Talk:Malignant narcissism

Dancing around the present

The present represents a crisis around the (proper and intended) dispassionate measure of this site.

The present and significant President of the United States (note: written when Donald Trump was President, so applies to him) is clearly of this sort. We cannot pretend to be a rational impartial judge if we hold no standard. Otherwise science ceases to exist.

Which puts this field to test. My judgement in the 1980s was the present individual was a "bullshit artist". Nothing to do with his then-unknown politics, and everything to do with his perceived sort. Everything he has done since is entirely predictable.

An assertion: "malignant narcissist" fits a present individual very well. As Psychology is far from a precise science, professionals in that field are properly reluctant to offer labels.

At the same time, an ongoing train looks like an ongoing train, regardless of the exact rationale. There is clearly an oncoming train. We do not want to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbannister (talk • contribs) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin

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

Narcissism and psychopathy aren't mutually exclusive. --83.134.126.242 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This comment above, beginning this thread, is quite funny since any psychologist or those with any background in the study of narcissistic personality disorder or psychopathy would know that the term "Malignant Narcissism" is the same, identical, as psychopathy. Not per SV or any other lay author, but by those professionals who "wrote the book(s)" Now, let's let go of nonsense and get on with facts. 172.190.72.140 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Tell Me...

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

Great discussion and explanation of a disease that affects an acquaintance of mine. I'm wondering if anyone has some insights for maintaining a healthy relationship with someone who is a narcissist? Teresamk (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)teresamk

You cannot really maintain a healthy relationship with one unless he has acknowledged himself to be ill and is on treatment. You can give into his desire to be the best, the most grandiose which would have him satisfied but that is by no means a healthy relationship. The same applies to ASPDs and certain expressions of BPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.204.238 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Spectrum of Malignant Narcissism

The following was posted on my talk page, but I feel it is far more relevant here:

The reference used is Kernberg's essay "The Psychotherapeutic Management of Psychopathic, Narcissistic, and Paranoid Transferences", in which Kernberg treats Antisocial Personality Disorder, Malignant Narcissism, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder as being part of the same spectrum ("I now formulate, from a psychodynamic viewpoint, the characteristic structural aspects of the antisocial personality disorder, as well as of the entire spectrum of narcissistic pathology with antisocial behavior - rangind from narcissistic personality disorder proper, to the syndrome of malignanat narcissism, to the antisocial personality disorder proper"; "The antisocial personality disorder proper as defined here constitutes the most severe form of patholofical narcissism"; "The syndrome of malignanat narcissism is a somewhat less severe form of pathological narcissism"; "The next step in this continuum from most to lest severe psychopathology is the narcissistic personality disorder proper") and restores Cleckcley's concept of APD in opposition to the DSM's ("I am defining "the antisocial personality disorder proper" here in the sense of Robert Hare's and my own work, which reestablishes the direct connection with Cleckley's classical description, and avoids dilution of the concept of the antisocial personality disorder that has ocorred as a consequence os the DSM system").

However, I felt I should tweak the restoration to show clearly that this was Otto Kernberg's thinking, NOT an established, and acknowledged overall perception. Also, of course, to pop the reference there, as well, where it should have been all along. --Zeraeph 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Should it be noted that...?

I'm a Psychology student at the moment, and after consulting with two different professors and the DSM, that I can find no existance of "Malignant Narcissism" as being official recognised as a disorder. I feel this should be noted on the page, and possibly looked into, for someone to prove that this is a recognised disorder in any society. --24.67.224.41 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Malignant narcissism is just an informal term for Narcissitic Personality Disorder, and should be merged with that entry. --75.166.216.148 (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Most of article seems to be Original Research. Mattisse 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

STRONG DISAGREE 346 hits - (from Scholar Google) http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22malignant+narcissism%22+-vaknin&num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8 346 citations from professional literature - and not a single mention of Sam Vaknin.

