5 ms·

Quote: "In a quest to build Uber into the world’s dominant ride-hailing entity, Mr. Kalanick has openly disregarded many rules and norms, backing down only when

by lutusp 9y ago

Quote: "In a quest to build Uber into the world’s dominant ride-hailing entity, Mr. Kalanick has openly disregarded many rules and norms, backing down only when caught or cornered. He has flouted transportation and safety regulations, bucked against entrenched competitors and capitalized on legal loopholes and gray areas to gain a business advantage." This is classic malignant narcissism[1]. The irony of the story is that it describes a confrontation with Apple, which became successful through the machinations of another malignant narcissist, Steve Jobs. 1. https://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus https://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus

vitaminbandit 9y ago
Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence?
- the_duke 9y ago
  The linked page is indeed ridiculous. Don't bother. But: Narcissistic Personality Disorder: DSM-5 301.81 Also mentioned but not properly defined in ICD (F60.8)
  - vitaminbandit 9y ago
    I'm referring to OP's diagnosis of "Malignant Narcissism", not NPD.
- lutusp 9y ago
  > Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence? I knew Steve Jobs personally. He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ]. Also, what pivotal role can scientific evidence play in an unscientific field like psychology? > ... with a condition that isn't found in the DSM ... Conditions arrive at, and depart from, the DSM regularly. Why would I pay particular attention to whether a condition is listed in the DSM? If psychology were a science, two things would differ from present practice: 1. Conditions would be included in/excluded from the DSM based on evidence rather than votes. 2. A condition's inclusion in the DSM would be less obviously based on popularity and more on evidence. Recent cases in point: homosexuality, Asperger Syndrome, recovered memory therapy. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ] From that page on Wikipedia: "as a hypothetical syndrome, it would have..." And a history full of anonymous edits, and people banned for abusing single purpose accounts. You and your friends are not psychiatrists, however much you play one on the Internet, citing pages on Wikipedia that refer to this that do not exist by their own admission, and which I would be wholly unsurprised to learn if it's was shown that you had a notable role in its creation and/or content.
    - lutusp 9y ago
      > You and your friends are not psychiatrists ... Neither are psychiatrists, as the term is commonly understood: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." Surely you weren't planning to invoke the nonexistent authority of a field that even its primary spokesman disavows? If I say "literally" when I actually mean "figuratively," some may object, but they won't try to invoke a nonexistent authority, since language is not science, and in any case "literally" and "figuratively" are now accepted as synonyms. But if I try to express an opinion using a term like "malignant narcissist," which has the same scientific standing as "literally," someone is likely to object. Why? Because people take psychology seriously. How could people presume to use "narcissism" and its variants from the time of classical Greece to the present, and before the term was co-opted by psychology? One more question -- in a scientific sense, what has psychology contributed to our understanding of the term?
sctb 9y ago
This type of unsubstantive, inflammatory comment has a wholly predictable and undesirable effect on these threads. Please don't post like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lutusp 9y ago
  > This type of unsubstantive, inflammatory comment ... My comment doesn't have these properties, in fact it's the conventional view, as shown here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201201/was-steve-jobs-narcissism-justified https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201201... There's no way to have a meaningful conversation about Kalanick -- or Steve Jobs -- without addressing these issues. Would you prefer that topics having a psychological dimension be categorically excluded from HN? Nothing would make me happier, but that's neither realistic nor likely. I appreciate your helpful link to the HN posting guidelines. They include this rule: "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site."
  - valuearb 9y ago
    There is nothing conventional about psychology. You might as well have posted a link to a scientology article.
    - lutusp 9y ago
      > You might as well have posted a link to a scientology article. Yes, true. Psychologists will disagree with you, but yes. Also, psychologists don't own narcissism -- it predates their field by thousands of years. They're free to discuss it, as we all are, but they don't have a special standing.

by lutusp 9y ago

vitaminbandit 9y ago

Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence?

the_duke 9y ago
The linked page is indeed ridiculous. Don't bother. But: Narcissistic Personality Disorder: DSM-5 301.81 Also mentioned but not properly defined in ICD (F60.8)
- vitaminbandit 9y ago
  I'm referring to OP's diagnosis of "Malignant Narcissism", not NPD.
lutusp 9y ago
> Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence? I knew Steve Jobs personally. He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ]. Also, what pivotal role can scientific evidence play in an unscientific field like psychology? > ... with a condition that isn't found in the DSM ... Conditions arrive at, and depart from, the DSM regularly. Why would I pay particular attention to whether a condition is listed in the DSM? If psychology were a science, two things would differ from present practice: 1. Conditions would be included in/excluded from the DSM based on evidence rather than votes. 2. A condition's inclusion in the DSM would be less obviously based on popularity and more on evidence. Recent cases in point: homosexuality, Asperger Syndrome, recovered memory therapy. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ] From that page on Wikipedia: "as a hypothetical syndrome, it would have..." And a history full of anonymous edits, and people banned for abusing single purpose accounts. You and your friends are not psychiatrists, however much you play one on the Internet, citing pages on Wikipedia that refer to this that do not exist by their own admission, and which I would be wholly unsurprised to learn if it's was shown that you had a notable role in its creation and/or content.
  - lutusp 9y ago
    > You and your friends are not psychiatrists ... Neither are psychiatrists, as the term is commonly understood: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." Surely you weren't planning to invoke the nonexistent authority of a field that even its primary spokesman disavows? If I say "literally" when I actually mean "figuratively," some may object, but they won't try to invoke a nonexistent authority, since language is not science, and in any case "literally" and "figuratively" are now accepted as synonyms. But if I try to express an opinion using a term like "malignant narcissist," which has the same scientific standing as "literally," someone is likely to object. Why? Because people take psychology seriously. How could people presume to use "narcissism" and its variants from the time of classical Greece to the present, and before the term was co-opted by psychology? One more question -- in a scientific sense, what has psychology contributed to our understanding of the term?

sctb 9y ago

This type of unsubstantive, inflammatory comment has a wholly predictable and undesirable effect on these threads. Please don't post like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lutusp 9y ago
> This type of unsubstantive, inflammatory comment ... My comment doesn't have these properties, in fact it's the conventional view, as shown here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201201/was-steve-jobs-narcissism-justified https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201201... There's no way to have a meaningful conversation about Kalanick -- or Steve Jobs -- without addressing these issues. Would you prefer that topics having a psychological dimension be categorically excluded from HN? Nothing would make me happier, but that's neither realistic nor likely. I appreciate your helpful link to the HN posting guidelines. They include this rule: "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site."
- valuearb 9y ago
  There is nothing conventional about psychology. You might as well have posted a link to a scientology article.
  - lutusp 9y ago
    > You might as well have posted a link to a scientology article. Yes, true. Psychologists will disagree with you, but yes. Also, psychologists don't own narcissism -- it predates their field by thousands of years. They're free to discuss it, as we all are, but they don't have a special standing.