Talk:Narcissism/Archive 1

The definition is creating a lot misunderstanding to students and young people

Narcissism cannot be self love. It is the opposite.

An understanding is continuing in society for thousand years doesn't mean it cannot be redefined when we know better. Thousands of years people knew sun moves around the world doesn't mean we have to continue that. Please correct the definition or change the title like Narcissism: classical concept or something like that.

I edited as following but it was removed.

"A common misconception of narcissism is to define it as self love. A person with self love is happy with himself and his love often motivates himself to improve. A narcissist truly hates himself. Often frustrated with his own inabilities, confusion and misery, he stops feeling his own self anymore and bears a continuous sadness inside. If his grandiose self projection to others reflects a charming image of his own, then only he feels himself alive and becomes happy, and he becomes addicted to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.224.2 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought beautifully written, your edit was an unsourced subjective abstract centered on limited vernacular misuse of the term Narcissism. It is WP:OR and not appropriate here. 213.116.42.95 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Narc?

I had to remove that comment. Stereotype would be a much more succint way of referencing the fact that labeling is a short hand language in groups.

Twining 202

Ways to improve this article

I think this article could be improved by a larger emphasis on Cultural Narcissism. (see topic page for section on Lasch). There is so much room for enlarging on this. There is the entire matter of narcissism in all kinds of social, political geographic, ethnic and religious groups, etc. There is the entire topic of how Narcissism helps and/or hurts powerful national leaders. There are papers and books that discuss these issues without trying to label people.

Ideas, anyone? Could be an exciting phase for this topic! I am Kiwi 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, IP 83.146.13.49

Whoever you are, I thank you for your edit addition. It was exactly what the article needed, it seems to me -- an excellent concise defining of the very core of narcissism was really needed for the lead-off on this amalgamation of loosely related topics. My hat is off to you. Please consider coming back.

And yes, I noted the comment and link, but it is very tiny and inconsequential in the big scheme of things. Give it a few days. I am Kiwi 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A question - Do you have any ideas on a title for this topic page? Any comments on my comments of yesterday? You won't hurt my feelings. This isn't "my" page, but everyone's. I am Kiwi 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA Theory

This NPA theory hardly seems scientific. Mendelian genetics was state of the art a few centuries ago and is good enough to explain whether a pea is smooth or wrinkled, but human behavior is more complicated than that. As part of its description of traits, NPA theory distinguishes between whether blood rushes to or away from the face when angry. Just because the guy who came up with the idea has an M.D. doesn't mean he isn't a quack. If his theories have been published in any peer-reviewed scientific or psychological journals, that's a start. For now, his theory should be considered original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

In that vein, I am deleting his theory from this article.--NeantHumain 21:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello NeantHumain.

True, it is not proven. But it has been well-established in dogs and cattle (and possibly far many more animals) that Trait Theory is firmly established (though naturally the traits of these lower animals are not identical to hypothesized inherited human traits). On this basis and on the basis that chimps and gorillas seem to show the same hypothesized inherited trait transmission as humans, it seems to support this theory, but is certainly not proven.

Of course, very much of what is postulated in science is not proven, but is hypothesized and then tested to prove or disprove the premise. It is also true that Dr. Benis is self-published, and there have been, as of yet, no researchers known to be involved in or planning to be involved in the testing of this theory.

True, even such great a thing as evolution is not proven, but it is substantiated by thousands of discoveries linked to sedimentary rock layers that can be dated. Also, developmental medicine holds to the adage that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" This refers to the anatomical tracking of mammalian fetal development in many species. This goes far to giving supportive evidence.

In essence, I am in agreement with your decision and will remove it from another related topic. Thank you for posting about your reason for the deletion to this talk page. - I am Kiwi 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding citations

The introduction to this topic article begins with a tiny bit about the disturbing myth of Echo and Narcissis (really worth a read under Greek mythology).

It is then explained that Narcissism in excess can be pathological in the Psychiatric/Psychological sense. This is fully explained and referenced in Narcissism (psychology) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

In these same references are the citations for 1) narcissism as part of normal personality development and 2) abuse causing increases in narcissism.

