A negative tends to have a greater impact than a positive.

As Mark Twain was purported to have said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  Obviously, what he meant was that it is easier to spread a falsehood than to correct it.   I also realized when in was in my first year of college that failure is easier than success and spoke about this concept in The Fine Line: Failure takes no effort, success takes a lot of work .  Most of the time you don't have to do anything to fail.  In fact, I believe that it is doing nothing that will inevitably usually lead to failure.   In more recent years, it has occurred to me that a negative generally has greater impact than a positive.  As a matter of fact, the concepts here actually go hand in hand.   Just as failure is easier than success, a negative tends to be the default or more pervasive state than a positive.

But, think about.  When studying history what do we put more of our energy on?  When we have both good and bad interactions with people, what do we tend to focus more on?  If we have an otherwise good driving record marred by a life-changing accident, what will we and others focus on?   When we have a good work record marred by a very bad screw-up or marred by an unfortunate interaction--especially if we are dismissed as a result--will we feel like a success?  When we have an uneventful or clean deployment that ends with a trauma, what will we be tend to focus on?

I've had some successes in life, but in my later 40s and 50s, I have worked through and processes a lot as a childhood sexual abuse survivor.   The successes have helped me keep perspective BUT they did not completely erase the impact of CSA.  This all leads to the questions:  Why does the negative in many (or I dare so most) cases have a greater impact than the positive?  I'm going to consider that here:

Impact of Negatives vs. Positives

• I think the positives, though we appreciate them, we can take them for granted and not realize their goodness or importance.  Negatives on the other hand I think are harder to dismiss as 'these things just happen sometimes'.  I think we tend to look for a reason or why.
• I think often the consequences of a negative just is more devastating than a positive.  
• I understand a common exercise to teach teens the difficulty and challenges of raising a baby utilizes an egg as the baby. 
• The goal is to take the 'baby' wherever you go without 'breaking it'.
• No matter how many times or days you've handled the egg, if you drop it once on any kind of hard surface, it will break.  Similarly a baby can easily be injured if you drop him or her once.
• I believe we may savor the good or positive times and relive them, but they will tend to become a distance memory. Their impact can fade over time and we won't usually tend to second-guess them.  Bad or negative times, if bad enough, can come to the forefront.  From my experience, if they are not resolved, can come to the forefront very quickly.  Bad times are a lot more likely to lead to second guessing.  That is, how could we have made that choice, said those words, done that thing, etc.
• I believe we tend to view 'negatives' as a moral failure.  Meaning we have a harder time 'forgiving ourselves'.  I think this is especially true if the weak or more challenged our faith is.  The positives we take pride in but we are taught not to gloat too much about them or take too much credit for them.

So believing that negatives tend to have a greater impact, what do we do to mitigate against that?  I don't have all the answers, but I do have some ideas.

Mitigation Strategies (Against the Oversized Influence of Negatives) 

• Make reminders of success prominent in your life.  Not to gloat on them or to show or develop arrogance, but as a reminder to yourself when the bad times or negatives hit that your life has balance.  Meaning that as much of a particular failure or negative hurts, it is not who you are.
• Remember who your Higher Power sees you as.  Yes, it hurts if the world or you in particular sees a negative or failure in your life, but how does your Higher Power view you?  For myself, I've been taught that we are made in God's image and 'God doesn't make junk'.
• Surround yourself with those tend to be uplifting for you.  That's not to say surround yourself with yes men, but those who will be more willing see you in a positive light than a negative.   In other words, while you don't want those who would 'Blow smoke up your *ss', you also don't want those who would "Rain on your parade' either.
• Learn to view negatives or failures as blessing in disguise where possible.  If not that, then at least learn to view them as a learning experience or point along the journey.

Few people can completely shut the negatives in their life and I believe it is human nature to focus on the negatives over the positives.  However, that doesn't have to be a place 'where we live' but instead maybe a place we visit from time to time or a reminder of what to avoid.

Anyway, that's my thoughts for the day or my story and I'm sticking to it.

-- Rich

Projections of the Way I Used to Be

You ever make a boneheaded mistake or  poor choice that you were not proud of?   You ever hurt anybody in way you weren't proud of?   You ever fail as a parent in a big way?   You ever just fail in a big way you weren't proud of?  I think everyone has been there.  Sometimes or some people may want to talk out those situations or circumstance, but other times and other people will not.  I think sharing with the world all your dirty laundry can be really dumb, but avoiding it all costs is just as foolish.   For me, I've never been one to brag on social media or elsewhere or otherwise just breathlessly admit failures.  For me, it can be like the "Wanna Get Away" commercials from Southwest Airlines.  If I were to wrecked my car, the last thing I want to do is admit on social media about it.  For me it feels like admitting that I'm a terrible driver--even if that is not a proper characterization. I'd rather be just wanting to get away and to pretend the bad thing or mistake never happened.

I've noticed an interesting tendency that some people have.  Sometimes when people make mistakes or bad choices or otherwise fail in a way that would be humiliating--or condemning if known, they will try to secretly 'atone' for it rather own it.  Some examples:

• Rep. Mark Foley - He was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, yet he was found to have inappropriate communications with a young page.  He "couldn't" publicly own his failings, but by chairing the committee, he could at least feel better about himself.  That is, in his mind, perhaps he could privately even the scorecard.  He'd be helping more people than he hurt or so he might think.  Never mind, his failing would be seized on by those that he had helped to expose.  
• Ministers/priests who have come down hard on sexual deviancy, but later have been found to have engaged in it themselves.  They can't own their own 'sin' publicly, but they could feel better about themselves.  After all, by cleaning up deviancy in the community, they WERE doing the "Lord's work".  Never mind, that they were compromised and were privately undermining the "Lord's work" in the process.

The mindset appears to be, if I do enough good, it will atone or cover for the mistakes or bad choices I've made.   Anyone who knows anything about a recovery program realizes how flawed that thinking is.  It is important to own up to your bad or failures as it is to own up to your good or successes.  Not doing so

• Can undermine your credibility on your good.  In other words, good that is seen as a way of atoning for hidden or minimized bad, will probably be discredited as soon as the bad comes out.  Even if the good was done with the best intentions, if it is tied to the bad, it will probably be seen as being done strictly out of bad intentions. 
• Deprives you of an opportunity to grow and potentially become a positive spokesperson of sorts.  Our culture can be VERY forgiving.   
• In the movie Catch Me If You Can, the lead character Frank Abagnale Jr. runs into trouble after his parents divorce, and commits widespread fraud, the most notable of which is check fraud.  He spent time in a maximum security prison before FBI agent Carl Hanratty, who was the one that tracked him down and eventually caught him, convinced his superiors to let Frank serve out the rest of his sentence on the outside while helping the FBI with check fraud.  Mr. Abagnale was forced to face his mistakes and instead of continuing his failed path, he turned it around and did right by society.  He owned up to whom he was and accepted the cost of it.  Doing so allowed him to move on and become example of prison leading to a successfully reformed convict.
• Robert Downey Jr. struggled with drug addiction for years.  But he owned up to his failures and he was given a second chance legally and career-wise.  He is now recognized as a successful man and actor and a serious voice in the national conversation.
• Can deprive you of the ability to make amends or fix the problem on terms more favorable to you.  Anyone who follows politics knows that politicians who get in front of bad news tend to survive the consequences thereof better.   It's painful to do so, but as Bill Clinton's survival  before and during his presidency indicates, owning up to bad news rather than hiding from it can help you out in the long run.

I've been guilty of something a little bit different than that.  I have sometimes misplaced or projected my feelings onto another mistake or screw-up.  In other words, I'd be VERY harsh on myself for something smaller, but will not want to talk about the bigger screw-up.  Inevitably, I noticed in those type of situations, when I don't own up properly to my mistake or failing, it still had a way of getting back at me.  Over the years, I've lost a friendship or two by not owning up to properly to a/some mistake(s) or failing(s) at the time.

Eventually, bad news comes out and people aren't happy when they've heard it elsewhere.  By owning up to much to a lessor screw-ups when in reality I felt bad about something worse,  I was projecting my shame onto a small/smaller mistake.   It's sort of like dismissing culpability in an accident, but beating yourself up over cutting off someone off yesterday during a drive.   No, if I caused an accident, then I should own up properly to my role in it, even if doing so would expose reckless driving.   Pretending or minimzing my role in it, but then saying, but you know I have inadvertently cut others off before is sort of ludicrous. But that's essentially is the driving version of what I'm talking about.

It's hard to own up fully to mistakes, but in the long run, it is better for all who might be involved.  To do otherwise is essentially like a half-hearted apology or a half-hearted acknowledgement of role or culpability.  Beating yourself more over old news, doesn't help if you need to own up or atone for 'today'.    If I break the fine china and try to hide that fact, but tell you out of guilt or shame that I dropped and broke a glass, it doesn't help you.   For when it time for you to pull out and use the fine china, you will find out then that it is not available and you will be more upset that I hid that I broke it.  My displacement of it by condemning myself too much about breaking a glass, doesn't really solve anything.  Just saying...

I'm sure other can relate.

Evil has always existed

I have long been fascinated by the subject and history of WWII and the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Since I am far removed from the time period involved and especially since I did not have any direct connections in my family tree that I know of offhand, it is easy for me to study it in a detached way. This doesn't quite capture it, but consider when we drive by accident scene, we can't help but look, stare and gawk for a moment in morbid curiosity and try to discern what happened. If we figure out how it--the accident--happened. it may help to reinforce to us how not to drive. In any case, what makes Germany of post WWI to end of WWII intriguing is how a 'modern' society in human history allows itself to be the instrument of evil to the extent it did. While I believe that it is possible for evil to fully overtake a society in short order, I believe it is typically a gradual process.


The reason I named this blog as I did is that I believe evil has always existed in all of humankind or the potential or tendency to drift towards it as a society given the right circumstance. Think about it;

• We see a small wad of cash on the ground, say maybe $100, $200 or more.  Even if we are honest, I believe that most people think for a moment about what they would do with it.  We may even do the honest thing and turn it in to the police or customer service.  But, I believe most people will hope that no one comes by to claim it and they get it to keep it.  I guess the point here is we fight the desire to have what we know is not ours.
• We see a conflict off in the distance and it is clear someone is being beaten or otherwise wronged in a bad way.  Do we get involved to defend the target of it, do we reach out to the police or some other governing authority or do we just walk or drive away from it?  In question here is our willingness to put ourselves at risk or at least have to deal with the inconvenience of a situation which doesn't immediately involve us.
• We ignore a law or rule because we think it is silly or isn't that big a deal.  Heck I speed everyday so there's that.
• As a child we've gotten into or done something that we shouldn't have.  We know if we tell the truth to our parent or caregiver, there will be negative consequences for us.  But, we also know that if we are dishonest about it, there may be a chance that we are able to avoid any consequences especially if they believe our dishonesty.  

In these cases and many others there is the most proper way to act or be and there are less noble ways to act or be.  Think about it, even in an 'upright society' which strongly suggest golden rule values, people fight the right vs. wrong fight every day.  Now consider if a society has leadership whose priorities are out of whack.  As individuals, we face a challenge to exercise our better nature, with some more successful than other in that regard.   We sometimes face the challenge too of recognizing our better nature. Meaning, not just thinking we are doing right, but also recognizing what is right.  Imagine if you have leadership with very corrupt, if not downright evil priorities.  Imagine too that the leadership is good at masking their intentions too at least until it is too late to effective combat it (as in Nazi Germany).

Anyway, given our split nature.  The right vs. wrong and in a more extreme view, good vs. evil, why don't we just serve our 'wrong' nature more when it often seems to be more beneficial.  In other words, what keeps our 'wrong' or 'evil' behavior at bay?  Some of  the things I believe that keep us in check are as follows:

• Laws/rules that strictly lay out what is poor behavior and likely punishment for it.  In other words, in the short term, poor behavior may seem benefit us, but with rules and laws that are enforced, we realize that poor behavior may not pay.
• Faith that gives us a code of proper behavior and that indicates that we will be rewarded or punished for good or bad behavior in this life (or sometime beyond).  In other words, a spiritual ledger.
• People's desire for approval and a society with leaders/influencers approve the good behavior. I believe people are social creatures and as such seek to approval from others.   If those who influence or lead us reward us with approval or acceptance for upright behavior, we are more likely to engage in such.  Inversely, if they seem to approve poor behavior, members of society will likely engage in poor behavior.

In Nazi Germany, over a period each of these 'obstacles' was overcome.  Hitler participated in a putsch designed start an insurrection.  It failed miserably and he was arrested.   After appealing to the patriotism and resentments of those who judge him, he was able to get a light sentence.  Instead of recognizing Hitler for the threat he was or could become, they convinced themselves it was okay to bend the rules and limit the punishment.   Instead of punishing poor behavior, they effectively rewarded it by giving him a light sentence for his crime.  When he rose to power, Hitler continued a pattern of rewarding poor behavior that he approved of, instead of punishing it.   Hitler, through effective propaganda wash able overcome the spiritual ledger by co-opting elements of existing religious structure in Germany and by creating a sort of quasi-religion of his own.  In Hitler's Germany, his leadership sought the approval of the Fuhrer and as such they engaged in behavior which they felt that he would approve us.  Unfortunately, for all involved instead of rewarding morally good behavior, Hitler tended to reward evil behavior.   Similarly, in part fearful and impart wanting to gain approval, citizens would ignore or even justify the poor behavior of leadership in Nazi Germany or even in some cases condoned if not participate in it themselves.

People look back on Nazi Germany and think evil like that couldn't happen in a modern society these days.  But, with our individual battles to always do the right thing, to resentments or prejudices many have, to our desire to gain approval which can be flipped and our desire to the do morally right thing which also if we are not careful can be flipped as well, I do believe great evil is a risk even in our more modern society.   Jim Jones, David Koresh and many others have shown that even 'good' people can be corrupted, all the while they think they are doing right thing.

I believe we always need to be on guard individual, as groups and as a society and examine:

• Are we willing to or honest enough to properly recognize upright behavior?  If so, are we willing to reward it when it occurs--recognizing good deeds and honesty?  
• Are we willing to or honest enough to properly recognize poor behavior?  If so, do we have the stomach to punish poor behavior appropriately or do we ignore it because punishing it might have a cost? 
• Are we tailoring our beliefs of what is upright behavior to fit our lives OR are we willing to admit when we fall short and not change the definition of what is upright behavior to rationalizing our falling short?  In other words, are we adjusting our 'faith' to fit the circumstances?
•  Are we putting the need for approval over the need to always do the right thing?
•  Our motivations for our  decisions, choices and our behavior.

I believe evil has existed since the dawn of man and will exist as long as humankind, as it is, exists but we don't have to give into it.   However, we must be mindful of the tendency for good and bad in all.  We must also be determined to self-examine and be willing to do the right thing or behave in way that we know in our heart is the right way.

Just my thoughts. I don't claim to have anywhere near all the answers, but I enjoy being part of the conversation and hope my posts spur others to think about the things which I write on.   Take what you need and leave the rest.

- Rich

Throwing mud at the good only makes it muddy, not destroyed.

I don't know if it's a guy thing, it's a humility thing, a self-negating thing,  an escape thing or what.  But I was talking to a friend about a sentimental feeling--something like am a good dad or similar--and I found myself shifting gear in the conversation.  It was a guy friend and the subject matter was personal, so I to 'undignify' the conversation a bit by saying something goofy. It dawned on me that I was throwing mud at the conversation/subject matter in an attempt to minimize it.

In society, we will always have people that are egotistical and self-promoting (beyond what their job requires), but there will always be a segment of society which strikes a pose that could be seen as humble.  We see in everyday life, heroes dismissing their bravery, grown-ups dismissing their positive impact on kids, friends dismissing the nice things they do for others, people soft-pedaling their birthday, men not showing or owning their soft side, etc.  I will take a moment to focus on the why of it, but I did want to address what it means to throw mud at the 'good' and how it doesn't change it.

So, why do we try to dismiss, minimize or negate the good we do or feel?   I've got a few thoughts on it.

• We have been taught not to 'brag' about our goodness.  Our parents, ministers, coaches, etc. have imparted in us that our nature should be evident and that to self-promote is unseemly and not proper.
• Types of goodness.
• The good things we do such as volunteering our time and money.
• The the kindness/good evident in our nature such as comforting others.
• Verses/quotes which reflect this idea.
• Proverbs 27:2 Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; an outsider, and not your own lips.
• Matthew 6:2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
• "Good deeds should be done with the right intention, not for attention - Sayed Hadi Qazwini
• We don't like the attention of being 'praised'. 
• Some people are just humble.  
• Some people just are uncomfortable with the positive spotlight and would rather live in the shadows trying to do the right things.
• We can be self-negating and recognizing our goodness gets in the way.
• This can look like modesty (humility), but it really is not allowing ourselves to be framed positively.
• This can reflect a general low sense of self-worth.  If you don't necessarily feel good about yourself, there is no space for recognizing or allowing others to recognize your inherent goodness.
• We can feel vulnerable.
• We don't want to acknowledge ourselves too much.  I've said to others, "You're a good person, but I won't let anyone know."  The less others know about us, including the good, the less we are known, and therefore potentially vulnerable.
• If we accept others noting our good side, potentially we are implying permission for them to note our flaws as well.

So, how do we throw mud on the good?

• Minimized the good we have done.
• We say things like anyone in my situation would have done the same.
• If I hadn't jumped to help, someone else would have.
• We say deflect credit for good deeds to others.
• I'm just trying to help, but so and so deserves the real credit.
• We minimize the kindness we've shown. 
• I was just paying for the kindness shown to me.
• We deflect from showing positive sentiment. 
• Sometimes I'm an okay person.
• Maximize our flaws.
• I've made mistakes and I'm just trying to do good these days to make up for it.
• I've been insensitive to others and I'm just trying to correct that.
• I've lived a rough life and I'm just trying these days to do the right thing.

I've said before I think there are few completely selfish people and even fewer truly evil people in the world.  I think most people have a good side and a bad side.  Most people have the mind to do good things or bad things given the right or wrong stimulus.  Obviously, some are more inclined to do good than others, but still.   No matter what negative in our lives, it doesn't negate the positives.  We can throw all the mud we want on the good about us, but it doesn't negate it.  It can deflect others from seeing it or openly acknowledging the good, it can help us dismiss the good, but at the end of the day our good still remains.  Just as with our flaws, properly recognizing the good is important to mental and spiritual health.

Just some observations.

Stereotypes are often not Stereo, but instead Mono

When I thought of the idea of this blog, I was going to have the big focus of it be based on the  Michael Brown case in St. Louis. I was going to note how there seem to be two very distinctly different camps on the issue, each supporting a largely separate narrative.  My point was going to be the narrative, when told by each camp, was only part of the story and that at least in some cases was based on stereotypes.  In other words, instead of the story being played in 'stereo', it was being played in 'mono' by each side. When you combined some elements from each side (mono) and added some missing elements in the story, you got the story properly told in stereo. Anyway, that was going to be the direction, but my the direction of my post changed.

A number of years ago, a heard a phrase that stuck with me which encapsulates how I feel when in the process of doing or saying something, my mind or direction suddenly changes.  I'll have an epiphany and my direction changes dramatically.  The phrase is "a funny thing happened on the way to heaven..."