Malignant narcissism has never been and is not now a formal or informal term for NPD. Narcissism is a subset of personality traits, apparently strongly correlated with genetics. Narcissism exists is ALL human beings, running from the least obvious to highly obvious (even obnoxious) presence. Narcissistic trait intensity presence incidence exists in a a bell-shaped curve. NPD is as the far extreme of narcissistic traits.

However, malignant narcissism goes much further, and while there have not been enough decades of psychoneurology research and psychology studies to show all of the exact brain differences that exist in malignant narcissism and paychopathy (which is NOT the same as AsPD), even what is available at this time strongly supports the parallels.

AsPD by the way is not a list of personality traits, but a list of violations of sociological and legal standards of behavior. The DSM is not hard science -- it is an attempt to classify different groups of person who may come to the attention of psychiatrists and specialties concerned with deviant behaviors. The DSM is, like I said, not hard science. It is strongly influenced by sociological and political pressures - aka the elimination of diagnoses that certain subgroups of society have agitated against --- such as the inclusion of homosexuality, and dependency and codependency.... and it will continue to mirror society until such time as enough HARD MEDICAL SCIENCE is accumulated to make all included diagnoses verifiable via biochemical analyses and precise radiographic studies (such as MRIsA).

There is a lot of hard science already accumulated that the frontal lobes of psychopaths and malignant narcissists are distinctively different than in normal human beings. It is as hard science as the fact that those suffering from Complex PSTD have significant shrinkage of two structures in the brain, one being vital in both emotions and learning. Also hard science is the fact that bipolar patients have distinctive brain structure differences, such as in the grey matter.

The DSM, as is the ICD the rest of the world uses, are ATTEMPTS by committees of psychiatrists decide what is pathological and what is not pathological (and, as I said, this is strongly influenced by cultural influences - not all societies agree with us, for instance, about many sets of behaviors). And when they decide what is pathological, the spend considerable time trying to decide what personality traits are most distinctively "unique" to this WORD/TERM they have selected for the book, then they decide how MANY of the items on this list must be PERSISTANTLY present to the degree that they make life very difficult for a given individual.

The DSM has two purposes - one is to help psychiatric workers all over the world have a basic grasp of what is meant when they come across a diagnostic term in a book or journal. Just as when we see the word "horse", we can distinguish it from "cow", "zebra", "mule" or "donkey". No matter where you live in the world, "horse" will always be understood to represent a particular species of animal. the DSM & ICD were created to produce a common VOCABULARY.

The seoond purpose of the DSM is to give the psychologist or psychiatrist a LABEL (paired with a number) to place on the bills sent to the insurance companies for payment. This is vital for each insurance company has charts that tell them WHAT KIND and HOW MUCH of treatment a particular diagnosis will be paid.

The current DSM is sadly badly out of date. Every year for the past 10 or more years, the proposed publication date for the new edition has been pushed further and further into the distance. They used to just add a year at a time. Last year, they finally admitted that the committee was facing several more years. Thankfully (and hopefully), this means that they are taking more and more research, both psychological and neurological studies, into consideration. Spotted Owl (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel I should also mention that not all professional published bookor psychiatric/psychology journals have been scanned and uploaded to the web. I have recently seen in the psychiatric topics, strong suggestions, bordering on demands, that sources not discoverable by google be strongly discounted and/or eliminated out of hand. Think this is something that should be discussed by those who oversee such issues.

Just my way of pointing out that Google Scholar is or even PubMed are NOT totally inclusive sources of what exists on various psychiatric/psychological topics. Spotted Owl (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Spotted Owl (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree. The article clearly states that individuals with Malignant Narcissism can admire people whereas individuals with Narcissistic Personality Disorder aren't usually capable of admiring anyone but themselves from what I've read in the article. Furthermore I read a shocking news report today about an Austrian chap who raped his daughter. They say he might have suffered from a "power complex" but I don't know of any such disorder. Might he have suffered from Malignant Narcissism? It just doesn't strike me as the sort of thing a person with NPD would do. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jupitor, I am quite confused as to what you do not agree with in the above prolonged discussion. And what article are you referring to?

