Talk:Narcissistic mortification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editing through APS Initiative[edit]

My name is Cherie Singletary. I am a senior at Clemson University majoring in Psychology. I will be modifying this article as part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative. I am looking to add sections on the physical and psychological sensations associated with narcissistic mortification, death anxiety and narcissistic mortification, internal versus external and normal versus pathological narcissistic mortification and narcissistic mortification associated with cult leadership. Csing (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sections[edit]

I have been working on this article for the past few weeks and have added multiple sections. These sections are: ---

- Psychological and physical sensations of narcissistic mortification

- Normal versus pathological narcissistic mortification

- Internal versus external narcissistic mortification

- Narcissistic mortification in cult leadership

- Examples of cult leaders

- Death anxiety and narcissistic mortification

- Narcissistic mortification and suicide

- Treatments. Csing (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your rhetorical question[edit]

The article authored by an FBI professional used as a reference to the edit which you removed in my opinion is a good addition to the topic. And the information, specifically naming well-know cult leaders as examples is very helpful to the article. To answer your question, is the author qualified, I would say yes. WP is not an academic or medical journal,if it were there may be different criteria for acceptable sources,(only PHD.? But I don't even know that this FBI author is lettered or not), but this looks OK to me.24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked.The author's qualifications, besides FBI experience, are more than adequate as I discovered by clicking-through to his author bio http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/joe-navarro-ma 24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that removing content based on one editor's opinion of the author is inappropriate. The qualifications of a source's author only matter when the source is self-published. Instead we should rely on the quality of the publication. (Is it self-published, peer-reviewed, who is on the editorial board, etc). In this case Psychology Today is an excellent reliable secondary source. Jojalozzo 15:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that this source is a self-published blog hosted by Psychology Today, not an article in the magazine. In that case I do not fault the removal of the content, since blogs are not considered reliable unless the author is a recognized expert and it's not clear what Navarro's credentials are with respect to this content. Jojalozzo 15:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, he is not just a former FBI professional. As far as I can see (and I did not do any extensive searches) he is a self-named expert on narcissists, not a psychiatrist or psychologist (or any other mental health worker who is qualified to make a diagnosis). Some of these people are not dead yet, and the demands on sources for biographical information about living people are very high.
Furthermore, I'm not so sure about your Psychology today being an excellent reliable secondary source according to WP:MEDRS. But that is irrelevant in this case. Lova Falk talk 16:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a link to the author's bio. up there after I clicked-through it from the reference that said that he was a G-Man. It is not my ref. but some other editor here-I was responding to your question on if the author is qualified to be sourced. I really do not know what letters the author has by his name, but he has been on the faculty teaching from what I gleaned and I have to disagree with you about the author's qualifications. If you want it in your article or not, I don't really care and I personally have no idea if the material fits with the article, (which I guess would be if those specific names could be labeled with the topic of the article, I don't even know what that is!)-but if you are going to take that out why not take out the "cult"-section? I'm going to highlight here from the author's bio, again, just to answer that question you had in the edit, I think that he is a highly qualified source.
"He is on the adjunct faculty at Saint Leo University and the Institute for Intergovernmental Research where he teaches nonverbal communications. For 37 years he has been teaching and utilizing the study of nonverbal communications as well as its practical applications in everyday use and in forensic settings. He has lectured throughout the world including Wayne State University School of Medicine, Harvard Business School and at the Baylor College of Medicine - Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences in Houston, Texas. Mr. Navarro brings together his academic background, scientific research, and practical experience catching spies to the art of observing and interpreting human behavior. Mr. Navarro is also the author of: Advanced Interviewing Techniques; Hunting Terrorists—A look at the psychopathology of terror; Read ‘em and Reap; the international best selling book What Every Body is Saying (23 languages); Louder Than Words, and his most recent book, Clues to Deceit: A Practical List."24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for this article, since the subject is on psychoanalytic terminology, need to be recognized experts in the field of psychoanalysis, i.e. have published in recognized professional journals and have reliable sources that attest that the person cited is an expert in the field on narcassism. Sources need to follow WP:MEDRS. Psychology is considered a science, and because someone was in the FBI doesn't make him an expert on psychoanalytic terminology, nor just because someone has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and wrote a paper. Nor does teaching and/or practicing some profession for many years, or being an author of a book make him an expert. Some reliable third-party sources have to state that he is. Otherwise, we are engaging in Original Research if we deem him an expert based on our evaluation of his experience. Really, that's true. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and the other rules and guidelines. Farrajak (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Farrajak on this. (And I agree with Lova that even Psychology Today wouldn't necessarily meet MEDRS standards since it's not peer-reviewed.) Jojalozzo 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still basically have little idea what this article actually is about, but to clarify, the question was directed at the author of the proposed reference source, not necessarily Psychology Today, or even this article, and the qualifications about a career "FBI" person, and if that was a good enough authority in some particular brand of deviant narcissism. At least he spelled it right in his book, unlike some other people here, who apparently want to question ex-Agent N's credentials.
I fully support a though vetting of RX/Medical information on Wikipedia,and thank-you for posting the qualifications, but the last time that I checked, unfortunately, Personality disorders such as Narcissistic_personality_disorder were being all but eliminated from the the DSM but maybe your condition, (the topic), is a recognized ailment, and maybe the naming of notoriously well-known cult-leaders, just does not fit with your topic? I respectfully disagree with any disparaging thing that has been said about the author's abilities to be included in a discussion of famously destructive narcissistic cult-leaders, I read a good snippet of his book on the topic, and he knows what he is talking about.
24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about using "shock" in Physical sensations[edit]

I just finished reading-through your article, and 1st I wanted to compliment you on the work that you have done and your research. Although, as a lay-person, for myself it was leaning towards being academic, it was a good read!
I did find your references to famous literary characters, and Using Ahab in Moby Dick, and well-known literary characters was just what I was looking-for as examples, and it looks like a good place for future editors to have some fun. I also appreciated the overall appearance and layout, with the section for treatment included, which sounds reasonable and I hope that it works for someone who needs help with the condition.
Despite your technical understanding with the topic, I think that overall it was understandable to readers, but the only place that I really got stuck as a reader was in the "Physical sensations"-area. Particularly your use of the word, "shock", because as you know, "shock" is a serious, sometimes physically fatal unless treated properly, condition. And I was confused there, more so because of the reference to trauma in the same section. I did look at your reference source to see if there was further explanation there, for using "shock", but I didn't read all 7 pages, and what I did see there still seems to differentiate between "shock", on a psychological level, and "shock" like when someone's vital symptoms are physically deteriorating like from an accident, or amputation, or some truly physical traumatic event. Maybe it is possible, because the serious problem that your source's patient had with a simple thing like petting his own dog, sounds like it is very serious, but I'm still confused, and especially-so because of the word "mortification"/"mort"----aside from suicide, or committing some really dangerous behavior in response to the condition, I guess I am asking if you are meaning to say that it is possible to literally expire/die, "die of embarrassment"-or shame, or this Narcissistic_mortification, just from the physical reaction/ and or condition of "shock"-Shock_(circulatory),the medical emergency?
So I am still confused about your meaning there and I am not going to attempt to edit it because I'm lost on that point, but if I did I might pipe the word Shock so that it goes to Acute_stress_reaction, which is the re-direct on the Shock_(circulatory) page, or just use a different term if that is possible or correct. I look forward to learning more about it. Thank-you for adding an interesting article24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 24.0.133.234! In the article it says: "The psychological sensations described are shock" - which is quite different from saying that the person suffers from a medical shock. But to make this still more clear, I'll add the word "feeling". Would that solve the issue for you? Lova Falk talk 05:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. Yep. If that is not the intended meaning,-"quite different" from medical shock, answers that for me as no it is not the same. Any kind of clarification would help there for a reader and future article editors too. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty citations for this article[edit]

Examples:

  • Who is Mary Libbey, PhD who gave a paper presented at the Shame Symposium, New York, March 2006 and is referenced many times in article. What qualifies her as an expert in Narcissistic mortification? Reading a paper at a "Shame" convention isn't enough to qualify her.
  • Same for Ludwig Eidelberg M.D. - his journal article was published in 1957
  • Destrudo is a wiki for anyone to edit and has maintenance tags on it. Not a reliable source
  • Who is Daniel Shaw, in what publications does he publish in, and what are his qualification for writing about Narcissistic mortification?
  • Jeffrey Berman Frankenstein; or, the Modern Narcissus - what are his qualifications as an expert on Narcissistic mortification? And what does his article have to do with Narcissistic mortification?

Others also are questionable but can't be accessed. Farrajak (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 21st century[edit]

This section needs a completely different approach. Instead of Libbey's point of view, we should have a secondary source that discusses the use of the concept "narcissistic mortification" in the 21st century. Is it still used by psychoanalysts? Is it used by others? Have other concepts replaced the concept? Lova Falk talk 06:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have sketched as above for US/UK - France, anyone? Jacobisq (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Narcissistic mortification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcissistic_mortification&oldid=1203159574"