literature

The dangers of the 'Narcissist' label - Part 2

Deviation Actions

Spaztique's avatar
By
Published:
2.8K Views

Literature Text

Continued from Part 1...

The Dangers of the "Narcissist" Label

By Spaztique


Table of Contents:

Part 1:
    I. Introduction
        A. Where this essay came from.
        B. An overview of the nine traits of narcissism.
    II. The Nine (easily confused) Traits of a "Narcissist"
        A. Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others
        B. Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
        C. Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions
        D. Needing constant admiration from others
        E. Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
Part 2:
        F. Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
        G. Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs
        H. Intensely envious of others and the belief that others are equally envious of them
        I. Pompous and arrogant demeanor
    III. Afterword
        A. To recap...
        B. So, what should I do if somebody tries to convince me somebody is a narcissist?
        C. In conclusion...


6. Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain

Oh this, this, this. This is why I'm warning you people why labeling somebody a "narcissist" is dangerous: once you label somebody a narcissist, you're automatically going to assume everything they do is to "exploit" you for personal gain. It's also a sad truth I've come across when I discovered "the Sociopath Paradox": one of the most classic manipulative tactics of a sociopathic person is to label others as a sociopathic person who uses manipulative tactics. That is the danger of labeling somebody a "narcissist": a true narcissist knows that once they can label somebody else a "narcissist", they can stop you from listening to them, especially if it's to warn you, "Hey! You're going to be manipulated by that narcissist!" That's when you tell them, "Ha! You think you're so clever, manipulating me into thinking they're a narcissist so I won't listen to them? But I'm onto you and your manipulative tactics!" And so, you write off somebody who's looking out for you and continue listening to somebody who truly does want to use you for personal gain.

And the worst part? You can't tell the difference between the narcissist and the innocent party! That's why I call it "the sociopath paradox": a sociopath can just as easily label others as sociopaths to protect themselves from being caught, rendering the tactics and truth of the innocent parties unusable because it looks no better than the tactics of a real sociopath.

But let's talk about how real people "use others for personal gain" and their so-called "manipulative tactics."

The truth is all of us need all of us. As business philosopher Jim Rohn put it, "It's hard to find a rich hermit. One man doesn't make a symphony. One man doesn't make a sports team." Barbera Sher in this TEDx talk relates her stories about how her own personal mastermind group (read: a group that gets together and focuses on achieving goals together) helped eachother out to achieve their goals, and it's really isolation that kills dreams. We need each other to motivate each other, teach each other things we don't know, support each other. After all, that's the point of mental health support groups: somebody with intense anger issues might be good at fending off depression, while somebody with crippling depression can easily control their anger, and they can fix eachother's issues (well, under the guidance of a licensed professional). We pay for each other, help each other gets jobs, provide both emotional and physical support for each other, it's just the nature of being human: we're social animals and we look out for one-another.

This is probably the crux of this post: the moment we label somebody a "narcissist," even the most minute actions become "exploitative tactics." Here's just a small sample of everyday things we do in conversation that can be labeled as a "tactic", and why dealing with anyone who sees you as a "narcissist" is like walking on eggshells, trying your damnedest to not say anything that can be written off as a "manipulative tactic":

  • Metaphors are one of the best ways to explain something in ways people can understand. However, once you're labeled as a "narcissist," then not only will people not understand your metaphors since they cannot fathom your motives, but they will see your metaphor as a "game" or a tactic to brainwash people.
  • Relating to others is one of the fastest ways to connect with others: it's what's known as "rapport" or the "me too" factor. However, when you're seen as a narcissist, they'll see it as, "Oh, you're just saying that to exploit others' trust." After all, narcissists like to blend in with normal people, and it's their way of taking advantage of others.
  • Alone time and quality time is also important: we can't get to know people unless we're actually around them to get to know them, and private settings are always good places to bring up private stuff. However, if somebody is convinced you're a narcissist, they'll be convinced you only want to talk so you can "fill their head with exploitative ideas" or "brainwash them." This also makes it infinitely harder to convince them of the truth, since that will be seen as a brainwashing tactic as well.
  • As discussed earlier, we need to learn influence and leadership so we can help others understand our ideas and empower others towards either their goals or the group's goals. However, if we're seen as narcissistic, then all of our talk of leadership and teamwork will be seen as "pulling the wool over people eyes" and that we're really in it for "ourselves."
  • It's normal for us to get defensive when we get accused of things we never did. However, when you're seen as a narcissist, getting defensive means you're just "afraid of getting caught."
  • When we get sad or frustrated, we let others know our feelings because we want support. However, when you're seen as a narcissist, everyone assumes you're "manipulating others' emotions."
  • We write blogs and announcements to express our opinions and ideas. However, when you're labelled a narcissist, all of it is seen as "propaganda": a way of "brainwashing the masses" and to "battle anyone who disagrees with you." I've also heard terms like, "He's just preaching a sermon," to describe ordinary blog posts.
  • We compliment others because we like what they do and we want them to feel good, but when you're labelled a narcissist, every honest compliment is really "cheap and dishonest flattery."
  • Ever been in a chat and went "^ THIS!!!"? That's because you wholeheartedly agreed with the person. However, when you're labelled a narcissist, people don't view it as you agreeing with them: they see it as you being flattered they "agree" with you.
  • It's also normal for us to disagree with people and relay back what the other person said (this is known as active listening: to repeat back what others said to see if you got it right). However, if you're labelled as a narcissist, any time you disagree with anyone or anything, people will say, "They're just painting the person they disagree with as a one-dimensional strawman! The truth is they're a narcissist who can't handle disagreement!" (Note: A strawman means an inaccurate idiot version of a true argument, often painting the other side as incompetent, inflexible, and unrealistic. If you're labelled a narcissist, it doesn't matter if you even quote the person verbatim or portray their side with empathy or understanding: your arguments will ALWAYS be labeled as a "strawman argument" even if you quote the person 100% verbatim. I plan to make a whole guide on this in the future.