Anyway, a funny thing happened on the way to heaven considering how to open this blog.  Veteran's day celebrations happened.  It reminded of my father who passed away in May 2015.  He had a hard life as a child and adulthood that wasn't easy. He didn't always make the best choices, show the most compassion, exude the most sensitivity as it relates to societal issues.  My relationship with him wasn't the Hallmark Channel child/parent bonding moment.  Nor was it the hey let's go for beers and shoot the s***.  It was unequal for a long time.  But, when he was shuffling between the hospital and nursing home in his final days among the feelings I felt for him--besides regret that circumstances got in the way of a close relationship over his life--was a sense of this is my dad who gave perhaps only what he was able to in relationships.  In dying, he was honored with burial with full military honors.  Whatever mixed feelings I had for him, I was very proud to be honored as being the one who was tasked to set up his military burial (as well as other arrangements--with help from my brother).  I was proud to be the next of kin for my veteran father.  I was proud to take my daughter of 8 to his funeral and have her experience firsthand what it means to be honored militarily that way. 

So, back to the point at hand and my original idea.  What I've found in life is that when we discuss people we don't know (and sometimes people we know or think we know), we tend to get stuck on the seemingly obvious point(s) about them and ignore the rest of the story.  

Michael Brown's life story ended August 9th, 2014.  All we usually hear is the events of that day.  If siding with the pro-MB side, we hear of a troubled young man who was working to better himself, who was trying to comply and was shot down.  If we side with the anti-MB side, we hear of a thug who had what was coming.  Either way, we miss the backstory.  What events in MB's life led up to the confrontation.  Who could have been there him in a more profound way, but failed him along the way?   People talk about the events of August 9th, but I believe the situation had been working towards an unhappy ending for years.  But, I digress.

My father's life story ended on May 1st, 2015.  If you peeked in on his life, you'd see a person who wasn't always good with kids.  You might see a person who wasn't always racially sensitive.  You might see someone who wasn't one to open up.  You might see someone who abused alcohol for many years.  You might see someone who struggled in his relationships.  In short if you just peeked in, you'd see Mr. Old School, someone who seemingly didn't have a softer side.  You wouldn't necessarily be wrong with your assessment, but you'd only see the "mono" (or stereotyped) version of his life.  The father I knew, he was placed in foster care early and never was fully accepted by his family.  The father I knew was raised by a strict, old school, older foster father.  The father I knew on some level wanted relationships, but never had close relationships modeled closely in his life.  The father I knew, despite his bluster about others and 'others', I witnessed to be polite to and even helpful to others including people of color.  The father I knew served his country honorably and deserved a proper military burial with full honors.  The father I knew in his later years, was helpful to older people. The father I knew could be very generous too. In short, one could see a lot of Archie Bunker in him, but that would only be part of the story.  That would be a stereotype. In reality, he was a much more complex man in some ways with good mixed in with not so good and even some of the not so good wasn't totally as advertised (or blustered).

--

In my own personal life, when I let the dust settle with regard to others, I see that they either aren't as 'perfect' or as 'bad' as advertised.  It would be easy to place them in bins and label them as good and bad, but I know in my heart, that would be emotionally/intellectually lazy of me.  So, finishing up this Veteran's Day, think about veterans in your life and give them the thanks they've earned.  But, also consider others in your life (and in our society) and give them the benefit of the doubt.  That is, attempt to see them honestly, rather than seeing them conveniently.  It may take some work and it may not be satisfying, but I think the exercise could help you be more honest about yourself as well.

Just my 2 cents worth,
Rich

* I hope one day when my life story is 'written', that I will be looked at fairly. I can accept the bad, but I would like to think it would be balanced out with the good.

(posted originally on 11/11/17).  

Positive narcissist vs. negative narcissist vs. balanced view

A while bac, I was having a conversation with a person whose kid sees himself negatively.  While I don't necessarily think what I am writing below applies directly to the kid,  the conversation did remind me of a theory or view I had developed on narcissism.

