Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 2

The most recent comment was 6 weeks old and redundant, most was far older, and is now totally irrelevant, so I have archived the page.--Zeraeph 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New discussions please

Zeraeph is currently under suspension for Wiki violations and verbally attacking others. As far as I am concerned all her contributions were completely poisonous. I think it is a good idea to keep the previous text archived so we can start afresh with the slate wiped clean. I am working on the Bully and Workplace Bully Wiki entries in particular. Narcissism and psychopathy is closely related to bullying so there is quite a lot of overlap.

I am not in Sam Vaknin's fan club but I feel that Zeraeph wound him up into a frenzy. Like him or loath him, Sam is one of the key authorities on narcissism. He still runs two support groups for victims of narcissism. --Penbat 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Narcissistic Rage, Supply and Injury

No mention of these. They all need their own Wikis. --Penbat 14:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone here going to update the news that the American .... of Psychiatry has recently concluded that NPD is no longer accepted as a valid assessment?

After 5 years of reading Sam Vaknin through internet and his oft' times endless ramblings making no sense whatsoever then exploiting a number of females that were taken under his "spell" that he relishes odiously - I wholly agree with the new diagnosis of NPD. He always gets rid of people who dare question him by changing his website or cutting them out. A way to avoid any questioning of his self anointed "expertize".

Someone, somewhere got carried away and led a whole nation to believe that what is not possible exists. Narcissism is one thing and sociopathy is another and both I always believed are unrelated.

Psychopaths, killers, etc. often are narcissists as well but none ever become that borne of narcissism and to have intertwined both terms for years I have always believed is a horrid distortion of psychiatric analysis. If not terminology.

Disorder refers to disarray, to throw into confusion, into sociopathy... and I know of no peoples more focused than narcissists of the worst kind. Many of which we see as highly successful entrepeneurs on a daily basis. These may suffer other ailments and get divorced often and produce disfunctional children but certainly left untreated don't end up sociopaths/psychos as NPD would infer.

I have always believed that it is - just as Vaknin himself has repeatedly said - "the Jewish course" since profound Narcissism is more often found among Russian, Ashkanasi and Sephardic Jews of pure blood. Way above and beyond what exists among gentiles of the world.

Have any of you ever tried living in Israel? It's either get louder and brazier than the next person or get verbally cut down to a wimpering pulp. Verbal agressiveness often dominates their way of life. Vaknin himself has said that his own narcissistic Jewishness is what led him to investigate it's cause. Or dysphoria? A word he applies so often it ends up failing to impress.

He suffers from delusions of grandeur. THAT is not narcissism. He plays on the emotions of vulnerable women on internet that he lures into "loving him". His drive for "further" attention is through his supposed profound "studies" on narcissism pretending he's some sort of expert when in fact it is only sloppily put together empirical research that he relies on. I will add, however, that empirical here reaches inward.

Vaknin needs to write about his full experience but in balance sans constant personal aggrandizement that he can't seem to control.

Little wonder why he believes he's an expert?

Thank you for your time. 75.22.213.84 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really uncomfortable with the race specific aspects of your claims here, there are no valid grounds for them that I am aware of.

I also do not feel that there is any relevance in making personal attacks on Sam Vaknin as this article in no way refers to him or his work which does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V or WP:OR. --Zeraeph 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Jew, I am overwhelmed that Wikipedia would allow something like this. It makes my heart ache and my mind reels in disbelief. Can it removed? Is this possible? Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.20.233 (talk • contribs)

I have requested that the uncivil remarks made by User:75.22.213.84 be permanently deleted [1].

In the event of this happening I hope nobody will object to the responses made by myself and User:172.149.20.233 (that will no longer have a context, or make sense) being deleted? --Zeraeph 11:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Say what?

"Zeraeph wound him up into a frenzy"

Don't you know that, like wife beaters, narcissists always pull this stunt to come out smelling like a rose? And it worked on YOU? Oh, what a groaner. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. I'm oughta here. --User:ken2849

Sockpuppet alert ! --Penbat 13:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Small Text

Peer-reviewed, neutral content needed

This entry is generally lacking in scholarly rigour and reads as opinion. It would be improved by a healthy dose of substantiation and peer-reviewed referencing.(Unsigned comment)

Yes I agree but more importantly IMO loads of material is completely missing: true self, false self, projection, narcissistic rage, narcissistic supply, narcissistic injury etc are completely missing. They are ideas introduced by the pioneers mentioned on Narcissism_(psychology). I am gradually working towards a more rigourous write up but I am no expert. The only heavyweight expert around who was likely to contribute was Sam Vaknin but the powers that be have banned him.

Vaknin is not recognised by peers as an authority - he is widely regarded in the profession as a crank, and a dangerous spreader of misinformation. I support the "powers that be", just as I would support removal of Intelligent Design arguments in wiki articles on biology. It's comparable. - Unsigned by User:220.237.81.156 22:48, 10 October 2006

20.237.81.156 is almost certainly a sockpuppet and can be disregarded. --Penbat 13:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Penbat, regardless of whether it's a sockpuppet or not, comments like that should certainly not be disregarded because this is a talk page, not a !vote tally page, so please be a little more civil (saying "can be disregarded" is only more appropriate for a !vote tally page). In addition, 220.237.81.156, please also watch your civility. It's not constructive criticism to go around saying that so-and-so is a crank. It looks like both sides are getting a little hot. It might be tough, but staying cool when the editing gets hot is necessary, especially when both sides are tossing around things like this. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all material can be peer reviewed scientifically as the pioneers such as Kohut had differing theories but they are important to understand. --Penbat 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also nothing on Comorbidity of NPD. --Penbat 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Shocked by deletion of Vaknin, Sam Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited by 220.237.81.156

You could at least had the decency to discuss this first. There are about 30 books listed - with a wide range of styles - some very academic and some designed for the lay non-technical reader. Sam Vaknin's book is one of the best selling on Narcissism. The reader is more than capable of using their own judgement about which books to refer to. IMO this sort of censorship is unreasonable and If it is not put back I will refuse to ever do any more work on narcissism Wikis. --Penbat 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Vaknin is not an authority - he is regarded in the profession as a crank with many wildly unsubstantiated claims. This page must retain professional rigour to maintain credibility. - Unsigned by User:220.237.81.156 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Please sign your posts from now on.

220.237.81.156 is almost certainly a sockpuppet and can be disregarded. --Penbat 13:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vaknin does not make things up out of nothing - they are not things he dreamed up. Sam worked under a psychitrist conducting research on personality disorders while he was in prison and had unfettered access to the doctor's library selections. Since he left Israel 10 years ago, he has acquired a considerable library of authorities on NPD and, as time went by, on many other relevant and related topics.

Vaknin's only "mistake" was in not foot-noting his original book. Instead, he merely listed his reference texts.

The truth is that Vaknin's book, MSL, is on the shelves at several Ivy League colleges because professors have requested it be there. If it is good enough for them, then it must be a lot better what your spouting off indicates. He has no "wildly unsubstantiated claims". Whenever something is merely his own material, he indicates that. All the rest, he learned from the authorities in the field. -I am Kiwi 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What the professionals have to say

Narcissistic Supply in professional journals & books

Google Scholar Search - Scholarly books and journal articles referencing "Narcissistic Supply

found on that page - The earliest date for a doctor (a psychoanalyst) using "Narcissistic Supply" was 1938. The drive to amass wealth O Fenichel - Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1938 - pep-web.org ... can be looked upon first as a derivative of that primitive form of regulation of self-regard in which the individual requires a 'narcissistic supply' from the ...

This bird would fly if anyone knows exactly what O Fenichel said about Narcissistic Supply - because it would have to be presented soley in terms of O Fenichel and referenced soley to O Fenichel, even from what little is there it seems to have been quite a different usage. Remember, this is a medical related article where policy on citations must be followed far more strictly than elsewhere and should, ideally, all be from formally published medical/academic sources (see WP:RS). --Zeraeph 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, these that quote and cite Vaknin

• Human Sciences Working Papers Archive

Self-Submitted free online content site. Article submitted by Vaknin and is original research. Does not accord with WP:SOURCE, WP:RS or WP:NOR.--Zeraeph 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Narcissism in High Fidelity Dr. Kristina Nelson aLibris Author Page

"Narcissism in High Fidelity" Dr. Kristina Nelson Book of movie-related literary criticism, written by a PHD in English. Does not accord with WP:SOURCE or WP:RS for a medical article. (book itself might be worth a mention on Narcissism? If there is anything new and interesting in it.)--Zeraeph 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Narzisstische Strukturen in Sunset Boulevard und Mulholland Drive N Velten, H Berressem, E Seminar - pp 6,16,17 uni-koeln.de ... of Narcissistic Supply (admiration, adoration, approval, awe) and fulfills important Ego functions“ (Vaknin). Eine narzisstische ... Narzisstische Strukturen

Narzisstische Strukturen -

Philosophy Student at Cologne University (http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/) movie related essay. Does not accord with WP:SOURCE or WP:RS, also it is in German (see WP:RS). --Zeraeph 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unadulterated Arrogance: Autopsy of the Narcissistic Parental Alienator DM Summers, CC Summers - American Journal of Family Therapy, 2006 - Taylor & Francis

... excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation—or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply) (Vaknin, 2003b). ...

Again, self submitted, not academic, not peer-reviewed, not exactly a "recognised publishing house" either, http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk and no way to check the credentials of the authors one way or another. But "parental alienation" can sometimes be a dubious field, certainly isn't universally recognised by the academic or medical mainstream. Does not accord with WP:SOURCE or WP:RS. --Zeraeph 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

-I am Kiwi 07:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Narcissistic Rage in Professional Journals & Books

Google Scholar for Narcissistic Rage As far as I can reckon, Kohut coined this term in a book published in 1971. -I am Kiwi 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, can you write it up referenced to at least Kohut, and any other formally published, academic/medical sources that meet the standards of WP:SOURCE and WP:RS --Zeraeph 00:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)?

Narcissistic Injury in Professional Journals & Books

2000 mentions in scholarly books & journals -I am Kiwi 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, can you write it up referenced soley to any formally published, academic/medical sources that meet the standards of WP:SOURCE and WP:RS? --Zeraeph 00:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Human Sources of Narcissistic Supply

Google Scholar - professional books and journals dealing with Sources of Narcissistic Personality It may have been Vaknin who coined the terms Primary and Secondary. Not all relevant journals and books are available online, but analysts recognized and described Primary and Secondary sources of supply, even if they didn't use the actual terms.

-I am Kiwi 07:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A vague statement like that is nowhere near enough, it needs backing with formally published, recognised, academic/medical citations that meet WP:SOURCE and WP:RS. --Zeraeph 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Understanding Sam Vaknin's body of work

Sam Vaknin is a more than competent researcher, and he has written a book that may be rambling and repetitive, but that does not not mean that facts within suddenly become faulty. It doesn't work that way. The truth is that Vaknin has devoted a large portion of the last 10+ years studying NPD.

After he brought his as then unpublished book to the web, he immediately attracted thousands of correspondents, including mental health professionals, to include psychiatrists and psychologists. He did not realize he was going to get more letters from the human wreckage NPD spawns than from any other group. This led him to begin years of continuing deep and extensive study of shame, dependence, codependency, other personality disorders, etc.

He has done increasingly large amounts of study in of research findings in a wide range of subjects touching on all aspects of the personality disorders and the disruptions in human relational functioning.

The truth is, Vaknin does not have much of any "original research" in his books and articles. What he percieved from his correspondence, he did not write about directly but of what his research told him about what letters to him said. What Vaknin has in his book comes from the very fine minds of icons in the field. Vaknin's "problem", as I mentioned above, was his failure to footnote. If he weren't so lazy or if he thought it would gain him sufficient narcissistic supply, he might be tempted to tackle that arduous task. -I am Kiwi 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I strongly disagree - the whole body of work I've seen is characterised by very sloppy research methods, and it is very worrying that he appears to deliberately mislead people about his qualifications. It is concerning that an individual who has successfully drowned internet sources with his writings, though with no substantial formal qualification or recognition in the profession (and the above list does not dispel this), with assertions that do not appear to be verified, can get a toehold in an encyclopedia.Topologyrob 06:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your angle and interest in this then ? Do you have formal qualifications in Narcissism yourself. Have you personally read Sam Vaknins work and assessed it first hand. What you have just said does not tally with the fact that there are about 8 self help forums for victims of narcissism and Sam Vaknin's work features quite heavily in most of them. If Sam Vaknin's work didnt resonate with those victims, his work wouldn't get accepted in those forums. Also comments like yours dont appear on the Editorial and User reviews for Malignant Self Love for Amazon. If you have read Malignant Self Love and you dislike it so much why dont you do everyone else a favour and put up your own Amazon review to warn people. Anyway airbrushing out a book that sells well and a body of work is just plain censorship - the reader can make his own mind up. Also many other books on narcissism are just personal views by qualified psychologists without any citations at all - these sorts of books are self help books intended for the lay person. --Penbat 08:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My angle is interest in seeing accurate scientific representation on Wikipedia - it is analagous to not wanting to see discussions of perpetual motion machines in physics entries on Wikipedia (however popular views may be amongst the general public), or 9-11 conspiracy theories in discussions of building demolition (currently attracting a very large popular following). That someone's work can resonate with people (not themselves diagnosed with NPD) does not constitute strong clinical evidence.

I have indeed read Malignant Self Love closely - that is why I am worried that it is so influential in the popular perception of NPD. I believe it is unverified and divergent from clinical evidence.

