I don’t usually do celebrity gossip but this here is what Barack Obama calls a teachable moment so I’m going to make an exception.
First, here’s the backstory:
Eminem has hit out at Mariah Carey and husband Nick Cannon in his new song The Warning.
It’s the latest in a long feud between the pair who first came to blows when Eminem said he had a fling with Mariah back in 2001 and she denied it.
It’s been claimed recently that Mariah mocked the rapper in the video for her latest single Obsession.
It comes after Eminem mentioned Mariah in his song Bagpipes From Baghdad, which also talked about her husband Nick.
In May, Nick leapt to his wife’s defence and retorted by blogging: “homeboy is still obsessed with my wife”.
And here’s the diss track:
I’m torn on this from a power and career perspective. For Eminem, it generates lots of buzz, and the lyrics and beat are sick, yet at the same time, is it good buzz? On one hand this is a whole lot of energy to devote to a chick, especially if the underlying events go back to 2001. And it comes off like catfighting. I’m of the opinion that when dealing with a woman, whether to woo her or in an argument, you should be talking less than she is. Talk more than her and it seems like you’re trying too hard or care too much. But at the same time, he does it with such skill and panache I’m tempted to make an exception, plus he blasts Nick Cannon and his career so well, which is always commendable. I’m sorry but Nick Cannon making the jump from Nickelodeon to entertainment areas requiring street cred always irked me, kind of like if AC Slater suddenly tried to be taken seriously as a member of Terror Squad after Saved by the Bell.
Which leads to the next question: what’s the best way for Nick Cannon to proceed from here? Any way he proceeds from here just makes him look worse. He’s basically become known as the ghetto Ashton Kutcher by making himself the boytoy of an A-list cougar. He’s tried to rap before but he’s not ready for a battle rap against a lyricist of Eminem’s character:
It’s too late pull the dismissive “I’m too big for all that, it’s beneath me” move because he already publicly issued a warning to Eminem in the media. On his twitter page he’s going that route now with quotes like “Quote of the day: “Never argue with fools because from a distance people cant tell who is who” and When there are no enemies within the enemies outside can not hurt you!” and “Never take your own revenge, but rather give place unto the wrath. For it is written vengeance is mine, I will repay… PREACH!” and “”I will bless those that bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” Genesis 12:3″ (Even though these are all well-known sayings, they’ve all been used in Jay-Z songs, making his response come off extra unoriginal and weak) He keeps adding a new quote related to taking the higher ground and being the better man every 6 minutes or so, and the tone is becoming increasingly desperate.
Three mistakes here: First mistake, if you’re going to dismiss a beef as being beneath you, you should just dismiss it once firmly and be done with it unless the opponent keeps coming back at you harder and harder. By saying it doesn’t matter over and over and over, Cannon gives the impression that it does matter. If he pulled such a move right after Eminem’s first volley, it would have been the right thing to do. Jay-Z recently did something similar with attention-whore rapper The Game. But Cannon made the mistake of publicly calling Eminem out on the carpet and threatening him, so after he put himself out there like that with such a blatant warning and his bluff has been called, there’s no turning back and playing the high road now. He backed himself into a corner and taking the high road after warning somebody that there’d be hell to pay if they crossed you again just makes him look weak. So his second mistake was, never make a threat unless you know you are willing to carry it out and specifically know HOW you are going to carry it out. Because if the person calls your bluff and you’re caught hesitating and you wait until then to think of how to proceed, you’ve already lost. For Cannon to respond with platitudes like that at this point is like bringing knives to a gunfight. This is a guy who has rapped multiple songs calling his wife a whore and fantasizing about killing her, written songs attacking his mother and has pulled out guns on multiple people. What did you expect to happen when you called him out, and why weren’t you prepared for it?!
To me Nick Cannon’s third and biggest mistake though was marrying a woman like Mariah Carey in the first place. This woman has had a history of hanging out with guys so far out of his league when it comes to griminess and bad boy attitude. After her split with Tommy Mottolla, this woman was utterly immersed in the world of hip-hop and urban entertainment. Any chick who is so heavily involved and embroiled in the rap and urban entertainment world as Mariah Carey was for so many years is bound to have some psycho, thug and gangster bad boy skeletons in her closet. Even if she says she never dated or had sex with any guys in this bad circle, it doesn’t matter, because women often lie to cover up their scandalous pasts, and men often lie to boost their number of conquests, and once you’re caught in the middle of a he-say, she-say situation, you already lose. You never know who to believe because there’s no way to prove anything. Even if she and Eminem disagree on the extent of the fling, they both admit there was some degree of a fling between them. That should be all you need to know when it comes to whether or not to marry her.
A woman’s past is always potentially your problem when you become serious with her, so you have to know what level of conflict you’re built for and if your woman’s social circle is well beyond that level, don’t enter a relationship with her. For example I’m no gangster so any chick I met who had a history of psycho gangster ex-es I avoided for long term commitments, because her past meant a higher likelihood of stalker psycho ex-es in my future, guys with way less to lose than me. If she had tough guys in her past who were the type to maybe just have a single one-on-one fight with me and leave it at that, that was an acceptable risk I knew I could handle. If he was in gangs and into gunplay or was an ex-con, fuck that. In college I knew a lot of guys who messed with chicks with ex-es like that and got a lot of grief as a result.
I was acquainted with a girl who was a lawyer, who had a really horrible bad boy streak up through her 20s. She was the smoking hot chick who loved the high-drama relationships with tattooed asshole psycho thugs and the occasional asshole psycho cop, which is even worse because you have even less recourse against a guy like that. She had the problem later when she hit her late 20s and early 20s. She was getting older and was no closer to settling down or finding stability in her personal life, so she wanted a nice guy provider type to settle down with now that she was done getting pumped and dumped by scumbags. Problem was, a lot of her crazy ex-es, including the psycho cop, were periodically resurfacing to stalk her, show up unannounced and threaten all her new boyfriends, and none of these new nice guy professional guys were willing to put up with it. Every week was a new sob story with this woman that related to her past awful dating choices. The lesson the guys in her life learned is the lesson that Cannon is learning now. That if you’re a square and a woman has a history of traveling in circles with thugs, guidos, gangster or convicts, even if she claims never to have dated one, don’t date her and risk putting yourself in a position you’re not equipped to handle.
So I guess the questions are, does this hurt Eminem more than it helps him or vice versa? Is it some gangsta shit or bad move to kiss and tell to that extent? In general, I think getting a reputation as one who kisses and tells without provacation is one of the worst moves a guy can do, but that then begs the question, was there sufficient provocation by Cannon and Carey? And what should Cannon’s next move be? What should his past moves have been?
How do you respectfully deal with long-winded people who are above you?
As an example, today I had a phone conversation/negotiation with a
real estate CEO. He kept talking long-windedly about a subject at
which point I cut him off by saying something – it wasn’t worth his
time or mine for him to keep going.
It happened twice. He belabored a point, I understood what was going
on, so I cut him off. Later on, he started belaboring another point
and I cut him off – mid-sentence. Maybe it’d have been best to cut at
the end of a sentence.
