Narcissists live in a constant state of dissonance. They develop something which could be called cognitive dissonance tolerance.

Tolerance for harboring or entertaining to conflicting views, beliefs, norms, expectations, wishes, thoughts, emotions, where other people would fall apart because, you know, their mind will be blown by such contradictions.

The narcissist is happy-go-lucky. He simultaneously accepts two or more conflicting pieces of information or contradictory thoughts, and he thinks nothing of it. He holds conflicting views, values, bits of information, and these dissonances inside his mind, this is not a trivial matter. It’s not like a tangential issue or a fringe topic, no.

Because cognitions, especially when coupled with emotions, they lead to motivation. And motivation is an integral part of decision-making, and choices, and finally, actions.

An internal and inner conflict triggers primitive infantile defense mechanisms such as denial or splitting or projection or reaction formation in order to allow the individual to eliminate one part of the dissonance, remain with the other part, thereby decide on a course of action and implement it.

A narcissist doesn’t do this. His mind is split. He simultaneously holds two beliefs that contradict each other. He expounds one view, and minutes later, he will expound on another view, and he will not be able to see where has he gone wrong or why you are criticizing him. He will confess to a norm or a value or a belief system, and then act exactly the opposite, and he will fail to see the contradiction.

There is a disconnect in the narcissist’s mind between the dissonant contradictory system and his choices, actions, and decisions. It’s as if the narcissist’s choices, actions, and decisions are brought on by someone else, not by the narcissist.

Indeed, this is precisely the case.

Remember that the narcissist’s narcissism is a fantasy defense gone awry.

Narcissism is about renouncing reality. Reality testing so impaired that the narcissist is clinically kind of psychotic or pseudo-psychotic.

So there is a breakdown, a schism in the narcissist’s mind.

Let’s call it the thinking self and the acting self.

Whereas in most people, healthy and normal people, the thinking self dictates the action. The thinking self is the acting self. The acting self in healthy people is just the next stage, the next phase of the thinking self.

The narcissist with the narcissist is not the same because the narcissist inhabits his mind, is inwardly oriented, never public facing, because the narcissist is unable to perceive external objects.

And all the time refers to and interacts with internal objects.

There is one narcissist who is captured, is a hostage, is a captive of his own internal world.

So this kind of narcissist is ethereal, symbolic, a language narcissist, linguistic. It’s a narcissist that plays with representations, with symbols, with internal objects, with introjects and with the language that represents them.

This is the thinking narcissist.

Then when time comes to act in reality and upon reality, the thinking self of the narcissist is incapable of doing it because it is held captive and hostage within the narcissist’s mind.

So the narcissist acts almost, I would say, automatically.

The narcissist develops routines, procedures, habits that reflect the fantasy, the elements of the fantasy, the narrative that governs the fantasy, reflect early childhood unresolved conflicts and choices and decisions and actions that reflect automatism or reflexivity, reflexes in reaction to the environment.

So narcissist actions, choices and decisions are triggered from the outside, from the environment.

Whereas his beliefs, his norms, his values, his thoughts, his emotions are inside his mind. They never interact with reality. They never affect reality. They have no interface with reality.

I know how unbelievably difficult this is to comprehend. And I’m wrecking my mind trying to come up with a simile or a metaphor or an analogy or an allegory of what it is that’s happening.

Let’s think of it this way. Imagine that the narcissist is composed of two types.

One is a philosopher and one is a businessman.

The philosopher sits in his room, peruses books, browses manuscripts, thinks all day long, analyzes, synthesizes, you know, but he never exits the room. He never exits the library. And all he knows about reality comes from books.

And then there’s a businessman. The businessman is more or less certifications, can obtain outcomes, is worldly or strikes people as worldly and is able to operate in the external environment.

However, there’s no communication between the philosopher and the businessman. The businessman is actually a robot, an android, a form of artificial intelligence. It is programmed. It is code reified. It acts. It’s an app. It’s a software. The businessman acts on the environment, but not because it is informed by any internal dynamic processes in the narcissist’s mind, but because that’s the way it has been programmed.

The philosopher is the life of the mind of the narcissist, but it has no bearing on reality and on external objects such as you, the narcissist’s intimate partner.

Sothe narcissist strikes people as robotic in many cases, an imitation, uncanny value imitation, an imitation that causes discomfort, an imitation of a human being that causes discomfort.

And the narcissist’s fluctuation, the ability of mood, disregulated thinking, disregulated cognition, not emotion, but cognition, they’re a bit borderline.

So the narcissist gives you the impression of someone who is in control, resilient, strong, well-informed, action-minded, worldly, efficacious, get things done, get things done and so on, until you get to know the narcissist. And then you realize whoever it is that’s making the choices, reaching decisions and implementing them, acting, whoever this person is, it’s not the narcissist. Who is it?

The false self? We don’t really know, but there’s a breakdown between the inner world of the narcissist and the way the narcissist manifests in his or her environment.

And when you push a narcissist to a corner and you force a narcissist to explain himself, in other words, when you try to force a narcissist to cope with this predicament of a split, a split mind, a mind that is in a constant state of dissonance, when you demonstrate to the narcissist something is wrong.

When you hold two values which are incompatible, that’s wrong. When you have two thoughts which can’t live together, can’t coexist, something’s wrong.

When you force a narcissist to transition from dissonance to consonance, when you coerce a narcissist to come up with a reconciling narrative, a theory which seamlessly accommodates both conflicting points of view, data, information, values, beliefs, attitudes, wishes, dreams, verbiage.

When you tell the narcissist, you have to do that. You have to explain to me how did you say something five minutes ago which you are now contradicting. How did you profess to believe something and then act exactly the opposite? How do I insist on an explanation?

The narcissist is likely to come up with one of the following explanations or a combination thereof.

Number one, what I said, A, let’s call it A, A was true then, not A is true now. Everything is transient and temporary and in flux. I don’t commit myself to anything. I am pragmatic, I’m practical, my eyes are open to the world, I am the one who is embedded in reality, you are not.

Reality is ever changing, it’s mutable. So my views and beliefs and principles of action and everything is also in flux.

Let’s explanation number one.

Explaination number two, A is the normal. Usually I’m A, the narcissist says. Not A, the opposite of A occurred, it happened because you triggered me, you provoked me. You changed the circumstances or the conditions unfairly so I had to resort from A to not A.

I’m usually A as far as I’m concerned, being not A is abnormal, it’s an aberration, it’s a curiosity, it’s not who I am. You made me do it.

Solution number two, explanation number two, explanation number three. You’re wrong, there’s no contradiction between A and not A, they’re not mutually exclusive. They simply are pieces of a bigger puzzle, picture or theory. Their contradiction is only apparent because we have no access, you have no access, you have no awareness of the true and full picture which I in my infinite wisdom can see.

My knowledge far exceeds yours, even my capacity to know is far superior to yours. You must obey and accept my authority, my intellectual authority and even my authority generally speaking.

So what to you appears to be a contradiction to me is not because I have a synoptic panoramic view of everything that’s taking place.

Explaination number four, there’s no contradiction between A and not A, both of them are true, both of them lead to the same conclusions. You’re wrong.

Why do you keep saying that I’m contradicting myself or that I’m not the same person from one minute to another or that I’ve betrayed my values and beliefs or that my cognitions are mutually exclusive or why do you keep saying this? Not true.

A and not A are both true and they lead to the same conclusion. So there’s no contradiction.

So, for example, if I love you, I love you.

Okay. But I also abuse you egregiously, verbally.

Okay. You keep saying that loving someone and abusing someone is mutually exclusive. It contradicts each other. If you love someone, you don’t abuse them and if you abuse them, you don’t love them.

I disagree, says the narcissist. My verbal abuse is a form of tough love. It’s intended to educate you, edify you, make you a better person. It is intended to protect you from risks and dangers out there.

