't be entirely happy with a sycophant, can a sycophant be happy with a narcissist? Yes, but it is "a fragile, conditional happiness with a narcissist, but it is rarely sustainable or genuine. This dysfunctional, transactional relationship often provides the sycophant with a sense of security, proximity to power, or validation. However, the narcissist's ever-growing need for admiration and inherent lack of empathy make long-term satisfaction for the sycophant unlikely".
The problem is stated here (partial, from the same link in blue):
* Revenge: Some sycophants act out of deep-seated resentment, seeking to use the powerful person's influence to dominate those they believe have outshone them, notes Guillermo Vidal.
I couldn't get Guillermo's website, and I am curious about what it says, but I ask a few questions for you instead.
Why would a sycophant try to use a narcissist's power to enact a revenge on someone? This is what I got from Google AI, text copied in blue:
A sycophant may use a narcissist's power to enact revenge because they lack the direct power, courage, or social standing to attack a target themselves, opting instead to act as a "flying monkey" to weaponize the narcissist's volatility. This dynamic allows the sycophant to manipulate the narcissist into attacking someone who has threatened or offended the sycophant, often by feeding the narcissist's fragile ego or manipulating their sense of victimhood.
The rest of the post talks about the kinds of things narcissists do too, such as smear campaigns and sabotage, so maybe many sycophants really are narcissists, only without as much power.
* Lack of Ethical Constraints: Similar to the leaders they follow, sycophants often view others as expendable and are willing to ignore ethical boundaries to achieve their goals, say Management-Issues.
This dynamic creates a feedback loop where the sycophant provides the validation the leader craves, and the leader provides the power the sycophant desires.
So, in an effort to wrap up this section, I have two more questions.
This is the first one: When narcissists are done with sycophants what typically happens to the sycophant? Here is the answer I got (copied in blue):
When narcissists are done with sycophants—often referred to in this context as enablers or "flying monkeys"—the sycophant is typically discarded abruptly, treated with indifference, and often becomes the target of the same abuse they once helped inflict. Because narcissists view people as tools to feed their ego ("narcissistic supply"), once the sycophant is no longer useful, has been drained of resources, or questions the narcissist, they are replaced and discarded, frequently without explanation or closure.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70aRlzdHb3U&t=19s
* https://medium.com/@SPClusterB/the-only-two-reasons-narcissists-discard-you-suddenly-cb9583261872
Here is what typically happens to the sycophant:
1. The Sudden Discard
"Trash" Treatment: Sycophants are often discarded like used items, sometimes referred to as being treated like "trash" or "something worthless".
Silent Treatment/Ghosting: The narcissist will often cut off all communication instantly, behaving as if the sycophant never existed or has no worth in their life.
Replacement: The narcissist quickly moves to a new source of supply, leaving the old enabler behind.
2. The Shift from Enabler to Target
Reversed Smear Campaign: The sycophant who once helped smear others may now become the victim of a smear campaign themselves. The narcissist may spread lies about them to protect their own image, painting themselves as the victim and the former sycophant as the villain.
Projection: The narcissist will project their own faults onto the departing sycophant, accusing them of the very disloyalty or erratic behavior the narcissist is guilty of.
3. Psychological and Social Consequences
Cognitive Dissonance: The sycophant is left confused and shattered, struggling to reconcile the praise they once received with the abrupt, cold discarding.
Loss of Identity: Having defined their existence by serving the narcissist, the sycophant often faces a crisis of self-worth and identity, feeling used and discarded.
Isolation: The sycophant may find themselves isolated, having alienated others on behalf of the narcissist during their time as a "flying monkey".
* https://medium.com/@ovanovasullenfables/how-to-turn-the-flying-monkeys-against-the-narcissist-c3298943b547
* https://blog.melanietoniaevans.com/the-narcissists-silent-treatment-what-to-do-when-you-are-treated-like-you-dont-exist/#:~:text=The%20pulling%20away%20and%20not,abhorring%20you%20on%20a%20dime.
