Talk:Narcissism

just different degrees of the same thing.

hi, I'm platitudes. I'm a big-time user on reddit and I know a lot about Narcissism. For example, in a recent reply to a thread, I wrote that the "wide range of meanings" discussed in the introduction are simply different degrees of the same thing. So I would like to share my knowledge with the world and let them know. Please enable me asap so I can make these important edits. Thanks. You can see my mastery of the topic at http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/n4uon/men_of_reddit_has_a_girl_ever_rejected_you_but/c36dsra?context=3

Update: I am now convinced that "wide range of meanings" actually only refers to like, two meanings. But, you have missed an important THIRD definition, the colloquial one. Yeah, I know you editors have degrees and whatnot, but you missed the colloquial meaning of narcissistic which means "self-important, egotistic, and vain."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Platitudeonreddit (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Gender Narcissism?

Who the heck is Gerald Schoenwolf anyways? A google search revealed that he also believes in conversion therapy (using theraputic methods to turn homosexual persons straight) and is an overall wackjob. He's a part of NARTH, for christ's sake. I don't think his theories need to be taken seriously, and definitely don't belong on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.212.45 (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I just made some changes to this section after realizing that the two citations presented are for the same article on the NARTH website. I hope the changes offer a more balanced take on Schoenwolf's whacked out psychology which, though certainly not mainstream, is arguably notable given that the guy has his own Criticism section on the NARTH page (for saying similarly stupid and offensive things as those in the article on gender narcissism). I would ask that anyone deciding to reverse my changes announce their intention on the talk page so that consensus can be achieved on how to present Schoenwolf's views. Egmetcalfe (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hotchkiss who?

No first name, no wiki entry, nothing. Hotchkiss who?

You only had to check the reference: "Hotchkiss, Sandy & Masterson, James F. Why Is It Always About You? : The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism (2003)" Masterson has a Wiki entry, the fact that Hotchkiss doesnt have a Wiki entry is no big deal. --Penbat (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Confused

(Crossposted to Narcissism (psychology)) -- New to this article, can someone explain how Narcissism and Narcissism (psychology) are intended to differ? I see a lot of overlap. Are there really two different articles here? Or are they really covering "narcissism" and "psychological theories of narcissism"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They are really covering Narcissism as a term in general use and Narcissism as a term in psychology, which, if you read the articles, you will see are quite different. --Zeraeph 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that helps. I'd like to check my impressions a bit "step at a time", to make sure I understand the way it's working in both articles. Can you comment so's to make sure I'm staying with you on this?

1. I just re-read the main "narcissism" article, in light of the above. It seems to cover mostly 4 main areas: narcissism in culture (dandy, new romantic, metrosexual), narcissism of a culture as a whole, narcissism as a basis for societally harmful self-image-protective behavior (medical narcissism), and research into the genetic basis of clinical narcissistic tendencies. Roughly in simple terms, correct?
2. The Narcissism (psychology) article then seems to be a specialized article, that examines the concetp of narcissism within clinical medicine (psychology), rather than its cultural manifestations - ie, theories and specialist forms. Correct?

The genetic trait section on narcissism was the odd one out that threw me, as it seemed to cover similar ground to the psychological narcissism. I may have an idea how to improve that, because as written, it's essentially research into the genetic basis of the psychology (Alvarez/evolutionary psychology) or the personality disorder (Livesley et al), which are themselves subjects that are closer related to the psychology page than general use. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NOW I see your confusion, when asked, the genetics people expressed a preference for being part of the generic Narcissm article over being confused with the psychological aspects of narcissisn which is a totally different usage. I suppose, one day, when there is enough material this should really fork off to a "Genetic narcissism" article? Do you think it is time? --Zeraeph 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How about the following division? (ignore the crass titles, they're indicative only as I don't know the proper terms for all these)

Narcissism (general article):

• Narcissism overview - what it is, and the divide between cultural and psychological aspects
• Narcissism in society

• Cultural roles and stereotypes (dandy, metrosexual etc)
• Cultural narcissism (narcissism of a culture as a whole)
• Self-image-protective behavior (medical and similar narcissism)

• Narcissism in psychology (brief summary style of narcissism in psychology, and research into its basis, with a Main article: section header link)
• Narcissism in myth and literature

Narcissism (psychological, clinical and biological aspects):

• Definition and scope sort of overview
• Functions of narcissism

• Psychological functions and benefits of narcissism
• Biological and evolutionary functions and benefits of narcissism

• History of concept in psychology (incl. various theories and their proponents)
• Other forms of narcissism

• Acquired situational narcissism
• Gender narcissism
• Sexual narcissism

• Research into narcissism

• Genetic research

I'm not convinced by "genetic narcissism" as a separate article, mostly because the research doesn't seem to be about some separate genetic matter (it's not comparable to genetic causes of cancer as opposed to viral causes of cancer), ie, it's not a different type of narcissism that's covered. It's very clearly looking for genetic backing for the psychological behaviors covered in the psychology article. The above schemata would probably work well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I'm assuming from the title of Alvarez' paper that there's a separate area of interest in narcissism, related to biological and evolutionary aspects of the traits. I've drafted the above on that basis. If there's any 3rd article then an article "evolutionary narcissism" would be it, but it doesn't sound like there's enough to warrant splitting it from the other two. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ideas there...though I'd be more inclined to keep sexual and gender Narcissism in the main article (they really straddle both, to keep them in main is less stigmatising) --Zeraeph 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I left them in the psychology article since that's where they are now. I assumed that was for good reason. Reviewing I tend to agree with you that a place in the main article would work for sexual narcissism, but gender and acquired narcissism seem to be more psychological, and would fit well as a mention in the main article under psychology, but kept in the psychological article as at present. If that change is made, would the schemata above then be close to a viable one? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I had forgotten that they were already in the Psychology article (well the sub heading does say "confused" doesn't it? So I stayed on topic. :o) ). They all straddle the line, but I am happy with your view, that would work. --Zeraeph 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That cleanup and schemata would be mostly okay with you then? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Definately think it would be a great improvement. --Zeraeph 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Will leave it here for other views for 3 days (8 jan) in case there is any serious dissent or other collaborative ideas, first. As respect for others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Monopolize?People that describe others as being happy with oneself and confident of oneself to the point of expression as a disorder are perhaps a bit narcisistic...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) perhaps a bit narcasistic... Because they are attempting to manipulate that persons wellbeing by making a vague blatent label with little explanation to inhibit that person to question themselves when they are simply being happy and content with themselves...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving Wikipedia's coverage of Psychology, not for this general discussion. Please take this elsewhere. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC) I'm refering to the example on the page about narcissism... The subject named "Narsissus" was not exibiting any narcissistic activity... He had never seen his reflection before...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC) A better example for narcissism is like when people manipulate others interpretations by making blatent lables with insufficient examples...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the relevant talk page, please. The similarity between "Narcissus" and "Narcissism" is not accidental. Please also give your sections a meaningful title that is relevant to what you are trying to say. That makes it easier for us readers. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 71.196.134.245 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 71.196.134.245 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a psychological type of conundrum associated with this exammple of the character named Narcissus. The fact that his name sounds the same is distracting from actually understanding what the act of narcissism is... Refering to a young person that has never seen his reflection responding in that way even in a hypothetical situation is not justifiable grounds for diagnosis of a psychological disorder. The example is insufficient to fully understand what narcissism is. I understand that the story suggests warning that some may be viewed as narcissistic by the interpretations of the older miserable idiots that like to spread rederic for there own interests or to misdirect others interpretations because people that manipulate social conversations or interpretations in that way are perhaps narcisistic unless they can state a specific logical purpose for there actions...71.196.134.245 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Heritability

I have removed the Heritability study with Twins section because the study had no bearing on anything. Did no one consider the fact that twins might develop similarly because they live together for the better part of their lives? If they had done it with twins who had been separated since birth, the study might have some meaning. --Savant13 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the study was controlled and is verifiable, the text was cited, so, you can't just delete it because *in your opinion* it is not valid, it goes back.

Also, as far as I can see, the study determined heritability by comparing the results from identical twins, with those of fraternal twins (no more alike than any other siblings) to arrive at conclusions. As fraternal twins are just as likely to be subject to the same environmental factors as identical twins, and the study compared the difference between the two, I really do not see your problem. --Zeraeph 12:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph is correct. If a statement can be attributable to a reliable source then the statement belongs in the encyclopedia article. If you question the validity or reliability of the source, you can do that on the talk page. If the issue is one of broader controversay regarding the topic, then a separate section detailing the controversary, with sources, would seem appropriate. DPeterson^talk 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to imply that foul play was involved, merely that the conclusions drawn were questionable. In addition, I would not assume that fraternal and identical twins are subject to the same environmental factors. --Savant13 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, you can never assume ANYTHING about the factors affecting a test group, there are too many potential variables, even twins seperated from birth (who have shown similar tendencies in Scandinavian Studies) might be subject to either remarkably similar, or remarkably different environmental factors depending on the nature of separation. But the studies did show a distinct trend, and are, most impotantly, verifiable. However, if you can point out another study that contradicts these finding let's include it too. --Zeraeph 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zeraeph. The study meets Wikipedia standards of being verifialbe and attributable to a reliable sourcee and so should be cited...as can other studies that find other results. This is an encyclopedia article, after all. DPeterson^talk 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

More positive Opening paragraph & wish for a image more directly reletave to subject.

I have added a more powerfull opening paragraph to cover the essence of this problematic disorder.The previous image was too graphic and appears to be a side tangent thats hardly reletave to the essance of the disorder.I beleive a more positive opening is in store.My opinion is that an image less graphic and more relitave would also help as an improvement.Fullertonart 11:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, NOW I understand the problem...let me try to explain. This article is for the general CONCEPT of Narcissism, quite independent of psychology, which has existed for centuries, NOT the disorder. Pathological Narcissism is NOT the topic of this article at all.

Narcissism (psychology) relates to all aspects of Narcissism in psychology, including the positive ones (Do you realise that we ALL have some healthy Narcissism? Without it we couldn't even have self esteem.).

However, for disorders of Narcissism you have two choices Narcissistic personality disorder or Malignant narcissism. Both are very different articles. As they are documented medical conditions, I am sure you can appreciate that all citations must be made VERY STRICTLY to medical and academic Reliable sources, but within that constraint, you are VERY welcome to come and help improve them. --Zeraeph 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Traits of a narcissist section

These are the traits of a narcissist? According to what or whom? --71.34.91.113 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Narcissism of Terror Organizations

It seems that bullying and terrorism are at least in some cases linked to terrorism. Check this out:

• The Narcissism of 'Hezbollah'

Jonniefast (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about ignorance. 203.171.196.95 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Hahaha, wow. You JIDF sure make up some ridiculous shit. 124.148.221.42 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

clear consensus for merger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I am proposing a merger of Narcissism (psychology) and Narcissism for the following reasons:

• The trait described has a lot more similarities than differences when it comes to the lay use and a large proportion of current use in psychology. i.e. (superficial) self love and themes of adoration or desire for adoration. The lay term is essentially a vernacular use of one of the central themes of the psychological term. Yes there is alot more depth to psychological discussion, but they are also explored at related articles on Malignant narcissism and Narcissistic personality disorder.

The state of the current article at narcissism lends weight to this proposal, with the first three sections psychological in nature anyway, and the last half of the article possibly bordering on original research (and if it did have scholarly work on it, would be linking to the psychological term anyway (!)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Any scholarly sociological work will use a psychological definition anyway, so the narcissistic culture/society stuff (if able to be referenced) would be more in line with psychology than 'lay' anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. . as proposer Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. . Suppport, there is no need for two seperate articles on narcissism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
3. . Suppport, however the coverage of narcissism in general on Wikipedia is crap - many knowledgeable people have been frightened away in the past. Somewhere it needs to spell out what narcissistic supply, narcissistic rage, narcissistic injury, narcissistic envy, secondary narcissism, pathological narcissism all are. Also there is no mention that control freaks are often narcissists. It would also be good to tie up bullying to narcissism as bullies are often narcissistic. Narcissists often use passive-aggressive behaviour. Also a moderate level of narcissism is healthy. Too little narcissism is unhealthy and the person will be used like a doormat. Narcissism only becomes unhealthy above the midpoint on the narcissism spectrum where other people get damaged. It might be useful to try to graphically illustrate the narcissistic spectrum and show where NPD and malignant narcissism fit in. Also there needs to be explanation of the role of true self and false self in narcissism. Also the role of defense mechanisms such as projection should be mentioned. --Penbat (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support – no reason not to make one article of these two. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal

I removed two statements and three "sources" from "Cultural depictions of narcissism." The first two cite Daydism and metrosexuality as "being considered forms of narcissism." The sources are a website that critiques fashion movements and refers to Daydism as narcissistic once in passing. Likewise the article cited for metrosexuality frequently calls subject David Beckham narcissistic for being "metrosexual." However, neither of these sources meets the criteria for a reliable source, nor is the true definition of narcissism used correctly--only the pop definition of vanity. Additionally, one non-authoritative author commenting on a subject does not make those subjects "considered," only "considered by one person" and incorrectly at that.

I also removed a Kurt Cobain lyric for the same reasons of inaccuracy further propelled by the fact that the reference was a Wikipedia loop.

The section on depictions of narcissism in the listed novel subjects is appropriate and remains.Luminum (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed a randomly added LeBron James reference that was placed at the beginning of the article. (Anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.5.2 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Restructure

The current understanding of narcissism is split between the Kohut and Kernberg models. Most of the info given about Freud and Horney is just leading the path to Kohut and Kernbergs views. Therefor i intend to downplay the Freud and Horney material. --Penbat (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Importance of Valid Accreditation in Medical Articles

This is a medical article, and deserves only the best accredited, recognised and peer reviewed medical and academic sources. There is no place for reference to self published, amateur opinion. Thank You WB --90.210.84.5 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Unlike the NPD article, this article mainly covers narcissism as an abstract concept with many differing views amongst academics. For example you have the Kernberg camp and the Kohut camp. Some psychologists such as Eysenck even dismiss Freud's views as worse than useless. Also there are now many developing sub categories of narcissism such as spiritual narcissism and are in their infancy. Apart from things like testing twins, the idea of exhaustive peer reviewing is worthless as there will always be at least 1 eminent psychologist who disagrees with something.

I think it would be best to delete medical status for this article.--Penbat (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing Out of Date Materials

You're really using Freud as a major source? I can't think of any serious academic paper today where Freud is quoted as a source on modern psychology. He is a historic footnote, but people don't use his writings in serious academic inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.198.10 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, Here!!! http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/05-the-borderlin-whack-jobs-who-pioneered-psychoanalysis Enjoy!!  ;) 172.190.72.140 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Narcissism section reference

I have an issue with the reference below,as it is to a journal article that requires payment to see. I don't think that's really appropriate - freely accessible articles should be used in this case, as the named examples are otherwise meaningless. I couldn't find anything else out about Joe or Baja, so naming them seems pointless. Hurlbert argues that sex is a natural biological given and therefore cannot be deemed as an addiction. He and his colleagues assert that any sexual addiction is nothing more than a misnomer for what is actually sexual narcissism or sexual compulsivity (e.g. Joe Villanueva, Baja Captain).[46] Snorgle (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are Katy Perry and David Letterman listed under "See also"?

I understand why Bono is listed. And even though global warming is a very real problem, I also understand why Al Gore is listed. But I don't know why those two are listed, and unless I can find some actual examples of narcissism from them, and since their articles don't mention any, I'll likely assume that someone on here has an axe to grind!

I think I'll Be Bold™ and remove both hyperlinks. If you find evidence, you can add 'em back! 4.248.56.49 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All four were added two days ago [1] and are completely inappropriate. I have removed the other two. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this page should mention how a big part of Narcissism has to do with the fact that Narcissist are really self-loathing and are just using a defense mechanism to try to make themselves feel better about themselves. By constantly acting like they are something special they hope to start to believe this.

--Speterson6 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Speterson6

potential resource

• Alice Miller (psychologist)#The Drama of the Gifted Child (Das Drama des begabten Kindes, 1979) 99.19.43.169 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

self respect

should mention how even though narcissists have high self esteem, they have very little self respect, doing things they believe to be wrong habitually. this article is incredibly unsympathetic towards narcissists, narcissism is a defense mechanism. i realize this article includes colloquial definitions too but its really important that people actually understand that narcissists are not evil. this isnt a sympathetic article. its of extreme importance that someone puts something more sympathetic in, part of the nature of this mental illness is that the narcissist thinks of other narcissists as evil because they dont have any respect for themselves. i'll do something if just to have something there, but im not good at writing in "encyclopedia prose" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.165.150 (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

LA Times resource

Narcissistic men may pay a price--worse health by Jeannine Stein, January 23, 2012, 2:25 p.m.

99.181.152.120 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)