6 ms·

What is narcissism? Science confronts a widely misunderstood phenomenon

31 points by anarbadalov 3y ago

siva7 3y ago
That’s widely understood by clinicians and psychologists, so nothing new. In the end it likely causes mental suffering to the people closely involved with narcissists like partners, children … - that’s what all types have in common as the outcome.
- di456 3y ago
  This makes me wonder, what if there's actually a narcissism crisis disguised as a mental health crisis?
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    There are those who think the USA in particular has a narcissism crisis (and some data to back it up). https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/06/28/a-rise-in-narcissism-a-root-of-americas-crisis/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/06/28/a-rise-in-narci... I would say that from the outside, it's really very clear that America has become more narcissistic over the last 35-40 years, but I think there's also evidence of a reckoning -- of a younger culture beginning to mix more self-effacement in with their self-expression. I'd place the UK slightly lower on the scale of worsening narcissism, but I am sure other countries would observe it in us. Gen Z would seem to be getting tired of the whining over here, too.
    - di456 3y ago
      Prior to the 2016 US election I heard with complete denial that the presidency is a reflection of the sum of our culture. I was wrong.
mjfl 3y ago
I love people pretending that psychology/psychiatry is a scientific field instead of a wasteland of fraud/studies that don't replicate. Everyone has their own psychological disability like an astrological sign and it is completely "backed up" by "research" ha ha. Go tell us all how your ex is a narcissist and your boss is a psychopath - never heard it before hahaha.
- alexsereno 3y ago
  You’re actually 100% right about this, there’s a massive reproducibility crisis. But I don’t think it’s fair to put it on the same level as astrology haha
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Psychology is almost a literary field, but great works of literature have a lot of value. It gives the reader a mental model of human behaviour. Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, etc. Psychology is similar, it's a series of examples in the form of prose, and methods of exploring issues with real people in the world. The goal is to understand and shape human thinking and behaviour. Pretty valuable if you ask me.
- bmitc 3y ago
  As you go up the ladder of the sciences from physics to chemistry to biology and eventually to economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., things get harder, not easier. While often described as one of the so-called "hard sciences", physics is one of the easiest sciences. Physicists are able to make all sorts of simplifying assumptions and get away with it. Such is not the case for the so-called "soft sciences", which are by far the harder sciences. If you have any suggestions of how to make fields like psychology any easier, I'm sure many would like to hear them. See Herbert Simon and P.W. Anderson for more reading along these lines.
- maxbond 3y ago
  People are complex and researching them is difficult. We should expect to encounter more false starts in psychology and other social sciences than in, say, physics. Our power to know is less, but it's still an important topic to research because it allows us to better our lives and address important questions. We shouldn't blink just because we're bound to make many mistakes along the way. It's true that people do employ the language of psychology as a cudgel. That's inappropriate. Unfortunately the nature of language is too be appropriate and used in novel ways, is inevitable that some of those will be counterproductive. The only solution I see is to educate people better about these concepts, and failing that to buy more time by abandoning terminology that has picked up insurmountable connotations and taking another step on the linguistic treadmill. It's also true that a lot of people are profoundly effected by eg a romantic partner or boss who has those issues - not all of those people are wrong. I dated someone I believe has NPD, and it was an abusive and traumatic relationship. I have had family members who definitely had NPD, and they were abusive to their children. I've both been & seen people profoundly hurt by this (the NPD sufferers included). It's callous to disregard people who have sought a diagnosis or to equate it to an astrological sign. If you haven't struggled with your mental health, or if you have struggled but have found adequate redress outside the clinical sphere, you may count yourself fortunate, but it's inappropriate to denigrate others who have had a different experience. Personally I'm going to therapy and trying to find an anxiety medication that works for me, along with meditating, exercising, and other forms of intervention, and I have absolutely no shame about it. It was a great decision. I've seen medication and therapy make a night and day difference for people in my life. I encourage everyone who experiences depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues to investigate professional help. Please don't let these judgemental misconceptions stop you.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I feel like narcissism gained public attention when the media started making armchair diagnosis of a certain orange man. I set out on a journey about 4 years ago to explore the trauma and abuse in my past, and a large number of resources for sufferers of C-PTSD deal with the fallout from narcissistic abuse. I eventually determined that my abusers are probably not narcissistic by any means, but I suppose it's good to raise awareness.