Here’s an example conversation:
Him: “and then we’d like to do [this], which will have [a bunch of
details], and then we’d like to do [this], which will have [some more
details], and then we’d -”
Me: “Yeah, it sounds like there’s a lot going on. Do you have some
specifications written up that you can send me?”
I feel it came off as kind of rude but something needed to be done.
Just want to hear what you think. What do you do in these situations?
I can tell you what not to do. A lot of people just do abrupt conversation changes when the other person’s topics bore them that are really off-putting both because of the language they use in doing in but even moreso because of the emotion they convey.
I use to know this really self-absorbed girl who, whenever someone’s topic bored her, would just totally ignore what the other person say and start her next sentence with “Yeah, anyway, blah blah blah.” Or she’d be like “Sure, whatever, [abrupt topic change to what she wanted to talk about” or “Yeah, but back to what we were saying before…” People HATED that because it came off really dismissive. (Not saying you’re a narcissist like her, just using her because she’s a really extreme example). But worse than the words she was using or her timing in interrupting was her dismissive tone. I don’t think she even realized she was doing it, but all her body language, tone and facial expressions were screaming boredom, contempt, impatience, etc. That killed her way worse than any linguistic issues surrounding her topic change.
The key is using words that make it sound like you’re enthusiastically and respectfully acknowledging what the other person is talking about, even as you’re dismissing it and moving on to another topic.
Improv has some great conversational exercises they do relating to this stuff. One is called “Yes, and…” You can see it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/08/12/rs.how.to.think.on.feet/index.html
Problem is, the article uses some pretty bad illustrations of the concept. Still a good concept though.
What I do when I want to change a topic politely is do “Yes, and” but combine it with “That reminds me.” You agree enthusiastically, say something that acknowledges the last thing the person said, then add “that reminds me” to spin off to whatever topic you want regardless of whether it really relates to the original topic or whether the segue makes sense. If your acting is spot-on and you sell it with conviction and nonchalance the other person’s mind shouldn’t even pick up on what happened. When done right, the affirmative wording and enthusiastic vocal tone will register in the person’s mind as an extension of their topic of conversation rather then a shift. They don’t instinctively trigger minor feelings or rejection the way an annoyed tone, abrupt interruption and words like “but,” “whatever,” “anyway,” or “getting back to the business at hand” do.
For example, the guy could be like “I went hiking and Joe was there and Cindy and all these people from my past and work and we all saw so and so there and it was great and-” And you can be like “Yeah, I love getting outdoor exercise too! And I haven’t done it in the longest time, I miss it. In fact, we should set up something together sometime, like a hiking trip. That reminds me, let me hurry up and get those specifications from you before I forget. Don’t wanna be late.” If you stop to actually think about it, that segue makes zero sense. Why would outdoor exercise remind you of getting specifications? But when you properly convey enthusiasm and momentum, it won’t even register with the other person. The positive sentiment, vocal tone and enthusiasm register more.
Don’t get too hung up on the Improv aspect of my advice, I don’t want you to think I’m recommending you do anything as extreme assigning up for a class or anything (unless it’s something that interests you). The most important thing isn’t the words you choose and when you interject so much as the mood you successfully convey. I’m guessing on some level something didn’t sit right with you about the way you handled it, and you couldn’t put your finger on it, which is why you wrote me. If I had to guess, I think you probably let some negative emotion leak out some in your response, even if not a huge amount. A little bit of irritation, frustration, impatience, annoyance, or boredom. I say just practice saying the kind of response you said but in the same tone you would convey a response that comes in a conversation you’re enjoying having. That positive emotion will register higher than any slight rudeness from the topic change or phrasing.
The guy I knew who was best at this was a friend I had who was an actor. He could convey any emotion he wanted at will. Very impressive. So he could get away with blunt, direct or unpleasant language without ruffling feathers because he said such things with such positive emotion and warmth and exuded no negativity, just good intentions. Me, though? I still have a tendency to wear my emotions on my sleeve sometimes, and I’m horrible at hiding exasperation although much better than I used to be.
The flip side of this advice though are people like my ex-boss, a lady who would try to say critical things in an upbeat way and executed it so insincerely and over the top in her enthusiasm that it seems condescending and patronizing. She seemed to be one of those middle management people who was given communication advice similar to what I gave you but didn’t have enough social intelligence to calibrate it properly so ended up coming off like a trained social robot. I find women to be especially in the habit of falling into this trap because many of them are already naturally averse to open confrontation and like to give the appearance of consensus seeking, so when they make a conscious effort to be those things it ends up being overkill. It takes practice to strike that perfect balance, but coming off annoyed or a bit abrupt is much better than coming off insincere and fake as far as social sins go, especially when dealing with men.
Will anyone of you light a cigarette for a woman without being asked? I think it lowers your value–insofar volunteering to do anything for a pretty woman without being prompted–will lower your value. I will recommend a robust cigarette-centered NEG to go along with your assistance to help her light her cigarette. Baring that, dont help her at all.
This is a very good question. Watch this space, I’ll answer this question later today. In the meantime if you so desire, feel free to leave your responses to this question in the comments if you have any suggestions.
UPDATE:
So here are my thoughts on the matter. Rather than just give a yes or no answer, I’d rather take you through a thought exercise to train you in how to think about the game overall.
I think a lot of guys who are looking into interaction advice get caught up in finding hard and fast absolute rules to use in every situation. A rulebook and set of scripts that can be used across the board in every situation for success. Yes you should always neg. No you should never neg. Always buy a drink. No, never buy a drink. Always wait two days at least before calling. No, wait seven days. No, you should call immediately.
Let’s backtrack a second. The key here is not just to memorize rules or steps to universally use in every situation. The key is to understand what the larger purpose of all the specific advice is, what the ultimate goal is that the advice it trying to steer you toward. Once you understand that, you can alter the rulebook at will depending on the situation, and you can begin to understand why two people can do totally opposite styles yet still get good results.
When it comes to social interactions (all social interactions, not just dating), the ultimate goal of any rule is to convey lots of value as quickly as possible. Value means having something to offer rather than just being a “taker.” Picture when a moderately to shabbily dressed stranger comes up to you in the street in the big city and starts a conversation in a near-apologetic tone. He says “Excuse me, can I have a minute of your time? I just noticed you walking here in your sharp suit and…” Think of the times in the past this has happened to you. What is the first thing you think? “Is this a bum?” “Oh geez, spare me the story and just ask me for the money so I can just say yes or no and move on.” “Are you a salesperson? What are you trying to sell me today?” And so on and so on. Bums, cold callers, pushy salespeople, network marketing recruiters, we immediately see them as “value takers,” so the moment they approach us we resent them and start rehearsing rejections in our head. We feel they are solely there to take value from us for their own benefit without giving enough value back in exchange.
