Can Narcissism Be Cured?
"Dear Alone: I read your descriptions of narcissism, and it sounds exactly like me. I'm terrified I'm a narcissist. It's just like you wrote: unlike other people, I can't seem to make meaningful connections with people, and when I try it indeed seems unreal, scripted. Other people seem to have legitimate emotions, be happy, or in love, or angry, or guilty, and to me it always seems like I'm-- just a little bit-- faking it."
Narcissism says: my situation is different. I am not like other people, who are merely automatons, shuffling towards oblivion.
B.
"Why are you so obsessed with narcissism?"
Describe the march of history over the past 100 years. Answer: Fascism, then Marxism, then Narcissism.
What distinguishes the three? Technology.
What followed fascism? War. What followed Marxism? War.
C.
"But I want to change, I want to get better."
Narcissism says: I, me. Never you, them.
No one ever asks me, ever, "I think I'm a narcissist, and I'm worried I'm hurting my family." No one ever asks me, "I think I'm too controlling, I'm trying to subtly manipulate my girlfriend not to notice other people's qualities." No one ever, ever, ever asks me, "I am often consumed by irrational rage, I am unable to feel guilt, only shame, and when I am caught, found out, exposed, I try to break down those around me so they feel worse than I do, so they are too miserable to look down on me."
If that was what they asked, I would tell them them change is within grasp. But.
D.
"So all is lost?"
Describe yourself: your traits, qualities, both good and bad.
Do not use the word "am."
Practice this.
I.
Instead of asking, "why do I feel disconnected?" ask the reverse question: "what would I feel if I wasn't disconnected?" Be specific, say the answer out loud.
Go ahead, take some time, think about it. What does connecting feel like? I'll wait.
Let me guess: you have no idea.
All you have for an answer is images, fleeting thoughts. Nothing concrete. Some words, some phrases, bits and pieces of conversations you may have heard or that you daydreamed.
Now ask yourself, where did you get these images and phrases?
Imagine two people: real, or from TV or movies, that are in love. Pick two people whose love you'd like to emulate. Imagine them kissing, looking into each other's eyes. Imagine them making love.
You wish you had a love like that, but you don't, and every time you try, to get it, it is failure. Here's the reason: are you imaging real people, or TV characters?
II.
The 1980s said: "TV is a bad influence, pushing our children down the wrong path." Of course, it's Newton's First Law: a body moves in the direction of the force unless it is opposed by another force.
Where will they learn about love? They could learn from TV, or they could learn it from the generation adults with the highest divorce rates in history. They could learn about the difficulties of raising kids from an ABC/Disney Special, or from the generation with the lowest birth rates in history. They could learn about morality from Sesame Street, or... but Dad always remembered to send in his pledge to PBS.
Parents had no time for any of these lessons. So instead, to feel like parents, they worried that too much sex on TV would turn everyone into sluts. That didn't happen, I spent most of my twenties checking. What did happen, however, is that a generation of males started overtly, without shame, craving sluts, and a generation of women would often pretend to be sluts. Think about this: the act was that they were sluttier than they actually were, not more pure than they actually were.
Parents were right: TV could influence kids. But not in the expected way.
But wait-- could TV be so powerful? No, of course not. But how much force do you really need to push a child in a polyester snow suit across a frozen driveway?
People ask: "why do you focus on pop culture?" Because that's all the culture 300 million Americans ever received for 30+ years.
III.
Imprinting was famously depicted by Konrad Lorenz who had a gaggle of geese following him, behaving like him, in love with him. Less famously known: it took him only 48 hours to alter their identity.
And without the use of TV.
IV.
So now what? TV taught you how to love, it showed you what love looks like, feels like. But when you're actually in love, it doesn't look like that, so you secretly suspect you don't have the capacity for love, that there's something wrong with you.
Same goes for sadness. And it's worse when you're in the presence of someone else's sadness, you have no idea what to do. All you really know about experiencing these emotions is the script you got from TV. "Oh your husband died!? Oh my God, that's terrible! I'm so sorry for you!!" But you don't feel any of that. Nothing.
So you think to yourself, what the hell is wrong with me? This woman's husband died-- sure, I can fake it, but am I such an empty monster that I feel nothing?
Of course you feel nothing. Why would you?-- it's not your loss. What's wrong isn't your lack of feeling, but that you think you have to feel something, that you have to tell this woman, remind this woman, how horrible is her loss. You think the only way to connect with people is to have their emotions. You think she wants to connect with you. You think she wants your help.
The problem isn't your lack of feeling, it is that you think that unless you feel it's not real. You forget that she has a life that doesn't have you in it.
What you should say is, "I'm very sorry to hear that. Is there anything I can do?" and that's it. But that feels insufficient. You think this because you think that there is something you can do, that the sadness is not real for you so it must not be real for her and you thus have the power to change it.
She's not looking for you to be sad, she's not looking to you for anything, her loss is bigger than you. If she needs anything from you, it's sympathy, not empathy.
But no one taught you this. So you fall back on the character "man helping grieving widow." Action!
The problem isn't that you don't know how to connect; it's that when you do connect at all, you don't know what to do next. It's your unrealistic expectations of what connecting is supposed to be. TV is always about beginnings, not middles. Like love. The love you feel doesn't resemble the TV love because the TV love is the first three days of love, copied and pasted into a decade of episodes. But since you have no other reference point, after a real decade, you think, "I guess must not be in love anymore."
You are so unsure of your own identity that you don't know if you are supposed to be feeling, what you are supposed to be feeling, when you are supposed to be feeling. This is the same trouble actors have when rehearsing a character. They want to get it just perfect-- would Tom feel this? What's his motivation? And similarly you ask: would I-- the person I am pretending to be-- feel this?
V.
Narcissism is imitating by being. It is method acting all the time.
VI.
The problem wasn't TV, the problem was the absence of adults, real adults who took seriously their responsibility to the next generation, who lead not by words, but by behavior. Who, even if miserable or unfulfilled or unconnected had the decency to fake it for the next generation, for the people they touched. Who didn't cheat on their wives not just because they loved them, not just because it was ethically wrong, but because what kind of an example would that be to their daughters?
I know, everyone will disagree. Everyone, except daughters under 20.
VII.
I killed a mosquito yesterday, because it bit me and it hurt and I am not the Dali Lama.
The narcissist, however, says, "It's just a bug."
VIII. The Solution No One Will Like
"I feel like I am playing a part, that I'm in a role. It doesn't feel real."
Instead of trying to stop playing a role-- again, a move whose aim is your happiness-- try playing a different role whose aim is someone else's happiness. Why not play the part of the happy husband of three kids? Why not pretend to be devoted to your family to the exclusion of other things? Why not play the part of the man who isn't tempted to sleep with the woman at the airport bar?
"But that's dishonest, I'd be lying to myself." Your kids will not know to ask: so?
The narcissist demands absolutism in all things-- relative to himself.
IX.
"But I had really good parents!"
Sorry, Leonidas, you were simply outnumbered.
The best of parents can't beat the overwhelming influence of everyone else, of everyone else's parents, of TV, of journalism-- of a culture that says, "well of course! The old ideas were wrong, we know so much more now! We are touching up the last pages of history, from now on things are different..."
18 years of the best parenting still can't beat the morality lesson at the end of an 80s sitcom, presented as if it were a fundamental truth, known to all, incontrovertible.
So what about the next generation, those under 25? If the problem was the unopposed influence of TV-- not the TV, per se, but the lack of opposing influence-- then the solution is some opposing influence.
I am nervous about recommending "the Classics" because it sounds contrived and pretentious, but anything that has withstood the test of time and is not something that was created to be consumed by current narcissist adults is as good a place to start as any.
Do the opposite of what the narcissists did. They wanted to know enough to fake it. They read just enough to use the book to build an identity, so they read about books, but not the actual books.
If nothing else, reading will keep you out of trouble: every moment reading those books is a moment not doing something your current adults created for themselves that you're stuck with by default.
X.
"Why do you waste your time with pop culture?" Because you may not be interested in pop culture, but pop culture is interested in you.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
Recommend to a Friend
January 26, 2009 5:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
As Theodore Adorno reminded us, we can never truly ignore that which we are ignoring (pop culture) because even if we shun it, we are conscious during that shunning. I feel like TEENAGE narcissism is inherent to development, but I wonder if the "extended adolescence" that our young adults often find themselves experiencing is a direct influence of their generations constant exposure to television?
(For the record, I'm twenty three and a part of this generation, but I smashed my television a long time ago., and I try never to forget that I share the earth with different creatures, all of whose lives have nothing to do with mine)
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
January 26, 2009 5:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is beautiful. Each time I read a write of yours that addresses a previous one (e.g. a writing to clarify some confusion or nonsense that came out of one of your earlier postings, an installment in a series, etc.), I feel like I should have connected the dots and realized something before the retrospect.
I long for the day that I beat one of your follow-up posts to a conclusion.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 26, 2009 9:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's the point here? Anyone who feels detached or ungenuine is therefore a narcissist, and being a narcissist is incurable, because narcissists don't realize they are narcissists and therefore their narcissism traps them in narcissism because they don't ask you the "right" questions?
Maybe I'm missing them point and it's not quite that sophistry, or not quite that circular, but it sure seems like a classic pot/kettle thing: the problem with *those* defective people is that they're incapable of empathy and connection, because they're automatons living the narcissist script.
Good writing, though -- I'm just skeptical of the point (which I guess probably makes me a narcissist).
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
January 26, 2009 9:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Brooks: I think that is the point. they have a detached and ungenuine feeling and are therefore incapable of asking the right questions, which makes them detached... it is circular. The writing could be tighter but I completely get this post, even though it seems to have a sad and depressing conclusion: the narcissism is so much a part of our society that cure is impossible because we can't see ourselves from the outside enough to attempt a cure.. the most such a society can hope for is holding its breath and trying to limit the damage it inflicts on the younger generation. Like VII says, pretend to be something good, even if you're dishonest to yourself.
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
January 26, 2009 10:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What about folks on the autism spectrum? The folks whose mirror neurons don't work properly, if at all?
I think a big problem today in the field of psychology is that there are thousands and thousands of adults on the autism spectrum who are being treated by all sorts of mental health providers and ending up with labels such as NPD, ODD, generalized anxiety, etc.... but the true problem for them (even if some of those dx are co-morbid), is the autism spectrum problems.
I'd like to see some psychs start to work on a clear differential diagnosis system for autism spectrum disorders and clinically significant narcissism.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
January 26, 2009 11:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Imagine two people: real, or from TV or movies, that are in love.
(I picked my folks)
Pick two people whose love you'd like to emulate. (okay, sure) Imagine them kissing, looking into each other's eyes.
Imagine them making love. (oh no...)
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
January 26, 2009 11:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Great article.
George W. S. Trow makes a similar argument in his book Within the Context of No Context. It was first published as an article in The New Yorker in 1980.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1980/11/17/1980_11_17_063_TNY_CARDS_000329878
http://www.amazon.com/Within-Context-George-W-S-Trow/dp/0871136740
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 12:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The title should really be "Here's 10 more things you're doing wrong."
You've done enough preamble on narcissism and it's time to move it into the next act. The subject is interesting (of course?) but certainly you have more to say beyond making the same point each post but with more clever or obscure examples of said point, yes? This is going somewhere, yes?
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 2:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
i think this one is worth a digg, so anyone else want to get in there... writing like this is hard stumble upon, so anything to make it easier for others to find. and in response to other comments, yes, you could say this post is repetitive, or you could say that we're watching this "narcissism thesis" in the process of becoming more fully formed and articulated. personally, i think thelastpsychiatrist is hammering away at it because it really _is_ more and more of a symptom of our society. certainly, teaching at the post secondary level, i frequently see it in my students. just my 2 cents.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 4:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I understand your point but, to be more clear, my point is he's been hacking away at the intro to this thesis for 26 months now (go look) and I'd like to see it finally advance somewhere.
His perspective is interesting and well-written (yet poorly proofread =D) so I'm interested to hear more but its really just been more of the same.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 10:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If I truly knew what sadness was, I might have been sad after reading this.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 11:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I recently found this blog. I enjoy your writing. Please continue with it.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 11:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This was a monumental post. This post helped me understand your intent. It was like I had a moment of clarity. Thank you.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 1:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
By making narcissism an overriding explanation for pervasive cultural trends, you're making it completely worthless as a diagnostic tool. If it's everywhere around us, and in everything we see and consume, then what makes people with "clinical" narcissism deserving of a diagnosis?
I can't help but comment on a few things:
"Fascism, then Marxism, then Narcissism.
What distinguishes the three? Technology.
What followed fascism? War. What followed Marxism? War.
Narcissism isn't an ideology. One might argue that ideologies are inherently attractive to narcissists because they all describe the ingroup in terms of chosenness ("you have been called to change the world and the ignorant masses will thank you"), but no one has ever gone to war under the banner of Narcissism. How would an army of narcissists even look? Like that advertising slogan, "an army of one"? This isn't an argument, it's scaremongering.
Imprinting was famously depicted by Konrad Lorenz who had a gaggle of geese following him, behaving like him, in love with him. Less famously known: it took him only 48 hours to alter their identity.
There are a number of things wrong with this.
1. Lorenz never changed the geeses' "identity" with his imprinting experiment. He changed their perception of him. Rather than seeing him as "non-goose" they saw him as "mother goose".
2. Imprinting the geese did not make them behave more as a human being. They imitated Lorenz when he performed goose-relevant behaviors, such as getting in a pond and swimming.
3. To say that the geese were "in love" with Lorenz is a ridiculous anthropomorphization.
This may not be relevant to your main argument but it drives me crazy to see ethological research misinterpreted like this. It doesn't even help your point. You could have cut out this passage entirely and it wouldn't make any difference. If anything, it weakens your argument.
As for recommending the classics, take your statement about imagining real people or TV characters loving each other and then replace the TV characters with, say, Romeo and Juliet. Does that make it better? "The Sorrows of Young Werther" sparked a copycat suicide epidemic throughout 18th century Europe. And what about Don Quixote? Are old romantic comedies like Love's Labours Lost better than new ones, just because they didn't come from the "poisoned generation"? People today have no culture, no refinement, no sense of duty: what does that have to do with narcissism? What makes it a new problem? The ancient Greeks complained about these same things. Civilization - the ever-dying.
And if the previous generation was so rotten, and the one before them so pure and good, then why did that rotten generation rebel in the first place? Didn't they intend to reject the hypocricy of playing the role of the "good family father", "the dutiful housewife", "the obedient son"? Weren't these roles seen as prisons, shackles? Why would it be better to take them up again, as if freedom of choice doesn't exist, as if society is the same as in the 40's and 50's? Change is bad; therefore, let's turn back to whatever our grandparents did, that was good, right? A tired old formula.
Your post is interesting, but it has nothing to do with narcissism. Please label it correcly next time.
Score: 18 (28 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 2:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"No one ever asks me, ever, "I think I'm a narcissist, and I'm worried I'm hurting my family.""
Yes nobody asks that sort of questions because people are stupid. People have usually no idea about the side effects of their actions. This is because people A) aren't psychologists B) People don't have that much of EQ/empathy.
So it's kinda stupid from you to expect something like that, unless you are stupid.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 2:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I agree with many of A students comments. S/he hit the nail on the head. As a former psychology major who was forced against my will to take classes from a behavioralistic perspective, I had to laugh at A Student's funny, yet insightful observations. Just what I was thinking while reading the article, "geese don't have an identity" Rather it's just behavioral tricks like Pavlov's dog, but in this case, it involves imprinting. Nothing revelant in terms of narcissism. It's anthropomorphizing.
Also, while I generally enjoy the last psychiatrist's articles for their sardonic humor and insight into the work of a psychiatrist and psychology, this was less satisfying. Rather than offer insight into the inner workings of narcissism, its causes, the psyche, motivation of a narcissist, it trivalizes the subject. My opinion. Although maybe the intent was more academic i.e. we live in a narcissistic society which produces little narcissist clones? As others posted, I'm not sure what the point is other than offering the last psychiatrist an opportunity for an intellectual exercise. I believe the argument for a narcissistic origin link to culture (media induced affliction) has been made before, specifically in the Culture of Narcissism. The statement by A Student that narcissism is not an ideology is correct (in the general meaning of the term). Rather narcissism maybe be described as a cultural phenomenom (or psychological disorder) to be treated as such. Although Hitler's banner of cultural elitism fueled by his own illusions of grandeur could arguably be called narcissistic in a loose sense.
The final thing I would like to say is that Narcissism IS NOT Narcissism IS NOT Narcissism. Bottom line: there are many ways that narcissism can be used as a metaphor for societal ills. However, it really doesn't add much to the discussion of narcissism as a psychological illness. So does it really have any diagnostic/therapeutical applicability? Also, narcissists are not all created equal. A teenager who is self-centered, insensitive to the feelings of others and feels invincible could be a product of our societal emphasis on youth culture and could be considered a narcissist. That's very different experience than being married twenty four years to a narcissist (although my therapist prefer the term, "self-absorbed" to spare me the revelation that I'm actually married to a narcissist or perhaps to encourage me to see things in shades of grey, rather than black & white, the way that people with borderline tendencies like myself do? I digress. Sorry...) The very last point (I promise) is that being involved with narcissists is difficult. Although, I know last psychiatrist has written some good stuff on narcissism, I think this piece trivalizes the genuine experience of narcissism (not something couched in a metaphor and misses the point in place. Thank you for the article. Much food for thought. I enjoy this blog immensely for that reason.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 2:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Kinda judgmental Miko. Wouldn't you say? Narcissists are generally quite intelligent as intelligence goes. However, the lack self reflection and motivation that stems from their childhood experiences. To look in the mirror would be a scary and painful experience. Their entire sense of self would be shattered. That's why you won't see them in the therapist offices. However, many people are like that, not only narcissists. The difference is that most people can be convinced to go to therapy when they have experienced enough pain or trouble in their lives, narcissists, on the other hand, generally remain in denial, lack in empathy for others and refuse to take responsibility for their actions. (Narcissists also believe that all therapists and psychiatrist are beneath them and stupid. This provides a rationalization for them not to get help). That's not stupidity, it's a unhealthy survival mechanism.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 5:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, I agree with the above, it firstly a defence mechanism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 5:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for the post, i enjoyed it a lot!
It somehow reminded me of a old 4chan "how not to fail at life" guide:
http://mjt.nysv.org/scratch/how_to_not_fail.png
In a way both are saying "as you're going to pretend anyway, why not pretend being somewhat human" (guide's step 8, post's viii.)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 5:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Just think about Bill Clinton, and the post will make perfect sense to you.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 27, 2009 10:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ditto A Student on "the classics". Replace "TV" with "novels" and you've got any number of folks in the 18th century making the same complaints you're making here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 12:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
a few things:
I am aware that every generation has had their cultural criticisms. However, the issue here is not that TV is crap, and not even that it is influential, but that it is an unopposed force in personality development. Books influence you also. But if you followed ten TV shows in the 80s, then you had the same message reinforced every week ten times, using different stories/plots, etc. No one can read that many books.
But the main thing I want to address is the criticism that I have mislabeled narcissism. Grant me some leeway that I am at least aware of the "official" definition of narcissism, and that I have thought a lot about this. Narcissism IS an ideology, it is NOT a pathology. An ideology is "the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture." What's important is that you aren't afflicted with narcissism, or born with it-- you choose it because it meets your "social needs."
There are individual narcissists with actual pathology and better men than I have described them (e.g. Kohut) but my concern here is with narcissism as a collective, societal, chosen worldview. "Self-actualization-- yeah, let's go with that!" I am not being flippant when I link them together, and associate them with war.
A Student's points about Lorenz support my point. Of course the geese didn't actually think he was a goose nor did they think they were humans. But they imitated him _anyway_ they went against their "nature" and chose to behave like -- something-- else And no, it isn't irreversible, but only if there is some impetus to change. That's the danger of narcissism, the conscious decision to become like someone else because it-- what?
Also, yes, the Lorenz geese were sexually/matingly attracted to him, though this is a minor point.
Thank you all for your comments and criticisms both, they make this endeavor better overall.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 12:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Something terrible happens to my friend's family. My friend feels terrible. I, for the most part, do not. I do care about my friend, and so offer my support and ask her what I can do.
But I still feel guilty (or perhaps just ashamed). On many occasions I have seen other people even two or three degrees away from tragedy react with much more (apparent) empathy and compassion than I am. They seem earnestly affected. Later that day, I endure a small disappointment. This disappointment affects me more than knowledge of my friend's tragedy. I feel guilty, or ashamed. I then reflect on how I am turning my friend's tragedy into a vehicle for self-obsessed psychologizing. I feel guilty, or ashamed.
I thought a return to the classical texts would help, too.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 1:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
A part of the problem is realizing you don't know the difference between guilt and shame, or between justified and irrational rage.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 2:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The world is not as awful as you think it is.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 2:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I just love this. Perfect, perfect, perfect. Thank you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 5:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
finally!!!
(and so we arrive at the root of all evil - 'mum and dad'. someone was right, just not the way we expected it)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 5:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you for replying.
My point about the geese was actually the opposite of yours. They didn't "go against their nature". Their perception of Lorenz was simply altered so that their natural behavior extended to him also. I wasn't aware that they were sexually imprinted on Lorenz as well, but then I never read the original study, just short summaries of his work in various textbooks and the like. In any case, if one extends this point to your main idea, I think where we disagree is exactly on how much you can make a human being "go against his/her nature" by altering imprinting patterns (which, at least according to Bowlby, TV is too late to do since most of the attachment happens from birth to age 3). I think that even the most powerful media influence can only work with the basic human condition, not alter it. That was my point about the geese.
my concern here is with narcissism as a collective, societal, chosen worldview. "Self-actualization-- yeah, let's go with that!"
I'm not a native born American so my perspective on this is different, I guess. But I don't really think people choose narcissism, even in a society like the US in which individualism is so strongly promoted. If narcissism was the ideal, then pathological narcissists wouldn't exist as clinical cases; they'd be lauded as heroes. And yet, "narcissist" is a pejorative. People get defensive when accused of it, and as you said in your main post, no one openly admits to being narcissist - but is that because they can't see what they are, or is it just because no one would voluntarily accept a strongly stigmatizing label? And if, as you say, people take on narcissistic traits by choice, why would they then be oblivious to the consequences of that choice? If it's chosen, then it's defended. What you call narcissism-by-choice is a different beast from pathological narcissism, right? The pathological ones can't help it, and their lives are a disaster area as a result. But the ones that choose it know what they are doing. But what do you achieve by calling the chosen variety "narcissism"? By doing that you associate it to the pathology, you imply it's a concern for psychiatry, that these people need treatment, and so on. It's like "healthy" grief and clinical depression.
I'd argue that people behave in selfish ways in this society because a system is in place that allows them to get away with it. With all this focus on individuality, it's easy to use "self-actualization" as an excuse to be self-centered. You're not free from this perspective yourself; your advice in the end, "if you're going to play a role, play the role of someone responsible" is also about self-actualization. The only difference is the direction of the actualization of the self. I'd argue that in order to promote connectedness to and responsibility for others, society needs to have more collective ideals in place. I'm not sure it's possible in the US, where such ideas are traditionally derided as "communist", but with Obama sworn in I'm at least cautiously optimistic. In any case, group cohesion will increase when the economy gets worse, since in a poor society there is less room for selfish behavior.
I still think that your focus on media leads you in the wrong direction. It's easy to interpret the main character of a movie to be narcissist; after all, being a narcissist is imagining yourself the main character of your own movie. But I'd argue that the need for films (and other narrative-driven media) isn't there because people all want to be narcissist, or seek confirmation for their narcissist behaviors - it's there precisely because living in a society (even US society) makes narcissist behaviors difficult, and mostly impossible. It's nice to imagine a world where it's "all about you" precisely because such a world cannot be found in reality. People who cannot separate fiction from reality are suffering from some psychiatric disorder or another; even when someone acts in ways that evoke a movie character, it's usually used as an easy way of describing the person than that person actually identifying with the character.
I'd like to apologize for my somewhat caustic tone in my first comment, and thank you for the interesting discussion; I hope it can continue.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 8:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
No one can read that many books.
No, but the experience of reading is much more isolating than watching something on a screen, which can be done with friends or family-- and even if it's not, can usually be discussed socially afterward more easily than a book. I'm not just pointing out that "every generation had its cultural conflicts" (although that's a valid point), I'm saying it's bizarre to recommend something as a solution to a problem when that same thing has been fingered as a source of the problem. A non-stop diet of the Brontes is probably more dangerous than watching a lot of, say, The Food Network.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 8:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Isn't it that.. It's not that they (we..) choose narcissisim per se but that we choose the benefits of narcissisim i.e. pampering our ego's, our image. We choose to do this over and over and over again. Like you say the author isn't talking about narcissisim as a pathology, but rather how qualities of narcissisim are increasingly prevelant in modern society. Individualism, which is the foundation of our society, easily gives way to narcissisim because it encourages competition, which puts us in the vulnerable place of possible failure and requires ego building to make us feel better. People CHOOSE to have these fantasies about who they are (without getting around to being that person)so that they can feel that they are better than other people and won't fail put up against them. You say that if narcissisim was so prevelant wouldn't fully fledged pathological narcissists be held up as heroes rather than be labeled mentally ill, but why should it be so? Perhaps it is a trend that society as a whole is not aware of and/or proud of.
I definitely agree with what you were saying about possible cures- collective ideals, poor societies (less emphasis on consumerism!), to put focus on other people and working with other people, rather than ourselves. Though I disagree that the connection between narcissisim and the media isn't important. I think the author was making a very valid connection. In our modern day quest to finding ourselves, to becoming the 'best person we can be', popular culture has an enormous effect in that it sells so many of us a person to strive to be. It tells us how to be funny, popular, in love, successful and so on.. And whether or not a goose imprinting onto a human is the right analogy for it, it DOES brainwash people (to a more or lesser extent) because it is everywhere. People check themselves against this ideal image and consequently step out of themselves and start acting like that image= narcissisim.
Everything I just wrote is pretty much a question. Hope you can make some sense of it A Student and sorry to the author if I got it totally wrong.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 8:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!
(Oh would some power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us.)
- Robert Burns, poet (1759-1796)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 9:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry for re-posting - the following part of the poem ("To A Louse") might also apply:
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 3:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I beg to differ with A Student. Obama is a narcissist. Hence, his cult following. Once the narcissist has been put on the pedestal (in this case by the the media and his followers) the rest falls into place. The dance begins. As a case in point, see all the Obama as Jesus Christ T-shirts and stickers. (BTW - I am a liberal, so this isn't some sort of Obama hatefest). My perspective derives from my direct experiences with narcissists and my understanding of the Enneagram, a personality theory. According to the enneagram, there is a certain personality type (Type Three), when unhealthy can become narcissistic. Type Three (The Achiever) are very competitive and driven - in fact they are so driven that they'll do any, say anything even if it involves lying ot manipulating. They tend to be shallow, superficial and like to draw attention to themselves (even healthy Threes). They are very persuasive and others look up to them as role models. They can be irresistable because they'll be whatever you want to be. If they are suppose to act serious, they'll act serious, if empathetic they act empthetic (even if they truly lack empathy). Hollow shell. Mirrors and projections. Obama, from my observations, is a Three and most likely an unhealthy (non-self-actualized) Three. Other examples of Threes (both healthy and unhealthy) are O.J. Simpson, Tom Cruise, Bill Clinton, Tony Robbins) Threes are charismatic leaders because of their oratory skills and ability to "sell" the goods. Hopefully the rhetoric of "hope" and "change" which is repeated as a mantra or prayer by Obama followers is enough to turn things around. That is, he will be able to "change" people's psyches so they will feel good about investing in the stock market and spending money. A little brainswashing or motivational speaking has never done anyone too much harm. I've come to the conclusion that it's less about reality of the economis crisis and more about providing a spin that will shift people's perspectives.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 5:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm a 31 y/old daughter, and I still care.
I never knew about my dad cheating on my mom until 20 years after there divorce, I asked him if he had ever cheated on my mom. My dad has always preached the value of honesty and how important it is. My difficulty is if he valued honesty so much, why did he cheat on my mom? In this instance, I wish he had lied twice. Once to her, and again to me when I asked. Then I could keep a consistent model of my dad in my head. But that seems to be the only time (that I know of) that he has ever lied. At the time I asked, I was glad, and then I grew up and realized how his actions could have affected my mom, and how they affected me.
I have had two dreams where I cheated on my bf, in the dreams I felt awful that I did it but didn't actually consider him at all (until I woke up and then declared that if I ever did have a chance to make out with Robert Downey Jr, I would and since I told him, it is now no longer cheating if it happens . . . but I digress). In real life I like to think I would never do it for three reasons 1) It would hurt him a lot and he doesn't deserve that kind of pain 2) What's the point of cheating these days when divorce or breaking up is so easy and polyamory is making a come back among more "forward thinking" people? 3) That's not the kind of person I want to see myself as and I don't want others to see me like that either.
As for why it is important to call out that we are becoming a culture of narcissists-- so maybe we have a chance of stopping it and developing into more evolved people.
I think of it in terms of geocentric and heliocentric world views. Where those who hold the geocentric pov are representative of how things used to be, and heliocentric is what they became. Generally speaking, the shift came with just a few people leading the (scientific) cultural movement in terms of ways of thinking about the world, those people were Copernicus, Keplar and Galileo (more or less). The point is the shift started with individuals, and gained movement into the masses. The west's entire perspective shift from "The sun and planets revolve around us" to "we and the other planets revolve around the sun" . . . and while we might never go back to a geocentric world view scientifically, the shift in cultural beliefs moves similarly, personal development or devolution starts with individuals and spreads out into the culture which eventually shapes the way everyone else lives.
If 70% of the population are heavy drinkers and had a lot of alcoholic traits, and someone from the 30% called it as they saw it, would that make the label of alcholic any less relevant? Would that interfere with the ability to diagnose clinical alcohlics? (I think yes, but because 70% of the population engages in the behavior and so it seems more normal, not because the diagnosis loses meaning)
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 6:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A student: "If narcissism was the ideal, then pathological narcissists wouldn't exist as clinical cases; they'd be lauded as heroes."
Um, they are lauded as heros.
Have you heard of Ayn Rand or (the cult of) Objectivism? Very attractive to Narcisistis and many of her characters seem to have cluster B personality disorders. One, blow up a building because it wasn't built exactly to his vision. Nevermind the intention of the building was to help others and they wouldn't actually care, it was the principle (thank goodness that was fiction!)
Alone also wrote about a JAck Kerouc book where narcissists are perceived as the heros of the book.
Have you heard of Tim Ferris, author of the 4 hour work week? He is a hero in some circles, and very probably a narcissist. (don't actually know, but based on the tone of his book, while it has some great ideas, he seems NPD).
I do agree with you that our culture is to "individual centric" . . . some more blending with a sense of connectedness (rather than collectivist) would be helpful.
Have you read Susan Greuter Cook's stages of adult development?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 28, 2009 6:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In my final year of high school one of the students of our year commited suicide. He was born deaf and that caused a lot of stress on his life due to his inability to communicate clearly with other people. Our entire year was brought together and told about it. I was fascinated by the reactions of the class. His closest friends broke down crying but that was expected. A large group of boys that used to tease him endlessly hung their heads in shame. The group that fascinated me the most however was a group of girls that from what I could find out shared no classes with him, spent no time with him, and generally ignored him whenever possible. These girls were hugging each other and crying like someone had killed their parents, then they were trying to comfort the boys friends. I felt bad for the guy as obviously he thought his life was too hard to continue, however I was not a friend of his and my very few dealings with him I found him to be extremely rude and obnoxious. This was my first encounter with the death of someone i knew but i found a recurring pattern when 2 of my grandparents passed away in the next few years after. I found when everyone else was crying and offering everyone else support I felt nothing. In my head death was inevitable. I would help my parents with everything i could to keep life going on as normal but I felt no real emotion to the passing of these people who were so close. So who is the narcissist? Myself who understands that we cannot live forever and see's the big show of crying at the funeral and offering condolences as a total waste of time and energy, or those girls who played that part because thats what they thought was the done thing?
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
January 29, 2009 4:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It would be really useful to have a comment rating system like Disqus so the highest rated comments went to the top and we could peruse the first 10 that actually have substance instead of being overwhelmed by the sheer number of useless ones.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 29, 2009 8:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The answer to the pull of trash pop culture is to make your own good folk culture.
It's hard to do this and parent at the same time.
It's fun though.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 29, 2009 8:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh, I should probably add in case you say "but making YOUR OWN anything is the problem here!" I don't mean make shit up, I mean transmit what you have, and if you have nothing (like if you are the child of immigrants who didn't pass anything on to you) get inside a stream of culture that is still running. Learn to play music, go to contra dances, learn nursery rhymes and say them, practice the shared American folk traditions like Christmas trees and trick-or-treating.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 30, 2009 11:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Another "thank you" for this post -- the circular, "only I exist" reasoning by narcissists as opposed to people who can recognize their own faults (and individual qualities, as opposed to imagined/acted ones) finally hit home with this, and I've been reading off and on about narcissism for years.
I too think a return to reading good literature would be helpful, but I'm a bit biased since I have a degree in literature! Extraverts will say reading books is "isolating", without recognizing that one can learn to better distinguish others -- who are represented in books, and indeed in the authors themselves, who are different individuals -- from oneself, and all the benefits of that.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 30, 2009 5:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fraise, I'm the person who left the comment noting that reading is "isolating". I'm not at all an extravert; I'm a fellow introverted lit-major, one who hasn't owned a television in eight years. But "others" are represented in television and movies, and those media have authors, too, so I don't see how you can say that books come out ahead on that score. I love to read, but it's a ridiculous solution to the problem described in this entry. Seriously, "TV is always about beginnings, not middles"? As opposed to Shakespearean comedies, right? If you believe reading a lot of classic fiction is less likely to screw you up than going to the movies with your buddies-- that, in fact, it will keep you from getting screwed up... you probably haven't read all that much classic fiction.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 30, 2009 8:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
XKCD.com recently posted this comic, and I thought it was funny relative to your post and discussion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 1, 2009 10:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If narcissism is incurable and widely spread, then it could just as well become a stable trait for humans, or a family of traits covering discrete preferences.
Is it being evolutionary selected?
Is narcissism even bad, from an evolutionary perspective, or just "new" and inevitably against the values before?
Of course, people go to psychiatrists as a result of the suffering it causes, but people also see physicians and that doesn't make reproduction "bad".. does it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 5, 2009 8:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Narcissism is not new.
There is no epidemic.
We all suffer from it, in varying degrees.
The author has the right idea. Here is a way out:
Narcissists should withdraw from worrying about "relating" to other people, and start by being solitary. This probably needs to be clarified. When there are people around, there are expectations to be made, there are criticisms to be defended against, and the sense of self becomes stronger.
Absent from external criticism, the person should practice being aware of one's thoughts, classifying them into nice, neutral, or unpleasant. Even when self-criticism arises, one should not latch onto them, but be aware whether they are pleasant, neutral or unpleasant.
Practiced consistently, from morning until bed time, sooner rather than later, the person - out of habit - begin to observe oneself in a detached manner.
It is at this stage, when one has seen enough, finally stops. And starts repairing relationships with other people.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 16, 2009 3:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I have always described as "cultural immaturity" what you seem to describe as "cultural narcissism". What would you see as the difference between them?
And thanks for the most enjoyable blog reading I have had in a long while.
-- D
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2009 5:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
if narcissisim was so prevelant wouldn't fully fledged pathological narcissists be held up as heroes rather than be labeled mentally ill
I think fully fledged pathological narcissists *are* being held up as heroes in this country. How else to explain Bush in the White House for 8 years??? If that man is not the embodiment of pathological narcissism, I don't know who is.
And the blood-suckers who are robbing our country blind and come back with their hands out for more, totally unashamedly begging for money from the public coffers under the guise of 'bailouts'. One may say they're not being treated as heroes, but if our culture doesn't somewhat admire their unmitigated and undisguised gall, how else to explain that these blatant criminals aren't all swinging from the tallest tree? Answer: We admire them. (Yes, that's the royal 'we' - I don't actually include myself in that number.)
I think we love our narcissistic 'leaders', because they give us a model of ultimate greed to aspire to. /snark
The end result of unbridled consumerism/predatory capitalism is this kind of ongoing Emperor's New Clothes Story where we keep ignoring reality because we keep hoping that at some point, in spite of all our pain, we will finally get ours, the American Dream will finally come true, and the suffering will all have been worth it. "You too can be President! You too can be on American Idol/Survivor/whatever the so-called reality show pablum of the day is" (no I don't watch TV, so sorry if I've got the names wrong.)
We will collectively go to our graves holding that uncashed lottery ticket...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2009 5:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I beg to differ with A Student. Obama is a narcissist. Hence, his cult following. Once the narcissist has been put on the pedestal (in this case by the the media and his followers) the rest falls into place. The dance begins. As a case in point, see all the Obama as Jesus Christ T-shirts and stickers. (BTW - I am a liberal, so this isn't some sort of Obama hatefest).
Jennifer, thank you for saying this! I agree completely, have had the same feelings about Obama all along. In fact there's a YouTube interview of him somewhere where he essentially 'fesses up to the underlying driver of his desire to be Prez: Trying to win his father's approval (his father abandoned the family when Obama was very young - I'm thinking maybe 2?) Anyway, the classic narcissistic ego injury.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2009 5:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We will collectively go to our graves holding that uncashed lottery ticket...
So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? I read: the rich and powerful are evil, and it's unfair that we don't get a piece of that action.
The end result of unbridled consumerism/predatory capitalism is
What would bridled consumerism and symbiotic capitalism look like? If you can precisely define it, it can be implemented. If you can't, it's well-intentioned hang wringing.
finally:
no I don't watch TV
Why do I feel like everyone who doesn't watch TV needs to impress that fact upon me. Kudos.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2009 8:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? I read: the rich and powerful are evil, and it's unfair that we don't get a piece of that action
I don't say the rich and powerful are 'evil', just that they are selfish, conniving, greedy, and shameless - they 'take what they can and give nothing back' and don't care who they hurt in the process. Which to me is just another way of saying 'narcissistic'. (I believe narcissism *is* an ideology, and it's currently the one running the United States, as witness the behaviors of those in power.)
The predatory lending practices that set off the current economic crisis are currently accepted behaviors in this culture; there was a time (in this very country) where the same behavior was considered a punishable crime: It was called 'usury'.
'Evil' is whatever any given society defines it to be, so that some cultures may condone slavery while others abhor it; in one culture cannibalism may be a sacred religious rite, while in another it may be an unspeakable abomination. Entire social structures are based on (largely arbitrary) rules that may make sense to their adherents but are completely incomprehensible to those operating outside that social sphere. When it comes to 'evil', I'm more of a mind with Hamlet, who said, "Nothing is either right nor wrong but thinking makes it so."
And yes, I will boldly state that I *do* find it unfair that we don't get a piece of that action. I personally don't believe in 'might makes right,' given that I, by circumstances of birth, will never be one of the 'mighty' unless, by some chance (e.g., lottery ticket), I happen to stumble into enough wealth to buy my way up that hierarchy.
In other words, the meritocracy is a crock and always has been. The blindness of privilege...
What would bridled consumerism and symbiotic capitalism look like? If you can precisely define it, it can be implemented. If you can't, it's well-intentioned hang wringing.
Well-intentioned hand-wringing is the first step (for those of us who feel otherwise powerless) toward speaking up against what some of us perceive as injustice. It *starts* with awareness, and may in time grow to a large enough force of discontent to have an actual, real effect, a la Mary Antoinette - I think riots in the streets and massive civil unrest will be the only thing to rebalance the scales toward equity.
And your comments prove the point about narcissism being elevated to the status of heroism: You *do* revere the narcissists who rule our country. Else why make the comments you do? You seem to believe that those who grow fattest *deserve* their wealth, and those of us who suffer do so at our own hand. If you're interested in understanding an opposing viewpoint, try googling "unpacking the backpack of privilege" and see what you find.
Why do I feel like everyone who doesn't watch TV needs to impress that fact upon me
Um - unbridled narcissism, anyone? Given that you've posted as 'Anonymous', I have no clue who I'm writing to (ergo, my comment couldn't possibly be aimed at you specifically).
And I couldn't care less what 'you' (whoever you are) think about me watching TV or not - my comment was to clarify that if I was getting the names wrong, it was because I've never actually watched the shows I mentioned.
Really, it's not all about you...
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2009 10:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And your comments prove the point about narcissism being elevated to the status of heroism: You *do* revere the narcissists who rule our country. Else why make the comments you do?
My comments are meant to illustrate that we can't prescibe how people behave. We can create laws to say what you can't do, but we have no way to control everything else. Maybe we need more "you can't do this" laws, and we're probably going to get some. What then?
It's easy to say how things should be, but it's hard to devise a system that accomplishes that. Will mass rioting make anything better? Thomas Sowell examines the results of the race riots during the late sixties and flatly demonstrates that they ruined those areas forever. Why build a factory in an area known for violence? It's just business. (is there something wrong with that?)
People need to understand the system. You're right about that.
The TV crack was unnecessary. Just one of my pet peeves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2009 12:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's just business. (is there something wrong with that?)
Yes, there is something wrong with that.
Money should never be more important than people. Ever.
"Just business" has been used to justify many of the most horrific atrocities in the history of humankind, from slavery to genocide.
A partial, random list off the top of my head:
Women left to burn to death in a mattress factory.
The Great Cherry Mine Coal Disaster
Slave ships, Interstate Slave Trade
Bush Helps Disaster Profiteers
Trail of Tears
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 3, 2009 12:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
My comments are meant to illustrate that we can't prescibe how people behave. We can create laws to say what you can't do, but we have no way to control everything else.
It seems that you and I have fundamentally opposing world views, and I'm at a bit of a loss how to respond.
However, I will respond to this:
It's just business. (is there something wrong with that?)
Yes, there *is* something wrong with that. "Just business" has been used to justify some of the most horrific atrocities ever visited by one human on another (I posted another comment with links saying something similar, but the links must have thrown it into moderator purgatory - we'll see if it shows up later).
In my view, money should never be more important than people.
And no, I do not practice that belief perfectly in my life. But I do think about it a lot, and do the very best I can.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2009 7:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm a narcissist. Shit. I'm just barely beginning to understand the implications of my (me, I) own problem.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2009 12:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So... you know the way to fix this is to find a role model to be instead. You know. If that's why you're posting here. I suggest the sensitive guy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2009 9:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well this is the first time I'm reading this stuff, and I'm impressed and gracious
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 8, 2010 12:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"There are individual narcissists with actual pathology and better men than I have described them (e.g. Kohut) but my concern here is with narcissism as a collective, societal, chosen worldview. "Self-actualization-- yeah, let's go with that!" I am not being flippant when I link them together, and associate them with war."
I think we've already gone to war. Isn't the NeoCon ideology (not what it dresses up as to get elected but it's Randian core) really just ideological narcissism?
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2010 2:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, perhaps it would be useful to link an old post like this one at the bottom of new posts on narcissism. You've been so prolific that many of the questions on newer posts could be answered by posts such as this old one. I started reading your blog last year and reading over this post again after following the blog for a year is like looking at a Wyeth painting again after taking an art history course. It may help answer a lot of the "I'm a narcissist what do I do?!?" emails.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
December 21, 2011 12:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
if you are still writing the book you should maybe use a modified version of this as the intro
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 5, 2012 12:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
All interesting points. We cannot forget Nature vs. Nurture in this discussion.
As we all well know: If a human being is left to fend for itself with very little contact or assistance during it's developmental years? Said human being will present with symptoms of severe mental retardation when tested.
Therefore 1. Narcissism, as we know it, is both cultural and natural to the child 2. It is in fact a choice even if, at times, a subconscious one while simultaneously having elements of natural born human behavior interspersed.
Some are more conscious of their condition than others. Some never will be due to the fact that they shall never be taught otherwise or capable of teaching themselves otherwise.
However those I've known personally? Seem to know exactly what is "wrong" with them when interrogated thoroughly. Even if the responses sound generic? The material they offer up is quite often accurate.
This can take months or even years of highly assertive interrogation before they offer up any such information. You must literally break a narcissist down before they will confess to such knowledge of their own behavior.
Often this is done also as a survival tactic for them. They are complex to a degree that is mind boggling yet so simplistic at the very same time. Knowing this alone about them gives one the key to breaking them down.
Meaning they can explain EXACTLY what their compromised personalities are like. The problem is? 1. They don't feel as if they can ever change and 2. They don't really care at this point in time.
Narcissists are phenomenally cynical and immensely insecure people on the inside. They practically invented the term low self esteem.
Despite their accomplishments in some areas and attempts at perfection. It's all in the name of keeping up an act. Keeping the character alive.
Others however would never admit such a thing even if their lives literally depended upon it. For being exposed? Feels like a fate worse than death to them.
Improper nurturing helps fuel this deep emotional illness and on occasion the natural born affinity for such (which I believe is a much more rare form of the condition quite often based upon other conditions that present with narcissism or narcissistic tendencies as well).
These being opinions of course. Based on direct long term experiences with narcissists themselves.
We mustn't forget full blown narcissism versus possessing some highly narcissist traits: Are two different animals completely.
A full blown narcissist can in fact drive their victim(s) mad. To the point of needing intense therapy or at times even committing suicide!
Also the victim, occasionally, murdering the narcissist in retaliation for the physical, and/or mental/emotional beatings they received for far too long from said narcissist.
It's a truly dangerous condition in its 'purest form' narcissism. and has promoted many a premature death in more ways than one could possibly even count! Everything from severe alcoholism to premature illness to sons killing their mothers.
It's not to be taken lightly nor down played in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
Truly deep rooted narcissism of the highest order?
Is phenomenally ugly, ruthless and quite often a very dangerous illness for both the victim(s) and the narcissists themselves.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
March 5, 2012 4:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are so wrong. Where'd you take psych (I didn't know anyone who uses the expression 'nature or nurture' anymore---probably because only you do). This thing you wrote:
"As we all well know: If a human being is left to fend for itself with very little contact or assistance during it's developmental years? Said human being will present with symptoms of severe mental retardation when tested."
What is that horrible, presumptuous and wildly inaccurate phrase: "as we all well know"....uhhhhhh....right.....on your planet, maybe. I have information that says children neglected early aren't going to, as your wrote,
"Said human being will present with symptoms of severe mental retardation when tested."
You are good at mimicking the snooty doctor language, though.
Even if you were a doctor, you should have your license revoked. Irresponsible spewing of misinformation. Consider you might be grandiose, yourself.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 5, 2012 7:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And stop saying 'mental retardation.' It's intellectually disabled or developmentally disabled.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 5, 2012 7:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"To say that the geese were "in love" with Lorenz is a ridiculous anthropomorphization...."
I think it is nice and kind of sweet, especially coming from a man.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 19, 2012 1:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I found this post when trying to find info to help me work out whether my husband is actually a narcissist or if he has been suffering from depression. Is there a way to differentiate easily? I know both conditions are diseases that can manifest as selfishness.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 21, 2012 2:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
which do you want to be true? Hint: you already told us.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 21, 2012 7:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Anonymous,
Forgive my inadequate use of the english language. If you're interested my experience comes from being raised by a family of narcissists with connections to the Italian mafia. Not the most mentally stable of people.
I have been doing my work with therapy for nearly 17 years. How about you? How many years have you been in therapy?
The intentions behind the post were good believe it or not. I was hoping to share and help open peoples eyes to this condition and the true dangers of it. Out of a desire to assist others.
I have not been diagnosed as a narcissist (as you've so kindly suggested. Thank you very much!) in fact I've been diagnosed as having trauma due to being raised by narcissists. Big difference.
As well as being praised by my therapists for doing so well despite a childhood most couldn't bare.
Forgive me for over stepping "your bounds" lol. It will never happen again.
However, being an assertive human being I stick to some of what was written above regardless of how imperfect it is in your eyes. Even if it isn't considered "politically correct" by the likes of your perfection.
I'd say YOU seem to have some traits! Considering your anger, annoyance or intolerance of my innocent post regarding narcissists. In other words the post certainly wasn't directed toward you in particular. So having such an inense response to it seems odd and yes telling.
I'm no authority however you do seem a bit over the top concerning an internet post which wasn't directed toward you personally.
Food for thought ms./mr. wonderful.
And now I will bid you good day.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 11:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
i feel i just got hit with a truth bomb, in my face. My mother Sesame Street and a weak and wet father,yours truly a run of the mill narcissist. I'm in shock at how accurate u are about the terminal uniquenes, i know just enough about everything to get a credit,chess,politics,macro economic theory,underground hip hop,Malcolm x,Ali, Guevarra,natalie woods death, iran contra,sexual diamorphism,Salinger and The Shins, enough to make those first encounter hollywood dialogues but after that, welcome to the void, the unbearable lightness of being (which i have obviously never read, i might follow your solution
at the moment i'm in crisis, and you have interupted my suicidal ideation (to which i feel slighly embarrassed to return to)
so thanks for playing an equal and opposite force to my Absurd boy in an absurd world
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 5, 2013 6:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm confused about part IV.
When shares that her husband died, would most people feel something?
Or is the point that most people wouldn't feel something because that is an unrealistic idea provided by television?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 9:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the comment of "Fascism Marxism then Narcissism" is that they are all stops along the same cultural road. The point of them is that they create an identity that the "self" uses in place of a real identity.
A Marxist sees himself as part of a class struggle. I am fighting for the poor and downtrodden. Therefore I exist and I matter.
A Fascist sees himself in a great cultural and in some cases religious or racial struggle. It's a sense of "My people are the natural leaders and I matter because I as Master [group] Member am fighting for my group"
A narcissist sees himself as the star of his own movie, yet he doesn't always pick the same type of movie. He might choose a romanitic comedy, he might choose a war movie, he might choose a mob movie, but he's a star of a movie of some sort. And he matters because he's the lead of his movie.
What they have in common is: a role to play (protector of the people from the rich captialist pigs, defender of the group from outside threats, or perhaps just a dufus in a rom-com movie), and dismissal of the other as a character in that movie. In nazism, Jews were not real people, they were "bugs" the Other to be killed for the good of the Race. In Communism, neither the poor to be helped nor the rich to be hated were real people. Communists never ask whether the poor wanted to be saved (witness stalin saving the poor Ukrainian farmers from the rich by forcing them into collectives or starving them to death), nor whether the rich were really as greedy as they were made out to be. In any of the mind-sets, you find the same situation. it's about doing TO the other guy, not FOR the other guy. It's about having a story to play in. Which is why such ideologies are attractive in the media age -- we don't have a "self" to be subsumed into the ideology, so the ideology can create the self.
And lest you think American politics are not a part of that, think about how people argue politics. In so many cases, it's more about "fighting injustice" and "defending freedom" and so on than about a policy. Most people couldn't come up with a reasonable tax rate, they couldn't set budget priorities, they don't know enough about big Ag, big Bank, or anybody else to regulate them. It's all about turf -- I'm either the "caring liberal" or the "hard nosed conservative" or the "crazy Ron Paul guy", but don't ask me about specifics. In other words, politics is my identity, not something I participate in.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 3:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ok this is my first time wading into the comment wars and I gotta offer my thoughts on this topic.
I am a sensitive empathetic person who grew up not with narcissistic personality disorder, but rather a narcissistic style, because of a ton of emotional damage. There was a period of a few years where I was finally owning up to how miserable I was, where I read a lot of Sam Vaknin (he's pretty melodramatic, but also has some insight) and started to worry I was a narcissist. It wasn't until I actually met a full blown narcissist that I finally realized fully that I am not one.
Based on my reading and (pretty limited) experience, I don't think full blown narcissists can be cured. Or at least, I don't think they are going to be, because a true cure would have to have an element of boundary disillusion and deep regression to when the original deformation of the personality took place. As for these (hugely unpleasant and dangerous) people, I think it is more important to educate and protect people who might fall victim to them. Hence the quote at the top of this blog: narcissists-suck.blogspot.com/
However, I think I can offer a much more optimistic perspective on the more common issue of people who have narcissistic styles, or who have adapted the values of a narcissistic culture, without the deep deformation of the self that is the full personality disorder. I think there is plenty of hope for these people, and hence hope for our culture. But I don't think fake it til you make it is sound advice. Or at least it is a half truth rather than a whole truth. Yes, it is important to be aware of the serious consequences of narcissistic behavior and values. But serious inner change is possible, and is also more likely to be beneficial for other people in one's life.
There was a great book I read recently which touched on a number of issues, psychological, cultural, and spiritual. It clarified a lot for me. And one of the things it clarified for me is that many of the world's value systems have polarized values around selfishness and selflessness. These value systems elevate selflessness and denigrate selfishness. However,it says that a certain amount of selfishness is natural, necessary, and even valuable. Not only that, but selfishness and selflessness are actually related to each other rather than opposites. Take the issue of love. Does one love one's partner because of the partner, or because it feels good. The answer is both. Love, as well as many other human activities can not be made to fit into a rigid division between selfish and selfless. Also, trying to get people to sacrifice basic needs to a "higher good" doesn't work. Or rather I should say, it can practically work, but it doesn't transform the personality in the beneficial way intended by the value system.
Obviously if one has a great deal of unresolved unhappiness, I am not saying that it is okay for that person to take it out on others around them. But saying suck it up and do your duty to others may be practically useful, but it doesn't transform the dysfunctional personality, or encourage long term change for the individual. Neither am I saying any and all expressions of selfishness are ok. But notice that full blown narcissism, a sort of pathological selfishness, often comes about because of the frustration of early needs, and abuse. So if denying one's self hood only distorts the self,rather than eliminating it, then denying it more isn't a long term solution, although it may be practically valuable for people who need to function and survive. Reconnecting with one's true self, whatever that may be, is possible, and it is even possible to integrate the narcissistic identity into that. But turning selfishness into an absolute evil, and selflessness into an absolute good is not a practical solution for those suffering from narcissistic styles and behavior. What I am saying is very general, rather than specific, but if this is as widespread a problem as TLP puts it, then it is worth it to be very general. In order to help make the world a viable place, people who suffer from these values and patterns need more hope than suck it up for the next generation.
As for people suffering from full blown narcissism, as in someone who's true self has more or less ceased to exist, yeah I don't know what to say. Best to just educate others who might fall victim to them. But I think much of what TLP posts about in terms of popular culture and our identities is more along the lines of a narcissistic style than a full blown deformation of the personality.
This has been on my mind a ton lately, and I am very keen to hear other people's thoughts on this.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 6:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I wanna clarify a bit, because what I posed is both very general, and kind of overly intellectual.
To put it in spiritual terms, the ego is not the essence, or the true self. However the idea that to get past egotism, you must smash the ego with a sledgehammer is itself a reflection of egotistical thinking. The ego isn't necessarily opposed to the true self, although in our culture it often is, so it makes sense that people would come up with this perspective.
In another one of these posts on narcissism, several people mentioned the 12 steps. I think the 12 steps is a good example of what I am talking about. Some of the steps are grounded in psychology, and do offer people a program for changing a destructive lifestyle. However I have also read of people complaining of the 12 steps having cult like tendencies, and having experiences where some of the old timers display narcissistic and control seeking tendencies, but in the contexts of the steps, rather than the addictive lifestyle. In my opinion, this is because a lot of the subtext behind the steps still partakes in very simplistic, egotistical thinking where any ego or self hood is seen as fundamentally "bad," and needing to be surrendered to an authority. I would also guess that this mindset has a lot to do with the Christian doctrine of original sin (the 12 steps were originally Christian). But what this leads to is not a bunch of people who through a lifetime of working the steps have totally gotten rid of ego or self. It leads to the same egotism being expressed in a new context. And yes this context is probably better than the hell of deep addiction, but it should not be an ideal for recovery and self healing.
Egotism doesn't have to be purged, it can be integrated into a whole person capable of balancing self centeredness and altruism. I think the (very general) perspective I am espousing here offers more optimism than TLP's "it's always you."
And I say this as someone who really likes this blog.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 2:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you for the most positive post on narcissism...I have been looking for hope after reading endlessly about how everything I do or don't do , think or don't think, is narcissistic!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Comments