NPD forum

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:... On the ASPD forum, people may deny objects as well, but it's not necessarily accompanied by devaluation.

You don't have to mirror people as much, you can get away with a joke. Less passive-aggression. A few reasons why people might prefer to post over there. It's just less work.

I post there because of the cast of characters over there, I can act up, swear, tell jokes and be a barbarian in general and it’s just par for the course. Occasionally, I learn something along the way too which is cool.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:Because some people who show up on this forum as nons simply aren't, sometimes they have narcissistic or borderline issues of their own.

While I agree with the sentiment the implied idea that you or anyone else is capable of knowing based on a few forum posts verges on the comical.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:One of my aunts pursues a fantasy to reunite the family. She is very vocal about the sacredness of family ties. Not understanding that this idea was a subterfuge used by my grandma to further her own agenda only. So my aunt showers me with cheap wisdom and slimy comments, not realizing that she is the one with little insight into her behavior and doesn't have a voice of her own. She is a flying monkey child in the sense that she unconsciously performs the wish of my grandma to see the family united under her control and wants to fix things in order to receive the love she never had.

Your aunt seeks the approval of another in order to stabilise her self-esteem due to ego damage sustained in childhood.

‘Flying monkey child’ is completely redundant.

The only other information being delivered is firstly that you’re presenting your perception of someone else as fact and that you believe you have so much greater introspection than your aunt.

Given that most of this argument relies on the reliability of your own perception; You were busy accusing Kim of flirting, now we discover that far from being worthless, the exchange invalidated Kim in such a way as to invoke a useful bit of introspection. So how exactly was she flirting?

Before Quoth reach out for his turret, I am borrowing this definition from one of PF administrators, so not exactly a raging 'non'.

I’m perplexed as to why you think the administrator of any site is an authority on anything other than the policy of that site.

Kimera wrote:

Quoth wrote:It’s usually whichway I think of when we talk about useful ‘nons’. I agree with your later statement

whichway is my favorite non, too. There's an entertaining thread from a while back where another poster goes at whichway and tries to convince him he's disordered. Some really funny moments on that thread. Realityhere will probably remember that one. Anyway, whichway added his "undiagnosed non" signature after that.

I think eight’s been labelled a few times in the past too is memory serves (which it often doesn’t in my case). It’s probably the compulsive in me but I find the idea of that more annoying than funny, it rather highlights again the unreliability of personal perception, assuming it’s done honestly.

‘Whoah man, I’m gettin’ some eerie vibes off you man, you must have a disorder”

Also TIL WW is male.

Quoth wrote:Also TIL WW is male.

Yeah, I got that one wrong for the longest time. Thankfully whichway set me straight.

"There's an entertaining thread from a while back where another poster goes at whichway and tries to convince him he's disordered. Some really funny moments on that thread. Realityhere will probably remember that one. Anyway, whichway added his "undiagnosed non" signature after that."

Indeed I do. "Undiagnosed non", that oxymoron, lol.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:[That's the spirit of Lifesong

Ya, me too.

perejil wrote:The PD subsections are now being billeted as as support groups AND open discussion groups, and I think therein lies the problem. They can't really be both, because the two purposes seem in conflict. It is not possible to have "open" discussion about an issue/PD while also requiring that discussion to be strictly supportive of a person/persons with that disorder.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that PD subforums are 'requiring that discussion be strictly supportive'. I don't see that happening in practice across the PD forums that I somewhat frequent. We already see examples here in NPD, even in this very thread, of that note being the case. I see open discussion, in a respectful way, occurring here, in SPD, in HPD, and increasingly in BPD tho that subforum seemed to have more of a culture of not challenging pwBPD in the past but that seems to be changing. AsPD subforum is rather a free-for-all compared to the others. So I'm not sure where you see on issue about re it an either-or choice.

Kimera wrote:... historically we've had two types of nons -- those who are here to better understand pwNPD and contribute their own experiences -- AND -- those who show up hurt and angry because they believe they've been victimized. The first type provides much needed perspective, discourse, and appropriate challenges. The second groups whines and tells tales of flying monkeys and fleas and the like. This is not the right forum for them.

That's been going on for years. The second type don't last very long as they don't get validated and so they move on. Sometimes they're helped to move along, and that seems ok to me too.

Quoth wrote:I think eight’s been labelled a few times in the past too is memory serves (which it often doesn’t in my case)... find the idea of that more annoying than funny, it rather highlights again the unreliability of personal perception, assuming it’s done honestly.

Yeah, that's happened in another subforum, usually by someone who labels me with a disorder that they feel is weak or not as good as their own disorder -- for those who've done it with me, it's been in the form of a put-down.

On another note: The term 'non' is odd to me. In a way similar to when I read people say "My N...", it makes me kinda shudder. But what other term is there to use for those of us who don't identify with the disorder?
Undiagnosed non = Very good.

Quoth wrote:Your aunt seeks the approval of another in order to stabilise her self-esteem due to ego damage sustained in childhood.

‘Flying monkey child’ is completely redundant.

Seeking this form of approval is one thing. Guilt tripping people around to have them spouse the views of the most domineering and dysfunctional element of the family/community is another. So that's a distinction right there.

Quoth wrote:The only other information being delivered is firstly that you’re presenting your perception of someone else as fact and that you believe you have so much greater introspection than your aunt.

The way you're phrasing this implies that I feel superior to my aunt ("so much greater"). That is not so ... If I were you, I'd entertain the likeliness that the way you discriminate between people is tainting your perception of me.

Quoth wrote:Given that most of this argument relies on the reliability of your own perception; You were busy accusing Kim of flirting, now we discover that far from being worthless, the exchange invalidated Kim in such a way as to invoke a useful bit of introspection. So how exactly was she flirting?

I think that everything concerning Kimera, would be best addressed by Kimera herself.

But aside from my comment to her (which was connected to my point but not all of it), my main comment was: watch out for the enabling effect of this forum, sometimes it has you forget why you came here.

Quoth wrote:I’m perplexed as to why you think the administrator of any site is an authority on anything other than the policy of that site.

I didn't say that. I said that you associate the use of flying monkeys with certain attributes in people. Like bad people use these words. But I come from another perspective. It's just a set of words. At the end of the day, we can carve out all we want the dictionary to accommodate everybody, but it's still the intention behind the usage of the words that matters. Sometimes those terms are utilized to project contempt and sometimes they have some explanatory power.

---

Concerning the good nons vs bad nons debate, I disagree fundamentally with this distinction. Popular 'nons' (quote-unquote because I am not sure our definitions of a non align, although it doesn't matter here), popular nons on this forum often happen to be good mirrors.

And I think that the person I want to be is miles away from a good mirror. I want people to be able to rely on me to tell them how it is; I don't want people to rely on me to BS them to further my own unconscious agenda. And if those people are hungry for something else than what I have to offer, so be it. Maybe our path will cross less, or not all.

ZombieZ wrote:I post there because of the cast of characters over there, I can act up, swear, tell jokes and be a barbarian in general and it’s just par for the course. Occasionally, I learn something along the way too which is cool.

Nice cast of characters indeed.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:Seeking this form of approval is one thing. Guilt tripping people around to have them spouse the views of the most domineering and dysfunctional element of the family/community is another. So that's a distinction right there.

The enabling behaviour of partners of addicts is how co-dependency (which is what I deliberately described) got it’s name. So flying monkey basically is a term to describe the damaging effects of co-dependency.

Quoth wrote:The only other information being delivered is firstly that you’re presenting your perception of someone else as fact and that you believe you have so much greater introspection than your aunt.

The way you're phrasing this implies that I feel superior to my aunt ("so much greater"). That is not so ... If I were you, I'd entertain the likeliness that the way you discriminate between people is tainting your perception of me.

okay let me rephrase.

You believe you have greater introspection than your aunt. You’re basically saying that a grown woman can’t see why she does harmful things, but you can.

You’ve also ignored that you are presenting your perception as fact.

Which way that I discriminate between people?

Quoth wrote:Given that most of this argument relies on the reliability of your own perception; You were busy accusing Kim of flirting, now we discover that far from being worthless, the exchange invalidated Kim in such a way as to invoke a useful bit of introspection. So how exactly was she flirting?

I think that everything concerning Kimera, would be best addressed by Kimera herself.

That’d work if it wasn’t me you were accusing her of flirting with.

Quoth wrote:I’m perplexed as to why you think the administrator of any site is an authority on anything other than the policy of that site.

I didn't say that. I said that you associate the use of flying monkeys with certain attributes in people. Like bad people use these words. But I come from another perspective. It's just a set of words. At the end of the day, we can carve out all we want the dictionary to accommodate everybody, but it's still the intention behind the usage of the words that matters. Sometimes those terms are utilized to project contempt and sometimes they have some explanatory power.

Or why being the administrator of any site denotes moral worth.

Actually describe what you mean rather than masking it in ridiculous terms and my issue with the vernacular ends.

Kimera wrote:

Quoth wrote:Also TIL WW is male.

Yeah, I got that one wrong for the longest time. Thankfully whichway set me straight.

I was having fun watching people make assumptions. Y'all make me smile.

As for the purpose of the forum and the feeling of it...

I came here as a (undiagnosed) non trying to understand something I knew little about. Through talking with many of you and running off and digging into research and the like I started to have a context and eventually formed my opinions of what it means to have NPD. For me personally the forum was/is very valuable because without it I had almost no way to talk directly with people with NPD. It's helped me grasp what lived experience with NPD is like. I would have just been "guessing" at best and "making $#%^ up" at worst. (To be fair I probably still make $#%^ up anyway...)

But I don't think the forum should really be about me as a non. I get to go away and live life as usual without really being affected by this thing we call NPD. Many others can't and there aren't a lot of spaces for people with NPD to gather. I think this forum is important and needed for that purpose.

I suppose my absence is mostly for that reason - I think I can do more good outside of the forum when it comes to NPD than I can do inside. Inside I feel I'd just be saying the same things over and over to the same people who already know me well enough to know what I'd probably say.

So... what is my purpose here really? I still pop in and lurk now and then. I think the forum is more needed for people with NPD than for me.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:Concerning the good nons vs bad nons debate, I disagree fundamentally with this distinction. Popular 'nons' (quote-unquote because I am not sure our definitions of a non align, although it doesn't matter here), popular nons on this forum often happen to be good mirrors.

And I think that the person I want to be is miles away from a good mirror. I want people to be able to rely on me to tell them how it is; I don't want people to rely on me to BS them to further my own unconscious agenda. And if those people are hungry for something else than what I have to offer, so be it. Maybe our path will cross less, or not all.

I'm starting to get a sense of SJR versus the rest of the world in your posts. It's interesting that you think you own the role of truth seer while the rest of us are blindly high-fiving each other in the mutual admiration society.

ShowJumpingRabbit wrote:But aside from my comment to her (which was connected to my point but not all of it), my main comment was: watch out for the enabling effect of this forum, sometimes it has you forget why you came here.

Do you think we're all here for the same reason? And do you assume you know what that reason is?

Quoth wrote:The enabling behaviour of partners of addicts is how co-dependency (which is what I deliberately described) got it’s name. So flying monkey basically is a term to describe the damaging effects of co-dependency.

But you can see how flying monkey describe a specific behavior with few words. If a better term comes up, I might switch.

I understand that people might feel offended by the assumption of intentionality that comes with the usage of the word. Such as flying monkeys are bad and they are intentional in hurting others. But that's also what introspection is about, analyzing discrepancies between people views of you and your view of yourself, and that process of understanding how hurt you may feel by people's perception of you matters more than words themselves.

Quoth wrote:You believe you have greater introspection than your aunt.

I don't believe, I know. Some people are better at ping pong or piano than their cousin. I'm better at introspection than my aunt.

Quoth wrote:You’re basically saying that a grown woman can’t see why she does harmful things, but you can.

It doesn't apply to all grown women and all harmful things though. I don't pretend that my understanding of the family dynamics and of myself is absolute, I have blind spots - that I'm also exploring.

Quoth wrote:You’ve also ignored that you are presenting your perception as fact.

Sometimes perceptions align with fact. That's being objective. We're not just walking delusional puppets.

Quoth wrote:Which way that I discriminate between people?

Sometimes you come across as a bit elitist. And I'm not saying it's good or bad. But that maybe part of the reason why you detect whatever you're detecting in me.

Quoth wrote:That’d work if it wasn’t me you were accusing her of flirting with.

Then maybe the question you want to ask yourself is why you seem better-disposed toward people who compliment you plenty.

I didn't accuse anybody of flirting btw, that would be ridiculous.

Kimera wrote:I'm starting to get a sense of SJR versus the rest of the world in your posts.

That's not a pattern I follow, but on this forum, it can come across as such. Maybe it also has to do with my interlocutors,at times, ganging up like high school bullies

By that I mean, if you isolate something a person just said, take it out of context and assume the worst or the bad about it, and there are several of you doing this at the same time. Unless I'm OK with my point being distorted, which I'm not, then it might end up looking like what you describe.

Kimera wrote:Do you think we're all here for the same reason? And do you assume you know what that reason is?

I think that we're all here, all of PF, because we are not completely happy, we want to understand why and feel better about ourselves and our relationships. So that's the non-specific answer.

As for the specificities of why you are personally here, I'm trying not to speculate, but I feel like it's a safe gamble to assume there is at least a good reason.