Now picture if someone comes out of a chauffered stretch limo in an impeccable three piece custom suit and said the exact same words “Excuse me, can I have a minute of your time? I just noticed you walking here in your sharp suit and…” How do you feel this time? It’s the exact same words but this time I’m sure it has a different effect. The difference is that the person now has the appearance of being a potential “value giver.” He may be a mogul or someone who can give you a job. He may be someone important about to tell you something to enrich your life. He may be someone who is connected that can help you along at some point in your life. He may be a celebrity. Maybe he’s a salesperson who is actually offering something very useful or a deal too good to pass up. Whatever he is, you are interested enough to know more and to find out for sure if he has any value to pass along to you. Or let’s even use a bum again for an example. Say instead of being the bum with a long sob story, say he sang you an incredible song and did an amazing comedy routine that livened up your day for a few minutes. And then he asked from money. Because he gave you some value first, you don’t mind giving him some in return. The sob story beggar street guy is a value taker. The performing street guy is a value giver. Both ask for money but the value context is totally different, hence the different results.
Another example, think of a shabby-looking nightclub blasting lame music and letting any low class person in. There’s a guy outside trying to cajole any and all people passing by to enter. Telling you drink specials, promising girls and a good time, following you down the street harassing you to come in. There are a handful of desperate looking badly dressed scrubs on a quick-moving line thirstily ogling every girl who passes. Compare that with the place with a glamorous exterior, a red velvet rope, an insanely difficult door policy, celebs rolling up, a line down the block filled with beautiful classy women and high status and a bouncer who pays you no mind as you pass by or even as you engage him. Which one is more likely to be considered as a “value taking” spot and which one is likely to be considered a “value giving” spot? Which one will enhance your reputation more when you tell other people the next day that you got into it? Which one will likely lower your reputation if you brag you got into it?
So it goes with rules like “negs,” drink buying, cigarette lighting, etc. [This is the most important part of the piece so pay attention:] It’s not the action that matters so much as the context of the action. Is the action taking place in a “value giving” context or a “value taking” context?
In two different contexts, the exact same action can convey two totally different meanings. For example, let’s go back to the example of the two nightclubs. Picture if at the first lame nightclub I described, the desperate door guy promoter stops you and your friends and says “Wow, you guys sure are a sharp group. Come inside, we’ll set you up in VIP.” You’d look at the line of losers, the shabby looking exterior of the club and the eagerness of the promoter and his compliment will come off as a sign of weakness making him look lamer. Now picture you and your friends are passing by the second club and as legions of the beautiful people are clamoring outside to get in, the door person suddenly drops what he’s doing to approach you and say “Wow, you guys sure are a sharp group. Come inside, we’ll set you up in VIP.” Exact same action, a compliment. Exact same words and sentiment. But it has a whole different effect this time because it’s coming from a perceived “value giver” than a “value taker.”
Let’s alter the examples again slightly. Let’s go back to the first shabby club again. Say you pause outside just to survey it and see if you want to go in. It’s as I described before and initially seems unimpressive, and the guy comes up to you. You expect him to beg you to come in but instead he throws you a curveball and says “Nice as you guys look tonight, it’s doubtful you’re getting in. Even if you’re on the guestlist. It’s just been that kind of night. But if you hang around who knows?” This statement might be enough to get you intrigued, even if its for only a split second, in a nightclub you would have never remotely been interested in going to before hearing that statement. Suddenly you wonder if you misjudged the club. Suddenly you are curious about what’s beneath that exterior. You’re intrigued. The club is not eager to take value from you after all. In fact, it may have value to give. This is the same concept behind the neg. But in the case of the second club, the value it has to give is obvious from the start. And the fact that it is not eager to take your value because it has so many options is also obvious. So a similar statement from the door guy at that club is unnecessary to intrigue you. In fact, it may be overkill. The same goes for “negging.” To be a value-giver, you have to be able to pass a two-prong test: (1) how much value you potentially have to offer and (2) how desperately you need value from others,. The better you are at conveying yourself as a value giver, the less value-conveying shortcuts, tricks and rules you need. For illustration of this two-prong test, look at how banks decide who to give loans to. They don’t go by the person who has the least value to offer and blatantly conveys their desperate needs to take value from the bank, even though such a person would probably appreciate the loan the most. No, they choose who to give value to based on who (1) has a lot of value to offer in return (in the form of assets, a steady paycheck, dependable payment history on credit report and savings) and who (2) doesn’t have as desperate a need for the value (also something a credit report tells them). The person who seems to already have the most money and needs the money the least is the person the bank seems most eager to lend to.
One more example. Think of movie character archetypes. Say you have a do-gooder people pleaser character. Total nice guy wuss. Say you have the alpha male ladies man. For example, the characters Alan (Jon Cryer) and Charlie (Charlie Sheen) from Two and a Half Men. If Alan were to give flowers to a woman, shed a tear in front of her or declare his undying love for her, it just goes as more evidence of his loser persona. If Charlie were to do the exact same things, he would get credit for showing some vulnerability and it would be seen as endearing. Same act committed by both, but thanks to different value-giving and value-taking contexts conveyed, it leaves different impressions depending on who does it.
When a guy is not very good with women or is a beginner at getting good with women, hard fast rules of thumb and regimrented steps are more necessary, because he’s not used to quickly conveying what value he has value to give or that he’s not desperately in need of value to take. Chances are he’s spent most of his dating life as the equivalent of the beggar or pushy salesman in my first example, or the person who goes into the bank trying to get a loan by talking about how strapped for cash he is an how much he needs the loan. He’s used to always coming in broadcasting his low value and his desire to take value from others. He has no natural instincts at conveying high potential for giving value or low need for taking value. Not with his words, not with his body language, not with his physical appearance, not with his fashion choices. Like the beggar he’s only trained himself to broadcast how little he has and how much value he wants/needs to take. What the woman feels from the typical guy is similar to what most people feel when getting approached on the street with a pitch from blatant value takers like beggars, junk salesmen and telemarketers. The approached person thinks I know you want something, I’m sure you’re offering nothing or something I have no interest in, the sooner I can get you away from me the better.
So back to Entropy’s question. Is it weakness to light a woman’s cigarette unsolicited? Is it necessary to neg her when doing it? The answer is…it depends on how skilled you are at quickly setting a high-value-offering, low value-needing context. Or as I like to call it, your CRED (as in street cred). The higher the value you convey yourself as having to offer and the lower the you convey yourself as desperately needing value, the higher your cred. Some people scream high cred without uttering a word, just by eye contact and/or body language. Or by their entourage. Or their swagger. If you can reach this level, your mere aura does the job of a neg for you. This should be your ultimate goal. The negs, the rules, the scripts, the stories, those are all stepping stones to this final goal, not the goal itself. Once again, cred is how much value you potentially have to offer to others combined with how little you seem to need value from others in return.
If you rush over from across the room with eager body language, your arm outstretched and zero swagger to light the cigarette, you have no cred. Even a playful insult won’t help negate the weakness and desperation you’ve shown. On the other hand if you have the looks, swagger and aura that can demand attention and electrify a room the moment you walk into it, you can walk across a room confidently holding deliberate, smoldering eye contact for no other reason than to light her cigarette and still come off as high cred. No neg needed. The neg would be overkill. Most people fall in between both extremes. Be honest and evaluate where you fall in the spectrum of ability to instantly convey strong cred and that will tell you how much vulnerability, exerted effort or unsolicited niceness it’s safe for you to show up front. If you’re a rookie at conveying strong cred quickly, you need to show as little vulnerability, exerted effort and unsolicited niceness up front as possible and keep it that way until you feel you’ve reached a point in the action where you’ve conveyed strong cred. With time and practice, as you get dirty in the game and get better instincts and skills, you’ll know how to generate instant and insanely strong cred and you’ll get away with showing levels of vulnerability, exerted effort and unsolicited niceness that would kill most other guys if they did it (of course no matter how good you are, there are limits to this). Thanks to my ability to generate high cred, I’ve done stuff successfully that I routinely hear people say you should never do. I’ve called women an hour after getting their numbers. I’ve opened women with over the top compliments. I’ve lit women’s cigarettes unsolicited.
