Well, that's one of the exact problems: there is no uniform, common understanding of the term within the psychological field and within the various publications and proposals attempting to define the term. There are various, often divergent understandings!

Some clinicians understand narcissim (or it's pathological occurence) to describe a self-centered, egoistic, grandiose personality style of a typically professionally successful person, who finds it easy to socialise and manipulate his peers for his own personal benefit.. Another interpretation understand narcissism to describe an insecure personality style of worry and self-doubt loaden with inferiority complex and socially isolated, where the affected person tries to compensate for the feeling of inferiority by putting up a self-confident front, while actually feeling empty and depressed inside. Those two concepts are not describing the same issue! The látter is not the same situation as the former!

In my view, that's the exact problem when you use mythological language to construct a disorder, rather than using descriptive terminology. "Depression" is descriptive, since it contains the very nature of the disorder within it's name. "Bipolar" is descriptive. "Phobia" is descriptive. "Obsessive-compulsive" is descriptive! "Narcissism" and "Oedipan Complex" are not descriptive, but vague and mythological in origin, which invites ambiguity. Hence, they can be filled with all kinds of misplaced ideas and notions, since there is no clear semantic reference to any clear and known mental constitution or pathology contained.

If you want to describe an insecure personality style, just call it insecure-avoidant personality (in fact, a disorder of a similar name already exists) and if you want to describe a personality style that is grandiose and manipulative, just name it that way. Don't use esoteric mythological terms, that invite misinterpretation and completely nonsensical "self-help advice" from Youtube vloggers, frustrated ex-wives and other wannabe psychologists, who use the term very liberally in reference to anyone, who has ever hurt their feelings in life (ex-partners in particular).

Of course I understand, that calling someone you don't like a "narcissist" sounds so much more powerful and credible, than using typical street insults such as w*nker, sc*mbag or a**hole

 

Last edited: Jan 28, 2024

And what is your suggestion for "toxic" people?

¿Poor comunicative, manipulative person...?

 

There is already a "dissocial personality disorder" that might cover what you are referring to.

 

Narcissism is like pornography, I know it when I see it

 

As someone who grew up with a person with narcissistic personality disorder in the family, I can tell you that there is no ambiguity between these two "interpretations".

First and foremost, it is the self-perception and the craving for recognition that defines a narcissist, not how a narcissist deals with it individually. As far as I know, this can be roughly categorized (I don't know the terms for this, however). But whether a narcissist is depressed or not does not make him/her more or less of a narcissist, just more or less depressed. And a person who is sometimes a little narcissistic is not the same as a person with narcissistic personality disorder, even if the word narcissist is used colloquially in this context.

The self-centredness and tendency to manipulate in a successful and respected person can certainly contribute to their success.
On the other hand, the same behaviour can leave a person depressed if they do not receive the recognition they believe they are entitled to or isolated when these manipulations are exposed and all the guilt the narcisst has talked others into no longer holds. This shit can go hand in hand with all sorts of other psychological conditions, but it's other conditions that accompany it, not different interpretations of narcissism. If anything, these are two differnt behaviors and accompanying conditions that are often observed in narcissists, not that one or the other must apply to every person with narcissistic personality disorder.

I have seen the entire range of conditions in a single person over a long period of time. And some other conditions that have resulted. Now, what do you call a manipulative narcissist with depressive and psychotic periods with temporary stupor? How about calling it exactly that? Or does it need another "new" interpretation?

However, I am also of the opinion that you can't help such a person if they don't want it. Not on a psychiatric level and not on a psychological level. That requires insight, and in my experience narcissists don't have that, because they don't make mistakes and have no shortcomings.

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2024

If you don't like something, it's a hoax
If you do like something, it's not a hoax
Welcome to the new world order.

 

That's older than world. Nobody gives you dollars at 99 cents.

 

I'm not denying your experiences in any way. Clearly, people with a personality constitution as you described it very vividly do exist and clearly it would be difficult for relatives and peers to deal with that condition.

What I'm questioning is the usefulness of referring to such a condition as "narcissism" (or pathological narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder). The term narcissism, as I elaborated, is non-descriptive and can be associated with a wide range of meanings (basically, to any pathology or condition, that involves the "self", which is in essence any "mental disorder" to some degree).

I think it's generally useful to differentiate between:
(a) a natural phenomena and
(b) the terms (language, names etc.) we use to refer to these natural phenomena.

