It’s an interesting topic and the way they go about it is completely backwards in my opinion. I would be interested in some thoughts others might have on the topic, as my own are a bit.. biased....
It’s an interesting topic and the way they go about it is completely backwards in my opinion. I would be interested in some thoughts others might have on the topic, as my own are a bit.. biased.
The last two paragraphs are telling. Let’s dissect those and maybe we’ll gather some insight on the topic at hand while we’re at it.
“People with pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder have a reputation of not changing or dropping off from treatment,” Ronningstam says. “Instead of blaming that on them, the clinicians and researchers need to really further develop strategies that can be adjusted to the individual difference—and at the same time to focus on and promote change.”
The assumptions and allegations in this paragraph all point to the idea that every patient should get some therapy and more research enables therapists to achieve this point. So society could be happier? So expensive long term treatments can be justified? I don’t know.
It is a common phenomenon, but ‘blaming’ sounds a bit harsh. You can’t force someone to do therapy, if you do, it doesn’t work. It takes a lot of time to gain trust of someone with narcissistic traits, and the current favored model of therapy (cognitive-behavioral or go home) has a focus on concrete results and rather earlier on than later. The proposition becomes: I have to pay you a 100 bucks a session and the first year is me trying to trust you with my most shameful moments. I know something more fun and more shameful. And it becomes a societal issue in countries with national health insurance (must we pay for this?).
It is rather short-sighted to call therapists out that they blame patients for stopping therapy early. It’s akin to blaming your mother that you like certain fetishes. It might be true, but how useful is it? We have to deal with it anyway, no matter how many randomized control trials you do on the hub.
Since discovering she has NPD, Tessa has started a YouTube channel called SpiritNarc where she posts videos about her experiences and perspectives on narcissism. “I really want the world to understand [narcissism],” she says. “I'm so sick of the narrative that's going around—people see the outside behavior and say, ‘This means these people are awful.’” What these people don't see, she adds, is the suffering that lies below the surface.
Understanding this paragraph is key. Let’s start the lecture, shall we.
Since discovering she has NPD, ….
She has it. So it’s a disease right? Is there a cure? It means I don’t have to change, but others have to help me get better. Just another round of therapy and maybe the NPD will get in remission. No, I don’t mean that there is no treatment. It is essential to the treatment to get some insight on why we do what we do. And that’s not going to happen if we explain it in this way; A) I have NPD, thus I handle my life in the NPD way. B) I handle relationships weird because of my narcissistic vulnerabilities. See how it’s different? Person A maybe needs some chemo to remove NPD, while person B maybe accepts that some change is necessary. Maybe.
..where she posts videos about her experiences and perspectives on narcissism.
While she ‘has’ this ‘disorder’, her experience and perspective is special enough for a whole YouTube channel. No it’s not grandiose. It’s like, influencers are the new normal right, so maybe it is kind of healthy.
…‘This means these people are awful.’” What these people don't see, she adds, is the suffering that lies below the surface.
How she treated her boyfriend is okay, you know, she suffered a lot from his betrayal.
“I'm so sick of the narrative that's going around…
She means any narrative other than her own. I don’t mean to bash, but they make it so easy.
It is a strange piece. On one hand there is the interesting part; showing of some ‘sufferers’ of NPD. Is it human interest or is Scientific American feeding into their disorder? They write about it as if it’s a disease, yet they let vulnerable people showcase their vulnerability. Or they don’t really believe what they write. Again, I don’t know.
On the other hand, they call on real hard ‘science’ - they did the magic magnet centrifuge (MRI for the uninitiated) trick, so we now know something true about the brain - to legitimize the statements and narratives they offer in their article. Namely narcissism deserves more attention and more treatment.
So what, you say. I have weird uncle that might be narcissistic based on family history and weird stuff he says during gatherings. He needs help! Let them do their science stuff and everybody will get better for it.
So for everybody who has read this far, which I imagine not that many - I write for fun, but my vulnerable side would love some fans for my narrative - the conclusion is a bit disappointing . The dynamic that is on display in this article is exactly that of a narcissist in therapy. The goal is change. What is achieved is maybe a bit of insight. It is mistaken for progress. We mark it a success. And nothing ever changes.
I don't have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but I do have another personality disorder. In some of the forums and subreddits I am on, the question often comes up of whether it is worth seeking...
