narcissism
Locked
12
12
 
|
Have you read Kernberg? I would do that first and I would claim that he should dominate me and the others with respect to his/their/my credibility. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from informal conversations with senior psychoanalysts in Pittsburgh. Ragins, Schachter, Ratey, McLaughlin, et al. And my wife who is not a senior analyst but was a student of all those. She is reticent to talk about these issues but clearly knows more than I do. Do you still deny that Trump's narcissism interferes with his ability to be president? You seem to think it's independent of his incompetence. I don't think so. By the way, the world is more complex that the capacity of language to describe it. There was an article in the New Yorker about 35 years ago or more. About Sylvia Frumpkin, a pseudonym for an anonymous psychiatric patient. The article describe the attempt by a series of psychiatrists to diagnose her. Most of them felt she was schizophrenic but an Indian (Asian) doctor said she was severely bipolar. Asked why he didn't think she was schizophrenic he said it was because of the lack of delusional material. The others said but she said she was married to Mickey Mouse. The Indian doc asked, "Who's he?" That's irrelevant but funny. The article was very long and not complete in one issue, as I recall. Frank On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:41 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: The evidence presented in Shröder-Abé et al does not support that. I worry about the authority with which you assert such things. At the very least, your lack of supporting evidence *prevents* me from doing any homework on my own that might support what you're saying. Everything I'm finding disagrees with you. Help me out, here. Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
I have not read Kernberg's "Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism". The kindle copy seems to be $75, which is out of my price range for almost any book. If the libraries open up soon, I can probably get my hands on a copy.
Regardless, I *do*, right now, have access to almost every scientific journal article. Add that to the tendency of journal articles to include more data, and more easily analyzable data, and a broad time span, I much prefer articles to books, anyway. With articles, I can track how hypotheses about underlying mechanisms seem to be different from, say, 1975 to today. The DSM 5's "alternative" section is very helpful for that, as well. And I'm sure some books do it. But it's not that dynamic. The book had to be published at some point. Even with editions, it's a lot of work to publish a new edition. Add to all that that articles can be more obviously peer-reviewed. I can complain about peer review as well as the next yahoo. But it's still something to consider. So, if you know of any (relatively new ... say, > 2000) articles that argue for vulnerable and grandiose narcissism being 2 phenotypes of the same generators, then please send them along. If you don't have any relatively modern *data* arguing for your position, then I'd claim you're speaking with unjustified authority and may want to soften your language a bit. ... maybe just for talking to jerks like me, at least. 8^) As for Trump, I've *already* said that his narcissism interferes with his competence. I said that explicitly. I've even said it more than once. But it seems irrelevant to how we compensate for the situation we're in. I don't think I said *independent*. I'm sorry if I did. Irrelevant and independent are different. My point was to find something we can *act* on. And I don't think we can act on his narcissism. But we can act on his incompetence. On 4/29/20 12:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Have you read Kernberg? I would do that first and I would claim that he should dominate me and the others with respect to his/their/my credibility. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from informal conversations with senior psychoanalysts in Pittsburgh. Ragins, Schachter, Ratey, McLaughlin, et al. And my wife who is not a senior analyst but was a student of all those. She is reticent to talk about these issues but clearly knows more than I do. > > Do you still deny that Trump's narcissism interferes with his ability to be president? You seem to think it's independent of his incompetence. I don't think so. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
$75?! The Kindle edition of my memoir was only 4.99 before I unpublished it. This isn't what you asked for but it supports my claim that all pathological(!) narcissism has a common dynamic structure. It only 3+ minutes long and it's free. On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: I have not read Kernberg's "Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism". The kindle copy seems to be $75, which is out of my price range for almost any book. If the libraries open up soon, I can probably get my hands on a copy. Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:51 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
