Narcissistic Personality Disorder
(Excerpted from Sequencing and Comparison from Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True.)
I originally had a different example above. In that exchange the commenter implies I am a megalomaniac (she said you think you have a monopoly on the truth, which is a sign of megalomania), which I understand has become Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It is also a good place to insert a criticism of psychology’s methods. Psychology relies on imprecise diagnosis, and subjective causation.
Diagnosis is imprecise because features of disorders are overlapping, where behavior, thoughts, and feelings overlap with other disorders, as well as with normal behavior.
Causation is subjective because unlike a medical diagnosis where there is something physical that serves definitively as the cause of the illness, psychology relies on theories based on indirect evidence. For example, the cause of a person who has difficulty trusting people and developing relationships may be seen by psychology as a person who has a fear of abandonment caused by an event or events of abandonment. Even if this is part of the individual’s history, it does not mean the cause of these issues is the result of a fear of abandonment. There are value-based reasons as to why a person may have difficulty developing new relationships and trusting people.
Group values are the bonding element of the group, and typically the bonding element between individuals. Which isn’t to say that great discrepancies between individual’s values cannot exist, the differences are deemphasized in interaction, and a strong relationship can still exist. There must be something one values of the other, and the other values of the one. It can become difficult for an individual to develop relationships if what an individual values is rare among the population. Again, all interaction is the exchange of value for value.
A lack of trust is a value determination based on both objective and subjective evidence. It is a value determination in two respects. The first is in regard to exposure, as the impact of a person betraying trust is limited by how much risk an individual exposes himself to. The second is whether or not a person believes most people are trustworthy or if a person believes most people are not trustworthy, which is subjective based on experience, but also objective based on what is known about human behavior and the propensity of human beings to be trustworthy. It forces a person to choose whether to act intelligently or to act in avoidance of behavior that suggests a psychological issue. A lack of trust can be an intelligent choice, and not a fear that if I call you my friend you may not be a friend one day, as psychology seems to suggest is the cause in some situations.
Since the person suggested I may have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I viewed the criteria and applied it to myself. According to the criteria I registered a 4.5 on the scoring, with the half being a criterion which consists of two parts that have nothing to do with one another.
1: Very high self-importance (boasting and expects to be seen as superior).
This is one point I acknowledge. I have a very high sense of self-importance, but this sense of self-importance is not without objective merit. I have created 5 legislative outlines, one constitutional amendment, one outline is a market-based solution for reducing economic inequality, including increasing opportunity, the quality of opportunity, and tangibly increasing popular power within a market based legislative system. Another is a solution for homelessness in San Francisco, would have reduced the homeless population by 60 to 70%, reduced the county budget by over 100 million dollars per year which represented about 5% of the budget at the time, and eliminated the visibility of homelessness on the streets. The third is a criterion for deadly force to address the unnecessary use of deadly force by law enforcement officers, which also establishes a regionally elected body to enforce the criteria which addresses another aspect of the problem. Another is the Balance Stimulus that not only addresses economic inequality and its impact on opportunity, but in doing so will have rippling effects by solving for inequality where inequality is the root cause of so many issues. The final is an option to be considered in the Israel/Palestine conflict, that includes the consent of both parties without the need for any third-party mediation. Beyond this there are other proposals that are mentioned in brevity in the book that I haven’t created a comprehensive outline for.
In addition to these ideas, I provide objective analysis of political, economic, and social subjects, which is largely, if not wholly absent from the news market, and this absence is damaging to human beings. The market does not exist for objective content on these subjects, because the news market itself is the reinforcement bias, in that people are looking for information that proves them right, and their right, is based on their values, which are the product of value associations, many intertwined with identity. A publication exists because there is ample demand for the bias of their information, which allows the publication to either sell the publication, or sell advertising, or both. Every bias suffers from some shortcoming of the truth, whether partisan, religious, or nationalist. Even if an article is 90% consistent with the bias in the bias’s true elements, it isn’t worth the publication risking the offense of its subscribers, by appearing to be compromising the bias. Truth offends everywhere where the truth is of lower value than the value of subjects. In the absence of explanation, I understand why my articles are not published.