I would rather hate to see all those citations carried over to this topic area where they will overwhelm and bury the links and books relevant here, especially when the concepts are already linked, plus the explanation and link to Narcissism (psychology) at the head of the page. Just my opinion. - I am Kiwi 19:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Narcissism Topic Deletions

Kirske. You state as your reason for removing, in the intro, the reference to many decades of psychiatric and psychological study and research into narcissism, regarding it being a part of a normal healthy psyche is your view that it is merely POV. This is not POV and it IS (at the least) a solidly Western cultural world view. It is also objective, based on thousands of studies. It is not a matter of my feelings or personal beliefs. I feel entirely neutral about the issue.

As for the other paragraph you deleted, it is very true and reliably documented that in severe cases of narcissism, where a great deal of problems in functioning in social, business and family relationships occurs, it is most likely an outcome of childhood abuse. Abuse can be physical or emotional. Abuse can also be caused by ignoring the child and treating it as an extension of one's hopes and dreams -- loving too much, spoiling too much is also abuse. It gives the child a falsely propped up sense of self and thus the child has no inner core of healthy narcissism and have a terribly low self esteem, lack of confidence.

A minor short paragraph or two giving an ultra-brief explanation of the other aspects of the word, which are intrinsically tied in to the cultural sense of the word, is necessary to lay the foundation of the article. It is as relevant to a discussion of the subject of the cultural sense of narcissism as is the referece to Greek mythology. Did you, by any chance, pause to check out the Talk:Narcissism page? If you have, then you will have noted why the links are embedded within the text of articles --- they are specificaly for people to find out more about the subject and increase their understanding of what is being talked about.

Now I agree that this Cultural Narcissism topic is yet a stub of a few random topics, all VERY briefly presently, loosely lumped into a sequence, and that the intro also needs a discussion of what cultural narcissism truly means. Instead, what is available now is merely a mishmash of topics. It also needs a thoughtful categorizing and a well thought out approach.

I am glad to see concern over topic development, but one should not delete in a topic where they have no knowledge of the subject, where they have merely POV and emotional reaction. What should be done is to either click the links and learn more, or post your complaints to the talk page Talk:Narcissism. There you can present YOUR POV and ask for feedback.

Going about deleting on the basis of POV is no better than going about creating topic copy based on POV. So come back and chat, don't delete. Such deletions border on pure vandalism and are time consuming to correct. Perhaps you will have time to do the necessary revisions?

Forgive all my incomplete sentences. I have a cold and am not up to snuff. Thank you - I am Kiwi 09:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Narcissism

Needs to be stuff in here about celebrity narcissism.--Penbat 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A.K.A; Paris Hilton..--Anus 08:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

Material on NPA personality theory reappeared for some reason, despite the agreement above to remove it. It appears to be pure original research with no currency in the field (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis). I don't think it should be restored unless somebody is capable of countering that critique. --Michael Snow 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A possible campaign of vandalism

This was posted to several mailing lists last night [1].

The assertions in the post are entirely incorrect and deliberately inflammatory. As a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge, all reference to, or text from, this individual's writing has been removed from the articles in question where he had posted it, because of it's unverifiability and inaccuracy.

I have have contacted this individual several times asking him which portions of text he feels infringe his copyright so that they may be deleted, and received no reply. --Zeraeph 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed section on "Gender Narcissism"

This section presents the view of a single individual. I don't think one should present individual, or limited group, viewpoints without at the least presenting them with sufficient context. In this particular case the reference is to a paper for the NARTH organization, http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/schoenwolf.html, a group whose ideas were abandoned many years ago by the APA. Dr. Schoenwolf has an agenda, and as such, the section should be omitted [as i have done] or it should be presented with an account of Dr. Schoenwolf's association with NARTH and the bias of that group rather than as objective, peer-reviewed, science.

