Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narcissistic personality disorder is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. DPetersontalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 CarlsonTalk 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 CarlsonTalk 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 CarlsonTalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[1]] 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)