And of course when evaluating whether to use tricks such as playful insults and teasing or waiting a few days to call a number, it’s not just your cred alone in a vacuum you have to evaluate, it’s your cred in relation to the girl’s self-perceived cred. If you convey so much cred in relation to their girl that she feels way outclassed, she’ll doubt your interest is genuine because she’ll start thinking your out of your league. This is a way that the confidence and swagger of high cred can backfire. With this dynamic, insulting her even playfully or waiting too long to call her will confirm to her you’re out of her league and not serious about her, maybe just toying with her out of boredom, and end up messing you up. And remember, it’s her self-perceived cred that’s the issue, not what you perceive it to be. If a girl is a 9 to you and the rest of the world but has low self-esteem and sees herself as a 6, and sees you as having high cred, you can’t neg her because she’ll actually take you seriously. You can’t wait too long not to call her in a gambit to establish lack of neediness because she’ll take it as a high-status guy toying with her and not really being interested. On the flip side, if you are dealing with a 6 who’s self-perceived value is a 9…well, what would you do that for? You know better than that. Kick her to the curb!
So I know it’s not an easy yes or no answer as far as whether to light the chick’s cigarette or not. I know “it depends” often sounds like a cop-out answer, but it really does depend. It depends on both your conveyed cred and her self-perceived cred and how big the gap is between the two.
Last year I did a series of posts about a social maneuver call the Rearden that you can use against passive aggressive pricks. It was generally well-received, but there was one installment of it that got mixed reviews, and that’s the part where I gave a specific example where I used it myself. The anecdote was about an exchange with a passive-aggressive Eurodouche.
It got some good feedback but also some negative feedback from commenters like
I don’t know man…
I see where you are coming from, and I agree with the analyses of conversational dynamics you post here, but something about the way you handled this rubbed me the wrong way. Felt too defensive. I would have handled it in one of two ways:
1) Early in the conversation you could have opened up an interesting discussion comparing the relative merits of the more isolated, atomic nature of American life versus the more friendly vibe you felt in AMS (you do agree that there is a qualitative difference, right? I myself found the open vibe in AMS to be refreshing).
2) If you you honestly felt the guy was trying to ho you up, better to go for the throat right away instead of psychoanalyzing and nitpicking. If it’s a “fight”, go on the offensive and start talking trash about what you think about the Dutch. That’s fun. But squirming around about what you think his motives are strikes me as ever so slightly bitchassed.
I like the idea of The Rearden in theory, but I don’t like this example.
All IMHO, of course.
Mu’Min/Obsidian also chimed in with:
Hey T,
Been awhile since we last chatted. So, I see I have some reading to do! I like “The Rearden” but I’m w/TC on this one: in any situation, Mu prefers the North/South approach, straightup, straight line, let’s have it.
Now, if I had been in your shoes w/dude, I would have cut him right off at the knees, cut the ring off on him and made him duke it rhetorically right there. I would have put him back on his heels in a very dominant way, because that’s my nature anyhow. And he would either have to bring it, or stand down. Kinda what you’ve been saying about drawing them out into the open.
On the other hand, people who have been to Europe or other cultures where confrontation tends to be indirect like Japan all agreed with me to some degree. Wade Nichols said:
Good post!
I’ve had a few experiences similar to yours when dealing with Europeans and/or Brits.
One was when I was in New Zealand, hiking the Kepler Track, during Christmas/New Years. In one of the huts, 2 Brits basically started ganging up on my wife and I when they learned we were Americans. They played many of the same games you described, as they were bitching about Iraq, how Tony Blair’s “basically a poodle of the U.S.”, etc. etc. They tried to cast the U.S. as hypocrites since there’s a photo of Dick Cheney with Sadaam Hussein from the 1980’s, and that was somehow indicative that the U.S. was once cozy with him. I didn’t think of it at the time, but later on realized I should have mentioned to these 2 clowns that Britain also once went to war with a certain bunch of people, and that Britain is now friends with the descendents of those people. Today we’re called Americans!
Another time I’ve experienced the same also with a Dutchman. This guy was playing the not-too-subtle “Americans are idiots” game by asking me, “How come you Americans always go to McDonald’s when you’re overseas?” I should have countered him by asking him about the stereotype of Europeans all being a bunch of wimps that “swing both ways”, and ask him how many guys he’s slept with!
Joshua Herring wrote:
What a great post! I spent 6 years abroad, one of which was in Germany, so this sort of thing happened to me all the time. I disagree with other commenters that going for the jugular early on is the right approach. That was always my initial instinct too, but it doesn’t work because (as this encounter demonstrates) they can easily fall back on the faux “OH, I didn’t mean to offend.” It’s true that Rawness calls him on it eventually, but first you have to give the guy enough rope to hang himself. Sitting there and calmly letting him build up a bit belies any impression that you’re easily offended or closed-minded, or simplistic or whatever. Love the Rearden and will definitely plan on using it next time I’m in one of these situations.
Several blogs also linked to it favorably, but the blog articles were always written by someone who actually experienced what I was talking about firsthand. But I had a nagging curiosity about why the reaction was so mixed, and in particular why only people who experienced it firsthand supported my prescription of how to respond. But after a while, I just moved on to new topics.
The other day I came across the old post and suddenly it hit me. It was so obvious. When I was recalling the encounter the first time around, the memory was incredibly fresh in my mind. So mentally, I added all the necessary accompanying details like the vibrant vocal inflection, smiling facial expressions, soothing intonation and friendly body language. But in writing it down I left all those extra details out and related almost nothing but the text of the discussion. And when all you see is the pure text without all those other details that tend to soften the impact, the insults look much more direct to readers than it seemed to me at the time I was experiencing it. Similarly, the readers who visited or lived in Europe and had similar experiences with the people there when reading the text, thanks to their own experiences, were probably able to totally fill in those extra details and put the words more into the context needed to understand why going nuclear in response would have come off badly.
Realizing this gave me some more insight on passive aggressors. People who are really good at passive aggression have a talent of making their behavior, body language and voices so incongruous with the insulting nature of their words that you experience a slightly disorienting cognitive dissonance that causes you to doubt your own instincts. However just focusing on the words alone totally makes the insulting intention jump out at you clear as day, just like the Eurodouche’s insulting nature was much more apparent to those readers who were strictly focused on the content of his dialogue as opposed to the other readers who filled in a more vivid total picture of the encounter.
