Psychology Today on how to spot a narcissist

This is an excellent article, Donna!

Incidentally as I said an earlier post, I don’t believe that “ALL psychopaths are necessarily narcissists.” While there obviously is a great deal of overlap between the two conditions (and some people, like Sam Vaknin, are definitely both), I’m sure Oxy is right when she points out that the level of narcissism can vary considerably from one psychopath to another. I think the “Dark Triad” approach does get one thing right by treating “psychopathy” and “narcissism” as independent personality traits.

This article on narcissism helps to explain why the two are independent. Most personality disorders could be characterized by one or maybe two overriding traits that are the primary “drivers” of the condition. These are the central factors that motivate (or permit) the dysfunctional thinking and behavior. In the case of psychopathy, that central factor is the lack of what we call a “conscience,” which seems to be part of a broader lack of inhibition rooted in a profound emotional deficit. Without a conscience to moderate their behavior, psychopaths can be capable of perpetrating all kinds of antisocial acts—simply because there’s nothing to stop them!

However, this article points out that what drives narcissism much of the time appears to be quite a different factor: a profound insecurity. This certainly explains how people can be narcissistic without being psychopaths. Yet it also brings into question how far “psychopathy” and “narcissism” are compatible with one another. The article described narcissists as

Hypersensitive and insecure. This includes imagining criticism where it doesn’t exist and getting depressed by perceived criticism. “Vulnerable” narcissists are self-centered and overly defensive.

Prone to a vast array of negative emotions including depression, anxiety, self-consciousness, and shame owing to not being given their “due.” Such feelings can be an indication of egocentricity and self-absorption.

Since psychopaths tend to be low in neurotic traits, less fear-driven, and not at all prone (as far as I’m aware) to feelings like “shame,” I must wonder whether the “narcissism” seen in numerous psychopaths might be qualitatively different from the “narcissism” seen in non-psychopaths. Perhaps “narcissistic” psychopaths are just plain self-indulgent.

To put this another way, psychopaths focus on gratifying their own whims and desires at other people’s expense because they have no cause to care about the needs and rights of others. Narcissists can’t spare a thought for the needs and rights of others because they’re too desperately obsessed with bolstering their own egos.

In 1984, psychologist Robert Emmons posed the original narcissistic paradox: He noted that narcissists simultaneously devalue others even as they need others’ admiration. Back’s research on narcissism now allows psychologists to resolve this long-standing paradox. It appears that narcissists seek out people who maintain their high positive self-image, at the same time intentionally avoiding and putting down people who may give them a harsh dose of realism. “Seeking admiration is like a drug for narcissists,” notes Back.

It is a paradox, insofar as the narcissist’s “false front” of arrogance and apparent high self esteem is actually a “defense,” a determined attempt to compensate for and “block out” inner feelings of inadequacy. Narcissists can’t stand anyone who makes them “look bad,” and as they mentioned above, can react angrily even to imagined criticism. That baffles many people who have no idea why a narcissist got angry at them. It also seems certain that “putting others down” helps the narcissist feel better by comparison with others.

The fun-loving narcissist may enjoy widespread networking and dominating a social group not because they want to exploit every person in their path, but simply because they desire the positive reinforcement of others.

This is a key point. Comprehension of abusive people is often distorted by “victim subjectivity.” “Victims” often see what’s done to them from their own point of view, but not from the abuser’s point of view. Among other things this can lead to the fallacy of equating consequence with intention. Some people attribute motives to abusers that are not the abuser’s real (or anyway “main”) motive at all.

For instance, somebody who’s attacked and devalued by a narcissist might feel hurt, suffer a loss of self esteem, and be plagued by feelings of self-doubt that can leave them more vulnerable to the narcissist’s further depredations. Afterwards they may say that the narcissist “meant” to hurt them, “meant” to destroy their self esteem, and pursued a strategy “intended to render them easier to control.” But that’s only maybe. Just because those things were the consequences of what the narcissist did, that doesn’t have to mean that’s what the narcissist intended when doing those things. As for “meaning to hurt” someone, there’s a good chance the narcissist wasn’t thinking one way or the other whether they “hurt” anyone or not! The truly self-absorbed narcissist is concerned only with how well another person is feeding their desire for ego gratification—and only “hits out” at that person for failing to fulfill that function as the narcissist thinks they ought to.

Narcissists seem to believe the whole world revolves around them, or that if it doesn’t, it ought to! If the world fails to do that, narcissists feel shortchanged, and they’re offended! Narcissists tend to see the whole world as an extension of themselves. When someone else acts in a manner contrary to their wishes, narcissists can be just as discombobulated as if their own hand and arm had refused to obey their commands!

I don’t think most psychopaths suffer from that illusion. Psychopaths usually recognize the reality that the rest of the world has its own separate existence, and doesn’t willingly revolve around them. They realize that other people pursue interests of their own, which are often in conflict with those of the psychopath. But psychopaths still feel perfectly entitled to exploit the rest of the world any way they can.

They [narcissists] are enraged when told they aren’t beautiful or brilliant…

Naturally! The world failed to reflect their own preferred image of themselves.

And when narcissists do behave negatively and aggressively, they tend to do so in response to social exclusion.

Again, naturally! They’re being cut off from their desperately needed source of ego gratification—from what Sam Vaknin dubbed “narcissistic supply.”

Narcissism tends to peak in adolescence and decline with age.

This too is no surprise. Adolescence is a time of peak insecurity. Among those who are only mildly narcissistic for this reason, narcissism wanes with maturity and with the increase is genuine, healthy self-confidence that comes with it.

Psychologist Anita Vangelisti of the University of Texas at Austin found that tactics in the narcissists’ toolbox include bragging, refocusing the topic of conversation, making exaggerated hand movements, talking loudly, and showing disinterest by “glazing over” when others speak.

Sure! All of these tactics refocus other people’s attention and conversation on themselves, reflecting how “important” they are, feeding and propping up their hungry, tottering egos. “But that’s enough about me! Now tell me something about ME!”

Because control is so important to narcissists, they can abruptly lose their charm if destabilized or threatened. This two-faced behavior is often the first clue to their true character. They get angry when rejected, overreacting to small slights and punishing those who do not support their grandiose image of themselves.

Yes, challenge and rejection strike to the core of a narcissist’s insecurities. Narcissists typically have to be “always right” about everything. They can’t stand to be put in the wrong.

My one criticism of Anita Vangelisti’s remarks is her emphasis on the notion that narcissistic behavior is geared toward the “one objective” of “maintaining power” in a relationship. While there is some obvious truth in that, I think it’s often overestimated, frequently due to the “victim subjectivity” I mentioned earlier.

The term “power” itself is so broad and vague that it can mean almost anything. For that reason some people are prone to interpret the term wrongly, as if it meant “power over other people purely for the sake of controlling those people.” I think more women (like Vangelisti perhaps) can be prone to doing this because they often “personalize” an issue rather than recognizing the inanimate, even abstract factors that lie behind it. In the interactions Vangelisti discussed, “maintaining power” doesn’t have to be an end in itself. It’s only a means to an end, that “end” being the securing of “narcissistic supply” to feed the narcissist’s ego. And it’s almost certain that narcissists at bottom feel “powerLESS,” which is why they claw so desperately for it.

Two other comments:

The idea that narcissism is a constellation of traits that exists on a continuum, rather than a single, dichotomous label (you are or are not narcissistic), is reflected in plans to jettison the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder in the forthcoming DSM-V, the diagnostic manual for clinicians.

This is true, but it may be muddling two unrelated ideas together. On the one hand it’s entirely reasonable to point out that narcissism exists on a continuum. People in general can only be described as “more narcissistic” or “less so.” That does of course pose the problem of “how narcissistic” they have to be in order to qualify as “personality disordered.” Any answer is bound be somewhat arbitrary. But that’s a problem with every such disorder. For instance, “how deficient in conscience” must anyone be to qualify as a psychopath? So that problem in itself is not a justification for jettisoning the concept of “narcissistic personality disorder.”

On the other hand this paragraph speaks of narcissism being a “constellation” of traits. The notion of multiple traits is a totally separate idea from that of a continuum. In part this seems to suggest that with all these multiple traits on top of the “continuum” problem, the whole business of “narcissism” is just too complicated to categorize. So the DSM committee has thrown up its hands in despair, saying “let’s do away with the whole thing.” But as I think the article shows, “narcissism” in the pathological sense is not just any old collection of unrelated traits. On the contrary, it’s a set of traits that can result together in a consistent fashion from a reasonably well understood theoretical cause. I personally believe it’s a mistake for the APA to discard the diagnosis of NPD.

But if I had one major criticism, it’s that the scope of the article could have been wider.

…since more men are interested in short-term flings, narcissistic women don’t tend to bother men as much as narcissistic men frustrate women.

I’d say that’s far from true. It struck me after I’d read it that the article, while it’s thorough enough in exploring the psyche of the narcissist, is limited in its discussion of how narcissists impact life at large. Apart from vague references to “social circles”—like cocktail parties perhaps?—the article’s scope is almost entirely restricted to the topic of mate selection and related matters like sex. Even the very framework of the remark I quoted is all about how people are bothered by narcissists of the opposite sex! As if narcissists didn’t pose a problem to people of the same sex as well, in contexts of every kind!

The article says nothing about broader issues, public issues like narcissists in the workplace or in politics, or personal issues like narcissists in marriage or in the family. Narcissists can wreak havoc in all of these roles. Strangely, despite all this talk of romance and “relationships,” the words “husband,” “wife,” or “marriage” do not occur anywhere in the article. As for the comment I quoted, I’m sure multitudes of men who were NOT looking for “short-term flings” have been far more than just “bothered” by finding themselves married to a narcissistic woman. Especially one who exploits a man, then “devalues and discards” him, taking his children and his money with her. Children are a captive source of narcissistic supply to a narcissistic parent. And multitudes of children have been damaged in childhood by the “care” of a narcissistic mother or father.

So if the article helps people to avoid marrying one, that’s a much-needed public service.