Talk:Narcissism/Archive 2

Heritability
I have removed the Heritability study with Twins section because the study had no bearing on anything. Did no one consider the fact that twins might develop similarly because they live together for the better part of their lives? If they had done it with twins who had been separated since birth, the study might have some meaning. --Savant13 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the study was controlled and is verifiable, the text was cited, so, you can't just delete it because *in your opinion* it is not valid, it goes back.


 * Also, as far as I can see, the study determined heritability by comparing the results from identical twins, with those of fraternal twins (no more alike than any other siblings) to arrive at conclusions. As fraternal twins are just as likely to be subject to the same environmental factors as identical twins, and the study compared the difference between the two, I really do not see your problem. --Zeraeph 12:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeraeph is correct. If a statement can be attributable to a reliable source then the statement belongs in the encyclopedia article.  If you question the validity or reliability of the source, you can do that on the talk page.  If the issue is one of broader controversay regarding the topic, then a separate section detailing the controversary, with sources, would seem appropriate.  DPeterson talk 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I never meant to imply that foul play was involved, merely that the conclusions drawn were questionable. In addition, I would not assume that fraternal and identical twins are subject to the same environmental factors. --Savant13 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, you can never assume ANYTHING about the factors affecting a test group, there are too many potential variables, even twins seperated from birth (who have shown similar tendencies in Scandinavian Studies) might be subject to either remarkably similar, or remarkably different environmental factors depending on the nature of separation. But the studies did show a distinct trend, and are, most impotantly, verifiable. However, if you can point out another study that contradicts these finding let's include it too. --Zeraeph 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zeraeph. The study meets Wikipedia standards of being verifialbe and attributable to a reliable sourcee and so should be cited...as can other studies that find other results. This is an encyclopedia article, after all.  DPeterson talk 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

More positive Opening paragraph & wish for a image more directly reletave to subject.
I have added a more powerfull opening paragraph to cover the essence of this problematic disorder.The previous image was too graphic and appears to be a side tangent thats hardly reletave to the essance of the disorder.I beleive a more positive opening is in store.My opinion is that an image less graphic and more relitave would also help as an improvement.Fullertonart 11:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, NOW I understand the problem...let me try to explain. This article is for the general CONCEPT of Narcissism, quite independent of psychology, which has existed for centuries, NOT the disorder. Pathological Narcissism is NOT the topic of this article at all.


 * Narcissism (psychology) relates to all aspects of Narcissism in psychology, including the positive ones (Do you realise that we ALL have some healthy Narcissism? Without it we couldn't even have self esteem.).


 * However, for disorders of Narcissism you have two choices Narcissistic personality disorder or Malignant narcissism. Both are very different articles. As they are documented medical conditions, I am sure you can appreciate that all citations must be made VERY STRICTLY to medical and academic Reliable sources, but within that constraint, you are VERY welcome to come and help improve them. --Zeraeph 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing a merger of Narcissism (psychology) and Narcissism for the following reasons:


 * The trait described has a lot more similarities than differences when it comes to the lay use and a large proportion of current use in psychology. i.e. (superficial) self love and themes of adoration or desire for adoration. The lay term is essentially a vernacular use of one of the central themes of the psychological term. Yes there is alot more depth to psychological discussion, but they are also explored at related articles on Malignant narcissism and Narcissistic personality disorder.

The state of the current article at narcissism lends weight to this proposal, with the first three sections psychological in nature anyway, and the last half of the article possibly bordering on original research (and if it did have scholarly work on it, would be linking to the psychological term anyway (!)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Any scholarly sociological work will use a psychological definition anyway, so the narcissistic culture/society stuff (if able to be referenced) would be more in line with psychology than 'lay' anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) . as proposer Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) . Suppport, there is no need for two seperate articles on narcissism.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) . Suppport, however the coverage of narcissism in general on Wikipedia is crap - many knowledgeable people have been frightened away in the past. Somewhere it needs to spell out what narcissistic supply, narcissistic rage, narcissistic injury, narcissistic envy, secondary narcissism, pathological narcissism all are. Also there is no mention that control freaks are often narcissists. It would also be good to tie up bullying to narcissism as bullies are often narcissistic. Narcissists often use passive-aggressive behaviour. Also a moderate level of narcissism is healthy. Too little narcissism is unhealthy and the person will be used like a doormat. Narcissism only becomes unhealthy above the midpoint on the narcissism spectrum where other people get damaged. It might be useful to try to graphically illustrate the narcissistic spectrum and show where NPD and malignant narcissism fit in. Also there needs to be explanation of the role of true self and false self in narcissism. Also the role of defense mechanisms such as projection should be mentioned. --Penbat (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support – no reason not to make one article of these two. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Restructure
The current understanding of narcissism is split between the Kohut and Kernberg models. Most of the info given about Freud and Horney is just leading the path to Kohut and Kernbergs views. Therefor i intend to downplay the Freud and Horney material. --Penbat (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Importance of Valid Accreditation in Medical Articles
This is a medical article, and deserves only the best accredited, recognised and peer reviewed medical and academic sources. There is no place for reference to self published, amateur opinion. Thank You WB --90.210.84.5 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. Unlike the NPD article, this article mainly covers narcissism as an abstract concept with many differing views amongst academics. For example you have the Kernberg camp and the Kohut camp. Some psychologists such as Eysenck even dismiss Freud's views as worse than useless. Also there are now many developing sub categories of narcissism such as spiritual narcissism and are in their infancy. Apart from things like testing twins, the idea of exhaustive peer reviewing is worthless as there will always be at least 1 eminent psychologist who disagrees with something.