I am not a qualified psychologist, however, and this should be noted, though I am a stakeholder. I am personally connected with several individuals suffering NPD and have often come up against what I see as misinformation from Sam Vaknin on many occasions as his work is throroughly permeating cyberspace, though it is virtually invisible in the peer-reviewed literature. An encyclopedia should reflect the professional discourse, not the popular one (however, a sociological view of the topic could include discussions of Vaknin). As Vaknin does not publish in peer-reviewed journals, his work should not be priveleged in an encyclopedia - it has not passed the scholarly tests. And much of what he writes could be seen as very damaging, particularly his assertions that NPD is untreatable. These strong statements need to be verified by clinical evidence, not hearsay and personal opinion.Topologyrob 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Countering my stance somewhat is the extended quotations from Vaknin in a recent scholarly paper (Summers, D, Summers, C (2006) Unadulterated Arrogance: Autopsy of the Narcissistic Parental Alienator. American Journal of Family Therapy 34:5, 399-428), though Vaknin has not himself published on NPD in peer-reviewed journals, in stark contrast to other authorities cited on the Wikipedia entry - Topologyrob 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly? Please explain, because I couldn't even discover the actual credentials of the authors? Did I miss something? Not that it would make any real difference. --Zeraeph 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All personal considerations aside, Sam Vaknin is some kind of Financial Analyst/Economist with no formal qualification in any field related to clinical psychology. He is self published. He does not come close to meeting the requirements of WP:SOURCE or WP:RS as applied to a medical article.

This is an Encyclopaedia, it is of paramount importance that articles in a medical field only have the most impeccable academic/medical sources. If you can find other, suitable, sources that make similar points, that is fine, please include them, and if there is enough information to make a separate article, please make that too, but only after you are ready to post some information to that article, empty stubs look very bad, are unnecessary and are usually (rightly IMHO) summarily deleted. --Zeraeph 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Way to Go on Narcissistic Supply, Rage, Injury & Charm

I strongly suggest having separate articles for N Supply, Rage and Injury. There is a lot that could be said about them especially Supply. They are referred to separately anyway from the Workplace Bullying article. Maybe set them all up as psychology stub articles and build on them over time. Also the psychological concept of "charm" needs an article as well, initially I also suggest setting up as a psychology stub. --Penbat 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Any volunteers to kick it off ? --Penbat 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Penbat. I did a lot of research last night and collected enough material to create the Narcissistic Supply, Injury and Rage stubs, also Reactive Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Celebrity Narcissism (waiting for Paris Hilton & friends) and Cultural Narcissism. Had you already added Acquired Situational Narcissism? I also recognized the need for a Narcissism Category. I will have to create a template. I am getting to where I need a mentor - there is so much to learn and I keep forgetting things that I thought I had already learned. I had to laugh when I managed to import a Wiki template page into a brand new article - I finally figured out how I managed to do that.

My lord, Penbat, you really know how to light a fire under our friend. Could you slack off on him before he spontaneously combusts?? You did read my note to you on your talk page? I have a response I am composing and I promise you I will have it posted soon. Let's debate finite precise and demarcated points of fact. Let's not have anything so open-ended that it invites only rehashes of old nebulous unfounded charges. Okay? Thanks for considering my suggestion. -I am Kiwi 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you not to create articles until you have all your "ducks in a row" and have a reasonable amount of verifiable text in a formal, neutral tone to post to them? (Just noticed Malignant Narcissism is a gem of an example of what I mean) After all there is no need to rush, there will still be plenty of cyberspace left when you are ready. Also, I did see some personal commentary on some of the deleted stubs, comments along the lines of: "I will add more to this later", that is really seriously frowned upon. I feel sure the person who put it there (sorry, I didn't check) did not realise that.--Zeraeph 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Book list is huge

Hi, I think the book list is huge. I don't think it's the norm for a Wikipedia article to have such a large "reading list". I think this list should be mercilessly chopped down to just a few entries, and only of the absolute most notable publications. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Phoenix. I will look it over this weekend and see what trimming might be advisable. There are so many other Narcissism topics that we might migrate certain ones to others where they might be appropriate.

What, by the way, is the total allowed with a large important topic like this where what is written in the books does not often have a lot of overlap, but instead deals with different points of view, different theories, different aspects, different degrees of manifestation of the disorder? If I knew what number of books was allowed, it would help us. I can look it up myself if you can tell me what Wiki guideline page it is on. -I am Kiwi 04:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... here's the problem: there is no hard and fast rule. It's just what looks proper. The nearest I can tell is Wikipedia:Citing sources. Believe me, there are many large and important topics on Wikipedia, and they get by without long reading lists. The only advice I can offer is that the reading list should be chopped down to only notable publications. What books are notable? Once again, we don't have a hard and fast rule. This and this are only guidelines. It's really what makes sense. Reading lists don't have to present different points of view. What's important is that the article itself presents a neutral point of view, and that it is properly referenced. Reading lists aren't really encyclopedic, in my opinion, so if there are any books in the reading list, they should be the most comprehensive books. I'd rather have one book that presents twelve points of view than twelve books that present a different point of view of each. A link to a (notable enough) web page that shows the same reading list is even better. It's hard to say, and I'm sorry I can't present a hard and fast rule. Mostly, we got with what makes sense, and in my opinion, a huge reading list just doesn't make sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a great deal of sense and helps direct the task. Yes, I had thought that what I needed was an outside link to a long list of books!! I just have to find a website that is a more or less a permanent fixture. So, Aye Aye, Captain. Your wish is my command.

Actually, I too thought the list seemed to go on and on - and I had been thinking that when there are less books, one slows down and browses. But as it is, I must admit I don't really know what books are there. :o) I'll drop by your talk page when I've done the butcher job. And please, Penbat, I know it may be hard, but you will actually be the better judge on a lot of these books, so buck up and we will get through it together. -I am Kiwi 06:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Sam Vaknin! You silly, silly man! Why put on this ingratiating pretence? You're an adult aren't you? What are you doing Sam, I mean 'I am Kiwi. Awwww, there's a little smile! (sorry everyone else, but Sam Vatkin is a menace)

Having a Book Sale at the Library

Pennie, here is my take on the list. You go through it, decide what to keep. Let's try to keep it to no more than 15?? And subgroup them into "self-help" and "professional publications" I'll be checking in and we can sort through all these, then delete the entire topic here once the selections have been made. That way, people won't forever have to wade through all this. -I am Kiwi 09:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Books and Articles on NPD and Pathological Narcissism

• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

I have a very dim point of view of the DSM-IV. It is little more than coding manual for the medical practice-insurance interface. It will be of more interest (for awhile) when the new edition comes out - next year, I think.

• Alford, C. Fred. Narcissism: Socrates, the Frankfurt School and Psychoanalytic Theory

I might be wrong, but I don't think this ever became a best seller, nor, I suspect, would it be of much interest to the layman - which is, afterall, the audience Wikipedia is directed at.

• Bach, Sheldon. Narcissistic States and the Therapeutic Process,

Nope.

• Banja, John Medical Errors and Medical Narcissism, 2005

This one should be moved over to the Medical Narcissism area - whereever that may end up, for what I looked at the stub it is, I'm not certain whether others are beginning to use this term.

• Brown. Nina W. Coping with Infuriating, Mean, Critical People: The Destructive Narcissistic Pattern, 2006

This sounds like a KEEPER! Should check out the the Amazon's reviews?

• Carter, Les Enough About You, Let's Talk About Me: How to Recognize and Manage the Narcissists in Your Life, 2005

I've read about this book, too. Narcissism and NPD are big big buzz words

• Ekleberry, Sharon, LCSW, CSAC. Dual Diagnosis: Addiction and Axis II Personality Disorders. The Counselor, March/April, 1996.

Not needed - I have already put up a link to her website where this series of articles resides - you can also download all the articles in a zip file

• Fairbairn, W. R. D. An Object Relations Theory of the Personality, New York, Basic Books, 1954 ISBN 0-465-05163-4

Nope

• Freud, S Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 7, London, Hogarth Press, 1964. ISBN 0-465-09708-1

NO NO NO

• Gabbard, Glen O (Ed); Beck, Judith S (Ed); Holmes, Jeremy (Ed). Oxford Textbook of Psychotherapy. (pp. 279-289). ix, 534 pp., 2005.

NOPE

• Gelder, Michael, Gath, Dennis, Mayou, Richard, Cowen, Philip (eds.), Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, third edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, (reprinted 2000).

NOPE

• Goldman, Howard H., Review of General Psychiatry, fourth edition, Prentice-Hall International, London, 1995.

NOPE NOPE NOPE

• Golomb, Elan. Trapped in the Mirror : Adult Children of Narcissists in Their Struggle for Self, Quill, 1995. ISBN 0-688-14071-8

Undoubtedly a classic.

• Greenberg, Jay R. and Mitchell, Stephen A. Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1983. ISBN 0-674-62975-2 ehhh. I don't think so

• Grunberger, Bela. Narcissism: Psychoanalytic Essays, New York, International Universities Press, 1979. ISBN 0-8236-3491-4

I can't be certain, but the title makes me want to yawn.

• Guntrip, Harry. Personality Structure and Human Interaction, New York, International Universities Press, 1961. ISBN 0-8236-4120-1

Bit dated

• Horowitz, M.J. (1975). "Sliding Meanings: A defense against threat in narcissistic personalities". International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 4, 167. --- This is a journal article.

• Hotchkiss, Sandy Why is it Always about You?: The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism, 2005 - I've heard this mentioned a lot considering that it was only published last year

• Jacobson, Edith. The Self and the Object World, New York, International Universities Press, 1964. ISBN 0-8236-6060-5

Nope

• Kernberg, O. Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism, New York, Jason Aronson, 1975. ISBN 0-87668-177-1

This was GOOD. A definite KEEP!

• Klein, Melanie The Writings of Melanie Klein, Ed. Roger Money-Kyrle, 4 vols., New York, Free Press, 1964-75.

four volumes? every word she ever wrote?

• Kohut, Heinz. The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorders, International Universities Press, 1971. ISBN 0-82368-002-9

Anything by Kohut is blessed.

• Lasch, Christopher The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, 1991

This should be moved over to the Narcissism topic

• Lowen, Alexander. Narcissism : Denial of the True Self, Touchstone Books, 1997. ISBN 0-7432-5543-7

THIS is good.

• Maccoby, Michael. The Productive Narcissist.

Now, This might be good..

• Masterson, James. A Therapist's Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masterson Approach. ISBN: 0029202922 - a professionally-oriented text

• Masterson, James. Search for the Real Self : Unmasking the Personality Disorders of our Age. a keeper

• Miller, Alice. The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self, Basic Books, 1996. ISBN 0-465-01690-1

a Keeper

• Mollon, Phil. The Fragile Self: The Structure of Narcissistic Disturbance and Its Therapy, Jason Aronson Publishers, 1995. ISBN 1-56821-234-8 -- sounds good, given the publisher

• Morrison, Andrew. Essential Papers on Narcissism, New York University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-8147-5395-7 Essential to who?

• Morrison, Andrew. Shame: The Underside of Narcissism, The Analytic Press, 1997. ISBN 0-88163-280-5 good, for shame is such an important component in the development of NPD - KEEP

• Payson, Eleanor The Wizard of Oz and Other Narcissists: Coping with the One-Way Relationship in Work, Love, and Family, 2002 ???? I don't know the feedback on this one

• Ronningstam, Elsa F. (ed.). Disorders of Narcissism: Diagnostic, Clinical, and Empirical Implications, American Psychiatric Press, 1998. ISBN 0-7657-0259-2 - pretty dry clinical stuff

• Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality, 2005. - this is good

• Rothstein, Arnold. The Narcissistic Pursuit of Reflection, 2nd revised ed., New York, International Universities Press, 1984.

Sounds intriguing

• Schwartz, Robert C. Ph.D., DAPA and Smith, Shannon D. , Ph.D., DAPA, "Psychotherapeutic Assessment and Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorder" (American Psychotherapy Association, Article #3004 Annals July/August 2002) - journal article

• Stern, Daniel. The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology, New York, Basic Books, 1985. ISBN 0-465-09589-5 Stern can be good, but this one sounds pretty deep going

• Zweig, Paul. The Heresy of Self-Love: A Study of Subversive Individualism, New York, Basic Books, 1968. ISBN 0-691-01371-3

This sounds very intriguing, especially given the year it was written

List is far too good to break up so I have moved it to it's own List of further reading on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder an approach that has worked well on other articles swamped by their reading lists. Link added to "see also" --Zeraeph 09:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

References section is NOT locked

References section is not locked but uses inline citations in accord with WP:CITE.--Zeraeph 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing wording

They are very likely to be disdainful and disparaging towards in response to the notion of psychotherapy.

There appears to be a word missing here. Please clarify. Thanks. Ireneshusband 05:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Which word do you think is missing? --Zeraeph 12:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A possible campaign of vandalism

This was posted to several mailing lists last night [2].

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)

You must have "wound him up into a frenzy" again

Ken2849 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)ken2849

Expanding this article

I would be the first person to admit that this article needs considerable expansion, but only with great care, with citation, from verifiable WP:V and reliable sources WP:RS. So please do not alter this article substantially until you have verifiable and cited information to offer. Thank You. --Zeraeph 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

seems to be considerable confusion re:subject of article

the correct term has been inserted where the behaviors described by the DSM-IV and the most professional texts belong to NPD, not to this clinically vague term "narcissism". and the phrase "to the extent" is scarcely encyclopedic, never mind clinically meaningful. now if some of these books being used as authoritative sources here are about narcissism, not NPD, then they shouldn't be used in this article but in the Narcissism (psychology) article. if it is felt necessary to give context, all that is needed is to reference the Narcissism (psychology) article. if the word narcissism is to be used in this article, it must be qualified as a pathologically extreme form of narcissism - for clarity as opposed to confusion. 172.191.141.133 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

beg pardon. mean most instances of the use must be qualified. there are several places where it was obvious it was correct use 172.191.141.133 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, if you read it, you will find that the whole article make the, correct and accurate, point that narcissistic personality disorder is a DSM IV diagnosis (all DSM Disorders have articles) of a pathologically extreme form of Narcissism, with an explanation of how that works. Simply because that is exactly what it is.

We can hardly re-invent it as something else for variety.

Please do not keep making the article inaccurate by inappropriate word substitutions. Some of your substitutions were valid, but the "clinical experience" subsection discusses Narcissism as a context for NPD and to substitute NPD for Narcissism, is like wantonly substituting the word "aeroplane" for the word "flight" in every context, and makes incorrect nonsense of the whole section. Because the section that uses the word "narcissism" is describing the attributes of narcissism as a context for NPD, and not NPD. Many of those statement become incorrect when applied specifically to NPD rather than narcissism.

