Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Deceptiveness

Editors, please devote some space to the very important issue of deceptiveness surrounding narcissism, and as discussed in the DSM more broadly.

Framed in general terms, there are different ramifications of deceptivenss. It can be purposeless (pathological lying). It can be for the maintenance of claims about the self (narcissism). Or a pattern of deception can become a covert goal indirectly reinforcing beliefs about the self. (narcissism, serial infidelity, paranoia, sociopathy, other forms of predation).

A person may directly or indirectly need to harm another person through deception, and narcissism is among those disorders in which that process occurs. For instance, serial infidelity stretching across partners seems in certain cases to be an indirect, covert goal that helps regulate shame. By cheating, the narcissist can view the partner as a dupe, allowing the demeaning beliefs that the narcissist must hold to become linked to a less shameful rationale.

Citations appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.k.a. (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

NPD vs ASPD/psychopathy/sociopathy

There has some debate on the differences between NPD and ASPD. Indeed, at first glance the disorders can appear quite similar. I think it might not be a bad idea to include some content in this article distinguishing NPD from ASPD (and two subcategories of ASPD: psychopathy and sociopathy) in order to emphasize the differences. From my understanding, people with NPD and people with ASPD share a few key symptoms such as interpersonal exploitation and lack of empathy, but people with NPD [and not ASPD] are relatively more narcissistic - albeit less crime-oriented and sadistic - than people with ASPD [but not NPD]. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

NPD and ASPD share some features, including selfishness, arrogance, promiscuity and never feeling guilt. However, the differences between the these two Cluster B PDs are substantial. Narcissists are typically educated, controlled, organised, ambitious, and have long-term goals. They are obsessed with attaining and maintaining good-looks, often to the extent of using botox and having cosmetic surgery. They are orineted towards wealth, power and high social status; a high proportion of narcissists graduate from university. Antisocials are often ugly and do not care about their appearance. They are typically lazy and don't want to become educated - a high proportion don't have any academic qualificiations. They are impulsive, destructive, reckless, anarchic and chaotic. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is comorbid with ASPD, but rare in narcissists. The large majority of antisocials have addictions and most are violent. They are centred on their own immediate gratification to the expense of everything. The ASPD prevalence is 2%, but the majority of prison inmates have it. That shows how strongly connected it is to criminality. Narcissists are over-represented in high levels of business and politics. They would be very unlikely to loiter on the streets in small groups, drunkenly shouting and deliberately intimidating, threatening and insulting passers-by. It would be rare for them to be muggers, burglars, rioters or petty thieves. Antisocials often do all those things, and enjoy doing so. Narcissists would not want to risk being sent to prison; they would hate the low status and lack of control they would have over their lives if locked up. Antisocials have no fear and don't care about or think about punishment or other negative future consequences. Few have any medium or long-term goals and don't regret their wrongdoing. An antisocial being sent to prison would be more likely to sadistically extort, threaten, beat and rape his cellmate than to be scared and horrified about being imprisoned. They often reoffend very soon after being released. Narcissists are indifferent to harm they do. Antisocials deliberately do harm for the sake of it because they enjoy doing so. Many of them record their crimes on mobile phones and boast about the crimes they have committed and the prison sentences they have served. Antisocials are concentrated in the underclass, but a high proportion of narcissists are upper middle-class.

To use a fictional example so as not to risk violating BLP: someone such as Gordon Gekko would not join a street gang, burgle poor people's houses, mug people at knifepoint for their mobile phones, slash car tyres or roam the streets to find a vulnerable stranger to beat up or rape for fun. Antisocials often gleefully do such things. The NPD and ASPD mindsets are significantly different, despite the fact that they are both uncaring and are interested in others only if they can use them for their own benefit. Of course, there are some violent disorganised narcissists and some successful organised antisocials, but they are a small minority in each case. 188.28.253.219 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