The references i found to edits of this section were to an IP address rather than a person. Since this appeared to be an anonymous addition, i took the liberty of "correcting" it. If this is not the appropriate approach for changing Wikipedia articles, please let me know. jcfried 11:49 PST, 28 Dec 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 07:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merged "Inverted Narcissism" to Narcissism

With the full consent of Sam Vaknin (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissism#Merging_.22Narcissism_and_Schizoid_Disorders.22 ) after 5 days, and with no other objection or colloboration forthcoming I have merged all I can substantiate of this article here. Naturally, I hope that others will be able to substantiate more detail, when they have time. The essentials are here and Inverted narcissism now re-directs --Zeraeph 12:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"NPI scores are higher in recent generations."??

The NPI was only developed in 1988. Can we say that newer generations score higher given that it's also possible that NPI scores might decrease as people age? 67.159.70.74 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) minor edit - removed space before beginning of sentence. Spotted Owl (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging "Narcissism and Schizoid Disorders"

[I feel that the existing article on Narcissism needs editing to be even more concise and to incorporate a considerable amount of the Narcissism and schizoid disorders article, the rest to be merged into Schizoid personality disorder. There is absolutely no justification for an article that makes the link between the two.

As a precedent it could generate a neverending supply of superfluous articles, for example "Narcissism and Alcoholism", "Pregnancy and Nausea", "Fish and Chips" --Zeraeph 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Hi, Zeraph. If you look at the history of the Narcissism and schizoid disorders article, you will see that it used to be part of the Narcissism article. An editor and a few admins decided to split it off (and they give their reasons in the history and discussion areas). I fully concur with you - it should be merged. But you are wrong about the link between narcissism and schizoid disorders. They are sometimes co-morbid and share the same psychodynamic background. I advise you to actually read the article (the part about Klein's work, for instance). --Samvak 15:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Good Afternoon Samvak, I have looked at the whole history and it still seems to me that the article needs paring down (to exclude all irrelevant and original work, nothing wrong with it, just not on Wikipedia) and distributing between the three other articles involved, not least because it might serve to set a more comprehensive and academic tone to the existing Schizoid personality disorder article. To this end I tried to insert some of it last night (without deleting here) but could not find any independent corroboration for the relevant sections and had to stop --Zeraeph 14:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zeraph. Regarding the Inverted Narcissism article, again, I fully concur with you - it should be merged. --Samvak 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Good Afternoon Samvak, if nobody objects, perhaps you would like to do the honors? --Zeraeph 14:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannot find a trace of any real substantiation for the article Narcissism and schizoid disorders at all, so I am now listing it for deletion, unless anybody can show otherwise --Zeraeph 12:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested procedure for merging the two articles

Zerpah, I suggest that you post in this discussion area the texts that you propose to merge (before you actually merge them). We can then discuss the texts, substantiate them with references, and only then merge them into the Narcissism article. --Samvak 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

That is an excellent idea, I think that is precisely what we should do, perhaps you would be so kind as to co-operate in the similar merging of relevant sections into Schizoid personality disorder and Schizophrenia as well? Which really would be most helpful --Zeraeph 14:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging Narcissism and schizoid disorders

a) 1 - 1.3 I have had the most terrible trouble finding any independent corroboration for Melanie Klein linking Narcissism and Schizoid Disorders, can you show me some?

b) As I read through all of section 1 - 1.3 it became obvious to me that some of it belonged only under Schizoid PD, Some belonged only under Narcissism, some under both and that all of it was rather obscure in meaning. Can we do something with this once it is substantiated? Particularly in terms of rendering the meaning more concise and accessible during the process of seperation and integeration??

c) 1.4 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_and_schizoid_disorders#Link_between_narcissism_and_schizophrenia ) Seems to me that once substantiated and edited for clarity it belongs clearly under both Schizophrenia and Narcissism, but NOT under Schizoid PD

d) 1.41 - 1.5 Seem almost entirely relevant to Narcissism only, bearing in mind that it will be crossreferenced from the other articles for the benefit of anybody who is interested in that much detail (the great advantage of crossreferencing being that it provides the reader with access to as much, or as little detail as they wish and should be utilised as such). It really does need considerable clarification

