Where does self-confidence end, and narcissism begin?

Some sources argue narcissists are vulnerable by default, others that a vulnerability may be there for some, but many are in fact more secure in themselves than normal.

The population of successful pornstars is a good example: about as narcissistic as it gets, on average; but also (according to a study you can look up) endowed with uncommonly high self-esteem and self-confidence.

What's the distinction between someone excessively self-confident, and basic narcissism?

And, wasn't "narcissism" just a cool way of describing excessive vanity back in the day, which origin has been superseded by its symptoms at the extreme end?

Is it really as straightforward as, "self-confidence is when you're personally content without the need to self-advocate - narcissism occurs when external advocacy (which might just be your own reflection) is required to validate your own self-image" ?

In that case, where self-confidence is internally comfortable, and narcissism is an internal discomfort requiring of an external validator, wouldn't there still be room for covert narcissism in cases where that comfortability extends beyond objectivity?

Does this mean narcissism has less to do with the size of the ego, and more to do with a person's style of ego-maintenance?

vcrpamphlet wrote:Some sources argue narcissists are vulnerable by default, others that a vulnerability may be there for some, but many are in fact more secure in themselves than normal.

The population of successful pornstars is a good example: about as narcissistic as it gets, on average; but also (according to a study you can look up) endowed with uncommonly high self-esteem and self-confidence.

What's the distinction between someone excessively self-confident, and basic narcissism?

And, wasn't "narcissism" just a cool way of describing excessive vanity back in the day, which origin has been superseded by its symptoms at the extreme end?

Is it really as straightforward as, "self-confidence is when you're personally content without the need to self-advocate - narcissism occurs when external advocacy (which might just be your own reflection) is required to validate your own self-image" ?

In that case, where self-confidence is internally comfortable, and narcissism is an internal discomfort requiring of an external validator, wouldn't there still be room for covert narcissism in cases where that comfortability extends beyond objectivity?

Does this mean narcissism has less to do with the size of the ego, and more to do with a person's style of ego-maintenance?

Narcissism itself is mostly just defined as positive investment into the self and is directly connected with self-esteem-regulation via [the ideas of] super-ego and the ideal-self - that including conscious and unconscious self-goals. Here a person will do something that is en par with the self-ideal, which will raise self-esteem or which is not en par with it, which will lower self-esteem.
Narcissistic pathology comes into being when this mechanism is damaged somehow; but it can also mean more broadly anything that is pathological about the self, so that includes most of all people with neuroses that somehow orbit around their self-image or their internal ruleset. For what is typically called NPD, theories suggest that there is a sort of developmental arrest from "primary narcissism", while others suggest that its a sort of identification-process or a form of super-ego-fusing / or -damage. As a result there can be different levels of pathology in the super-ego itself and/or in relation to other people. What you are pointing at as "own reflection" could be for example Kernbergs class 2 narcissistic pathology, where someone is invested in someone else because he likes parts of himself in tha other person, but it could also mean he is invested on a borderline level with pathological projected aspects, which would be Kernbergs most severe form of NPD classification - there is also the forms of mirror transference in Kohuts work which might resonate with this. So in other words the severity of such a pathology (including the degree of vulnerability, the kinds of defenses used, the ability to relate, empathize etc) is based in part of the structural complexity / development of the intrapsychic system but also its contents.

Akuma wrote:Narcissism itself is mostly just defined as positive investment into the self and is directly connected with self-esteem-regulation via [the ideas of] super-ego and the ideal-self - that including conscious and unconscious self-goals. Here a person will do something that is en par with the self-ideal, which will raise self-esteem or which is not en par with it, which will lower self-esteem.
Narcissistic pathology comes into being when this mechanism is damaged somehow; but it can also mean more broadly anything that is pathological about the self, so that includes most of all people with neuroses that somehow orbit around their self-image or their internal ruleset.

Helpful, thank you.

Would a reduction of Self-fixation/awareness therefore be a way to undercut the narcissistic thinking style?

Unsure where to place the main question in your response though. How would you define self-confidence, or the more healthy form of the self by comparison - and where do the two meet, do you think?

-- Mon May 20, 2019 12:06 am --

Also interested in Greebo, solemnlysworn, and Z's take on this, if ya'll be obliging.

@Akuma

Btw - meant "own reflection" to literally mean, physical reflection, lol.

vcrpamphlet wrote:Helpful, thank you.

Would a reduction of Self-fixation/awareness therefore be a way to undercut the narcissistic thinking style?

I dont know what a "narcissistic" thinking style is. If you mean a very egocentric thinking style, the problem might be first and foremost to figure out why someone has a need for such functioning. Forcing oneself to try doing the opposite might increase stress, might worsen symptoms, or create totalyl new ones, because the system just looks for new ways

Unsure where to place the main question in your response though. How would you define self-confidence, or the more healthy form of the self by comparison - and where do the two meet, do you think?

Healthy narcissism is what I said in the beginning, its an ability to like oneself and to feel good by things one enjoys and that accord with the way one wants to see oneself - including working on goals one wants to achieve. It also has to do with being realistic, if you are the best in your job for example, being convinced you are the best and telling this to possible employers etc. is not grandiose, but just stating the facts. On the other hand side having an unrealistic self-image is not necessarily due to "NPD" or something, it can be delusions, confabulation, brain damage, mania, drug side-effects etc. So for me I cant really answer this question about a duality, as I dont think it is one. I also feel the question is only valid if one sees "narcissism" as a negative, while I think the word and its meanings are neutral. Not sure if this complicates it even more but let me just add some quote here ->

Kernberg, Borderline Conditions, Ch. 10 wrote:Following Hartmann (5), I define normal narcissism as the
libidinal investment of the self. The self is an intrapsychic
structure consisting of multiple self representations and their
related affect dispositions. (...) The normal self is integrated, in that its
component self representations are dynamically organized into
a comprehensive whole. (...) in simple terms, integration o£ good and
bad self-images into a realistic self-concept that incorporates
rather than dissociates the various component self representations
is a requisite for the libidinal investment of a normal self.

Contrasting he explains the borderline situation

ibid wrote:Absence of an integrated self is recognized clinically by the existence of
contradictory, mutually dissociated or split-off ego states that
alternate without ever being integrated. In this case, the
individual can "remember" how he felt during experiences
opposite to the present one without, however, ever being able
to integrate these various experiences. A lack of an integrated
self is also characterized by chronic feelings of unreality,
puzzlement, emptiness, or general disturbances in the "self
feeling"

And continuing about self-feelign and self-esteem

lalala wrote:Jacobson (7) has pointed out that the normal"self feeling"
derives from the individual's awareness of an integrated self,
while "self esteem" or "self regard" depend upon the Jibidinal
investment of such an integrated self. The level or intensity of
self-esteem or self-regard indicates the extent to which there is
a narcissistic investment of the self. (...) Self-es~eem or self-regard
represents, therefore, the more differentiated levels of
narcissistic investment, while diffuse feelings of well-being, of
pleasure with existence, of affective states expressing euphoria or satisfaction, represent the more primitive expressions of
narcissism. Thus, as Jacobson has pointed out (7), mood swings
are the main indicators of self-regard at primitive levels of
superego-determined regulation of self-esteem. At more
advanced levels of superego functioning, more precise,
delimited cognitive appreciation or criticism of the self replaces
the regulation by mood swings."

Btw - meant "own reflection" to literally mean, physical reflection, lol.

Oh ok I've always thought attention to physical appearance is more a histrionic thing but who knows.

The biggest difference is self confidence and healthy narcissism isn’t dysfunctional in nature. Other than that I agree with Akuma, I’d say it’s some sort of underdevelopment or impairment of the super ego, as related to the conscience and the inner voices regulating your self perception and behavior. In a sense it seems at times like a personality that split in two, as cliche as the real self and ideal self seems I find it rings true somewhat.

Akuma wrote:I dont know what a "narcissistic" thinking style is. If you mean a very egocentric thinking style, the problem might be first and foremost to figure out why someone has a need for such functioning. Forcing oneself to try doing the opposite might increase stress, might worsen symptoms, or create totalyl new ones, because the system just looks for new ways

That friction wouldn't be a problem if the sense of self were somehow removed. What makes you say one is opposite to the other?

Thinking about the way you (in particular) talk about this subject, the classical DSM-criteria'd NPD and the spectrum it infers are incredibly shallow in the grander scheme - that narcissism (correct me if this is wrong) is entirely rested on the delusion of Self, is better understood as a core property of the human psyche.

But narcissism as most people understand it, makes this sort of misunderstanding confusing:

Btw - meant "own reflection" to literally mean, physical reflection, lol.

Oh ok I've always thought attention to physical appearance is more a histrionic thing but who knows.

The tale of Narcissus is supposed to be about the kid being caught-up in the love of his own self-reflection; an expression of vanity unhealthy to the individual, of which, as asked in the OP, derivative symptoms have become superimposed as the main form of usage.

A narcissistic thinking style is the internal production system of the outer narcissistic presentation, unique to the individual. My old Oxford from the 80s coins 'narcissism' as, "Tendency to self-worship, excessive or erotic interest in one's own personal features." - whereas egotism as, "too frequent use of 'I' and 'me'; practice of talking about oneself; self-conceit; selfishness; hence ~istic(al)"

So one has apparently absorbed the other?

Are you maybe talking about egotism, not narcissism in its original, more basic conception?

On a side note, personally, I should probably identify with both - to varying degrees depending on a couple other pathologies.

Healthy narcissism is what I said in the beginning, its an ability to like oneself and to feel good by things one enjoys and that accord with the way one wants to see oneself - including working on goals one wants to achieve. It also has to do with being realistic, if you are the best in your job for example, being convinced you are the best and telling this to possible employers etc. is not grandiose, but just stating the facts.

That's surely (healthy) egotism - these terms have clearly become conflated through misuse over time - where along the line did the concept of healthy "narcissism" make itself possible, if the definition is that of an unhealthy excess? "Healthy narcissism" is like saying, "healthy disorder".

Which doesn't make it wrong; just that the usage has evolved the same as most concepts do through vernacular over the long-term. I actually like/agree with this way of looking at it, that it's any positive attention to the self - that it can be healthy - because, for anyone with experience in the world of Nons, the pathology is as common as practically any positive human trait you can think of, and would be even more common were certain dials of proportion turned-up in the vast majority; it's actually selflessness which is the natural outlier.

Which could mean both 'egotism' and 'narcissism' are both feeling different body parts of a much larger psychic elephant - one which narcissism is gradually evolving to describe in more totality, but which is way too complex for the laymen to adopt simply into the lexicon; psychology is less of a science and more of a utilitarian system of behavioural analysis - so entirely possible the import of the Narcissus concept into common use, in the first place, was itself somewhat over-simplistic; which is why deeper intellects such as your sources have basically screwed "vanity excess" out of the picture.

I think your take is helpful here, Z:

ZeroZ wrote:The biggest difference is self confidence and healthy narcissism isn’t dysfunctional in nature.

So to bridge the two worldviews: Self-confidence is interchangeable with "healthy narcissism" - a realistic system of self-appraisal, and the tendency towards self-driven ego satisfaction.

To anyone: Is the super ego/ego structure such, that an excessive proportion of this (relative to the standard social norm) isn't possible, that an "excess" immediately makes the ego unhealthily narcissistic, or narcissistic in the classical sense?

Even if an excess of self-confidence isn't technically possible (in the same way classical narcissism can't be considered positive), still obvious there's a continuum to it; and maybe the example of "high self-confidence" is the differentiator I was looking for: at the right of the bell-curve, self-confidence wise, the individual isn't any more narcissistic; they're just way more solid, comfortable in a variety of situations, and so on. Probably certain types of psychopaths have this through their genetic default, but it's visible as the distinction in higher status circles; successful narcissists have a certain vanity and a clear system of self-image maintenance, whereas the more self-assured types tend to be a lot quieter about themselves.

vcrpamphlet wrote:That friction wouldn't be a problem if the sense of self were somehow removed. What makes you say one is opposite to the other?

The friction gets created by the internal conflict or affect being defended against and both defense and affect becoming unconscious. It doesnt have anything to do with the sense of self. So what is opposing here is a self-part, not the self. If you think about SPD for example theres - supposedly - not much self, but theres lots of narcissistic withdrawal. Maybe thats a crap example though, because most of them split off the realization of illness so that subjectively theres rarely friction as long as they're "inside".

Thinking about the way you (in particular) talk about this subject, the classical DSM-criteria'd NPD and the spectrum it infers are incredibly shallow in the grander scheme - that narcissism (correct me if this is wrong) is entirely rested on the delusion of Self, is better understood as a core property of the human psyche.

I have stopped beign too interested in theory after I started therapy, but the last stuff I read from the field of studying narcissism indicated, that narcissim was broadly seen now as covert/overt grandiose and overt/overt vulnerable narcissism. On the side of diagnostic stuff more and more people were moving towards a dimensional model.
That being said though you seem to conflate narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Those are two completely different things.

The tale of Narcissus is supposed to be about the kid being caught-up in the love of his own self-reflection; an expression of vanity unhealthy to the individual, of which, as asked in the OP, derivative symptoms have become superimposed as the main form of usage.

A narcissistic thinking style is the internal production system of the outer narcissistic presentation, unique to the individual. My old Oxford from the 80s coins 'narcissism' as, "Tendency to self-worship, excessive or erotic interest in one's own personal features." - whereas egotism as, "too frequent use of 'I' and 'me'; practice of talking about oneself; self-conceit; selfishness; hence ~istic(al)"

So one has apparently absorbed the other?

I dont have the time to go thru this atm but quickly staring at Freuds original paper he is referencing a guy called Näcke in 1899 to whom he attributes the term "narcissism" and also its usage in the form of people who are very invested in their own bodies. Freud himself was very biophysical/neurology oriented but even he quickly switched from a physical to a more mental idea, therefore the idea of the "libidinal cathexis of the self" and also the idea that due to a missing "erotic interest" in the therapist those would unlike normal neurotics not be curable. I cant for some reason quote the thing, it seems somehow protected. In any event Freud wrote the paper 105 years ago, some stuff has changed since then. Its out there as a collected works pdf tho in case you wanna check it out.

That's surely (healthy) egotism - these terms have clearly become conflated through misuse over time - where along the line did the concept of healthy "narcissism" make itself possible, if the definition is that of an unhealthy excess? "Healthy narcissism" is like saying, "healthy disorder".

It didnt. Even Freud spoke of healthy narcissism. Its just an example of a clinical term that people use without knowing what it means. Its like attributing "depression" to everything.

Which could mean both 'egotism' and 'narcissism' are both feeling different body parts of a much larger psychic elephant - one which narcissism is gradually evolving to describe in more totality, but which is way too complex for the laymen to adopt simply into the lexicon; psychology is less of a science and more of a utilitarian system of behavioural analysis - so entirely possible the import of the Narcissus concept into common use, in the first place, was itself somewhat over-simplistic; which is why deeper intellects such as your sources have basically screwed "vanity excess" out of the picture.

Yea, I think that is true for a lot of specific concepts that become pop-cultural.

To anyone: Is the super ego/ego structure such, that an excessive proportion of this (relative to the standard social norm) isn't possible, that an "excess" immediately makes the ego unhealthily narcissistic, or narcissistic in the classical sense?

I dont understand the question. If you mean unhealtyh in the sense of NPD then there are different ideas how this comes to be. Basicallay Kohut and Kernberg have the two that are the most opposite, theres also variations of this by Masterson or Meltzer, the latter who never used the term NPD or BPD at all, but whose formulation I find the most interesting.

Akuma wrote:The friction gets created by the internal conflict or affect being defended against and both defense and affect becoming unconscious. It doesnt have anything to do with the sense of self. So what is opposing here is a self-part, not the self.

Sounds like we're back to the insurmountability of the personality data-structure again. Apologies for not keeping that discussion going at the time, btw - was in too selfish a state to get into your personal story (was also evidently a bit hypomanic, skimming the posts again). Anyway - I think you could be wrong about this. They're two different systems with influence on one another, not a strictly intertwined construct - at least, not intertwined in the untangleable way you're suggesting.

There may be friction with whatever 'part' of the self you mean. That isn't however (necessarily) productive of a mental rock and a hard place; would you agree the system might be adaptive enough, in some cases, to circumvent the tension without any stress being caused? I know you said 'might', but wanted to clarify.

This type of language isn't rigorous or empirically based enough to speak in absolute terms. If it's only part of the self that's in question, then what's stopping proven methods of total self dissolution, very much superintending of these facets, from having a meaningful impact on an egotistical/narcissistic thinking style?

Narcissism may be intrinsic to a part-self-basis, but I'm still not seeing any reason a higher-order approach wouldn't have the potential to make a difference.

I have stopped beign too interested in theory after I started therapy, but the last stuff I read from the field of studying narcissism indicated, that narcissim was broadly seen now as covert/overt grandiose and overt/overt vulnerable narcissism. On the side of diagnostic stuff more and more people were moving towards a dimensional model.
That being said though you seem to conflate narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Those are two completely different things

.

Sure you've written this before, but out of interest how did you come to get an NPD diagnosis?

Not meaning to conflate the two. We sort of just established that our two non-NPD definitions of narcissism are fairly different - I take maybe a simple view in that NPD is simply an extreme presentation of the style, where sub-traits overwhelm social acceptability and so on; whereas your definition is open to a positive and healthy presentation. But, as mentioned, very much open to most things you've said; to argue healthy narcissism as tacitly contradictory kind of negates how word-concepts change over time.

Could look up some references in support of the contradiction (and that the conflation with egotism is unnecessary) but I guess speaking as someone who gravitates towards narcissism under certain mental conditions, would like to think it can be harnessed where full eradication isn't possible.

How's therapy been working for you, btw?.

I dont have the time to go thru this atm but quickly staring at Freuds original paper he is referencing a guy called Näcke in 1899 to whom he attributes the term "narcissism" and also its usage in the form of people who are very invested in their own bodies. Freud himself was very biophysical/neurology oriented but even he quickly switched from a physical to a more mental idea, therefore the idea of the "libidinal cathexis of the self" and also the idea that due to a missing "erotic interest" in the therapist those would unlike normal neurotics not be curable. I cant for some reason quote the thing, it seems somehow protected. In any event Freud wrote the paper 105 years ago, some stuff has changed since then. Its out there as a collected works pdf tho in case you wanna check it out.

Not to be facetious, but, so what?

How did the definition I mentioned come to exist in the Oxford dictionary, if Freud was the one-true-guru with epitaxial influence on every change subsequent?

I dont understand the question. If you mean unhealtyh in the sense of NPD then there are different ideas how this comes to be. Basicallay Kohut and Kernberg have the two that are the most opposite, theres also variations of this by Masterson or Meltzer, the latter who never used the term NPD or BPD at all, but whose formulation I find the most interesting.

Was probably getting more into semantics than the topic could benefit from, and kind of know the answer now anyway, so all good.

vcrpamphlet wrote:Sounds like we're back to the insurmountability of the personality data-structure again. Apologies for not keeping that discussion going at the time, btw - was in too selfish a state to get into your personal story (was also evidently a bit hypomanic, skimming the posts again). Anyway - I think you could be wrong about this. They're two different systems with influence on one another, not a strictly intertwined construct - at least, not intertwined in the untangleable way you're suggesting.

Its a sideeffect of my dissociation that I kind of pathologically live in the moment. Or in other words I do remember your nickname, but nothing else. So if I fail to take note of some connections thats not intentional. More concretely I dunno where the idea comes from that I called it untangeable >_>.

There may be friction with whatever 'part' of the self you mean. That isn't however (necessarily) productive of a mental rock and a hard place; would you agree the system might be adaptive enough, in some cases, to circumvent the tension without any stress being caused? I know you said 'might', but wanted to clarify.

I think thats a funny question^^
I mean look at it like this. The necessity of a defense mechanisms comes into play usually because at a certain point the person is unable or unwilling to face a certain situation. In simplified terms, one could therefore say what happens if one gets rid of a defense is that the person either adapts with a new defense or gets conscious of that which has been defended against - suddenly being angry, scared, embarrassed, having horrible memories etc. In a way thats what all therapies are about, building the ability to tolerate negative states (of course theres other things, too but I think thats kind of the center for most people). So looking at it in this way the only way you can get rid of defensive functioning without creating stress is by adapting in a new way. Which is btw also an approach they do in a lot of mental hospitals - since there is not time to "cure" the patient, one tires to destabilize the patient and then to make it possible to use more adaptive defenses. Even then tho, stress occurs of course.
What si interesting is, if something that got blocked in the first place can go away without one noticing and then, once such a block has been removed, nothing happens. But I would say - also out of a few personal experiences of the like - that is not possible.

This type of language isn't rigorous or empirically based enough to speak in absolute terms. If it's only part of the self that's in question, then what's stopping proven methods of total self dissolution, very much superintending of these facets, from having a meaningful impact on an egotistical/narcissistic thinking style?

I dunno what you are implying here. Self dissolution usually means either psychosis or death. The latter would indeed be a good way to get rid of thought, though.

Narcissism may be intrinsic to a part-self-basis, but I'm still not seeing any reason a higher-order approach wouldn't have the potential to make a difference.

Well not every problem connected with pathological narcissism is a broad, all-encompassing, borderline issue that would lead to psychotic breaks or other problems if approached the wrong way. You might remember I have even started hallucinating in therapy, but that wont happen with everyone of course heh. I think theres a lot of stuff that would psychologically be termed narcissistic, which can be fixed and which might not even be explicitly named like this.

Sure you've written this before, but out of interest how did you come to get an NPD diagnosis?

I got diagnosed after an interview with a psychodynamic and a psychoanalytic therapist at the institute of psychoanalysis here and then by my current therapist. My diagnosis is officially either schizoid-narcissistic pd or dissociative disorder on top of npd.

How's therapy been working for you, btw?.

Unlike with the CBT guy I dont feel like my current therapis tis an idiot. I had made up a list of "changes", that you asked for in the other thread, but I am still unsure if it makes sense posting them, as those changes might not be very helpful for an outsider who does not know this sort of therapy or who is not me. Like, there are some changes that are highlevel enough to be stated n such a list, like having less problems with vertigo, having lost paranoia, having lost suicidality - also haven gotten more other [psycho?]somatic issues. But there is also stuff that might sound rather funny, like that I am thinking more of my therapist with his name not just "that guy", or that sometimes I actually take notice of him and might remember after the session some of the clothes he was wearing.
For more of an expected-range answer though, this sort of therapy is sadly by far not as swoosh-woah-bang as I thought and is very, very slow. The reasoning behind this is basically though so that I don't abort it, or that I don't go psychotic.

Not to be facetious, but, so what?

I'm implying that from my perspective of all the stuff I've read I havent really seen a concentration on the body I once asked my therapist about it though and he basically said that "if its used to uphold a unstable self view then it surely is in the range of pathological narcissism". But I personalyl fidn body-stuff shallow and meh so there.

How did the definition I mentioned come to exist in the Oxford dictionary, if Freud was the one-true-guru with epitaxial influence on every change subsequent?

Well obviously it flew there on a carpet, then put the carpet on the floor and made a picknick. Then it fell asleep and it still is there up to this day!

Akuma, has it been an experience in your personal life, that the disorder-mix you have, has made it difficult to effectively understand your interlocutor when discussing topics with this level of complexity?

Or is it more a case of my own communication style causing the issue? Something that seems to happen with me and schizoids a fair bit, when I come across as though I'm being intellectually competitive, which seems to trigger evasion.

Asking those questions instead, because it's late and cbf correcting everything there on my phone. At face value, it seems like the weird misalignment between the last two posts is based on more than an inadequacy of my wording. Still seems mostly straightforward - guess it could also be the fact you're way more educated in psychodynamics, and appear less dynamic to my optimism than I am to your technicalities.

Simple example which leads me to think it's the challenger thing, is that paragraph on usernames at the start of your post, when the thread being referenced was bumped only yesterday with a question to you, and you're hardly imperceptive enough to have not figured that the mention of it meant I was steerfield and that that's the convo being referred to, lol.

Will get back to you tomorrow on the rest (4real this time).