Talk:Malignant narcissism

message: The present represents a crisis around the (proper and intended) dispassionate measure of this site.
The present and significant President of the United States is clearly of this sort. We cannot pretend to be a rational impartial judge if we hold no standard. Otherwise science ceases to exist.
Which puts this field to test. My judgement in the 1980s was the present individual was a "bullshit artist". Nothing to do with his then-unknown politics, and everything to do with his perceived sort. Everything he has done since is entirely predictable.
An assertion: "malignant narcissist" fits a present individual very well. As Psychology is far from a precise science, professionals in that field are properly reluctant to offer labels.
At the same time, an ongoing train looks like an ongoing train, regardless of the exact rationale. There is clearly an oncoming train. We do not want to die.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbannister (talk • contribs) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Dancing around the present

message: Sam Vaknin isn't a narcissist, he's a psychopath. He's even been the subject of a documentary about it: I, Psychopath. He wrote a book "Malignant Self-Love" and claims to be an expert; however, he has no credentials, he simply has a personality disorder. Furthermore, he isn't describing malignant narcissism, he's describing psychopathology.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.137.116 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sam Vaknin

message: Why this article looks as hokey as an astrology chart?  There's a disease someone has made up that has no cure, though the types of therapy sold by the creators can help:  How bloody convenient.  Mumbo Jumbo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.217.16.76 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Could Someone Tell Me...

message: The following was posted on my talk page, but I feel it is far more relevant here:
The reference used is Kernberg's essay "The Psychotherapeutic Management of Psychopathic, Narcissistic, and Paranoid Transferences", in which Kernberg treats Antisocial Personality Disorder, Malignant Narcissism, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder as being part of the same spectrum ("I now formulate, from a psychodynamic viewpoint, the characteristic structural aspects of the antisocial personality disorder, as well as of the entire spectrum of narcissistic pathology with antisocial behavior - rangind from narcissistic personality disorder proper, to the syndrome of malignanat narcissism, to the antisocial personality disorder proper"; "The antisocial personality disorder proper as defined here constitutes the most severe form of patholofical narcissism"; "The syndrome of malignanat narcissism is a somewhat less severe form of pathological narcissism"; "The next step in this continuum from most to lest severe psychopathology is the narcissistic personality disorder proper") and restores Cleckcley's concept of APD in opposition to the DSM's ("I am defining "the antisocial personality disorder proper" here in the sense of Robert Hare's and my own work, which reestablishes the direct connection with Cleckley's classical description, and avoids dilution of the concept of the antisocial personality disorder that has ocorred as a consequence os the DSM system"). 
However, I felt I should tweak the restoration to show clearly that this was Otto Kernberg's thinking, NOT an established, and acknowledged overall perception. Also, of course, to pop the reference there, as well, where it should have been all along. --Zeraeph 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spectrum of Malignant Narcissism

message: The term "Malignant Narcissism" has come a long way over the past 30+ years from the time Kernberg coined the term to delineate a distinct syndrome.  What this article needs is not to be merged into another article and reduced to a short paragraph or two, but to be worked on a lot.  Even at this stage, this article constitutes not much more than a stub.  And I forgot to mention that political scientists have adopted the terminiology, in government as well as university settings, to help predict as well as understand various government leaders.  Spotted Owl (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Until more information comes to light we should perhaps merge the article with Narcissism (psychology). If we're going to merge it into any article it should be that one. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What this topic needs

message: I'm dubious as to whether the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Is this concept of any real world importance? The text in the article reads like somebody wrote it to look somewhat like a recognized psychiatric diagnosis by combining parts of NPD and psycho/sociopathy. It seems to have no real content of its own. Kind of cute, actually, but not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I intend to put this one up for AfD unless somebody makes a reasonable objection. Muad (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definately valid as a separate article but quite a lot of meterial such as narcissistic supply also applies to the NPD article and can either duplicated or transferred from here.--Penbat (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the subject of Malignant Narcissism as defined by Kernberg is (IMHO) notable enough for any encyclopedia, a large part of the article (and another whole article Narcissistic supply would seem to be vehicles for promoting a rather prolific internet blogger with no real credentials. I probably shouldn't interfere. But it seems most unwise to let this sort of speculation stand in articles indefinately. WB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.70.127 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: M. Scott Peck (author of "The Road Less Traveled") was a psychologist and he wrote a book with a 1983 copyright that is entirely dedicated to the study of "Malignant Narcissism".  
The book is "People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil".  His theory is that people with Malignant Narcissism even lie to themselves about their shortcomings.  ie. They see themselves as perfect and when imperfections occur, they lie to themselves and thus never admit even to themselves that they are not perfect.  In turn he believes this leads to evil behavior. ie. He correlates Malignant Narcissism with the Christian concept of Evil.  I can see that is quite controversial and may be why the book is not even referenced in this article.
But he says that he wrote the book as scholarly work in order that the science of studying Malignant Narcissism could be advanced.  Seems appropriate for at least a reference, even if it is claimed to be a controversial study of the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregfreemyer (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: His work is referenced by other psychologists. I dont see a problem with having a section here about his ideas on malignant narcissism. But see also M. Scott Peck Aspects of his book not specifically relating to malignant narcissism should be his own article be elsewhere, maybe in the Evil article. I note that there is already quite a lot about Peck in the Evil article.--Penbat (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is M. Scott Peck's book from 1983 intentionally ignored / not referenced in this article? 