Moving beyond, I have discovered the basis of objective good, and I have applied it in my life as the governor of my behavior, and the measure is consistently correct in every situation. I prove it can be applied in life, and in real time even under stress. It is simple, the truth is self evident, and has existential implications as the literal nature of existence is based on human beings, the creatures on this planet, and the known universe. Understanding the existential implications has serious implications for how people think.
I have a theory of the mind that if understood has the potential to increase the intelligence of the species simply by people understanding where their thoughts come from and what values compromise self-interest. Or some will say these processors as I refer to them are not the source of thoughts, but the perceivable features of reality based on the human experience, but the mind is a reflection of the reality in which it exists. There is no other purpose for a mind that is set on an objective to compare information or to produce thoughts beyond what I’ve identified in SeqComp. These processors are a reflection of value, self-interest, and how these processors relate to that self-interest (cause and effect: possibilities and know how), morality (understanding the limits of liberty to maximize liberty), and true and false (know how). I understand why I think, feel, and do things, as well as the reasons why others do things, and I also understand why this species is failing.
When taken together, in consideration of what my ideas can accomplish, if one of these ideas were realized (CEP), or if these concepts are understood, the impact it will have on human civilization will be greater than anything that has preceded it, in the liberation of the mind and circumstances. I understand life with a clarity possessed by no other person in human history, evident by the fact that these truths are widely unknown. I feel important, and it is justifiable.
I think the second aspect of the first criterion applies to everyone in some way. People have values, those values direct attention, attention builds strength in those areas, and every person has an area where they are superior to others and reasonably expect that quality to be respected. Is it boasting if conversation is directed to the area of strength and an individual is honest and then expects his qualification to be respected? Is it boasting if a person tells a story, and the person who is being told the story, tells a story of similar content, to demonstrate the relatability of the story, also revealing an area of compatible value as thoughts, feelings, and decisions will be similar when people experience similar circumstances? The first criterion applies to me and also applies to probably every person on this planet.
2: Often imagines being extremely successful, powerful, brilliant, beautiful, or in love.
2 is another criterion which applies to me but which I also believe can be universally applied. Who has desire that isn’t definable in the extreme that doesn’t fall in line with at least one of those categories?
Prevalent in a society built on varying conceptions of the word love which is heavily impressed on the population, where most people’s income cannot comfortably sustain an individual (individual median income $31,000 per year), is being in love in the extreme. Love has a functioning definition of what is considered a true state of love, and love has varying subjective definitions applied by the population. Love objectively is the exchange of valued behavior for valued behavior, where an attachment forms based on the satisfaction of that behavior. Most people have ideas of love impressed on them. People seek to share the ideas they associate with love with another person who either plays a role, is expected to play a role, or is molded into the role the person wants the other person to play in their idea of love. This idea of love is perceived as being central to their happiness and thus a primary subject of desire. In some situations, probably many situations, an individual does not exhibit the behavior desired by the other person, but the person’s belief that they will, fuels their feelings of love because the individual does in idea.
As for myself, I imagine being extremely successful because I believe the merit of my ideas warrants extreme success. Power is desired only in as much as is required to fulfil my purposes, but it isn’t a desire for power over people so I’m unable to know if that subdivision of the criterion is applicable.
Extremely brilliant? Lying for the appearance of humility is dishonesty, so not only do I imagine it, I understand it, brilliant compared to the general population, not innately, but as the product of my values, and extremely, because not compared to the general population only, but compared to well educated, and brilliant people.
I don’t imagine myself being beautiful, and entertain no false notions about my beauty, I presume I am about average attractiveness physically, which causes me to believe I’m probably slightly below average attractiveness based on a non-perceivable bias towards my own features. In experience there is nothing to suggest I possess an above average appearance based on interaction which may be somewhat reflective of an unapproachable image, and other possibly intimidating characteristics. My tinder matches and pof attention is also non-indicative. In fact I received a message on POF which is a dating app that said I didn’t look good enough to have the profile I had (written content). The timing of the message was perfect as it was received while I was fulfilling the purposes of the profile.
Do I imagine being extremely in love? Any fantasies I entertain of love are more about the possibility of a relationship that can liberate me from my circumstances, but I do not imagine myself being extremely in love. Based on my understanding of what love is, what love is to most people, and my understanding of myself it is almost precluded as a possibility in my life. Not that it isn’t conceivable based on some very unique scenarios, but it isn’t something I seek or give much consideration.
2 applies to me in perceived brilliance and ceiling for success, bringing my total to 2 points, but I think 2 applies to everyone.
3: Believes they are special and unique. Thinks they should only be around high-class people and institutions.
Does it mean believe they are special and unique, or is it, thinks they should only be around high-class people and institutions? The two are not mutually inclusive. In the special self-esteem climate we live in, it would be difficult to find a person who recognizes they are not special and unique even though most people are not. I believe I am special and unique based largely on my values, understanding, and abilities which are largely absent from the population, which means I am special and unique. Once again, I don’t believe it, I understand it to be true.
I don’t think I should only be around high-class people and institutions, and in fact associate with people who are not high class people. Not only do I associate with people who are not high class, they tend to be my preferred company. The psychologist would probably assert that this is due to the next criterion, needs to be admired, so I seek out relationships with people who I feel are beneath me. Except that it is a product of common values and more relatable experience. Where around low-class people, I don’t have to try to incorporate tact in deploying opinions or omit experience that may scare and lead to inaccurate conclusions about me from higher class people who are insulated from what their systemic benefit and consent produces.
The third point was my half, as I understand myself to be special and unique, but I don’t think I should only be around high-class people and institutions. If I’m seeking high class relationships, in terms of mean it is to attract means for for causes, and if it is education, it is because some of my material requires a certain level of education to be understood, and even then bias obstructs.
4: Needs to be admired.
I don’t have a need to be admired, and I am often indifferent to admiration and praise which I’m sure is a trait of a number of other disorders but is actually a product of not requiring affirmation based on the certainty of my own judgements of myself, and self-adoration. I do need acknowledgement, meaning at least an explanation of things which are not agreed, which has been absent in my life for the last 5 years.
4 does not apply.
5: Thinks they should be treated better than other people or others should do what they want.
This does not apply to me, I do not expect to be treated better than anyone else, I don’t think people should do what I want, I recognize such a desire as imposition. Even as a person in a position of authority I wasn’t imposing, generally willing to let people working for me do what they wanted to do so long as it didn’t compromise their performance, and choosing their own strategy to complete their assigned task so long as it accomplished the desired purposes.
Yet I could see how the first part could be circumstantial and not a negative or undesirable trait. In this, a person may feel they are entitled to better treatment based on the disadvantages they have faced and continue to face. It is neither negative, nor is it a trait that is consistent with the general idea of the disorder if it is based on this reasoning. Primarily because disadvantaged circumstances exist by the consent of the whole, therefore better treatment for disadvantaged people can be seen as an anticipated act of balance, and this can be true to an individual without them being able to articulate it. This justification is based on any form of disadvantage as is evident by people with physical handicaps, but circumstantial handicaps should not be excluded from justifications for the expectation of better treatment than others. It doesn’t apply to me as I don’t think I should be treated better than others, although I think most people’s treatment of everyone should be better in some ways.
The second trait: you think others should do what you want is a trait of a disorder. It is contrary to self-interest and is an imposition. It is something that is objectively wrong in the general context.
6: Exploits people.
6 does not apply to me. Recently I was in a difficult situation where I was about 800 miles from home with enough gas and money to make it about 200 miles. It was extremely difficult to ask for help and I considered the reasons. One reason is I recognize how most of the people I know are of limited means. I recognize my need, and although the resources may be needed more by me than to them, I feel I’m imposing on them. This is in acknowledgement that 1: I will pay them back, and 2: they gain the feeling associated with helping someone and removing them from an uncomfortable situation. Indirectly my refusal to ask or accept help as partial help was offered, is kind of imposing on their desire to feel good by helping me, in a situation where everyone’s interest is served. I recognized it as being an unintelligent decision. The second part of it is the effect it has on the value of myself, because I could have endured, and I value my self-reliance. Eventually I called friends who I knew would help me, and who attached minimal debt to the act.
I suppose the third aspect although not a major point is the implied debt beyond the monetary value to the act, where anytime someone does something for you, even though there is the exchange of the need for help for the feeling associated with meeting a need for help, I still recognize additional debt based on a person freely choosing to help another person. This is to say not only am I non-exploitative, for the reasons I’ve mentioned, but I am non-exploitative to an extreme degree which I’m guessing is probably a trait that falls into the category of another disorder. It isn’t because I don’t think I am deserving of help, I definitely do, but it cannot be from a source where I perceive the act to be significantly imposing on their means.
7: Does not have empathy.
The change of the trajectory of my life, from a drug dealer with recording artist ambitions, to a person who sought to understand the causes of himself, of people, and the state of the world was fueled and directed by a great deal of empathy. When every man you see could be you, every child your daughter, every woman the mother of your daughter, and injustice, and needless suffering exist popularly, you take on their sadness and imagine their pain as if it was your own, and it becomes your own, sometimes amplified in the acknowledgement of your advantage relative to these people. Then you learn the causes, and that empathy is pooled like a flammable liquid, ignited by the flames of knowing the circumstances that exist, do not exist by accident, incompetence, necessity, or mismanagement, but exist because they are beneficial to a small number of people who benefit greatly from this organization of society. Not a small number as in some conspiratorial cabal, but a small number relative to the entire population where the actions and benefits are measured, and exist in plain sight among a blind population, inclusive of educated people. That feeling is a beautiful feeling, empowering, and you decide you are not going to allow these people who you value as yourself, to continue to be needlessly harmed and imposed upon.
The greatest difference between myself and the man who watches his daughter die from being bombed is I was born to the parents I was born to, in the place where I was born, and he was born to his parents and in the place where he was born. The same difference applied to the man who watches his daughter die in the arms of her mother of a curable disease, because the opportunity to acquire the means to purchase the medicine does not exist for that family, or because sanctions prevent the import or the means to import medicine. There are many places where that difference applies, and there are other places, especially domestically, where even the horrible place I find myself is advantaged to some based-on luck. Luck isn’t a superstition, it is the word I use to describe when circumstances outside of your control aid in contributing to a positive outcome.
The purity of my intent has opened intellectual doors. A better understanding of causes, and unsuccessful efforts to proliferate ideas reduces the frequency with which I experience feelings of empathy, which isn’t to say it is altogether absent. Feelings manifested as I recalled the setting and the concepts I associate with empathy, but it manifests much less frequently. Empathy has become less frequent due to increased understanding, mainly understanding that this is what people have chosen, but my behavior is unchanged by the absence of it.
The following story is an excerpt from a broader point which was edited out of this article.
On my way back from the gas station I saw a man walking down the street who appeared homeless or not very well to do. His appearance was dirty and his hair was disheveled. I said, “what’s up” to him, he said “what’s up” and continued walking. He stopped, turned around and asked if I had $1.05? I told him I could get him most of the way there and thought I had about $.85. I reached into my pocket and gave him what probably amounted to more than $1.
Most of what an individual is, is the sum of impressions left on them over a lifetime of experiences. Whatever advantages one possesses over any other are still a product of the systems: political, economic, and social, that an individual was either born into or produced by a system he benefits from. This is to say the advantages they enjoy come from systems that create disadvantages for others, and so they bear responsibility for those systemic impositions.
Why did I give the man a $1? 1st I recognize that my advantage comparative to him is largely the result of the aforementioned, so I’m seeing him on equal terms. The intended purpose is to experience the sensation of bringing him closer to liberation from some desire.
Why does it make me feel good? I have been in situations of desperate need and desire and I know how good it feels to be helped in those situations. I usually offer people who ask for money a cigarette as well, because a cigarette when you smoke and haven’t had one in a while is a beautiful thing, but on this occasion I didn’t offer. I feel good 1: because I can vicariously share in my idea of what he experiences by the act, and I get the feeling 2: because the idea of progress towards a liberated desire feels good, and 3: fulfillment of responsibility for the advantages seeded to me through the order in place is justice which is an idea that contributes to the good feeling. The motivation is a product of desire in relation to circumstances, with the desire itself being a feeling that exceeds the feeling that could be achieved through the substance sacrificed. Meaning I couldn’t spend that dollar anywhere else to get a feeling that exceeds the feeling I received from giving that dollar to that person.
I’m not being nice, selfless, kind, or loving, I’m taking advantage of an opportunity to feel good at a great value. I’m serving my self-interest. I’m not thinking about it in these terms as I make the decision, that is just part of the underlying basis for making the decision, the laws in my mind which contribute to the innate feeling of feeling good for helping.
Not all people have these feelings, likely because they’ve never had a desperate need, or haven’t been helped when in need, or don’t understand the circumstances that contribute to someone being in need. For some people the idea isn’t present, and even the parts of the process that are innate no longer function due to dormancy from abstinence from the acts. The point is, not everyone feels good for helping. There are other self-interested motivating factors for the appearance of selfless acts. Charity has popular value, so some feel good based on the perceived respect of their peers that is gained through a charitable act. Other motivation is indebting someone to you or being charitable to enrich your experience in an act by providing other people the means to participate in it with you.
The purpose of this story is to demonstrate that behavior is unchanged in the absence of empathy, using an act that was once motivated by feelings stoked by thoughts related to empathy, to show that my behavior is the same but based on the value of the feelings gained by the act, (which is usually not conscious, where I’m not thinking about I’m going to give this to feel that, but is the subconscious basis for the behavior) and understanding the righteousness or maybe better stated the rightness of the act. This isn’t applicable only to this kind of act but acts and purposes that used to be driven by empathy are driven by understanding their application to serving my self-interest. It isn’t embellished with empathy, where I’m seeing someone and imagining what they are going through, imagining what they are feeling which is something that used to be conscious. Instead, I am inclined to help because subconsciously I know it will feel good to make a small contribution. I’m cool and sociable with people because we’re on equal terms, and I’m inclined to help out if the need doesn’t impose too deeply on my means, time, or energy, and immediately afterward I feel good for having done it. I can look back and know why I did it, but at the moment in these casual interactions, I’m not thinking about why I’m making the decision, because I’m engaged in the interaction.
8: Is envious of other people or think people are envious of him or her.
Envy is the quality of feeling more deserving of what someone else has than they are of it. It is the value of yourself versus the value of someone else, and the value of what they have versus the value of what you have. I don’t think there is a single person on this planet who has not been envious of someone, and as a result, someone has probably been envious of everyone at some point and possibly perceived it, either through overt or suggestive evidence. This means it is a general quality, a part of innate processing to determine value through comparative means to experience envy, and therefore there is an objective basis for people to feel like they are envied. What this question really reveals is how honest people are with themselves, or how honest they are in their answers to the questions. What’s worse is this question is used to assign a personality disorder diagnosis that can lead to the inference about other qualities about this person, and it isn’t a question anyone can honestly answer no to. It’s like if breathing air was a qualification and after the client tells the clinician he breathes air, he has a check on the NPD list.
This applies to me in the former, but not so much in the latter. I see people whose character and ideas are not worth a shred of merit in contrast to my own, so naturally, I am envious of the resources they receive, including the attention they receive because I believe I am more deserving, and my ideas are more meritorious.
8 applies to me, but as 1 and 3, applies to all honest people.
9: Is arrogant.
This is a derivative of the 1st criterion “Very high self-importance, boasting and expects to be seen as superior”. It is nearly taking the definition of the word arrogance and using it as the first criterion, and then using the word arrogance for the 9th.
I don’t think I am arrogant although I think my behavior can at times produce the appearance of arrogance. The definition of the word is having an exaggerated sense of one’s self-importance or abilities. As explained, which becomes more apparent under additional scrutiny, my sense of self-importance and abilities is fairly accurate. The appearance of arrogance may be perceived in the confidence I act with based on what I understand and how I experience reality.
Any person with 5 of these traits is considered as having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I’m at 4.5 or 5 depending on the emphasis of the qualification in the second part of the third criterion which has nothing to do with the first part. Yet even if we call it 5 how can it be classified as a disorder when the explanations for these thoughts, feelings, and behavior demonstrates good motivation, in that it is honest and unimposing? Honest people are predisposed to having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as 1 and 3 should apply to everyone, 8 definitely applies to everyone according to SeqComp and the functioning definition of the word, and 1 and 9 are essentially the same criterion.
I do not have the general description of a cluster B disorder. Individuals with this Cluster B Personality Disorder have an excessive sense of how important they are. They demand and expect to be admired and praised by others and are limited in their capacity to appreciate others’ perspectives.
First the qualification of excessive causes the diagnosis to be subjective, based on the individual’s standard of excessive or the popular application of the word, and popularity does not make right and history is filled with examples. Based on the unchallenged perceived merits of myself, my sense of how important I am is not subjective. I don’t demand to be admired or praised, and I am generally indifferent to it. I do have a limited capacity to appreciate other perspectives, largely because I understand and can demonstrate other’s perspectives to be incorrect in principle or based on incorrect or short sequenced information.
I have a borderline personality disorder with negative connotations based on a criteria where many points are universally applicable, and in line with reasoning that is unimposing and in line with human self-interest. This is one disorder, and if I was inclined to, I’m sure there are plenty of these disorders with even more arbitrary and incorrect criteria. Incorrect based on the traits not being a disorder in the sense that they demonstrate a sound understanding of reality, human interest, an individual’s true comparative value, and the genuine relationship with the world in which they exist.
I am aware that a clinical psychologist wouldn’t provide a client with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder checklist and ask the person to self-diagnose as I have done. Typically, the clinician would ask questions about experiences related to the reason the client was seeing the psychologist and would compare the criteria to the clients experiences.
Behavior, thoughts, and feelings are not static. Even the general personality types don’t have much meaning attached to them. It’s something akin to astrology. Behavior and the style or approach to how you interact is based on value, and values are influenced by mood and setting.
Mood is understood as the cycle of thoughts, perception, and feelings. How you perceive your environment, the feelings produced by the elements in it, your thoughts, which cause your feelings, and your feelings influence your thoughts, and perception, until the cycle is interrupted by a thought or interaction with the environment. Mood, thoughts, feelings, and consequently behavior is also influenced by feelings caused by the environment that we are not even aware of, through impressed stereotypes and biases. As I mentioned, experiences with familiar subjects leaves impressions that will cause us to feel things based on the expectation of what things or people represent based on cumulative impressions. Consciously we are unbiased, but subconsciously, these impressions influence our feelings which influences our thinking. Other facts that influence behavior are the stakes involved, if there are people, the importance of being liked by these people which affects value, if there is some material interest at stake and so on and so forth.
Behavior changes based on setting. How you behave is as much about you as it is about your setting. In answering a behavior survey where your answers determine your personality type or types, is subjective, and is based on the individual’s perception of him or herself or what he or she values, but also what society values. When you’re asked about typical behavior or style of behaving, you have your value of what you perceive that behavior to be and be a part of. If you value the behavior, you may think of times when you exhibited such behavior, if you do not, you may have already suppressed memories of the behavior, rationalized it as something else, or it will be deemphasized in recollection. Human behavior is much more dynamic than some areas of psychology would like to reduce it to, and behavior-based categorization says more about how a person wants to behave and less about how a person actually behaves.
Any categorization of behavior does not define the innate qualities or propensity of the individual based on the individual’s direct values. It is merely an observation of how an individual tends to respond to certain circumstances, where tendencies could be different based on different circumstances. Consider the adage money changes people which typically comes from people who see others come into money. Consider the response from people who come into money: money doesn’t change people, money causes people to become more of what they already are. Obviously, money is the key driver of opportunity, so the individual’s opportunities change, and now tendencies change, maybe not a disorder that wasn’t a disorder, but something small as in his introversion is now extroversion. A more important aspect of money, how it relates to the adages above is it changes the dynamic of relationships and interaction. An individual with money no longer needs to adjust their behavior to conform to the values of others because of some interest or opportunity provided by other people. There are many other small things that cumulatively may have great impacts on an individual’s behavior when their circumstances change. Image and status improvements resulting from money may reduce insecurity and anxiety, improve self-image, all of which will change how an individual feels and will impact his behavior and tendencies.