Speaking of words like leadership and teamwork, people use descriptive words because it makes conversations and writing easier. However, when we're seen as a narcissist, people call them "buzzwords": cheap little words that mean more than they really do. To us, we're using the words as intended because they describe what they describe, but as I said before, somebody who sees us as narcissistic cannot fathom that we mean what we say, so they label them as "meaningless" buzzwords. For example...

  • When we say "dream" in reference to a big goal in the distant future, we're referring to a big goals in the distant future, but if you're labeled a narcissist, what they hear is, "I'm going to use the word 'dream' to exploit people's hopes and optimism!"
  • When we say "terrorist" in reference to somebody who inspires terror for personal or political goals, we're referring to somebody who inspires terror for personal or political goals, but if you're labelled a narcissist, what they hear is, "I'm going to use the word 'terrorist' to exploit people's fears and cynicism!"
  • When we say "leadership" in reference to influencing and empowering others towards a goal, we're referring to (take a wild guess) influencing and empowering others towards a goal. But again, if you're labelled as a narcissist, what they hear is, "I'm going to use the word 'leadership' to make my exploitation of others sound glorious and my power well-deserved!"

As you can see, when we label others or get labelled a "narcissist," it completely destroys our ability to communicate with others on both ends: we fail to listen, and people fail to listen to us.

And guess what? It gets worse!

Not only do people not listen to us when we're labelled a "narcissist," but they also see the worst in us. When you're labelled a "narcissist," then NOTHING you do is an "accident":

  • Did you not respond to somebody because you were AFK or not paying attention? That wasn't an accident: they see you as giving them the "silent treatment" or "ghosting them."
  • Didn't finish that project you promised you finished? To them, it wasn't because of self-doubt, unrealistic deadlines, or laziness: you were just being passive-aggressive and/or exploiting peoples hopes!
  • Do you like helping other people and see them overcome problems? To them, it's not because you really like helping others: you only want credit and admiration!
  • Did you make a mistake or have a true story with no attainable evidence it happened? To them, it's not because it was an accident or you just want them to give you the benefit of the doubt: to them, you're a LIAR!
  • Did you accidentally not follow your own advice? To them, it's not because you weren't feeling good that day or had some sort of exception come up: you're a HYPOCRITE!
  • No matter what you do, everyone will find passive-aggressive "subtext" in whatever you say or write. Did you write a blog post about how fast food workers can't get orders right? They'll think it was really about them and say, "Hey! You wrote that as a jab against me!" It doesn't matter how innocent the post was: they will find a hidden passive-aggressive meaning in it. (As I said before, just listen to the general rumor mill or look at the comments below to see this in action.)
I cannot emphasize this enough: this is the crux of why labeling somebody as a "narcissist" is so dangerous, because it destroys our ability to empathize with people. No matter how good a person is on the inside, labeling them a narcissist makes it so we only assume the worst. If they do bad, whether it was a mistake or on-purpose, we think, "What a narcissist!" If they do good, we think, "They're only doing that to further their narcissistic supply. What an asshole!" The fancy term for this is a cognitive bias: rather than believing what we see, we only see what we believe. It's not the behaviors that justify us believing somebody is a narcissist, but the fact our belief somebody is a narcissist that paints all of their behaviors, no matter how humble or kindhearted, as something more sinister than it really is.

This all begs the question: is there a way to tell the difference between a narcissist and a normal person?

The bad news is, as of writing, I don't know yet.