message: I think you have gone over the top with your banners in this article. Bear in mind that about 30% of Wikipedia psychology articles dont have a single citation whatsoever.
* "single source" - i think it is self evident that quite a lot of this article is covered by only 1 citation and needs more.
* "self-published sources" - hardly
* "original research or unverified claims" - quite a few top gurus such as Ronningstam have no problem citing Vaknins work, if it is good enough for her it is certainly good enough for Wikipedia.--User:Penbat (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soiregistered getting carried away with his banners 

message: The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

message: I have not been able to identify any sources for the use of "gratification" as a differential feature of M. N. as per subsection Gratifications. Have a hunch someone had a source/memory of source once however: any ideas anyone? Jacobisq (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: personally i would ditch it - it has been in here for a long time unsourced and doesnt sound likely it ever will get sourced.--Penbat (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gratification

message: I'd like to make you aware of the fact that another user temporarily restored an older, considerably longer revision of this article (revision 2010-06-02T19:45:57‎) as he found this revision more correct and informative than the current one (ca. revision 2013-04-10T01:03:28‎). See also: Discussion on his talk page: User talk:Permaculturedesigner#April 2013. I reverted him since the contents were originally deleted because they did not met our quality standards and also to not trash other contributions. According to the edit history, the old article had various issues like usage of non-encyclopedic language, potential use of original research or unreliable sources, or a neutral point of view not being maintained. Nevertheless, there's a chance that some useful stuff was deleted alongside questionable content when the article was trimmed down years back. Since the article in the current form certainly lacks in various aspects as well, perhaps someone more familiar with this subject should re-evaluate the old revision () and if useful material is found merge it back into the current article? Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with your assessment. If there is something of worth to be added, it should be added manually. It would be better if User:Permaculturedesigner didn't try to force the article back almost 3 years to an inferior version--"citation needed" templates and all.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of old article contents 

message: Amazing that myself and others spent a lot of time clearing up the mess of sockpuppet User:Star767 aka User:Farrajak but somehow this article got missed. I think there still may be odd bits of junk in here.--Penbat (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Star767]] aka [[User:Farrajak]] 

message: Someone [] has a suggestion in the "Reference desk/Miscellaneous" boards, that might be of interest for contributors who are familiar with the subject. Mentioning or adding or linking or developping about these two authors and psychiatrists Scott Peck and Viktor Frankl. Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scott Peck and Viktor Frankl 

message: How does malignant narcissism differ from #1 'ordinary' narcissism and #2 ASPD? These are the sorts of things that users need to know. Norvo (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid point, i've added a section for the topic to be discussed. Szzuk (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Questions not Discussed 

message: The WP:BLP rules still apply to pages that discuss or include living persons, even if they are not entirely about that subject. As such, I have made a post on the BLP notice board in regards to Trump's inclusion on this page:
* Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Donald_Trump
The key element is that the cited experts have not studied Trump personally. Key quote: "Gartner acknowledges that he has not personally examined Trump...". Thus it is not a medically valid diagnosis. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it's two years later and we have treasure troves of evidence that Trump is the poster child for this article, I agree that without a clinical diagnosis, we can't post his picture in this article.  No doubt, it will someday appear as is definitely should (IMHO), perhaps after he's dead, but not yet. Art Smart Chart/Heart 09:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump 

message: The current contents leave the impression that the reason the concept known as "malignant narcissism", or any notion in psychology for that matter, has to be considered "hypothetical" is that it isn't considered "recognized" until a section confirming it exists in the DSM. The problem with that notion is that that document is very much a "trailing indicator" (using a stock market metaphor) and it will remain that way until its purpose changes. The reason is that document has come to be the "gold standard" in the US for both the legal interpretation of mental health issues and as the source for the "CPT" or billing codes for medical service remuneration, and by bearing such a heavy burden it also has taken on a fairly substantial political nature as well; all you need to tell this is it took a mere 7 years to get from DSM-III (1987) to DSM-IV (1994) but it went up to 19 more years to get to the current version. Furthermore the "issue" isn't whether psychology expert A or B is more prominent or whether either "carries more weight than" the DSM, but whether we can reasonably deduce with normal observations of current practice whether a concept does in fact exist; now what we might choose to call it may very well remain in flux for awhile, but you don't need to be a "recognized authority" to make a contribution towards these decisions. Now in point of fact I came here to make this point directly from a concept on a closed Facebook page dedicated to serving those of us who have had complex PTSD essentially since birth (preverbal trauma). Now essentially everyone on that page agreed that "malignant narcissism" was a concept that is very much accepted and acknowledged in current practice, but I'll give you another data point, my late mother's behavior cannot possibly be explained without using that concept, even to the point of "effectively developing her own private CIA" among other members of the neighborhood (a symptom of extreme paranoia among malignant narcissists well known to therapists). Now I was born way back in 1950, and she passed away in 1987 (coincidentally the same year DSM-III came out, although I believe the "cluster B" structure of personality disorders which just begins to explain this behavior wasn't published until the next edition). Now by articles like this one saying to the world that the behavior she clearly demonstrated towards me for 37 years of my life was merely "hypothetical" clearly demeans my suffering and those of every other individual who had to endure the abuse heaped upon them by the malignant narcissist in their lives which gave them their complex PTSD and preverbal trauma and from which they are still struggling to recover. I may not be a "recognized academic psychologist" but I strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to looking at and writing about this issue in light of the above argument. Jlawton11 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't wait for DSM to "legitimize" concepts already in practice 

message: This is a esoteric term in psychology that Wikipedia editors have struggled to make sense of in 15 years and 1500 edits. The article is meandering and confusing. 
The summary includes this odd statement ""hypothetical, experimental diagnostic category""
The body includes this desperate attempt to explain the term: "the word "malignant" is used in the sense of the word described by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "passionately and relentlessly malevolent: aggressively malicious"''
Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed 

message: — Assignment last updated by Vr2254 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology