3 ms·
FWIW, my reference to narcissism relates to the ideas of the true (deep) and false (superficial) self discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_an
by theoh 7y ago
FWIW, my reference to narcissism relates to the ideas of the true (deep) and false (superficial) self discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_self_and_false_self
There isn't a hard scientific consensus about the dynamics of narcissism. It's kind of at the intellectual stage of being a "code smell" that many very serious people have learned to detect from bitter personal experience.
- newen 7y agoIn addition to there being no scientific consensus on narcissism, and it having multiple meanings, another problem with the word is that it has become a reddit/internet meme, where you have random people arbitrarily accusing people of being narcissistic. Because of this, it's starting to lose any meaning at least in general topic internet forums.
- theoh 7y agoOK, I know it's a 'bad' word to use. In my innocence, I think I can use it to invoke the rich, complex psychoanalytical meanings of the word. Serious conversation is what we do here, right? But more seriously, I don't care how diluted the word has become. It names a very recognizable phenomenon, one that we have a problem with in the current culture, but which isn't new. If you care about engaging with that phenomenon (and typically, if you do, you don't have a choice in the matter) then the professional use of the term becomes the only meaning that has significant value.