A "power complex is one of the many possible criteria for the diagnosis of NPD, as well as being present in Malignant Narcissism. Power Complex is not a diagnosis, but a description of how one sees and comports themselves.

As to a parent who sexually violates his own child, male or female, is highly narcissistic as they are not capable of seeing anyone else as a 3-dimensional human being, but merely as a two-dimensional cartoon character without any emotions, needs or drives separate from such as person. The Malignant Narcissist does not "admire" the child. The child, from a psychiatric point of view, as an extension of the actual body, essence and being of the malignant narcissist, not a separately existing entity.

And to touch again upon the matter those with NPD having "admiration" of others. While there is envy and hate towards those who possess (or are feared to possess) more "whatever", there can certainly be a great SHOW of admiration towards those one is trying to impress, to convince to help advance the causes, to provide material and non-material assistance. Generally and specifically, the objective is to groom the subject towards becoming someone who will enhance the "admirer's" sense of self as being the superior of the "admired" person. The the formerly admired person is now working to cater to the manipulator, the task is now complete. Spotted Owl (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was saying that I don't think Malignant Narcissism is the same as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it's much worse. Malignant Narcissism is on a par with sociopathy whereas Hyacinth Bucket has Narcissistic Personality Disorder and she's not really a danger to society (well, not a serious one anyway). An example of a person with Malignant Narcissism however would be Sadam Hussein. Oh dear. Psychiatrists say there's a spectrum of mental instability. Psychopathy is at the top, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is toward the bottom and Malignant Narcissism is generally though to be around about the middle. The article I was referring to was the one on NPD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Jupiter. Thanks for clearing things up for me. Isn't this issue of labels such a mess? NPD only having been "recognized as a personality disorder" for a mere 30 years, it has only come to public prominence, widely seen in the lay press, and increasingly spoken of in sociopolitical and those who deal with criminals. Additionally, via primatology studies, genetic inheritance studies as well as radiographic imaging of the brain, NPD is the FIRST of all the personality disorders to come to such high-level prominence via hard science rather than continuing to rely solely on evidence based upon methods of child-rearing and an enhanced understanding of abuse, realizing that "loving too much" promotes serious adulthood dysfunction as much if not more so than physical, mental and verbal abuse.

As to "what lies where" along the continuum of narcissism, let me lead you thru some imagining something that is taught in statistics. Imagine a smoothly shaped hill, that begins its rise gradually to the left, reaches to a rounded top, then once again slowly descends, again trailing off til it reaches "ground level". This image is worked out on graph paper and it is called a Bell Curve. Some curves may climb and descend a bit higher, and some curves may have the uppermost portion a varying degree of being off-center. Let us consider the distribution of "wealth" among citizens of the US. The left hand portion of the bell curve will be very drawn out and very depressed in height over a considerable distance. Then the numbers of persons of greater wealth, the "middle class", would assume an upward rising bulge and would account for a far greater percentage of people than at either extreme. Then the bell would trail off rather rapidly since some 1% of all the US population possesses some 25% of all the wealth possessed in this country. This would be a lopsided bell-curve, but the incidence of human behaviors and characteristics tend to be more of what is called a Normal Bell Curve where there is a mostly smooth and symmetrical form with the highest incidence at or very near to 50%.

So what does this mean exactly? Well, let us take the very normal and healthy quality of Narcissism, present in every brain-intact, cognitively-functioning human being. Some persons have very little natural or acquired narcissism, and due to abuse and other averse life consequence, have had most of their natural narcissism physically or emotionally drained away from them. These persons would be represented at one extreme of the bell curve, meaning that not a lot of such persons exist, when measured in proportion of the total population. Next, you have the rapidly rising to the well over the top of the smoothly mounded bell curve that shows where the vast majority of persons exist in "how narcissistic are they?" The persons in this range do not have any severe dysfunctional pathology, tho many may show greater narcissistic behaviors in one area of their lives than the other.

Finally, as the the bell-curve extends out further and further, you have increasingly narcissistic persons who have increasing amounts of dysfunction in functioning effectively in at least one area of their lives. As the curve flattens out, some are paragons of virtue and admiration in their business or public service lives, but a monster behind the closed doors of home where the family functions like the enabling families of alcoholics, where "nothing is happening at home". These person would most likely be diagnosed with one or more personality disorders of the Cluster B, Axis II variety, and especially with NPD. At the furthest extreme of the narcissism bell curve, you will find the Malignant Narcissist, more commonly known as a psychopath (or, by others, as a sociopath. Those at this extreme end point of the curve have no empathy whatsoever for their victims, whether they be those directly targeted or simply "collateral damage".

While we are not so far along in neuro-psychiatry that medical science yet knows at what point the prominently noticeable brain structure differences begin, we do know they exist in those at the extreme end of narcissism, NPD and psychopathy (aka Malignant Narcissism per more and more professionals). We know a fair amount more about the brain differences in those at the other end of the Bell Curve - those with Borderline Personality Disorder, with Complex PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and those with disabling chronic depressive disorders than we know about the range of brain differences (be there any) among the persons who exist along the continuum - those human beings who make up at least 70-80% of people.

So when someone is diagnosed as having NPD, it DOES indicate a severe lack of empathy - the ability to see things from the other person's POV and an inability to even imagine the emotional components of those they hurt. Malignant Narcissism indicates the worst of the worst of those with NPD - absolutely no conscience, no empathy, totally manipulative, no shame. Spotted Owl (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Spotted Owl, they're very interesting though I have to disagree with some of the above points. Psychopathy and sociopathy are two different things. Sociopathy is another word for Antisocial Personality Disorder which is corrolated with psychopathy but is actually a different thing. Sociopathy is an enviromentally acquired disorder whereas psychopathy is thought to be neurobiological. The diagnostic criteria are also somewhat different. Sociopathy is more characterised by lack of control over one's emotions whereas psychopathy is more to do with having no emotions or at least very shallow ones. Sociopaths are also as frequently self-loathing as narcissistic whereas psychopaths are innately narcissistic. Malignant Narcissism is also different although there is a corrolation between them. More or less all personality disorders are connected through direct or distant corrolations. Furthermore are you saying that all parents who violate their children (sick people) are narcissistic? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What this topic needs

The term "Malignant Narcissism" has come a long way over the past 30+ years from the time Kernberg coined the term to delineate a distinct syndrome. What this article needs is not to be merged into another article and reduced to a short paragraph or two, but to be worked on a lot. Even at this stage, this article constitutes not much more than a stub. And I forgot to mention that political scientists have adopted the terminiology, in government as well as university settings, to help predict as well as understand various government leaders. Spotted Owl (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Until more information comes to light we should perhaps merge the article with Narcissism (psychology). If we're going to merge it into any article it should be that one. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Hi, I updated the malignant narcissist page, I have been planning on doing it for a while, but just now decided to do it. I took a lot of information from the book "Malignant Self Love, Narcissism Revisited" and incorporated with what I knew and learned from reading about the subject matter. I didn't include everything I knew, but I wanted it to be a good start for anyone interested in malignant narcissism. Malignant narcissism is not directly related to either narcissistic personality disorder or psychopathy, NECESSARILY, but all three exist on one continual spectrum. Malignant narcissism is related to narcissistic regression in childhood, whereas NPD can be develop in various ways, and individuals can be born with psychopathic characteristic traits. Neither psychopathy nor malignant narcissism in "truly" in the DSM-4, so it is hard to know exactly what they are, except based on overall theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

-Hi, please add to this page if you can include anything not mentioned, we want to make this a very good page, thanks, lynch1000s! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I'm dubious as to whether the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Is this concept of any real world importance? The text in the article reads like somebody wrote it to look somewhat like a recognized psychiatric diagnosis by combining parts of NPD and psycho/sociopathy. It seems to have no real content of its own. Kind of cute, actually, but not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I intend to put this one up for AfD unless somebody makes a reasonable objection. Muad (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is definately valid as a separate article but quite a lot of meterial such as narcissistic supply also applies to the NPD article and can either duplicated or transferred from here.--Penbat (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

While the subject of Malignant Narcissism as defined by Kernberg is (IMHO) notable enough for any encyclopedia, a large part of the article (and another whole article Narcissistic supply would seem to be vehicles for promoting a rather prolific internet blogger with no real credentials. I probably shouldn't interfere. But it seems most unwise to let this sort of speculation stand in articles indefinately. WB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.70.127 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum for personal opinion

Surely Wikipedia is not intended to be a forum for individuals to invent their own theories as they go along? Yet this article seems to have been overwhelmed with theorizing and personal opinion, and worse, theory and personal opinion that bears no resemblence to recognised medical and academic research. Please be so good as to have a little more responsibility in future. WB --90.210.84.5 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to Vaknin, why, just to give one out of many possible examples, does one of the world's top academic gurus on narcissism, Elsa Ronningstam, in her book "Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A Review" refer to Vaknin's book as one of "several important publications updating clinical and empirical progress on narcissism".

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9fgwbCW7OQMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA277&dq=vaknin+narcissism&ots=RZkvDwm-Jw&sig=BHxdRX4R2ctoGlCrZr1DLwXf7tE#v=onepage&q=vaknin%20&f=false

--Penbat (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Vaknin is to psychology what creationists are to biology - totally unreliable, unscholarly and invisible in the peer-reviewed literature. He makes stuff up, is a diagnosed psychopath (see the documentary I, Psychopath) and should not be included in this encyclopedia. Ronningstam's citation does nothing to dispel this wacko's non-reputation in the scientific and clinical communities.210.49.138.43 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had dug deeper you would have found plenty of citations and recommendations from other leading academics. I would much prefer to accept the view of Ronningstam (who is a strong contender for being the world's leading guru on narcissism) than your view. How do your credentials stack up against Ronningstam's ? --Penbat (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Vaknin has a Ph.D in philosophy (not psychology) from an unaccredited university. He could hardly be considered a valid source for information when compared to virtually any other psychologist. 199.17.139.138 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont you guys ever give up ? Many top psychologista have cited and recommended his work so to them he is a valid source of information. --Penbat (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Many -> A few. Top psychologists -> Unremarkable psychologists. Sam Vaknin is just a charlatan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.144.148 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is M. Scott Peck's book from 1983 intentionally ignored / not referenced in this article?

M. Scott Peck (author of "The Road Less Traveled") was a psychologist and he wrote a book with a 1983 copyright that is entirely dedicated to the study of "Malignant Narcissism".

The book is "People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil". His theory is that people with Malignant Narcissism even lie to themselves about their shortcomings. ie. They see themselves as perfect and when imperfections occur, they lie to themselves and thus never admit even to themselves that they are not perfect. In turn he believes this leads to evil behavior. ie. He correlates Malignant Narcissism with the Christian concept of Evil. I can see that is quite controversial and may be why the book is not even referenced in this article.

But he says that he wrote the book as scholarly work in order that the science of studying Malignant Narcissism could be advanced. Seems appropriate for at least a reference, even if it is claimed to be a controversial study of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregfreemyer (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

His work is referenced by other psychologists. I dont see a problem with having a section here about his ideas on malignant narcissism. But see also M. Scott Peck Aspects of his book not specifically relating to malignant narcissism should be his own article be elsewhere, maybe in the Evil article. I note that there is already quite a lot about Peck in the Evil article.--Penbat (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Soiregistered getting carried away with his banners

I think you have gone over the top with your banners in this article. Bear in mind that about 30% of Wikipedia psychology articles dont have a single citation whatsoever.

• "single source" - i think it is self evident that quite a lot of this article is covered by only 1 citation and needs more.
• "self-published sources" - hardly
• "original research or unverified claims" - quite a few top gurus such as Ronningstam have no problem citing Vaknins work, if it is good enough for her it is certainly good enough for Wikipedia.--User:Penbat (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How about you revert the personal attack in the section header before we continue this discussion? --Soiregistered (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have made over 50 edits (including one to the article to which this talk page is connected) since I posted my request above for you to adopt a more positive tone. I am trying to engage you constructively, Penbat. Am I doing it wrong? --Soiregistered (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Penbat, I don't seem to have succeeded in getting you to revise the tone in the section heading (above) but let me proceed nonetheless, as I believe the article still needs attention. I had:

• attached the phrase 'self-published' (as plain text) to two references (actually a single book, in printed and online versions)
• attached a 'self-published' warning banner to contents of the 'Narcissistic supply', 'Alter ego', and 'Narcissistic rage' sections (after grouping them together as 'Other aspects')
• attached a 'one source' warning banner to that same material and another to the 'Victimology' section
• attached 'original research' warning banners to the 'Treatment and diagnostic criteria' and 'Malignant narcissism explained' sections

and you reversed these changes. I also re-inserted the 'self-published' text a second time, on 4 December, because you did not respond to my initial response here on 3 December.

I appreciate that my edits did lead to there being a large number of banners in the article and I don't have a problem with reducing that number as long as the concerns which I have get addressed. My interest then and now is in clearly identifying the content that remains problematic rather than deleting it. (I would also be happy to have the material improved and better sourced but that is a larger project.)

The 'one source' and 'self-published' issue aside (for the moment), in your comment above you responded to my identification of some material as possible/probable 'original research' as if my concern was related to criticism of the reference that was given for some other of the material. Actually, in that I was not criticizing that source, I was trying to indicate that some material in those sections (namely, the paragraph at the top of 'Treatment and diagnostic criteria' and the entire section 'Malignant narcissism explained') seems to be 'original research' by the editor who originally inserted this material into Wikipedia. In this my concern is with content, not source. In my opinion, the following deserve identification with an 'OR' marking:

• the statement 'Malignant narcissism is an incurable disease' (disease? incurable?)
• the statement 'Antipsychotic drugs (such as abilify) have the tendency to reduce paranoid features of the malignant narcissist' (study of Abilify on malignant narcissists?)
• the statement 'Malignant narcissism is also related to an underdeveloped "or a lack of a" superego (conscience)' (according to whose view?)
• the application of Freud's 'man on horse and whip' analogy to malignant narcissism (something like that needs a source)
• application of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to malignant narcissism (ditto)

Doesn't material such as this, if unsourced, at least demand a 'citation needed' indication? Or, in replying as you have, are you suggesting that you have knowledge that this material is all contained in the source cited for the other material? (If so, that should be indicated...)

With respect to the suitability of the book that is referenced (for other of the material): I tried to take a middle ground with that. My opinion is that identifying, for the benefit of readers of the article, that that book is self-published is needed. I don't want to get into criticizing the contents of the book or otherwise passing judgement on it. It is widely identified, though, as being self-published (which I am not saying necessarily disqualifies its use as a reference), for example in this interview with the author. In addition, the publisher does not seem to have any advertised physical address other than being identified as being either in the Czech Republic (in this source) or in Macedonia (here). Books-by-ISBN lists the book (again, here) as being connected, through the publisher part of the ISBN, to only four published titles in total, two of which are by the author in question. And in the book's listing on Google Books (here), publishing permissions for it are listed as being granted by a website which has the book's author as its registered owner (whois record). I think that is sufficient to consider the book self-published.

Your insistence that that book is not self-published when, according to the edit logs, it has repeatedly been marked as such, by a number of different editors ([1][2][3][4], the last instance of which you yourself reverted [5]), seems disingenuous (as well as disrespectful of the time and effort needed to collect the above information), as does your reliance on Ronningstam (who single-handedly constitutes, apparently, 'quite a few top gurus') as validating the book as a suitable source. I think you know that Ronningstam does not cite any material from it, she simply lists it as an existing publication in the section of a general review in which she is outlining the 'Scope of NPD'. (Here is the sum total of what she says about it: "a practical semi-autobiographical handbook with accompanying informative web sites was written by a layperson".)

So, can I edit or are you going to just revert me again? --Soiregistered (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

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

Gratification

I have not been able to identify any sources for the use of "gratification" as a differential feature of M. N. as per subsection Gratifications. Have a hunch someone had a source/memory of source once however: any ideas anyone? Jacobisq (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

personally i would ditch it - it has been in here for a long time unsourced and doesnt sound likely it ever will get sourced.--Penbat (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of old article contents

I'd like to make you aware of the fact that another user temporarily restored an older, considerably longer revision of this article (revision 2010-06-02T19:45:57‎) as he found this revision more correct and informative than the current one (ca. revision 2013-04-10T01:03:28‎). See also: Discussion on his talk page: User talk:Permaculturedesigner#April 2013. I reverted him since the contents were originally deleted because they did not met our quality standards and also to not trash other contributions. According to the edit history, the old article had various issues like usage of non-encyclopedic language, potential use of original research or unreliable sources, or a neutral point of view not being maintained. Nevertheless, there's a chance that some useful stuff was deleted alongside questionable content when the article was trimmed down years back. Since the article in the current form certainly lacks in various aspects as well, perhaps someone more familiar with this subject should re-evaluate the old revision ([6]) and if useful material is found merge it back into the current article? Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment. If there is something of worth to be added, it should be added manually. It would be better if User:Permaculturedesigner didn't try to force the article back almost 3 years to an inferior version--"citation needed" templates and all.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Star767 aka User:Farrajak

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

Scott Peck and Viktor Frankl

Someone [[7]] has a suggestion in the "Reference desk/Miscellaneous" boards, that might be of interest for contributors who are familiar with the subject. Mentioning or adding or linking or developping about these two authors and psychiatrists Scott Peck and Viktor Frankl. Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Key Questions not Discussed

How does malignant narcissism differ from #1 'ordinary' narcissism and #2 ASPD? These are the sorts of things that users need to know. Norvo (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A valid point, i've added a section for the topic to be discussed. Szzuk (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump

The WP:BLP rules still apply to pages that discuss or include living persons, even if they are not entirely about that subject. As such, I have made a post on the BLP notice board in regards to Trump's inclusion on this page:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Donald_Trump

The key element is that the cited experts have not studied Trump personally. Key quote: "Gartner acknowledges that he has not personally examined Trump...". Thus it is not a medically valid diagnosis. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that it's two years later and we have treasure troves of evidence that Trump is the poster child for this article, I agree that without a clinical diagnosis, we can't post his picture in this article. No doubt, it will someday appear as is definitely should (IMHO), perhaps after he's dead, but not yet. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 09:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't wait for DSM to "legitimize" concepts already in practice

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

Expert needed

This is a esoteric term in psychology that Wikipedia editors have struggled to make sense of in 15 years and 1500 edits. The article is meandering and confusing.

The summary includes this odd statement ""hypothetical, experimental diagnostic category""

The body includes this desperate attempt to explain the term: "the word "malignant" is used in the sense of the word described by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "passionately and relentlessly malevolent: aggressively malicious"''

Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2022 and 21 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morgangarrett (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2022 and 25 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MoussaSl, Vr2254, Rpf8745 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Vr2254 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)