Is it really NPD if you've been proven to be superior?

Like.

I admit I'm not perfect at everything. So that makes it less disordered, right?

I mean, I can barely shoot a basketball!

But is it really "grandiose" if I am open about being smarter than almost everyone, via abstract stuff like IQ/SAT and practical things like GPA?

That I possess great innate artistic skill for somebody with minimal training?

That I'm a skilled fencer and decent martial artist for somebody with my level of training?

I mean, it's all about context, right?

If some total loser who was a high-school dropout with an IQ of 80 was going around saying that they were the best, then it'd be one thing.

But what about when narcissism is justified, and people truly *should* envy you?

And obsession with power and success is just being realistic. It's called goal-setting.

I think, if anything, "Machiavellianism" should be in the DSM. That, I think, is more problematic, than being a narcissist. Narcissism, even when extreme, isn't the problem. Sometimes, even when "disordered", it's totally justified. People just. don't. get. that.

Have you ever seen Babette's Feast?
It's about self-fulfillment vs success.
And yes, you can be the best at whatever task, and objectively deserve the success and admiration you enjoy – it still sounds creepy that your sense of self-worth depends exclusively on how the world reacts to your deeds.
What a pwNPD typically lacks is the ability to experience a full range of emotions. Hence the impossibility of genuine self-fulfillment (that is, doing things for a diferent kind of satisfaction).


And, thinking about The Drama of the Gifted Child... My personal take is that the gifted are even more likely to develop narcissism, precisely because they do have the abilities to keep up with an ideal, grandiose view of themselves, while a less gifted person will have to come to terms with reality much before...

I would argue that the problem is not grandiosity per se, yet the grandiosity is a symptom of an underlying inability to accept oneself; of greatest significance is the inability, as a result of this, to maintain relationships and the effect of this on the patient's quality of life.

I have heard psychiatrists discuss the difficulty of treating narcissists of great prestige. I like this clip of Dr. James Masterson on Connie Martinson Talks Books (a show mostly known for a 1995 interview with a young Barack Obama about his memoir, Dreams Of My Father).

http://youtu.be/r5FVMt-dXlU?t=24m11s

The rest of that video has a lot of material about relationships between pwBPD and pwNPD, which I know positively fascinates many of you. Excuse Ms. Martinson if any of you do watch the entire thing, she's clearly out of her depth. I don't think she was so bad in other interviews I've seen.

I don't think it's the case that a person with NPD is a weak person pretending to be a strong person. I could envision a lot of Nons who might initially see it that way, because they're looking at things from a Non's perspective, and personality disorders are very hard to understand. From my anecdotal experience, many Narcissists, perhaps even most Narcissists, are highly developed, successful, and/or talented in one or more areas of life. Many are very smart, have a strong skill set, have proven their ability socially, etc. And that does make sense, given that Narcissists spend their entire lives investing in themselves.

I agree with others that the thing that makes NPD a personality disorder is that the N's objective strengths and talents, and the external world's acknowledgement and reaction to those strengths and talents, are the sole source of the N's sense of self, and when challenged even in a minor way, the N's sense of self quakes. That seems to greatly contrast with the psychology of a Non, even a Non who is very strong and talented, because the strong, talented, and confident Non seems to experience internal joy and contentment, seems to find pleasure in investing in other people (in a way that isn't ultimately self-directed), and doesn't require constant external acknowledgement of their strengths. It seems as though the N views his objective strengths as the whole of his value as a person, and views others that way as well. I suspect that being manipulative is a natural consequence of that mindset, as relationships and all interpersonal interactions basically become emotional commerce.

Dawson wrote:Like.

I admit I'm not perfect at everything. So that makes it less disordered, right?

I mean, I can barely shoot a basketball!

But is it really "grandiose" if I am open about being smarter than almost everyone, via abstract stuff like IQ/SAT and practical things like GPA?

That I possess great innate artistic skill for somebody with minimal training?

That I'm a skilled fencer and decent martial artist for somebody with my level of training?

I mean, it's all about context, right?

If some total loser who was a high-school dropout with an IQ of 80 was going around saying that they were the best, then it'd be one thing.

But what about when narcissism is justified, and people truly *should* envy you?

And obsession with power and success is just being realistic. It's called goal-setting.

I think, if anything, "Machiavellianism" should be in the DSM. That, I think, is more problematic, than being a narcissist. Narcissism, even when extreme, isn't the problem. Sometimes, even when "disordered", it's totally justified. People just. don't. get. that.

Here is how I see your story:

1. Being a little humble is adittionsl proof of perfection.

2. The fact that you have high IQ and many talents and skills is realistic, but is the superiority right word? I am preety sure that many of us on this forum have a similar combination of IQ, talent and skillsets. So would you than be superior or inferior if we go to compare? How shall we agree about criteria for superiority? What I am trying to say is that being self-confident and aware of your qualities is not NPD. But compering to others and mixing the jalousie in the equation is. Proving superiority, as well.

3. Setting goals and aiming for power and success is not NPD. Being obsessed about them is.

4. Working hard toward success is not NPD. Falling apart when things fail is.

Does that make sense?

VioletAasA wrote:Does that make sense?

I vote yes

@Violet: (Not quoting because long.)

That does make sense, and shows how it varies from just manipulativeness/Machiavellianism.

But do I think it differs from just being maladjusted, and warrants being kept in the DSM?

I kinda disagree.

If HPD was removed, which IMO is much more problematic (well, unbearably annoying), as somebody who has a friend who likely is an H, then I think NPD should be removed, or at least renamed. (Maladaptive Optimistic Personality Disorder?)

Dawson wrote:@Violet: (Not quoting because long.)

That does make sense, and shows how it varies from just manipulativeness/Machiavellianism.

But do I think it differs from just being maladjusted, and warrants being kept in the DSM?

I kinda disagree.

If HPD was removed, which IMO is much more problematic (well, unbearably annoying), as somebody who has a friend who likely is an H, then I think NPD should be removed, or at least renamed. (Maladaptive Optimistic Personality Disorder?)

...Which leads to your original question, "why is it even a disorder".
I recently read an interesting article about how the latest version of DSM apparently captures the essence of narcissism better than the previous ones, because it shifts the focus from the attitude of grandiosity to the complexity of the internal representation of self and others.

Here it is – I'm not sure it can be viewed without a subscription, in case I'll copy and paste it.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/persona ... at-we-know

Not to go off on a tangent here, but since it was brought up, I definitely think that HPD should continue to be recognized as its own disorder, and not disbanded or broken up and shoved into the other disorders. HPD is definitely its own "thing," so to speak.

georgessa wrote:
...Which leads to your original question, "why is it even a disorder".
I recently read an interesting article about how the latest version of DSM apparently captures the essence of narcissism better than the previous ones, because it shifts the focus from the attitude of grandiosity to the complexity of the internal representation of self and others.

Here it is – I'm not sure it can be viewed without a subscription, in case I'll copy and paste it.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/persona ... at-we-know

An exceptional discovery, madam. I can view it without a subscription.