Articles about disorders reference to other conditions all the time, for instance the borderline personality disorder article makes constant reference to bipolar, you could not change all those references to the words "borderline personality disorder" just to "avoid confusing the reader". Or even more equivalent, the dissociative identity disorder article makes considerable reference to dissociation, if you were to substitute the term "dissociative identity disorder" for every instance of the term "dissociation" (the exact equivalent of what you are trying to do here), you would make nonsense of the article.

The way to mention the term narcissistic personality disorder more often is to add more verifiable information from reputable sources about narcissistic personality disorder to the article. --Zeraeph 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the section carefully I realise that, although blindly substituting the term "narcissistic personality disorder", as you did, would render the section totally incorrect, there is a need of qualification to distinguish the use of the term "narcissism" in this context from healthy narcissism. So I have done so. This should resolve the issue.--Zeraeph 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My goodness. The ignorance displayed this evening is remarkable. Can't someone with some education take some control of this topic and reduce the total incompetence? 172.131.28.38 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV needed... Bogus "Disorders"

There should be a section on the contraversy of these types of ridiculous labels. Many people have recognized that:

These "disorders" fail to seperate philisophical beliefs held by the "afflicted" that mitigate what would be selfish behavior from whatever is actually driving that behavior (which again may be more beliefs!). The opposing point of view holds this especially important because convincing/punishing such a person into holding the right beleif set may transform that drive into a strong drive to do good in order to earn recognition. What famous figure couldn't be described as having some of these symptoms? They are fallacious - many types of famous figures had to "dare" to be great before they could acheieve something great.

Occam's Razor - the simplest reason a person might be convinced that they are special relative to other people is that THEY ACTUALLY ARE. For instance if a person is driven to think more rationally and conceptually than others due to traumatic experiences, they might quickly find differences between themselves and other people that could be described as the other people using fallacious reasoning on a regular basis. Such people didn't ask to be "special" in this respect, and are forced to recognize the difference only because they frequently clash with others. The problem with trying to denote such behavior as flawed is that the deviant is PROVABLY RIGHT and the others are PROVABLY WRONG in their behavior (this is what defining fallacies seeks to do). If that wasn't the case, then such people would simply stop acting that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, people who feel the need to demonstrate their superiority to others tend to not be superior to others, they merely wish to be superior to others. People who are confident tend not to have a need to demonstrate superiority. Genuinely narcissistic people only dig their heels in further when proven wrong.--RLent (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting perspective, however people with narcissistic personality disorder often come in to treatment voluntarily because they have difficulty forming or maintaining relationships. Occam's razor would state: if a person with a mental disorder that makes it difficult for them to be realistic, states that they actually are "especially" special, this is probably a result of their disorder. Unfortunately, the real problem with the "specialness" of the patient suffering from narcissistic personality disorder is that they use people, people are seen as a means of self-enhancement rather than as people and this results in a lot of irrational suffering. It would be a little funny to put an "NPOV" on article like schizophrenia, because those people actually believe that they are seeing what they are hallucinating, or they believe that their delusions (such as that they are being persecuted by aliens) are absolutely true. Similarly, people with NPD have delusions that they are incredible and everybody else should just be their servants, why should we include this delusion?Nonymous-raz (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Narcissistic Rage

There should be a link to this part of their behaior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.100.45 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a link

I added a link to this set of webpages: http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html because I found it very useful so very VERY much that's thrown up by google searches leads to that Sam Vaknin character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.205.92 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The information this link points to is written by someone who admits to having absolutely no educational background on narcissism. They are not a therapist, not educated in psychology or any related field, and writing from personal experience alone. Narcissism can only be diagnosed by someone in the mental health field. I object to this link because too much information pertaining to narcissism on the web is written by children of narcissists, who themselves have mental health issues and are in no position to define narcissism. Many of these children of narcissists attribute narcissistic behaviors to things which are normal. The information at this site is simply not written by a professional and therefore questionable as to its reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.42.236 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

about "See Also" relevance

This is an appeal to whoever monitors or feels confident in their knowledge of the subject to shepherd this page. I have a difficult time understanding why "Solipsism" and "Victory Disease" have anything to do with the NPD topic. It seems to be a real misunderstanding of the subject to link these in as they are not really lend any insight to each other or the NPD topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.112.18 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 3

Most archived material was quite old, the only more recent was almost entirely contentious and not very relevant to topic. Let's have a fresh start for 2007. --Zeraeph 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why we must be careful with verifiability and citations

There is an unbelievable volume of subjectivity, partial information and misinformation on this topic on the internet posted by self appointed experts, self styled "victims of narcissists", self styled "persons exceptional" (not a hint of grandiosity in that you understand), you name it. Some of these sources are malicious or mischievous, but most are well intentioned, or at worst self indulgent. There are even "schools of thought" that oppose each other that are equally misinformative on both sides!

It has got to the stage where it really would be unfair to single out any one individual as "The main source of misinformation on NPD". To the contrary, being a source of misinformation on NPD seems quite a fashionable vocation these days (the same applies to a few other Disorders and conditions).

The trouble is it is just TOO EASY fall into the trap of assuming that some of this misinformation is established and valid medical or psychological thought, often without even being aware of the source.

I think it is very important on Wikipedia to dismiss all that misinformation and get back to valid medical and psychological sources.

I personally feel that we owe it to those diagnosed with NPD, and those close to them, to present the diagnosis honestly, fairly, neutrally and accurately, without any kind of subjectivity, for or against.

But there will be an ongoing problem. Those with NPD may be unreliable, if not quite resistant, to objectively discuss NPD or any egosyntonic disorder. Then you have the "victims" that are quite vicious and heavily biased. That said, I believe the victims deserve to be heard. I personally feel a lot of empathy for their experiences. I believe you can find out a lot about NPD by asking someone that was in a relationship with the subject. What bothers me though, is the expectations that may later validate more misinformation, and cruel behavior and attitudes against those with NPD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.230.145 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already learned a little about what NPD really is from trying to straighten out this article (by interrogatng low flying mental health professionals, NOT from my own knowledge), as more good faith editors, without agenda, weigh in with valid, cited material, I am hoping to learn more.

Because of the plethora of misinformation already available, I am hoping we can try to achieve this by sticking to citing sources that people can, at least partially (such as PUBMED), check for themselves, rather than obscure paper only sources?

Let's do it, huh? --Zeraeph 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly (very much so), except on the learned journals issue - monographs are not more reliable than journal articles, and decent encyclopedias regularly include salient papers on the topic.220.237.81.156 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't disagree, but under the circumstance I think it is wise to stick to sources that can be verified online as much as possible. Because a lot of total mumbo jumbo on this topic refers to convincing-sounding, but obscure, (physically) paper-only sources that do not say that which is attributed to them, do not originate from reliable sources, or even, do not exist altogether, and the best way to keep it straight is to avoid that? --Zeraeph 15:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation of a False Self

I have removed that edit for now as uncited, because it is a concept that seems to me (for some time) may have only originated in the amateur "online world of NPD". However if I am wrong about that I hope we can find valid, verifiable citations, from reputable academic or medical sources to not only support it but hopefully expand it into a subsection.--Zeraeph 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Masterson is an important source on this.220.237.81.156 13:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember the concept of the "false self" that was originally most related to Borderline Personality Disorder (in which article I do not think he is mentioned???) applied to other disorders(quoth Z, as though the whole thing was always known and had simply slipped mind, which would be untrue, because all I was familiar with was the connection to BPD). He is a really clear and understandable writer too. I have found a great paragraph of his definition of the creation of a false self that could not be improved upon for clarity. Sadly it relates to BPD and will need a second citation relating to NPD to back it up in order to relate the false self to NPD. Tricky, but I will find one. --Zeraeph 14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by false self in regard to NPD? Is this about self-image, or is it about covert lives? The Wiki entries on double life and related phenomena do not delve into motivations for concealment, and this issue deserves attention. See my further note below on deceptiveness.A.k.a. (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Slight cleanup

I made the final section more concise by removing tautology and other repetition. I also removed some rather unsubstantiated assertions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.81.156 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Remove Link

remove link to suite101 site, as i got such response from system: "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www_suite101_com" Dr.Gangino 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean? I didn't think there was a suite101 link and there doesn't seem to be one now? --Zeraeph 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it all about you?

@Zeraeph: Look, its a valid contemporary book addressing NPD and is readily available at all major booksellers and libraries. In response to your reference of WP-EL, there was no external link, just an ISBN # which Wikipedia automatically adds a link to (to its own ISBN search). And to your reference to WP-RS, this book has a endorsing foreword by James Masterson (the man himself!), and its published by Simon and Shuster. Sorry if the author is just a lowly LCSW, but again, it was placed under a "Further Reading" section, not references or sources. So, please reconsider adding this section, which you let stand for at least several weeks until some kid vandalized it, now all of a sudden its not restored because its no longer valid? And no, I am not the author, nor do I have a vested interest in the sales of this book. 24.38.116.118 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against the book or the author, but, as Wikipedia does try to be an actual encyclopaedia, I honestly cannot justify the listing of a popular self help book as "further reading" before formal academic and medical books are listed. --Zeraeph 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The book does, I think(?), meet the criteria of being a reliable source. However, I suggest that rather than just mentioning it as a book for further reading, since it is not really a professional book on the subject, that it only be cited if it is used to support a statement...in other words, if it is used as a citation. DPeterson^talk 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea...that way the book gets the same treatment and prominence as academic and medical works and we avoid inadvertantly promoting it as a sole source of "Further Reading". --Zeraeph 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that too. This article has had a long history with the author of the afforementioned book trying to promote his work via wikipedia, posting in the talk pages under aliases and sock puppets. This can only hurt our encyclopaedia. 84.254.51.56 07:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but he isn't the "offender" in this instance (nor does he meet criteria for reliable source by any stretch of the imagination!), which referred to Sandy Hotchkiss, author of "Why is it always about you". --Zeraeph 23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism!!!

Hey, the second paragraph in the "Clinical Experience" section, the one starting with "In common practice...", is lifted word-for-word from Alan Rappoport's "Co-Narcissism" paper. I deleted it and noted this in my deletion comment - why did you revert it Zeraeph? You should make your reasons clear in your edit comment or here. Steve Carlson^Talk 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Alan Rappaport gave me it to me to use here himself. Very simple --Zeraeph 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? OK, but it should be attributed as such, otherwise other people are going to have the same initial reaction as I did. It should be set off using the blockquote tag and introduced or followed by an attributing statement, or should at least have a citation! Steve Carlson^Talk 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are probably right there...now I think of it...I'll pop a citation on, that should fix it (there may even have been one once - stuff vanishes at times).--Zeraeph 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it helps. Not to keep hammering on this issue, but can you prove that he gave you permission to use this article on Wikipedia? According to the plagiarism policy, he needs to either have designated this paper for reuse under the GDFL on his site (he hasn't), or have sent a consenting e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. Steve Carlson^Talk 04:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I can prove he gave me the text to use all right...but asking for GFDL would be way too much troubling him, actually I thought I had paraphrased it all, leave it with me and paraphrase do it asap. --Zeraeph 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NPD @ The Times

See WP:MEDMOS, you can't use opinion pieces, even from the Times, as sources in a medical article! It also contains some seriously weird misinformation. --Zeraeph 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Concept of being 'oversensitive'

The article states 'An over-sensitive temperament at birth' as one of the causes of NPD. What does being 'over-sensitive at birth' mean? How is this diagnosed or defined?

Needs to be re-defined...Dr. Vaknin notes clinical hypersensitivity as adults... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.16.51 (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Narcissistic Rage and comments on the DSM

While the term may have first been recorded in print in 1972 by Kohut, after his decades of doing psychoanalytic work with narcissists, the term has not stood in isolation and it is a well-recognized term because what the rage INDICATES - the inner emotional state.

See PubMed - Items 1 - 19 of 19One page. 1: Related Articles, LinksJosephs L.

The impulse to infidelity and oedipal splitting. Int J Psychoanal. 2006 Apr;87(Pt 2):423-37. PMID: 16581584 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]2: Related Articles, LinksWalter M, Dammann G, Küchenhoff J, Frommer J, Schoeneich F, Danzer G, Klapp BF.

Psychosocial situation of living donors: moods, complaints, and self-image before and after liver transplantation. Med Sci Monit. 2005 Nov;11(11):CR503-9. PMID: 16258393 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]3: Related Articles, LinksGutheil TG, Simon RI.

Narcissistic dimensions of expert witness practice. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2005;33(1):55-8. PMID: 15809240 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]4: Related Articles, LinksArlow JA, Baudry FD.

Flaubert's Madame Bovary: a study in envy and revenge. Psychoanal Q. 2002 Apr;71(2):213-33. PMID: 11962099 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]5: Related Articles, LinksMeloy JR.

Spousal homicide and the subsequent staging of a sexual homicide at a distant location. J Forensic Sci. 2002 Mar;47(2):395-8. PMID: 11908617 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]6: Related Articles, LinksRhodewalt F, Morf CC.

On self-aggrandizement and anger: a temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Mar;74(3):672-85. PMID: 9523411 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]7: Related Articles, LinksWaska RT.

Precursors to masochistic and dependent character development. Am J Psychoanal. 1997 Sep;57(3):253-67. PMID: 9335941 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]8: Related Articles, LinksLansky MR.

Shame and suicide in Sophocles' Ajax. Psychoanal Q. 1996 Oct;65(4):761-86. PMID: 8933616 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]9: Related Articles, LinksChessick RD.

The psychoanalytic treatment of ulcerative colitis revisited. J Am Acad Psychoanal. 1995 Summer;23(2):243-61. PMID: 8675448 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]10: Related Articles, LinksGrosch WN.

Narcissism: shame, rage and addiction. Psychiatr Q. 1994 Spring;65(1):49-63. PMID: 8165267 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]11: Related Articles, LinksFeldmann TB, Johnson PW.

The selfobject function of weapons: a self psychology examination. J Am Acad Psychoanal. 1992 Winter;20(4):561-76. PMID: 1291544 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]12: Related Articles, LinksDodes LM.

Addiction, helplessness, and narcissistic rage. Psychoanal Q. 1990 Jul;59(3):398-419. PMID: 2399288 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]13: Related Articles, LinksGomez EA.

The Narcissus legend, the white whale, and Ahab's narcissistic rage: a self-psychological perspective. J Am Acad Psychoanal. 1990 Winter;18(4):644-53. No abstract available. PMID: 2283343 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]14: Related Articles, LinksFaller H.

[Emotional processing of perceived stresses by myocardial infarct rehabilitation patients: a speech content analytic study of affect in narrative interviews] Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 1989 May;39(5):151-60. German. PMID: 2734430 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]15: Related Articles, LinksHorowitz MJ, Arthur RJ.

Narcissistic rage in leaders: the intersection of individual dynamics and group process. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1988 Summer;34(2):135-41. PMID: 3410659 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]16: Related Articles, LinksRudolph J.

Aggression in the service of the ego and the self. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1981;29(3):559-79. PMID: 7299031 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]17: Related Articles, LinksMiller A.

The drama of the gifted child and the psycho-analyst's narcissistic disturbance. Int J Psychoanal. 1979;60(1):47-58. PMID: 457342 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]18: Related Articles, LinksFox RP.

Narcissistic rage and the problem of combat aggression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1974 Dec;31(6):807-11. No abstract available. PMID: 4441248 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]19: Related Articles, LinksKohut H.

[Narcissism and narcissistic rage] Psyche (Stuttg). 1973 Jun;27(6):513-54. German. No abstract available. PMID: 4731068 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

and per Google Scholar, minus any mention of Vaknin - 1880 incidences... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22narcissistic+rage%22+-vaknin

Now, Regarding the DSM. There have been entire very thick psychiatric textbooks that cost over $300 with tax written on the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Specialties from the US government, to business management to courtroom law to social work to psychology to psychiatry to nursing have taken to using the term for it is a precise term indicating a precise state of mind, of the terror of loss of control. It is not reasonable to expect the DSM to fully explains or describes the disorder within a mere few pages, no matter how small the font. The DSM is a simplified pocket-sized reference manual, not a treatise on any of the mental illnesses or disorders described within. We can't start going around Wiki and reducing everything to "it's not mentioned in the DSM." The FAC Asperger article would be gutted beyond all recognition, for instance. Spotted Owl (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Need citation "NPD symptomotology can/may diminish with age

While this is not MY experience with those with NPD (even finding the condition worsening), I HAVE seen the studies confirming this about AsPDs (who, of course, are an artificial construct not necessarily identical to psychopaths or other extreme classifications. I have not seen any studies for NPDs, tho I have heard this about NPDs, too, except in therapists' reports about their own patients. Can anyone find a clinical study confirming this? Otherwise, it's not likely to last long. Spotted Owl (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more than one article is needed

The term "narcissistic" has been around since the Greeks and has gained various meanings and interpretations over time. Also the psychoanalytic school (Kohut and such) uses the term differently. Since this article has the template {{DSM_personality_disorders}} at the bottom, I believe that the article should stick to the formal definitions of the diagnostic categories used today. Especially and article on DSM personality disorders should be about the relevant DSM personality disorder. I think including the ICD-10 is important as these two main bodies developing classifications pertaining to world-wide use are seeking to work together so that the meanings of terms are agreed upon. But, my opinion is that the many other uses of the term, including by people in the mental health field, should not be the majority of this particular article. Mattisse 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The DSM and it's many accompanying source books cannot be described as "pocket-sized". I can barely pick up the main manual using one hand. There are also publications by APA describing the development of the final definitions and the rationale for inclusion/exclusion of certain statements and terms. Mattisse 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about separate articles - very much needed. For a period of time, there was a very well populated Narcissism category, but it was dismantled after a period of about 5 days of heavy campaigning.

I blush to tell you that I began the section, "In the Beginning" portion very tongue in cheek (laughing), but I was astounded when the article merely expanded around those three and virtually never ventured away from the old-timer theorist analysts. I mean, it was never meant to stay that way, but I was very new to Wiki and had no idea that psych professionals tend to avoid the place like the plague and these articles have never had anyone experienced in the treatment of the heavy-duty PDs. I have looked at some of your talk contributions and realize that, despite the fact you have many interests, that your education is truly in this area and I look forward to your bringing NPD into the 21st century.

PS-- the DSM bible I have beside the computer is the pocket-sized spiral bound one - with very tiny print.... And I don't have your professional library, as you might have well have quickly recognized. My apologies for sounding stuffy. Spotted Owl (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It starts to get problematic as people use the word differently - the two main authorities Kohut and Kernberg in the 1960s-1970s arrived at different attributes for people they deemed narcissisic but had used two differing populations in the first place. Both are important to mention in the historic development of what we now call NPD. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: DSM is gaining in authority in most places and used more prevalently now than it was 10 years ago. Yes Kohut and Kernberg are different ot current definitions but the similarities far outweigh the differences. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I.m not too sure what you guys are talking about. We already have separate narcissism and Narcissism_(psychology) articles. Mind you I think there should be separate narcissistic rage, supply and injury articles. --Penbat (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that a separate narcissistic rage article may do the trick. My desire is to avoid confusing readers who want info on the current use of Narcissistic personality disorder with the older psychodynamic, psychoanalytic formulations/arguments and then are immersed into the 1960s and 1979s concepts that have been raging for years but have little current influence in the future directions these diagnostic category terms are taking. If some one receives the diagnostics of NPA and look it up in Wikipedia, they should not automatically become plunged into Kohut, Kernberg et al. as it is unlikely their treatment provider is thinking along those lines, at least in the U.S. Mattisse 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS suggests history sections go at the bottom of a medical article, which I feel isa good place for them, hence we have some discusion on Bleuler and Kraepelin at the bottom of the schizophrenia article. Hisotrical background is helpful at understanding how some of these ideas evolved etc. and many medical articles have them. Having them at the bottom means the reader (hopefully) isn't confused by them. In any case, I only noticed this thread while passing by. I have considered working on a few psych articles to GA/FA but it seems too much like my work to me... :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. However the history section must be confined and not overwhelm the article, as it is here that editors tend to get into long explanations of a particular theoretical view. Perhaps separate articles could be spawned for any view that requires extensive explanation or over which people disagree and want to argue over. Mattisse 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The good thing is that both Kohut and Kernberg's material could be summarised succinctly in a paragraph or two. Given their material was identified and possibly confined to both authors respectively, further subsections expanding on their theories could be continued on their biography pages. Agree about not giving undue weight etc. In fact, there's a stack of stuff from here down on Otto_Kernberg's article..though not much on Heinz Kohut cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to go. These articles are not supposed to be tomes containing all available angles on a subject. Also (perhaps it is just me) but articles that go on and on lose my interest anyway. I like a concise well organized article (e.g. the TOC should make sense and not be overtly long). Sometimes, I wonder who reads these excessively long articles besides the people who write them or those who want to contradict them! (I am not referencing to this article. It's a general comment directed at some articles.) Mattisse 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am still baffled as to what you are talking about. Kohut and Kernberg have a paragraph each in Narcissism_(psychology) plus a link to their own articles. There is already a rage article [[3]] linked to from this article but there should be one for narcissistic supply and injury as well.--Penbat (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm sorta thinking in a merge-y sorta way how best to make all these articles and concepts interconnected without the usual See also bit at the bottom, WRT the evolution of ideas and concepts. Unfortunaetely I haven't read all the separate articles in detail and have not the time to do so currently. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Kohut and Kernberg have far more wiki space then their importance to the field warrants, especially in articles on current topics. However, they have a persistent fan base here at wikipedia that has to be satisfied if there is to be any peace. Mattisse 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cetainly the Kernberg article is pretty detailed - which is good. I find his concepts have more to do with what we now call NPD, and to lesser extent the other cluster B personalities, than Kohut. I'll reserve opinion on that until I get involved in developing the article at some stage. However, psychiatry is pretty good at reinventing the wheel sometimes and a good historical section of many of the diagnosis articles would be very interesting. The other side of the coin is to be wary of recentism. In any case, this conversation would be better when beginning a major overhaul on the subject. Were you thinking of tackling this page at some stage soon? If so, I am happy to help, otherwise I'd prefer to leave it a few months. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be re-written

This article is full of nonsense. Nearly all of the "facts" provided in it point to mere anti-social behavior. If you were to apply this to the current generation of our teenage population, we could argue that all of them have naricissitic personality disorders based on what was provided here. Haruyasha (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not understanding your point. NPD does in fact lead to social isolation. Dmarquard (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Famous people

What about famous people? Many of them are narcissistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.136.199 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We'd have to have some reliable source, such as them disclosing their psychiatrist had told them that was their diagnosis or something similar - we can't speculate about something like this, really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but many of the celebs meet some off the DSM criteria like:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special". (sources in interviews can be found easily ;))
4. requires excessive admiration
5. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

I agree that sources should be found about the connection between narcissism and fame 78.130.136.199 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Diagnoses are not based on occupation (e.g. movie star) or life status characteristics (famous, criminal, beautiful). And diagnoses are made only by qualified professionals. Otherwise, there are more than enough people willing to diagnose every famous person! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with preceding - also you have to think of the whole culture that a person is a part of - eg Hollywood, Wrestling etc, where excessive self promotion and hype are order of the day, combined with either an obsequious attitude from the press (further perpetuating the stereotype) or seige mentality from paparazzi, and thus a haughty-seeming attitude is just running for cover(!). But above all, making a psychiatric diagnosis is a very serious issue with many possible implications, and so the sourcing has to be very robust and reliable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind as well that there's a difference between pathological narcissism and narcissism in general. While many celebrities may exhibit narcissistic traits, that is not the same as a disorder, which largely prevents any normal interaction between the sufferer and others. Wcp07 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But then again, who says that narcissism (self-love) is evil and worse than the love to others? 78.130.136.199 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• This article is about Narcissistic personality disorder, not the word "narcissism" in general. No moral statements are being made in the article about the word "narcissism". No one is saying that Narcissistic personality disorder is evil. It is a mental disorder. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong in a world where almost every aspect of personality is being labled as a disorder. 78.130.136.199 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

Am I the only one who finds the beginning of the page to present a blatant contradiction (words in caps are the contradiction)?:

"the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as 'a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, NEED FOR ADMIRATION, and a lack of empathy.' The narcissist is described as TURNING INWARD FOR GRATIFICATION RATHER THAN DEPENDING ON OTHERS" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.248.176 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep I agree - a narcissist needs narcissistic supply as external gratification not internal --Penbat (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the second sentence in the context of the narcissist's selfishness and lack of empathy, but I agree that it must be rewritten because on face value it's contradicting the preceding sentence. Wcp07 (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a contradiction, but it's not. It goes both ways. I unfortunately have NPD, so I know this to be true. Dmarquard (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding etiology

I am currently enrolled in my graduating year in Psychology, in my Abnormal Psychology class my professor a psychotherapist, specializing in NPD and Borderline personality disorder for the past 40 years, stated that etiology of the disorder is actually, and I paraphrase, "There is a stage in the life of everyone where a person has grandiose tendencies or is a narcassist, if during this stage in early childhood development, their parents do not constantly praise and admire their child, the person will develop what I call grandiose-type narcissistic personality disorder. The person will become fixated in that stage of their life and continue to seek others that will praise or admire them. They may enter the field of say Astronomy, and quickly rise to the top, receiving awards and praise from their peers, but they will then fall, because they were not in the field because they loved Astronomy, they wanted the praise of being at the top. I, for instance, practice psychology because I love it, I also want to do well in treating my patients and make money, but if I had narcissistic personality disorder I would do it only to climb to the top and receive praise. The participant will require mirroring transference, they seek from their therapist, someone who will praise them and value them like their parents didn't do enough. The other type of narcissistic personality disorder is enfeebled type, this is not talked about by the DSM, but it has similar symptoms. Enfeebled personality disorders occurs when the person in a stage of their early childhood development does not have someone who they believe is infallible and omniscient. It is normal for a child for much of their life to look at mom or dad as someone that knows everything, they're always strong and know whats right or wrong. As the child matures they will become more and more aware that their parent is intelligent but not infallible-- and this is healthy this is normal. If a child however, sees too often that their parent doesn't know something or cries or is too weak, then they will remain, in Freudian terms, fixated in this stage and seek out important celebrities or top professors to latch on to so they can idealize them. These patients, in therapy seek someone who will be perfect and omnipotent. They show idealizing transference. Often, particularly with young therapists, the therapist will say "oh stop I'm not actually perfect, its okay to be flawed" and the enfeebled narcissist will say "oh look not only are you perfect, you're modest too." These are the patients that their therapist might burp and they will say "wow how insightful." As you may have been able to discern this professor is eclectic but applies modern psychodynamic theory, as well as humanist theory, especially to his therapy.Nonymous-raz (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

eclectic, but failed to pay attention in English class when paragraphs were taught? ;-) 68.83.72.162 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Bitsnpieces, you removed:

James F. Masterson outlines a prominent approach to healing NPD, while discussing a continuum of severity and the kinds of therapy most effective in different cases.

And you added:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is currently considered to be incurable, and prognosis is very poor.

Can you provide more information? Were the references you removed bad in some way? Can you provide references for the new material? And what exactly is meant by "prognosis is very poor?" "Poor" as in it's incurable, or as in the person will have a terrible quality of life, or what? Axlrosen (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Savior complex?

Is there a reason why Savior complex redirects here? The folk definition of that term indicates someone who (falsely) believes that they can save or help someone else. That doesn't seem to quite meet the level of "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."

Is savior complex, then, also a clinical term synonymous with NPD, and/or just used incorrectly in common usage? 67.182.218.55 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A redirect to Messiah_complex or Grandiose delusions would be better.--Penbat (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)