On 4/29/20 12:51 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> https://youtu.be/DlopY4DfFV4 This one didn't seem to say anything about the 2 phenotypes. So it (obviously) can't help distinguish them, which means it can't help unify them. If one doesn't even recognize there could be a difference, then one can't unify them. On 4/29/20 1:30 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > https://youtu.be/Ihu3k_j3KQk Yeomans refers to "thin-skinned" narcissists, which I interpret to be what others call "vulnerable". And it's good that he made at least that distinction. But everything else he said, other authors have described as grandiose phenotype. So, he validates other authors' laments that the majority of work has ignored the vulnerable type. > https://youtu.be/xoRuzpsLzTU I watched this one yesterday or the day before. But again, it focuses on the grandiose type and doesn't help distinguish or [re]unify the 2 types. What might be a Freudian slip, though, is that the unification of the 2 types, or the refusal to admit there might be 2 types, might be a "regression to simplicity". >8^D > https://youtu.be/OwVL-X_TRDo Here, Yeomans refers to what I started this thread with, he thinks narcissists suffer a lot, enslaved in an isolation. But the research I've seen in journals indicate that grandiose narcissists *don't* suffer much, but the vulnerable narcissists *do*. This is directly inferrable from the *alternative* model of NPD in the DSM 5. And it's reflected to some extent in pretty much any paper you get from a google scholar search. So, to sum up, none of these bolster your position. But it's useful, to me, because now I'm thinking that the Wink 1991 paper really was a significant inflection point in the study of narcissism. Thanks for sending them along. I'll youtube-reciprocate and say that this guy seems pretty credible: Wilmington: https://www.wilmu.edu/directory/behavioralscience/lori-vien.aspx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC_0vyFTKk1Nlodo4QsiQkw -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
But it's useful, to me, ... Well, that matters. On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: On 4/29/20 12:51 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
By the way, you say ...that grandiose narcissists *don't* suffer much, but the vulnerable narcissists *do*... Grandiosity is a defense against vulnerability in these people. They're the same people. I find Kernberg to be more masterful and credible that Yeomans. Of course, the former is the teacher of the latter. On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:59 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well, to be clear, the journal articles I've seen *indicate* that the grandiose one's don't suffer much. I wouldn't know one way or another. I'm just going off what I read in the articles.
And I apologize in advance, but without *some* evidence in support of what you're saying, it's impossible for me to incorporate. The question I'm asking is: Are they the same people just presenting differently? Or are they really 2 different types of person? I'm seriously asking that. And as I (and Steve) have mentioned, it's reasonable to HYPOTHESIZE that there are 2 modes, or some kind of self-presentation mechanism menu from which the narcissist chooses. So I really am asking the question. You're not asking that question. You're *answering* that question without providing any evidence to justify your answer. I appreciate the conversation a lot. But it's the evidence (and the structure/type of that evidence) that I care about. If you don't provide any evidence to back up your opinions, I'm at a loss. And, also to be clear, a book from 1975 won't be very good evidence for or against a distinction that seems to have been made in the literature in 1991. I'd love to find a critical "debunking" of the type distinction. That's what I'm looking for. But all I see are confirmations of the 2 types. On 4/29/20 2:09 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > By the way, you say > > ...that grandiose narcissists *don't* suffer much, but the vulnerable narcissists *do*... > > Grandiosity is a defense against vulnerability in these people. They're the same people. > > I find Kernberg to be more masterful and credible that Yeomans. Of course, the former is the teacher of the latter. > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:59 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > Here, Yeomans refers to what I started this thread with, he thinks narcissists suffer a lot, enslaved in an isolation. But the research I've seen in journals indicate that grandiose narcissists *don't* suffer much, but the vulnerable narcissists *do*. This is directly inferrable from the *alternative* model of NPD in the DSM 5. And it's reflected to some extent in pretty much any paper you get from a google scholar search. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen, et al -
