Believing Your Own Lies

We all know that there are people who lie. But there are also people who lie to themselves and who seem to believe themselves.

Are people actually able to convince themselves of their own lies?

Do some people really talk themselves into believing their imaginary stories? Do they even realise anymore that they are lying?

This is a phenomenon that I could often observe with regard to certain people. A person that called me a few days ago told me about what a colleague of hers has done and that she thinks it is terrible. What is remarkable is that this person had done the same thing in an even worse extent over a long period of time. I didn’t know what to say. After all, she should have known I remember what she had done, so normally she wouldn’t mention similar behaviours of others in order to not draw attention to it. The only explanation is that she decided to pretend it never happened and not just in front of others but for herself.

It seems to me that some people actually succeed in talking themselves into believing that their own false behaviour never happened. It is astonishing what humans are capable of. I was aware of the fact that this person tells a lot of lies and tries to convince others of them but so far I have never realised she does actually believe them herself. This does explain some things, it makes me understand things I have never understood before.

What I am not sure about though is whether this is a sign of some serious mental disorder or whether we all do that to a certain extent.

I think sometimes people try to repress bad memories, which is perfectly understandable in some cases. However, is it still normal to behave like any false behaviour on your side  has never existed and to actually believe it?

What is even more extreme is that there are people who build up a whole world of lies. In school, one of my friends told me about a classmate that had made up his own successful band, lots of friends and a girlfriend and that he openly talked about them all the time and that apparently he told everyone how popular, rich and good-looking they all were, in addition to a lot of other rather unbelievable stories. I believe that you shouldn’t judge someone without even knowing him, so I told my friend that it might indeed be only due to unfavourable circumstances that no one had ever seen these friends, band, or girlfriend. However, I got to meet that person and at some point it became impossible to deny that something was obviously wrong with his stories (this is an understatement). No one was sure whether he believed in his own lies. In my opinion, at some point he had started to believe that his stories were true.
He has built up his own imaginary world. 

Sometimes we talk ourselves into believing certain things because we want them to be true.

Some children even have imaginary friends and you wouldn’t consider that as lying.

But where is the cross point between lying and having your own view of the world? If you believe your own lies, are you telling the truth? There is this quote that I mentioned in a post in the beginning of my blogging days: Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

Don’t we all have our own views and opinions about who we are and how the world looks like? And if we don’t actively think about it, we think that this is how the world actually looks like. But what if it does in fact look completely different for everyone else? And I am sure it does.

So do we actually all live in our own imaginary world?

Whose fault is it?

Lately, I have been thinking about victims and offenders in certain situations. Don't we all rather like to see ourselves as victims? It is so much easier to blame someone else for things that go wrong in our lives. 

I mentioned this in several posts, I have never had a good relationship to my parents or to my brother, due to things happening that I have no words for.

There is this idea that in some cases it is not only the offender’s but also the victim’s fault because the victim lets it happen and doesn’t defend himself.

Let me explain. When I was a little child, I was rather shy. Actually that is an understatement.  I was very shy, I almost never talked to strangers, and in particular I avoided talking to adults. I think I was afraid of doing something wrong. I was also a compliant child, I did everything my parents asked me to do, although apparently often doing it wrong in their eyes.
My brother, in contrast, was quite revolting and whenever he didn’t get what he wanted, he created terror. Besides, he had a talent in lying and ingratiating himself with others, especially with our mother. As a result, it didn't matter much how I felt about certain decisions, which was kind of my own fault.
For instance, there were these humiliating situations my brother liked to spit on me, literally, just because he thought it was fun, or because he knew I didn't like it, or without any reason at all. My parents decided I had to endure this because they didn’t want to have troubles with him and I, on the other hand, didn’t cause so much trouble, so it was easier that way.
This was only a little prelude to things he later committed.

However, I remember exactly this one moment when again my mother decided it wouldn’t matter what I wanted because my brother wanted something else and all of a sudden my father said: Why does she always have to back down? This was the moment I decided he was right and I began to express my own opinions and to disagree with my mother. As a consequence, our relationship became even worse with every year that passed.

Anyway, I never really defended myself much when I was young, so I made it easy for my parents and my brother to take advantage of that. On the other hand, I was just a little child and all I tried to do was to make my parents love me or be proud of me.
But shouldn’t my parents have known better?

One thing that I also considered is, what if my brother was made the way he is now? Is it even his fault? Are maybe my parents responsible for the way he behaves? Was he taught to behave ruthless?

I consider that possible. Nonetheless, even though he might not have had the right education, he should know some basic things, he should know things like sexual abuse are wrong. Or can he have lost the ability to feel someone else's pain?

If someone was raised thinking that he can just take anything he wants without any consequences, is it his fault when he continues thinking that way once he is an adult?

It almost seems as if he is a victim.

So whose fault is it really? Who is to blame?

Is it the one who does something wrong? The ones that didn’t teach that person what is wrong? Or is it the one who didn’t defend himself or herself enough?

In my opinion, you can’t just make someone else responsible for your own decisions. Even if it might partly be my parents’ fault, even if they partially made my brother the way he is, you cannot blame them for everything he does. I mean, wouldn’t that result in going backwards more and more? What if my parents were treated badly as children? Was it then their parents’ fault?

At some point, you are responsible for your own actions and you cannot blame someone else for committing a crime. At some point, you just have to decide to leave the vicious circle, you have to know about your responsibility for your own actions. A difficult childhood is so often used as an excuse for behaving badly. In my opinion, it might sometimes explain some behaviors, but it doesn’t excuse them.  
Finally, at some point and in some cases, it might also be important to stop whining about your victimhood and start seeing yourself as an independent being.

Are you extraordinary?

A few days ago, I talked to a friend about university which somehow turned into a not very serious discussion about whether he was exceptionally smart (he said he wasn’t). Eventually, we ended up arguing about the meaning of being extraordinary.

So, in his opinion, to be extraordinary you have to belong to the absolute top of something, regardless of what we are talking about, for example, you have to be a Einstein or Newton or Shakespeare to be really great and extraordinary in what you do. His definition was rather very exclusive. In contrast, I said I believe that there are a lot of ways to be extraordinary and that we can all be extraordinary in something.

This whole discussion made me think a little further. I mean, is there really something like being extraordinary? Are we not all at some point extraordinary? No one of us is the same and especially for friends or loved ones we are unique. In fact, we are all unique. But, on the other hand, what about persons like Einstein? Would you say they were ordinary, nothing special? You certainly can’t say that either.

Anyway, what is ordinary? There certainly is an average height or age of all persons you can measure, but it is more difficult when it comes to the personality or abilities of people. Besides, what does an average age say? Relating to this, are you extraordinary when you are younger or older than the average number? I am certainly not a statistics expert but you don’t have to be one to know that the mean average of something doesn’t necessarily indicate much without further information. And even if there is, this is not about statistics. How would you measure a person’s uniqueness?

Moreover, do we really have to be extraordinary? Do we always have to belong to the absolute top? Do we have to be better than everyone else? There is always someone that is “better”, so if you really want to be the best at everything, you will never be happy.

That friend also said that to be content or proud of himself, he would need to be the best and, for instance, not just the best in his university but in the whole world. He also admitted that this is very unlikely to happen but that it is a good way to improve his accomplishments constantly. Maybe it is, but I think you can be happy with what you have achieved and improve at the same time.

Instead of being the best compared to everyone else, would it not be better to focus on your own aims? I think we automatically always compare ourselves to others, I do that too. And maybe this is the only way to evaluate ourselves and improve what we do. But instead of looking at the other ones, sometimes it would just be better to focus on our personal aims. When my friends and I graduated from school, we had all very different grades, but we were all happy because we had all managed to reach our own personal goal (or at least most of us). And isn’t this enough?

On the other hand, of course, without comparing, there wouldn’t even be such things as grades, thus it is necessary to value anything.

