Matematici individuale (adica dupa socoteala fiecaruia)

A. A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), lack of empathy, and hypersensitivity to the evaluation of others, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least five of the following:

1. Reacts to criticism with feelings of rage, shame, or humiliation (even if not expressed)
2. Is interpersonally exploitative: takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends.
3. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance, e.g. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be noticed as "special" without appropriate achievement.
4. Believes that their problems are unique and can be understood only by other special people.
5. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love.
6. Has a sense of entitlement: unreasonable expectation of especially favorable treatment, e.g. assumes that they do not have to wait in line when others must do
7. Requires constant attention and admiration, e.g. keeps fishing for compliments.
8. Lack of empathy: inability to recognize and experience how others feel, e.g. annoyance and surprise when a friend who is seriously ill cancels a date.
9. Is preoccupied with feelings of envy.

B. A pervasive and unwarranted tendency, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, to interpret the actions of people as deliberately demeaning or threatening, as indicated by at least four of the following:
1. Expects, without sufficient basism to be exploited or harmed by others.
2. Questiuns, without justification, the loyalty and trustworthiness of friends or associates.
3. Reads hidden meaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events, e.g. suspects that a neighbor put out trash early to annoy them.
4. Bears grudges or is unforgiving of insults or slights.
5. Is reluctant to confide in others, because of unwarranted feart that the information will be used against them.
6. Is easily slighted and quick to react with anger or to counterattack
7. Questions, without justification, fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

A: Narcissistic Personality Disorder
B: Paranoid Personality Disorder

From a book on Political Psychology, quoting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision; pp. 690, 714), by American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.

De la Andrei Plesu:
Când am plecat de la Cotroceni, am avut argumentele mele. Aveam probleme de sănătate, dar le aveam şi pentru că între mine şi şeful meu existau oarecari „nepotriviri de caracter”. Pe cele mai multe le-am semnalat, ulterior, în presă, ceea ce nu m-a scutit să rămân în continuare, pentru unii, un „intelectual al lui Băsescu”.

Fapt este că aveam o sumedenie de obiecţiuni la stilul preşedintelui. Îi apreciam inteligenţa nativă, dexteritatea politică şi o anumită – fie şi capricioasă – convivialitate. Nu-i puneam la îndoială bunele intenţii, dar mă deranjau reacţiile lui umorale, o anumită voluptate a conflictului, precum şi alternanţa de emotivitate lăcrămoasă şi brutalitate cazonă în care se complăcea adesea. Ştiam că nu condamnase comunismul din toată inima, regretam inapetenţa lui pentru politica externă, şi eram alergic la căutătura lui oblică din momentele de iritare. Că era un om necultivat nu mă indispunea prea tare. Am avut de a face cu unele „candori” culturale şi la case mai mari... Ar fi putut fi însă ceva mai bine educat, mai puţin înclinat spre grosolănii inutile, spre ieşiri fruste, spre abuzul de ton şi de atitudine. Nu-mi plăceau foarte mult nici oamenii care îi plăceau lui, nici promptitudinea cu care se putea debarasa de oricine. Pe scurt, anumite incompatibilităţi între oficiul prezidenţial şi temperamentul preşedintelui erau, după capul meu, de necontestat. Una peste alta, Traian Băsescu nu era genul meu. Şi, probabil, nici eu nu eram genul lui.

Până de curând, pornind de la considerente ca cele de mai sus, judecata mea asupra preşedintelui era foarte bine articulată. Putea fi greşită, subiectivă, neatentă la context, dar era limpede şi neezitantă. Faţă de alţii, aveam măcar avantajul de a-l fi cunoscut îndeaproape. De la o vreme însă, spiritul meu critic a intrat în derivă. Câteva echipe de gazetari şi de „comentatori” cu statut incert au declanşat asupra lui Traian Băsescu şi asupra celor socotiţi drept „oamenii lui” o campanie de o violenţă, de o vulgaritate, de o rea-credinţă fără precedent.

