I think its bad in the sense that you could be doing something really evil on a mass scale and think you're in the right because that must be your destiny and you can do no wrong.

But I guess your insanity could be used for good.

It could. Thanks.

Messiah complex, sounds to me like someone has made it especially important that they accomplish a task with the idea of achieving some sort of goal with a mass amount of people.

That's a bit overly domineering and controlling I say. Tone it down and find the medium; Tend to whatever cause you commit yourself to, and do it with pride, but don't reach outside yourself and decide for others, because that's a dick move.

I think that to a certain extent, we all have a Messiah Complex. Or, at least a narcissistic streak.

A messiah/god complex is, I think, distinct from generalized narcissism, much less, self-interest.

After all, a god complex is defined from a person's inability to see fault in their own actions, and inability to accept that they are essentially fallible.

To some degree, god complexes go hand in hand with sociopathic tendencies, but those with the complex are more prone to delusions of grandeur and self-destructive behavior than a sociopath.

The underlining trait of a god complex: "The individual may disregard the rules of society and require special consideration or privileges"

Individual human beings are bred to be self-interested to a degree, but also recently, humans have found that self-interest must necessarily be subordinate to the interests of the group. That means that the society must thrive for the individual to thrive. In a limited context, an individual can thrive at the expense of the group, but over a long enough period of time, an individual depending upon the protection or material benefit of inclusion in said group, will be harmed by actions at the expense of the group.

A person with a god complex will more than likely self-destruct if not granted a significant audience of followers. This is the difference between people like Aleister Crowley, David Koresh, and L Ron Hubbard.

These three examples are all individuals with god complexes, and each shows varying levels of construction of subcultures. Crowley sought to harm those under his sway, and thus, his group was destroyed from within by the eventual abuse and neglect resulting in the death of a follower, and in so doing, resulted in the banishment of himself from the country in which his coven practiced.

Koresh, on the other hand, established a strong hold on his followers, to the point that said group was willing to defend itself from the ATF. They were destroyed from without due to disobeying social conventions of the larger social hierarchy.

Now, L Ron Hubbard is a prime example. He defied social norms, and constructed a vast network of followers over his lifetime. He succeeded in creating the Church of Scientology and became himself, an immortalized god within this group.

Each of them suffered the same delusion, and each was distinct from a regular member of society in their willingness to violate social norms. Where they are different, is in how they consolidated a power structure within their own group, and how they treated their constructed social hierarchy.


So no, I don't think I have a tinge of a messiah/god complex. I think someone with a messiah/god complex is victim to many of the biological impulses the rest of us are, but their reckoning and respect of social responsibilities have been perverted by delusions I, and the majority of the population are not victim to.

I see our condition as an unnatural (but necessary) constraint placed on our "true" selves.

Perhaps I'll elaborate on my statement so maybe we can find some understanding of one anothers' views.

I don't think people are in essence "good" or "bad", "lawful", or "unlawful". I think that people follow instinct, primarily.

Instinct is mostly rational, this is merely because irrational actions most commonly cause self-harm, and as such, natural selection removes those with a propensity for short-term actions that promote harm of the self or group.

We have selectively been adapted by our environment to be a gregarious species. It's in our own interests to obey the social norms because the social norms have been proven to be at least somewhat rational, and disobeying these norms results in some cursory form of punishment or ostracism.

We are not beholden to society itself, so much as an environment.

So long as this environment is stable, the actions of the individual are stabilized. However, when the environment is destabilized, the social contracts will inevitably break down.

Basically, people will only obey a law insofar as it is rational to do so. People will violate social standards/laws the moment it is rational to do so, within the schema of the self.

As such, perversion of the decision-making process, as well as interference with the stability of an environment results in criminality and rampant self-interest. A breakdown of the ability to be pursued for transgressions, likewise, results in an environment in which there is less reason to act in accordance with social standards.

Basically, as people acquire power, they become more immune to punitive action for transgressions against the whole. So too, as people see less benefit from the social structure (E.G. the impoverished), or are unable to participate meaningfully (E.G. the uneducated), they will invariably be much more willing to violate the social contracts of their society.

In short, I don't think at all people are civil because that's just how they are. People are civil because there is a demonstrable advantage to being civil. The moment that advantage is gone, or the moment there's a hint that others will not abide the theretofore agreed upon social standards, people revert to self-interested beasts.

I think we actually agree.

That said, there's a very big difference between a normal human being and a sociopath or a narcissist. A normal member of a society is able to identify with the group, while a sociopath/narcissist is completely unable to identify with anyone but themselves. Sociopaths in particular can't even experience empathy. These are very big differences.

It takes a lot of brainwashing to turn an 18 year old boy into a US Marine. Even then, once you turn off the restrictions to violence, there's a chance the barriers never go back up again. Sometimes, even, it's impossible to take the revulsion of killing even in self defense out of a person. Whereas, a sociopath can turn into a callous killing machine with the turn of the wind.

Hence, there's a little God/Messiah complex in all of us.

Given the right environment? Okay, I'll concede that.

I don't associate those hand in hand. One deals with your relationship to those around you, and what you're going to do to effect those people.

The other is basically a priority scale. It's a normal thing for you to be the center of your own experience, else you'll not achieve greatness, and if you don't achieve greatness you have little to contribute -anyway-

SSGX, you seem to be melding these into a basic level of self-importance. They are similar in that regard, but they're still different enough to warrant individual categories I think.

While this may be an interesting subject, the terminology is just hilarious. I would prefer the analogy of the "shepherd" complex and the "sheeple". In this case, the "shepherd" is a manipulative, delusional person, who thinks they can "herd" society, and in some rare cases, they are partially, or even catastrophically "successful".

Someone with such a shepherd complex may have the potential to become very dangerous, but that is impossible without the help of the opposite personality. In this case, the sheeple are the ones you really need to be worried about. They are like zombies. They are partially "dead" on the inside, and tend to form large groups, or herds. They do exactly what authorities tell them, regardless of whether they see it as morally right or wrong. These sheeple feel "safe and secure" when others are ordering them around.

The "shepherds" take advantage of the far more numerous "sheeple" personalities in society, when they attempt to gain power. In special cases, such as when society has been weakened through certain unfortunate circumstances, there is a percent increase in the number of people who have the "sheeple" personality. This is because they are actually looking for a savior, and are willing to bow down to anyone who they think might help improve their condition.

Unfortunately, it is often this exact "pefect storm" formula that allows evil dictators to rise to power.

SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:

People with a true Messiah complex not only feel that they are above the masses, but that the masses require their help and guidance. They may even feel obligated to fulfill this role.

Sheldon Cooper, Big Bang Theory

Flick wrote:

I'm not insane, my mother had me tested!

Einstein defined insanity by doing the same things over, and over again and expecting different results. How many times has Sheldon in the show done something like that?

In any rate, I personally despise the whole Messiah Complex personality flaw(And that's my opinionated view on it). All it really does is label those who are essentially nothing but incredibly condescending, and need to stay away from people from the danger of someone potentially popping them one in the jaw.