No blame, no praise.

If I'm not as bad in some areas than others, then I'm lucky. I'm lucky that I'm not a psychopath, or maybe I'm more unlucky that I'm a narcissist. Nons are lucky that they aren't narcissists, unlucky if they had narcissistic parents. If nons found that, in a parallel universe, they'd morphed into narcissists, they'd behave in the same ways that we do.

What am I rambling on about? Just the old point that no-one chooses to be how they are. If I give more to charity than many nons, or am kinder, (without broadcasting it), but have no deep feelings of care, am I more 'good' than a non who gives nothing, and helps few? (That's a different point.)

Ah, I bet you'll say, (if you haven't fallen asleep), but you have personal responsibility, especially after becoming self aware. Maybe I'm lucky to have the capacity, for whatever reason, to start to change myself, in some areas.

Someone who doesn't want to change has a brain which makes it difficult for them to want to change. I don't mean give up on these people, ignore what they do, accept it, lock them up and do nothing to try to improve matters. I don't know what the answer is.

Brain scans show that our minds are forming decisions before we're aware of them, which throws free will into question, and psychologists say that we seem to be wired to see ourselves as self determining.

If you're good, you are lucky, in that sense at least. Some of us have to work at it, and if we are able to want to improve, we're lucky.

Well, got to go out, so end of that lot!

You can't change at base level.
But you can change at any other level.
Who/what you really are doesn't matter. What matters is what you do. Only your actions have an effect on anything. Your thoughts can have an effect on you and you alone, until you use them to practical use, act on them.

You always have a choice and its always your fault. Even when other people mess up, its your fault for not predicting it and taking measures. You should never expect others to care, so you have to care for them, only if the matter concerns you of course.

Most people wont care who you really are, they only care what you do and look like.

It doesn't matter if you are a non, psychopath or narc. The rules apply to everyone.

Greatem wrote:
Most people wont care who you really are, they only care what you do and look like.

It doesn't matter if you are a non, psychopath or narc. The rules apply to everyone.

This is so true. Nobody ever really knows anyone. The majority of our interactions with people in this world are superficial.

But we all have things that we need to work on about ourselves. The beauty of this site is that Nons and PDs can learn from each other--or at least that's what I've gotten from it. I'm not interested in being a victim of anything. I'm interested in expanding my personal skills. And I think some of the personal skills that HPD, NArc have are valuable to me.

So maybe for pds and nons it's about finding a balance between extremes.

Well... one way of looking at it might be, since you don't have children or a spouse, how much harm can you really be doing? You're probably doing alright. Does that make sense?

It sure will help if/when we can know for sure what is causing the PDs. I try to keep an open mind because at times all the theories would seem to make sense, they have all been crafted by intelligent and able people I guess. But I think now it might be just genetic. The genes go round and round like Lotto balls and you get what you get, not your fault. In that case you just have to be aware and make the best of it, which I guess you are funky.

Nons are the ones who have to take responsibility for the fact that most narcissists won't or can't change. When you think about it, that's actually nons' problem not narcissists', since only nons can do something about it (end the interaction).

We might or might not be able to change base level, but maybe as people with PD part of our problem is that we are not who we really are at base level ?

Perhaps if we were, we could willingly control our actions, make our choices etc without too much conflict of whatever the problem is. Some of it is being fully aware of things and making what's subconscious conscious. Once you've done that can you really say a person has a "personality disorder?"

I don't think I believe in PD as a term for "personality that doesn't fit the norm" personally I see it as disorder in personality functioning that causes maladaptive difficulties in thought and behaviour.

As far as I'm concerned what's on the inside is the important bit, how you act on the outside is worth ###$ all in deciding "if you have a disorder". (Except if the actions dont make sense it might suggest its worth exploring.)

I'm not interested in judgement in relation to PD personally, whether you're a "good person" is a judgement people place on themselves or others.... idk, you're outside my area, lol. For example, if you harm me, I won't be judging you as a "bad person", but I will be pissed off. lol

Objectively you could argue yes, a person who does that stuff anyway is being a "better person" than one who does it to appease their own emotional needs to help others, but then again, if you need to see yourself as a good person, that's an emotional need to help others. All of it is subjective.

Sometimes self-judgement might be better replaced with trying to find the ability to "just be". Then you might find reasons to be decent to others that don't leave you frought with conflict. this being the NPD forum, most narcissists who need to see themselves as good end up acting in ways which can sometimes be hurtful to others, but the difference between them and those without NPD is that their need to see themselves as good can intefere with them being able to deal with their actions in a way that's productive (to them just as much as to anyone else).

Greatem, I agree with you up to a point. People who know you well, however, will care about your motives and underlying feelings, whatever you do or don't do. In general, though, you're right.

Atrium, yes, most people's interactions are superficial, as few of us would really want to say what we thought, in many situations. (Imagine answering, "How are you?", honestly.)

Anais, as you say, we get what we're given, and have to deal with it. I wasn't really looking at it from the viewpoint of deflecting blame from myself, (I don't think), although I appreciate that you were making the point, as I was, that we don't choose our personalities.

Katana, that's a good point, that someone who became conscious of their formerly unconscious feelings would presumably become less disordered. I don't believe any more in judging anybody, either.

In fact, that brings me back to what I originally posted, really. Just that, for some people, maybe they are neurologically (or whatever) unable to even want to change. So where does blame, in the sense of personal responsibility, come into things? If someone tries to improve, they have a brain which permits them to try to improve. If someone is good, (kind, caring etc..) they were made that way, one way or another.

Non of this is personal to me, in a way, it's just something that I've thought about for years. I don't mean that people should be able to do as they like. I just mean that, to a larger extent than people want to accept, we are driven by our brains! (I'm only going on what I've read in magazines like Scientific American Mind and Psychology Today. Apparently, we make decisions on a subconscious level, before we're aware of what we've decided to do.

funky wrote:Brain scans show that our minds are forming decisions before we're aware of them, which throws free will into question

You could see each of us a just a sort of freewheeling thing, running under its own momentum, without genuine free will. At the same time, you would need to recognise that these 'things' impulsively create images of each others' motives or underlying dispositions to help it to predict what they will do. Each one also works with images of what those others see of itself and its own 'motives'. All this creates the ongoing chimera of free will. That's how I see it.

From a psychological point of view, I suspect that it's much easier (and perhaps even helpful) to embrace a no-free-will concept if one feels detached from the world of social engagement (as I generally do). Weighing against this is that you are physically a part of the world so you (really, physically) influence it's future as well as your own future.

Returning to the philosophical issue, I don't accept determinism, because nothing is written in the stars, in the genes or anywhere else to determine what happens. Chaos theory demonstrates that nothing determines anything else absolutely. There are no known limits on what can be changed in our personal characteristics at the moment and scientific work on the subject may increase the possibilities beyond what seems achievable now.

imajerk, I get you. People are sort of driven from the outside, forming impressions/predictions about others, and how they are seen by those others. I understand that nothing is entirely predictable. I just meant that I believe in determinism in the sense that our brain structure probably dictates how we think and behave; but yes, our brain structures can be changed.

Anais wrote:Well... one way of looking at it might be, since you don't have children or a spouse, how much harm can you really be doing? You're probably doing alright. Does that make sense?

That's how I've taken having NPD... I don't want to get married or I don't want kids.

Who am I harming? Myself and friends at best, but then I don't exactly hang around with people all the time. Like any narcissist/non relationship, there are good times and bad times (and the bad can outshadow the good by a hell of a lot).

Funky, I'm not really sure how much we get to choose our personalities. I jut try to keep an open mind. It's hard at times. I don't think narcissists get a "free pass" because they can't change - I still think they are responsible - but I try keep nons' job to look after themselves at the forefront as well.