 * I think it would be best to delete medical status for this article.--Penbat (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal
I removed two statements and three "sources" from "Cultural depictions of narcissism." The first two cite Daydism and metrosexuality as "being considered forms of narcissism." The sources are a website that critiques fashion movements and refers to Daydism as narcissistic once in passing. Likewise the article cited for metrosexuality frequently calls subject David Beckham narcissistic for being "metrosexual." However, neither of these sources meets the criteria for a reliable source, nor is the true definition of narcissism used correctly--only the pop definition of vanity. Additionally, one non-authoritative author commenting on a subject does not make those subjects "considered," only "considered by one person" and incorrectly at that.

I also removed a Kurt Cobain lyric for the same reasons of inaccuracy further propelled by the fact that the reference was a Wikipedia loop.

The section on depictions of narcissism in the listed novel subjects is appropriate and remains.Luminum (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed a randomly added LeBron James reference that was placed at the beginning of the article. (Anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.5.2 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Narcissism of Terror Organizations
It seems that bullying and terrorism are at least in some cases linked to terrorism. Check this out:


 * The Narcissism of 'Hezbollah'

Jonniefast (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about ignorance. 203.171.196.95 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Hahaha, wow. You JIDF sure make up some ridiculous shit. 124.148.221.42 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

Sexual Narcissism section reference
I have an issue with the reference below,as it is to a journal article that requires payment to see. I don't think that's really appropriate - freely accessible articles should be used in this case, as the named examples are otherwise meaningless. I couldn't find anything else out about Joe or Baja, so naming them seems pointless. ''Hurlbert argues that sex is a natural biological given and therefore cannot be deemed as an addiction. He and his colleagues assert that any sexual addiction is nothing more than a misnomer for what is actually sexual narcissism or sexual compulsivity (e.g. Joe Villanueva, Baja Captain).[46]'' Snorgle (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gender Narcissism?
Who the heck is Gerald Schoenwolf anyways? A google search revealed that he also believes in conversion therapy (using theraputic methods to turn homosexual persons straight) and is an overall wackjob. He's a part of NARTH, for christ's sake. I don't think his theories need to be taken seriously, and definitely don't belong on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.212.45 (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I just made some changes to this section after realizing that the two citations presented are for the same article on the NARTH website. I hope the changes offer a more balanced take on Schoenwolf's whacked out psychology which, though certainly not mainstream, is arguably notable given that the guy has his own Criticism section on the NARTH page (for saying similarly stupid and offensive things as those in the article on gender narcissism). I would ask that anyone deciding to reverse my changes announce their intention on the talk page so that consensus can be achieved on how to present Schoenwolf's views. Egmetcalfe (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Confused
(Crossposted to Narcissism (psychology)) -- New to this article, can someone explain how Narcissism and Narcissism (psychology) are intended to differ? I see a lot of overlap. Are there really two different articles here? Or are they really covering "narcissism" and "psychological theories of narcissism"? FT2 (Talk 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They are really covering Narcissism as a term in general use and Narcissism as a term in psychology, which, if you read the articles, you will see are quite different. --Zeraeph 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that helps. I'd like to check my impressions a bit "step at a time", to make sure I understand the way it's working in both articles. Can you comment so's to make sure I'm staying with you on this?
 * I just re-read the main "narcissism" article, in light of the above. It seems to cover mostly 4 main areas: narcissism in culture (dandy, new romantic, metrosexual), narcissism of a culture as a whole, narcissism as a basis for societally harmful self-image-protective behavior (medical narcissism), and research into the genetic basis of clinical narcissistic tendencies. Roughly in simple terms, correct?
 * The Narcissism (psychology) article then seems to be a specialized article, that examines the concetp of narcissism within clinical medicine (psychology), rather than its cultural manifestations - ie, theories and specialist forms. Correct?


 * The genetic trait section on narcissism was the odd one out that threw me, as it seemed to cover similar ground to the psychological narcissism. I may have an idea how to improve that, because as written, it's essentially research into the genetic basis of the psychology (Alvarez/evolutionary psychology) or the personality disorder (Livesley et al), which are themselves subjects that are closer related to the psychology page than general use. FT2 (Talk 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NOW I see your confusion, when asked, the genetics people expressed a preference for being part of the generic Narcissm article over being confused with the psychological aspects of narcissisn which is a totally different usage. I suppose, one day, when there is enough material this should really fork off to a "Genetic narcissism" article? Do you think it is time? --Zeraeph 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the following division? (ignore the crass titles, they're indicative only as I don't know the proper terms for all these)


 * Narcissism (general article):
 * Narcissism overview - what it is, and the divide between cultural and psychological aspects
 * Narcissism in society
 * Cultural roles and stereotypes (dandy, metrosexual etc)
 * Cultural narcissism (narcissism of a culture as a whole)
 * Self-image-protective behavior (medical and similar narcissism)
 * Narcissism in psychology (brief summary style of narcissism in psychology, and research into its basis, with a Main article: section header link)
 * Narcissism in myth and literature


 * Narcissism (psychological, clinical and biological aspects):
 * Definition and scope sort of overview
 * Functions of narcissism
 * Psychological functions and benefits of narcissism
 * Biological and evolutionary functions and benefits of narcissism
 * History of concept in psychology (incl. various theories and their proponents)
 * Other forms of narcissism
 * Acquired situational narcissism
 * Gender narcissism
 * Sexual narcissism
 * Research into narcissism
 * Genetic research