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  They mention that man 3 times in the first few paragraphs. Like can't you at least try to appear to be impartial? But no. Let's alienate the readers.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    Is anyone seriously alienated by the suggestion that Trump is a narcissist? You could be the most loyal Trump supporter ever on a political level and still acknowledge it. It is unavoidably obvious.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  In the USA, perhaps. Though at the time of preparing the fifth edition of the DSM, there was a discussion about removing the definition of narcissism because its definition covered such a large proportion of the early 21st century US population that it had become meaningless; there is a wide consensus (and, outside the USA, a sort of humour trope) about the average American, and American culture in general, having become demonstrably more narcissistic over time. Here in the UK, the textbook example of a narcissist in politics was Robin Cook (about whom it was said he could not pass a mirror without checking his appearance). He had a series of affairs and was known to be intensely vain (and self-aware about it), but was not actually a bad human being beyond that weakness. Trump's narcissism is in a fairly extreme form, but it is by no means what explains his character alone. It is said to be better defined by the coupling of narcissism, sociopathy and sadism (the "dark triad") -- malignant narcissism. There's abundant evidence of the other two; his utter indifference to chants of "Hang Mike Pence" alone should convince anyone. It is the product of the abusive, cruel upbringing he received from his father and his indifferent mother. FWIW, I think it is also clear that Musk is a malignant narcissist. All the same indicators are there, and the same history with his father. But I hold out a little more hope for him; he is well-documented to be capable of emotional expression about the suffering his father inflicted and you can clearly see him trying to be better, thinking about what he says, reflecting on stuff. He does actually value humanity and you can see him wanting to be a better human. Trump could never do any of that. A third example: Andrew Tate. Again, he had a psychologically abusive father. He is filled with self-loathing as a result.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Some people are just assholes. Pathologizing it with clinical terms doesn't help or change anything.
- hollerith 3y ago
  Maybe it's worthwhile to learn about the different kinds of assholes.
- ModernMech 3y ago
  It helps you recognize and deal with them. Narcissists are easy to take down a peg if you know how.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Getting into fights with assholes might get you some feeling of satisfaction, but I've rarely seen it work out productively. Usually both people get mad and it escalates into a deeper feud that puts both parties into an even worse place than where they started. And suppose you've misread their personality, due to your personal biases or limited information, then who's really the asshole when you start baiting that person? This is why it's usually better to avoid assholes than to "take them down a peg." Usually. Individual circumstances obviously need to be considered. In any case, the label you apply to somebody after observing their personality traits doesn't tell you which of their buttons to press, it's the observation of their personality traits which may inform your angles of attack. Somebody is observed to be self-absorbed, and is therefore labelled a narcissist, and the observation of their self-centered personality is what tells you how to push their buttons. You can press those buttons whether or not you use or even know the clinical label, people have been doing it for millenia before these labels were formulated. The labels themselves aren't actually useful here. Discrete kinds of asshole is a dubious proposition in the first place. Assholishness is probably a continuous spectrum of behavior, so if you really want to strike at somebody deep you're better off considering them as a unique individual and tailoring your attack accordingly. Of course, once you've considered them as a unique individual you may find yourself less inclined to attack them...
softwaredoug 3y ago
I prefer focus on objective behaviors in day to day life. I mostly encounter what I others seem to label "narcissism" (or some kind of dysfunction) in work life. It seems there IS a small but significant percentage of people in day to day life that: - Can't receive constructive feedback without exploding / taking it personally / feeling betrayed - Simultaneously gives relatively harsh feedback, the type they would very much bristle at - Does not do normal "relationship repair"/apologize when they make a mistake in a relationship, its 100% on the other person There's an asymmetry in their relationships that, for whatever reason, the other side can be blinded to or accept. I think most folks are naturally trusting, and assume it must be a problem with THEM, so they work to please the (for lack of a better term) narcissist. The good news is you can document and measure these things IMO. You just have to know not to assume you're the problem, which is probably is a healthy default with the 95% of non narcissist people out there.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  > I think most folks are naturally trusting, and assume it must be a problem with THEM, so they work to please the (for lack of a better term) narcissist. This is true, but I've seen it said that basically when people encounter an extreme narcissist (or sociopath) the problem is that when we try to understand their behaviours, we project our own relative normality onto them to model what we would do in their shoes, because it's difficult for us to even perceive, let alone comprehend, what it must be like to lack what they lack. So our generous interpretation of their actions is based on our own more stable self-image. We assume that there must be a typical human reason for them to behave that way, because that's the only way we can model the feelings that might lead to their behaviour. Now if you turn it around, it is not difficult to understand why e.g. Trump lashes out at everyone. He only knows what it is like to be him, and he projects that and worse onto the world.
