Narcissistic injury

Narcissistic injury, also known as "narcissistic wound" or "wounded ego" are emotional traumas that overwhelm an individual's defense mechanisms and devastate their pride and self worth

The source is Wikipedia but I hope it will do for this thread, I was looking for a simple-clear definition, feel free to add more meaning to it.

What is a narcissistic injury and what does it look like (in terms of behaviour and emotional state) as it is happening? What is the difference between simply feeling emotions such as sadness or anger or confusion, and having a narcissistic injury?

Sadness is when you loose something of value, anger when there is an obstacle between you and something of value. Confusion is when you don't know what to think.

Narcissistic injury is when you self-image is attacked or devalued.
Self-image is what you project outward to others.

So what are the defense mechanism when someone attacks you?
There are plenty.
You could devalue the other preemptively.
You could tell yourself they don't know you entirely.
You could justify and therefore deflect the attack.
Or you can empathize to know where the other is coming from and identify with it temporarily.
Or you can ignore or explain, knowing the truth.

From the top of my head, those might be the possibilities.
If they fail, there is usually a rage, which is untargeted anger. Untargeted in the sense there is no obstacle, but there is a loss. So it's really shame and humiliation, but with no remnant of self-respect. Like when someone rage quits on a video game, it's similar.

I think.

1PolarBear wrote:Sadness is when you loose something of value, anger when there is an obstacle between you and something of value. Confusion is when you don't know what to think.

Narcissistic injury is when you self-image is attacked or devalued.
Self-image is what you project outward to others.

So what are the defense mechanism when someone attacks you?
There are plenty.
You could devalue the other preemptively.
You could tell yourself they don't know you entirely.
You could justify and therefore deflect the attack.
Or you can empathize to know where the other is coming from and identify with it temporarily.
Or you can ignore or explain, knowing the truth.

From the top of my head, those might be the possibilities.
If they fail, there is usually a rage, which is untargeted anger. Untargeted in the sense there is no obstacle, but there is a loss. So it's really shame and humiliation, but with no remnant of self-respect. Like when someone rage quits on a video game, it's similar.

I think.

So there needs to be a consequential rage for it to be a narcissistic injury? I did experience that once or twice in my life. Your description of emotions is mathematically clear and I think correct. I then assume a narcissist differs from an average person in the choice of the defence mechanisms, or perhaps an average person's defence mechanisms don't fail (as often)? I am also not sure how much is self-image and the need to defend it related to having (or not having) a strong sense of self, but that's another, or not-NPD topic perhaps.
ps. thank you for the insight

Iznahs wrote:So there needs to be a consequential rage for it to be a narcissistic injury? I did experience that once or twice in my life.

You probably got it a few hundred times, you just don't recognize them as such. Not yet anyway. There are degrees of course, it's not like you destroy everything, but you might hold a grudge or something similar. Or be grumpy for no good reason. Babies are almost in constant rage.

Iznahs wrote: Your description of emotions is mathematically clear and I think correct. I then assume a narcissist differs from an average person in the choice of the defence mechanisms, or perhaps an average person's defence mechanisms don't fail (as often)?

Some of them might be preferred, yes, but it's mostly that when they fail, they fail more entirely because of black and white thinking. It's a bit like rejecting a whole person instead of its acts. Or reject a whole population instead of a few. It's not to say it is always a narcissistic defense, but it often is. Most people when talking politics and encountering the "other" get a narc injury and get in a rage. Let's say a conservative watches CNN by mistake, or a liberal watches Fox. There will be a defense that comes into play. A kind of mature way would be to take some and leave some, while a narc injury would be a more violent and total rejection.

Iznahs wrote: I am also not sure how much is self-image and the need to defend it related to having (or not having) a strong sense of self, but that's another, or not-NPD topic perhaps.
ps. thank you for the insight

you're welcome, it's what the place is for.
I am not sure that "strong" is the right word here. It's a bit irrelevant.
Self image is always under threat. Just you reading my stuff, there is danger. You also have to incorporate what I say into your own world so to speak, so there is a threat there too. If what I said you disagreed with or when you do, then you have to defend yourself somehow. Reject what I said for some reason, etc. Or you could reject me entirely, call me names, etc. That last one would be in the narc injury and rage department. Not always of course, but usually if it is not voluntary.

My theory is that the narcissist self is porous. I explained it to the other guy in the other thread recently. There is a lack of distinction between the self and the others, or even to ideas. So if you like ice cream, and I say ice cream is bad, you will take it personally and rage. You might not even be aware of why necessarily, but it's there somewhere, you pegged me as an icecreamphobe.

1PolarBear wrote:You probably got it a few hundred times, you just don't recognize them as such. Not yet anyway. There are degrees of course, it's not like you destroy everything, but you might hold a grudge or something similar. Or be grumpy for no good reason. Babies are almost in constant rage.

...

Some of them might be preferred, yes, but it's mostly that when they fail, they fail more entirely because of black and white thinking. It's a bit like rejecting a whole person instead of its acts. Or reject a whole population instead of a few. It's not to say it is always a narcissistic defense, but it often is. Most people when talking politics and encountering the "other" get a narc injury and get in a rage. Let's say a conservative watches CNN by mistake, or a liberal watches Fox. There will be a defense that comes into play. A kind of mature way would be to take some and leave some, while a narc injury would be a more violent and total rejection.

...

you're welcome, it's what the place is for.
I am not sure that "strong" is the right word here. It's a bit irrelevant.
Self image is always under threat. Just you reading my stuff, there is danger. You also have to incorporate what I say into your own world so to speak, so there is a threat there too. If what I said you disagreed with or when you do, then you have to defend yourself somehow. Reject what I said for some reason, etc. Or you could reject me entirely, call me names, etc. That last one would be in the narc injury and rage department. Not always of course, but usually if it is not voluntary.

...

My theory is that the narcissist self is porous. I explained it to the other guy in the other thread recently. There is a lack of distinction between the self and the others, or even to ideas. So if you like ice cream, and I say ice cream is bad, you will take it personally and rage. You might not even be aware of why necessarily, but it's there somewhere, you pegged me as an icecreamphobe.

I've definitely experienced moderate anger, cursing, holding grudges, grumpiness for no apparent reason etc. , but most of it seemed mild (to me at least) and within my control. Rage is perhaps anger I or any person fail to control.

As for the second paragraph - I understand black-and-white thinking as thinking in extremes, and I remember reading somewhere about Jung's explanation of the term enantiodromia and the 'emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time', I try to stay around the middle for practical reasons and for fear of going into the other extreme. There are also occassions where it's difficult to "take some and leave some" and not be extreme in attitudes, in e.g. certain professions it can be a welcome/useful trait. I also think it can be okay to reject a whole person and not just the acts if the number of such acts exceeds what we are capable or willing to deal with. I generally agree with your description but then I think of an example from my life where I acted in a similar way and it doesn't seem as unreasonable any more..

Paragraph three - so name-calling would be another example of narcissistic rage. Narc injury in this case can (maybe) be perceived as running out of arguments in a discussion. Some people use insults lightly and at a superficial level, and might have another mode of communication hidden within layers of their personality that a narcissistic injury uncovers. Or perhaps I'm wrong and all people react in a similar verbal way when narcissistically injured. I am also not sure if a person can have a countless number of narcissistic injuries (or even two same ones), maybe every such wound that goes from the subconscious to the conscious mind also gets (at least partially) healed in the process. I hope so at least.

The ice cream paragraph - I think people often get hurt or angered by ice cream comments when there are deeper unresolved issues in their relationship that they then project during such seemingly insignificant arguments. If there are no deeper problems, and the person reacts with rage, then I'd perhaps describe it as a narcissistic rage/injury. The negative emotion itself is not so much an issue in my opinion, and can be considered some sort of internal energy. I am just not sure to what extent is it possible to control or consciously focus the energy into something constructive in such a state. I will also check out the other thread you mention.

Iznahs wrote:I've definitely experienced moderate anger, cursing, holding grudges, grumpiness for no apparent reason etc. , but most of it seemed mild (to me at least) and within my control. Rage is perhaps anger I or any person fail to control.

Right. I am just trying to destroy the trope that rage would be immediate outbursts of anger, like starting to throw out cutleries and kicking pet animals. It can stay there for years, most of the time unconsciously. It's because it has to do with your own self image and self esteem, so it just comes back here and there and can literally change your life. That's a narc injury. It will stay there until you can deal with it somehow. You can even say that "traumas" are narc injuries most of the time. Big and small. Perhaps someone at some point stole your lunch money, so now you hate lunches. So you deprive yourself of an activity, it is strong and out of control.

A good example right now is Trudeau. He is acting out a narc injury, which makes him take irresponsible and irrational decisions the whole world can see and denounce. So his narcissism is biting him in the arse.

Iznahs wrote:As for the second paragraph - I understand black-and-white thinking as thinking in extremes, and I remember reading somewhere about Jung's explanation of the term enantiodromia and the 'emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time', I try to stay around the middle for practical reasons and for fear of going into the other extreme. There are also occassions where it's difficult to "take some and leave some" and not be extreme in attitudes, in e.g. certain professions it can be a welcome/useful trait. I also think it can be okay to reject a whole person and not just the acts if the number of such acts exceeds what we are capable or willing to deal with. I generally agree with your description but then I think of an example from my life where I acted in a similar way and it doesn't seem as unreasonable any more..

It becomes a problem when you always do it and it's your main way of functioning. But yes, it is not always bad, I would even say it is necessary to make decisions. But it's bad for relationships you want to keep long term. It also affects how you interact with people. If you take on the person, then it is over, there is nothing they can do about who they are. It's especially the case if it is not true, or barely true. Let's take Trudeau again, he sees one confederate flag, so he portrays a whole group as racists, so the conversation is over, they are discarded, so there is no way to get a conflict resolution, which only leaves violence as a recourse, which is what happened. If he had done like others had done, just denounce the flag, then it is a totally different ballpark. It's a more mature way to address things, and was less likely to create conflict. And yes, I know there are always ways to justify it and rationalize it, and it's part of a syndrome.

Iznahs wrote:Paragraph three - so name-calling would be another example of narcissistic rage. Narc injury in this case can (maybe) be perceived as running out of arguments in a discussion. Some people use insults lightly and at a superficial level, and might have another mode of communication hidden within layers of their personality that a narcissistic injury uncovers. Or perhaps I'm wrong and all people react in a similar verbal way when narcissistically injured. I am also not sure if a person can have a countless number of narcissistic injuries (or even two same ones), maybe every such wound that goes from the subconscious to the conscious mind also gets (at least partially) healed in the process. I hope so at least.