 * I'm not convinced by "genetic narcissism" as a separate article, mostly because the research doesn't seem to be about some separate genetic matter (it's not comparable to genetic causes of cancer as opposed to viral causes of cancer), ie, it's not a different type of narcissism that's covered. It's very clearly looking for genetic backing for the psychological behaviors covered in the psychology article. The above schemata would probably work well. FT2 (Talk 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit: I'm assuming from the title of Alvarez' paper that there's a separate area of interest in narcissism, related to biological and evolutionary aspects of the traits. I've drafted the above on that basis. If there's any 3rd article then an article "evolutionary narcissism" would be it, but it doesn't sound like there's enough to warrant splitting it from the other two. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting ideas there...though I'd be more inclined to keep sexual and gender Narcissism in the main article (they really straddle both, to keep them in main is less stigmatising) --Zeraeph 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I left them in the psychology article since that's where they are now. I assumed that was for good reason. Reviewing I tend to agree with you that a place in the main article would work for sexual narcissism, but gender and acquired narcissism seem to be more psychological, and would fit well as a mention in the main article under psychology, but kept in the psychological article as at present. If that change is made, would the schemata above then be close to a viable one? FT2 (Talk 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest I had forgotten that they were already in the Psychology article (well the sub heading does say "confused" doesn't it? So I stayed on topic. :o) ). They all straddle the line, but I am happy with your view, that would work. --Zeraeph 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That cleanup and schemata would be mostly okay with you then? FT2 (Talk 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Definately think it would be a great improvement. --Zeraeph 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will leave it here for other views for 3 days (8 jan) in case there is any serious dissent or other collaborative ideas, first. As respect for others. FT2 (Talk 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Monopolize?People that describe others as being happy with oneself and confident of oneself to the point of expression as a disorder are perhaps a bit narcisistic...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) perhaps a bit narcasistic... Because they are attempting to manipulate that persons wellbeing by making a vague blatent label with little explanation to inhibit that person to question themselves when they are simply being happy and content with themselves...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving Wikipedia's coverage of Psychology, not for this general discussion. Please take this elsewhere. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC) I'm refering to the example on the page about narcissism... The subject named "Narsissus" was not exibiting any narcissistic activity... He had never seen his reflection before...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC) A better example for narcissism is like when people manipulate others interpretations by making blatent lables with insufficient examples...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the relevant talk page, please. The similarity between "Narcissus" and "Narcissism" is not accidental. Please also give your sections a meaningful title that is relevant to what you are trying to say. That makes it easier for us readers. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 71.196.134.245 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 71.196.134.245 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)- There is a psychological type of conundrum associated with this exammple of the character named Narcissus. The fact that his name sounds the same is distracting from actually understanding what the act of narcissism is... Refering to a young person that has never seen his reflection responding in that way even in a hypothetical situation is not justifiable grounds for diagnosis of a psychological disorder. The example is insufficient to fully understand what narcissism is. I understand that the story suggests warning that some may be viewed as narcissistic by the interpretations of the older miserable idiots that like to spread rederic for there own interests or to misdirect others interpretations because people that manipulate social conversations or interpretations in that way are perhaps narcisistic unless they can state a specific logical purpose for there actions...71.196.134.245 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC) --

potential resource

 * Alice Miller (psychologist) 99.19.43.169 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

just different degrees of the same thing.
hi, I'm platitudes. I'm a big-time user on reddit and I know a lot about Narcissism. For example, in a recent reply to a thread, I wrote that the "wide range of meanings" discussed in the introduction are simply different degrees of the same thing. So I would like to share my knowledge with the world and let them know. Please enable me asap so I can make these important edits. Thanks. You can see my mastery of the topic at http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/n4uon/men_of_reddit_has_a_girl_ever_rejected_you_but/c36dsra?context=3

Update: I am now convinced that "wide range of meanings" actually only refers to like, two meanings. But, you have missed an important THIRD definition, the colloquial one. Yeah, I know you editors have degrees and whatnot, but you missed the colloquial meaning of narcissistic which means "self-important, egotistic, and vain."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Platitudeonreddit (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

self respect
should mention how even though narcissists have high self esteem, they have very little self respect, doing things they believe to be wrong habitually. this article is incredibly unsympathetic towards narcissists, narcissism is a defense mechanism. i realize this article includes colloquial definitions too but its really important that people actually understand that narcissists are not evil. this isnt a sympathetic article. its of extreme importance that someone puts something more sympathetic in, part of the nature of this mental illness is that the narcissist thinks of other narcissists as evil because they dont have any respect for themselves. i'll do something if just to have something there, but im not good at writing in "encyclopedia prose" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.165.150 (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

LA Times resource
Narcissistic men may pay a price--worse health by Jeannine Stein, January 23, 2012, 2:25 p.m.

99.181.152.120 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Egotism, Egocentrism, Egomania
Should egotism, egocentrism, and egomania be merged here, or at least into a new single page for the three of them? 128.138.43.231 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012
Wanted to submit a link for another external reference on a study of social media and narcissism. If this isn't the place of I should be using another forum, please let me know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/17/facebook-dark-side-study-aggressive-narcissism

Tym2think (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tym2think (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It seems like this is only tangentially related to narcissism. The Facebook article or the Social media article might be better. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak citation on narcissism inflation
''Since 2000, on psychological tests designed to detect narcissism, the scores of residents of the United States have continually increased. Psychologists have suggested a link to social networking.''