I’m being harsh with you because you need someone to be harsh with you. It’s proof of my love. It’s my way of showing and demonstrating my commitment to you, actually my compassion and affection.

So this is denial. A common way that narcissists resolve dissonances.

The last technique that the narcissist uses when you control the narcissist with his contradictions, with his constant wavering, with his inability to remain stable and predictable and reliable and responsible.

When you do this, the narcissist uses a fifth strategy.

He says both A and not A are valid. Both of them valid. They’re both valid points of view. There’s nothing wrong in contemplating or considering both of them.

But only A applies to me. Not A applies to other people. It applies to you.

And this is, of course, splitting. I’m all good. You’re all bad. I’m all right. You’re all wrong.

So, yeah, I do consider as a narcissist, I do consider, says the narcissist, I do consider A and not A simultaneously.

But that’s because I’m aware of the fact that other people are not A. Not A is bad. It’s a projection. And not A should be eradicated in other people in order to restore A to its rightful place as the sole and ethical alternative.

This is known as reaction formation.

So the narcissist says, you didn’t catch me in a contradiction. I’ve been considering A and not A simultaneously because I’m on a research mission. I’m researching not A. And I’m researching not A because I’m a saviour. I’m a rescuer. I’m a healer. I’m a fixer.

I’m studying not A in order to be able to fight it more effectively, eliminate it in other people because not A is all bad.

Yeah, I may emulate not A. I may behave in a not A way or fashion. I may even profess to simultaneously hold the view that A and the view that not A. And it appears to be that I’m crazy making, but I’m not.

I’m not. I’m just exploring this terror incognita of evil.

And when I’ve mastered not A, I’m going to revert to my natural state, which is A, and I’m going to fight not A wherever I can cross it.

This is one form. This is cognitive dissonance in narcissism.

Narcissists have dissonant thinking. They use these five techniques to defend their ability to entertain simultaneously views, beliefs, attitudes, wishes, dreams, requirements, demands, statements, emotions and cognitions.

They can never ever sit together, fit together, work together, except in the narcissist mind.

The narcissist also sometimes is exposed to what we call volitional dissonance. It’s when we act in ways which we perceive to be immoral, antisocial.

When we perceive our actions to have been the outcomes of a weak will, misbehavior, contrary to our best judgment.

When we act in ways which were not the outcome, the outcomes of good judgment, excellence of character, habits conducive to virtuous life.

This is how healthy normal people react when the narcissist is confronted with a volitional dissonance, because as opposed to psychopaths, as distinct from psychopaths, narcissists do have a conscience.

However, the conscience of the narcissist is an integral part of the bad object.

So the conscience of the narcissist is actually a harsh inner critic, a sadistic super ego, a group of introjector, cluster of introjects that hate the narcissist, loathe the narcissist, are enemies of the narcissist, one of the narcissist dead.

So when the narcissist’s conscience is provoked, when the narcissist realizes that he has misbehaved, he has been, he has given in to temptation, he acted contrary to his best judgment.

Whatever he has done can be deemed easily immoral, antisocial, perhaps even criminal.

Whenever he comes across this and his conscience is triggered, and maybe not only conscience, but fear of consequences, at that moment there’s a volitional dissonance in the narcissist.

And so he resolves it, applying the five techniques that I’ve mentioned.

He says, I acted this way temporarily because I had no choice. I did what I did reactively, because the circumstances have changed, the conditions force me to behave that way.

It’s an aberration, it’s abnormal, I usually don’t act this way.

Or he says, the way I acted may appear on the face of it, on the surface, may appear to be, I don’t know, immoral, antisocial, criminal, evil, but it’s actually not.

Because if you see the bigger picture, if you see a big part, the bigger puzzle, you realize that I should have acted this way. It was the right way to act, it was the right thing to do.

But because your knowledge is limited, you don’t know everything, you don’t realize how right I was to have done it.