> As for Trump, I've *already* said that his narcissism interferes with his competence. I said that explicitly. I've even said it more than once. But it seems irrelevant to how we compensate for the situation we're in. I don't think I said *independent*. I'm sorry if I did. Irrelevant and independent are different. My point was to find something we can *act* on. And I don't think we can act on his narcissism. But we can act on his incompetence. I am conflicted by this. I have known people whose very competence seems to be significantly a product of both their grandiose and their vulnerable narcissism. They think they are highly capable, so they take on challenges that a less confident person may not, and it is this very confidence that seems to provide a certain amount of momentum to make good progress. The vulnerable side/aspect/version of this is often so afraid of being embarrassed that they work extra hard.... dot all their i's and cross all their t's. For the most part, this combination may still lead an individual to be grandiose (over-estimate their ability) and vulnerable (thin-skinned, self-protective of criticism), but overall effective and not necessarily pathological to others. On the other hand, I have known individuals whose narcissism (both grandiosity and hyper-vulnerability) seems to make them highly *incompetent*. They ignore all evidence that they are clueless and they react punishingly to anyone who challenges their grandiosity. Perhaps one of the distinctions between these two versions is their level of circumstantial power/privilege. Perhaps whether it is having a certain inherent charisma, a powerful family, wealth, or even ability (physical or intellectual prowess)... these individuals simply become bullies, using whatever advantage/leverage they have over others to suppress negative feedback. I don't know if this is described in the DSM or in literature or amongst trained analysts and psychological professionals... it is just my anecdotal apprehension of yet another "two types of people" . - Steve > On 4/29/20 12:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Have you read Kernberg? I would do that first and I would claim that he should dominate me and the others with respect to his/their/my credibility. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from informal conversations with senior psychoanalysts in Pittsburgh. Ragins, Schachter, Ratey, McLaughlin, et al. And my wife who is not a senior analyst but was a student of all those. She is reticent to talk about these issues but clearly knows more than I do. >> >> Do you still deny that Trump's narcissism interferes with his ability to be president? You seem to think it's independent of his incompetence. I don't think so. > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I know you're really asking and I'm really trying to answer but it's complicated. I will give you some background which may seem irrelevant. Bear with me. I was going to ask you what kind of evidence you would accept: assertion by authorities or empirical clinical evidence i.e. data. 1975 isn't very long ago in the development of psychoanalytic thought. It moves slowly if it is to be taken seriously. In about 1974 or so I was considering research training in psychoanalysis which was offered by the Pittsburgh Psychoanalytic Institute which was, at that time, housed within the Psychiatry Department of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I had had years of experience doing data analysis of social scientific and even psychiatric data. Generally articles written by psychoanalysts consist of clinical case material but there was interest in methods more acceptable to academics. Therefore there was a possibility that people familiar with data analysis and scientific methodology in general would be admitted to a research training program. Here is some context. A man named Tomas Detre was hired by the University to become, eventually, Chancellor of the Health Professions, and Executive VP. But he started as chair of the Psychiatry Department. The Department had been dominated for decades by psychoanalysts but Detre was not psychoanalitically trained. He made it clear that he would support the Institute if he were made director. This was impossible given the precepts of psychoanalysis. The eventual result was that the Institute left the University and became free-standing. There was for some time skepticism or hostility toward the Institute by high level Univesity administrators. Also, there was a professor of philosophy named Adolph Grunbaum who had written papers and perhaps a book arguing that psychoanalysis was not science. He is