As for the rest I am certain such a rich bibliography has plenty to go around all three articles --Zeraeph 15:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging Inverted narcissism

This really needs fuller substantiation from external sources. I feel that as part of a larger article, with duplications removed, this could possibly be boiled down to a concise paragraph or two? --Zeraeph 15:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any input forthcoming, in 5 days on, this apparently promising start, so I will begin the substantiation and merging process by myself --Zeraeph 12:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Submiited new text

Reduced article size and cleaned. The majority of this revamped text is taken from a peer-reviewed article I contributed to Nupedia. It was approved for publication by its psychology editor (a professor of abnormal psychology), so I believe that, by and large, it reflect the state of the art. This text now comprises a few chapters in my book "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" and I grant Wikipedia permission to use it any way it sees fit.

I really hope this new text will stimulate discussion. I learn a lot from the collaborative process in Wikipedia!

Samvak 10:49 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Megalomania

Megalomania needs its own article, its stupid to just have it point to this one, which makes no reference to Megalomania at all.

[Perhaps some of the text from this article could be removed to create a Megalomania Article? Particularly as the two are far from being synonymous? --Zeraeph 06:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Rubbish. It is just the old name for NPD. --Penbat 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Narcissists

I submit that the list of fictional narcissists should either be removed or--if it serves any purpose--placed in its own article. The article has been declaired to long, and it seems like unless the author himself/herself declaired these characters as narcissists, it makes little sense to diagnose them as such no matter how many symptoms they exhibit.

Epiphone83 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

tidy up the fictional narcissist sections, other then the bottom 3, i have no clue who the other people are and im sure only a small minority would either. Wikipedia has no need for these individual narrow interest inputs. Claudia the shemale? Sounds like a joke to me --80.2.175.184 17:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition in introduction

It would be nice if the introduction included something about what narcissism actually is :) --80.255.202.50 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the other anymous user! I eventually just checked a dictionary. --68.147.237.186 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A dictionary like defenition is what this article needs, it gets too scientific too fast.(83.118.38.37 17:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, there is a definition in there somewhere but you have to read the entire article in order to find this out. A short summary would be of great benefit to this article. -Localzuk ^(talk) 13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Things change

Saddening that the Wikipedia, which used to be almost the only remaining "Sam Vaknin free zone" on the internet on the subject of narcissism, now has all the hallmarks of his interesting but very idiosynchratic insights. It would have been nice, if just for once, he could have resisted the urge to impose himself centre stage. Sam's writing has no doubt opened the door and introduced many to the peculiarities of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but once inside, it would be pehaps be nice to be able to lose the tour guide for once. This section seems to me to have become messed up beyond recognition in recent weeks :( Hey ho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.147.27 (talk • contribs)

Be cool 86.139.147.27, offhand, I'd say that the Samvakkian one would rather run red hot needles through his eyes, while swimming in slurry, than get caught out here, even one more time, than he already was, in January (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samvak ), so, if you can improve or elucidate upon any aspect of the article here, for the benefit of all, and within the Wikipedia Guidelines feel welcome so to do --Zeraeph 22:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Superiority complex

Some clever person made an article here and I redirected it here. If I'm wrong, LMK, but I don't think there's a "superiority complex" per se. --DanielCD 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, would you care to let a person in on the key to the code you are talking in? ;o) --Zeraeph 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah wait...NOW I get it...can understand why you'd want to redirect a stub like that, BUT to the best of my knowledge "Narcissism" isn't a synonym for "Superiority Complex". There is so little definition on google I'd be inclined to go for deletion instead? --Zeraeph 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of bitter disappointment?

"Narcissistic adults are widely thought to be the result of bitter disappointment, of radical disillusionment in the significant others in their infancy." <- Is there a wide acceptance of that? Because to me it seems obvious that such persons are more likely to suffer from depression than superiority complex and that it would be more likely to have a narcissus out of people that were never dissillutioned from infancy's (")illusion(").