All this need citation if put into the article. Much of what 188.28... is saying is completely contradicting todays psychological categorization of NPD. I don't mean to be rude, but it almost seems like 188.28... is trying to portray NPD as being something overwhelmingly positive and an advantage to gain personal achievements. However nothing as far as I have seen from journals support this claim. On the contrary, any potential positive short-term advantage of the scheming nature is by far thought to be over-compensated by the negative consequences of the unrealistic goals, the high maintenance cost of such an employee due to the self-entitlement and urge for praise, unstable social behaviour and prone to violence and so on are practically making NPD a huge disadvantage in the job career with very few exceptions (sport athletes being arguably one of them). The correlation between mass murderers and NPD is very high also. Dr Michael Stone's series "the Most Evil" is an educational and interesting source for this claim. Engolfer (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but isn't the modern thinking that these things are spectrum disorders and they don't neatly fit into one category or the other? 96.224.37.144 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some personality disordered people fit neatly into one PD. Many have more than one PD, and / or have features of one or more whilst meeting the criteria of another. Examples include Aileen Wuornos, who was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder; Sam Vaknin who has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder with schizoid features. 188.29.149.25 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

The character Eric Cartman from South Park would be a good addition to this section. The BP episode and the Fishsticks episode illustrate the delusions caused by NPD very well. I would have added him in myself but I was unable to find a good source to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.108.21 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 December 2010

Interesting suggestion. I like the Fishsticks episode, with Cartman and his delusion about who wrote the joke, and Kanye West with his delusion that leave him convinced that there couldn't be a joke that he wouldn't immediately grasp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.88.109 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

NPD and defense mechanisms

there needs to be a proper section on npd and defense mechanisms. Splitting gets a mention but others may feature such as projection. --Penbat (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

It is proposed that Narcissistic personality disorder be part of the trial of a new template; see the green strip at the top of Pain where it has been in place for a couple of months. The purpose of this project is to encourage readers to edit, while equipping them with the basic tools. If you perceive a problem with this, or have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss at the project talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gender differences

From my research on the subject I continuously see female suffers of NPD and male suffers as having completely different symptoms... within relationships and parenting. Perhaps different symptoms are presented in different degrees of severity. I think there is also a gender inequality where within the relationship there seems to be a higher degree of females with NPD. If it is equally balanced between males and females perhaps males are more likely to exhaust their NPD frustrations in the workforce whereas females are more likely to bring damage to romantic relationships. These are things that I have noticed in forums and documentaries and all sorts of places. It seems obvious to me that there are differences in gender roles but I can't find anything definitive which examines NPD specifically with regard to gender. If anyone could list some sources to cite from that would be greatly appreciated. I think it is very important NPD knowledge of course it is something that probably hasn't been thoroughly researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeUser5050 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama

He is a textbook case of this disorder. 71.205.174.204 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the poster below. This is pure speculation and ought to be avoided. That being said, there are a cultural misconception that a lot of the high end politicians and successful business owners are more likely than others to have NPD. However there are little to support this claim and the inconsistencies and lack of credibility the scheming nature of NPD often requires, will more often than not make it very hard for such a person to successfully get very far due to the fact that the higher up you get, the more under the loop you will be and scheming becomes virtually impossible, although it can be an advantage in short terms on lower type of occupations where the inconsistencies are not so easily detectable like in a burger shop or a simple warehouse.Engolfer (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that almost none of us here are qualified medical professionals, I really don't think it would be appropriate for any of us to hazard a diagnosis from afar. In addition, there are potential issues regarding WP:NPOV and WP:OR. LizFL (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the biography of living persons rules. And honestly, even if we were medical professionals, none of us could possibly hope to ever realisticly make this claim for anyone. Such a thing would require personal therapy and investigation, and such therapy would of course be a matter of confidentiality. Literally claiming personality disorders in living people, politician or not, has no place on this or any other page. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

An additional thought; even if such documents were released by the therapist, the breaking of confidentiality would immediatly nullify the use of those documents, as the therapist has taken a clearly non-neutral position. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you can toss those terms around for white people, eh? Just not on the blacks. How about Spike Lee? There's a delusional personality if I ever saw one. But, the liberal nonsense of this country fully protects them from criticism, eh? Hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.46.93 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal Nonsense"? It seems your biases are showing. Please refer to WP:NPOV. LizFL (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed this comment minutes after I entered it under the cultural depictions section. Since many professionals have diagnosed Barack Obama as a narcissist, I find it hard to understand how there should not be remarks in that section. Is Wikipedia politically biased? Moreover, a dialog about the US President's narcissism is arguably the single most relevant "cultural depiction" available in the entire world. Here's the passage that I entered. Instead of simply removing it, perhaps someone with more Wikipedia experience than me could clean it up and post it?

Barack Obama has been diagnosed as a narcissist In March, 2012, the Danish Broadcasting Corporation's television news magazine show, Detektor, produced a story in which United States President Barack Obama is shown repeatedly stating to leaders of various nations from around the world that they are are the United States' "strongest ally". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.213.43 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, "diagnosed" as a narcissist by political opponents and self-described therapists performing over the Internet, all collected on an anti-Obama website. Yep, that's reliable alright! Adding an unrelated slam at the end of your paragraph was a good touch, too. We would not accept that kind of crap about any living person, and we should not accept it about Obama. That is why I removed it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I take objection with ArglebargleIV's calling my efforts to improve this page "crap". Such acrimony is inappropriate for this community and only serves to highlight that this user cannot detach their emotions from their fingers while on Wikipedia. Would we refrain from putting into Wikipedia reports of a Hollywood super star's psychological disorder or their fight against drug abuse? Of course not! Wikipedia accepts "that kind of crap" about living people all the time! The fact is Barack Obama is a man seen by many, not just me, but others, as possessing narcissistic properties. The "cultural depictions" section has a note calling to be expanded. So, I tried to expand it. As to my "unrelated slam", that's just yet another example of the closed-minded attitude exhibited by this user. That second sentence was clearly an example intended to support the preceding sentence. I even went out of my way to avoid political bias by exemplifying the US President's disorder through content sourced outside the USA. Finally, and most importantly, this section about President Obama was in this discussion page prior to my even coming here. That fact only serves to further prove that it's not just one individual but many who believe this important matter deserves to see the light of day. So, in closing, instead of deleting my posts and putting me and every other user who has contributed to this Barack Obama section down for an honest attempt to improve Wikipedia, perhaps ArglebargleIV could check their bias and anger at the login page and invest his or her time into helping us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.213.43 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Quite an overboard paragraph, but I'll respond anyway.
  Technically, I didn't call your efforts crap, I called the results of your efforts crap -- admittedly, only a little difference, but it is there. Under Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons we would not and should not report on a Hollywood star's purported psychological disorder without cited reliable sources (and they had better be expert sources!). I think that policy is a excellent one for an encyclopedia. Potshots at a living person from blogs and editorial columns do not expert reliable sources make. If you want to say more, either pro- or anti-Obama, find a blog or a tumblr. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

Reading a section on Devaluation and Idealization, I found a much more...appropriate terming of this section of the article. "In child development idealization and devaluation are quite normal. During the childhood development stage, individuals become capable of perceiving others as complex structures, containing both good and bad components. If the development stage is interrupted (by early childhood trauma, for example), these defense mechanisms may persist into adulthood."

It shows the problem as a MAY, recognizing that these issues are very much complex and hard to ultimately determine. I think this would be a great way to frame the dubious paragraph at the bottom of "Causes." In addition, it phrases the effects of childhood influence in a far more cautious manner than the one presented on the NPD article. However, the words to rewrite this myself are elusive. Should I be able to, I will do so, but I'd encourage anyone else whos a bit better at stringing words together than I am. (my writing style being best described as "taking forever to say nothing.") 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Self love?

Narcissism seems to be confused with egomania with a lot of lay people and in Pop Psychology. Having studied Psychology and read a few text books on the topic, most Psychiatrists state that someone with NPD in fact hates themselves. Even though Humanist Psychology is written off by most academics because of there appears to be no theories in Humanism that have been proved factual, Humanism cannot actually lead to NPD. When people talk about narcissism in modern society that's not to say that NPD is rife. It just means that people are more self aware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyingcactus (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality existing regardless of self esteem?

Narcissistic disorder being characterised by 'image obsession',that they must always appear good and strong people to everyone that observes them.

Many narcissistic traits are displayed in inferiority complexes ,and indeed I think people with low esteem are indeed more prone to it. People with overly-highself esteem tend to have more problems to do with recklessness (perceived invulnerability) rather than obsessively proving everyone that they're the best there is, after all, in their point of view, why should they have to prove it? Is there anything they have to prove anyway? Unlike Sinebot I'm not saying this is the rule, they may too afraid that they'll lose their perceived high status.

In addition to enjoying a high standard of living, narcissists require that many other people view and treat them as superior. They have high-self esteem but don't merely need to feel it themselves. Narcissists manouevre themselves into high positions in order to gain narcissistic supply from their staff, partners etc. They demand to be looked up to and praised. They are probably insecure, although they don't admit it; they feel a need for high status and wealth to make them feel secure that they are powerful, successful and intelligent - and therefore better than those around them. It is a different kind of arrogance to that of the reckless antisocial. 188.28.253.219 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing a bit from entitlement

I'm removing the following from entitlement as just undue an dleaving just the first paragraph and a link to this article. There may be some use for it here. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Narcissism

In clinical psychology and psychiatry, an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom ofnarcissistic personality disorder, seen in those who 'because of early frustrations...arrogate to themselves the right to demand lifelong reimbursement from fate.

Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

'John Murray (1964) in his/her now classic paper of narcissism and the ego ideal' laid great 'emphasis on narcissistic entitlement and the manner in which this reflects infantile pregenital narcissistic fixations' - something which led in turn to the 'notion of the "narcissistic triad". The narcissistic triad involves (1) narcissistic entitlement, (2) disappointment and disillusionment at the frustration of narcissistic needs, and (3) narcissistic rage'.

Belief in the special, exceptional nature of 'narcissistic entitlement dictates that the patient has a right to life on his/her own terms...Such narcissistic entitlement plays a central role in borderline pathology, since the borderline sees himself as a special person with special rights and entitlements, such that any frustration of these entitled desires tends to undermine and often shatter the patient's self-esteem'.

In the wake of Kohut's self-psychology, a valorisation of narcissistic entitlement might be said to have taken place, as 'the age of "normal narcissism" and normal narcissistic entitlement had arrived...[a] child's right and entitlement that its parents are obliged to proffer at the least the minimum requisite "self-object" soothing...to allow the infant/child to develop a sense of self-cohesion'.

History and Systems of Psychology course

I’m editing this article as a part of my History and Systems of Psychology course and Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative. The article I will be using are: Narcissism and Narcissistic Defences in the Eating Disorders , Development and Validation of the Childhood Narcissism ScaleNarcissistic Personality DisorderNarcissistic Personality Disorders: The Egotistical PatternValentinesday1986 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I think this paragraph: "To form a more accurate ideology of the mentality of one suffering from this disorder,Kent Daniel Glowinski's book Narcissistic personality disorder : poems is greatly recommended.The author delves into the mind of a narcissistic person and has composed a book of poems, very eerily written in a narcissistic individuals point of view." should be removed- it is completely subjective. Katiekillick (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Cult of the Narcissist must be exposed in the article prominently, and perhaps in the introductory lines.

As a victim of the so called Cult of the Narcissist I must say it is one of the most prevalent characteristics of the NPD world. It consumes its victims on its closed circle by imposing on them his or her lifestyle in a way that is abusive since it often uses excessive Projective Identification, i.e. pushes its close ones to become him temporarily. This consumes the cult of the Narcissist into a vicious cycle of believing they have the problems Narcissist has. It is imperative in my opinion to expose this information (included in the above link or elsewhere) for these 2 reasons.

1) It is very easy to not be aware of it because the word "Narcissist" implies to most Laymen just a "just preoccupied with oneself" sense, which is very dangerous to be considered it only stays at that

2) It is probably the most dangerous of the outcomes of this condition. i.e. The NPD patient is one, its victims might be more. --194.219.131.11 (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It came to my attention there has been a war on the above article and has made the bots of wikipedia to remove the information automatically. It is imperative in my opinion to include this information somehow - perhaps via another author - because it is very dangerous to steer people thinking that maybe NPD patients are "just preoccupied with oneself". They are very dangerous to their close ones and it is very possible the people with problems around them are MORE than the Narcissists simply because the Narcissists have a tendency to create flocks, the "herd" will be naturally more in numbers. i.e. Do not let a previous flamewars stop information going. --194.219.131.11 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

PS. I suspect the war is a product of him hinting Obama might has NPD, which I agree might be bs, but do not make politics make you make wikipedia worse. At least use other sources. --194.219.131.11 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Treatment Section - Medications

There appears to be a contradiction in the article regarding the effectiveness of medication in treatment. The end of the first paragraph states simply that "pharmacotherapy is rarely effective", but the third paragraph discusses various circumstances in which medications can be "an effective addition" or even "extremely beneficial" to the patient. As someone with no knowledge of the subject, I think the section would benefit from some clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.57.101 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Neurology

It seems to me that this article needs a section on possible neurological etiologies of "Narsicistic Personality Disorder" and any pharmaceutical treatments. It is heavily biased towards the almost- completely theoretical field of Psychology and as such seems to have an underlying departure from established scientific facts. As is well known, many, many people question the validity of many findings and theories in Psychology.