This cites a Time Magazine article which throws this out without any proper citation itself.

Probably a better citation:

Trzesniewski, K.H. & Donnellan, M.B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 5, 58–75.

Found at the bottom of Reflecting on narcissism.

&mdash; MaxEnt 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Referencing Out of Date Materials
You're really using Freud as a major source? I can't think of any serious academic paper today where Freud is quoted as a source on modern psychology. He is a historic footnote, but people don't use his writings in serious academic inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.198.10 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here, Here!!! http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/05-the-borderlin-whack-jobs-who-pioneered-psychoanalysis Enjoy!! ;) 172.190.72.140 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In defense of Freud, his work at the least belongs in a historical section, as his contribution to the logical flow in the development of the modern concept on narcissism is profound. Revised substantially, of course, but nevertheless essential. If nothing else, rejected ideas of the past illuminate the reasons for the variety of counterpoints generated by them. --PaxFelix 12:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxFelix (talk • contribs)

Malignant Narcissism
This section conveys only Eric Fromm's original suggestion about Malignant Narcissism, which I have to admit is consistent with the General Medical use of the word, "malignant," as in malignant neoplasm or malignant hypertension. That is, it indicates a runaway course of illness, one that has entered a positive feedback loop.

Nevertheless, Kernberg's use of the term is the more significant in terms of clinical utility, and, I suggest, anthropology, as it applies to the tyrants of history (Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and many more). There is a section in the Wikipedia article on Malignant Narcissism that captures this fairly well with its use of the word "sadism," though this could be expanded by a discussion of the extreme cruelty and dehumanizing exploitation with which these individuals treat others.

Further, I suggest that an immensely valuable conversation relating this matter to Kant's Practical Imperative, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end,"(see Categorical_imperative) could be had. As a clinical psychiatrist, I feel less qualified for such an entry than one of the philosophers among Wikipedia's contributors would be. --PaxFelix 12:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Commodity Narcissism
I'd like to add a section on narcissism among consumers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_narcissism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcluley (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

incorrect
I would change:

In everyday speech INCORRECTLY, "narcissism" often means egoism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness

because like we all should know that is not what narcissism is about :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohel003 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

addition to narcisim in the media section

 * Dr, Percival Cox from the TV show Scrubs is a self confessed narcisist and should be in the list Dungeonseeker (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Due to the fact, that I can't do it: Please put the character of barney stinson (how i met your mother) to the notoric narcissist in media. (Sagehorn (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC))

Found a new source online
Interesting read about business.--v/r - TP 15:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting but not a reliable source...  Lova Falk     talk   15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting take. Is this article entirely medical?--v/r - TP 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point! No, probably not.  Lova Falk     talk   06:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples of narcissism in the media
This section contains a long unsourced list in which it seems that any selfish (J. R. Ewing) or self-confident (Patrick Jane) character gets a place. A list of examples should make the concept more clear, but in this way, it makes it less clear. I propose to remove the whole unsourced list and only have examples left that have sources stating that they are narcissists. Lova Falk    talk   08:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments, please?  Lova Falk     talk   13:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These popular culture sections on Wikipedia articles (and the theme in this one is popular culture, rather than the media) are a distraction: stuff gets put in from currently popular films or TV shows without good reason, and without really illuminating the topic. The To Die For example has an academic source associated with it, but you'd be absolutely right to remove everything that's unsourced or merely sourced to things like YouTube. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree & please extirpate. These type of sections tend towards the creation of lists or single sentences providing single unrelated examples. If narcissism in popular culture is a well-researched topic it should be possible to construct at least one paragraph of meaningful prose. This might discuss a variety of related or contrasting examples of narcissism in popular culture that either elucidates narcissism as a concept, or its popular reception, or its importance to and influence on some form of cultural production. If there is to be such a section a source would have to be found discussing the topic in general rather than an instance where character X in RomCom Y was described by some movie reviewer as narcissistic.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've only given this source a very brief glance, but it, or something like it, might provide a structure for constructing such a section. Either way, editors should look at secondary sources first to determine if there is a topic there worthy of addition in the first instance.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a pity, I cannot see the source you give. It is a blank page for me. Could you write something inspired by that source?  Lova Falk     talk   08:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I don't think you're missing so much from that source but I can try and cobble something together in a week or so. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whenever you have the time and the inspiritation! Face-smile.svg  Lova Falk     talk   19:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! Great job!!  Lova Falk     talk   18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. It's still at a development stage, however. I've left a few remarks of what I'd like to do on construction tag which I've placed in section. I'll try to get that finished pretty quickly. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Take your time, no need to get stressed. Lova Falk    talk   18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing. --86.169.155.19 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Traits of a narcissist section
These are the traits of a narcissist? According to what or whom? --71.34.91.113 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of the bullet point list items are (essentially) the same: Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Difficulty with empathy
 * Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
 * Actually, someone can have a great ability to view the world from the perspective of other people, but lack all emotional empathy. I understand that you get upset when I treat you badly, but I couldn't care less... Or the other way around: I don't understand why you get so upset by my behavior, but I get so sad when you're crying.  Lova Falk     talk   11:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

spiritual narcissism
Is it just me, or is the cited reference http://www.integralworld.net/larsson.html, just a PR-spam attack on whoever Ken Wilber is? I see one sentance describing spiritual narcissism, and a whole page of ad hominem attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.139.51 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Vandalism of Introductory Paragraph
I had to conduct an expeditious emergency edit of the page because I was merely reading the article when I noted that the introductory paragraph had been edited to include a potentially defamatory statement about an individual.

" **** of **** is the biggest reported narcissist in the known world he has all known traits and should seek immediate help."

I felt sorry for the poor chap (I haven't a clue who the named individual is) so I dashed in to excise the potentially defamatory statement.

Celestial Canvas (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Celestial Canvas

Workplace
There is potential for eventually expanding the Narcissism section into a new narcissism in the workplace article. Similarly there could be a psychopathy in the workplace article.--Penbat (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede
There is no citation for the lede's statement: "Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity". The next part: "egotistic admiration of one's own attributes" is clearer and a more conventional definition. The first part is a rather quirky definition of narcissism and is not entirely understandable without an elaboration. I can see that it is a narcissistic trait, but it's more peripheral than central to the definition. I think it will also be confusing for most people. I recommend the first sentence read "narcissism is the eqotistic admiration of one's own attributes" with the other part omitted from the lede and explained elsewhere in the article. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Narcissus instead of Nárkissos
I'm new here. That's why I'm wondering about the use of the latin Narcissus instead of Nárkissos (Νάρκισσος). After all, the guy in question was not a Roman. Perheps the reason of the latin spelling is the tradition of Ovid's poem. Anyway, I stumbled on it. Maybe it would help to make this point clear in the article. I don't dare to do so by myself 'cause I'm not sure whether my English is sufficient. --Tavor Meier (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Narcissism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060618224549/http://human-nature.com:80/ep/articles/ep02177194.html to http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep02177194.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081221154139/http://www.psychologytoday.com:80/rss/pto-20051209-000005.html to http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20051209-000005.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090503034208/http://ceres.ca.gov/tcsf/pathways/chapter12.html to http://ceres.ca.gov/tcsf/pathways/chapter12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

From Narcissistic supply
The narcissistic manager will have two main sources of narcissistic supply: inanimate (status symbols like cars, gadgets or office views); and animate (flattery and attention from colleagues and subordinates). Teammates may find everyday offers of support swiftly turn them into enabling sources of permanent supply, unless they are very careful to maintain proper boundaries. The narcissistic manager's need to protect such supply networks will prevent objective decision-making. Such a manager will evaluate long-term strategies according to their potential for gaining personal attention.

From Narcissism in the workplace
The narcissistic manager will have two main sources of narcissistic supply: inanimate (status symbols like cars, gadgets or office views); and animate (flattery and attention from colleagues and subordinates). Teammates may find everyday offers of support swiftly turn them into enabling sources of permanent supply, unless they are very careful to maintain proper boundaries. The narcissistic manager's need to protect such supply networks will prevent objective decision-making. Such a manager will evaluate long-term strategies according to their potential for gaining personal attention.

From Status symbol
The narcissistic manager will have two main sources of narcissistic supply: inanimate - status symbols like cars, gadgets or office views; and animate - flattery and attention from colleagues and subordinates.

From Narcissism
The narcissistic manager will have two main sources of narcissistic supply: inanimate - status symbols like cars, gadgets or office views; and animate - flattery and attention from colleagues and subordinates. Teammates may find everyday offers of support swiftly turn them into enabling sources of permanent supply, unless they are very careful to maintain proper boundaries. The need to protect such supply networks will prevent the narcissistic managers from taking objective decisions; while long-term strategies will be evaluated according to their potential for attention-gaining for the manager themself.

Discussion
This nearly identical text appears in four articles. It's not clear which one is the "main article." Can we reduce duplication and just have this text in one place? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this., this seems to be your text. What are you going to do to fix this problem? Note that in the Status symbol article, the sentence is a total non sequitur, because it's not stated what Narcissistic supply is nor how it's related to the topic of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OP apparently raised this issue at Penbat's user talkpage back in October without response. Off the top of my head, it doesn't seem to belong in the Status symbol article. I wonder if the other two articles (Narcissism in the workplace and Narcissistic supply) should be merged with this one anyway considering their short length and the redundancy. What do you think, (and anyone else who sees this)?   —PermStrump  ( talk )  00:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Narcissism in the workplace is one of a set of three articles, the others being psychopathy in the workplace and Machiavellianism in the workplace. They are linked together as a set as they are components of the dark triad in the workplace context - see dark triad. So, apart from any other considerations, it makes no sense to merge narcissism in the workplace with narcissism.--Penbat (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take the bold step of removing the paragraph from Status symbol: not that that article should never mention narcissism, but it needs to be with text that makes sense in the context of the article and introduces the relevant context. Penbat's response says nothing about that article. I don't see a need to merge Narcissism in the workplace and Narcissistic supply, even if they are presently short, because they are separate topics with presumably separate literatures. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And now I note User:Permstrump has already done this. Thanks! MartinPoulter (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hotchkiss who?
No first name, no wiki entry, nothing. Hotchkiss who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.56.45 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2010‎ (UTC)


 * You only had to check the reference: "Hotchkiss, Sandy & Masterson, James F. Why Is It Always About You? : The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism (2003)" Masterson has a Wiki entry, the fact that Hotchkiss doesnt have a Wiki entry is no big deal. --Penbat (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No it is not "no big deal". At least go add her to Hotchkiss (surname). Googling her name, here's what i've found: https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/name/Sandy_Hotchkiss_LCSW,PsyD_Pasadena_California_41492
 * --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hotchkiss
There might be something wrong with this sentence: "Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways." Is shame the inability to process shame in healthy ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavor Meier (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree here. In addition, that sentence is supposed to be a description of an entry named "shamelessness", as a "deadly sin of narcissism". The whole thing makes no sense. --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump
Should link this wiki article with Trump. 81.96.62.131 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

❌ Would be in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Kanye West is a narcissist?
Kanye West is known to be a narcissist. why is this not included? 79.73.255.103 (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017
Aheeps (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Narcissism and Marriage

Narcissism is known to cause relationship difficulties.

Narcissists and codependent types are often attracted to each other in marriage which can create even further difficulties including emotional and mental abuse and domestic violence.

When discussing narcissism and codependence in marriage Author Kim Cooper suggests: “These destructive emotional patterns of behavior are so common in marriage that many people even think this behavior normal.”

Cooper began her research on the subject when her husband was assessed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Unlike many other researchers in this field her work (begun in 2007) claims there is hope for narcissistic and codependent couples caught in what is sometimes called “a cycle of abuse.”


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relation between assortative mating and narcissism
I can't see how narcissism, as defined in the article, is related to assortative mating in evolutionary psychology. What's the connection between the two concepts? How is the biased pairing of individuals related to an excessive pride in one's own attributes?

The tendency of mating those with similar attributes might be instinctive as opposed to arising due to a psychological mechanism.

Uacusecha2000 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I might be having similar thoughts. The popular meme is that a narcissist will seek out a codependent. My observation is that the "codependent" is often just another variant of narcissist. For example, a woman walks up to a man who is essentially a stranger, and compliments his hair, then (pleasantly but relentlessly) engages him in conversation, exploring his background, life experience, and opinions. An emotionally stable person should find this directness offputting; if he responds positively, which of them is behaving codepedently? It does therefore resemble assortative mating, "like seeks like." I showed up at this article hoping to see who has explored this, but found nothing relevant. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct image?
Not sure what Sisyphus (see the figure) has to do with Narcissism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Old Trout (talk • contribs) 07:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I scanned the article for somekina limitation on this thing, and also considered responding to the prior thread. The problem is that it's a view from nowhere, some vague perspective of assumed minimum altruism that is never stated and nothing to delimit obvious neuroses from standard established cultural norms such as rugged individualism in the United States and similar ethics elsewhere. A criticism &sect; is not the right response but something needs to be added with respect to ethical egoism and the like to make clear that narcissism is not just a PC term devoid of merit or even firm meaning outside of narrow psychoanalytic diagnoses and poorly grounded folk psychologizing/epithet. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the right thing is to add a &para; to the lede making clear the distinction between rational pursuit of self interest, even to the point of complete elimination of any altruism and the limit degree of living autonomy, is not in and of itself in any way a disorder, and in fact is a presumption in such cultural elements as Capitalism, homo economicus, etc. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are Katy Perry and David Letterman listed under "See also"?
I understand why Bono is listed. And even though global warming is a very real problem, I also understand why Al Gore is listed. But I don't know why those two are listed, and unless I can find some actual examples of narcissism from them, and since their articles don't mention any, I'll likely assume that someone on here has an axe to grind!

I think I'll Be Bold™ and remove both hyperlinks. If you find evidence, you can add 'em back! 4.248.56.49 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All four were added two days ago and are completely inappropriate. I have removed the other two. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this page should mention how a big part of Narcissism has to do with the fact that Narcissist are really self-loathing and are just using a defense mechanism to try to make themselves feel better about themselves. By constantly acting like they are something special they hope to start to believe this.

--Speterson6 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Speterson6


 * The personality of trump might want to be cited as an example not that it could be proven but it is worth discussion as probably the most glaring example of narcissism in our society..I`m sure there are tons of references regarding this and could be cited..just a suggestion. 2600:1702:2340:9470:B539:BDA0:BD88:3ABA (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Autophilia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Autophilia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

the significant problem at the root
I have occasionally reviewed this article, then let my thoughts simmer awhile. Increasingly, I am of the conviction that it contains a fundamental flaw.

Though my college days are long past, I recall a psych professor who was keen to distinguish between when he called petit narcissism (though "petty" is close enough, I suppose) and malignant narcissism, the extremes of a scale. The former he did not see as a disorder but rather common and maybe situational, about as "wrong" as simple egotism/egocentrism (words that IMO are bandied about too freely), where the latter is functionally a sort of sociopathy.

A significant determinor of the scale is the exhibited degree of empathy: a display of "narcissism" accompanied by apparent high empathy (particularly the emotional sort) is essentially harmless, likely transient. Yet throughout this article the entire range is regularly lumped together. At the least, this supports armchair shrinks in "diagnosing" people with whom they simply disagree, a confusion that doesn't suit an encyclopedia.