So in the future if you have what you think may have been an encounter with a passive aggressor laced with veiled insults and are doubting your instincts, focus on just the words and nothing else. Write it out if you have to and read it to yourself. Better yet, have someone else who wasn’t there and can’t fill in the extra details of the encounter themselves read it to give you their impression of what’s going on. Chances are that regardless of how the person was acting, if it looks like a blatant insult on paper, it was meant to be insulting.
Okay, this is the last Michael Jackson related post.
As crazy and social maladjusted Michael Jackson was in his personal life, he was peerless in one area, and that was creating a larger than life showbiz persona. And the second video I posted from him, “Liberian Girl,” demonstrates this perfectly and I think has a lot of human principles to teach.
First thing to notice about the video is the use of social proof. Social Proof is a concept popularized by Robert Cialdini, author of “Influence.” It basically says that if something is endorsed by a bunch of people, it automatically rises in value to onlookers. For example if I walk into a venue and don’t say hello to anyone and no one says hello to me I will make one impression. If I walk into a venue and a bunch of people mob me and I seem to know and say hello to everyone, I have social proof. Even if I’m dressed and looking exactly the same in both examples, in the example where I have social proof my value will rise sharply. People who look on will automatically assign value to me without knowing anything about me. The quality of the people also determines the level of social proof. Anyone who has been out with an incredibly hot woman knows this to be true. Men and women both treat you differently and assign you value automatically without knowing anything about you. If you walk in someplace with a model-caliber companion or a famous person like Diddy or Donald Trump with you, the social proof will be significantly more powerful from that one person than if you walked in with a mob of 30 nobodies.
Another good example of this is rapper team-up songs and videos. The format is the same. A rapper who is popular has another rapper who is as popular or up and coming and puts him in the video. He’s endorsing his social circle and gaining social proof. He’s telling people who are watching, “This is my friend. This is the caliber of rapper I hang with. If you think he’s credible, than I am credibly too by association.” Usually the two rappers are of equal or near equal status, and use each other’s presence to mutually give each other social proof. Then as icing on the cake they surround themselves with a bevy of fine women, fancy cars and material possessions. Crude but effective.
There is a current rapper coming up named Drake who is using social proof to an incredible degree to make himself incredibly popular and viral. He’s made himself a household name among rap fans within less than a year just by hanging out, working with and appearig in public with today’s top rappers. This gave him social proofing among hip-hop’s male fans. Plus he was publicly spotted dating female celebrities like Rihanna, which gained him a lot of press and gave him social proofing among females who follow black celebrity gossip.
Toronto MC Drake, arguably the most talked about up-and-coming artist since Kanye West and 50 Cent, is involved in a serious bidding war between at least three major labels according to Billboard.
As XXLMag.com reported last month, Drake is close to signing a deal, but has yet to sign on the dotted line. Billboard has learned that Drizzy will most likely go to Universal, due to the label’s relationship with his crew Young Money. At the same time, this has not deterred other labels from baiting the So Far Gone rapper, whose mixtape single “Best I Ever Had” is receiving serious radio airplay. In fact sources tell Billboard that three majors are in possibly “one of the biggest bidding wars ever.” It is rumored that an undisclosed company has offered Drizzy $2 million to join their ranks.
In addition, Warner Music Group CEO Lyor Cohen and Chief Operating Officer Julie Greenwald made a notable appearance at Drake’s New York City concert last week, showing Atlantic’s interest in the former Degrassi actor.
An astounding accomplishment for a relative unknown in an incredibly short time, accomplished primarily through social proof. In one of Drake’s mixtape songs I heard, he shouts out Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power as his personal bible. I’m not surprised.
However when it comes to social proof in show business, Michael Jackson was great at this, and he knew how to do it better than anyone else. It’s a lesson he learned from Berry Gordy, who used his existing stable of Motown stars to add social proof to the Jackson 5, such as when he created the legend that Diana Ross was responsible for discovering the Jackson 5, which is why their first album was named “Diana Ross presents The Jackson 5.” She had absolutely nothing to do with their discovery, but Berry Gordy created the legend that she did, and had her present them to the crowds at all their early performances and on their debut album, which even contained a written story describing this discovery that never actually occurred in real life. It’s a lesson that stayed with him throughout his life.
The “Liberian Girl” video is a prime example of this:
The video for the song came out in 1989, and it features the prime celebrities of the era: Paula Abdul, Rosanna Arquette, Dan Aykroyd, Mayim Bialik, Bubbles, Jackie Collins, David Copperfield, Emily Dreyfuss, Richard Dreyfuss, Corey Feldman, Lou Ferrigno, Debbie Gibson, Danny Glover, Steve Guttenberg, Jasmine Guy, Whoopi Goldberg, Sherman Hemsley, Olivia Hussey, Amy Irving, Malcolm-Jamal Warner, Beverly Johnson, Quincy Jones, Don King, Virginia Madsen, Cheech Marin, Olivia Newton-John, Brigitte Nielsen, Lou Diamond Phillips, Ricky Schroder, Steven Spielberg, Suzanne Somers, John Travolta, Blair Underwood, Carl Weathers, Billy Dee Williams, “Weird Al” Yankovic. Many of these stars may have faded into B or C-list obscurity since then, but at the time they were all huge names.
But putting celebrities in a video isn’t novel or exceptional as far as social proof goes. But what made this video notable wasn’t just the quantity or quality of the celebrities but the context in which they were used. What Jackson was always good at, and it started back in the Jackson 5 era with Diana Ross, is that he’s always been able to present himself as a celebrity to celebrities, or a god to other gods. This is his social proof masterstroke. He makes sure to remind you that he is the idol to your idols. He creates the impression that he’s doing them a favor by letting him appear in his video rather than giving the impression he’s using them for social proof. He has Steven Spielberg waiting anxiously in a chair for him for Pete’s sake.
That’s another notable social dominance aspect of the video. Making people wait for you and getting away with it is a display of social power, a way to remind others of dominance. It’s also a way to build anticipation and anxiety. The whole video is the era’s A-list celebrities waiting for him with bated breath with nothing to do. He sends no apologies, doesn’t send any explanations to them for where he is, they’re left in the dark and even more importantly, no one threatens to leave or get upset. They patiently put up with it. They ask where he is often, but not out of anger but anticipation.
This is also an illustration of Law 16 of Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power:
Law 16 Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor
The best element is the final one, his actual arrival. Not only is it a nice subtle bit of spectacle, but for those who know classic theatre it’s highly symbolic. First, the direction he comes from. He descends from above like a god. More specifically, he descends like a “deus ex machina,” which translates to a “god from the machine”:
the ‘god from a machine’ who was lowered on to the stage by mechanical contrivance in some ancient Greek plays (notably those of Euripides) to solve the problems of the plot at a stroke.
And what does the god do once he descends from his machine to their cheers and adulation? He simply dismisses them with one sentence. He got what he needs from them without their knowing and is done with them. And they’re happy with that, so long as they get a glimpse of him. It’s incredibly arrogant, but he is able to get away with it by doing it with childlike charm and an innocent smile. The whole video is bragging without bragging, or displaying high value without explicitly having to verbally toot your own horn.
So the lessons you can learn from this video? First, use social proofing whenever you can. Even if you arrive somewhere by yourself you can use social proofing. Within seconds of walking in, walk up to a stranger, ask them some question, smile, pat them on the back, shake their hand and move on. Do this once or twice more and to onlookers you seem to casually know people. Introduce yourself to people, make small talk, exchange names, and remember them. They’ll come in handy later. When you find a person you actually want to keep talking to and engage in a longer conversation, whenever you see the other people you exchanged names with earlier, you can introduce each other. Anything to casually remind people that you know other people who like and endorse you. No one has to know that you just met these people, although even if it comes out no one really cares by that point anyway.
Also keep in mind the quality of social proofing. People of low social value, such as nerds or unattractive women or boorish, loud low-class people, if you surround yourself with them, actually provide negative social value. You’re better off being alone at that point. Also, avoid that type of friend whose preferred method of breaking ice to strangers is to crack jokes and excessively bust on his or her friends. These people are annoying and not only hurt you but themselves. People see you getting busted on and think “wow, what a loser, his own friend doesn’t respect him,” then they look at your friend and think “wow, what a loser, he doesn’t respect his own friend,” and both of you lose value. If you keep quiet you look bad, if you bust back, then you look just as much like a douche as your friend. And it elevates the stranger’s value, because he or she now has two friends taking turns bashing each other for his entertainment, even though they know each other longer and are supposed to be friends. Just like Michael Jackson used flattering words from celebrities to build up his reputation and image, you should be around friends who do the same for you. In fact, this is more important than any other part of social proof. Say for example you are someplace with a hot girl or a powerful man, which would normally give you social proof whether you are a man or a woman, and they spend the whole time berating and belittling you and cracking jokes at your expense? At that point the high quality of your companions does nothing for you.
Second, act humble but avoid self-deprecation. Michael Jackson was great at acting humble while actually having a larger than life ego and self-regard. This is the man who crowned himself “King of Pop,” much like the Stones were the first to name themselves the “World’s Greatest Rock Band.” And in the case of both MJ and the Stones, the names eventually stuck and everyone forgot who originated them. But notice that the biggest celebrities, the ones that even other celebrities look up to, almost never engage in self-deprecation. I can’t think of a time MJ, despite his soft-spoken and shy act, ever was self-deprecating. There’s only one exception to the self-deprecating rule. If you have extremely high-status, you can put yourself down and instead it comes off as endearing. In that case, the ability to still put yourself down despite your obvious high status actually improves your image. If you don’t have blatantly high status, the only acceptable self-deprecation is blatantly insincere self-deprecation. For example if you are in a bar and know everyone there, you can joke “Yeah, I’m a pretty lonely guy with no friends. Look, I couldn’t get anyone to come out tonight!” If you are a musclebound tall guy, you can say “Yeah, it sucks to be a 95 pound weakling.” Ironically, people will be impressed at how humble you are for not taking yourself too seriously in such a scenario, but if you actually were friendless or a 98 lb weakling and said the exact same thing, it would get an opposite reaction!
Third, understand that extreme lateness is a power play that elevates the status of the one being waited for and lowers the status of the one waiting. However I wouldn’t recommend people to be habitually late because it’s not only a tacky power play but often a transparent one as well. It says “I’m so important that I can show up whenever I want, and I consider your time is so unimportant that I expect you to just wait around for me.” Instead what I would tell people is, if you are being kept waiting for too long without an acceptable excuse, just leave and announce that you’ll reschedule at a better time. Don’t act angry about it and indicate annoyance, just do it matter-of-factly and without malice. Display that your time is valuable too and shouldn’t be taken for granted.
Fourth, don’t be afraid to be the most prominent person in your social circle, but don’t be an openly opportunistic dick about it. People love ambition, but hate when it appears to be too naked and aggressive a power grab. Michael Jackson didn’t want to just be a celebrity, he always aimed to be THE celebrity, even to other celebrities. But he didn’t do it by bullying and throwing his weight around. He did it by offering value to his social circle. By bringing them joy and making them value and love his presence and the other things he brought to the table, they were more than willing to give him the highest status in their circle. By not trying to be overly bullying and transparently nasty in his play to present, he reached top dog status without building up resentment and negative backlash in his peers. He framed it in a way where people felt they were being done a favor by being allowed to defer to him. A good fictional example of the opposite is the main character from “All About Eve,” who made it to the top but lost all her friends and companions at the end of the day.
First of all. while Michael Jackson has been accused by quite a few people of child molestation, he’s never been convicted of anything. Secondly, this is a reach as the media’s coverage of Michael Jackson has nothing to do with dissing our troops. And yeah, at a time when the GOP is struggling, barely getting mention on the national radar, dissing a cultural icon is just the kind of lift it needs. Any wonder too why Blacks stay away from the GOP?
Really, this is just making conservatives look bad. And I think it’s worse than just alienating blacks, it alienates most of the rational world. It reinforces the stereotype of conservatives as the uptight soulless whitebread guys that were outraged by Kevin Bacon dancing in Footloose. It’s getting to the point of self-parody now guys.
Maybe you don’t want Michael Jackson to be the most famous and admired human being born in the 20th century, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was. Hence they’ll cover him.
Also, check out this 1994 GQ article about his child molestation case that makes a pretty strong case that MJ was framed:
http://www.usnewslink.com/framedjackson.htm
Now I know what a lot of people think, sure they found no proof against him in criminal trials, but if he was innocent why did he pay off the family? Glad you asked.
Little known fun fact: not only was insufficient proof found against him in both cases, the $20 million paid as a settlement to the first accuser was not from Michael Jackson himself but negotiated and paid by his insurance carrier, over the loud protestations of Michael Jackson and his legal counsel.
When Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser, Jordan Chandler, for more than $15million in 1994, his career went into a rapid decline from which he never recovered.
Jackson had not wanted to settle the case. I have obtained legal documents proving that his insurance company forced the settlement on him against his will.
The documents state: ‘The [1994 Chandler] settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel.’
A Youtube video covering most of the flaws in the accusation cases that aren’t widely known:
Slate also did the research and came to the same conclusion:
http://www.slate.com/id/2120889/
So then comes the other questions: if he was not a molester, why was his behavior so off and why did he have a compulsive need to spend time with young boys? That is covered in my last post on his psychology.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to Americans being proud of its icons? The state of conservatism is already in a fragile state, why would they bother with a losing, ugly stance like bashing Michael Jackson every chance they get right now? What do they gain from it besides showing insensitivity to his fans worldwide, showing themselves to fit the stereotype of insensitive, unhip and uptight white guys and providing cannon fodder for those who love stereotyping conservatives as racists?
It’s just really ugly behavior and horrible PR for us on the right. Obviously, whether or not Michael Jackson means anything to you or not, he means a lot to the rest of the world and is getting covered accordingly. There’s nothing to gain politically by bashing the coverage of a man hundreds of millions loved worldwide. A man who sold more copies of single album than anyone who ever lived, a record that is likely never to be topped again. Ever. I mean, I never got the big deal about Princess Diana, but I respect the right of the rest of the western world to go batshit insane over her death.
Anyway, one more Michael Jackson post coming up and I’m done with the topic, promise.
With Michael Jackson’s death last week, I wanted to do a tribute to him, but I didn’t want to just do fawning praise, and I wanted it to fit in with the theme of this blog, which is decontruction of social and sexual dynamics. I think celebrities are great test cases for learning to evaluate psychology because so much of their life is transparent and well-publicized, making them easy to study. Many short-sighted intellectuals disdain pop culture, but I love it, especially gossip magazines and celebrity biographies because they provide great practice for armchair psychologists like myself. And no celebrity is more psychologically fascinating or rich for analysis as Michael Jackson.
So I posted two videos that I thought gave great insights into his psychology with very little comment. I wanted to see if people who read this blog could see many of the themes I discussed being illustrated in the videos. Sometimes I don’t want to just spell things out for people, I want to challenge them to see read between the lines. It was how Iceberg Slim worked in his writing, and something I feel I don’t do enough of. The first video I posted from Michael Jackson this week was Stranger in Moscow. I love this one for the message in the lyrics, particularly what they say about fame, wealth, culture, race and the different forms of isolation that can arise both because of and in spite of all those factors. But the lyrics to the song become especially poignant the more you understand his psychology and personal history.
Michael Jackson’s life story is a fascinating case study for psychology and human nature.
Joe Jackson was a steel mill operator and failed musician. He worked full-time at a steel mill factory, and in the 50s formed a music group with his brother Luther called The Falcons, where he played guitar. They failed to get a record deal and Joe was forced to go back to working at the steel mill.
While he went to work, the three older brothers would sneak into his belongings and play with his guitar. This is something that would never happen today as kids are rarely left unstimulated long enough to get bored enough to experiment with something like a guitar. Today those three older brothers would be watching BET and sneaking peeks at Internet porn while their dad was at work. The only time they’d probably come close to playing a guitar would be the controller of a Guitar Hero game. But I digress…
Anyway, Tito would play with Joe’s guitar behind his back, while his brothers Jackie and Jermaine sang and danced. One day Tito broke a string, which caused Joe to discover they were playing with his stuff. Being Joe Jackson, he promptly threatened to beat Tito (or actually did beat his ass, depending on who you ass), then changed his mind and asked him to play the guitar for him to see what he could do. As Tito played and the other brothers sang and danced, Joe realized they were actually pretty good and decided to channel his aspirations to be a musician into his children. That’s right, Tito, the butt of endless jokes, was actually the talent in the Jacksons responsible for launching the pop dynasty.
The three brothers formed The Jackson Brothers with some hometown friends, and eventually two younger brothers joined, Marlon and Michael. Michael around the age of 6 or 7 had displayed an uncanny singing and dancing ability and ended up replacing Jermaine, a talented soul singer in his own right, as the lead singer. How uncanny? See for yourself:
An important thing to realize was the type of music and performing the group was doing before joining Motown. Motown’s big innovation was taking a gritty, dirty, sexy and lowdown sound like black soul rhythm and blues (the rhythm and blues that was the precursor of rock and roll, not the genre of music we call rhythm and blues today) and sanitizing and whitewashing it to make it palatable to mainstream America. When you see the clip above, one thing that strikes you is that it’s not the type of music and dancing you normally picture when you picture the Jackson Five. It’s funkier and sassier. Sexier. Less bubblegum and kid-friendly. Very adult. Michael Jackson’s dancing in the vein of Jackie Wilson and James Brown, in a very adult, freewheeling swaggering and strutting sexual fashion. And keep in mind he’s 6 or 7 years old in this clip. And watch him dance again. This is very sexy and adult dancing, especially for the 60s. It’s actually very inappropriate for his age, but the problem was that he was so damned talented you’re willing to overlook it. If you have to choose between being denied seeing such talent and doing what’s right for the kid, most people selfishly choose seeing the talent. And that would be a recurring theme for the boy in his life ahead.
Now keep in mind, this boy is 6 or 7 years old and can dance with an incredible sexual swagger. This is the kind of dancing that could make a grown woman moist to watch. Yet another often overlooked aspect of the Jackson family is that they were very devout Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially the mother, and Michael grew up very much a true believer. This created a very profound conflict in him, as he was incredibly sexualized from a tender young age, and encouraged to increasingly play up his sexuality in his suggestive dancing and singing, yet on the other hand he was very indoctrinated with a belief system of repressive religious social attitudes. He was so deeply involved in the Witnesses that he was going door to door professing the faith as a youth. Yes, he was one of those door-to-door Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Many psychologists theorize that this is where many of Michael’s dysfunctions arose from: the mental and emotional conflict from trying to resolve the freewheeling and inherently sexual lifestyle that he was exposed to and encouraged to chase with the intensely repressive and morally rigorous Jehovah’s Witness religious belief system he was indoctrinated into from birth.
But it gets worse. The boys got their start performing gigs in the circuit of strip clubs, burlesque houses and adult black dance clubs called the chitlin circuit. At one point they even had a residency in a strip club, where they performed in between stripteases and during down time. Anyone with a kid knows their minds are like sponges, and you can only imagine the type of vulgarity he was exposed to and forced to process. Yet while he wasn’t being immersed in that life, he was being immersed in his mother’s devout faith. At the same time, it’s probably very likely that much of the sexualized titillation he saw in the performances highly influenced his own showmanship as well.
When he wasn’t performing and being involved in religious activities, he was forced to practice, practice, practice at a feverish pace. If he wasn’t performing or involved with religion, he was in practice being overseen by his dad. His father was like a drill sergeant and Michael never had a childhood. The act of interacting with other kids in a peer group is very important to properly socializing a human being. Socialization through peer groups is something we often take for granted, so we never realize the severity of damage it can do to one’s psyche and social skills to be deprived of it:
Developmental psychologists Vygotsky, Piaget, and Sullivan have all argued that peer relationships provide a unique context for cognitive, social, and emotional development, with equality, reciprocity, cooperation, and intimacy maturing and enhancing children’s reasoning abilities and concern for others. Modern research echoes these sentiments, showing that social and emotional gains are indeed provided by peer interaction.
Journalist, J. Randy Taraborrelli said of the groups two singles released through Steeltown Records, “Both were mediocre numbers that don’t really hint at Michael Jackson’s potential as a vocalist, but the boys were thrilled with them just the same. After all, these were their first records”. The Jackson family gathered around a radio to hear the song broadcast for the first time. Michael Jackson—who was 10 years old at the time—said of the period, “[the family] all laughed and hugged one another. We felt we had arrived”. “Big Boy” did not appear on any Billboard charts of the period but sold in excess of 10,000 copies…
The Jackson 5 would release a second and final single through Steeltown Records—”We Don’t Have To Be Over 21 (to Fall in Love)”. The two singles were to be supported by an eleven track studio album but it was never released. On July 26, 1968, the group signed a new contract with Motown Records. However, as the groups Steeltown contract had not yet expired, the new contract could not be fully executed until March 11, 1969. Motown Records tried to get the group out of their Steeltown contract, ultimately with a financial settlement.
