This seems to share the same sentiment I have been hearing from a lot of places recently, the only person you should be comparing yourself to is the past version of yourself.
Maybe they're more likely to report imposter syndrome? How exactly can we distinguish between a self-aware narcissist who knows they have imposter-like tendencies and someone who gets satisfaction over having a pathology that others will be sympathetic towards? Nothing I've read here suggests an answer to this, I think.
TIL I'm a narcissist. Not how I expected this morning to go.
I think these kind of categories that come from psychology are useful and also dangerous. Our innate tendency towards heuristics makes it difficult to talk about this stuff, especially with words like "narcissist" that have strongly negative connotations. The brain is a complicated mess. Maybe the most complicated mess in the universe. We try to impose some order on it without understanding it. It's true that "everyone in this room loves me" and "everyone in this room hates me" could be manifestations of a similar neurological configuration, and we could put the label "narcissist" on it. But the label is somewhat arbitrary and the behavioral results are often very different.
Agreed. This striving towards binary classification is so flawed from any broader perspective.
I, too, just learned that I'm a narcissist.
I had to squint quite a bit at the diagnostic list there, and sort of wedge my own psychological dispositions creatively into the qualifications list there but then yeah -- snap (and crap!) -- I'm a narcissist.
Oh, but if I use just a little more nuanced application of thought, then suddenly I'm not a narcissist. Or at least in a safer position on the linear spectrum that is assumed in this kind of "scientific" categorization.
Which is really quite absurd as you have pointed out.
By no means is this a universal truism, but in general if you think you have a Cluster B personality disorder, you probably don’t. If you think you’re the smartest, best person in the world and other people are inferior and should know it... then you might.
A true narcissist thinks they're better than everyone at everything. Trump is the best example of a narcissist I've ever seen. For example:
"I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth."
"I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody"
"Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt."
"I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes.
"Nobody knows banking better than I do"
"I understand money better than anybody."
"I think nobody knows the system better than I do."
"I know more about contributions than anybody."
"Nobody knows politicians better than Donald Trump."
"Nobody knows more about trade than me."
"Nobody knows jobs like I do! Don’t let them sell you out!"
"Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump."
"There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am."
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."
"There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me."
"Because nobody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me."
"I’m very highly educated. I know words; I have the best words."
"No one has more respect for women than me."
"I have the best temperament or certainly one of the best temperaments of anybody that’s ever run for the office of president. Ever."
"Nobody reads the Bible more than me."
"I’m the most successful person ever to run for the presidency, by far. Nobody’s ever been more successful than me."
Tired yet? Because I could go on all day with these. That's what it's like to be an actual narcissist. If that's not like you, you're probably not a narcissist.
Is it possible he's just saying things that people want to hear, things that lead to popularity and success? How do we know he sincerely believes these lines as he's saying them?
The way I know he actually believes these things is because this is how actual narcissists I know behave. So I have a point of comparison. I recognize the patterns, which extend past just these statements, including: gaslighting, blame shifting, victim blaming, self victimization, inability to accept any blame whatsoever, the inability to admit he's wrong, etc. This goes faaaaar beyond the typical pandering you get with politicians. It's pathological.
Look at it this way, even politicians who pander are able to exhibit some semblance of humility and self awareness. You'll be able to find exactly 0 instances from Trump admitting he's wrong about anything. In fact, he once said (to Jimmy Fallon) that he has never had to apologize because he's never done anything wrong.
Narcissism is more of a spectrum of behavior than a bistable formalism, but it is mostly characterized by feeling superior in general (not only in J2EE) and that superiority not based on actually being better. Keep in mind that most deluded people do not recognize their delusion so the latter is less useful as a self-diagnostic criteria.
Here's an example, my city has a water-related emergency and so the water system is temporarily broken. Local coffee shops have closed because it's too difficult to access suitable water. Meanwhile I am drinking coffee right now, and feeling quite smug that as a rank amateur I can do what Those Who Had One Job cannot. I frequently have this experience where I feel like I can do things better than other people. This is a giant red flag for narcissism.
If you dig into it though, I can make coffee because I have a weeks worth of supplies on hand because I had a rough childhood and certain things stay with you. I have two ISPs in case one goes down (and actually chose where I live for that reason), I have at least four modes of transit to get most places, I just chronically overplan for everything in life all the time. So when something goes wrong I will have two or three solutions ready to go while a normal person is trying to stop panicking.
That is a symptom of something, namely my generalized anxiety of having to rely on other people. But whereas a narcissist will berate a new cashier for not knowing how the POS system works, I surreptitiously memorized the right buttons from the last time I was here, help them get through the transaction as quickly as possible and say that I used to work here so they don't feel too bad.
I don't see how you can reach this conclusion from what you describe.
The list explicitly part of a larger list of possible symptoms. The fact that you, I assume not a psychologist, were able to change your "diagnosis" by fudging the numbers a bit, doesn't really prove anything.
As I understand it, lists like these are tools. Not the formal definition of a mental illness. They are used to help guide mental health professionals in their diagnosis. They are meant to be used by people trained in the field.
Follow up I don't think mental health diagnoses are as black and white as you make it out to be. People can have moderate or severe forms of many illnesses.
The diagnosis is not arbitrary and the lack of self-awareness those suffering from NPD experience places them at a disadvantage at self-diagnosis. DSM standards have moved a lot over the years, but NPD has remained largely the same. Ask a child, love-interest or spouse of someone with NPD about the manifestations of the condition on their lives and you'll get a remarkably consistent story. There are two grey areas: First, NPD in women can be confused with Asperger syndrome. Second, NPD is often accompanied (co-morbid) with other disorders (eg. BPD).
I say this as a person who has been abused by a string of relationships with folks who almost certainly have some variation of NPD, not as a clinician. So take this with a big 'ol grain of salt.
A lot of the epistemological problems for people who are pathologically narcissistic come from understanding the difference between how they see things and how other people see things.
Part of the pathology is that they have a filter set up to protect a fragile image of themselves, and so they often don't understand why other people are acting in some way, specifically when other people's actions are only explicable in ways that contradict the fragile image.
They aren't able to take in information that would allow them to modify their behavior because even mild criticism will harm their understanding of themselves, and since that filter is strong they have a hard time knowing the difference between useful criticisms and all the other reasons people say mean or hurtful things to them.
This disconnection appears similarly to other pathologies where people have issues identifying other peoples' motivations.
For instance, most people have a healthy skepticism of other people's negative reactions: even though other people might think I'm a jerk for, say, constantly name dropping some person some behavior, I will probably keep doing it for a bit.
But at some point, I will (hopefully) notice the trend in negative reactions and either rework the name dropping habit so that other people find it interesting/relevant or understand that it's something that I should change about myself. But if I have such a strong filter against criticism of my identity that literally anything could harm that identity, I might not pick up on social cues that would tell me I need to alter my behavior.
I don't know a lot about asperger syndrome, so this is totally my lay-person's interpretation, but basically they seem similar because they both involve dysfunctions with how people parse other peoples' behavior.
Well shit duder, can you help me understand where my big misunderstandings are? Or am I just so dumb and off base that there is no helping me and I should just go fuck off and die?
Absolutely this. It's not a trait that should be measured on a spectrum; it's more like a consistent mode of interacting with the world, a pathological mechanism/system of functioning. It takes a clinician (or victim) some time to see enough examples and gain the experience that's needed to recognize whether any given individual is relating to the world in a narcissistic way.
In other words, it's a pathology of personality, analogous to pathological states of other biological systems. Trying to grasp it as if it was a simple trait (height, introversion/extraversion, BMI) is unlikely to be successful, because narcissism is a pattern of intra- and interpersonal dynamics. It's something that has to be reconstructed from multiple observations.
All people have some narcissistic tendencies, and in a sense I feel like my culture (I'm in Texas) amplifies and rewards those tendencies.
There is a difference between displaying a tendency and having your entire life torn apart because of a person's pathological need to defend an image of themself. I have a lot of sympathy for both Echo and Narcissus, because that's a hard story to live in.
Narcissism is not something you truly understand until you meet someone who really is one at the far end of the spectrum. Until you spend weeks, months or even years trying to work out why they have had their empathy glands removed you just don't fully understand the 'narcissism' concept. We see narcissists like The Donald and think that is it, actually you need to be on the sharp end of it, in a relationship directly or once removed through family or work to fully understand how insidious it is.
Only when you have learned the importance of 'no contact' do you understand narcissism fully.
All of us have a few traits that the narcissist has however, it is the cluster of characteristics that matters. With the HN readership I expect a fair few people here have genuinely found themselves on teambuilding exercises etc. where they really are the 'brightest person in the room' and have had to step up to 'leadership' because otherwise nothing would get done. That could be a tickbox on your internal 'I must be a narcissist' list. It doesn't make you one though. A lot of boxes have to be ticked.
Furthermore, the true narcissist does not have the brain cells to identify what the condition is. They can even hear of the story of Narcissus and think it is an 'incredibly sweet story', one worth sharing with others. How little they know...
Interestingly teambuilding exercises can lead to moments of 'imposter syndrome'. For instance you might never do sports yet fluke it with 'beginners luck' to beat everyone else. This happened with my sister who can't drive. When she went go-karting with her petrol-head workmates she somehow won. On that day she felt quite the 'imposter' in collecting the prize, not believing it. She was 'quite full of herself', ego brimming, and with a few 'narcissist checkboxes' ticked that day. So there is a correlation.
Go Karts have relative weak engines and you have to accelerate a lot after curves.
Low weight is a big Advantage.
So at average women have an Advantage
I think the notion of "vulnerable narcissism" presented by the article is a very interesting one. It's not the same as the classic narcissism that you might have been on the 'sharp end' of.
The "vulnerable narcissist" (as presented) is incredibly concerned with what other people think (at least on a shallow level), but often views themselves very negatively. They have a negative bias to self image and a lack of assertiveness but are nonetheless very focused on how they are perceived and themselves in general.
The "vulnerable" variety resonates with me quite a bit more. I could never agree with a statement like "I am a superior person", but I can agree with a statement like "I often feel as if I need compliments from others in order to be sure of myself." At various times in my life I have been very engaged in fishing for likes, compliments, whatever kind of approval I can get.
That has changed a lot for me recently, because I finally transitioned (I'm a transgender woman). Accepting that freed me from a lot of inauthenticity. I don't need the Internet to constantly validate my femininity any more, I don't feel terribly ashamed for wanting femininity in my life, etc. I still do think about gender, but rather to my surprise I spend way less time asking myself if I'm performing femininity correctly than I did performing masculinity - getting closer to that authentic place the article talks about.
I have been on the "sharp end" of the class sort courtesy of my mom. Like Trump, she lives in a bubble where reality itself distorts. One of the most obvious examples is whenever my gender comes up she always claims others in the family feel exactly the same way as she does, even when this is laughably and obviously incorrect. In fact she extends this to the rest of the world, claiming that e.g., I'm the laughing stock of all of my friends and they only act nice around me to be politically correct(even though, obviously, I'm in contact with them more than she is).
I could list countless other examples; for instance she claimed that the reason my brother and his wife decided not to have a child was because she wanted to fly to Paris and buy a purse. She simply warps reality to a space that is consistent with how she feels, even when that is absurd.
You shouldn't dismiss the resulting behavioral patterns that I have, though - for instance, constantly fishing for validation that refutes what she says. It tends to me being inauthentic and approval seeking. It also means that I do not put myself in vulnerable positions whenever possible. This means things like not interviewing for jobs and missing other opportunities because the risk of failure might validate all that negative talk. It means doing mediocre work intentionally so I can brush it off as "I didn't really try".
And most of all, like classic narcissism, it means failing to form deeper relationships or care about others on a level beyond figuring out what it takes to get them to like my selfie. At its most extreme, you get that intense reality distortion, but in a negative way - e.g., I actually believe her when she says things like all my friends are laughing at me as a man in a dress.
It's not accepting that how others view me isn't necessarily how I view myself, and instead believing in a world where everyone thinks the same things I do - or at least, they would, if they saw the "real me", which I have to hide. Hence, the link to impostor syndrome.
I had to read your comment twice to understand your take on the 'n' word (which I struggle to spell!). In my studying of the narcissism thus far I do look at what happens with the parents, particularly the mum and how extremely early things can go wrong. So I thought it interesting that you mentioned your mum, and it is not really possible to go 'no contact' on close family.
I am also interested in how our make up is determined by the mix of testosterone/estrogen that we get before we get born. As I understand it the mix can be set one way or the other at different stages of development therefore affecting the final outcome. You can get the mixture over-rided by the mum's mix of the two to end up far from binary male or binary female. If the anatomy is built on one mix and the brain developed on a different mix then anything could happen, including being left handed or being a 'gay man trapped inside a woman's body', or just straight gay. So much of our identity is complicated that it can be hard to see it as some changes in the mix. For instance, one of my school friends was the 'only gay in the village' but he was also the last child of eight siblings and I wasn't going to tell him that his sexuality and decade long coming out process was just because his mum's womb was just knackered and incapable of keeping the mix consistent. However, I wish that society was more accepting of this 'mix theory'.
Anyway, my original comment was really a reaction to comments of people self-diagnosing themselves as narcissist.
My main thought on narcissism is that we need to have some simple tests that we make our elected politicians take so we can weed out those that have no 'empathy glands'. Forget politics of the left and the right, just weed out those that are not wired for the job.
My main point was that the narcissism (I've been copying and pasting, the spelling IS impossible) you're describing being on the pointed of, that's more familiar, is different than the other kind the article talks about.
Specifically, having a narcissistic mother and being trans led to me being that other kind, that always feels phony and is always trying to come up with some version of self that's packaged for the approval of others.
Good luck getting any kind of change on the political front
I've always wanted to be a Narcissist, for years have strived to become one, but I never quite feel like I am one. I always feel like a wannabe-Narcissist, like an impost....
That's it, you're under arrest for breaching the law that forbids ending comedy sketches with the intervention of a policeman. Oh, wait a minute... this is a feck up!
If you are interested in this topic and want to discover more about yourself and maladaptive behaviors and coping mechanisms, a great resource for personality disorders is the “Out of the Fog” website[1].
I also find Sam Vaknin has written a lot of interesting stuff on covert narcissism and the concept of narcissistic supply. (he also has a youtube channel) [2]
I feel that covert NPD shares a lot of traits with BPD.
> I feel that covert NPD shares a lot of traits with BPD.
True in a sense some of the symptoms of mania can be the same, but NPD is much different from BPD in that BPD is a mental illness that can be managed with medication and behavioral/situational adjustments. BPD sufferers can be completely normal people under the right conditions.
This is my point of view: Everyone is a narcissist maximally. It's not a spectrum, just a maximum state that is always on, always self preserving, but personality differs quite a bit. Personality causes others to perceive others as being more or less narcissistic. In other words we started using the word narcissistic to start describing personality types.
no... there really are people out there that really think they're better than you, on an existential level, and that the only reason you're better at any one thing than them is because they haven't gotten around to doing it better than you yet.
The short test for narcissism is: "Are you a narcissist?" Actual, pathological, narcissists answer 'yes' so often that it's almost useful as a diagnostic tool. Most people have some idea of their shortcomings.
In a series of 11 experiments involving more than 2,200 people of all ages, the researchers found they could reliably identify narcissistic people by asking them this exact question (including the note):
To what extent do you agree with this statement: “I am a narcissist.” (Note: The word “narcissist” means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.)
Participants rated themselves on a scale of one (not very true of me) to seven (very true of me).
(snip)
Results showed that people’s answer to this question lined up very closely with several other validated measures of narcissism, including the widely used Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI).
I've read that narcissism is a spectrum. It's good to have healthy amounts of narcissism, it is only bad when you're on the wrong side of the spectrum.
For everyone in this thread freaking out about potentially being a narcissist, I highly recommend this book from a Harvard Medical School psychologist. Rethinking Narcissism: The Bad-and Surprising Good-About Feeling Special by Dr. Craig Malkin. Here's his test.
Next you'll come for our precious Dunning-Kruger effect! If my sense of incompetence doesn't mean that I'm actually a big brainy boy, what've I got left?
From my experience with "grandiose" narcissists, they share most of the traits of "vulnerable" narcissists, but they try very hard not to show them. If you want to understand their behavior, you have to realize that beneath their self-confident facade, these are extremely vulnerable people as well.
This just smells like using the same word for two different concept, and then conflating them. Thinking that the world only exists for your own benefit, and thinking that you don't fit in the world, both have an aspect of separating yourself from the world, but it's more harm than help to lump them together. If "narcissism" means having any sense of self identity, then the word means very little as a pathology.
A maximum ratio of economic growth to number of controlling board members occurs when all self identity is destroyed, and people allow command structures (at work) and advertising (at home) to dictate their self conception.
So yes, under capitalism any knowledge of the self in the working class is pathological.
Non-narcissist here, apparently. I do find the premise somewhat troubling. If you’re supremely confident and never doubt yourself, even in situations where you should, you could be described as a narcissist. And if you’re lacking in self-confidence, and constantly think you’ll be found out, you’re also a narcissist. And there’s probably narcissists who experience a moderate level of self-doubt in between.
It’s more likely narcissism and self doubt are just independent variables.
I think the key to understanding narcissism is that narcissists only try very hard to appear confident but on the inside they're anything but. The grandiosity they display is just a kind of coping mechanism.
But there's a difference between narcissism and just covering for a lack of self-confidence.
I'm not psychologically trained, so take this with a grain of salt, but I've met exactly one person that I think was a narcissist. He was a jerk, but mostly because he was utterly baffled by any concept that didn't involve him in the center. It was an attribute completely separate from his confidence. I feel like it is really hard to explain if you haven't met someone like that - I was routinely gobsmacked by his reactions - every human interaction I'd had to date had not prepared me for it.
Meanwhile, I have tons of anxiety and often cover it up with false confidence, and our reactions to similar events were dramatically different.
Not at all. That is why it’s called a personality disorder. They are truly and sincerely like that.
The part that made me realized I was dealing with mentally diseased people is that they truly believe the crap they throw at you. Their lies become an undeniable truth as soon as they spell it out loud.
I wonder if narcissism is the brain's reaction to self doubt. I've definitely seen numerous cases of people who have a lot of self doubt over-compensating with adding confidence they shouldn't have.
This is why I find the idea of promoting "mental health awareness" to be disturbing. It's far too tempting to say you know why someone acts some way, or that the way they are acting is a disorder, based on one or two observations.
I do the same thing though. I really wish I understood myself half as well as I think I understand other people.
Armchair diagnosis is dangerous IMO. It can be a form of gaslighting. Sure everyone can benefit from therapy, meditation and improving systems for managing sadness, frustration, impatience but telling yourself or someone else you have ADD, compulsive disorder, anxiety is a great way to pop the self esteem bubble and confidence you need to get through life.
In the workplace it's especial dangerous; you can force someone to question why they don't like a job or feel isolated or bullied by convincing them their perception is really the problem.
It doesn't take much effort to convince someone who is upset by circumstance that they have a problem. "You're too sensitive" "you're depressed" "that person has an anxiety problem" when really the environment at the job might really be the problem or some basic coaching might be the solution.
I worked somewhere in which people openly admitted the company culture drove them to therapy yet were so "grateful" for an "open and inclusive" environment. The cognitive dissonance there was very disturbing.
This occurs in families as well. I grew up in an abusive household and, well damn, your parents will do their best to convince you that you are the crazy one and need help.
I wish I had a good answer. A mix of trusted friends and a thoughtful therapist. If you are in an abusive situation, a therapist should be able to identify it since there are objective frameworks to think about that. It's also easy to reject an "objective" diagnosis of a situation because you are likely to view it from your internalized perspective.
When I was a teen I ended up in a lot of outpatient mental health stuff (similar story, abusive parents who were very convinced they were normal) and the girls I was friends with there would outcast anyone who started diagnosing people colloquially like that from the main group. If anyone does it to anyone in my life I instantly write them off as a moron and probable manipulator.
Disorders are classified by more than just one or two observations. The problem is people thinking that normal reactions to life is are the result of a disorder.
Case in point, there's a range of responses to trauma. Having bad memories or occasional nightmares as a response to trauma is normal. PTSD is not normal. Less than half of people involved in severe traumas will have problems coping normally and fewer develop diagnosable PTSD.
It makes sense if you understand that mental health “diagnosis” has a primary function as a tool for control and status (either boosting the status of the prescriber or reducing the status of the patient).
Only when they are made by psychiatric professionals who are suitable detached from the scenario they are judging.
I can think of a few people I know who took one year of highschool psychology or once read a pop-sci book about it who like to tell people what the root cause of their behavior is. It's usually done as a dominance move.
This is true as well. But historically diagnosis was used as a way to strip liberty away from people.
Women who refused to sleep with husbands were routinely committed.
Capitalism is intense and is resulting in mental health issues for many people. The system doesn’t self critique rather it labels the people as “ill” and sells them a pill, at a profit of course.
The practitioners often benefit and reinforce the dynamics that create the symptoms in our culture.
Open Dialogue is an approach which does a great job at healing folks in the context of community.
