Comments
[deleted] t1_j9x34sz wrote
[removed]
Sullied_Man t1_j9xuqfx wrote
The results of this research: vulnerable narcissists get badly affected by stress; grandiose narcissists not so much.
I guess that's pretty much as expected ;)
[deleted] t1_j9y3y25 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9y74cq wrote
[removed]
dansvans72 t1_j9ygpds wrote
This is very interesting, pathologically rather than medically. Perhaps the milder or socially aware subjects find that grandiosity is enough to counteract their feelings of shame- the commonly understood cause of narcissism. It may very well be that depending on the level of shame, some narcissists might need to employ the more destructive strategies. While grandiose narcissists find that egoism is adequate to counteract their shame, vulnerable narcissists might need more aggressive strategies.
Grandiosity does not result in the more socially destructive effects, among all the known strategies. Many narcissists devalue those in their surroundings, to suggest a favorable comparison of themselves to others. That along with domineering control, like gaslighting, deceptions, manipulations, are the more socially destructive strategies. Understanding the strategic differences through measurable stress response could help psychiatry better understand the spectrum of the disorder and resulting strategies more completely.
PlantingMatters t1_ja078u7 wrote
Personality psychology seems to have been formed by a bunch of privileged people pathologizing those with trauma, neglect and disability because those people couldn’t fit into an office or factory.
onyerbikedude t1_ja0xarc wrote
And if you have narcissistic tendencies due to bipolar, you can cycle between vulnerable and grandiose. (Speaking from experience I'm sorry to say.)
Sullied_Man t1_ja115f2 wrote
Sorry you're going through all of that; it must be challenging. I think it is fortunate that our society has greater awareness of these things now (though of course it'd a double-edged-sword - with increased opportunities for misunderstandings also...)
onyerbikedude t1_ja11grf wrote
Cheers. It's been 25 years, all but 'cured' now. My comment was more looking back. : )
imperatrixofthevoid t1_ja16rdh wrote
I think that too sometimes. Some laypeople and students tend to want to diagnose and classify everyone around them (oftentimes with the wrong labels and because they don't understand or like the person) and some trained professionals also like to pigeonhole people without attempting to really get to know them or understand them as well (many "mental health" professionals don't belong in the profession at all). Sometimes personality disorder labels = societal persecution and rejection vs someone getting the help they need especially those labelled as having cluster B traits.
AnotherWarGamer t1_ja20mjs wrote
Yup, and calling people mentally ill for wanting to climb in life. "You were born a slave, you will live as a slave, and die a slave. Now get back to work."
minisynapse t1_ja6vtym wrote
Maybe but good thing this isn't always the case. For example, see Carl Roger's work.
AutoModerator t1_j9wwc7m wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.