We all have ran across someone who behaves as if their stuff doesn't stink.   Similarly, we all have run across someone who is like  Eeyore who is gloomy, negative and often rates his or herself no good.  I call the first type a 'positive narcissist' (or simply a 'narcissist') and the second type a 'negative narcissist'.  I will elaborate on why I see both types as narcissists.

I don't know when, but it occurred to me that both types actually have a lot in common:

• Each type of person is being emotionally, intellectually, mentally and/or spiritually lazy.
• It is easy to label and/or rationalize to yourself that you are either just good or bad.   If you decide that you are either 'perfect' or 'rotten' by nature then you don't have to continually evaluate yourself.
• It takes much more work to actually dig and effectively evaluate yourself.  It takes much more work to separate the flaws from the virtues. 
• Each type is disconnected from his or herself.  
• Once again, labeling yourself as just a great person or horrible one or the other frees you from having to process or evaluate yourself.
• You can easily stay at the surface level and find an example or two to support your contention.
• Each type disconnected from others.
• A narcissist by his or her very nature has hard time has accepting anything that could be seen as criticism.  By itself, this shuts down much of the conversation that is possible with others.  Furthermore, the self-focus drowns out the ability to see ability to see past oneself and really see others.
• A negative narcissist by his or her nature has a hard time accepting anything that could be seen as a compliment.  Once again, this shuts down much of the conversation that is possible.  Once again, the self-focus gets in the way of being able to really others.
• Each type has issues with humility.  
• A narcissist lacks humility.  He or she may feign humility, but it's usually pretty easy to see through the false humility.
• A negative narcissist in a way lacks true humility too.  He or she may come across as not wanting to be egotistical, but what I see it as is really a defense mechanism.  To accept praise or to self-praise requires one to step outside his or her predefined role as a 'no-good' or 'worthless' person.  In a way, in the deflecting praise is not being modest, but rather a way of avoiding the shattering the 'negative self-portrayal'.
• Each type gives a way of freeing the individual with the given personality of culpability or responsibility.
• A narcissist will tend to think of his or herself as being incapable of making a bad decision or failing.   When they actually do make a bad decision or fail, he or she will either:
• Push fault on another (scapegoat).
• Push fault on the cosmos (it was beyond me control, even if it wasn't)
• Spin the poor decision as a good decision (or intentional) and the failure as insignificant or really actually a success.
• A negative narcissist will portray themselves as fatally flawed and incapable of doing anything but making bad decisions or failing.
• In their mind and heart this frees them.  After all, if I am destined to fail, in a way what does it matter how I got there?  In other words, since I am going to fail anyway, I can choose the 'selfish' option as it will end up bad either way.
• If I blame myself for everything, then in a way I am blaming myself for nothing.  In other words, I am not really evaluating my role, but rather just sticking a label on myself and the situation.  Just like sticking a label on a batch of cookies that look good without actually sampling them to make sure it is good.
•  Each type has esteem issues.
• Narcissim is often a way overcompensating for insecurity.  A narcissist, in buying into their inflated sense of self, often is trying insulates his or herself from the effects of their insecurity.  After all, if I buy my own hype, then I can suppress and otherwise ignore my deeply buried insecurity.  Thus anyone who poses a threat to bring them down to earth, threatens their cushion against insecurity.
• A negative narcissist in a sense has bought into his or her own insecurity or low esteem.  When assessing his or herself, a negative narcissist has effectively conceeded that their insecurity or esteem problems are legitimate.  In other words, they've decided that they are implicitly bad and/or a failure and therefore will tend to focus on that which 'supports' their contention.

I think most people have an element of each--positive and negative--narcissism in them.  It is healthy to think of oneself as inherently good.  But, it is also healthy to think of oneself as having the ability to make mistakes.  It is when a person doesn't attempt to balance out the ledger--see the good and the bad--that a person is not really mentally, emotionally, or spiritually healthy.