It's notable that over the last couple decades, we've moved to where we refer to diabetics as people with diabetes, schizophrenics as people exhibiting symptoms of a variety of mental disorders, disabled as people with disabilities, the obese as people coping with obesity - but narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths are still othered, and yet still within the domain of detatched clinical assessment.
These are moral assessments of character, and ones that aren't wrong to make. But it's disingenuous to say that we have a medical definition of what is essentially an evil tendency that we can treat (and presumably, eradicate) as a disease.
The more literary theme among the obvious narcissists and psycho's I've met was they lacked self acceptance, and were pathologically actuated by the approval of others, particularly imagined others. They filtered their experiences to only ones that reflected a deep seated idea of a perfect and adorable self, and they had adapted to ferociously attack anything that threatened this perfect and vulnerable self image.
That's not a disease, it's poor parenting exacerbated by a culture that enables it.
People can learn and change, and they do it every day. The popular pseudo scientific discourse around narcissists and sociopaths is politically dangerous and in many cases, I suspect motivated by a purifying urge that is a much deeper evil.
This. I mean the term Marx would've used here is reification, we are so terrified to confront our actual practices with one another that we'd rather make out the sum of those practices to appear to be an individual pathology, separate and irresolvable from the domain of how I actually raise my children, their emotional cultivation, or treat others, or even how I relate to myself (which tends to loop back to childhood...).
For those who haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend the film Nightcrawler, which is essentially about the enablement of what we call narcissism/sociopathy in our media-driven society.
I never understood the difference between narcisms and self confidence. The same way this article makes it unclear what the difference between being insecure and no self confidence and narcism. Is insecurity a disorder?
You can lack self-confidence and still have empathy for the welfare of others.
Narcissists see other people entirely as threats or opportunities, not as separate individuals with lives and needs of their own.
They literally have no concept of empathy. Their actions are motivated by a need to destroy and devalue any perceived threats to their fragile self-image, while cultivating people, projects, and situations that make them look and feel good in front of the imaginary audience that judges everything they do.
There's no ability to think of others as equals. Everyone is either better or worse than a narcissist - not just in a passing way, but absolutely, infinitely, and obsessively.
The difference is that narcissism is grandiose and fragile, based on a need for admiration rather than actual confidence, and fills in for a lack of self-worth. Confidence doesn't prevent you from acknowledging mistakes or flaws. Narcissism does, because their self worth is based on achievement and imagined flawlessness. They think that without these things they would be worthless and unlovable.
Imposter syndrome, like social anxiety, is the result of an incessant obsession with what others think of you. Both of these are conceited forms of narcissism.
Yikes. I’m thinking about how labels and identifications like these might harm us. As naive as it may sound, I think when you identify with something, you are constrained within that indentification, not aware you are really not that and therefore limited. I know we live in a society but yikes.
While there's much to debate when it comes to generally how useful, harmful, or dangerous labels are (I think they are all 3 in different ways personally), I think there's a highly uderrated takeaway in the last paragraph:
> "To be clear: these results do not invalidate the fact that most of us experience feelings of impostorism or doubt our ability to make desired impressions on others at various points in our life. Instead, they suggest that no matter where any of us are on the impostor syndrome curve, one potential route to realizing your best self is through dialing down your excessive preoccupation with how you are being perceived by others. Don't worry about being an impostor; worry about being authentic."
Psycopaths are an example of covert narssicists, not exclusively but it’s an example.
This article gets it wrong. Vulnerable narcissists are still needy, egotistical and vain people. It’s just that they are introvert. Instead of presuming that any higher being can go back to sleep when they wake up, the introvert N will wonder if it would be possible for other people to recognize that they have everything under control and should just be trusted.
I’ve be raised by a N:bro and N:mom, not the introvert types, and I sure hope this article is a joke or written by a N looking for excuses!
Edit: few typos. I probably missed a few more. I am fuming!
99 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadhttp://outofthefog.website/personality-disorders-1/2015/12/6...
Thanks!
(Also this needs more upvote)
I think these kind of categories that come from psychology are useful and also dangerous. Our innate tendency towards heuristics makes it difficult to talk about this stuff, especially with words like "narcissist" that have strongly negative connotations. The brain is a complicated mess. Maybe the most complicated mess in the universe. We try to impose some order on it without understanding it. It's true that "everyone in this room loves me" and "everyone in this room hates me" could be manifestations of a similar neurological configuration, and we could put the label "narcissist" on it. But the label is somewhat arbitrary and the behavioral results are often very different.
I, too, just learned that I'm a narcissist.
I had to squint quite a bit at the diagnostic list there, and sort of wedge my own psychological dispositions creatively into the qualifications list there but then yeah -- snap (and crap!) -- I'm a narcissist.
Oh, but if I use just a little more nuanced application of thought, then suddenly I'm not a narcissist. Or at least in a safer position on the linear spectrum that is assumed in this kind of "scientific" categorization.
Which is really quite absurd as you have pointed out.
But only when it comes to, say, J2EE?
Like I'm the 100th smartest person at J2EE in the world, and everyone else besides the approximately 100 above me are J2EE-inferior.
Am I a Narcissist? A J2EE-Narcissist?
"I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth."
"I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody"
"Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt."
"I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes.
"Nobody knows banking better than I do"
"I understand money better than anybody."
"I think nobody knows the system better than I do."
"I know more about contributions than anybody."
"Nobody knows politicians better than Donald Trump."
"Nobody knows more about trade than me."
"Nobody knows jobs like I do! Don’t let them sell you out!"
"Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump."
"There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am."
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."
"There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me."
"Because nobody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me."
"I’m very highly educated. I know words; I have the best words."
"No one has more respect for women than me."
"I have the best temperament or certainly one of the best temperaments of anybody that’s ever run for the office of president. Ever."
"Nobody reads the Bible more than me."
"I’m the most successful person ever to run for the presidency, by far. Nobody’s ever been more successful than me."
Tired yet? Because I could go on all day with these. That's what it's like to be an actual narcissist. If that's not like you, you're probably not a narcissist.
Look at it this way, even politicians who pander are able to exhibit some semblance of humility and self awareness. You'll be able to find exactly 0 instances from Trump admitting he's wrong about anything. In fact, he once said (to Jimmy Fallon) that he has never had to apologize because he's never done anything wrong.
Here's an example, my city has a water-related emergency and so the water system is temporarily broken. Local coffee shops have closed because it's too difficult to access suitable water. Meanwhile I am drinking coffee right now, and feeling quite smug that as a rank amateur I can do what Those Who Had One Job cannot. I frequently have this experience where I feel like I can do things better than other people. This is a giant red flag for narcissism.
If you dig into it though, I can make coffee because I have a weeks worth of supplies on hand because I had a rough childhood and certain things stay with you. I have two ISPs in case one goes down (and actually chose where I live for that reason), I have at least four modes of transit to get most places, I just chronically overplan for everything in life all the time. So when something goes wrong I will have two or three solutions ready to go while a normal person is trying to stop panicking.
That is a symptom of something, namely my generalized anxiety of having to rely on other people. But whereas a narcissist will berate a new cashier for not knowing how the POS system works, I surreptitiously memorized the right buttons from the last time I was here, help them get through the transaction as quickly as possible and say that I used to work here so they don't feel too bad.
The list explicitly part of a larger list of possible symptoms. The fact that you, I assume not a psychologist, were able to change your "diagnosis" by fudging the numbers a bit, doesn't really prove anything.
As I understand it, lists like these are tools. Not the formal definition of a mental illness. They are used to help guide mental health professionals in their diagnosis. They are meant to be used by people trained in the field.
Follow up I don't think mental health diagnoses are as black and white as you make it out to be. People can have moderate or severe forms of many illnesses.
Can you expand on this or provide some more reading for me? I believe my mother has NPD and have, on occasion, sworn she was on the spectrum as well.
A lot of the epistemological problems for people who are pathologically narcissistic come from understanding the difference between how they see things and how other people see things.
Part of the pathology is that they have a filter set up to protect a fragile image of themselves, and so they often don't understand why other people are acting in some way, specifically when other people's actions are only explicable in ways that contradict the fragile image.
They aren't able to take in information that would allow them to modify their behavior because even mild criticism will harm their understanding of themselves, and since that filter is strong they have a hard time knowing the difference between useful criticisms and all the other reasons people say mean or hurtful things to them.
This disconnection appears similarly to other pathologies where people have issues identifying other peoples' motivations.
For instance, most people have a healthy skepticism of other people's negative reactions: even though other people might think I'm a jerk for, say, constantly name dropping some person some behavior, I will probably keep doing it for a bit.
But at some point, I will (hopefully) notice the trend in negative reactions and either rework the name dropping habit so that other people find it interesting/relevant or understand that it's something that I should change about myself. But if I have such a strong filter against criticism of my identity that literally anything could harm that identity, I might not pick up on social cues that would tell me I need to alter my behavior.
I don't know a lot about asperger syndrome, so this is totally my lay-person's interpretation, but basically they seem similar because they both involve dysfunctions with how people parse other peoples' behavior.
In other words, it's a pathology of personality, analogous to pathological states of other biological systems. Trying to grasp it as if it was a simple trait (height, introversion/extraversion, BMI) is unlikely to be successful, because narcissism is a pattern of intra- and interpersonal dynamics. It's something that has to be reconstructed from multiple observations.
All people have some narcissistic tendencies, and in a sense I feel like my culture (I'm in Texas) amplifies and rewards those tendencies.
There is a difference between displaying a tendency and having your entire life torn apart because of a person's pathological need to defend an image of themself. I have a lot of sympathy for both Echo and Narcissus, because that's a hard story to live in.
Narcissism is not something you truly understand until you meet someone who really is one at the far end of the spectrum. Until you spend weeks, months or even years trying to work out why they have had their empathy glands removed you just don't fully understand the 'narcissism' concept. We see narcissists like The Donald and think that is it, actually you need to be on the sharp end of it, in a relationship directly or once removed through family or work to fully understand how insidious it is.
Only when you have learned the importance of 'no contact' do you understand narcissism fully.
All of us have a few traits that the narcissist has however, it is the cluster of characteristics that matters. With the HN readership I expect a fair few people here have genuinely found themselves on teambuilding exercises etc. where they really are the 'brightest person in the room' and have had to step up to 'leadership' because otherwise nothing would get done. That could be a tickbox on your internal 'I must be a narcissist' list. It doesn't make you one though. A lot of boxes have to be ticked.
Furthermore, the true narcissist does not have the brain cells to identify what the condition is. They can even hear of the story of Narcissus and think it is an 'incredibly sweet story', one worth sharing with others. How little they know...
Interestingly teambuilding exercises can lead to moments of 'imposter syndrome'. For instance you might never do sports yet fluke it with 'beginners luck' to beat everyone else. This happened with my sister who can't drive. When she went go-karting with her petrol-head workmates she somehow won. On that day she felt quite the 'imposter' in collecting the prize, not believing it. She was 'quite full of herself', ego brimming, and with a few 'narcissist checkboxes' ticked that day. So there is a correlation.
The "vulnerable narcissist" (as presented) is incredibly concerned with what other people think (at least on a shallow level), but often views themselves very negatively. They have a negative bias to self image and a lack of assertiveness but are nonetheless very focused on how they are perceived and themselves in general.
The "vulnerable" variety resonates with me quite a bit more. I could never agree with a statement like "I am a superior person", but I can agree with a statement like "I often feel as if I need compliments from others in order to be sure of myself." At various times in my life I have been very engaged in fishing for likes, compliments, whatever kind of approval I can get.
That has changed a lot for me recently, because I finally transitioned (I'm a transgender woman). Accepting that freed me from a lot of inauthenticity. I don't need the Internet to constantly validate my femininity any more, I don't feel terribly ashamed for wanting femininity in my life, etc. I still do think about gender, but rather to my surprise I spend way less time asking myself if I'm performing femininity correctly than I did performing masculinity - getting closer to that authentic place the article talks about.
I have been on the "sharp end" of the class sort courtesy of my mom. Like Trump, she lives in a bubble where reality itself distorts. One of the most obvious examples is whenever my gender comes up she always claims others in the family feel exactly the same way as she does, even when this is laughably and obviously incorrect. In fact she extends this to the rest of the world, claiming that e.g., I'm the laughing stock of all of my friends and they only act nice around me to be politically correct(even though, obviously, I'm in contact with them more than she is).
I could list countless other examples; for instance she claimed that the reason my brother and his wife decided not to have a child was because she wanted to fly to Paris and buy a purse. She simply warps reality to a space that is consistent with how she feels, even when that is absurd.
You shouldn't dismiss the resulting behavioral patterns that I have, though - for instance, constantly fishing for validation that refutes what she says. It tends to me being inauthentic and approval seeking. It also means that I do not put myself in vulnerable positions whenever possible. This means things like not interviewing for jobs and missing other opportunities because the risk of failure might validate all that negative talk. It means doing mediocre work intentionally so I can brush it off as "I didn't really try".
And most of all, like classic narcissism, it means failing to form deeper relationships or care about others on a level beyond figuring out what it takes to get them to like my selfie. At its most extreme, you get that intense reality distortion, but in a negative way - e.g., I actually believe her when she says things like all my friends are laughing at me as a man in a dress.
It's not accepting that how others view me isn't necessarily how I view myself, and instead believing in a world where everyone thinks the same things I do - or at least, they would, if they saw the "real me", which I have to hide. Hence, the link to impostor syndrome.
I am also interested in how our make up is determined by the mix of testosterone/estrogen that we get before we get born. As I understand it the mix can be set one way or the other at different stages of development therefore affecting the final outcome. You can get the mixture over-rided by the mum's mix of the two to end up far from binary male or binary female. If the anatomy is built on one mix and the brain developed on a different mix then anything could happen, including being left handed or being a 'gay man trapped inside a woman's body', or just straight gay. So much of our identity is complicated that it can be hard to see it as some changes in the mix. For instance, one of my school friends was the 'only gay in the village' but he was also the last child of eight siblings and I wasn't going to tell him that his sexuality and decade long coming out process was just because his mum's womb was just knackered and incapable of keeping the mix consistent. However, I wish that society was more accepting of this 'mix theory'.
Anyway, my original comment was really a reaction to comments of people self-diagnosing themselves as narcissist.
My main thought on narcissism is that we need to have some simple tests that we make our elected politicians take so we can weed out those that have no 'empathy glands'. Forget politics of the left and the right, just weed out those that are not wired for the job.
Specifically, having a narcissistic mother and being trans led to me being that other kind, that always feels phony and is always trying to come up with some version of self that's packaged for the approval of others.
Good luck getting any kind of change on the political front
I feel that covert NPD shares a lot of traits with BPD.
[1] https://outofthefog.website [2] http://samvak.tripod.com
True in a sense some of the symptoms of mania can be the same, but NPD is much different from BPD in that BPD is a mental illness that can be managed with medication and behavioral/situational adjustments. BPD sufferers can be completely normal people under the right conditions.
The short test for narcissism is: "Are you a narcissist?" Actual, pathological, narcissists answer 'yes' so often that it's almost useful as a diagnostic tool. Most people have some idea of their shortcomings.
Citation?
(snip)
In a series of 11 experiments involving more than 2,200 people of all ages, the researchers found they could reliably identify narcissistic people by asking them this exact question (including the note):
To what extent do you agree with this statement: “I am a narcissist.” (Note: The word “narcissist” means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.)
Participants rated themselves on a scale of one (not very true of me) to seven (very true of me).
(snip)
Results showed that people’s answer to this question lined up very closely with several other validated measures of narcissism, including the widely used Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI).
For everyone in this thread freaking out about potentially being a narcissist, I highly recommend this book from a Harvard Medical School psychologist. Rethinking Narcissism: The Bad-and Surprising Good-About Feeling Special by Dr. Craig Malkin. Here's his test.
http://www.drcraigmalkin.com/the-narcissism-test
You got anything to back up that claim? That sounds like a pretty big conclusion that you're jumping to without evidence.
It's not a "claim". It's literally the null hypothesis: two traits are assumed to be uncorrelated unless proven otherwise.
If you want to claim that a sense of "impostor syndrome" is actually indicative of increased skill, it's your job to prove it.
Also, again: null hypothesis. If you want to argue that there's a positive correlation between X & Y, you provide evidence.
It's not a "claim". It's literally the null hypothesis: two traits are assumed to be uncorrelated unless proven otherwise.
If you want to claim that a sense of "impostor syndrome" is actually indicative of increased skill, it's your job to prove it.
So yes, under capitalism any knowledge of the self in the working class is pathological.
It’s more likely narcissism and self doubt are just independent variables.
I'm not psychologically trained, so take this with a grain of salt, but I've met exactly one person that I think was a narcissist. He was a jerk, but mostly because he was utterly baffled by any concept that didn't involve him in the center. It was an attribute completely separate from his confidence. I feel like it is really hard to explain if you haven't met someone like that - I was routinely gobsmacked by his reactions - every human interaction I'd had to date had not prepared me for it.
Meanwhile, I have tons of anxiety and often cover it up with false confidence, and our reactions to similar events were dramatically different.
The part that made me realized I was dealing with mentally diseased people is that they truly believe the crap they throw at you. Their lies become an undeniable truth as soon as they spell it out loud.
I do the same thing though. I really wish I understood myself half as well as I think I understand other people.
In the workplace it's especial dangerous; you can force someone to question why they don't like a job or feel isolated or bullied by convincing them their perception is really the problem.
It doesn't take much effort to convince someone who is upset by circumstance that they have a problem. "You're too sensitive" "you're depressed" "that person has an anxiety problem" when really the environment at the job might really be the problem or some basic coaching might be the solution.
I worked somewhere in which people openly admitted the company culture drove them to therapy yet were so "grateful" for an "open and inclusive" environment. The cognitive dissonance there was very disturbing.
This occurs in families as well. I grew up in an abusive household and, well damn, your parents will do their best to convince you that you are the crazy one and need help.
If the problems disappear slowly, it could have been the environment, but it also could be your personal growth. But if they disappear overnight...
Case in point, there's a range of responses to trauma. Having bad memories or occasional nightmares as a response to trauma is normal. PTSD is not normal. Less than half of people involved in severe traumas will have problems coping normally and fewer develop diagnosable PTSD.
Primate dominance games.
I can think of a few people I know who took one year of highschool psychology or once read a pop-sci book about it who like to tell people what the root cause of their behavior is. It's usually done as a dominance move.
Women who refused to sleep with husbands were routinely committed.
Capitalism is intense and is resulting in mental health issues for many people. The system doesn’t self critique rather it labels the people as “ill” and sells them a pill, at a profit of course.
The practitioners often benefit and reinforce the dynamics that create the symptoms in our culture.
Open Dialogue is an approach which does a great job at healing folks in the context of community.
If someone has a broken arm it’s observable and it’s pretty clear what the next step is.
With mental health diagnosis it’s not clear what the underlying issue is and at best you’ll be given something to supress symptoms.
We are doing a bit better on this with things like Psychedelics and Open Dialogue, but mental health is more of a context than a condition.
These are moral assessments of character, and ones that aren't wrong to make. But it's disingenuous to say that we have a medical definition of what is essentially an evil tendency that we can treat (and presumably, eradicate) as a disease.
The more literary theme among the obvious narcissists and psycho's I've met was they lacked self acceptance, and were pathologically actuated by the approval of others, particularly imagined others. They filtered their experiences to only ones that reflected a deep seated idea of a perfect and adorable self, and they had adapted to ferociously attack anything that threatened this perfect and vulnerable self image.
That's not a disease, it's poor parenting exacerbated by a culture that enables it.
People can learn and change, and they do it every day. The popular pseudo scientific discourse around narcissists and sociopaths is politically dangerous and in many cases, I suspect motivated by a purifying urge that is a much deeper evil.
For those who haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend the film Nightcrawler, which is essentially about the enablement of what we call narcissism/sociopathy in our media-driven society.
Any resources to better parenting than this?
Narcissists see other people entirely as threats or opportunities, not as separate individuals with lives and needs of their own.
They literally have no concept of empathy. Their actions are motivated by a need to destroy and devalue any perceived threats to their fragile self-image, while cultivating people, projects, and situations that make them look and feel good in front of the imaginary audience that judges everything they do.
There's no ability to think of others as equals. Everyone is either better or worse than a narcissist - not just in a passing way, but absolutely, infinitely, and obsessively.
The blog is long defunct, but the archives are definitely worth a read.
> "To be clear: these results do not invalidate the fact that most of us experience feelings of impostorism or doubt our ability to make desired impressions on others at various points in our life. Instead, they suggest that no matter where any of us are on the impostor syndrome curve, one potential route to realizing your best self is through dialing down your excessive preoccupation with how you are being perceived by others. Don't worry about being an impostor; worry about being authentic."
This article gets it wrong. Vulnerable narcissists are still needy, egotistical and vain people. It’s just that they are introvert. Instead of presuming that any higher being can go back to sleep when they wake up, the introvert N will wonder if it would be possible for other people to recognize that they have everything under control and should just be trusted.
I’ve be raised by a N:bro and N:mom, not the introvert types, and I sure hope this article is a joke or written by a N looking for excuses!
Edit: few typos. I probably missed a few more. I am fuming!