Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 3 January 2007

Narc?

I had to remove that comment. Stereotype would be a much more succint way of referencing the fact that labeling is a short hand language in groups.

Twining 202

Ways to improve this article

I think this article could be improved by a larger emphasis on Cultural Narcissism. (see topic page for section on Lasch). There is so much room for enlarging on this. There is the entire matter of narcissism in all kinds of social, political geographic, ethnic and religious groups, etc. There is the entire topic of how Narcissism helps and/or hurts powerful national leaders. There are papers and books that discuss these issues without trying to label people.

Ideas, anyone? Could be an exciting phase for this topic! I am Kiwi 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, IP 83.146.13.49

Whoever you are, I thank you for your edit addition. It was exactly what the article needed, it seems to me -- an excellent concise defining of the very core of narcissism was really needed for the lead-off on this amalgamation of loosely related topics. My hat is off to you. Please consider coming back.

And yes, I noted the comment and link, but it is very tiny and inconsequential in the big scheme of things. Give it a few days. I am Kiwi 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A question - Do you have any ideas on a title for this topic page? Any comments on my comments of yesterday? You won't hurt my feelings. This isn't "my" page, but everyone's. I am Kiwi 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA Theory

This NPA theory hardly seems scientific. Mendelian genetics was state of the art a few centuries ago and is good enough to explain whether a pea is smooth or wrinkled, but human behavior is more complicated than that. As part of its description of traits, NPA theory distinguishes between whether blood rushes to or away from the face when angry. Just because the guy who came up with the idea has an M.D. doesn't mean he isn't a quack. If his theories have been published in any peer-reviewed scientific or psychological journals, that's a start. For now, his theory should be considered original research and not appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

In that vein, I am deleting his theory from this article.--NeantHumain 21:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello NeantHumain.

True, it is not proven. But it has been well-established in dogs and cattle (and possibly far many more animals) that Trait Theory is firmly established (though naturally the traits of these lower animals are not identical to hypothesized inherited human traits). On this basis and on the basis that chimps and gorillas seem to show the same hypothesized inherited trait transmission as humans, it seems to support this theory, but is certainly not proven.

Of course, very much of what is postulated in science is not proven, but is hypothesized and then tested to prove or disprove the premise. It is also true that Dr. Benis is self-published, and there have been, as of yet, no researchers known to be involved in or planning to be involved in the testing of this theory.

True, even such great a thing as evolution is not proven, but it is substantiated by thousands of discoveries linked to sedimentary rock layers that can be dated. Also, developmental medicine holds to the adage that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" This refers to the anatomical tracking of mammalian fetal development in many species. This goes far to giving supportive evidence.

In essence, I am in agreement with your decision and will remove it from another related topic. Thank you for posting about your reason for the deletion to this talk page. - I am Kiwi 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding citations

The introduction to this topic article begins with a tiny bit about the disturbing myth of Echo and Narcissis (really worth a read under Greek mythology).

It is then explained that Narcissism in excess can be pathological in the Psychiatric/Psychological sense. This is fully explained and referenced in Narcissism (psychology) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

In these same references are the citations for 1) narcissism as part of normal personality development and 2) abuse causing increases in narcissism.

I would rather hate to see all those citations carried over to this topic area where they will overwhelm and bury the links and books relevant here, especially when the concepts are already linked, plus the explanation and link to Narcissism (psychology) at the head of the page. Just my opinion. - I am Kiwi 19:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Narcissism Topic Deletions

Kirske. You state as your reason for removing, in the intro, the reference to many decades of psychiatric and psychological study and research into narcissism, regarding it being a part of a normal healthy psyche is your view that it is merely POV. This is not POV and it IS (at the least) a solidly Western cultural world view. It is also objective, based on thousands of studies. It is not a matter of my feelings or personal beliefs. I feel entirely neutral about the issue.

As for the other paragraph you deleted, it is very true and reliably documented that in severe cases of narcissism, where a great deal of problems in functioning in social, business and family relationships occurs, it is most likely an outcome of childhood abuse. Abuse can be physical or emotional. Abuse can also be caused by ignoring the child and treating it as an extension of one's hopes and dreams -- loving too much, spoiling too much is also abuse. It gives the child a falsely propped up sense of self and thus the child has no inner core of healthy narcissism and have a terribly low self esteem, lack of confidence.

A minor short paragraph or two giving an ultra-brief explanation of the other aspects of the word, which are intrinsically tied in to the cultural sense of the word, is necessary to lay the foundation of the article. It is as relevant to a discussion of the subject of the cultural sense of narcissism as is the referece to Greek mythology. Did you, by any chance, pause to check out the Talk:Narcissism page? If you have, then you will have noted why the links are embedded within the text of articles --- they are specificaly for people to find out more about the subject and increase their understanding of what is being talked about.

Now I agree that this Cultural Narcissism topic is yet a stub of a few random topics, all VERY briefly presently, loosely lumped into a sequence, and that the intro also needs a discussion of what cultural narcissism truly means. Instead, what is available now is merely a mishmash of topics. It also needs a thoughtful categorizing and a well thought out approach.

I am glad to see concern over topic development, but one should not delete in a topic where they have no knowledge of the subject, where they have merely POV and emotional reaction. What should be done is to either click the links and learn more, or post your complaints to the talk page Talk:Narcissism. There you can present YOUR POV and ask for feedback.

Going about deleting on the basis of POV is no better than going about creating topic copy based on POV. So come back and chat, don't delete. Such deletions border on pure vandalism and are time consuming to correct. Perhaps you will have time to do the necessary revisions?

Forgive all my incomplete sentences. I have a cold and am not up to snuff. Thank you - I am Kiwi 09:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Narcissism

Needs to be stuff in here about celebrity narcissism.--Penbat 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

Material on NPA personality theory reappeared for some reason, despite the agreement above to remove it. It appears to be pure original research with no currency in the field (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis). I don't think it should be restored unless somebody is capable of countering that critique. --Michael Snow 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A possible campaign of vandalism

This was posted to several mailing lists last night .

The assertions in the post are entirely incorrect and deliberately inflammatory. As a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge, all reference to, or text from, this individual's writing has been removed from the articles in question where he had posted it, because of it's unverifiability and inaccuracy.

I have have contacted this individual several times asking him which portions of text he feels infringe his copyright so that they may be deleted, and received no reply. --Zeraeph 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Confused

(Crossposted to Narcissism (psychology)) -- New to this article, can someone explain how Narcissism and Narcissism (psychology) are intended to differ? I see a lot of overlap. Are there really two different articles here? Or are they really covering "narcissism" and "psychological theories of narcissism"? FT2 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)