In his autobiography, Moonwalk, Michael Jackson has described his childhood as “mostly work.” The Jackson brothers were rehearsed and managed by their overly-strict father, whose insistence on perfect performances … in school work as well as in rehearsals and talent shows … frequently ended in physical and/or verbal violence. Michael was eleven-years-old when the group signed with Motown in 1969 (although the Motown press corps published his age as nine, explaining that he would be much cuter and more appealing to the public if he were two years younger. They called it “public relations.”)
Apparently Michael was very disturbed at this lie. We’re used to adult performers lying about their age all the time, but it’s important to remember that he was 11 years old and very devout in his faith, meaning he took much of it literally, including the ban on lying. Yet he was being asked to lie about his age in interviews and press conferences. To get him to do this, the adults around him explained to him the lying was okay so long as you’re doing it to further his career. Young Michael accepted this answer as satisfactory and went along with it. But that message, that the truth is flexible and lying is acceptable when done to further your career is said to have stuck with him throughout his life. Now his sense of right and wrong and his relationship to honesty were warped.
As grueling as his work schedule and the demands of his father were before the big time, they only got worse after fame:
He gives a rare glimpse of his youth in his statement that in the summer of 1970, the Jackson 5 performed in 45 cities, with 50 more cities being added later in the year. Forty-five cities within a ninety-day period meant that he and his brothers were performing concerts [on average] every second day during that summer. Travel to and from the concerts accounted for a portion of the non-performing day. And this does NOT account for recording sessions, picture sessions, interviews, or the interminable rehearsals Joseph Jackson insisted upon. It also does not account for the fact that, unlike many lead singers of the time, Michael was present at EACH of these recording sessions. He recorded with his brothers and his is the beautiful, clear treble in the backgrounds of all of the Jackson 5 early hits. Later, he would return to the recording studio while his brothers played basketball or tinkered with cars to lay in the lead tracks and round off the recordings.
Michael Jackson describes his relationship with his father, Joseph, as “turbulent”, understating rather than sensationalizing that relationship. But, much later, during a televised interview, he replied to his interrogator’s questions regarding this relationship with the words, [I was] “frightened … very frightened. There were times when he would come to see me, I would get sick. I would start to regurgitate.” When asked if such occasions occurred “as a child … or as an adult,” he responded with one word … “both.” He was 35 years old at the time of the interview.
Then it got even worse than that. On the road, they had a lot of groupies. The older boys were better socialized than Michael because they had more of a life before fame, including more years of formal schooling and peer group socialization. They had a healthier relationship to sex and girls than Michael did, especially the older brothers, who were approaching 18 at the time and had the raging hormones that come with that age. Since the brothers shared a room, they would have sex with the groupies in the same room as Michael. Michael would hide underneath the sheets and pretend to be asleep as the brothers banged out their groupies. This apparently traumatized him greatly. To make matters worse, Joe Jackson didn’t want to be left out of the sexual rewards. Joe would present himself as a “gatekeeper” to the boys, and groupies would often have to provide him sexual favors before they were able to get a crack at the boys.
Then young, extremely religious Michael would have to go home to his devout, beloved mother and lie to her face about everything that happened. Lie about the sex that his brothers had as well as the sex his dad had. The pressure and guilt of such secrets and the burden of having to lie to his mother, who he adored, combined with the grueling schedule and the psychological terrorism waged by his father wore greatly on Michael’s psyche and is the reason many mental health experts theorize his psyche fractured and became frozen at that age, 11 years old.
The seeds for all his adult problems were sown in his youth, and you can see it in what I’ve described: His issues with sexuality, both being obsessed with it from constant exposure and sexualization, but not being able to get a healthy relationship with it due to his extreme youth, his repressive religious values and his lack of peer group socialization. Not to mention that sex was something he was trained to be secretive and dishonest about. Adult sexuality became something that terrified him for all the reasons described.
As for his obsession with being around children, it was never proven that he molested those boys, so as far as I’m concerned they will remain allegations and not facts. But his obsession with children I think comes from two factors. First, he never got that peer group socialization that he so desperately needed, and since his psyche was frozen at age 11, he chose a peer group of that age. Second, his whole life consisted of being used, abused and let down by adults. Second, adults were either selfishly using him for short term benefits without any thoughts of the long term detriments, like his father, Berry Gordy or the Motown publicity machine, or they were letting him down like his mother, who failed to protect him from his father’s abuse and stayed with him, implicitly cosigning his behavior. So he probably was very distrustful of adults and wary of them. “I haven’t been betrayed or deceived by children,” Jackson once said. “Adults have let me down.” And because he was so horribly tyrannized and abused by his own dad, this caused him to be excessively gentle and nurturing to children when he became an adult.
I think it was Bill Murray who said (I paraphrase) that with fame, it’s not about whether you get screwed up or become an asshole, but how much of a screwed-up asshole you become. His point was that when fame hits you, nothing can prepare you from it and at some point you get screwed up. If fame does that to healthy adults, imagine what international superstardom did to an 11-year old with the dysfunctional background I just described?
When Michael Jackson was acquitted of molestation charges in 2005, a great piece appeared in Slate celebrating his acquittal and explaining the reasons it was likely he didn’t do it, and I suggest if you guys click one link in this whole piece you make it this one. I’d also suggest watching VH-1 to see if they ever air a special called “Michael Jackson’s Secret Childhood” again. Both touch on a lot of what I mentioned here and more.
Many say that the child abuse trials were the final emotional blow to him, something he perceived as his last and greatest betrayal, and that he sank into a depression that he never fully recovered from, because now not only were his relationships to adults ruined, he now had to be distrustful of kids. He was never safe from feeling used and isolated. Which is why I posted the song “Stranger in Moscow,” as it’s incredibly exposing of his personal psychology:
“Stranger in Moscow” is the fifth and final single from Michael Jackson’s album HIStory. The song was released worldwide in November 1996 but was not released in the US until August 1997. The track was written by Jackson in 1993, at the height of the highly publicized child abuse accusations made against him, while on tour in Moscow. In the ballad, Jackson sings of a fall from grace that has left him lonely, isolated, paranoid and on the verge of insanity.
See if the meaning and emotional impact you derive from the song has changed at all after reading this piece. Below is a version of the video with the lyrics printed on the screen for you to read as you listen:
UPDATE: GQ released an article in 1994 titled was “Michael Jackson Framed?” that made a pretty strong case that the first accuser was severely lacking in credibility. The article can be found at this link here.
Not only was insufficient evidence found in all criminal matters against Michael Jackson, but there was a matter of a $20 Million settlement paid to the accuser that Jackson’s detractors use as proof that he was actually guilty. After all, he was innocent why pay the money, right? Well I’m glad you asked.
When Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser, Jordan Chandler, for more than $15million in 1994, his career went into a rapid decline from which he never recovered.
Jackson had not wanted to settle the case. I have obtained legal documents proving that his insurance company forced the settlement on him against his will.
The documents state: ‘The [1994 Chandler] settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel.’
Jackson was said to have almost collapsed as the settlement was forced upon him. His aides insist this marked the beginning of his mental and physical breakdown.
That last sentence also adds more context to the lyrics and theme of the “Stranger in Moscow” video.
Also, this video covers just about ever flaw in the molestation charges:
