Does being a narcissist necessarily mean you are abusive?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Narcissists must get narcissistic supply which is "Attention" however if you think about it all people desire some amount of attention. If a person has all the Symptoms of a narcissists other than stuff which is outwardly harmful such as self entitlement, or purposely abusing others, lack of responsibility, can they still be classified as one? Or would they be classified as something else entirely?

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about

 

The symptoms listed here don't really list that.

Also how does one know when they are unique?

A person can be told they are stupid by society but are

really the next genius. Every great inventor or genius was

probably told they were stupid or crazy at one point but they

just saw things a lot more clearly than most people.

So how do you differentiate between if they are really grand or they are just over inflating themselves?

People with various disorders cant communicate well either. So if

someone cant communicate well they might have a symptom but

does that mean they are narcissistic?

 

Since Narcissism is a type of Defense mechanism wouldn't it be possible for someone to develop some of the coping mechanisms and not act like a full narcissist would?

Edited May 29, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Ophiolite]

Narcissism is a classification. All classifications are artificial. They are designed to simplify complex variables and their relationships. If we treat them as concrete objects we are in danger of being constrained in our response to them.

A person can be told they are stupid by society but are really the next genius. Every great inventor or genius was probably told they were stupid or crazy at one point but they just saw things a lot more clearly than most people.

This is a commonplace fallacy. I am sure there are one or two examples of this kind, but the vast majority of geniuses were recognised as such by their contemporaries, or - at the very least - were not thought to be fools.

 

I don't expect you to accept this, so give me three examples of great inventors or geniuses who were thought to be stupid. (I can think of three, but I can also think of three thousand to whom this does not apply.)

[Marshalscienceguy]

Narcissism is a classification. All classifications are artificial. They are designed to simplify complex variables and their relationships. If we treat them as concrete objects we are in danger of being constrained in our response to them.

 

This is a commonplace fallacy. I am sure there are one or two examples of this kind, but the vast majority of geniuses were recognised as such by their contemporaries, or - at the very least - were not thought to be fools.

 

I don't expect you to accept this, so give me three examples of great inventors or geniuses who were thought to be stupid. (I can think of three, but I can also think of three thousand to whom this does not apply.)

So how would you classify mental illness and disorders?

 

[Ophiolite]

So how would you classify mental illness and disorders?

 

Cautiously.

[herb w.]

Well, as a clinical neurosciences practioner for some decades, Classification of psychiatric disorders found in the DSM5, which came out May 2013, is hardly artificial. It refers to real, scientifically measurable characteristics of, for example, narcissists. There is a Narcissistic scale in some psych tests, too. It's a real, existing disorder, and the classification of this refers to actual, existing persons who show those characteristics.

 

A great many public people, often in the entertainment and other professional fields are rather narcissistic. One of think of the divas who have been that way and some surgeons, to be sure.

 

Read the DSM classification. It's a real and existing description of these persons. If this is artificial, which most psych professionals would not agree with, then is animal ethology, which describes species behaviors and characteristics real, existing events, or are they artificial too?

 

These personality disorder descriptions are very carefully arrived at supported by the full panoply of published psychological/psychiatric studies and work to substantiate it.

 

http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

" I don't expect you to accept this, so give me three examples of great inventors or geniuses who were thought to be stupid."

 

Or crazy. Semmelweiss and puerperal fever, Wegener and continental drift, and Tesla, come immediately to mind. The geologist who pointed out that the Scablands of eastern Washington were due to repeated, massive floods. There are many more. Newton believed in witchcraft, alchemy, and had some other rather weird beliefs. Today, he'd be thought of as nuts, clinically.. Recently there have been studies which show that the dopamine profiles of many highly creative persons closely resembles that of schizophrenics. There is a clear relationship between madness and genius, surely not in every case, but in too many cases to ignore.

 

Paul Gauguin, a number of ancient Greeks, who were quite creative, even brilliant. Socrates was killed and Galileo locked up.

As Bohr stated to a grad student, after he'd just presented a new model in physics, "Young man, your ideas are crazy, but not crazy enough to be right."

 

Yes, even Darwin was thought to be way out of line by a great many persons. And recall that even Einstein NEVER got a Nobel Prize for relativity, either, his greatest work.