correct in that most psychoanalysts don't collect data an do analysis on it and then publish it. The reasons for this are that the methods of psychoanalysis focus on the dynamics within the patient and are highly sensitive in the sense of privacy. They also deal with the interactions at a deep psychological level between the minds of the doctor and patient (transference and counter-transference). Hence psychoanalytic research is problematic for multiple reasons in terms of the methods of educational research, experimental psychology, etc. Because of my interest in research training I was able to read a thesis written by a recent graduate of the program, who already had a PhD in classical experimental psychology. It had to do with an information theoretic understanding of recurring dreams reported by a handful of patients that she treated during her training. Anyway, to answer your question in the way I think you want it answered would require gathering data on a set of patients already diagnosed with NPD and then gathering objective data via questionnaires or some other instrument (MMPI-like for instance, Meyers-Briggs-like) and seeing if discriminant function analysis or some clustering algorithm indicates that there are two groups which correspond to grandiose and vulnerable. This is not likely to happen given the methodological constraints of psychoanalysis. Another psychoanalyst named Karen Horney wrote a book or at least a chapter called "the expansive versus the self-effacing solution" which sounds related but look there only you are willing to accept a non-statistical analysis. Here are a couple of facts which may be of interest in the early 1970s when I was thinking of research training there were maybe 25,000 psychiatrists in the US and 2,000 psychoanalysts. To become a psychoanalyst usually you first become an MD psychiatrist, complete a residency in psychiatry and then undertake psychoanalytic training which takes another 5+ years and includes a personal analysis, the sine qua non of the training. There are "lay analysts" but not many. I'm past the TL;DR threshold so I'll stop without proofreading. I hope this helps a little. Watch out for transference and counter-transference (joke). Sincerely, Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 3:25 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: Well, to be clear, the journal articles I've seen *indicate* that the grandiose one's don't suffer much. I wouldn't know one way or another. I'm just going off what I read in the articles. .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
What little lit. I've seen so far argues that vulnerable narcissists don't tend to embark on difficult tasks. One paper argues they "self-handicap" so that they will never be in a position such that they fail. There are other "defensive" tactics as well. The paper argues that vulnerable types rely heavier on the defensive tactics than the grandiose types. And one of the videos Frank posted talks about narcissists living in their parents' basements, yet claiming they'll become a big-time movie producer.
On 4/29/20 3:33 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I am conflicted by this. > > I have known people whose very competence seems to be significantly a > product of both their grandiose and their vulnerable narcissism. They > think they are highly capable, so they take on challenges that a less > confident person may not, and it is this very confidence that seems to > provide a certain amount of momentum to make good progress. The > vulnerable side/aspect/version of this is often so afraid of being > embarrassed that they work extra hard.... dot all their i's and cross > all their t's. For the most part, this combination may still lead an > individual to be grandiose (over-estimate their ability) and vulnerable > (thin-skinned, self-protective of criticism), but overall effective and > not necessarily pathological to others. > > On the other hand, I have known individuals whose narcissism (both > grandiosity and hyper-vulnerability) seems to make them highly > *incompetent*. They ignore all evidence that they are clueless and > they react punishingly to anyone who challenges their grandiosity. > > Perhaps one of the distinctions between these two versions is their > level of circumstantial power/privilege. Perhaps whether it is having a > certain inherent charisma, a powerful family, wealth, or even ability > (physical or intellectual prowess)... these individuals simply become > bullies, using whatever advantage/leverage they have over others to > suppress negative feedback. > > I don't know if this is described in the DSM or in literature or amongst > trained analysts and psychological professionals... it is just my > anecdotal apprehension of yet another "two types of people" . -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Excellent! Thanks. The context always helps.
