Just FYI, you *forced* me to take another stupid personality test... I couldn't
resist the link on that blog entry. It says I'm a good match for either INFP or
INTP. At first, I was going to say there's no way in hell anyone would ever
call me a "healer". But, then again, I got my first copy of the DSM (IV) from a
therapist who worked mostly with the Hopi after discussing how I might use the
DSM entries as the "genetic material" to build artificial personalities. He
commented that that exercise was "good medicine". But, no. I reject INFP. Pffft.
I'm strongly attracted to the idea that presentation of enough narcissism to
end up diagnosed with NPD would involve oscillation between grandiocity and
vulnerability. I would push back against the word "oscillation" because that
implies periodicity and an insensitivity to context. So interactive *modes*
would be better. The Schröder-Abé and Fatfouta article makes an interesting
distinction between shame and guilt:
"Both include a negative evaluation, yet a key distinction lies in the
differential involvement of the self (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). While
shame focuses on the entire self (e.g., 'Why did _I_ do that?'), guilt focuses
on a specific act or behavior of the self ('Why did I _do that_?')." [emphasis
is theirs]
I'm not competent to understand how deep the 2 [sub]types of narcissism might
extend. But it fits my intuition that even the most extreme case would be
adaptive to surroundings. Even if robust to shame and guilt, an extreme
grandiose must at least get frustrated when their context keeps providing
negative feedback.
On 4/29/20 10:33 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I think your previous invocation of "modes of being" are apt here. I
> suspect we all have our (minor? trivial? well-managed? well-hidden?)
> episodes of all of these features of narcissism. Just after we hit a
> lucky shot (pick your sport) or make a killer-prediction (stock market,
> news, personal business decision, etc.) we may feel a rush of
> grandiosity. After a particular embarrassing faux-pas, we may feel
> acutely judged and defend it with some posturing or rapid
> change-of-topic. I would suggest that if we are *healthy* (whatever
> that means) that these are passing episodes which we compartmentalize
> more than rationalize... too much rationalization can layer those
> ego-preserving/enhancing habits deeper into our selves.
>
> Some of my earliest/strongest memories involved some kind of acute
> embarrassment or abrupt awareness of my own vulnerability (even if not
> observed by others). To the extent I am aware of those moments and keep
> them somewhat walled off as exceptional moments rather than
> internalizing them as (ambiguous?) proof of my ultimate entitled
> powerfulness or my abject victimhood, I feel like I can use them to
> understand myself and the world I live in better, rather than slip into
> (yet more of) a fantasy that protects/supports my ego.
--
☣ uǝlƃ
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