The condition you described is a natural phenomena (a) and exists without a doubt. What is doubtful: that the term narcissism (b) is suitable in referring to that phenomena (a). That doesn't mean that I deny the existence of (a).

The trouble with the existence of very vague, ambigious terms like "narcissism" in a professional field such as psychology is that they can arbitrarily applied and misused (which is happening very often), since they have no innate descriptive nature. They are semantically imprecise, hence they invite abuse, especially by laymen and -women, who want to use sophisticated sounding terminology, to express their aversion towards anyone they don't like.

A term like "depression" cannot be easily misused, since the term itself describes what it's referring to. So if I mislabel a jolly, happy person as having "depression", everyone will reject that notion, since it's obviously false. If I try to label a person, that is known to be very consistent and of even temperament as "bipolar", people will rightfully reject that notion, since what is contained in that label and what the person is like in reality, are obviously not matching.

But with "narcissism" it's very vague. There is no clear false-labeling, since the term itself doesn't semantically refer to any particular condition. If anything at all, it might loosely refer to the self. But "the self" is not any particular condition. Rather the self is essential and any emotion, behaviour or thought is related to the self, so anything could be interpreted as a form of "narcissism".

 

There is nothing ambiguous about the story of narcissus. The problem is not the word but the interpretations of what happens when someone is in love with themself which leads to a broadening of it's meaning. The "Goldilocks zone" is a scientific term which also comes from a story and is unambiguous at the moment. Who knows what it might mean in years to come, perhaps something to do with ones porridge.We all seem quite happy with mythological etymology when it comes to the naming of the days of the week or our planets etc.
I agree with you totally about Oedipus who got up to quite a lot more than just shagging his mum. Bloody Freud!

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2024

On the contrary, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is very well defined as 'a mental health condition characterized by a deeply rooted and inflated sense of self-importance, a profound need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. It also includes some form of despising, underrating, disrespecting, and denying the importance and/or rights of others.'
Individuals with NPD have a fragile self-esteem that requires constant validation from external sources. Their behavior often revolves around maintaining this inflated sense of self, even if it means manipulating or exploiting others.
They have a grandiose sense of self-importance and believe they are superior to others, deserving special treatment. They often act arrogantly, stubbornly, and spitefully, showing that no one can be superior to them. They exaggerate their achievements and talents, expecting constant praise and admiration. They crave attention and positive validation from others, becoming easily upset or enraged by criticism or perceived slights, and envying the success or happiness of others.
They lack empathy, experiencing difficulty in understanding or sharing the feelings of others. They are indifferent to the needs and distress of others. They show arrogant or haughty behavior, looking down on others and viewing them as inferior. They may behave in a condescending or patronizing manner, having difficulty admitting mistakes or taking responsibility. They are preoccupied with fantasies of their uniqueness and irreplaceability, believing they are destined for greatness or special achievements.
Jealous of others, they lack trust, hide their intentions, and are suspicious of others' intentions and motivations. They believe others are envious of their success or happiness, engaging in competitive or undermining behavior towards them.
Narcissists typically avoid or eliminate people or groups in their surroundings who do not meet their expectations or cater to their desires.
They harbor a terrifying fear of intimacy, fearing that people may discover their weaknesses and unveil their true selves.
Exploitation of others happens on a regular basis. They take advantage of others for their personal gain, exclusively valuing their special worth as a person. They may manipulate or deceive others to get what they want.
The carved-in-stone difference, regarding other personality disorders, is that their goal is always to direct other people and the course of events to favor their presence, importance, ability, uniqueness, and attractiveness.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2024

I understand your point of view, but in my opinion "narcissism" describes it pretty well. You can't use the ignorance of laymen as a yardstick for whether the name describes a condition well or not. For example, I know a lot of people who use schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and dissociative disorder interchangeably. They just saw a movie about someone who had a split personality, and that was schizophrenia, wasn't it? Or was it a bipolar disorder? Anyway... When they hear about a case of someone suffering from schizophrenic psychosis or bipolar disorder, they think of a split personality. I guess names aren't that meaningful to everyone unless they have a precise idea of the symptoms that go with it.