Re: below -- The research I'm seeing uses measurement tools like the Narcissistic Personality Index for grandiose types, the Pathological Narcissism Inventory, the HyperSensitive Narcissism Scale, etc. and correlates (postively or negatively) with various features expected to be presented by narcissists. So, they're not using diagnosed people at all, as far as I can tell. That may well be part of the problem. If the 2 types are *only* distinguishable at a subclinical layer, then maybe we're simply talking past each other. But because 1) I don't believe people can be diagnosed at a distance and 2) in order to get trustable data we'd have to [non]diagnose *everyone* (or N% of the population), then requiring a diagnosis for this sort of conversation would be silly. You can't have "big data" without the "big". I'd argue that an actual diagnosis is practically useless and everything useful would be subclinical. But, as I've said, the alternative model for NPD in the DSM 5 seems (to me) to imply 2 types. So, I can't help but extrapolate and think whatever committee wrote that alternative model would be amenable to the idea of there being 2 clinical diagnosis types. That other youtuber I posted (Todd Grande) says in one video that while working on the DSM 5, there was a faction of people that argued that NPD was incoherent and the diagnosis should be removed entirely ... I haven't checked for evidence of that other than him saying it, though. On 4/29/20 3:47 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Anyway, to answer your question in the way I think you want it answered would require gathering data on a set of patients already diagnosed with NPD and then gathering objective data via questionnaires or some other instrument (MMPI-like for instance, Meyers-Briggs-like) and seeing if discriminant function analysis or some clustering algorithm indicates that there are two groups which correspond to grandiose and vulnerable. This is not likely to happen given the methodological constraints of psychoanalysis. Another psychoanalyst named Karen Horney wrote a book or at least a chapter called "the expansive versus the self-effacing solution" which sounds related but look there only you are willing to accept a non-statistical analysis. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
In early-mid 1970, I did a study of cults in California. It was an ethnographic study and my methodology was participant observation which means I spent a lot of time participating in cult activities as well as interviewing and observing cult leaders cult rituals, and cult practices.
I spent the summer interacting with about twenty cults including the Raelians, Heaven's Gate, Peoples Temple, Eckanar, Children of God, Source Family, Fellowship of Friends ... I met some Branch Davidians but did not meet David Koresh. I did meet Jim Jones and attended several Peoples Temple services in Oakland before they went to Guyana. The smallest, and strangest, cult was three people: two of the most beautiful and sexual women I have ever met and I guy that put himself in suspended animation — yogic style lowered respiration, heartbeat, and body temperature — for period up to 13 consecutive days. The women would anoint his body with oils, clean up his eliminations, and watch over him while "working on another plane" then have non-stop 3-way Roman orgies (food, drink, drugs, sex) when he was "awake." I never used the term or the description of narcissist to describe any of the cult leaders I met. Charismatic was the most used descriptive term, followed very closely with empathic. Empathic in the sense of being aware of the psychic needs of the membership and able to cater to them. The same skill used by Tarot readers and "psychics." I am looking for the paper - it is on a Zip drive somewhere in either Word 1.0 or WordPerfect format. The question for this thread: what is the relationship, if any, between narcissism and charisma? davew On Wed, Apr 29, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > > Waco > > https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/waco/s01 > > I declined to respond to Glen's originating post on this topic until I > had more time/background. We finally watched the limited series the > last two nights and it brought back a lot of memories of that era to > both Mary and myself. We had the opportunity to discuss both our > contemporary understanding of characters like Koresh and his followers > (and the ATF/FBI characters as-depicted and the families of, and locals > in nearby Waco) as well as our memories of how we responded to it as it > unfolded (through the lens of popular media and discussion). I felt > that the show (and probably the two books it was derived from, written > by the FBI negotiator and by one of the more sympathetic > characters/members of the Davidians) had some barely hidden agendas... > while I'm willing to believe that egos and personalities and > incompetence and systemic flaws were key to how the ATF/FBI (mis)handled > the scene right up through it's tragic conclusion and aftermath, I > didn't take every detail