I also suspect the term is misused by people (like pop-psych authors) too mealy-mouthed to say "sociopath" when they mean sociopath. This is somewhat supported by the Narcissism passages that seem to exist primarily to plug a particular book or a publishing genre, for example Narcissism (redundant given Narcissism in the workplace). Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not see your point. This article primarily covers narcissism as a trait. At the extreme end it could be narcissistic personality disorder or malignant narcissism which have their own articles. Narcissism and narcissism in the workplace look to be well sourced with a variety of sources and not plugging any individual source in particular.--Penbat (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think Weeb Dingle's point may be what I've expressed in the next thread but e can say ihrself. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, to be blunt, it's not that the article sucks outright, rather that it's a locus of a content forking problem. For starters — as I previously stated, and in moderately simple verbiage — most of the content about narcissistic personality disorder ought to be scrubbed from Narcissism (at 81K) seeing as Narcissistic personality disorder (at 47K) is the obvious proper place for any depth at all. If nobody steps up, I will happily undertake the task, and this is my statement of intent, so let debate run free.


 * Then, leaving out redirects, there's
 * Narcissistic abuse
 * Narcissistic defences (sic!!)
 * Narcissistic elation
 * Narcissistic leadership
 * Narcissistic mortification
 * Narcissistic neurosis
 * Narcissistic parent
 * Narcissistic Personality Inventory (which, interestingly, "is not intended for use in diagnosing Narcissistic Personality Disorder")
 * Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury
 * Narcissistic supply
 * Narcissistic withdrawal
 * First, consider the NPI. There's a very old truism in therapy: If it's not causing problems, it's not a disorder. For instance, an individual clearly into the socalled autism spectrum can thrive in a properly supportive environment (whether created intentionally or by chance), often outshining "normal" peers, and therefore is in no way disordered — something, curiously, that is inherently denied from the beginning of that article, but that's for another day. As another illustration, Eric Berne describes a patient who is a full-blown sociopath that had managed to focus his psychopathy, excel at university, and become a highly respected surgeon… without in any concrete sense having been "cured." There has been discussion in therapeutic circles that requisite skills to succeed as a therapist, even the helping need itself, might indicate some sort of "damage"!
 * Paraphrasing from the NPI article lede: someone who scores high on the NPI may not fit the criteria for NPD at all. To put it another way, anyone can exhibit traits of narcissistic personality without being anywhere near NPD, let alone acting dysfunctionally. Yet, throughout Narcissism and most of the articles listed above, the sophomoric error that all narcissism is "damnable, and damned" repeats so constantly that it becomes less a presentation of (dubious) fact and more a mantra and signifying a deep-running POV problem.
 * Therefore, this article and all related ought to be walked back a bit. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hotchkiss' seven deadly sins of narcissism
Hotchkiss is a clinician who knows a lot about narcissists but her book is written in an unscientific, way-too-broad style. Just for an example, I quote from the article: "Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves." This is almost literally cited from her book. However, of course, narcissists know that others are separate and not extensions of themselves - unless they are deep down in a psychosis. I don't have any sources that criticize her statements, or sources that express the things she says in a more precise way. What to do with this text??? Lova Falk    talk   16:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it help that the book has a foreword by James F. Masterson, a leading academic on personality disorders and narcissism ? Anyway the point made seems quite valid to me that narcissists just use certain people as narcissistic supply and not separate entities. Do you understand narcissistic supply ?--Penbat (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. And I am well aware that the author knows a lot. The thing is, I would agree with her if only she would have written in a less definite style: "Narcissists have difficulties recognizing that..." or, the "tendency to disregard others except in temporary idealization of narcissistic supply" (quote from Kernberg), that would have been fine by me. I have a problem with these very definite statements about the condition though.  Lova Falk     talk   17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For me it means that certain people (but not necessarily all) are treated by the narcissist as objects, only there to provide some sort of nurture, similar to the master v servant/slave relationship. The point being that the narcissist doesnt acknowledge that the other person has feelings as an independant person etc, as per dehumanisation. The narcissist treats the other person as if that person only exists for his benefit to be used & manipulated etc. Therefore the narcissist feels free to violate that persons boundaries in a way required by his modus operandi.--Penbat (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't understand or even protest against what she is saying. Hotchkiss is an experienced clinician who has worked with a lot of narcissists, and her observations and thoughts are intelligent. However, it is just observations and thoughts, it is not a scientific theory, the things she writes are not peer reviewed. For instance, "certain people (but not necessarily all) are treated by the narcissist as objects, only there to provide some sort of nurture" - well, that might be very much how it looks like, but how do we know if this is true?? How do we know that the way the narcissist treats certain people is not far more complicated and intricate???  Lova Falk     talk   18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Any way we can get the Hotchkiss BS off WP? Everything written there is so black and white. Stereotypes and generalizations man. They taught us those things are bad in grade school, they're equally bad here as well. Your display of ignorance on the matter, while forgivable, does in fact make you a an ignorant person, and possibly a narcissist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.143.187 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to argue that Hotchkiss' description of narcissism is unscientific and should be removed. The author's sole qualification is a degree at Newport Scientific Institute, which received an order to immediately cease enrolling new students in all of its degree programs and and halt teaching of already enrolled students in 2017. Source. Irrespective of that, her characterization of narcissism is based on an analogy to the concept of seven deadly sins rooted in christian mythology; as such it can clearly be classified as pop-science at best. It's unscientific. Wikipedia is not Psychology Today. --Sgyger (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Megalomania" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Megalomania. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Loafiewa (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Misappropriation of the term
I propose to remove this section.