I find the continuation of that paragraph a bit odd as well; "Healthy adults"? It treats 'narcism' as a purely negative thing, not a character trait. Well, it suggests there is a purely 'healthy adult' as well, but that's just a liberty of speach anyway. Jeroen Stout 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged both "citation needed", but, to be honest, a lot of this article seems literally copied and pasted, from an invalid source [[2]] that is both largely unverified and also "original research". --Zeraeph 03:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Young people think they are personally the center of the universe?

I remember in my early childhood feeling "omnipotent" in some regard but I also remember having the idea that also all or many other people/kids were also living in that same universe. I would need strong references to accept that most people in their early childhood think that are *personally* the centre of the universe. A parenthesis adding "(even though we may also feel that all or other people share our omnipotence)" seems to fit well in the rest context anyway, so I'm adding it.

Removing Narcissa Malfoy from "fictional" list

I can hardly believe I'm arguing about this, but Narcissa Malfoy, from her behavior in the most recent Harry Potter book, does not qualify as a narcissist. (Her sister, Bellatrix, might though, and certainly the characters of Voldemort and Professor Lockhart are out and out narcissists, Voldemort with psychopathic tendencies, perhaps a combo with borderline personality disorder as well.) One of the essential qualities of a narcissist is that "it's always all about me", and the narcissist views other people as objects, through which they can get what's colloquially called "N-supply"...love, adoration, proof that they are correct in thinking they are the bee's knees. At the end of the day, they will protect themselves at the cost of anyone else in the way. In the most recent book, Malfoy shows herself deeply concerned about her son, and worries that he may be killed. She is willing to risk herself, her relationship with her sister and husband, in order to prevent harm coming to her son. While she could arguably have narcissistic tendencies, she doesn't fit the clinical or popular profile. I haven't looked through the list in detail, but some seem like less qualified examples. (Is Waldo Lydecker on the list?) I don't advise dumping it, as this may be a good example for people who have never met a narcissist, what their behavior is like. Noirdame 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reworking of article

Here is a list of key changes, plus justification for said changes. The changes were enacted after a detailed reading of the current text prose, which was found to have many flaws; alongside the article construct which was also flawed:

Construct and aesthetic

• The pre-section "summary" was not a summary at all - rather a mismash of clumsy prose which never got to the point. This has frustrated people.
• Extensive summaries of works by Freud, Jung and others - Too long for an article regards the phenomena of narcissism.
• Broad coverage of the family, mismashed with several theorems regards growth,
• Image of Narcissus oversized and imposing on what ought to be an information text heavy article.
• Lack of other pictorial content.

Language

• Referances to composite, and sometimes colloquial terminology - not understood by the general reader.
• Extensive summaries of works by Freud, Jung and others - Too long for an article regards the phenomena of narcissism.
• Crossovers into undefined terms in psychoanalysis; too complex - not everyone is experienced enough with this to understand.
• Lack of cogent definition - all articles need a definition, and pointing people to the dictionary is, to my mind, something of a cop out.
• Lengthy, rambling sections, some without qualifiers or coherance; "Some Narcissists react by creatively escaping into rich, imagined worlds in which they exercise total physical and emotional control over their environment. But all of them react by diverting libido, which should have been object-oriented to their own Self." - The casual non-psychiatrist would be baffled and confused by the conclusion of this sentance. Why should people merely wanting a straight definition plus tertiary info have to delve into Freudian psychology?
• Excessive use of Latin infused words that would discomfort and disgruntle the general reader. A more poignant example from our "summary": Inevitably, the inexorable conflicts of life lead to disillusionment. If this process is abrupt, inconsistent, unpredictable, capricious, arbitrary and intense, then the injuries sustained by the infant's self-esteem are severe and often irreversible.
• A general feel of overcomplexity and intelectual stupidity clouded this article. Narcissism, while a diverse concept, does not need to call upon psychiatric theory, or Latin, or conjured scenario in what appears to be near schizophrenic proportions. The reader wants a fine, well organized, easy to understand article and above all a definition.

Changes

• Two relevant images have been added.
• Individual data regards psychiatric theorem greatly slimmed down.
• Summary shortened to a single, defining paragraph. The more useful of information there moved elsewhere.
• Article simplified to Plain English; confusing Latinish prose has no place here.
• Typical narcissistic trait section added; catagorizes traits and actions typical of narcissist in terms of Physical and Mental traits.
• Reworded several paragraphs.
• Deleted Freudian growth theorem text -- quickly summarized in his subsection. If people wanted Freud, they could go to his articles relating to himself or his school.
• Removed "The Narcissist & his family" - while sourced, is largely a generalized and semi-obvious (She suggests that if infants are valued and given comfort when required, they come to feel valuable; conversely, if they are neglected or rejected, they come to feel worthless and of little value.) section not pertaining to our subject; but rather to NPD, self-esteem et al. This article deals with the common character trait; not mental illness, causes thereof, or psychoanalytic theories of upbringing.
• Deleted trivial "Fictional narcissistic characters" - Content moved to "List of fictional narcissists".
• Deleted uninformative and benign "Narcissism in gender" single paragraph section.
• Deleted "Disturbances in childhood" and its subsections - entire section pertained to NPD and related narcissistic type illness.
• Deleted "Symbolism" section - summarized its point in Lotus flower image subtitle.
• Narcissus in the arts section deleted. We may go to the Narcissus article for his artistic significance; as opposed to an article regards a character trait named after him.
• References list truncated.
• Weasel words removed.
• Alphabetically arranged internal links.

There is still work to be done regards clarifying and to some extent condensing the psychiatric thought section: This will be completed in the near future. The article is now shorter, clarified, and streamlined. -- D-Katana 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I agree with most of your criticisms 100%, but what you put in it's place is not acceptable. There are no sources for most of what you wrote...as in...most of it doesn't seem to be fact, I tried finding some validations, believe me. So I reverted, and now I sam trying to implement as many of your changes as I can on top of that reversion. --Zeraeph 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. A good way to start would be to erase sections pertaining mainly to mental illness and psychoanalytic theory as opposed to the general topic for reasons aforementioned. In the meantime, sources will be found for the information added. Thank you! -- D-Katana 22:59 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you weren't offended. I've had a bit of a go at it, and will do more...truth is it might be best to shift this to "Pathological Narcissism" use this as a disambiguation page and create another page for general Narcissism? Ah what the heck, actions speak louder than words...here goes nothin' --Zeraeph 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting change; the more thought I put into your judgement the more sound it becomes. This does not change the fact that this psychology subsection requires massive cleanup, clarification, internal linking and so forth. A possible manner in which to expand the parent article would be to summarize more sociological, non-medical phenomena such as the word's pejorative meaning in some circles. Clarification between the human trait and related mental illnesses is a necessary exception to the aforementioned rule. Maintaining civility, patience and a polite demeanour is always necessary when necessitating large edits such as these - an inevitability as one delves deeper into editing. -- D-Katana 01:40 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well first thing, hie ye hence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Narcissism#.5B.5BNarcissism.5D.5D and vote against the deletion of the new article! ;o) Then put some of this into the article to give it substance. I think I'll pop a muted version of Benis back myself. --Zeraeph 08:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also... can you come up with a citation for the Lotus Flower where I have added it to Narcissism? It seems relevant and looks good but I have never heard of it --Zeraeph 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The vote (Keep) has been cast. Unfortunately the Lotus flower picture was added almost as a token of the section removed; the time constriants yesterday, especially in the light of the lengthy critique posted here on the talk page made it impossible to check sources in any careful detail. However it should not be difficult to find references; the flower picture you posted appears to be quite alright, do you still want the Lotus pending? Your work over the course of today is good - were it to be merged with the undesirable material from the (psychology) subsection it would be a great pity. Be careful not to emulate the sub-article however; this article should be fairly short and simple - one of the chief aims was to make it as cogently readable as possible. The genetics section is very interesting and your take on it appears sound; fine work putting much thought into this subject. -- D-Katana 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was quite sad to delete the Lotus...it looked so appropriate I scoured EVERYWHERE to find a reference, but nothing :o( if anything the opposite...I think the term "Lotus eaters" originates in a Victorian misconception of opium as a product of the Lotus, but don't quote me! I'd be delighted if you ever found a reference to put it back. I found AMBenis editing on Narcissism (psychology) and I've asked him where he would prefer to be just to be sure.--Zeraeph 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing Narcissism (psychology) for Cleanup