 

Maybe it just depends upon POV, tho, what is crazy, what is genius, and who are stupid or fools? The Clermont and Fulton come to mind as do the horseless carriages. There are an unlimited number of examples, sadly.

 

"Progress in physics proceeds funeral by funeral" --Albert Einstein

[Ophiolite]

Well, as a clinical neurosciences practioner for some decades, Classification of psychiatric disorders found in the DSM5, which came out May 2013, is hardly artificial. It refers to real, scientifically measurable characteristics of, for example, narcissists. There is a Narcissistic scale in some psych tests, too. It's a real, existing disorder, and the classification of this refers to actual, existing persons who show those characteristics.

And the measurements of these characteristics fall on a scale, such as their is a spectrum of responses. Clinicians have selected threshold values for these characteristics beyond which an individual will be considered narcissistic and below which they will not be. Those thresholds have a strong arbitrary component.

 

Labeling is useful. Labeling, classification schemes, are an integral part of many life forms. If I recall correctly frogs divide the world into things that move and things that don't. The things that move are then subdivided into things they can eat, and things that might eat them. This works for frogs, but is less effective for handsome, narcissistic princes.

 

Narcissism is a disorder because we have chosen to classify it as such. That may very well be useful, but if you think it is real you are in danger of turning into a frog.

 

If this is artificial, which most psych professionals would not agree with, then is animal ethology, which describes species behaviors and characteristics real, existing events, or are they artificial too?

Of course they are. Useful? Yes. Real and concrete and absolute? Certainly not.

[iNow]

Does being a narcissist necessarily mean you are abusive?

No.

[MonDie]

Narcissism is a classification. All classifications are artificial. They are designed to simplify complex variables and their relationships. If we treat them as concrete objects we are in danger of being constrained in our response to them.

 

And the measurements of these characteristics fall on a scale, such as their is a spectrum of responses. Clinicians have selected threshold values for these characteristics beyond which an individual will be considered narcissistic and below which they will not be. Those thresholds have a strong arbitrary component.

 

I think we're almost in agreement. Narcissism and tallness are both real variables, although who is narcissistic and who is tall are both arbitrary judgment calls.

I don't know whether narcissism is one variable or multiple, or whether we can measure it with high accuracy. Psychometrics usually employs factor analysis to identifying distinct variables.

Edited June 7, 2014 by MonDie

[Ophiolite]

That's good. That means you are almost right.

[lizardlady]

Yes.

People who are clinically diagnosed as such, are self-absorbed, and non-empathetic, and usually combative.

 

I consider that to be emotionally abusive.

 

There is a difference between "healthy" narcissism and having Narcissistic Personality disorder.

Edited October 3, 2014 by lizardlady

[Bill Angel]

 

Yes.

People who are clinically diagnosed as such, are self-absorbed, and non-empathetic, and usually combative.

I consider that to be emotionally abusive.

There is a difference between "healthy" narcissism and having Narcissistic Personality disorder.

"self-absorbed, and non-empathetic, and usually combative"? That is a very good description of some people I've encountered in Baltimore...

One morning I was walking down the street alone just thinking my own thoughts and smiling to myself while reminiscing in my mind about earlier events in my life. (I'm a 66 year old white fellow) Suddenly I hear off to my right a young black man screaming at me "what are you smiling about!" I turn around (he was by then behind me) to determine what the commotion was about and noticed that his face was contorted in rage and belligerence directed at me. He, along with two other people, were standing well away from the sidewalk against a wall in a location where it was highly unlikely that I might have noticed them, and in fact had not noticed them. I had not encountered this fellow before, but subsequently discovered that he needed to take up residence in a local homeless shelter, as his family and the community had "washed their hands" of him. He probably thought that I was aware of his difficult situation and that was why I was smiling to myself, as I was gloating over his misfortune. Of course his assessment of me and my motives for smiling to myself had nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

[MonDie]

^ He sounds more psychotic than narcissistic, but he could have some of each.

 

Maybe we're all alittle psychotic, but it's just not a problem until we're in a bad mood.

Edited October 6, 2014 by MonDie

[Marshalscienceguy]

Yes.

People who are clinically diagnosed as such, are self-absorbed, and non-empathetic, and usually combative.

 

I consider that to be emotionally abusive.

 

There is a difference between "healthy" narcissism and having Narcissistic Personality disorder.

No being self absorbed, nonempathetic and combative is not abusive it means your Logical.