The section describes something that has happened "in the last decade", and is cited to a book about Sigmund Freud, published in 2006. Siggie didn't know anything about the internet, and although I don't have acccesss to the cited work, it seems implausible that it can be used to support a claim about what has been happening between 2011 and 2021. MrDemeanour 11:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Good eye and valid point about the time reference. I added 3 more citations to support statement including one to specifically support the timeline; "by the 1990s, the rise of identity politics, the birth of reality television and the proliferation of the language of self-help...". Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Heritability - Obsession with Genetics
Why would twins, or familial subjects of study, indicate a genetic basis for anything?

Obviously familial subjects have experienced essentially the same ENVIRONMENTAL conditions. This preoccupation with genetics is at the very least illogical, and likely bordering on the insane. How could miniscule variations in molecular structure of DNA - which is almost entirely identical in all humans, all anything - have a profound influence on human behaviour? Plainly it can not, and does not. Genetics does not explain most human behaviour. Environment DOES. How do we ensure humanity - and researchers in particular - understand this?

What is the basis of this bizarre pre-occupation with genetics? At least all over Wikipedia, in any case. I cannot comprehend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Updated assessment
I have updated the assessment to C. It Was previously assessed as B at 2009 at (see ), back when the article was still split from historical usage and psychological usage - and it appears to me the assessment was under the assumption of viewing the article as historical. Now that the merge has taken place over a decade since, that no longer applies.

Coverage of the topic is limited exclusively to psychoanalytics and could use significant expansion of non-psychoanalytic approaches, perspectives and statistics which do exist in literature for the term. Many references are historical but not described as such in-article. Jargon is defined when used, and WP:SUMMARY is followed, the structure is okay but there are some formatting inconsistencies such as the usage of bold. The criticism section could use significant expansion as it currently only has two sources. I have also marked specific questionable/contentious claims which need more reliable citations or removal, along with comments inside the inline tags. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There are an abundance (overabundance) of articles on this topic most likely because it is recently popular pejorative term - Wikipedia doesn't have this level of coverage of other mental health conditions. Among the articles, there is a high degree of repetition, contradiction, and overlap. There has been some effort to consolidate and clean up these article and much more to be done. This particular article has been whittled down to an easy read for a general interest audience. The focus is on provoding a general general outline and perspective article with links to clinical aspects referenced and covered in the other articles. If you want a write about a more in depth history, there is a history article, if you want to discussion clinical incidence and prevalence there is a clinical article which is also a good place to get into the weeds about the clinical controversies.


 * * Narcissism
 * * Narcissistic personality disorder
 * * History of narcissism
 * * Healthy narcissism
 * * Narcissus (mythology)
 * * Narcissistic leadership
 * * Malignant narcissism
 * * Narcissism in the workplace
 * * Collective narcissism
 * * Cerebral narcissism
 * * Narcissistic parent
 * * Inverted narcissism
 * * Sex differences in narcissism
 * * Psychopathy
 * * Narcissistic leadership
 * * Narcissistic injury
 * * Narcissistic withdrawal
 * Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

About the claim "It is human nature for people to be self-centered"
@202.169.23.60 and @Toddy1 I noticed some shifting around sources for the claim It is human nature for people to be self-centered. I have some input on the reliability and verifiability of these sources.

I think the title of the new 2021 source gives it away. It's about how to deal with self-centered people, not making any claims about prevalence or innateness. It does not mention narcissism as distinct from narcissistic personality disorder, and it does not make any claims about any concepts discussed within to be human nature or innate. So I don't think the 2021 source supports the claim.

The 1739 source is reliable only as a historical recount - it holds no weight in psychology (eg. consider trying to cite something that old for any  WP:MEDRS article). Even ignoring this, the claim that self-centeredness is human nature is hardly supported by the quoted statement that "limited generosity, [...] is natural to man". I think it is likely original research to say that limited generosity implies self-centeredness, and it is further misleading to suggest this has anything to do with narcissism. There is nothing over at egocentrism, to which self-centeredness redirects, which talks about it being innate human nature. The egocentrism article also seems to have very poor coverage on how it's related to narcissism. Egocentrism in my opinion is only one part of narcissism.

Ultimately, it is a very strong claim to say something is human nature, and strong claims require strong evidence. The term human nature is also not really in the domain of psychology to make any claims about - it's a philosophy term - These two sources don't seems to provide even weak support for a claim about the innateness of narcissism specifically. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought the source that I had added was removed, fortunately, it is still there, but I doubt any citation can support the claim that narcissism is self-centered, so I'm considering removing it. Sincerely, 202.169.23.60 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The point the original author meant to make was merely, I think, that we are seeing the world from a definite perspective and our primary care is the maintenance and survival of the body we find ourselves in. I am not sure how pejorative "self-centred" is seen as.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Diachronic narcisism
Some people seem to project their grandiosity on their younger selfs. Has this been researched at all? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519 (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

History
Narcissism 41.182.109.195 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2022
— Assignment last updated by Sabitrylopez (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hubris
Equating the Greek concept of hubris with "excessive selfishness" in the intro History of thought section is a bit simplistic. They may be related, but unless there's a specific source that makes this equation, I think it should describe the concepts as "related." — Matuko (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin caused contradictions
Most of us learned about Narcissism from Sam Vaknin books or videos, so it could be useful to distinguish between Classical Narcissism & Sam Vaknin Narcissism.

The contradictions in the aricle is because of this divide, between an indoctrinated educated class that studied classical Narcissism in universities and modern people who learned about Narcissism from Sam Vaknin. Loborron (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of Vaknin.
 * Would you mind explaining what Vaknin's take on narcissism is, so that we can tease out those contradictions?
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited Romoglo (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)