Difference between narcs and antisocials?

Neither feel empathy.

What is the difference?

This is short, I know, but that is because I want to know your opinions without influencing them. Not all antisocials are stupid enough to be common criminals, and most narcs defininitely are not criminals.

This is just my thoughts, and I'm just another opinion so feel free to discuss if you disagree. (I need to get into the local uni library and read books I can't afford to buy.) i would say there's some crossover, but main differences would be...

Narcissists are able to feel shame - getting supply revolves around creating self-image to avoid feelings of shame. If the narcissist's self-image involves being a good person, they may feel shame when another person says or does something which suggests they've done something bad or are in the wrong, if that action is in conflict with the image they have of their self.

I'd say Antisocials are also capable of narcissism, and however much shame can be attached to any internal value they try to develop or discrepancy in how they want to be vs how they are, though this isn't the basis of their disorder and can be dealt with relatively easily without suddenly giving them empathy. (Not sure exactly how changes there would affect a person with NPD.)

I'm thinking this might be a difference in reasons for lack of empathy - both have difficulty relating "self" and "other" sufficiently, but for the narcissist this might be because of problems in how the "self" functions, i.e. through self-image because of internal shame and the inability to develop genuine self-esteem.
In antisocials, I'd suggest there is also a problem with self-perception which also can lead to a form of narcissism especially in relation to power/invulnerability, but the shame issue doesn't happen because shame requires the child to take on the perspective the parent's actions force on the child, which would require a basic level of attachment, successful enough to the point where the child's dependency on the parent is secured - not that the attachment is made secure, so the exact problem occurs in a different way at a slightly different stage.

(Bearing in mind people can also have more than 1 PD, or mixes/variations.)

I'd also suggest the antisocial is also narcissistic, (just with a different basis than the narcissist).

Whether an antisocial becomes a common criminal is going to depend on intelligence (not because the other choice is stupid, but because it offers the potential choices of success in a legitimate occupation or white collar criminal,) circumstances - whether the person is brought up with chances, how they are left feeling about the world in relation to their experiences, i.e. whether they care or not what happens, self-control (obvious, the less self-control the more impulsive and opportunistic crimes are likely to happen), and co-morbidities - co-morbid SPD or AvPD might shoot them in the foot in terms of functioning, BPD might lead to decreased self-control, NPD might lead to a desire to try to "make it" in a legitimately powerful position.

One point to remember is that becoming a common criminal isn't stupid if the person doesn't give a ###$ if they end up in jail half their life. On the other hand, if they value money, success, or freedom from jail, its going to be stupid.

Narcissism would be very compatible with violence in a situation where the person got notoriety for it, i.e. growing up with gang culture, and completely incompatible in a situation where the concept of altruism was rigidly enforced and approved of. Narcissists generally need the approval of others, so is less likely to result in becoming a "common criminal" unless their environment supports it.

Antisocials will be influenced by how their environment shapes their wants/needs/abilities, narcissists may be more strongly influenced by external forces due to that need for approval, (also bearing in mind whatever degree they can control their actions - also depending on comorbidity.)

Considering NPD on its own, narcissists don't feel empathy because empathy would be too much of a painful injury to their ego - their basis for interpersonal relating is damaged because it revolves around their self and identity, not around their experience of existing, but this might not be as simple as it sounds written down, and may be complex and go deep in the way it affects the person's personality and how they relate to others.

Antisocials don't feel empathy because of what I've heard referred to as "more severe superego pathology". That's not very helpful. I'm thinking its something to do with mirroring and attachment. If both are wrong, you fix one and it changes things but doesn't entirely do the trick, the rest of the answer is clearly in the other.

Attachment is the other difference I'd suggest. Because of the feelings involved and what would be required to create those feelings in a person as they begin to experience life, I'd say Narcissists would tend to have a form of insecure attachment because a certain amount of attachment is needed on the side of the child to create shame forced on a child by parents, where antisocials probably have a complete lack of solid parental attachment.

Not ruling out the capacity for attachment at all, but the circumstances, nature+nurture etc creating an environment where at the time, the child was unable to attach to their parents due to abuse, neglect, or other factors, so they weren't given the basis for developing healthy relations and empathy with others.

Any narcissistic-type pathology in the "self" is likely to be secondary to that lack of empathy, but there may also be pathology in the self as a result of "incorrect mirroring" (a mother is supposed to mirror a child, inconsistencies or failure in this due to crazy mothers etc, could cause a few PDs, my guess being AsPD included.)

This is long, but there is probably more I haven't thought of.

I think that sociopaths and narcissists are very different, although they both demonstrate a certain amount of "narcissism," which is confusing terminology for some people. There is clinical "narcissism," the disorder, and narcissism in the traits of self love, overconfidence, delusions of grandeur, etc. "Narcissism" the disorder is just a term for a bundle of traits that happens to include narcissism the trait. Narcissism isn't necessarily the dominant trait of the narcissist, although it is certainly a prominent one.

Sociopaths also frequently manifest the narcissistic trait, but the sociopath would believe he has more justification for his narcissism, and with good reason. The sociopath is exceptional -- his brain is hardwired differently to think rationally all the time, to exploit, to be a predator/scavenger. I don't think this is true of narcissists. I believe narcissism is deeply based in self-deception. as Fyodor Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov:

"A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying--to others and to yourself."

Empaths may think that all of this is a distinction without a difference because interactions with narcissists may seem very similar to interactions with sociopaths. Both may seem uncaring, but with the sociopath it is more because he is incapable of caring about you the same way you care about yourself, whereas with the narcissist it is more because he is too self-involved to notice you. But there is arguably more hope of a stable relationship with a sociopath because sociopaths are self-aware and manifest greater control over their behavior (i.e. ability to adapt to individual needs and preferences).

That said, a relationship with a narcissist could be more stable because they are more constant (albeit constantly selfish) and have more genuine (albeit histrionic and self-involved) emotions. And narcissists too can change their behavior if they think that the change is more consistent with their deluded self-image of themselves -- a-friend-to-man, a superhero, a-good-guy, or whatever it is they are telling themselves that particular day. If you don't mind everything always being about him/her in a relationship, a narcissist should be fine. If you don't mind everything always being about you in a relationship, a sociopath should be fine.

The difference is that AsPD is essentially defined by habitual criminality and persistent violation of social standards of conduct, whereas narcissism is defined by grandioseity, sense of being a special person, exhibitionism, hypervigilant vulnerability, dominant interpersonal style, etc. Narcissism is all that and more. narcissists vary greatly. some are easily overwhelmed and self loathing but. they hide their weakness behind a facade. Others don't stress out about theIR fake external lives. because they're invulnerable demigods who expect to dominate and control.

an antisocial needn't be what the others have stated. it may be anxious, avoidant, lonely, and self hating. An antisocial can be a classic arrogant, outgoing narcissist OTOH. The PDs overlap often. they're not the same construct so they differ but they do not conflict.

both dominant interpersonally and proudly self aggrandizing & covert, oversensitive narcissisms are associated with clinical psychopathy. the former is uniquely correlated with interpersonal and the latter with impulsive and irresponsible traits. Arrogant sense of superiority and desire to be the center of attention are the features that are the most related to primary psychopathy specifically

one works within the rules, one has no rules.
one weighs the envy of others, one is completely blind to others.
one files a complaint with the magistrate, one sticks a knife in your dog.

one is childsplay... the other, best to just look away.

Good thread. In, 'Children of the Lie.', F. Scott Peck wrote that narcissists are evil, but psycopaths, (sorry, I know that we're discussing antisocials) are not, because narcissists subconsciously fool themselves about their true natures and motives, and adopt a self righteous attitude.

funky wrote:Good thread. In, 'Children of the Lie.', F. Scott Peck wrote that narcissists are evil, but psycopaths, (sorry, I know that we're discussing antisocials) are not, because narcissists subconsciously fool themselves about their true natures and motives, and adopt a self righteous attitude.

Why does that make narcissists "evil" ?

I can't remember, katana, beyond what I posted. Something about being unwilling to seek forgiveness or change, maybe? Or face up to themselves and their shame, and the harm that they cause, and subconsciously want to inflict.

funky wrote:I can't remember, katana, beyond what I posted. Something about being unwilling to seek forgiveness or change, maybe? Or face up to themselves and their shame, and the harm that they cause, and subconsciously want to inflict.

I don't personally see how that makes them evil. To me it suggests their vulnerability and pain - and the defense mechanisms attached to that are "higher up" in the layers of personality, and the different capacity for emotion involved means significant pain for the narcissist in trying to confront those - pain which is intertwined with the narcissist's self-image, self-direction, actions & choices etc, not separated to an extent ?

Because if psychopaths can't feel emotions like true self-hate or shame, it means self-honesty and honest reflection are nowhere near as hard as they are for narcissists - in other words, a narcissist needs more inner strength to do those things than a psychopath does, and its not a surprise the narcissist will find it harder.

But on the subject of morality, I fail to understand people's reasoning for the definition of "evil". Looking at things from an outside perspective of cause and effect, the psychopath's pathology is rooted in one place, and the narcissist's in another.

If they want to define "evil" as actions harming another, all cluster Bs and most nons are evil, lol.

If they want to define it as the intent to harm another, some cluster Bs and some nons are evil some of the time.

If they define it as an "innate quality", they'll use it to argue psychopaths are evil, but if psychopaths are also damaged, even if they are more likely to become damaged because of "what they are" physiologically and genetically, then there are also environmental factors there...

But if evil is being unable to face up to themselves, sure, narcissists are evil, but then what narcissists do is just a massively overblown version of what many nons do with their own little issues.

A good example of this issue is "evil". Nons use the term evil because they are afraid of something, and instead of being able to accept the simple truth that what happens to the narcissist is what happens to the non in tiny ways except on a much bigger scale because the narcissist has suffered a lot more damage. From an outside perspective that looks very much like ignorant hypocrisy and ethnocentrism.

- And a way of nons distancing themselves from the narcissist. There is some literature about that happening with staff dealing with people with PD for example, and how that can damage their recovery process.

Its also just straightforward fear - people fear what they can't explain or understand, and instead of trying to understand it, most of them feel safer by grouping together and shouting "evil!!". Making something taboo gets everyone else behind them = protection.

In modern, educated people, I would have thought there should be shame in that attitude because they think themselves better than that, but they do exactly the same thing the narcissist does and hang onto their concept of "evil" instead!

I remember there was a thread likening pwBPD to scorpions. People are afraid of touching scorpions, but they don't call them evil - because they understand them. What they are, why their stings are dangerous, how and if they can be treated, what not to do with them. They're afraid of being stung, but they're just careful not to.

The way I see it, if some people experience things which cause them to become damaged in some way so they develop stings in their tails, "evil" is just another primative (and now useless) social defense that people use to group together and protect themselves.

Ironically, it leads to people taking immoral actions for the sake of the group. (could be described as "evil".) After all its a major part of the same driving force that makes things like oppressive regimes possible without the majority revolting, including the Nazi regime.

Should I become an ethnocentrist too ? "They can't snap out of it, if they're trying to evolve they should ######6 well hurry up. They're both stupid and hypocritical." - I don't understand them, they must be evil!!! lol. Quick, kill em all