Zi de zi se pun la cale şi se execută mari planuri de lichidare. Nu vreau să umblu la motivaţii, nu vreau să montez procese de intenţii. Ceea ce văd e, pur şi simplu, o dezlănţuire de ură, de furie oarbă, de mârlănie obscenă, care nu se justifică, într-o lume normală, nici faţă de ultimul dintre răufăcători. Tot ceea ce mă deranja în comportamentul preşedintelui mi se serveşte înzecit de tabăra „oponenţilor”. Constat, perplex, că şi-au depăşit „duşmanul”, că au reuşit să livreze mostre de derapaj psihologic, faţă de care cel vizat face, brusc, figură de fată mare.

Totul se desfăşoară atât de isteric încât până şi cel mai rudimentar calcul strategic e lăsat deoparte. Există, într-adevăr, riscul – tipic pentru ambianţa autohtonă – ca electoratul nehotărât să basculeze, milos, de partea victimei. Traian Băsescu ar putea câştiga pe mâna detractorilor săi care, în zelul lor, şi-au ieşit din minţi. La păcatul lipsei de civilizaţie, al prostului gust, al excesului de fiere, se adaugă, masiv şi păcatul mediocrităţii mentale, al ignorării propriilor interese. În ce mă priveşte, le reproşez că mă împiedică să-mi exercit, calm, spiritul critic. Îmi sabotează judecata. În loc să mă convingă, mă dezgustă. Tipul de campanie care mi se bagă pe gât în fiecare seară n-are nicio legătură cu lupta dreaptă, cu buna cuviinţă, cu moravurile politice europene. E un fel de balamuc mânios, o bădărănie tribală, care vrea să combată „răul” cu „şi mai rău”. În aceste condiţii, dacă ai de ales între „intelectualii lui Gâdea” şi „intelectualii lui Băsescu”, nu prea poţi sta pe gânduri.

++++++
Romania's government - Progress, of a sort and at a price
Oct 15th 2009 BUCHAREST
From The Economist print edition

Egos, not the stricken economy, are at the centre of Romanian politics

IT MAY have worked politically, but not on other fronts. Two weeks ago, Romania’s prime minister, Emil Boc, doomed his own government to collapse by ousting his interior minister, Dan Nica. The ostensible reason was that Mr Nica, who represents a junior partner in the coalition, had groundlessly alleged that a huge electoral fraud was being planned in the presidential election due on November 22nd. He did not name the supposed ballot-riggers. But this is a touchy issue. Romania’s president, Traian Basescu (a close ally of Mr Boc), won power in 2004 on the crest of an anti-corruption campaign. Since then some of his biggest supporters have become increasingly critical of his record.

Sacking Mr Nica was meant to force his Social Democratic party to quit the government, leaving a minority administration to be run by Mr Basescu’s supporters, the Liberal Democrats. That, cynics say, was meant to ensure that the interior ministry, which runs the election machinery, was in safe hands in the run-up to the poll.

It may yet work. But the Social Democrats counter-attacked this week by ousting the government in Romania’s first successful no-confidence vote since the fall of communism. In one sense the vote, which took place on October 13th, was progress. Unlike in the 1990s the government’s removal did not involve miners rampaging violently through the streets of Bucharest.

The opposition parties, including Liberals and parties representing Hungarian and other ethnic minorities, make up two-thirds of parliament. They proposed their own, apolitical, candidate for prime minister, Klaus Johannis. An ethnic German, he has for the past nine years been the successful mayor of the Transylvanian town of Sibiu, one of the most attractive and best-run places in Romania.

That has boosted the credibility of the anti-Basescu camp, united only in their dislike of the president. But it has not so far dented the president’s popularity: he has a 13-point lead over his nearest rival in next month’s poll. This week Mr Basescu nominated Lucian Croitoru, a central-bank adviser, as prime minister. If parliament votes his nominee down, as seemed likely, the president can hang on and try again. He dismisses the opposition’s idea of a government of technocrats, saying that this belongs to the 1990s, and is just a cover for string-pulling politicians. For the moment, Mr Boc’s government remains in office as a caretaker administration.

Shenanigans around the conduct of the presidential election and uncertainty about the next government are distractions from Romania’s most pressing problems. The economy is forecast to shrink by around 8% this year. The IMF and European Union have bailed out the country to the tune of €20 billion ($30 billion). Romania has yet to implement the unpopular reforms that it agreed with the lenders. And it has also exasperated the EU by backsliding on promised improvements to the judiciary and legal system. Mr Basescu may have won the battle for his political survival for the time being. But he has not fulfilled his promises of modernising and cleaning up his country’s politics.