Nav_Panel 3y ago
Of course Freud is not mentioned -- no wonder, because articles like this are more interested in giving statistical analyses rather than formal or structural understandings, because what's at stake isn't something akin to wisdom but rather control. If you have statistics on your side, you can get away with murder. That said, we _can_ approach the phenomenon of narcissism structurally. Freud uses an energetic model based on thermodynamics: each of us has some degree of (psychological) energy, and we invest that energy in various ways. One of those ways is in fantasy, as Freud explained in his classic "little entrepreneur" model in _The Interpretation of Dreams_. The little entrepreneur, who has the capital (energy), invests in specific companies (fantasies) hoping to receive a return (satisfaction). This is the basic gist of what's known as Freud's "economic model". Narcissism is the extent to which the little entrepreneur invests in himself. Immediately we can see that some narcissism isn't bad -- you need to invest in yourself! The problem is only when there's too much, or more specifically, when energy is _not_ invested into the world (or, more specifically, into others) because too much is invested in oneself. Freud dealt with the seeming "paradox" of grandiosity and depression in his paper "Mourning and Melancholia". The simple overview is that you have a little voice in your head watching over your "self", formed by early authority figures, that says "no" (footnote 1). When you have a lot of energy invested in yourself but it's saying "no", then you feel depressed, because all of your fantasies are rejected. Sometimes you can suspend the voice for a while and say "yes" to everything, which results in a burst of energy suddenly available for use. This is called mania. The manic-depressive is caught in a back-and-forth oscillation of the voice that says "no" and the suspension of that voice. In a general sense, if you have a lot of energy invested in yourself, you will feel grandiose when you can turn off the "no" and depressed otherwise. If you can figure out how to turn off the "no" forever, then you can feel grandiose all the time. If you can't turn off the "no", then you'll feel depressed, and you might go to therapy hoping that they will give you permission to turn off the "no". And this isn't a bad thing: the therapist gives you permission to turn off the "no", suddenly the energy is available for use, and maybe you get through to the other side, when you realize that the promises of satisfaction through the self alone feel somehow empty in comparison with investing your energy in the world, in other people. The transformation that must occur is the development of the capacity to _love_. And narcissism is, to an extent, a step along the way (footnote 2). There is a distinct phenomenon that "science" also seems to categorize as narcissism, where you might feel like you're the master of the rules of society, and that you have the right to control other people, do whatever they want, break the rules, etc. This phenomenon, which some might call "sociopathy" but as a technical term we can call "perversion", doesn't always come with a high level of narcissism, but can, and when it does, you end up with the sorts of villainous characters like Donald Trump etc etc. They wont seek "treatment" because why would they? They're already the masters. The social structure required to help them is really to incentivize them to act such that their personal interests align with the greater good, rather than creating an antagonism, because otherwise the greater good will lose. Another solution is to make spaces where they can act out their desires without harming others. On a personal level, though, it's pretty hard, but thankfully this sort of individual is quite rare, and oftentimes their actions lead to their own downfall. 1: not using the term until the end here, but the voice "above the self [I]" that says "no" is the "superego". 2: working off the Lacanian idea here that analysis proceeds through a stage of "maximal narcissistic projection" (Sem 1), after which the analyst can intervene from the position of the "Ideal-I" and basically allow the analysand to reorient their position wrt fantasy.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
All I got from that article is that narcissism just means an obsession with yourself. The person may be grandiose or neurotic. They may love themselves or hate themselves. So this isn't really a specific condition is it? It's more like a symptom that can appear for many different underlying reasons. Asking "what it is" seems to be the wrong question to me.
rendx 3y ago
I learned a lot from the "Why I used to lie: get inside my head as a diagnosed narcissist" video by SpiritNarc who is mentioned in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMea2XE8o9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMea2XE8o9E
wintermutestwin 3y ago
This article and many comments are conflating narcissism (a personality trait characterized by self-focus and self-importance), with narcissistic personality disorder (a pathological disorder marked by an inflated sense of self-importance, a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy, often leading to significant impairments).

31 points by anarbadalov 3y ago

That’s widely understood by clinicians and psychologists, so nothing new. In the end it likely causes mental suffering to the people closely involved with narcissists like partners, children … - that’s what all types have in common as the outcome.

di456 3y ago
This makes me wonder, what if there's actually a narcissism crisis disguised as a mental health crisis?
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  There are those who think the USA in particular has a narcissism crisis (and some data to back it up). https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/06/28/a-rise-in-narcissism-a-root-of-americas-crisis/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/06/28/a-rise-in-narci... I would say that from the outside, it's really very clear that America has become more narcissistic over the last 35-40 years, but I think there's also evidence of a reckoning -- of a younger culture beginning to mix more self-effacement in with their self-expression. I'd place the UK slightly lower on the scale of worsening narcissism, but I am sure other countries would observe it in us. Gen Z would seem to be getting tired of the whining over here, too.
  - di456 3y ago
    Prior to the 2016 US election I heard with complete denial that the presidency is a reflection of the sum of our culture. I was wrong.

mjfl 3y ago

I love people pretending that psychology/psychiatry is a scientific field instead of a wasteland of fraud/studies that don't replicate. Everyone has their own psychological disability like an astrological sign and it is completely "backed up" by "research" ha ha. Go tell us all how your ex is a narcissist and your boss is a psychopath - never heard it before hahaha.

alexsereno 3y ago
You’re actually 100% right about this, there’s a massive reproducibility crisis. But I don’t think it’s fair to put it on the same level as astrology haha
HPsquared 3y ago
Psychology is almost a literary field, but great works of literature have a lot of value. It gives the reader a mental model of human behaviour. Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, etc. Psychology is similar, it's a series of examples in the form of prose, and methods of exploring issues with real people in the world. The goal is to understand and shape human thinking and behaviour. Pretty valuable if you ask me.
bmitc 3y ago
As you go up the ladder of the sciences from physics to chemistry to biology and eventually to economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., things get harder, not easier. While often described as one of the so-called "hard sciences", physics is one of the easiest sciences. Physicists are able to make all sorts of simplifying assumptions and get away with it. Such is not the case for the so-called "soft sciences", which are by far the harder sciences. If you have any suggestions of how to make fields like psychology any easier, I'm sure many would like to hear them. See Herbert Simon and P.W. Anderson for more reading along these lines.
maxbond 3y ago
People are complex and researching them is difficult. We should expect to encounter more false starts in psychology and other social sciences than in, say, physics. Our power to know is less, but it's still an important topic to research because it allows us to better our lives and address important questions. We shouldn't blink just because we're bound to make many mistakes along the way. It's true that people do employ the language of psychology as a cudgel. That's inappropriate. Unfortunately the nature of language is too be appropriate and used in novel ways, is inevitable that some of those will be counterproductive. The only solution I see is to educate people better about these concepts, and failing that to buy more time by abandoning terminology that has picked up insurmountable connotations and taking another step on the linguistic treadmill. It's also true that a lot of people are profoundly effected by eg a romantic partner or boss who has those issues - not all of those people are wrong. I dated someone I believe has NPD, and it was an abusive and traumatic relationship. I have had family members who definitely had NPD, and they were abusive to their children. I've both been & seen people profoundly hurt by this (the NPD sufferers included). It's callous to disregard people who have sought a diagnosis or to equate it to an astrological sign. If you haven't struggled with your mental health, or if you have struggled but have found adequate redress outside the clinical sphere, you may count yourself fortunate, but it's inappropriate to denigrate others who have had a different experience. Personally I'm going to therapy and trying to find an anxiety medication that works for me, along with meditating, exercising, and other forms of intervention, and I have absolutely no shame about it. It was a great decision. I've seen medication and therapy make a night and day difference for people in my life. I encourage everyone who experiences depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues to investigate professional help. Please don't let these judgemental misconceptions stop you.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I feel like narcissism gained public attention when the media started making armchair diagnosis of a certain orange man. I set out on a journey about 4 years ago to explore the trauma and abuse in my past, and a large number of resources for sufferers of C-PTSD deal with the fallout from narcissistic abuse. I eventually determined that my abusers are probably not narcissistic by any means, but I suppose it's good to raise awareness.

linuxftw 3y ago
They mention that man 3 times in the first few paragraphs. Like can't you at least try to appear to be impartial? But no. Let's alienate the readers.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  Is anyone seriously alienated by the suggestion that Trump is a narcissist? You could be the most loyal Trump supporter ever on a political level and still acknowledge it. It is unavoidably obvious.
bemusedthrow75 3y ago
In the USA, perhaps. Though at the time of preparing the fifth edition of the DSM, there was a discussion about removing the definition of narcissism because its definition covered such a large proportion of the early 21st century US population that it had become meaningless; there is a wide consensus (and, outside the USA, a sort of humour trope) about the average American, and American culture in general, having become demonstrably more narcissistic over time. Here in the UK, the textbook example of a narcissist in politics was Robin Cook (about whom it was said he could not pass a mirror without checking his appearance). He had a series of affairs and was known to be intensely vain (and self-aware about it), but was not actually a bad human being beyond that weakness. Trump's narcissism is in a fairly extreme form, but it is by no means what explains his character alone. It is said to be better defined by the coupling of narcissism, sociopathy and sadism (the "dark triad") -- malignant narcissism. There's abundant evidence of the other two; his utter indifference to chants of "Hang Mike Pence" alone should convince anyone. It is the product of the abusive, cruel upbringing he received from his father and his indifferent mother. FWIW, I think it is also clear that Musk is a malignant narcissist. All the same indicators are there, and the same history with his father. But I hold out a little more hope for him; he is well-documented to be capable of emotional expression about the suffering his father inflicted and you can clearly see him trying to be better, thinking about what he says, reflecting on stuff. He does actually value humanity and you can see him wanting to be a better human. Trump could never do any of that. A third example: Andrew Tate. Again, he had a psychologically abusive father. He is filled with self-loathing as a result.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Some people are just assholes. Pathologizing it with clinical terms doesn't help or change anything.

hollerith 3y ago
Maybe it's worthwhile to learn about the different kinds of assholes.
ModernMech 3y ago
It helps you recognize and deal with them. Narcissists are easy to take down a peg if you know how.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Getting into fights with assholes might get you some feeling of satisfaction, but I've rarely seen it work out productively. Usually both people get mad and it escalates into a deeper feud that puts both parties into an even worse place than where they started. And suppose you've misread their personality, due to your personal biases or limited information, then who's really the asshole when you start baiting that person? This is why it's usually better to avoid assholes than to "take them down a peg." Usually. Individual circumstances obviously need to be considered. In any case, the label you apply to somebody after observing their personality traits doesn't tell you which of their buttons to press, it's the observation of their personality traits which may inform your angles of attack. Somebody is observed to be self-absorbed, and is therefore labelled a narcissist, and the observation of their self-centered personality is what tells you how to push their buttons. You can press those buttons whether or not you use or even know the clinical label, people have been doing it for millenia before these labels were formulated. The labels themselves aren't actually useful here. Discrete kinds of asshole is a dubious proposition in the first place. Assholishness is probably a continuous spectrum of behavior, so if you really want to strike at somebody deep you're better off considering them as a unique individual and tailoring your attack accordingly. Of course, once you've considered them as a unique individual you may find yourself less inclined to attack them...

softwaredoug 3y ago

I prefer focus on objective behaviors in day to day life. I mostly encounter what I others seem to label "narcissism" (or some kind of dysfunction) in work life. It seems there IS a small but significant percentage of people in day to day life that: - Can't receive constructive feedback without exploding / taking it personally / feeling betrayed - Simultaneously gives relatively harsh feedback, the type they would very much bristle at - Does not do normal "relationship repair"/apologize when they make a mistake in a relationship, its 100% on the other person There's an asymmetry in their relationships that, for whatever reason, the other side can be blinded to or accept. I think most folks are naturally trusting, and assume it must be a problem with THEM, so they work to please the (for lack of a better term) narcissist. The good news is you can document and measure these things IMO. You just have to know not to assume you're the problem, which is probably is a healthy default with the 95% of non narcissist people out there.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
> I think most folks are naturally trusting, and assume it must be a problem with THEM, so they work to please the (for lack of a better term) narcissist. This is true, but I've seen it said that basically when people encounter an extreme narcissist (or sociopath) the problem is that when we try to understand their behaviours, we project our own relative normality onto them to model what we would do in their shoes, because it's difficult for us to even perceive, let alone comprehend, what it must be like to lack what they lack. So our generous interpretation of their actions is based on our own more stable self-image. We assume that there must be a typical human reason for them to behave that way, because that's the only way we can model the feelings that might lead to their behaviour. Now if you turn it around, it is not difficult to understand why e.g. Trump lashes out at everyone. He only knows what it is like to be him, and he projects that and worse onto the world.

Nav_Panel 3y ago

Of course Freud is not mentioned -- no wonder, because articles like this are more interested in giving statistical analyses rather than formal or structural understandings, because what's at stake isn't something akin to wisdom but rather control. If you have statistics on your side, you can get away with murder. That said, we _can_ approach the phenomenon of narcissism structurally. Freud uses an energetic model based on thermodynamics: each of us has some degree of (psychological) energy, and we invest that energy in various ways. One of those ways is in fantasy, as Freud explained in his classic "little entrepreneur" model in _The Interpretation of Dreams_. The little entrepreneur, who has the capital (energy), invests in specific companies (fantasies) hoping to receive a return (satisfaction). This is the basic gist of what's known as Freud's "economic model". Narcissism is the extent to which the little entrepreneur invests in himself. Immediately we can see that some narcissism isn't bad -- you need to invest in yourself! The problem is only when there's too much, or more specifically, when energy is _not_ invested into the world (or, more specifically, into others) because too much is invested in oneself. Freud dealt with the seeming "paradox" of grandiosity and depression in his paper "Mourning and Melancholia". The simple overview is that you have a little voice in your head watching over your "self", formed by early authority figures, that says "no" (footnote 1). When you have a lot of energy invested in yourself but it's saying "no", then you feel depressed, because all of your fantasies are rejected. Sometimes you can suspend the voice for a while and say "yes" to everything, which results in a burst of energy suddenly available for use. This is called mania. The manic-depressive is caught in a back-and-forth oscillation of the voice that says "no" and the suspension of that voice. In a general sense, if you have a lot of energy invested in yourself, you will feel grandiose when you can turn off the "no" and depressed otherwise. If you can figure out how to turn off the "no" forever, then you can feel grandiose all the time. If you can't turn off the "no", then you'll feel depressed, and you might go to therapy hoping that they will give you permission to turn off the "no". And this isn't a bad thing: the therapist gives you permission to turn off the "no", suddenly the energy is available for use, and maybe you get through to the other side, when you realize that the promises of satisfaction through the self alone feel somehow empty in comparison with investing your energy in the world, in other people. The transformation that must occur is the development of the capacity to _love_. And narcissism is, to an extent, a step along the way (footnote 2). There is a distinct phenomenon that "science" also seems to categorize as narcissism, where you might feel like you're the master of the rules of society, and that you have the right to control other people, do whatever they want, break the rules, etc. This phenomenon, which some might call "sociopathy" but as a technical term we can call "perversion", doesn't always come with a high level of narcissism, but can, and when it does, you end up with the sorts of villainous characters like Donald Trump etc etc. They wont seek "treatment" because why would they? They're already the masters. The social structure required to help them is really to incentivize them to act such that their personal interests align with the greater good, rather than creating an antagonism, because otherwise the greater good will lose. Another solution is to make spaces where they can act out their desires without harming others. On a personal level, though, it's pretty hard, but thankfully this sort of individual is quite rare, and oftentimes their actions lead to their own downfall. 1: not using the term until the end here, but the voice "above the self [I]" that says "no" is the "superego". 2: working off the Lacanian idea here that analysis proceeds through a stage of "maximal narcissistic projection" (Sem 1), after which the analyst can intervene from the position of the "Ideal-I" and basically allow the analysand to reorient their position wrt fantasy.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

All I got from that article is that narcissism just means an obsession with yourself. The person may be grandiose or neurotic. They may love themselves or hate themselves. So this isn't really a specific condition is it? It's more like a symptom that can appear for many different underlying reasons. Asking "what it is" seems to be the wrong question to me.

rendx 3y ago

I learned a lot from the "Why I used to lie: get inside my head as a diagnosed narcissist" video by SpiritNarc who is mentioned in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMea2XE8o9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMea2XE8o9E

wintermutestwin 3y ago

This article and many comments are conflating narcissism (a personality trait characterized by self-focus and self-importance), with narcissistic personality disorder (a pathological disorder marked by an inflated sense of self-importance, a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy, often leading to significant impairments).