Non-criminal psychopath?

I've heard it said that a non-criminal psychopath is what some people call a narcissist.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think it was Otto Kernberg who came up with a scale where NPD sat at the beginning of the scale and psychopathy at the end with Malignant Narcissism in the middle.

NPD____________Malignant Narcissist ____________Psychopath

Personally I think the reason you are being evaluated has as much to do with the actual diagnosis you receive as anything else.

Narcissism is a trait of psychopathy, but it's a very different mechanism.

With NPD, the narcissism is used to draw attention, to create a supply that the person needs to feel worth. With psychopathy, the narcissism is a demonstration of how little other people matter. There's no need for the supply.

justonemoreperson wrote:With NPD, the narcissism is used to draw attention, to create a supply that the person needs to feel worth. With psychopathy, the narcissism is a demonstration of how little other people matter. There's no need for the supply.

Things like treating people like $#%^, "demonstrating how little people matter," bullying, passive-aggression, triangulation, etc. all draw plenty of attention.

If there wasn't a need for a supply and attention, they wouldn't latch-on to someone.

Same coin; two different sides.

Everything has a payoff.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Things like treating people like $#%^, "demonstrating how little people matter," bullying, passive-aggression, triangulation, etc. all draw plenty of attention.

If there wasn't a need for a supply and attention, they wouldn't latch-on to someone.

Same coin; two different sides.

Everything has a payoff.

I used to work with a guy who was what most would call a classic narcissist. He had little genuine concern for anyone and would focus all of the attention onto himself and demonstrate all of the stuff you'd associate with NPD.

When he didn't get that attention he'd act out and try to manoeuvre events and conversation to get the topic back onto him.

I used to watch him, wondering why he needed to do so. He seemed to be captive to his own need for supply.

He actually cared about other people a lot, because he needed them to provide him with attention. It was to others that he didn't seem to care because he didn't give them what they wanted.

People thought I cared, because I demonstrated care to get what I wanted. The motive and mechanism were very different.

Manners73 wrote:I've heard it said that a non-criminal psychopath is what some people call a narcissist.

What are your thoughts on this?

I'd think they are totally different concepts. Narcissism psychodynamically can mean everything that concerned with the self, with turning onto the self or with self-esteem regulation. A "narcissist" psychologically-speaking doesnt exist. Pathological narcissism is used for problems either with the self - my therapist uses narcissistic disorder as a word for self-disorder f.e. - or with self-esteem. Vulnerable narcissism for example can be seen in this light as a person who's self-esteem modulation is vulnerable etc. More specifically with NPD several theorists haev held the idea that in the creation of the self certain aspects of which would turn into ideals to strive for are merged with the self in such a way that they become unconsciously perceived as aspects of the self - this was coined by some the grandiose self, setting apart an NPD proper with pathological narcissism of other sorts.
Psychopathy on the other hand side points way more to a part of the self-structure, namely the moral-system or super-ego and specifically defects in that system or its complete absence. Otto Kernberg, who Esmoke already mentioned, saw the two disorders as a spectrum, with the super-ego defects being the thing that differentiated them the most and also gave a big implication of the treatment prognosis. NPD itself though for Kernberg was a complication of what he called borderline personality organization, which set him apart back then a lot from Kohut who saw it as a sort of developmental arrest. Anyways, while his theories have been influential in the psychodynamic field and also in the conception of DSM, this rather strong dichotomy between neurotic and borderline self-structure is not widely accepted anymore afaik and I dont think there is clear evidence for his spectrum idea, but I'm a bit out of the loop these days with the current study situation.

justonemoreperson wrote:I used to work with a guy who was what most would call a classic narcissist. He had little genuine concern for anyone and would focus all of the attention onto himself and demonstrate all of the stuff you'd associate with NPD.

When he didn't get that attention he'd act out and try to manoeuvre events and conversation to get the topic back onto him.

I used to watch him, wondering why he needed to do so. He seemed to be captive to his own need for supply.

He actually cared about other people a lot, because he needed them to provide him with attention. It was to others that he didn't seem to care because he didn't give them what they wanted.

People thought I cared, because I demonstrated care to get what I wanted. The motive and mechanism were very different.

"Motive and mechanism" may be very different, but attention seeking nonetheless.

You shove your head up your ass (like indirectly saying my dead boyfriend is just a story that I made up to "look cool") and then when you get a reaction that you don't want, you "act out and try to manoeuvre events and conversation" (in the ways I already mentioned) until you have attention again.
I'm relatively angry about it.

What reasons were you doing it for then?

Akuma wrote:
I'd think they are totally different concepts. Narcissism psychodynamically can mean everything that concerned with the self, with turning onto the self or with self-esteem regulation. A "narcissist" psychologically-speaking doesnt exist. Pathological narcissism is used for problems either with the self - my therapist uses narcissistic disorder as a word for self-disorder f.e. - or with self-esteem. Vulnerable narcissism for example can be seen in this light as a person who's self-esteem modulation is vulnerable etc. More specifically with NPD several theorists haev held the idea that in the creation of the self certain aspects of which would turn into ideals to strive for are merged with the self in such a way that they become unconsciously perceived as aspects of the self - this was coined by some the grandiose self, setting apart an NPD proper with pathological narcissism of other sorts.
Psychopathy on the other hand side points way more to a part of the self-structure, namely the moral-system or super-ego and specifically defects in that system or its complete absence. Otto Kernberg, who Esmoke already mentioned, saw the two disorders as a spectrum, with the super-ego defects being the thing that differentiated them the most and also gave a big implication of the treatment prognosis. NPD itself though for Kernberg was a complication of what he called borderline personality organization, which set him apart back then a lot from Kohut who saw it as a sort of developmental arrest. Anyways, while his theories have been influential in the psychodynamic field and also in the conception of DSM, this rather strong dichotomy between neurotic and borderline self-structure is not widely accepted anymore afaik and I dont think there is clear evidence for his spectrum idea, but I'm a bit out of the loop these days with the current study situation.

Interesting.

If I understand correctly, the difference would be that narcissists are still identified with humanity: they feel the need to be special, but they are aware that they belong to the same group, and this produces an emotional relationship with others.
Psychopaths can behave like narcissists (or like schizoids, or other personalities), can be successful, but they aren't identified with humanity; imho nobody is entirely like this but, less or more, they feel that they are disconnected from humanity. Then, they can "play" with someone, someone could create a connection occasionally, but it's very easy and quick to break the connection, entirely and brusquely, when the condition comes back and takes control.

HSS wrote:If I understand correctly, the difference would be that narcissists are still identified with humanity: they feel the need to be special, but they are aware that they belong to the same group, and this produces an emotional relationship with others.
Psychopaths can behave like narcissists (or like schizoids, or other personalities), can be successful, but they aren't identified with humanity; imho nobody is entirely like this but, less or more, they feel that they are disconnected from humanity. Then, they can "play" with someone, someone could create a connection occasionally, but it's very easy and quick to break the connection, entirely and brusquely, when the condition comes back and takes control.

It's a fair description. I'll feign care and concern for people, and even offer help to someone, but it's not what most would call a pure motive.

As an example:

We live in a small community and not far from us is a family of fundamental Christians. The wife is struggling with lockdown, as they have small children and it's causing her a lot of stress.

She was near our house with the kids last week and so we went out to say "hi" and let the kids play with some livestock we have.

Later, my wife said, "I'm glad we spent some time with them" and I said, "Yeah. They're not allowed to spend much time with us, because we're not part of their sect, but now she has to consider that she's getting more support from us evil people than she is from her own kind."

My wife was just glad that she'd helped out a struggling mother.