Exemplary
I don't have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but I do have another personality disorder. In some of the forums and subreddits I am on, the question often comes up of whether it is worth seeking a diagnosis and whether it is worth telling others about a diagnosis once you've gotten it.
The answer to whether you should get the diagnosis is pretty mixed. Some people think it doesn't matter, because anything captured in that diagnosis would eventually become obvious in therapy anyway, but on the other hand it could be a useful tool for introspection to compare your experience to the template.
On the latter question though, there is usually a fairly strong agreement that it's a waste of time to tell anyone else about a diagnosis. Invariably, it is held against the person. They use it to dismiss the parts of you that they don't like as invalid, or to write you off altogether.
But in that way, it's also a blessing. Being told definitively that you are different to the average person is useful. Because other people forget that, or ignore it. Sometimes when you try and tell people who you are they will reject it. They will make up whatever reason they can to ignore the idea that people are different and have different wants and needs. Often they will do so by reductionism, telling you generalities of how people are and how YOU are no matter what you think.
And in those cases, it can be nice to have labels. When someone says that humans are social animals, and that's just a fact of nature, it can be nice to know that being asexual is a thing that exists outside of you, and that being different from normal is actually pretty normal.
When someone says that other people can handle ____ just fine so you have no excuse, it would be nice if there was some study like the one mentioned in the article that says "some people when we put them in this scenario have way higher cortisol levels than most, which usually means higher stress" and you aren't necessarily just being overdramatic.
When people are denying your inner self it helps to know that, regardless of what this person thinks, there is a world out there that knows you exist.
I watched a Youtube video a while back about therapy and it was talking about CBT at one point and why it was bad, and the reason it was bad was essentially because it fosters a Jordan Peterson-like mindset of fixing yourself instead of fixing the world. And what I realized was that nobody else cares about this stuff because they care about me, or other people dealing with stuff. They care about it because they care about third parties, and how much easier it would be for them if I was fixed. If CBT helps me feel better but makes me less motivated to overthrow the capitalist establishment, then its not good for that youtuber or the broader world, even if it would be good for me.
It took me a long time to wrap my head around that divergent interest until I read an article that used the term "pro-social" with regard to mental health in young men. Most people don't really care about those with mental health problems, they just care about making sure those people don't become a problem for innocent people.
Which is fine, no one is obligated to prioritize other people over their own interests. But it is an important dynamic for mental health professionals to keep in mind when trying to engage with people in therapy. There can be multiple levels of distrust that need to be individually worked through, and seeing how these social dynamics affect eachother can help psychologists get a deeper understanding of the problems they are trying to solve.
None of what I said about how other people act was directed at you, btw. I was just giving examples.
It’s an interesting topic and the way they go about it is completely backwards in my opinion. I would be interested in some thoughts others might have on the topic, as my own are a bit.. biased.
The last two paragraphs are telling. Let’s dissect those and maybe we’ll gather some insight on the topic at hand while we’re at it.
The assumptions and allegations in this paragraph all point to the idea that every patient should get some therapy and more research enables therapists to achieve this point. So society could be happier? So expensive long term treatments can be justified? I don’t know.
It is a common phenomenon, but ‘blaming’ sounds a bit harsh. You can’t force someone to do therapy, if you do, it doesn’t work. It takes a lot of time to gain trust of someone with narcissistic traits, and the current favored model of therapy (cognitive-behavioral or go home) has a focus on concrete results and rather earlier on than later. The proposition becomes: I have to pay you a 100 bucks a session and the first year is me trying to trust you with my most shameful moments. I know something more fun and more shameful. And it becomes a societal issue in countries with national health insurance (must we pay for this?).
It is rather short-sighted to call therapists out that they blame patients for stopping therapy early. It’s akin to blaming your mother that you like certain fetishes. It might be true, but how useful is it? We have to deal with it anyway, no matter how many randomized control trials you do on the hub.
Understanding this paragraph is key. Let’s start the lecture, shall we.
She has it. So it’s a disease right? Is there a cure? It means I don’t have to change, but others have to help me get better. Just another round of therapy and maybe the NPD will get in remission. No, I don’t mean that there is no treatment. It is essential to the treatment to get some insight on why we do what we do. And that’s not going to happen if we explain it in this way; A) I have NPD, thus I handle my life in the NPD way. B) I handle relationships weird because of my narcissistic vulnerabilities. See how it’s different? Person A maybe needs some chemo to remove NPD, while person B maybe accepts that some change is necessary. Maybe.
While she ‘has’ this ‘disorder’, her experience and perspective is special enough for a whole YouTube channel. No it’s not grandiose. It’s like, influencers are the new normal right, so maybe it is kind of healthy.
How she treated her boyfriend is okay, you know, she suffered a lot from his betrayal.
She means any narrative other than her own. I don’t mean to bash, but they make it so easy.
It is a strange piece. On one hand there is the interesting part; showing of some ‘sufferers’ of NPD. Is it human interest or is Scientific American feeding into their disorder? They write about it as if it’s a disease, yet they let vulnerable people showcase their vulnerability. Or they don’t really believe what they write. Again, I don’t know.
On the other hand, they call on real hard ‘science’ - they did the magic magnet centrifuge (MRI for the uninitiated) trick, so we now know something true about the brain - to legitimize the statements and narratives they offer in their article. Namely narcissism deserves more attention and more treatment.
So what, you say. I have weird uncle that might be narcissistic based on family history and weird stuff he says during gatherings. He needs help! Let them do their science stuff and everybody will get better for it.
So for everybody who has read this far, which I imagine not that many - I write for fun, but my vulnerable side would love some fans for my narrative - the conclusion is a bit disappointing . The dynamic that is on display in this article is exactly that of a narcissist in therapy. The goal is change. What is achieved is maybe a bit of insight. It is mistaken for progress. We mark it a success. And nothing ever changes.
I don't have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but I do have another personality disorder. In some of the forums and subreddits I am on, the question often comes up of whether it is worth seeking a diagnosis and whether it is worth telling others about a diagnosis once you've gotten it.
The answer to whether you should get the diagnosis is pretty mixed. Some people think it doesn't matter, because anything captured in that diagnosis would eventually become obvious in therapy anyway, but on the other hand it could be a useful tool for introspection to compare your experience to the template.
On the latter question though, there is usually a fairly strong agreement that it's a waste of time to tell anyone else about a diagnosis. Invariably, it is held against the person. They use it to dismiss the parts of you that they don't like as invalid, or to write you off altogether.
But in that way, it's also a blessing. Being told definitively that you are different to the average person is useful. Because other people forget that, or ignore it. Sometimes when you try and tell people who you are they will reject it. They will make up whatever reason they can to ignore the idea that people are different and have different wants and needs. Often they will do so by reductionism, telling you generalities of how people are and how YOU are no matter what you think.
And in those cases, it can be nice to have labels. When someone says that humans are social animals, and that's just a fact of nature, it can be nice to know that being asexual is a thing that exists outside of you, and that being different from normal is actually pretty normal.
When someone says that other people can handle ____ just fine so you have no excuse, it would be nice if there was some study like the one mentioned in the article that says "some people when we put them in this scenario have way higher cortisol levels than most, which usually means higher stress" and you aren't necessarily just being overdramatic.
When people are denying your inner self it helps to know that, regardless of what this person thinks, there is a world out there that knows you exist.
I watched a Youtube video a while back about therapy and it was talking about CBT at one point and why it was bad, and the reason it was bad was essentially because it fosters a Jordan Peterson-like mindset of fixing yourself instead of fixing the world. And what I realized was that nobody else cares about this stuff because they care about me, or other people dealing with stuff. They care about it because they care about third parties, and how much easier it would be for them if I was fixed. If CBT helps me feel better but makes me less motivated to overthrow the capitalist establishment, then its not good for that youtuber or the broader world, even if it would be good for me.
It took me a long time to wrap my head around that divergent interest until I read an article that used the term "pro-social" with regard to mental health in young men. Most people don't really care about those with mental health problems, they just care about making sure those people don't become a problem for innocent people.
Which is fine, no one is obligated to prioritize other people over their own interests. But it is an important dynamic for mental health professionals to keep in mind when trying to engage with people in therapy. There can be multiple levels of distrust that need to be individually worked through, and seeing how these social dynamics affect eachother can help psychologists get a deeper understanding of the problems they are trying to solve.
None of what I said about how other people act was directed at you, btw. I was just giving examples.