It gets worse, I just started trying to sort out citations to find that the few citations in the text don't match the text so far...I reckon it probably needs re-writing from scratch...and all the help it can get, so I'm listing it in Wikipedia:Cleanup. I suspect this will be a marathon! --Zeraeph 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

--Barach 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)I agree; this really needs a major rewrite. I will make that a project in the comming weeks. I think I can improve this, in any case. Would appreciate the help and support of others while I attempt to tackle this. I am thoughts are to provide an overview of the psychiatric use of the term, focusing on the modern use of narcissicistic personality disorder, notably from DSM IV and Millon's work. Then to include much of the current write-up under a section on psychoanaltic theories. Again, work with me Zeraeph and I think we can get there! Barach

GREAT Barach!...and I also have a personal "Ghost in the Machine" who has already given me loads of help, behind the scenes, on NPD who is trying to come up with something for this as well. On thing we are already agreed on is that the historical pieces are outdated curiosities that really should come at the end of an article on the modern clinical interpretation of Narcissism, with the possibility of eventually shifting them to their own namespace if the article gets too long.

Narcissistic personality disorder has it's own, recently re-written, (but all valid additions welcome) article so this article should be confined to the clinical and psychoanalytic concept of narcissism, and distinguish between the two with a single paragraph summary of NPD that links to NPD article. --Zeraeph 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A mis-named topic

It is unfortunate that another move will be needed. Ideally, the pop culture topic, currently called Narcissism, should be moved to its own topic page. This topic was hastily labeled psychology, but it is been psychiatrists and psychiaty that has led the way and continues to do so in all respects concerning past and present theories of narcissism, its origins and its treatment.

I have moved the scientific aspects of narcissism that were inadvertantly left on the cultural narcissism page. Yes, Cultural Narcissism. That should be the name of the other page. Beginning with Lasch, and ending with Metrosexuals, popular sit-coms through the years and current worries that parents and teachers create a propped up notion of self esteem in students that leads to academic problems. I am Kiwi 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Impressed with this page

As I spent time improving the appearance of the page and or explaining cryptic professional jargon, I did notice that much of the page seems well written. But given the excellent list of books referenced, I could understand how much work went into it. Wish I could thank the person.

I note that both the old and the new page have identical internal links. Hubris and fictional narcissists are very much at home on the Cultural Narcissism page, but perhaps there might be some discussion on what is retained and what may be added. I am Kiwi 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, IP 66.180.200.96

Thank you for your pointing out a relevant and timely study. Unfortunately, I think you misspelled the lead researcher's name, so if you could edit that, please? If you know the name of the journal who publishes this study, along with volume, number (and date if possible), it would make your contribution even better. I wonder if the department he is affiliated has an email address where you could send a question regarding this. Thanks again ever so much. I am Kiwi 02:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

Found this, with the journal name that will soon publish that paper. Perhaps someone can edit the spelling of the name and add this. I am too busy and too tired right now. Here is the article posted today. Being copyrighted, I have attempted to trim it, extracting only the most vital bits. It can be deleting after it has been harvested.

Celebs in Love With Themselves, Study Says AP - scheduled for later deletion.

LOS ANGELES (Sept. 6)

Great Moments in Narcissism

Drew Pinsky and S. Mark Young of the University of Southern California, whose study of 200 celebrities will appear in the Journal of Research in Personality.

the self-adoring seek jobs in show business.

found that reality TV stars were the most narcissistic of all celebrities.  

