The Narcissistic Civilization...

[danieLion]

While we all have tendencies of narcissism, i would also pay respect to the personality disorder narcissism.

How do you tell the difference?

Do you really mean to ask how I tell the difference, or do you mean to ask how people in general tell the difference, or do you intend to ask how the psychiatrists tell the difference?

All three (I meant what I wrote.).

How do YOU?

How do PEOPLE IN GENERAL?

How do PSYCHIATRISTS?

Or, more generally, is there any way to do it that's valid and reliable?

I suspect not. Hence: we have tendencies not "personalities". Corollary: we all have narcissistic tendencies which can become disorderly but not because our "personalities" make us do it.

Does that clear matters up for you?

[Jaidyn]

danieLion... I lost my attention in this topic, but you may go ask the psychiatrists about "the personality disorder narcissism" as it is defined by them, and I am sure they have though a lot about it. All the words - "personality", "disorder" and "narcissism" - are probably well defined by them, and then you may relate your ideas to it. If your idea was to discuss without regard to the actual knowledge in that field (or if you think you are discussing it in relation to their knowledge), then I did miss it.

To the rest of the people: What I at first meant was that we should pay attention to the distinction between the "personality disorder narcissism" and other things, as the disorder is real in the sense that such a person will "rip your soul out your body", while you try to be a selfless buddhist (maybe that does not apply if you are an arahant, but you probably are not an arahant). Your buddhism will not turn around such a person either - a conclusion based on science* (I did not say anyone has claimed the turn-around-idea, but it may be an existing naive assumption). That is a real practical difference predicted by what has here been called "non-scientific psychological indices". Unscientific in some regard it may be, but probably not without practical value.

*I have no reference to the review of the science here, but what I recall there is nothing known to really change such a person, and I am very sure I recall it correctly, but have a look for yourself.

"soul" is a figure of speach, I know you do not believe in a soul.

[danieLion]

danieLion... I lost my attention in this topic, but you may go ask the psychiatrists about "the personality disorder narcissism" as it is defined by them, and I am sure they have though a lot about it. All the words - "personality", "disorder" and "narcissism" - are probably well defined by them, and then you may relate your ideas to it. If your idea was to discuss without regard to the actual knowledge in that field (or if you think you are discussing it in relation to their knowledge), then I did miss it.

Where did you acquire such blind faith in psychologists (not to mention definitionalism?)? Do you have any clue as to how psychologists "measure" such things?

How can you dismiss what you have no knowledge of? You seem to me to be committing the fallacy of argument from authority with these last two sentences.

[danieLion]

*I have no reference to the review of the science here, but what I recall there is nothing known to really change such a person, and I am very sure I recall it correctly, but have a look for yourself.

Well, at least you've finally admitted it. Still, thinking such people are beyond help is a consequence of your blind faith in psychologists and their "definitions."

[Jaidyn]

danieLion... I lost my attention in this topic, but you may go ask the psychiatrists about "the personality disorder narcissism" as it is defined by them, and I am sure they have though a lot about it. All the words - "personality", "disorder" and "narcissism" - are probably well defined by them, and then you may relate your ideas to it. If your idea was to discuss without regard to the actual knowledge in that field (or if you think you are discussing it in relation to their knowledge), then I did miss it.

Where did you acquire such blind faith in psychologists (not to mention definitionalism?)? Do you have any clue as to how psychologists "measure" such things?

How can you dismiss what you have no knowledge of? You seem to me to be committing the fallacy of argument from authority with these last two sentences.

In this quote I dismiss nothing. The only thing I can see I dismiss is this dialog we have. In the quote I am suggesting you go argue with people having more knowledge in the field.

In this quote I have not said anything about my “faith” in “psychologists (not to mention definitionalism” The quote says: go argue with people having more knowledge in the field. (They will probably not argue with you, so it means: read the literature). I have some faith but it is not like I want to bring up the nature of it in this dialog.

No, I am not “committing the fallacy of argument from authority with these last two sentences”, simply because I am not here (in the quote) constructing an argument with reference to their knowledge. I am making a suggestion with reference to their knowledge. I just suggest what people (literature) may have knowledge and ideas about the field you seem to discuss or involve.

Furthermore, I highly doubt I have committed the “fallacy of argument from authority” in other cases here. Actually, I have shown reverence to the fact that I do not have the reference and that my memory of my reading may be incorrect (even though chances are I am correct), and I have encouraged you to look for yourself (finding and reading the review of that field).

*I have no reference to the review of the science here, but what I recall there is nothing known to really change such a person, and I am very sure I recall it correctly, but have a look for yourself.

Well, at least you've finally admitted it. Still, thinking such people are beyond help is a consequence of your blind faith in psychologists and their "definitions."

If it was unclear: “I have no reference” = “I do not remember the reference” I am sure the review exists, but look for yourself.

I have earlier said “there is nothing we know of that helps, other then time“. Here I meant (even if it was not clear in that case) there is nothing to really turn such a person around. I would therefore not claim people (narcissists) are beyond help entirely. In fact, if I recall it correctly, there are methods of making them adapt better to society (but nothing to really change their inner nature by way of self-insight for example, if I recall it correctly). I have said Buddhism will not turn such a person around. If Buddhism is useful to make them adapt I do not know, but I doubt that too in relation to my memory of my reading, but have a look for yourself.

It is up to the people to trust my memory or to not trust it and actually look up the review in that field if they have a genuine interest.

This is my last part in our dialog. Now make the best of your effort to intellectually “defend yourself” or “fight back” (whatever your conception of the dialog is) if you think your statements now feels uncomfortable. In this light they feels uncomfortable to me. I have not added anything new (other then the adapt-to-society-thing). I have only clarified what has already been said. While some people here prefer to let the water rest to see more clearly through it, I prefer to distil the water to remove the mud that people pour into my water by misconceptions.