Right. I mean it is not always a narcissist injury or a lack of arguments, but often is. I gave one example where it clearly is, but when people would call Trudeau a dictator, it isn't, because it's a good argument against him. But anyway, the point is that it tends to take the whole person, so it's a type of black and white, and the discussion is over at that point. Like in that case, it can work if your goal for the person is to stop acting like a dictator. Name calling then becomes justified, but some other things might not work, like saying he is the son of Castro.

But yes, I think we carry many such injuries, and in many ways, they create who we are. Oftentimes, when someone can overcome one, they become a better person. So it's a good thing to be able to recognize them and address them, especially since after that, you then can avoid the same type in the future. It festers like a virus too. So if your mommy called you lazy, you might get a narc injury, which is not treated, will be there in your unconscious, and you might end up calling everybody you don't like lazy, or use it as some argument in the wrong places, or accuse everybody of it, say the whole world is lazy and you are the only one that's not. You might end up writing books about how to overcome laziness and do talks. Now, it might all be good and perhaps even true, but it does not solve your problem that eats you inside. You might wake up at night in sweat, having dreamt of someone calling you lazy, or perhaps a whole crowd of people in a party, they all turn suddenly towards you and point in your direction, and say "there is a lazy person here!".

Iznahs wrote:The ice cream paragraph - I think people often get hurt or angered by ice cream comments when there are deeper unresolved issues in their relationship that they then project during such seemingly insignificant arguments. If there are no deeper problems, and the person reacts with rage, then I'd perhaps describe it as a narcissistic rage/injury. The negative emotion itself is not so much an issue in my opinion, and can be considered some sort of internal energy. I am just not sure to what extent is it possible to control or consciously focus the energy into something constructive in such a state. I will also check out the other thread you mention.

Yes, that's a good point. There might be some other reasons, so then it could be displaced anger, or just using whatever to create a drama. But I was thinking once, I had this thing. Someone asks if we read a person, so I said "yes". But then in the convo, I ended up having a small criticism of the thing said, and the other totally lost it. We did not know each other at all, so it can't be some other issue. But I've seen what you talk about as well. I still think it is a narc injury, it's just that it is not about that thing, but some other thing. I did talk about grudges, no?
If it's in a couple, I would assume some sort of narcissistic personality.
But it could be displaced anger, which in itself is a narc injury. Your boss humiliates you, and you take it on your partner or your pet. Or it could be to create drama in order to simply diminish someone and boosting your own self-importance.
It's all irrational and out of control, that's the main point here.

I don't know about the bad energy. You could use the defense mechanism I talked about in the first post. Or do yoga, I don't know. It's not always a problem. I get upset when I see lines, so I just use that energy to get back home faster.

1PolarBear wrote:
Right. I am just trying to destroy the trope that rage would be immediate outbursts of anger, like starting to throw out cutleries and kicking pet animals. It can stay there for years, most of the time unconsciously. It's because it has to do with your own self image and self esteem, so it just comes back here and there and can literally change your life. That's a narc injury. It will stay there until you can deal with it somehow. You can even say that "traumas" are narc injuries most of the time. Big and small. Perhaps someone at some point stole your lunch money, so now you hate lunches. So you deprive yourself of an activity, it is strong and out of control.

A good example right now is Trudeau. He is acting out a narc injury, which makes him take irresponsible and irrational decisions the whole world can see and denounce. So his narcissism is biting him in the arse.

Thanks for clarifying it, I did imagine rage in my head as a strong and loud outburst of anger. What you're describing sounds like supressed anger. Not sure how much of that do I have in my subconsciousness and whether it's better to somehow release it or not disturb it at all. I've unlocked some supressed emotions during meditation and it felt overwhelming at times. Perhaps in a form of exercise, therapy etc, under safe and controlled conditions. Perhaps it's better to focus anger on lunch/activity/place than on a person? Or not. Didn't think this through.

It becomes a problem when you always do it and it's your main way of functioning. But yes, it is not always bad, I would even say it is necessary to make decisions. But it's bad for relationships you want to keep long term. It also affects how you interact with people. If you take on the person, then it is over, there is nothing they can do about who they are. It's especially the case if it is not true, or barely true. Let's take Trudeau again, he sees one confederate flag, so he portrays a whole group as racists, so the conversation is over, they are discarded, so there is no way to get a conflict resolution, which only leaves violence as a recourse, which is what happened. If he had done like others had done, just denounce the flag, then it is a totally different ballpark. It's a more mature way to address things, and was less likely to create conflict. And yes, I know there are always ways to justify it and rationalize it, and it's part of a syndrome.

A lot of Trudeau in this paragraph, in a constructive way though, to convey psychological ideas. I don't know too much about his work, but I got cca 70% of it (without knowing the context and details). A different type of personality comes to my mind when I imagine a narcissist or a dictator (Trump, or Putin). Trudeau('s public persona) seems milder than that, mostly decent, fair and agreeable. I also admit I know very little about Trudeau's politics and not enough about politics in general. I am also never sure if the politicians act/speak freely (in public) or are tied to their political party. Relating to next paragraph - so if I want to stop a non-dictator acting like one, I only need to call them a dictator? Doesn't say what might happen if they are a dictator.