to be unbiased and accurate. > > > I don't know much about Koresh or the Branch Davidians. I remember watching it (and the Ruby Ridge coverage) on TV back then. (I was pretty libertarian back then ... but that was back when the word "libertarian" meant something ... it's a useless word these days. So my understanding of these events was heavily biased by that.) This TV show does a good job, I think, of showing Koresh simply edit out his abuse of the flock while maintaining an air of authenticity in other domains. And the supporting character (Paul Sparks/Steve Schneider) states it explicitly when he says something like "I wish God had chosen someone else" or somesuch ... because Koresh was such a jerk. > I don't know much about Koresh (or his Davidians or the Ruby Ridge > family or ... players) either... and I agree that this depiction showed > well a tension between his "abuse" and "authenticity". I have NO > embedding in the kinds of belief systems that Koresh and his followers > came from (and went far beyond), so my first-order response to the lot > of them was not very sympathetic. Mary was raised Catholic and did not > leave that fold until she divorced in her early 40's. She still has > some momentum from that embedding which makes it easier for her to be > sympathetic with the underlying tropes of belief in a personal > creator/savior and in scripture, even though I would say all of those > are now vacant in her active current consciousness. > > My conscious attempt to empathize with everyone, in every context, no matter how deplorable it might be, prevents me from accusing someone like Koresh of *rational* manipulation. > I share that conscious attempt, or even instinctual bias. I don't > *want to believe* people are that fundamentally different/bad/flawed > than I want to believe that I am. I know myself to have operated with > *rational* manipulation, but it usually grows up out of the fertile soil > of *unconscious* manipulation... simply seeking to optimize some > personal rewards/satisfaction vector with limited awareness of the > results on others (especially those far from me socially/geographically). > > I tend to think his manipulation of others is the *same* as his manipulation of himself. In programming, we use the term "reflection" or "introspection" to talk about an object manipulating itself in the same way it manipulates other objects (and vice versa). In some circles, it's called "reflexive", which I think is misleading. The idea is that you treat yourself as other or you treat others as yourself. > > As I understand your point here, it is perhaps the *only* or *most > fundamental* thing which keeps me in line consciously. I do have > natural empathy that is rooted in my > vertebrate/mammalian/primate/hominid genetics as well as that which was > nurtured by my family and communities of origin. But as I became > (trained to be?) more rational, my own narcissistic pursuits transformed > to become more *intentional* and possibly more pathological. A lot of > what probably comes across as bald "virtue signalling" in my posts here > is me trying to remind myself that I *can* (and should?) work > consciously to balance that out. If left to my own instincts and > learned habits in this (manic hypercapitalist, ultra-individualistic) > society, I might well behave in a very selfish manner at every > opportunity. > > It also triggered memories of how the well-publicized Jonestown and > Heaven's Gate cult suicides unfolded... though I *do* believe the Waco > account that says theirs was NOT a mass-suicide. The nature of > cult-belief/following/extremity was the point. > > > When I hear descriptions of narcissism, this self-other mixing seems absent, which makes all the descriptions of narcissists seem cartoonish and wrong. They portray narcissists as hyper-rational, manipulate others to get what you want, sociopaths [†]. > I think these are the extrema (edge/corner cases) that we like to focus > on because it makes for good storytelling. > > But if all people do a little bit of self-manipulation as well as other-manipulation (and it's the same tools/anatomy that does the manipulation), then narcissists are *not* hyper-rational sociopaths. They can't be if they *feel* hurt by the words of others, insecure, self-important, grandiosity, etc. If they have feelings at all *and* they manipulate their self like they manipulate others, then they can't be these hyper-rational sociopaths. It's either a contradiction or a paradox that needs resolving. > I believe this way of framing it... but when faced with someone whose > narcissism builds a strong (albeit fragile) ego-shell which impinges on > my own (hopefully equally strong, but in a more durable way) it is easy > to forget this and react as if they are hyper-rational sociopaths. > (which engenders an awareness that the biggest risk in these contests is > to "become one's enemy") In Sun Tzu's wisdom, there is a place for > this... but getting caught in it seems to be what keeps us there. > > We can see this in the DSM 5 _Alternative_ model. The 1st two trait categories (section