The same applies to depression. Depression is complex, can manifest itself in many different ways (often not even perceived as sadness) and has very little to do with a normal, sad mood - yet the word depression is used colloquially in the context of sad moods. But it is also not uncommon for depression to be overlooked or misdiagnosed. This is because depression does not mean being chronically unhappy or sad for all the world to see. Depressed people are afaik disconnected from their emotions. They are not unhappy, but un-everything. Indifferent. Emotionally dull. That's why they tend to fake emotions for others and themselves. At least that's the experience I've had with depressed people.

Or let's take a detour into neurology: many people use headaches and migraines interchangeably. Most people just need to drink more water or have neck tension but no migraine. I am a migraine sufferer. A migraine is different from a bit of a headache.

The only sensible conclusion I can draw from your criticism is that a layman should refrain from diagnosing mental disorders and leave it to the professionals.

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2024

@tommyzai

 

And that's where I have to disagree with you: The myth of Narcissus is not suitable as the foundation for the construction of a meaningful clinical diagnosis or mental disorder. By their very nature, myths can be interpreted in many ways. If we can identify any core theme within the story of Narcissus, then it probably is "self-love". Self-love by itself is not a disorder, nor a pathological mental condition, quite to the contrary.

If you are able to show a clear and unambigious relationship between the ancient myth of Narcissus and the modern clinical diagnosis, I invite you to lay it out for us in detail!

How is the fact that someone was fascinated with seeing a mirroring image of himself on the surface of a pool of water indicative of those character traits, that are now being associated with the term narcissism in clinical psychology: being manipulative, abusing others, having trouble admitting shortcomings or mistakes, craving for appraisal and status???

It would require a lot of mental gymnastics and interpretation to draw these exact clinical symptoms from the actual myth of Narcissus! In fact, if we for some very weird reason were to follow the esotericists and Freudian school of thought of the 19th century and were eager to construct a mental disorder based on the myth of Narcissus, rather than attempting to follow an evidence based approach on the basis of observable and identifiable symptoms, we could derive an entirely different set of characteristics from that story!

I suspect that you have accomodated yourself so much to the term narcissism, that you struggle with the idea that the term can be questioned critically for it's semantic utility and etymological origin? It's not unusual that we grow accustomed to certain terms and strongly identify with their meaning or usage, which makes us cling on to those terms and we don't want anyone to take them away from us. This is were critical thinking is required: do I want to use a term, because I have grown emotionally attached to it's use or am I able to take the bird's eye view and see the term critically and in it's wider context? That's where you typically see the difference between people who are genuinely independent thinkers and those who uncritically subscribe to given or popular narratives.

In summary: I'm not denying the existence of a personality style as the one laid out by @Sinus Well . What I'm denying is the utility of referring to such a personality style or any other personality style or pathology as "narcissism", just like I reject the use of other esoteric ideas (such as Oedipan complex) in the context of evidence based mental health interventions. If we value research and science, we cannot at the same time accept superstition, Freudian quackery and mythology in a serious, scientific context!

 

"Depression" semantically doesn't precisely indicate "sad mood", but rather a general flattening of mood, affect and vitality in all directions (as you correctly say: even the sadness part can be flattened / depressed). I think it's semantically a pretty useful choice of terminology for the range and combination of symptoms and issues it attempts to cover. Of course a term can seldomly describe each and every aspect of the general entity or phenomenon it is trying to cover, but at least here we have a clear indication of what is generally meant.

If you read the story of Narcissus (in fact, there are various, different versions of the story), would you really be able to come up with the exact disorder and combination of symptoms that are now being referred to in clinical psychology? If anything, I would derive from the ancient story a completely different picture: a handsome person, who enjoys the acceptance and adoration of his / her peers, yet tragically has trouble with intimacy and romance and self-sabotages by avoiding any opportunity to form a bond with lovers and peers.

So, if anything, we can derrive a disorder centered around social isolation, loneliness and inability to connect with others from it, not one of grandiosity, manipulation and arrogance!

Is there some overlap in this with clinical narcissism? Maybe, but this is definitely not what most people (including clinicians) would think of, if you asked them to define narcissism in clinical sense!

 

Few, if any, of those symptoms can be derived semantically or etymologically from the ancient myth of Narcissus, which verifies my point: the term "narcissism" is semantically not useful!

 

I am in no way as bound to the term narcissism as you think. Descriptive terms are changed all the time and for different motives, mostly to ensure clarity and precision. I have no fundamental problem with this, as long as it actually contributes to more precision and clarity and doesn't just further dilute the term (which also happens from time to time).

However, if you take the concept of narcissism from the ancient greek mythological story of Narcissus and only look at a small section of it, you will hardly be able to make sense of it. There is both a pre-story and a post-story to the szene of the mirror (whereby the post-story is devergent in various narratives). I'm no expert on greek mythology, but if I remember correctly from school, the story wasn't about self-love, but about a guy who had such an exaggerated sense of his own self that he believed no one was more beautiful or better than him. He rejected a goddess who was in love with him, without any consideration for her feelings, and ridiculed her, whereupon she cursed him. He should be so in love with himself that it should no longer be possible for him to look at other women. He is said to be so attached to his own sight that he is blind to the interests, sight and feelings of others. So he gazed in love at his own reflection in the lake and drowned in it.

All in all, we have the story of a man with a highly exaggerated ego, who puts others down for his ego and is unempathetic to their feelings. He is so in love with himself that it harms him and others.

Is it consistent with every possible manifestation of narcissistic disorder? Certainly not. Is it debatable whether this disorder deserves a name that more accurately describes it? Maybe. I am also relatively sure that there is criticism of the terminology among professionals and that this is being discussed. Apparently, the experts have not yet been able to agree on a better term. And to be honest, it's not enough for me to criticize the terminology if you can't suggest a replacement that describes the condition more accurately.

I also can't quite see to what extent this is related to the thesis or question of whether psychotherapy is a hoax.

Nor does it solve the phenomenon you mentioned of the misuse of terminology among the general population. As I have already mentioned, other conditions are also misinterpreted by laymen and the use of terminology is distorted in colloquial language. The argument that the term is misused because it is ambiguous and based on an analogy from greek mythology therefore does not stand up.

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2024

Mental disorders are not deduced from ancient myths. The DSM-5, or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, serves as the current gold standard for diagnosing mental health disorders (including Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)) in the United States and many other countries. So the term 'narcissism' is semantically absolutely useful, as one can see from definitions given in my previous post.
It is futile to try to discredit it, since it gives the international official criteria for almost all currently recognized mental health disorders. Anyway, this thread is not a discussion on etymology but on mental illnesses and their possible therapies and treatments.

 

we see the imprecision of language broadly applied to narrow ideas, and vice versa. If we only had a hundred words to describe the world, it would be understandable, to mangle things so badly. However we have this "thing" where we can invent "new" words to name and describe new things.

By deliberately attaching old ideas to new things an attempt is made to influence the users of the word by an inferred or implied traits brought from the base or root word used to name this new thing. Semantics is a tool to break into the backdoor of your mind while you are busy guarding the front door.

You can see this in how modern terms are used like "taking someone out" which meant dating someone int 1940's and now means killing someone. Examples abound, beware words, they reprogram your mind - usually subconsiously or at least below your threshold of conciousness.

This goes to the concept of analogy where a thing is used to describe another thing, so that a concept or idea can be easily understood, however as the analogy is extended it fails, often though the concept is not explored sufficiently so that the learner can see the flaws in their reasoning. Assumptions are made and like machining errors building and destroying tolerances until a product is unfit for use, so too ideas fail from stacking assumptions and lazy reasoning provided by imprecise language and ambigiuty upon ambiguity.

again, there is no prohibition on inventing new words. Vocabularies could be built. Consider why a prison of ignorance is offered instead.

 

you do realize sanity is merely a consesus of "experts".
in real science, properties are defined and measured, experiments are performed, theories are built and tested. Eventually a body of knowledge evolves and is proven and can be stated unequovically and reproduced.

in the mental sciences, the world doesn't work that way for the most part,it is merely a consensus of experts, disease are named so that they can be treated and most importantly billed for by the medical establishment. A billing code cannot be built without a certified mental disorder from the DSM-5.

one mans crazy is another mans normal, sanity is a range not an absolute. The entire world is mad if you merely observe it for any length of time. Suggest reading "The Madness of Crowds" to understand the entire population goes off its bonkers on a regular basis over any length of time.

 

do you have any examples I can peruse? I'm feeling a bit frisky, I'd prefer the latter rather than the former.
thanks in advance. would prefer something involving aadvarks and woodchucks as I'm a bit of a nature lover if you know what I mean.................