Right. I mean it is not always a narcissist injury or a lack of arguments, but often is. I gave one example where it clearly is, but when people would call Trudeau a dictator, it isn't, because it's a good argument against him. But anyway, the point is that it tends to take the whole person, so it's a type of black and white, and the discussion is over at that point. Like in that case, it can work if your goal for the person is to stop acting like a dictator. Name calling then becomes justified, but some other things might not work, like saying he is the son of Castro.

But yes, I think we carry many such injuries, and in many ways, they create who we are. Oftentimes, when someone can overcome one, they become a better person. So it's a good thing to be able to recognize them and address them, especially since after that, you then can avoid the same type in the future. It festers like a virus too. So if your mommy called you lazy, you might get a narc injury, which is not treated, will be there in your unconscious, and you might end up calling everybody you don't like lazy, or use it as some argument in the wrong places, or accuse everybody of it, say the whole world is lazy and you are the only one that's not. You might end up writing books about how to overcome laziness and do talks. Now, it might all be good and perhaps even true, but it does not solve your problem that eats you inside. You might wake up at night in sweat, having dreamt of someone calling you lazy, or perhaps a whole crowd of people in a party, they all turn suddenly towards you and point in your direction, and say "there is a lazy person here!".

If it ends in writing a book (etc) and doing talks, it sounds like a mature way of dealing with the injury imo. I think creative activity might solve half of the problem, therapy maybe all or most of it. I am not sure what people were using before psychology was invented to deal with trauma. I also remember reading something about psychoanalysis and the term wounded healer, it's what this story's ending reminded me of, healing yourself as you are healing others. Maybe it's also difficult to perceive progress in such a scenario, perhaps it can only be measured from a time-distance, or in terms of constructive things done, or in improved relationships with people, even though the issue lingers on to eat us inside (meaning to say perhaps the progress is externalized somewhere in the world around us). I'm not sure if we can at least partially choose what will define us, there are probably numerous things people called us throughout life, both good and bad, why focus only on some of it. Or perhaps it needs to come from a parent, or at an early age. If parents have such a strong influence on their children, they could also positively influence them. I wouldn't say this story above on laziness has a sad epilogue, there seem to be ups and downs, and some struggle, which builds personality. From what I know of subconscious mind, it's not easy to make sense of these things as they are happening, but it becomes more clear with time/experience.

Yes, that's a good point. There might be some other reasons, so then it could be displaced anger, or just using whatever to create a drama. But I was thinking once, I had this thing. Someone asks if we read a person, so I said "yes". But then in the convo, I ended up having a small criticism of the thing said, and the other totally lost it. We did not know each other at all, so it can't be some other issue. But I've seen what you talk about as well. I still think it is a narc injury, it's just that it is not about that thing, but some other thing. I did talk about grudges, no?
If it's in a couple, I would assume some sort of narcissistic personality.
But it could be displaced anger, which in itself is a narc injury. Your boss humiliates you, and you take it on your partner or your pet. Or it could be to create drama in order to simply diminish someone and boosting your own self-importance.
It's all irrational and out of control, that's the main point here.

I don't know about the bad energy. You could use the defense mechanism I talked about in the first post. Or do yoga, I don't know. It's not always a problem. I get upset when I see lines, so I just use that energy to get back home faster.

I am not sure if the purpose of a successful text/book etc is to have people agreeing with it/each other or to spark discussions. But I think a common language can be found in both cases, and I don't think you 2 were arguing (just) because you disagreed in opinions.

So any case of getting disproportionately upset (along the anger-rage spectrum) is some sort of a narc injury? Are there even people out there who've never experienced them? Not trying to relativize, but I'm also wondering if psychologically/mentally/emotionally healthy person actually exists or whether it's just an abstract ideal we should strive towards. Even if they do exist, I don't think they're as common. I caught myself subconsciously replaying the situations that happened to me with other people (e.g. someone humiliates me, or is rude, and I do or at least attempt to do the same/similar to another unrelated person). I think it can be prevented by expecting a chain-reaction after any such negative incident in my life and by having some coping mechanisms ready to use (instead of creating further conflict). I tend to replay other people's positive effect on me as well, not as often though. Not sure how much effect do people generally have on each other, and what does it all depend on.

Iznahs wrote:Thanks for clarifying it, I did imagine rage in my head as a strong and loud outburst of anger. What you're describing sounds like supressed anger.

It's more that it can be suppressed also, but it is not strictly speaking anger. Like I said in the first post, anger is wanting to destroy an obstacle. But someone not validating your self image is not an obstacle to a good, because self-image is not a good in itself, or should not be. It's something that should be in sync with your actions and how others perceive you, so in the end, rage is against oneself.

It's like in the story of Snow White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqmIMvWnIV8

She thought the mirror would tell her she was the fairest, but it didn't, so it causes her a narc injury and rage, where she tries to poison Snow White. It's not really anger, because it is not SW's fault. She is not the cause of her not being fair, just the fairest, so it is envy and jealousy that drives her, not pure anger. It's her own sense of superiority that is in danger, her own self-image. So it looks more like self-hatred projected out on others. But that is the whole consumed thing. Just the narc injury could cause suppressed anger too, but it's not rage itself. In other words, it does not always cause rage, but in the narcissist it will. And I suppose in theory the right use of the word is when a narcissist is injured, it is narcissist injury, but it's a bit of a circular definition that does not tell much if you don't know what those type of injuries are.

Iznahs wrote: Not sure how much of that do I have in my subconsciousness and whether it's better to somehow release it or not disturb it at all. I've unlocked some supressed emotions during meditation and it felt overwhelming at times. Perhaps in a form of exercise, therapy etc, under safe and controlled conditions. Perhaps it's better to focus anger on lunch/activity/place than on a person? Or not. Didn't think this through.

You should. Yes, it is better to focus on acts than the person if possible. But at least it should be the bad act itself. Like for example a thief. It's the act of stealing that is the problem. Calling the person a thief might be legit. But if you don't like the thief and then call them a racist, it then makes no sense. Or in the case of Snow White, she did nothing, she just happens to exist, so it is a great example. The Queen should focus on being fairer, or just drop the competition she cannot win.

Iznahs wrote:A lot of Trudeau in this paragraph, in a constructive way though, to convey psychological ideas. I don't know too much about his work, but I got cca 70% of it (without knowing the context and details).

The context is how he dealt with the freedom convoy. Give the silent treatment, project and caricature the opponents, denounce them as such and then take measures that are disproportionate because it hurts his own image of a good responsible leader. People don't recognize his greatness, so it can't be because he sucks, but for some other reason. It's in the public domain, so if you want to see a narcissist injury and what it looks like in real life and in real term, it is the typical example.

Iznahs wrote:A different type of personality comes to my mind when I imagine a narcissist or a dictator (Trump, or Putin). Trudeau('s public persona) seems milder than that, mostly decent, fair and agreeable.

Yes, he is the good narcissist, but even then he can't fool all people all of the time. It causes him trouble, and in this case, a kind of trouble akin to a natural disaster like floods of famine. In his mind, it is the same, for a lot of people, it is an incompetent that is over his head and is grandiose. It also shows another thing about the narc injury, it is an existential threat subjectively speaking. Either the image is restored, or the whole thing breaks down. That is why the rage or the violence can be extreme. Just like the Queen, she has to get rid of Snow White, her existence threatens her own because all of her existence is invested in her image of being the fairer. If she is not the fairer, she ceases to exist.

Iznahs wrote:Relating to next paragraph - so if I want to stop a non-dictator acting like one, I only need to call them a dictator? Doesn't say what might happen if they are a dictator.

Yes. Well someone that is in good faith and has principle, if they make a mistake, will recognize it. If they are in bad faith, they will know they got discovered and will lash out and will call the cops. It's a narc injury for an undercover agent. His real goal was to bust you all along, so talking about it just alerted the Man.

Iznahs wrote:If it ends in writing a book (etc) and doing talks, it sounds like a mature way of dealing with the injury imo.

Depends. I was just watching a documentary on Hitler's henchmen. Goebbels was a bit of the typical fragile narcissist. They portray him as having that narc injury, which happens to be a real one, his leg that was not good. So it is a constant humiliation for him, and he seeks to overcompensate and attach himself to a more grandiose figure from which he seeks constant attention, plus he sends his rage on others, in that case mostly the Jews but also other cripples at first, which he wanted to exterminate. I don't think you could call it mature, but as the Minister of Propaganda, he was doing movies, doing talks and so on. He also burned books that disagreed with his own.

Iznahs wrote: I am not sure what people were using before psychology was invented to deal with trauma.

The question is more whether psychology does anything. I know for Catholicism, there is the sacrament of penance that does the trick, because basically you end up forgiving yourself, and are forgiven by the world at large. So it is designed for that. Otherwise I am not sure. Shamans had kind of animal quests, which also does some of that, especially when it is communal in structure. Mostly it happens in family structure and grooming more generally. It reinforces the good identity and allow the bad to be evacuated through sadness.

Iznahs wrote:I also remember reading something about psychoanalysis and the term wounded healer, it's what this story's ending reminded me of, healing yourself as you are healing others.

Yes, there is that archetype going around, and I am sure it exists. But more often than not, I think it is a kind of living their narcissism, like Goebbels. I am watching the sci-fi serie Farscape right now, and the personality of Zhaan is the wounded healer. She does not write books or do speeches though, she attends people individually no matter who they are, and I think it is the main difference here. She deals with real people, while the Goebbels type deals in ideology and archetypes.

Iznahs wrote: Maybe it's also difficult to perceive progress in such a scenario, perhaps it can only be measured from a time-distance, or in terms of constructive things done, or in improved relationships with people, even though the issue lingers on to eat us inside (meaning to say perhaps the progress is externalized somewhere in the world around us). I'm not sure if we can at least partially choose what will define us, there are probably numerous things people called us throughout life, both good and bad, why focus only on some of it. Or perhaps it needs to come from a parent, or at an early age. If parents have such a strong influence on their children, they could also positively influence them. I wouldn't say this story above on laziness has a sad epilogue, there seem to be ups and downs, and some struggle, which builds personality. From what I know of subconscious mind, it's not easy to make sense of these things as they are happening, but it becomes more clear with time/experience.

Yes, sounds good. Most of it is unconscious, you only basically know when you fixed it, and how you do that is a bit of a mystery, but time is a big factor.

Iznahs wrote:I am not sure if the purpose of a successful text/book etc is to have people agreeing with it/each other or to spark discussions. But I think a common language can be found in both cases, and I don't think you 2 were arguing (just) because you disagreed in opinions.

Well, I was, I don't know about the other guy. I suppose he was not. The point is that it could not be about me, because he didn't know me at all. Sometimes it is less clear, but the idea that some people invest in some ideas and take it personally when it is attacked is a sound one. It's especially the case in personality cults. If you criticize the dear leader, you can expect a lot of resistance, and it has nothing to do with you or the person resisting. They simply have invested their self in the other. But it can be about ideas too, and many other things, that was what I was pointing to.

Iznahs wrote: So any case of getting disproportionately upset (along the anger-rage spectrum) is some sort of a narc injury?

Well, I would say it is an ego injury at that point. Whether it is a narc injury has to do with the lack of defense mechanism against it, plus seeing it as an existential threat. Then it starts looking at a narcissist injury, and it is even more the case if it is about envy, then you know for sure. So Goebbels was jealous of people that had good legs for example, or the Queen was about one person being fairer. So that's the complete archetype, but there are many steps along the way to get there. Like I don't think Trudeau is envious of the truckers, but I still think it qualifies because of the lack of defense mechanism, and ability to communicate properly. He could be envious of others though, like Trump or Xi Jinping , but I can't read his mind. But given his overall personality, I would say it is. In other words, there are gray areas, and no, it is not just any disproportionate reaction. Some people are just explosive in their very nature for instance, or you might truly hate something for subjectively good reasons. The big tell tale is the existential threat I believe. Rambo might kill all the commies because they killed his new girlfriend, but they aren't an existential threat per say, although it kind of plays close to narcissism. It's more obvious in the first movie, where now the police is portrayed as an existential threat to his freedom, and that looks more like narcissistic rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtWHgkNH5yU
That and some PTSD thrown in, but for the viewer, it looks more like rage. The cops outside and the whole society are the existential threat, so the war never ends.

Iznahs wrote:Are there even people out there who've never experienced them? Not trying to relativize, but I'm also wondering if psychologically/mentally/emotionally healthy person actually exists or whether it's just an abstract ideal we should strive towards.

No, which is why I said you probably had hundreds of examples in your own life if you look broadly enough, depending of course on your age. Possibly the most important ones, you don't even know consciously. You probably only know the ones you can deal with consciously, and the others might come in flashes here and there in your memory. You don't know they are significant, or just how much. By digging, you will find more, that is guaranteed, but you have to have a broad enough understanding and not just look at Rambo style stuff.

As for what is healthy, it's just that there isn't a real universal definition, it's a thing you know when you don't have it, just like national identity. You can tell Rambo has some issues, or the Queen, and this and that. You could avoid their trap and still have other issues, and some people might have their issues and still do fine overall. Just the same, you can tell Chinese food is not American, even if you don't know what an American is and what it eats.

Iznahs wrote: Even if they do exist, I don't think they're as common. I caught myself subconsciously replaying the situations that happened to me with other people (e.g. someone humiliates me, or is rude, and I do or at least attempt to do the same/similar to another unrelated person). I think it can be prevented by expecting a chain-reaction after any such negative incident in my life and by having some coping mechanisms ready to use (instead of creating further conflict). I tend to replay other people's positive effect on me as well, not as often though. Not sure how much effect do people generally have on each other, and what does it all depend on.

It's best to deal with problems as they happen and in a restricted way to the problem itself. This way your sense of self is not affected, because it's just one issue, not an existential threat. Since it's on the spot, there is no need to brood over it, or having it go into the unconscious and fester there, and being restrained allows the possibility of a resolution, so if it does not happen, you did what you could. Anyway, it's a long subject, and plenty of people talk about it, but overall, the bad defense of the narcissism is to attack the whole person, or the whole history of the relationship, and not the act itself, so it forces separation, or else you get into a very toxic relationship.

1PolarBear wrote:
It's more that it can be suppressed also, but it is not strictly speaking anger. Like I said in the first post, anger is wanting to destroy an obstacle. But someone not validating your self image is not an obstacle to a good, because self-image is not a good in itself, or should not be. It's something that should be in sync with your actions and how others perceive you, so in the end, rage is against oneself.

It's like in the story of Snow White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqmIMvWnIV8

She thought the mirror would tell her she was the fairest, but it didn't, so it causes her a narc injury and rage, where she tries to poison Snow White. It's not really anger, because it is not SW's fault. She is not the cause of her not being fair, just the fairest, so it is envy and jealousy that drives her, not pure anger. It's her own sense of superiority that is in danger, her own self-image. So it looks more like self-hatred projected out on others. But that is the whole consumed thing. Just the narc injury could cause suppressed anger too, but it's not rage itself. In other words, it does not always cause rage, but in the narcissist it will. And I suppose in theory the right use of the word is when a narcissist is injured, it is narcissist injury, but it's a bit of a circular definition that does not tell much if you don't know what those type of injuries are.

I am not sure if I should relate to Snowhite or the Queen in this story. I can understand envy and jealousy, if a person finds a way to overcome it. But not at all a pleasant feeling (speaking from experience). What I'm trying to say is - I'm questioning whether narcisisstic injury should always have such a negative connotation, injuries are to be treated and healed I guess.

You should. Yes, it is better to focus on acts than the person if possible. But at least it should be the bad act itself. Like for example a thief. It's the act of stealing that is the problem. Calling the person a thief might be legit. But if you don't like the thief and then call them a racist, it then makes no sense. Or in the case of Snow White, she did nothing, she just happens to exist, so it is a great example. The Queen should focus on being fairer, or just drop the competition she cannot win.

In fairy tales, it's very much possible the archetypes did nothing wrong. In real life, also possible I guess, though I think it's reasonable to take at least 20% of the fault even if I've done nothing wrong (consciously). Not saying other people should do the same. The queen should probably look into the underlying motivation of her needing to be the fairest.

Yes, he is the good narcissist, but even then he can't fool all people all of the time. It causes him trouble, and in this case, a kind of trouble akin to a natural disaster like floods of famine. In his mind, it is the same, for a lot of people, it is an incompetent that is over his head and is grandiose. It also shows another thing about the narc injury, it is an existential threat subjectively speaking. Either the image is restored, or the whole thing breaks down. That is why the rage or the violence can be extreme. Just like the Queen, she has to get rid of Snow White, her existence threatens her own because all of her existence is invested in her image of being the fairer. If she is not the fairer, she ceases to exist.

I am not sure how to understand the term good narcissist, something like covert/vulnerable narcissist I assume. I don't know where the difference lies between being human and making mistakes, and then being either a covert or overt narcissist. If I try, I can find some narcissistic traits in almost everyone I enounter, which sucks because I started doubting the DSM criteria and the psychology in general. If we're all narcissistic, then nobody is.

Yes. Well someone that is in good faith and has principle, if they make a mistake, will recognize it. If they are in bad faith, they will know they got discovered and will lash out and will call the cops. It's a narc injury for an undercover agent. His real goal was to bust you all along, so talking about it just alerted the Man.

Not completely sure how to understand the term in good/bad faith, but I think I got the core of it, what you wrote makes sense when I apply it to various situations I've experienced in my life, taking the responsibility is not what always happens in any kind of relationship with a non-narcissist, but it never happens with a narcissist. It takes a mature personality to take responsibility.

Depends. I was just watching a documentary on Hitler's henchmen. Goebbels was a bit of the typical fragile narcissist. They portray him as having that narc injury, which happens to be a real one, his leg that was not good. So it is a constant humiliation for him, and he seeks to overcompensate and attach himself to a more grandiose figure from which he seeks constant attention, plus he sends his rage on others, in that case mostly the Jews but also other cripples at first, which he wanted to exterminate. I don't think you could call it mature, but as the Minister of Propaganda, he was doing movies, doing talks and so on. He also burned books that disagreed with his own.

I was watching/reading a lot of interviews by Putin these days, not sure how to understand his need to get rid of the "nazis". Projection perhaps. Or a conscious propaganda. Or being severly misinformed.

The question is more whether psychology does anything. I know for Catholicism, there is the sacrament of penance that does the trick, because basically you end up forgiving yourself, and are forgiven by the world at large. So it is designed for that. Otherwise I am not sure. Shamans had kind of animal quests, which also does some of that, especially when it is communal in structure. Mostly it happens in family structure and grooming more generally. It reinforces the good identity and allow the bad to be evacuated through sadness.

I had a phase in which shamanism seemed like the way to follow, and religion/spirituality/mysticism in general, not sure what to make of it these days but it still helps with all kinds of fears I think. Forgiving oneself as a form of therapy makes (a partial) sense.

Yes, there is that archetype going around, and I am sure it exists. But more often than not, I think it is a kind of living their narcissism, like Goebbels. I am watching the sci-fi serie Farscape right now, and the personality of Zhaan is the wounded healer. She does not write books or do speeches though, she attends people individually no matter who they are, and I think it is the main difference here. She deals with real people, while the Goebbels type deals in ideology and archetypes.

I am wondering if this might have something to do with being an intuitive vs. sensing type (MBTI).

Well, I was, I don't know about the other guy. I suppose he was not. The point is that it could not be about me, because he didn't know me at all. Sometimes it is less clear, but the idea that some people invest in some ideas and take it personally when it is attacked is a sound one. It's especially the case in personality cults. If you criticize the dear leader, you can expect a lot of resistance, and it has nothing to do with you or the person resisting. They simply have invested their self in the other. But it can be about ideas too, and many other things, that was what I was pointing to.

I had situations where a person reminded me of someone I've known for a long(-er) time and so my attitude towards this person was (either positively or negatively) influenced by the person they remind me of, not sure if that can also be the part of the answer here.

Well, I would say it is an ego injury at that point. Whether it is a narc injury has to do with the lack of defense mechanism against it, plus seeing it as an existential threat. Then it starts looking at a narcissist injury, and it is even more the case if it is about envy, then you know for sure. So Goebbels was jealous of people that had good legs for example, or the Queen was about one person being fairer. So that's the complete archetype, but there are many steps along the way to get there. Like I don't think Trudeau is envious of the truckers, but I still think it qualifies because of the lack of defense mechanism, and ability to communicate properly. He could be envious of others though, like Trump or Xi Jinping , but I can't read his mind. But given his overall personality, I would say it is. In other words, there are gray areas, and no, it is not just any disproportionate reaction. Some people are just explosive in their very nature for instance, or you might truly hate something for subjectively good reasons. The big tell tale is the existential threat I believe. Rambo might kill all the commies because they killed his new girlfriend, but they aren't an existential threat per say, although it kind of plays close to narcissism. It's more obvious in the first movie, where now the police is portrayed as an existential threat to his freedom, and that looks more like narcissistic rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtWHgkNH5yU
That and some PTSD thrown in, but for the viewer, it looks more like rage. The cops outside and the whole society are the existential threat, so the war never ends.

Example of Rambo confused me as the existential threat seems real. I understood the definition of narcissistic rage in this paragraph as a reaction to perceived existential threat. And maybe slightly off-topic, but can't help wondering why Trudeau would be jealous of Trump or Xi Jinping.

As for what is healthy, it's just that there isn't a real universal definition, it's a thing you know when you don't have it, just like national identity. You can tell Rambo has some issues, or the Queen, and this and that. You could avoid their trap and still have other issues, and some people might have their issues and still do fine overall. Just the same, you can tell Chinese food is not American, even if you don't know what an American is and what it eats.

I think we can tell Rambo and The Queen had some issues because they've pushed it to extreme..

It's best to deal with problems as they happen and in a restricted way to the problem itself. This way your sense of self is not affected, because it's just one issue, not an existential threat.

Sounds like a wise tactic, but not sure if it's possible to always separate the two. Depends on the issue I guess.

Iznahs wrote:I am not sure if I should relate to Snowhite or the Queen in this story. I can understand envy and jealousy, if a person finds a way to overcome it. But not at all a pleasant feeling (speaking from experience). What I'm trying to say is - I'm questioning whether narcisisstic injury should always have such a negative connotation, injuries are to be treated and healed I guess.

Sure, it's a good question to ask yourself. It's not something special, but for some people it can get out of hand.

Iznahs wrote:In fairy tales, it's very much possible the archetypes did nothing wrong. In real life, also possible I guess, though I think it's reasonable to take at least 20% of the fault even if I've done nothing wrong (consciously). Not saying other people should do the same. The queen should probably look into the underlying motivation of her needing to be the fairest.

People get jealous for no reason except envy. People are targeted because they did good, not wrong. There is nothing to change here, except in the jealous person.

Iznahs wrote:I am not sure how to understand the term good narcissist, something like covert/vulnerable narcissist I assume. I don't know where the difference lies between being human and making mistakes, and then being either a covert or overt narcissist. If I try, I can find some narcissistic traits in almost everyone I enounter, which sucks because I started doubting the DSM criteria and the psychology in general. If we're all narcissistic, then nobody is.

It refers to a thread someone made not too long ago. I guess it just means someone that is not hurting others. As far as I can tell, two third of people are highly narcissistic, it shows in all the surveys I see. Of course they would not have a personality disorder, which is a difference in strength and scope, not in kind. That's the real criteria, not the type which is just flavor and is not the real reason for the troubles. But sure, you can doubt, in reality it is all myths.

Iznahs wrote:Not completely sure how to understand the term in good/bad faith, but I think I got the core of it, what you wrote makes sense when I apply it to various situations I've experienced in my life, taking the responsibility is not what always happens in any kind of relationship with a non-narcissist, but it never happens with a narcissist. It takes a mature personality to take responsibility.

Someone that is not of good faith lie about things they believe. Of course to be responsible in anything outwardly, you need to be of good faith. Telling the truth is the basis of real relationships, all the rest is garbage.

Iznahs wrote:I was watching/reading a lot of interviews by Putin these days, not sure how to understand his need to get rid of the "nazis". Projection perhaps. Or a conscious propaganda. Or being severly misinformed.

Read on the Azov battalion and the Right Sector. You can read about the Donbass in the last eight years as well, it was always quite known until a month ago when the CIA has been in spin mode.

Iznahs wrote:

Yes, there is that archetype going around, and I am sure it exists. But more often than not, I think it is a kind of living their narcissism, like Goebbels. I am watching the sci-fi serie Farscape right now, and the personality of Zhaan is the wounded healer. She does not write books or do speeches though, she attends people individually no matter who they are, and I think it is the main difference here. She deals with real people, while the Goebbels type deals in ideology and archetypes.

I am wondering if this might have something to do with being an intuitive vs. sensing type (MBTI).

Maybe. There was one episode, she decided she was ascending and being one with the Universe, and loving everybody. Then someone came and asked for help, and she didn't because she was in that loving phase, so the friend said he did not need that type of loving people, or something like that. It was pretty funny.

Iznahs wrote:I had situations where a person reminded me of someone I've known for a long(-er) time and so my attitude towards this person was (either positively or negatively) influenced by the person they remind me of, not sure if that can also be the part of the answer here.

Probably.

Iznahs wrote:Example of Rambo confused me as the existential threat seems real. I understood the definition of narcissistic rage in this paragraph as a reaction to perceived existential threat.

Nobody said it could not be true.

Iznahs wrote: And maybe slightly off-topic, but can't help wondering why Trudeau would be jealous of Trump or Xi Jinping.

They are more powerful than he is, and they are loved by their people, or a bunch of them anyway, and they are self made, not born with a silver spoon. They can be decisive and they were able to keep order generally in their country. They are not the type to hide from truckers at any rate.

Iznahs wrote:I think we can tell Rambo and The Queen had some issues because they've pushed it to extreme..

Yes, and they are obsessed by it. That is what I said, it's about strength and scope. In their case, it is really strong and is ubiquitous in their lives.

Iznahs wrote:

It's best to deal with problems as they happen and in a restricted way to the problem itself. This way your sense of self is not affected, because it's just one issue, not an existential threat.

Sounds like a wise tactic, but not sure if it's possible to always separate the two. Depends on the issue I guess.

It works for most things, except real existential threats. Rambo could have just walked past the city, and that is what the sheriff wanted, but he came back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyRkoKTh6cs

He acted out on a narc injury, it's how the whole thing started...