However, I do have a few theories to common behaviors that narcissists have that normal people don't. After reading Psychopath Free by Jackson MacKenzie, people under the Dramatic Personality Disorder cluster tend to follow the same pattern:
  1. They quickly and emphatically connect with their "target" and establish as much rapport, closeness, and bonding as they possibly can. The red flags include them saying how much they've always wanted to meet "somebody like you," but at the same time changing their opinions depending on who they're around. Sure, normal people who are shy do this to earn the approval of others, but Dramatic Personality Disorder types are not shy: they are very outgoing, regardless of how "shy" or "awkward" they claim they are, and develop very deep bonds with people in short amounts of time. It is emphasized that good personal boundaries are one of the first lines of defense against sociopaths. Be sure to be on the lookout for "compliance tests" such as them giving you strange nicknames or inside jokes early on (a favorite tactic of Charles Manson): a "compliance test" measures how quickly you are to accept the influence and bond of a possibly-manipulative person. (Key word: POSSIBLY. There are socially awkward types who will use these tactics because they're too afraid to make friends any other way. The second trend in the pattern is more important than this one.)
  2. Once a bond has been established, the exploiter will then use that bond to isolate the person from society and the influence of others. The isolation and possessiveness is the vital red flag: if there's no isolation, you can hardly call it a dangerous relationship because you're free to openly express your opinion, listen to the opinions of others, and go out on your own path. It's only a major danger when the person begins warning the person about the dangers of listening to other people other than their own circle of influence. By isolation, I'm referring to isolation from anything outside of the manipulator's circle of influence: you can only talk to their friends, agree with their ideas, go where they go, and so on. The key idea is for them to fill your head with their ideas without any outside influences to get in the way, as well as ensure you're too scared to look outside their circle of influence. If you disagree or try to go out on your own, they withdraw the admiration and praise they previously gave you to such a degree to where you feel fearful to disobey them again. This is not to be confused with them getting defensive: there's a far line between them going, "I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't know what I did wrong. I wish you'd listen to me," and, "You're such a selfish prick. You NEVER listen to what any of us have to say! You're a real brat, you know that?" (Notice: just because somebody says "I" doesn't mean they're selfish. In this context, the "I" is accepting blame and responsibility, while the true narcissist accuses "you" of being the problem.) This alone would be pretty bad, but then they get everyone in their circle of influence to do the same: a classic "toxic" peer group, shaming you for disagreeing with them and rewarding you with appreciation for letting go of your personal values and ideals. And to make it all the more worse, we have the previously-mentioned "Sociopath Paradox": even though it's a toxic peer group, they can just as easily convince you, "Beware everyone else: they are the toxic ones, not us!" They show you the bars around everyone else's cage, but how can you be so sure you're outside the cage? As MacKenzie writes, you're going to have to ask yourself: is the narcissist right and everyone else is crazy? Or is it only the narcissist is crazy and everyone else is right? This is why it's important to get objective outside perspectives: ask others to look at the situation without context, and see what they say. Nine times out of ten, you'll find them getting suspicious of the ones saying, "Never listen to anyone else, only I/we hold the truth." If establishing good boundaries didn't work previously, now is a good time to take a step back before the third part of the pattern ensues...
  3. Finally, the sociopath does what they can to stifle your own voice and become what they want you to become, not what you want to become. Once you've been isolated and become desperate for their approval, the sociopath will now withdrawal their approval whenever you act outside of their prescribed guidelines. You must think how they want you to think, do what they want you to do, and if you step out of line, they accuse you of being a "narcissist." If you think for yourself, they (and their peer group) will accuse you of being selfish. If you disagree, they will accuse you of being "unable to handle disagreement." In effect, they accuse you of all of the horrible things they are doing to you; classic victim-blaming and gaslighting, i.e. convincing the person they're crazy. This erodes your self-esteem, self-worth, self-efficacy, and everything you do is in desperation to appease the sociopath. In the end, they'll eventually dump you or you'll work up the bravery to escape, but you will need serious trauma counseling for what is known as "narcissistic abuse": the erosion of self-worth after trying to appease a real narcissist. There's also the fact that everyone in that circle of the sociopath's influence will now see you as a traitor, and the fact you probably ruined several of your friendships to protect the sociopath, both which come with their own healing process of letting go and recovering your self-worth.

In short, the trends of a real narcissist are as follows:

  1. Quick and consummate bonding, often with compliance tests to see if they can control you early on. (Again, this is only a minor sign. Socially awkward people can do the same.)
  2. Isolation from all outside influences that disagree with the exploiting person and peer group. (THIS is far more important: if there's no room for disagreement or listening to other people's opinions, AND it's coupled with a withdrawal of the consummate bonding previously established, sound the alarms and raise the red flags. For more information on how this works, look up Biderman's Chart of Coercion, a study on brainwashing techniques to psychologically wear down prisoners that took place in the 50s. A summary can be found here.)
  3. Erosion of self-esteem, self-worth, and personality until the person is 100% obedient to the sociopath, who then eventually casts them off once they've worn out their usage. This leaves the victim with broken relationships and a personal identity crisis.

If you want to see this in action, look up the story of any cult; especially that of Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre:

  1. Jim Jones, a communist militant, started The People's Temple as a way to spread communism to Christians under the guise of a preacher. He wowed the audiences with his sermons on equality and peace, live faith-healings, and his radical acceptance of all races and genders. He quickly became seen as a community leader for spreading peace and equality. (Again, the same could be said for people along the lines of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or even Jesus Himself. This is why this first sign isn't the biggest red flag: more of a yellow "Watch and see" kinda flag. Sometimes, people really are that nice.)
  2. With the bond established, now comes the real red flags: Jim Jones began molesting numerous members, some even in front of the congregation to "show them a lesson," but painted all of his sexual violence as "for a good cause." He even began teaching people God was only a creation of capitalists, used to exploit the working class, and that he could be their "god." When people began questioning Jones' bizarre teachings, he warned them (WARNING: those allergic to irony or hypocrisy may want to not read the next sentences) that the United States government was brainwashing everyone, isolating them from "the truth," and that only he and the People's Temple could be trusted. The members began withdrawing from their families and friends, militantly defending the People's Temple and its ideals. Those who left the church were shunned and stalked by the members. Jones then began working on an isolated camp in Guyana, The People's Temple Agricultural Project, where he planned to further isolate his followers from the "toxic influence of the capitalist brainwashing government." He made films that painted it as a communist paradise, not showing the guns of Jones' Red Brigade pointed at the people praising the so-called idyllic retreat, really a communist re-education camp. By 1977, a mass migration to the People's Temple Agricultural Project occurred, increasing its population to nearly 1000. Virtually nobody contacted their families anymore, thinking they were all part of the "brainwashed masses." Needless to say, this terrified the public, and an investigation of Jim Jones' cult began...
  3. With everyone now isolated in Jim Jones' camp, renamed Jonestown after their "father", everything turned to hell: there were constant broadcasts of communist propaganda, the Red Brigade constantly inspecting people for pro-capitalist contraband, regular "White Night" attack drills where people practiced getting ready to kill themselves in the name of facing the evil capitalist pigs who wanted to overthrow them and brainwash them, and with very little medical supplies, people got sick very easily, but were still too afraid to leave. Jones himself lived in luxury and regularly threw himself onto the women of Jonestown, saying, "This is for your own good," while the rest of the people lived in fear. Worst of all, they didn't know which was worse: whether it was the evil capitalists who they'd been warned of day and night, or Jim Jones himself. Finally, when congressman Leo Ryan came in to investigate, numerous members passed hidden notes to his delegation, all saying, "Save us!" When Jones found out the truth of what Ryan heard and saw numerous members joining the delegation to escape, he went into a classic narcissistic rage: he ordered Ryan's delegation and all the escapees executed (only a few survived by sheer luck), and then he told everyone in Jonestown the Americans were about to paratroop into the camp and brainwash everyone. Some of the members suggested they run to Russia, but that would only make sense if Jones was a man of his word, and if being a communist militant posing as a preacher wasn't anything to run by, he certainly was not. Instead, Jones forced everyone to drink poison-laced Flavor-aid, starting with the children so the parents would have an excuse to kill themselves. If anyone refused, the Red Brigade would hunt them down and do it themselves. Some of the members said, "Hey! This is a good idea! Let's make this a happy occasion!," but recordings of Jones' voice show he was just angry, mad that he had been exposed for the monster he was. To top it all off, Jones himself didn't even drink the poison: he died by what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound, just to be different (once again, the key trait of a narcissist is the intense entitlement to be "unique"). According to one of Jones' son, who knew what was coming and fled Jonestown by going to an out-of-town basketball game, "This was not a mass suicide: this was a mass murder and one suicide, and I even doubt he pulled the trigger himself."

But as I said with the "Sociopath Paradox," a sociopath could just as easily say, "Oh yeah? Well YOUR group is trying to isolate others!" The ultimate defense is this: ask how many affiliates does it have, look at how often the members can be seen in public places, and see if there's room for different opinions. This is why so many people laugh off the Walfas Station Wagon as a "cult": the members can be seen all across the Walfas community, the Touhou community, and the general internet. There's diversity, room for opinions, room to have a voice. Of course, freedom of speech also means freedom to disagree with each other's opinions, and although most people can agree to disagree, some individuals will go, "This person is invalidating me! That means the WHOLE WSW cannot handle disagreement and this place is therefore a cult!" But then you look at their smaller peer groups, and they never seem to talk to anyone else outside their peer groups, never accept anyone unless they agree with their peer group, and often ostracize anyone who disagrees with their peer group. Once again, they try to convince people, "They are the ones inside the cage, but we are outside of the cage!," but they only think they're outside the bars because the one holding the keys to the cage told them so.

Here is the difference between normal difference of opinion and unhealthy difference of opinion:

  • Healthy disagreement separates a person from the opinion: if somebody has an idea the group doesn't agree with, they may reject the idea, but still accept the person. Unhealthy disagreement sees opinion and person as interconnected: if somebody has an idea the group doesn't agree with, they isolate them completely and write them off as "crazy."
  • Somebody with healthy disagreement will say, "I don't agree with that one thing, but you can listen to them about most anything else." Somebody with unhealthy disagreement will say, "Don't listen to them AT ALL." And they will likely add, "This person cannot handle disagreement!"
  • Healthy disagreement doesn't feel threatened by a difference of opinion: after the disagreement, both parties move on and simply go through their days unaffected. In unhealthy disagreement, one or both parties feels threatened by the difference of opinion, often running off to others to complain about the disagreement. (If somebody's ever PM'ed you about somebody disagreeing with them, THAT is unhealthy disagreement. If they add, "THEY can't handle disagreement," then it's SERIOUSLY unhealthy disagreement.)

I could go on, but I'm already in the process of writing a whole separate essay on community toxicity which will cover all of this in-depth. For now, just know this: the most dangerous thing anyone can do is convince others you are a "narcissist."

But what if somebody is a narcissist, sociopath, or psychopath?

My philosophy is that the best offense against these types is a good defense: setting up good boundaries so people don't engage in other people's grudges (the Walfas Station Wagon even made a rule out of this), don't fight other people's battles, know to trust but verify (give people the benefit of the doubt, but also keep an eye out for incongruencies), be wary of when people claim they know more about yourself than you do (a precursor to emotional abuse), set healthy boundaries and don't say "yes" to anything you don't want to (especially if it's only to earn others' approval), and educate yourself about abuse, social psychology, and assertiveness. It's the best way to shield yourself from the manipulation and drama that comes with trusting a real narcissist, sociopath, or psychopath.

But what about calling them out?

Since this whole blog post is about the dangers of the narcissist label, and since I've suffered the negative consequences of doing this myself, let me make this dead clear:

DO NOT POINT OUT AN ACTUAL NARCISSIST, SOCIOPATH, OR PSYCHOPATH UNLESS IT IS AN ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT!!!


We've covered plenty on the dangers of calling somebody a narcissist who isn't, but what if the person is? Guess what: you just made yourself vulnerable to "The Sociopath Paradox." Now they can accuse you of sending "the mob" after them, and they can accuse you of being a narcissist controlling the masses. Even if you succeed in exposing them, other narcissists, sociopaths, or psychopaths can use evidence of your victory that you are the narcissist, not them. (Sadly, I know this from experience all too well.)

So, if you call somebody a narcissist and they're innocent, you ruined a normal person's life.
But if you call somebody a narcissist and they are a narcissist, they will fly into a narcissistic rage and ruin your life. (And even if they don't, others will.)

So, if you've ever...
  • Wanted to make friends with other people.
  • Asked people for a favor.
  • Got help from others.
  • Got any form of support from other people.
  • Expressed your opinion.
  • Marched to the beat of your own drum.
  • Talked to others.
  • Went "^ THIS" to something you agreed with.
  • Accidentally made a mistake.
  • Showed genuine concern for others.
  • Wanted a leadership position.
  • Gave up a leadership position.
  • ACTED LIKE A HUMAN BEING.

... then you may qualify as a narcissist.

Now do you see why the "narcissist" label is so dangerous?
And do you see why this warrants and entire essay?
The "narcissist" label is dangerous. There should honestly be a law against it.

And we're not even done yet.

7. Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs

I've already covered egocentrism and narcissism is the first point, so I don't have much more to add.

Though, what about those of us who aren't normally egocentric, but absentminded?

The more stressed out we are, the more we tend to ignore the feelings or needs of others to protect ourselves. This is a classic survival/defense mechanism: without it, we'd burn out. As the saying goes on airplanes, you have to put your oxygen mask on yourself before you put the masks on others, or you'll pass out and be unable to help them. Those who suffer anxiety, depression, PTSD, and other mental disorders have to focus on themselves, either as their default behavior or as a coping mechanism. Knowing what you've just read previously, how well do you think somebody with depression, anxiety, or PTSD handle being called a "narcissist" by people they once considered friends?

Here's another scary fact: at two ends of self-loathing and narcissism, self-protective behaviors intensify. These behaviors include...

  • An intense focus on one's personal needs over others.
  • A difficulty empathizing with others.
  • Bending the truth to serve one's own purpose.
  • Using manipulative tactics to get what they want.

Think about it: both narcissists and those with no self-esteem or self-worth practice the same thing. So, how can you tell the difference? YOU CAN'T. So, in your efforts to put what you think is a "narcissist" in their place, you're really just emotionally beating up somebody who's already ultra-sensitive. But of course, you smile, laugh, and congratulate yourself for "fighting the good fight" and "saving people from a manipulative sociopath," utterly discounting the psychological scarring you just committed.

This is another danger of the "narcissist" label: by labeling somebody else as somebody who is unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, or needs of others, you yourself become unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, or needs of others. It's the classic "Lucifer Effect" Philip Zimbardo wrote about: once you feel you're "in the right" and remove all empathy from the other side, you will hurt others, no matter how "good" you think you are. To you, you think you're "putting a narcissist in their place," but to everyone else, it's just abuse. They wonder, "How could you be so cruel to an innocent person?! How could you be so remorseless and uncaring?!" But all you say is, "I'm good! I'm in the right! That narcissist has no feelings: they're only putting up an act! I'm fighting the good fight! I'm the hero and they're the heartless villain I must CRUSH!" And the irony is you not only become no better than a typical narcissist, but you become worse. The only crime a self-centered person ever committed was loving themselves over others, but the crime of a person bullying a "narcissist" is literal abuse.

So, if you've ever forgotten about the wishes or needs of others at all, you may qualify as a narcissist.


8. Intensely envious of others and the belief that others are equally envious of them

While most of the other behaviors on this list were all excusable human errors, this one is less so. It's easy to forget the feelings of others in the right circumstances, it's find to be ambitious, it's normal to ask for help and support from others for things you cannot do yourself, but jealousy is universally considered a vice.

But is jealousy really one of the big red flags of narcissism?

As I said before, the one trait more of the psychological community seems to agree upon is that narcissists do what they do because of an overpowering sense of entitlement and sense of uniqueness. Every other behavior they have is merely an outpouring: they don't empathize with others simply because they see no point in it, since they're "more important" than other people; they're not as much ambitious as they think they deserve the world and more for merely existing; and they regularly use others for help simply because people are disposable tools to them.

So, where does jealousy fit in? A normal jealous person gets jealous because of inadequacy, anger, and a rigid philosophy of wishing life were easier instead of wishing they were better. A narcissist gets jealous because they feel entitled to the world and more. A normal person says, "It's unfair! I wish I had more stuff. Why is everyone else more successful than me?" A narcissist says, "They're taking away my god-given rewards. This world owes me."

Even the kindest of us often wish we were as successful as the people we look up to; our heroes, our role models. If you've ever thought, "I wish I could be like that one day," then guess what? You may qualify as a "narcissist."

Basically, if you've ever wanted anything or think others wanted something you have, you may qualify as a "narcissist."


9. Pompous and arrogant demeanor

Out of all of the signs of narcissism, this probably has to be one of the weakest for a number of reasons. For those not in the know, pompous means portraying one's self as grand, self-important, basically better than everyone else. And there's a million things wrong with this as a sign of narcissism.

I've already covered many times before that virtually all of the narcissist's behavior really comes from a place of entitlement and an unhealthy need to be seen as "unique." From that, pompousness and arrogance pours out of that, not pompousness and arrogance leading to a sense of entitlement for being seen as "smart."

I'm an English major with years worth of psychological study under my belt. According to other English and Psychology folks, I sound like a guy who's studied a lot of English and Psychology. To my friends, I sound like a well-studied person. To myself, I just want to speak clearly and get ideas across so people without a background in psychology or english can understand me. However, to the people who see me as a "narcissist," they're obviously going to see me as "pompous" and "arrogant": they use the narcissist label to back up what they see. But I don't see myself as "grand" or "self-important": I write because I love sharing ideas. In fact, you look at a series like Vsauce or Crash Course, we have roughly the exact same speaking styles: it's just how well-studied people talk. (But of course, the people who see me as a narcissist will void Point 3 and think, "OH! So Spaz thinks he's as good as or better than Vsauce or Crash Course? What a narcissist!")

All of us have something we're good at, something we know a lot about, something we have a passion for and can talk about for hours on end. My subjects are psychology, English, and music. Other people I know can talk for hours on end about programming, guitar playing, strategy games, anime, etc. This doesn't make any of them "pompous": being well-studied is just something we do as people. We all have that one subject we absolutely love and love to share with others. Being well-studied doesn't make us "better than everyone else": it just makes as more knowledgeable, but not "better," and we can use that knowledge to share and connect with others.

There's also the matter of self-confidence: we need some degree of self-confidence to get by in the world, or else we curl up in a ball and give up. In fact, talking to my psychology buddies/acquaintances offline, everyone needs a degree of "healthy narcissism" if they are to survive in the world: it is that ability to shut out the people who tell us we're no good, that we're "bad," to ignore accusations that aren't true, to not be a people pleaser and take care of our own needs, and to feel we have a God-given right to design and create the life of our choosing. Those who shun the idea of any selfishness tend to do everything they can to earn the approval of others by avoiding conflict at all costs, trying to make everyone happy, and always saying "yes" at the expense of their own needs. (Trust me: I should know.) And yet, these people who do everything they can to avoid being seen as "selfish" will eventually be seen as such since their selflessness can be seen as a form of "pompousness" and "self-importance" anyway! (Again, I should know this.) So, it eventually becomes less about earning approval for these folks and more about avoiding rejection, even if it means ceasing all previous activities that made them and others happy. (And again, I should know this.) The irony is that people with the lowest self-esteem, who rely entirely on impressing others or being knowledgeable to help others, get the most complaints for being "selfish" and "pompous" for their knowledge!

It cannot be emphasized enough: the entitlement comes first. Normal people use their knowledge because they like sharing it, but a narcissist thinks they're "special" and therefore is the "ultimate authority" on their knowledge; not to impress others, not to help others, but because they see themselves as entitled to uniqueness. But the problem is that unless you can read minds, it's often hard to tell the difference between somebody who really is pompous and somebody who takes pride in being a passionate learner. Again, the key difference is pompousness comes from a mindset of superiority, an entitlement to being "better than everyone else," while passionate learners learn what they do in order to share with and contribute to others.

So, if you've ever had pride in a skill or knowledge area of yours, and/or you like to share what you know with others, you may qualify as a narcissist.


To recap...

If you've ever...

  1. Expected others to be proud of yourself as you are for your accomplishments...
  2. Had big dreams or ambitions and shared them with others...
  3. Looked up to somebody else for inspiration...
  4. Done anything that could earn you admiration from others...
  5. Thought you had more influence or prestige than you really did...
  6. Interacted with anyone...
  7. Forgotten the needs or wishes of others...
  8. Wanted anything else other people have, or worried others would be jealous of you...
  9. Had any level of self-confidence...

... then you may qualify as a "narcissist."

This means that to not be a "narcissist," you must...

  1. NEVER be proud of your accomplishments and NEVER expect others to be proud of you.
  2. DON'T have any dreams or ambitions, and NEVER share them.
  3. NEVER look up to anyone else for inspiration.
  4. NEVER try to do ANYTHING that could earn you admiration.
  5. ALWAYS assume nobody will listen to you or see you as an authority figure.
  6. NEVER interact with anyone, because ALL of your actions will be manipulative. ALL OF THEM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
  7. ALWAYS do whatever ANYONE says. Your needs and emotions mean NOTHING.
  8. NEVER want anything for yourself, NEVER do anything that could earn the jealousy of others.
  9. DON'T HAVE ANY SELF-CONFIDENCE. EVER!

But you do see how ridiculous that criteria sounds? And yet, this is the criteria that people with self-esteem issues begin to learn when people label them a "narcissist." I should know: being labelled as such has made me begin to believe these, but I know there's several problems with all of these...

  1. We have to be proud of our accomplishments so we can take care of ourselves and move our lives forward.
  2. We have to have goals in life, goals of our own choosing, so we can live the life we want to live.
  3. We need role models to show us how to get to where we want to be.
  4. If we do the right things, we'll obviously become an inspiration to others, and they can use our victories to earn their own victories in life.
  5. We need some confidence that we'll be listened to so we can interact with others on a small scale and lead on a larger scale.
  6. To interact means to reciprocate emotion. We support each other when we're sad, cheer for each other when we're happy and succeeding, help each other out when we need help, and so on. Life isn't meant to be lived alone.
  7. We have to be assertive and take care of our own needs. Need to learn to say no to others so we can say yes to ourselves; otherwise, we eventually break down and can't take care of others anyway.
  8. It's natural to want a better and easier life, and if we succeed, of course others will want what we have: it's a simple risk we take in moving forward. Somebody will always have it better, and somebody will always have it worse.
  9. Self-confidence, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-empowerment are the base needs in psychology: without them, we cannot fulfill anything else. We need to be sure of ourselves that what we know works, or else we end up depending on others, and worse, we may end up depending on people who hate our guts and see us as "narcissists."

The moral of this whole essay is this: never confuse neurotic behavior, confidence, or egocentric behavior for "narcissism." Narcissism is an entirely different animal in the same way a whale is a different animal than a shark, tuna, or grouper: one's a mammal, the rest are fish. In this case, narcissism is this intense sense of entitlement: that they "deserve" to be treated and seen "differently." Neurotic people, confident people, and egocentric people don't want to be treated differently: they just want to be treated the same.

The narcissist label is deadly. You should beware its usage. Because if you label somebody with low self-esteem as a narcissist, it'll grind what's left of their spirit into the dirt until there's nothing left. Then you have to ask, who's the real asshole here? And real narcissists? They don't care: they'll laugh and then grind you into the dirt by labeling you as the narcissist, then you'll see how it feels.


So, what should I do if somebody tries to convince me somebody is a narcissist?

This will depend on a few factors:

  • How hard is the person trying to convince you?
  • Does the person have a good track record of honesty?
  • Does the person want to isolate you or let you think for yourself?
  • How does this person handle disagreement?
  • How often do they bring up the person casually in conversation?
  • What's their evidence? And does it work when I think, "This person is NOT a narcissist"?

If the person isn't trying very hard to convince you, that's a good sign because they're just giving a friendly warning, and they don't care if you interact with the person or not. If the person is trying very hard to convince you, check the other factors: either they are telling the truth and want to protect you, or the person actually may be a sociopath (and, by relation, a narcissist) themselves and wants to use the label to isolate you from others (remember the Sociopath Paradox: a sociopath can just as easily label others as sociopaths as others can label them).

If the person has a great track record for honesty, that's another good sign: they're just giving an honest opinion. If somebody has made a few mistakes in the past, you might want to double-check other sources. If they have a spotty record, this is definitely a red flag: either they're just wrong, or the Sociopath Paradox has reared its ugly head again.

The biggest red flag is if the person tells you to avoid the person and all of their friends for fear of being "brainwashed." This is the ultimate example of the Sociopath Paradox: by warning you about how the other person wants to isolate you, you've given into this person's chance to isolate you. Now, you avoid all evidence, all interaction with people, and accuse anyone who agrees with the person of being "brainwashed followers," even though you're now trapped in an isolate cage with "the good people" who just want to "protect you" from the big bad world outside, controlled by a "narcissist." On the other side of the coin, if somebody says, "You can interact with them, but take some of their more oddball opinions lightly," that's much better. That way, you're allowed to hear the other person's side of the story, gather evidence, and if you see a grudge, you can stay the hell out of it. You're not isolated, you're allowed to hear the opinions of others, and you're free to interact with anyone.

Speaking of which, if the person is fine with disagreeing on the narcissist label, that's another good sign. If you tell them, "I think so-and-so is a nice person, honestly," and they only reply, "Meh. I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way," that's fine: there's room for disagreement. But if you say, "I think so-and-so is a nice person, honestly," and they reply with anger or just outright blocking you and complaining to somebody else, that's a giant red flag. It's extremely likely they're only labeling the person a narcissist out of a grudge, either because they've been blinded by anger, or (more sinisterly) because they know that the narcissist label will ensure nobody ever listens to them again.

Then there's the matter of how much they bring up the person in casual conversation. If they only talk about them when the subject is brought up, if at all, that's a good sign. If you repeatedly bring up the subject and they respond each time, often with annoyance that you keep bringing it up, that's not their fault for "always talking about the person they think is a narcissist": it's because you keep bringing it up in conversation. However, if they repeatedly transition from other topics to talk about the person they want to convince you is a narcissist, that's a red flag: it means that convincing you the person is a narcissist is the only thing on their mind. It means they're obsessing over trying to label this person. Beware folks who do this passive-aggressively as well: if you disagree with the person wanting to convince you, and they repeatedly ask you about the other person, saying, "I have to commend you for being so brave to want to be friends with that person. You're such a nice person for putting up with a person 'like them,'" that's another huge red flag. Sure, they've got a big smile on their face, but their accusations about how "commendable" and "noble" your "efforts" are for "befriending a narcissist" imply they're not fine with it: as if it's somehow "work" to be friends with the person, and they can "save you" and "make your life easier" if you just label them a narcissist and block all communications with them. (But again, the Sociopath Paradox: anything you or others can do to a sociopath, a sociopath can do to you or others.)

And finally, there's the problem of evidence: as we've discussed throughout this essay, the narcissist label can turn the most innocent chat logs and blog posts into sinister narcissistic treatises. Take the following examples of evidence I've seen actual people use:

  • Person X posted a blog saying how they want to leave the community because nobody seems to like or respect them anymore, blowing everything Person X says out of proportion. This is proof that the person is a narcissist because they are manipulating other people's emotions.
  • Person Y started a group dedicated to training up admins and group leaders after the wake of an incident that caused many admins and group leaders to leave. This is proof that the person is a narcissist because they see themselves as better than everyone else and entitled to authority.
  • Person Z has started a private, isolated chat room to conspire against their enemies and recruit more members to fight for their cause. Members of said chat have bullied numerous members and group admins out of the community, and everyone who's tried to rise against them has been called "crazy" and "paranoid." This is proof that the person is a narcissist for manipulating others and wanting obedience from others.

Look at all three of these, and assume each person is a narcissist. Re-read them, and ask, "Is it true?"

I'll give you a minute.

...

Okay. If you're like most people, you'll look at all three and go, "Of course they're all guilty! The proof is right there in the pudding!"

But let's back up and now ask, "What if they're NOT narcissists? What other explanation can their be? What if the person is just egocentric? Neurotic/self-protective? Overconfident?"

I'll give you another minute.

...

Different experience, wasn't it? For Person X, they probably were experiencing problems and really did want to quit. For Person Y, they probably did want to help train to admins/leaders out of the goodness of their own heart. But then there's Person Z: no matter how nice you paint their intentions, their actions are completely inexcusable. You see, this is why it's important to step back and remove the narcissist label. If you did the exercise, you'd know the narcissist label clouds your judgement: what could've been innocent people were labelled as monsters. When you step back and give people the best intentions, you'll find it easier to find the people who are really up to no good.

To recap here are some good signs the person warning you might be telling the truth:

  • They're not overdramatic about it; they're matter-of-fact about the information.
  • The person has a good track record of honesty.
  • The person is fine with letting you talk to others about the situation.
  • The person is okay with you disagreeing, and in a non-passive-aggressive manner.
  • They don't talk about the person unless brought up.
  • The evidence is solid when you ask, "What if the person ISN'T a narcissist? Is their behavior still excusable?"

And beware the red flags:

  • They're obsessive, dramatic, or life-or-death about the information.
  • The person has a spotty or bad track record of honesty.
  • The person does everything they can to assure you only listen to them and discredit anyone else to who disagrees. (HUGE red flag. This is probably the most important of all of these.)
  • The person is either aggressive or passive-aggressive in regards to a differing opinion on the person.
  • They talk about the other person constantly.
  • The evidence is NOT solid when you ask, "What if the person ISN'T a narcissist? Is their behavior still excusable?" (Note: you may want to re-evaluate ALL of the above red flags by asking this question first. Maybe a person is being obsessive/dramatic because of their concern, or their bad track record is from being over-emotional, and so on.)

In conclusion...

Beware the narcissist label.
It ruins lives, it ruins relationships, it can even ruin communities.
You can have an opinion that somebody else is selfish, but don't try to force it on others; and ESPECIALLY don't label them "a narcissist."

And if, like me, you've been labelled a narcissist, know this:
You are not a narcissist.
If you know you're only doing what you do to help others, don't listen to the people who call you selfish.
If you're afraid of being proud of your accomplishments, don't be: find friends who will cheer you on. 
Find real friends who won't judge you or call you "selfish" or "pompous" for being happy.
You shouldn't have to walk on eggshells for people who are going to misjudge you for something you're not.
If you're a loving person, and they tell you you're a manipulative hypocritical narcissist, ignore them and show your love anyway: let the people who appreciate you appreciate you.
It's okay to have a skill that you're proud of. It's okay to be well-studied. It's okay to have your own opinions, to say no to others, to disagree without it getting in the way of the friendship.
Don't let the people who misunderstand you get you down: start really appreciating the love your real friends have for you.
And if you don't have friends? Send the love you do have out, and you'll eventually get a return on your investment.
And if the naysayers say you're incapable of love? PROVE THEM WRONG. Not to "show them," but to prove it to yourself that you are a loving, worthwhile person, just like everyone else.
That alone, proving you're not "entitled" to special treatment, but to be treated like everyone else, should prove to yourself you're not a narcissist.
And if you say, "But it won't prove them wrong!," that's their problem: all that matters is what's in your heart. That doesn't make you "selfish" or "narcissistic." That just makes you human, just like the rest of us.
Now, go out and be with the people who do love you and who will let you love them back.

And if you've ever used the narcissist label against somebody else, here's my suggestion:
Apologize to the person you labelled a narcissist.
Apologize to the people you asked to believe you that person was a narcissist.
Make amends quickly, before things get worse. The last thing you want is to finally realize they were telling the truth about their good intentions, but it's too late for them to forgive you for your abuse.
And vow to never, never, NEVER call somebody a narcissist again.
And if the person really is a narcissist? We'll find out: you don't have to tell us.

Now please, go out and make DeviantArt a better place with this knowledge.
-David "Spaztique" Z.

Recommended Reading/Sources:

  • The Art of Thinking Clearly by Rolf Dobelli
  • The Book of Woe by Gary Greenberg
  • Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
  • Psychopath Free by Jackson MacKenzie
  • You Are Not So Smart and You Are Now Less Dumb by David McRaney
  • The Psychopath Test and So You've Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson
  • The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo


Science Journal Articles


Here's just a small sample of what the actual psychological community has to say. Abstracts are summaries of the articles, and you can find additional information and links to the sources at the bottoms of these pages.


© 2017 - 2024 Spaztique
Comments4
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Deviantart18276's avatar

This is a very nice essay. I liked it.