Female stars were also more likely than their male counterparts to exhibit narcissistic traits.

When I Think About Me, I Love Myself

WireImage.com It's "common sense" that celebrities are narcissists, said Jeremy Ritzlin, a longtime Hollywood psychologist who has not seen the study.

"Narcissism is really being in love with yourself," he said. "So it would be natural for narcissists to gravitate toward the spotlight, where other people will also think highly of them."

'Pinsky, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at USC's Keck School of Medicine, said narcissists crave attention, are overconfident, behave erratically and lack empathy.'

"However, they are well-liked, especially on first meeting, are extroverted and perform well in public," added Pinsky, who has hosted the syndicated radio show "Loveline" for 20 years.

Celebrity guests appearing on the program were randomly chosen to participate in the study. They anonymously took the Narcissistic Personality Inventory test, which rates

self-love levels based on seven components: superiority, exhibitionism, entitlement, vanity, authority, exploitativeness and entitlement.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

NPA Theory

This NPA theory hardly seems scientific. Mendelian genetics was state of the art a few centuries ago and is good enough to explain whether a pea is smooth or wrinkled, but human behavior is more complicated than that. As part of its description of traits, NPA theory distinguishes between whether blood rushes to or away from the face when angry. Just because the guy who came up with the idea has an M.D. doesn't mean he isn't a quack. If his theories have been published in any peer-reviewed scientific or psychological journals, that's a start. For now, his theory should be considered original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

In that vein, I am deleting his theory from this article.--NeantHumain 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Narcissistic Rage, Supply and Injury

Narcissistic Injury gets a quick mention but no mention of the other two. They all need thier own Wikis. --Penbat 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can "self-sufficiency" be defined in this context? It sounds like a good thing rather than a symptom.... Boris B 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible campaign of vandalism

This was posted to several mailing lists last night [3].

The assertions in the post are entirely incorrect and deliberately inflammatory. As a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge, all reference to, or text from, this individual's writing has been removed from the articles in question where he had posted it, because of it's unverifiability and inaccuracy.

I have have contacted this individual several times asking him which portions of text he feels infringe his copyright so that they may be deleted, and received no reply. --Zeraeph 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blanked one small section of this article [4] that he might claim was a copyvio (see [5], though he reposted it himself after it was blanked due to copyright concerns [6]. It seems best to blank it, partly for the sake of peace and quiet and partly with the intention of re-writing it in a properly cited and verified form. It is the only possible copyvio I can find in any of these articles.--Zeraeph 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Confused

(Crossposted to Narcissism) -- New to this article, can someone explain how Narcissism (psychology) and Narcissism 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 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Continued at Talk:Narcissism#Confused for simplicity. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued by me also.--Zeraeph 05:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Narcissistic Personality Inventory

I (admittedly) don't understand how wikipedia works, but I tried to make an improvement to the section on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). I am a social psychologist who focuses on the NPI in my research. A part of me thinks that the NPI should be in an altogether different section, because it represents an attempt to conceptualize narcissism as a part of general personality--not a disorder. It is more closely associated with the Big 5 personality theory than psychodynamic theory, etc., which seems to be emphasized here. In any event, my work schedule doesn't permit me to do much editing on this page (although I check it pretty regularly). Just a thought for someone more motivated than me. Anyone interested, feel free to visit [my home page|http://www.JoshuaDFoster.com] for more info. Of course, I'll be happy to (try to) answer any questions. 70.146.224.230 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)josh foster

The Importance of Citations and WP:RS

Citations and WP:RS are vitally important to this article and not just because it's topic concerns a medical diagnosis, affecting many people directly and indirectly, though that should be more than enough reason.

There are people (who, may, possibly, need to get out more) who spend a lot of time insisting that this particular article is full of factual errors, whether it is or not, so, in order to keep such critics firmly in their rightful place, it is vital to ensure the latter, and to ensure that can be reliably verified at all times. ;o) --Zeraeph 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)