* https://www.choosingtherapy.com/narcissist-discard/
* https://grahamshevlin.com/narcissistic-leaders-sycophant-archetypes/
* https://medium.com/illumination/why-does-a-narcissist-discard-you-then-try-to-hoover-you-back-fe0517517b1e
* https://www.verywellmind.com/narcissistic-discard-causes-impact-and-coping-strategies-5218979
However, if the sycophant truly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, discarding him, and taking away something he feels entitled to (entitlement is very common) can cause rage, revenge and a narcissistic collapse, so the narcissist who is all-powerful can be in danger from the sycophant at that point. I don't think even all-powerful narcissists, and especially all-powerful narcissists with a lot of arrogance, can tell whether a sycophant has full-blown NPD or is acting out NPD traits to please the all-powerful. The link in this paragraph points to "a war of attrition" between the two narcissists. However with one holding power over another, it can still result in suicide, suicide-murder, revenge, significant humiliation for the sycophant/narcissist that just about anything is possible.
And the final question I have for this section:
Do sychophants deserve what they get for serving a narcissist? Note: I didn't expect AI to give me an adequate answer because it's a question about morality and decidedly human, and could be interpreted as a religious question too (belief-oriented and dependent on someone's religious persuasion). I tried it anyway and got this:
From Google AI (copied in blue):
Whether sycophants "deserve" the consequences of serving a narcissist is a complex moral question, but psychologists and researchers largely view the relationship as a destructive, symbiotic, or even parasitic cycle where the sycophant is often a "useful idiot" who is ultimately discarded. While some sycophants act out of self-interest, seeking proximity to power, many are caught in a web of manipulation, fear, or codependency, becoming "flying monkeys" or enablers who often find their own needs ignored, their identities eroded, and their reputation destroyed.
The Role and Motivation of the Sycophant
* Self-Interest vs. Survival: Sycophants often seek personal gain—power, status, or protection—by serving a narcissist. However, others are trapped, having "tongue-biting" roles out of fear of being targeted next.
* The "Narcissist/Empath" Trap: Many sycophants are empaths or codependents who mistakenly believe they can "fix" or support the narcissist, only to have their own self-worth drained, leaving them as shells of their former selves.
* Enabling Destructive Behavior: Sycophants go to lengths to please the narcissist, often outdoing each other and exceeding the leader's expectations, which can lead to disastrous consequences for others.
The "Deserved" Consequences
* Inescapable Discarding: Narcissists lack empathy and view people as objects (supply) to be used. The sycophant will inevitably be discarded, just like anyone else, once they are no longer useful or if they fail to provide constant adoration.
* The "Flying Monkey" Fate: When a narcissist is exposed, they often turn on their own supporters, leaving the sycophant to take the blame for the narcissist’s actions.
* Loss of Self: The sycophant loses their identity and values, neglecting their own life to feed a narcissist's ego.
Perspective on Compassion
* Survivor Perspective: Many who have escaped narcissistic abuse feel that sycophants/enablers are not innocent victims but deserve the consequences (abandonment, humiliation) because they "knowingly manipulate, deceive, and abuse others" alongside the narcissist.
* Psychological Perspective: Others see them as individuals with unresolved trauma who have surrendered their identity to a manipulator.
Ultimately, the consensus in studies is that sycophants are playing a "losing battle" that rarely leads to genuine happiness and often results in significant personal damage.
So, why do narcissists want sycophants so badly, even in their children and spouse(s)? So toxic! And I swore I wasn't going to ask any more questions for this section.
Onward ...
Here are the problems (taken from the link above, copied here in dark red ... my comments and questions follow each part of the article in black):
So my question for this part is: Do sycophants often become scapegoats? Yes, apparently so. The way it happens is that once disasters hit, the narcissist will turn on the sycophant.
The other way they are scapegoated is that they are "more loyal than competent".
Sycophants can create a false sense of security in narcissists (like taking down an enemy), but aren't really good at assessing risk because sycophants are praisers and not risk managers.
This doesn't seem to bright to me.
And narcissists don't like this: it makes them look bad.
Yup.
Actively supressing dissent has its drawbacks. For one, the sycophant keeps dissent at bay to keep the narcissist in a fantasy sugar-coated world of their own, but by supressing dissent, it can mean that the reality the narcissists needs to face is not cognizant to them, a "no-win" situation for the sycophant.
For despotic tyrants who insist on only a cabinet of loyalists sycophants, it's just one of the reasons they lose wars. Competency is not running the ship, and tyrants in their arrogant glory think they can do what generals can do. It doesn't work out.
And not just failure: chaos too. This is the other reason narcissist's ambitions fail.
And not only that, but narcissists become "disrespectful tyrants" who shout their commands and often act like babies if the sycophant doesn't get the command done in time, done to the narcissist's exacting standards, done in a way that the narcissist approves (there will be complaints! - and lots of them)
Yes.
AND ANECDOTES FROM PEOPLE I KNOW
I could give you so many stories, and they would read like cartoons because some of them are so absurd, and the manipulations so deep to the point of the absurd that they read as "funny" in writing. They weren't so funny or fun to deal with in real life.
For now I give you four:
*STORY ONE:
One sycophant who was a teacher wanted me to know, in writing, and without any provocation towards him on my part, that he had preferred this boy to me when the boy and I were children (and near the same age). The answer was because the boy acted like a well known cartoon character. Now why would a teacher (!) put something like that in writing? Do they think of themselves as a four-year old child who can only be satisfied and entertained by someone who is pretending to be a cartoon character?
*STORY TWO: This concerns a sycophantic wife.
She is married to a constantly raging alcoholic narcissist who puts everyone down that he knows and meets (also discussed above). The kinds of insults he uses are the worst you can imagine and he can rage on for hours about a singular person. And the kind of hatred he has for most people seems to consume his mind most of the time. She heard him describe people on the phone as "dweebs" and "nut cases" and "fruit cases" with every kind of prejudice you can think of.
Anyway, I had complained about some of this to her. And she said to me, "You have no right to criticize him!"
Now if I ever do a cartoon book on sycophants, this one would be near the top.
*STORY THREE:
A woman is married to a man who has many extra-marital affairs. Just about every person in the organization knows about it.
The way he has affairs is to tell a "vulnerable woman" who is going through a lot in her life, or a divorce, or a single woman who has a "self esteem" in the dumpster, that he has decided they are his soul mate, his ideal of perfection, the woman of his fantasies and dreams. It is a courtship that takes six months on average, sometimes more. There is an incredible amount of attention given to the woman, seductive glances, long lingering conversations, lots of flirting, liking what she is wearing, wondering whether he should divorce his wife and the problems in their marriage.
He even wandered over to me even when he knew I was with someone else. It wasn't so much a courtship because I kept reminding him I was with someone I loved, but his answer to that was that he desired me and that his wife "puts up with it". Even when I kept saying no, he kept at it, and I grew suspicious of him ("boundry-breaker!!!" - I went into a hypervigilent state because being pushy and controlling about wanting you to give into an affair is something narcissists do). And he's even fathered two children from his affairs.
Anyway after ten years of this, I could sense "the destruction in the air" every day, like this guy put a dark cloud over the whole environment and everyone felt a little destroyed over it, some more than others.
People looked depressed, like they were going through the motions in pain. These women were still feeling like their self esteem and desirability had been bombed out and how awful it was to see him try to seduce yet another woman (usually someone new).
He played the women against each other and had the weirdest cackling laugh when he would tweak one of these women's emotions or see them upset (sadistic in other words). One of the women couldn't take the heat and left. The other ones started talking to each other, and decided they'd gang up on him by telling his wife what was really going on with him when she visited.
She certainly looked like she was in shock. She didn't have anything to say, however. Then it was like she suddenly awoke from the shock and went on a denial "spree". "He just likes children! He visits other children! We have four of our own!", "All of you women are just after him because he's handsome, and he turned you down, and you want to seek revenge on him for not wanting you. But I have him! For life! Get that in your heads!", "Give it up already! He's never going to want any of you!"
Well, maybe some sycophants get what they deserve.
He left two days after this and started it up again in a new organization.
Note on 6/11/26: I researched a bit more: He's single now.
*STORY FOUR:
This is a story about trolling.
I can't be sure that the trolling I experienced concerns a sycophant I know, but it seems likely. Unless narcissists all use the same phrases and have exactly the same kinds of ways of trolling people on the internet (which a lot of them do), I'll assume it is a sycophant I know in order just to tell this story. But the way I'll tell the story is to put in the reality of what happened first and the conjecture second. I'll let you know when I get to the conjecture part of the story.
The real part of the story:
I'm telling this story because it is a common one. I think many of the people who read this blog can relate to it.
The real part of the story follows:
The sycophant in question mostly lectures when he talks. He seems arrogant, and the politeness that I try to uphold is undermined. We never knew each other on any kind of deep level. The conversations happened within a group of people and were usually about politics, gardening, cooking, the weather, and so on - not interpersonal.
Anyway, a conflict arose with another person. He was either told to intervene or took it upon himself to let me know what he thought. I suspect he was a sycophant because he said he had permission from the person I had a conflict with to communicate with me. By the way, this is called "triangulation", something narcissists tend to do to solve their relationship problems.
When he said things to me, I answered back (as would normally happen in an exchange between adults).
But he didn't feel I had a right to talk apparently, and said that I "needed to be silent" while he peppered me with lectures and insulting comments. That's pretty bossy, presumptuous and unreasonable, and also typical of narcissists and sociopaths. Note: this person was not my boss and had no authority over me whatsoever, legally, or even by mutual understanding. Narcissists and sociopaths like to "assume" authority over people when they have none.
I don't like being lectured without the ability to respond, so I asked him to stop corresponding with me.
When he continued to lecture me through e-mails, I decided if he was going to continue not to respect my boundaries, or respect that I didn't want to hear from him, he could talk to my husband who actually did want to talk to him.
But my husband also grew tired of being lectured at too, and besides this guy was trying to use my husband as a go-between to talk to me, so we decided that the best thing to do was that this sycophant should stop contacting us.
The sycophant had:
1. terrible conflict resolution skills (which can be attributed to any number of psychological make-ups)
2. was trying to frighten me (this can be attributed to many causes too, but has more to do with power and control, or paranoia, and is most common among malignant narcissists and sociopaths)
3. assumed authority (can also be attributed to a number of causes, but is most common among malignant narcissists and sociopaths - that link says there is "a strong link" between assuming authority and these two personality disorders I mentioned)
4. he was over-the-top aggressive in thinking he could still e-mail me insults and threats when I told him to stop (it is a form of illegal harassment - also common among narcissists and sociopaths).
Anyway, there was a lot more than this that pegged him as someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, or with the traits and symptoms, but I'll stop with just these 4.
I don't think he even had the ability to comprehend why anyone would not want those kinds of e-mails or why someone would not want to listen to someone who insists on silencing them, that communication can only go one way. In adult correspondences it can mean:
* that the person has cognitively declined, and isn't capable of a one-on-one conversation, let alone a conversation that has to do with an interpersonal conflict.
* that the person cannot have conversations - that the ability to have conversations has been lost and he can only lecture.
* that even though we are both adults, he thinks he's superior. We see silencing done to children because they are not always in the habit of listening to adults (usually silencing is necessary when warning of dangers to a child, like asking a child to look both ways at the traffic suituation before crossing a street - those kinds of things; it is not so effective for emotional issues or conflicts, and certainly not between adults) - and when one adult is trying to silence another adult, it is a sign that one of the adults is taking an authoritarian position over the other adult. In other words, one adult is treating another adult as though he or she is a child. It begs the question: "Who would want to listen to an adult who is treating another able-bodied, sane adult like a small child?" There were a lot of instances in his correspondences where he was trying to teach me lessons "for a seven year old" - inappropriate and not wanted.
I'm sure there are other possibilities, but I'm not privy to them.
My immediate thoughts were: Frightening someone is "wanted correspondence"? Assuming authority is a desirable communication style to engage with? Aggressively continuing with a line of action (e-mails) when someone has said "no" a number of times isn't to be taken seriously, and means you can keep harassing? Being aggressive is a wonderful attribute?
He had no interest in what I had to say. I had no interest in what he had to say. Fair is fair in this regard, and I thought it would end there.
Usually it would.
Nope. I actually had to go to the police to get him to stop. And then he called the police in his own separate city and asked them, "How do I get her to stop sending me e-mails?" - very common with these types, the blame-shifting, playing the victim after perpetrating, continuing the escalation. However, I was the one to bring the e-mails to the police first, and it was obvious who said what, and why this guy went to the police after I did (because it's common for these kinds of guys to do it - you can go here to get an idea what can happen in these situations).
I was also told to be on my guard in the days afterward, that it's common to experience stalking, trolling, more harassment, triangulating, smear campaigns with more feigned victimhood, and abuse. "He might also feel very frustrated that he can't communicate with you, or be the authority of who gets to communicate, so be on the lookout for that."
Now this is where my own conjecture comes in:
I have a media presence: this blog, Facebook and some others. There are some things happening on these sites that one could construe as "trolling". There are insults and "sayings" that are very much like what this person said to me the last time he communicated or lectured at me (and one of them had the 3 initial letters of the person he was a sycophant to).
I delete the obnoxious comments, of course, and never respond. You'd think that who ever it was would stop by now (it's been nearly a decade and a half since I saw this sycophant).
If it is him, it could all be the same agenda: To scare me? To assume I'm never going to experience not hearing from him (like a stalker kind of situation)? That he thinks he has a right to say what he wants and that "I'm supposed to be silent" according to his "authoritarian fantasies"? That he has the right to aggress upon me even in an anonymous fashion?
One reason I bring this up is because, again, this is common, and can go so much further than this, way beyond this, in fact. Many of you have experienced much, much worse, where even with police intervention, they did not stop harassing, and where they graduated to stalking.
Narcissists and sociopaths don't like to be slighted even when they slight others. They don't like to be turned away even when they "silence" others, or insult them, or abuse them, or when they assume that rules of communication are theirs to make exclusively.
When I was going through this so many years ago, my thought was "Why would he even think I'd want these kinds of communications? What on earth is he gaining from all of this except blowing off some 'sadism steam'?"
A therapist said the most likely answer was that he thought I might care about his opinion, and that I might try to change his opinion by doing what he or the main person wanted. This never crossed my mind, but it makes more sense than other things I heard, minimally so.
However, usually you care about the opinions of people who care about you, who are invested in a relationship with you, and want to know you. He never showed much, if any, interest in me. He rarely met me eye-to-eye, or initiated conversations about what I was experiencing in life. As far as I was concerned it was like this venom came out of nowhere to throw around some threats and insults into a situation that had hitherto been more peaceful than conflict-oriented. Sycophancy doesn't work very well if this was supposed to bring about an outcome different from the outcome that happened.
In fact, sycophancy didn't work in any of the four other stories that I can see. This is why I referred to sycophants being like "storm troppers" where the storm tropper robots are dangerous but also lose every battle and every war, and often stumble over each other in a fit of confusion.
Perhaps they are too invested in what they get out of it, and because they know they are saving someone else's issues and public image other than their own, they get lazy or don't care enough what impact it makes on their commander.
And even if "allowance to talk" became part of the picture eventually, he has said to me more than once, "Empathy is a sign of weakness", another sign of malignant narcissism and sociopathy. Lack of empathy goes hand in hand with an inability to understand another person's perspective, and for me, that leaves discussions about interpersonal issues and conflicts "off the table", at least with him. Malignant narcissists and sociopaths are also highly dysregulated emotionally that it is not worth talking about interpersonal issues with them unless you like someone raging at you (and that link points to "how dangerous" their expression of rage is).
Even so, "You are allowed to talk now" would be just another authoritarian directive and fantasy of superiority on the perpetrator's part, like giving permission to a child, or an incarcerated individual, or a lawyer to state your defense.
And, to get back to these types of narcissists in particular, the malignant and sociopathic type of sycophant can be more dangerous than the head narcissist, and also a lot more self-serving.
What I learned eventually was that the main person/commander who needed this guy to be a sycophant-attacker for her used him for what was termed as "protective services". She also seemed to feel she needed a go-between to solve relationship issues for her - which made what happened appear to be my fault, but what both of them failed to say was that the "protective services" were really about "protecting her image", another narcissistic pasttime and also way more important to narcissists than just about anything else, including any and all relationships.
And then of course, for all of his troubles of being so good and so thorough at attacking that it required the police, who knows what happened after that. For a lot of people who feel they absolutely need sycophants to fawn, attack, deliver messages, intimidate, break the law and "do all of dirty work" for these commanders, there is always the possibility of the commander to say, "You ninny! Why did you say all of that to her!? You didn't need to scare her off and make her call the police! What's wrong with you?! It's all your fault!"
I have often wondered whether people would rather have a sycophant than someone who is authentic, and whether people would rather have a scapegoat than to have a backbone.
It seems that corruption, narcissism, projection, lying, scapegoating, abuse, coldness, aggression, stalking, pursuing "made up enemies", and other appalling pastimes and traits are winning out in America, but I still have hope that direct communication, authenticity, honesty, accountability, politeness, compromise and empathy can eventually win people over. I hope that "my hopes" in this regard aren't silly or fantasies in and of themselves.