A, 1-4) are other-centric, whereas the 2nd two are self-centric. Section B's categories seem to flip too, where grandiosity seems self-centric and attention seeking seems to be other-centric. It leaves me wondering if there are really 2, fundamentally different types of narcissism, that driven by an external locus vs. that drive by an internal locus, where the former cares deeply what others think/feel and the latter is totally apathetic to (or denies outright) others' thoughts/feelings. If that's plausible, then former-type narcissists would (as Frank said last week) live horrifying lives, but the latter-types might get a bit frustrated by the complexity of the machine they have to live inside, but could live very happy, solipsistic lives. > > I think your previous invocation of "modes of being" are apt here. I > suspect we all have our (minor? trivial? well-managed? well-hidden?) > episodes of all of these features of narcissism. Just after we hit a > lucky shot (pick your sport) or make a killer-prediction (stock market, > news, personal business decision, etc.) we may feel a rush of > grandiosity. After a particular embarrassing faux-pas, we may feel > acutely judged and defend it with some posturing or rapid > change-of-topic. I would suggest that if we are *healthy* (whatever > that means) that these are passing episodes which we compartmentalize > more than rationalize... too much rationalization can layer those > ego-preserving/enhancing habits deeper into our selves. > > Some of my earliest/strongest memories involved some kind of acute > embarrassment or abrupt awareness of my own vulnerability (even if not > observed by others). To the extent I am aware of those moments and keep > them somewhat walled off as exceptional moments rather than > internalizing them as (ambiguous?) proof of my ultimate entitled > powerfulness or my abject victimhood, I feel like I can use them to > understand myself and the world I live in better, rather than slip into > (yet more of) a fantasy that protects/supports my ego. > > Mumble > > > [†] By "sociopath", I mean something like: someone who doesn't mirror the feelings of others in themselves. Sorry if that's non-standard. I'm using it because I don't have a better word for such a person. > > > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
That's a fantastic question! I can't answer. But I'll definitely start injecting that question into what I read. I have run across those communities that talk about techniques for increasing one's charisma, mostly in the context of trying to understand the alt-right, involuntary celibates, pick-up-artists, and their intersection with the rationalists. That concept of installing new triggers was from the rationalists and, I think, enlightened by cognitive behavior therapy. Such conscious manipulation of other people must overlap with the tactics of narcissists.
But the inverse map is more interesting, I suppose. To what extent is there an innate charisma? And to what extent do people with innate charisma, as they grow up from babies, *learn* to be entitled and/or manipulative because their charisma facilitates such entitlement/manipulation? We've all heard that "beautiful people" have easier lives. To what extent is that folk psychology true, real, amenable to experimentation? There must be some science out there about that. On 4/29/20 5:36 PM, Prof David West wrote: > In early-mid 1970, I did a study of cults in California. It was an ethnographic study and my methodology was participant observation which means I spent a lot of time participating in cult activities as well as interviewing and observing cult leaders cult rituals, and cult practices. > > I spent the summer interacting with about twenty cults including the Raelians, Heaven's Gate, Peoples Temple, Eckanar, Children of God, Source Family, Fellowship of Friends ... I met some Branch Davidians but did not meet David Koresh. I did meet Jim Jones and attended several Peoples Temple services in Oakland before they went to Guyana. > > The smallest, and strangest, cult was three people: two of the most beautiful and sexual women I have ever met and I guy that put himself in suspended animation — yogic style lowered respiration, heartbeat, and body temperature — for period up to 13 consecutive days. The women would anoint his body with oils, clean up his eliminations, and watch over him while "working on another plane" then have non-stop 3-way Roman orgies (food, drink, drugs, sex) when he was "awake." > > I never used the term or the description of narcissist to describe any of the cult leaders I met. Charismatic was the most used descriptive term, followed very closely with empathic. Empathic in the sense of being aware of the psychic needs of the membership and able to cater to them. The same skill used by Tarot readers and "psychics." > > I am looking for the paper - it is on a Zip drive somewhere in either Word 1.0 or WordPerfect format. > > The question for this thread: what is the relationship, if any, between narcissism and charisma? -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |