Talk:Narcissistic supply

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Seriously, this is all horrid pseudoscience and should be removed from both this chain and from NPD itself. These people are trying to pass off narcissists as vampires and it just isn't how this disease works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.142.36.64 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article for Narcissistic Rage. Narcissistic Supply is a very important concept and is just as deserving of its own article. For now I have just copied text from Malignant Narcissism on Narcissistic Supply. --Penbat (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources on the subject beyond Sam Vaknin, who is not a mental health practicioner? Cornince (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a mental health practitioner, and, while I certainly do not know everything, I have never seen this term before today and can find no other trace of it. I am somewhat at a loss for words as the whole article, and a large part of at least one other Malignant Narcissism would seem to be vehicles for promoting a rather prolific internet blogger with no real credentials. It is none of my business, I was only using Wikipedia to run an old textbook to earth when I saw this. 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) 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although a poor barometer for various reasons, googling for "Narcissistic supply" does generate over 19k hits. Ombudsman (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give my 2 cents here - Sam Vaknin is not in any way, other than being a self-diagnosed psychopath, qualified to have his crackpot theories presented as an official psychology article. If someone were to create an article on Sam Vaknin or his books then this article could be moved there under a "Theories" section or something similar. I can't do it because I'm new and don't want to screw anything up. My reason for concern on this subject is that, upon hearing of Kernberg's Malignant Narcissist theory I Wiki'd it and came to the page presented with Sam Vaknin's work still inserted into it. So, for about a month I was convinced this article was valid and wrote an essay on Malignant Narcissism - thankfully I saw the [unreliable source] marker next to Vaknin's name and saved myself a lot of embarrassment by omitting his ramblings from the paper. I know I'm partially to blame for not checking the sources, but other students might not be so lucky. Expletive (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does generate a lot of hits, but can't we take into account the fact that most of those hits are mirror sites of Vaknin's? Cornince (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:SPS should take precedence here? Cornince (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See these:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22narcissistic+supply 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.10.170 (talk)

Yes, those would be superior to using Vaknin as a source. Cornince (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Vaknin material

It is outrageous that the Vaknin material was deleted by User:Soiregistered:

User:Jacobisq obviously knows his psychology and he freely chooses to include Vaknin material, so his judgement is being questioned
Vaknin's material is frequently cited by academics in the field of narcissism etc. see: [1][2][3][4])[5])
I also happen to know that the following books all reference or cite Vaknin:

Lisa E. Scott, He's So Vain He Can't See You (2008) p. 8
Frank H. Columbus/Serge P. Shohow, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 31 (2004) p. 5
Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 31
David Thomas Narcissism: Behind The Mask (2010) p. 28
Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality (2005) (not sure what page number)

Vaknin's views on narcissism are considered to be high profile enough to be featured in various articles in the quality press such as "Adrian Tempany When narcissism becomes pathological Financial Times September 4 2010" and in "Yvonne Roberts The monster in the mirror The Sunday Times September 16, 2007" where his opinions are included together with those of other luminaries.

It defies any sort of common sense that there are countless academic books that cite or reference Vaknin yet it is considered inappropriate that Wikipedia can do so.--Penbat (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous, outrageous I say! As indeed it was when we had a similar discussion at Talk:Malignant narcissism, where I similarly incurred your wrath and where you similarly provided, in support of your position, what is at best a wonderful Ignoratio elenchi (i.e, presenting an argument that, even if valid, does not address the issue in question). Penbat, I believe you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia and to its readers by adding exactly the type of material which Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources was written to discourage. Whatever notability or notoriety the author you have referenced may have on the internet, it remains the fact that he has no training, expertise, or qualification as a psychoanalytic theorist. To my knowledge, the only references to him by legitimate experts in the field are to his first-person experience as a person diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. Soiregistered (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pointed to this discussion by both of you, so here goes. First, a general comment; all articles need to use reliable sources, and articles within the scope of medicine (as this is) has more stringent criteria WP:MEDRS.

The question is whether Vaknin's comments about Narcissistic Supply should be included here. This needs to be decided based on whether his ideas about narcissistic supply are included in "reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." (see MEDRS nutshell). An argument has also been made that Vaknin qualifies as a established expert whose self published work becomes reliable when and if "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Penbat asserts that Vaknin is a reliable source, and provides several links and other citations.

1. Links given a google search an amazon search another google search a google scholar search Vaknin's website. There may be useful evidence here, but most of the searches are bringing up books and articles written by Vaknin, or Wikipedia mirrors such as Icon and Webster. When I do a more focussed search [6] 14 books are found, some of which are self published (see below) and none of which are the kind of high quality psychology/psychiatry textbooks/guides that we are looking for, such as [7][8][9][10] which do not mention him at all.

2. Other sources given:

Lisa E. Scott, He's So Vain He Can't See You (2008) p. 8: this is a self published book; not a reliable source
David Thomas Narcissism: Behind The Mask (2010) p. 28 this is a self published book; not a reliable source
Frank H. Columbus/Serge P. Shohow, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 31 (2004) p. 5; this is more interesting, not actually written by Columbus or Shohow. [11] The article mentions Vaknin once only, briefly quoting something he said as a section heading and describing him as a "self-help author" who openly discusses his experiences. He is not being cited as an expert or about narcissistic supply,
Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 31 This is a reliable source, though a self help book, rather than an academic source. We also need to know what it actually says about Vaknin on p. 31. Penbat, do you have this information?
Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality (2005):[12] This is a reliable and academic source. However, it only mention Vaknin in the context of having written a useful lay person handbook and website. Nothing about his ideas about narcissistic supply.

3. Newspaper articles: When narcissism becomes pathological and Yvonne Roberts The monster in the mirror. Both reliable sources, though not per WP:MEDRS which states that the media should not be used as sources in medically related articles. In any case, these articles are mostly about Vaknin, the man, and his and his wife's experiences of narcissism etc. One even notes that his ideas are controversial and academics do not agree with him. There is also nothing about narcissistic supply in either of them.

In summary, I don't see any concrete evidence provided here that Vaknin qualifies as an established expert about narcissistic supply. He does not appear to have been published in the field by reliable third party publishers. Nor, in fact, have high quality sources cited him in any meaningful fashion as a "expert". The mentions of him are typically as a lay person "sufferer" who has written (and talked) on the general subject of narcissism, and at times, is at odds with academic thought on the subject. As a result, I will be deleting the material about Vaknin currently in the article since both of the citations given are self-published. I will be happy to change my views about Vaknin's status if more reliable sources emerge showing that his ideas about narcissistic supply are considered significant by the relevant psychology and psychiatry communities. --Slp1 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman & Kulik (2012) Reference

Can anyone confirm reference #13 to The Clinical Problem of Masochism by Hoffman and Kulik in 2012? I tried to find the book on Amazon, and I can't find such a title. There is instead a title called The Clinical Problem of Masochism by Holtzman and Kulish, ISBN 978-1442242975, published in 2014. And I'm wondering whether the citation is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.177.236.60 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basic definition is completely wrong

Narcissistic supply is not a "need" for attention, it is the attention itself.

The citations that remain are entirely dubious. Are we suggesting that this Freudian was published in two sections 60 years apart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:C001:BC90:6070:B1A7:66D9:A55A (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]