In my opinion, it is in human’s nature to always strive for more, but in the end we’ll just have to accept that we can’t always be the best.

So, even if we can’t be the best, can we be extraordinary? Are we all extraordinary persons because everyone has something at which he or she is especial compared to others? Or is this something that refers to very few persons only? After all, the term extraordinary indicates this.

Is there such a thing or are we all unique? Or is being unique something totally different? Maybe everyone is unique but not everyone can be extraordinary.

Do you think you are extraordinary? Do you want to be?

What does being extraordinary mean to you?

My friend and I still didn’t agree in the end and although there is probably no right answer and it all depends on different definitions and points of views, I would love to hear some other opinions, ideas, experiences or whatever you have to say.

Quote of the week #2

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

Marcus Aurelius

I like this quote, since a lot of people don’t seem to recognize that there are different opinions on things they consider as a fact. I think it is always a good way to stay open-minded and to try to understand the other perspectives.

My aim is to post one quote every Sunday that somehow refers to the previous week. I also hope it inspires some people to think about the referred topic. 

Based on a controversy I had a few days ago, today’s topic is about opinions, or rather differences in opinions.

I was having a few arguments with a family member this week, who couldn’t accept me being of another opinion concerning an important topic; the details are not of importance here. Anyway, when I was talking to a friend about it, his advice was to just agree with this person in every point. He said, when I know I am right, all I should say is “OK”. When someone is telling you that the colour of the sky is green, don’t tell him it is blue. Just agree, because you know you are right and disagreeing would just cause troubles.  

I see his point, but nevertheless I had to contradict.
This is just my opinion, of course.

Anyway, who determines what is right and what is wrong? When it comes to laws the answer is obvious, but what about other issues? After all, the problem is that both persons having an argument are convinced of their opinion being the truth. Even if it is obvious that you are right, is it really? It doesn't seem to be for at least one person.

In any case, I think it doesn’t make it any better to agree with someone when you think he is wrong, because this lets him feel confirmed in his thinking. In the following, I am using “the sky is green” as a metaphor for topics that are of greater relevance.

A family or even a whole nation is not able to perform in a good way if their members are not allowed to express their point of view. Just imagine the government told you that the sky was green and nobody disagreed. Imagine you’d get into prison if you told them your opinion. I know that this is happening all over the world and I know that it did happen especially in Germany. But look at this country’s horrible past (I don’t have enough words to explain how terribly shocked I am every time I just imagine it) and you can see what this leads to. People must be allowed to give an opinion without getting punished for it. This is even a human right, which you can find in Germany’s Basic Law now.
Everybody has the right to advance his opinion, as long as it isn’t illegal or a violation of human rights.

Maybe I should have differed in a more accurate way between politics and families, but is there really such a great difference? Families do have their own rules, too. And I think since I am of full age, I should be allowed to say what I think without getting in trouble and without courting their resentment. Provided that I don’t hurt anyone with my opinion, which is certainly not my purpose.

Let’s say I am convinced that that the sky is blue and you are convinced of it being green. Why can’t we discuss it and if we still don’t agree in the end, we just accept the fact of being of another opinion? Wouldn’t this be a good way? And who knows, if you give me persuasive arguments, you might even persuade me to believe that the sky is green.

I am aware that all my above mentioned words are just another opinion. I am convinced by my opinion. However it may seem inconsistent to say that everybody should express his own opinion and that nothing is the truth, because isn’t this just an opinion, too? So what if someone doesn’t agree?

I think you should always consider your counterpart’s point of view. If he has a different one, you should accept this. And you should try to continuously rethink your own point of view. Because after all, is it really possible that you are always right? Maybe the sky is neither green nor blue but purple? Or does it have a different colour for every human being? At the same time, if we are convinced by our opinion, we should definitely defend it using good arguments. After all, what kind of world would this be without opinions and people standing up for them?

But should we really agree on everything someone says in order to avoid a conflict? Can this really be a good solution?

In my opinion, it isn’t.

If you disagree about any of these thoughts, please feel free to tell me. I am always happy to broaden my mind.