Is this person a narcissist? Or just bossy?

[musicfan42]

I hear a lot of people talk about narcissism and it makes me feel confused. I see some people that have some narcissistic traits but not the full disorder NPD. Is it rare for people to have full blown NPD? I haven't researched this issue so I've no idea... I thought that people here would know.

I ask because there was a family friend who looked after me a lot as a child. I realize now that I was the "golden child" with her-she put me on a pedestal. I had no problem with this (why would I? ) I'm looking back now and realizing that she really liked me so she was 100% loyal to me and that was it... I knew I could count on her 110% and that she'd always have my back. But then when she really hated someone, that was it too... she gave them a hard time... and over petty issues too... almost any excuse to insult them really. She was also bossy and thought that she was always right.

I had another family member like this.

See I don't know if these people are actually narcissists because if they liked you, then they were actually loyal to you. Like that family friend has never let me down... never said a wrong word against me... ever. So would this be considered narcissistic traits? Or just extreme/intense emotions? Or just a lot of black and white thinking?

I don't know why this matters to me. Well okay, I do .

I found that I put people on a pedestal or else hated them. I was actually criticized for this. I was told that I was too stubborn etc. But I didn't really see any issue with it.

I'm realizing that it is a problem now though. If I liked someone, then I tended to take their advice and be very compliant with them whereas if I didn't like them, I wouldn't take their advice (even if it was good advice) and wouldn't comply with any instructions (even if they were reasonable ones). This earned me a reputation for being willful but I'm wondering whether it has something to do with the people I was around as a child? I'm not trying to make excuses by any means-I am an adult and I've worked on this issue a lot but I'm just wondering if there's any connection between these two things.

I mentioned in another thread that I was very sycophantic around authority figures-especially teachers. I feel that I had a bit of a fear of being devalued... that I knew that I HAD to be on the teacher's good side or else I'd be on the scrap heap. I still think this is true but that meant that I spent a lot of the time trying to please authority figures like teachers. Good manners were drilled into me... please and thank you etc. I'm not saying any of this was a problem necessarily however I'm wondering if it just made me too deferential almost... too willing to bow down to anyone that I considered "above" me like an authority figure.

I don't know if any of this is making sense so I'm just going to put this out there unedited... .just my free-flowing thoughts. I only want constructive comments on this!

[PrettyPlease]

... .just my free-flowing thoughts. I only want constructive comments on this!

Hi Musicfan 42,

Since you've been around here a while (much longer than I have), I'm not going to worry about scaring you off, and just shoot from the hip at that last one (actually the whole post was interesting, and I was thinking about your other questions, but they all seem to lead to that ending... .).

Isn't that "I only want constructive comments on this" the same as the loyalty/pedestal worldview? In other words, it's a way of placing a major filter in front of the incoming comments and making sure that only the right kind come in. The kind you already know you want. Isn't that the same as placing a person into Camp A, saying you're loyal to them (we're always loyal to people in Camp A), or in Camp B, and saying you hate them (we always hate the people in Camp B). It's a filter system.

I don't think this particular form of filtering is related to personality disorder (although people with personality disorders may do it more often, or in different ways, like flipping quickly from A to B and back again; splitting).

I think it's a social pattern, evolved over eons, in which we gain advantage by ganging together into groups and forcing other smaller or less well-armed groups to do what we want them to (like growing our food, or whatever).

I think the answer (essentially: "don't do it" was provided by both Christ and Buddha. I think some other religious leaders made a stab at it but didn't quite manage to solve it. Science might be working on it too (there's been a lot of work on the genetics of "Kin altruism", which seems similar, though not exactly the same).

Well, there you go. Put out a ramble, you get a ramble.  

PP

[musicfan42]

Hi PrettyPlease,

I laughed when you said "the kind of comments you already know what you want". I was definitely looking for validation here... like "argh I have all these thoughts in my head... please reassure me that I'm not bossy like these other people"... that was kind of it...

I actually like how you say Camp A and Camp B because that's exactly how my mind works. These are judgments I make about people. I've been working on DBT, which is partially based on Zen Buddhism. I've been trying to do the mindfulness section... and it includes a section on having a non-judgmental attitude. I find it super hard, of course! It says though that it's good just to notice the judgments... and not to judge your judging. I was judging my judging there... thinking that I was a bad person for bracketing people into Camp A and Camp B categories in the first place.

I don't have BPD however I like the DBT skills. I think that they're pretty helpful.

I think the idea of being non-judgmental in that respect is probably easier than the Christian ideal of being a Good Samaritan to everyone you meet. Buddhists seem slightly more realistic-their aspirations aren't as lofty. I heard the Dalai Lama say that if you don't like someone, then ok that's fair enough but don't harm them. I'm paraphrasing his words there but yes, that's something I practice in my life. I don't like some people but at the same time, I think "Ok leave them alone". I'm unsure if I can really forgive people-I've actually tried to in the past but I don't think I ever really do. But I can definitely just leave them alone... .that is something I can do... it's more practical, I guess.

I haven't heard of Kin Altruism before-can you tell me a bit more about that please?

[PrettyPlease]

I don't like some people but at the same time, I think "Ok leave them alone". I'm unsure if I can really forgive people-I've actually tried to in the past but I don't think I ever really do. But I can definitely just leave them alone... .that is something I can do... it's more practical, I guess.

Agreed. I think I do that too.

I haven't heard of Kin Altruism before-can you tell me a bit more about that please?

It's a form of the Camp A and Camp B, so really it's the opposite of the Christ/Buddha solution of loving (or being tolerant of) everybody.

Kin altruism essentially means that you'll sacrifice a bit of yourself for people you are closely biologically related to. So Camp A is your family (and the closer related to you, the more firmly they are in Camp A), and Camp B is everybody else on the planet.

It appears that many animals -- possibly all -- behave this way, so it may be a core element of evolution by natural selection. You can find out more about it at the Wikipedia page for "Kin Selection".

Two statements from that page that encapsulate it for me:

"Kin altruism is altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection."

"R.A. Fisher in 1930 and J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 set out the mathematics of kin selection, with Haldane famously joking that he would willingly die for two brothers or eight cousins."

The meaning in that last part is that our DNA splits evenly as you get further down the line -- our child has half of ours, our grandchild a quarter of ours -- so that mathematicians (like Haldane) can calculate whether it's worthwhile to our own gene line to take a risk that involves possibly hurting ourselves to save someone else. The less related to us they are, the bigger a risk we're taking (of our own genes not continuing).

Anyway, I think we're off thread here... .-- but, maybe it relates to a genetic component in BPD, and lack of empathy... .? Hmm... .need to think about this a bit.  

PP

[musicfan42]

Kin altruism essentially means that you'll sacrifice a bit of yourself for people you are closely biologically related to. So Camp A is your family (and the closer related to you, the more firmly they are in Camp A), and Camp B is everybody else on the planet.

Thanks for explaining the gist of it to me

Anyway, I think we're off thread here... .-- but, maybe it relates to a genetic component in BPD, and lack of empathy... .? Hmm... .need to think about this a bit.  

Yes-I agree that nature/genetics comes into this. I think that everyone has different personalities. Some people are more selfish/ruthless than others. There are also other personality disorders where lack of empathy is also a feature-ASPD, NPD and less notably, HPD.

There are psychologists who feel that attachment theory plays a role too. The primary caregiver is usually the mother. There is a term called "good enough mothering"-the mother doesn't have to be perfect as she's just human but she does have to provide enough time, affection to the child. If the child sees the mother caring for it consistently, then it actually helps him/her develop empathy and healthy relationships in the future. Psychologists feel that borderlines have an insecure attachment and that's what leads to their lack of object constancy.

The term "good enough mothering" irritates me though because I think "what about the role of the father in the child's life?" I know that traditionally, the father was the breadwinner and the mother was the stay at home parent whereas now both parents are usually working. Sometimes the father may be the stay at home parent. Charred was actually talking about this issue here before-that parents are out at work all day, leaving children in creches etc and that there was a book on attachment theory which said that it wasn't the best thing for the child's emotional welfare-that children need their parents to spend a lot of time with them. I forget the name of the book unfortunately!

I think it's actually easier for psychologists to think that BPD is due to attachment theory as opposed to genetics. If it's due to attachment theory, then they can make money touting their latest therapy whereas if it's genetics... well that's a lot harder to "fix".

I've heard a little bit about neuroscience too-that regularly practicing mindfulness/meditation can actually change the pathways in your brain. Borderlines seem to have an hyperreactive amydala... it gets triggered more easily than the average person's.