Narcissism is on the Rise - Page 6

Taking any medication, for any purpose, is a risk/benefit scenario.

If a person is depressed to the point of suicidal, taking a medication that has a 5% chance of causing a serious health problem is far more attractive than a 100% chance of suicide.

If a person is hallucinating and psychotic, the risk of injury to self or others outweights other risks.

Chemotherapy is dangerous, destroys the immune system, and causes severe physical side effects.  All medications have potential health risks, to include over the counter medications.  The goal of medical care is for the doctor and the patient to reach a point where the benefits outweigh the risks.

Mudwick, most of what you say here, whether quoted or not is just wrong information. Narcissism comes in different diagnoses, you ought to know that.  If you are a psychologist you are not well trained in clinical diagnoses and personality types.

Just so you know I'll lay it out here.  A person can be a normal range narcissist, or can have a narcissistic personality disorder.  Narcissists rarely enlist in the military.  they feel they are too specuial to have to work their way up.  And if they do they wash out in most cases and are not suited for long term military careers.

The number one trait seen by folks with a narcissitic personality disorder is the trait of feeling that they are so special they deserve to go to the head of the line or have all the top privileges of breaks without working for them.  Normal range narcissistic personality is somewhat benign, often characterized by focusing on one'self too much, being insecure if not popular, etc.  and makes close relationships that last more difficult, but not as difficult as with the sociopathic type personality (normal range) where first impression are great, but acnnot last due to selfishness and insensitivity to others feeling.

So much of what has been included in this thread is way off base and pop psychology.
I am not going to list scientific references since foks would have go to a major medical library or pay for them, or both, and I feel no compulsion to waste my time going back over prior research which is redious.  Folks can accept what I stated or reject it.  Whatever you want.  So far no-one has expressed much basic knowledge of psychodiagnostics here, but only pop psychiology that is off base IMO.  Mudwick if you want the latest actual research goto a top medical research library and buy a pass and spend a few weeeks doing research.  I have neither the time or interest to go and copy studies.  I remember enough from CE.

Mudwick,

Thanks so much for the wonderful information. I had asked because I just said goodbye to a military friend (activve duty), who has what I think, a PD (or a combo of a few) He told me in the beginning how very shy he was but is a master at manipulating and controlling. Of course I didnt see that in the beginning. Good thing I saw it in 6 months not 6 years.


Oh Preston......no comment.

There just aren't enough words. 

Mudwick, now if you want to start paying for real research here is but one example. If you want to pay for this cutting edge latest research, the costs add up quickly.  This is how researchers obtain others work.  Either they pay for it or their dept has a subscription to most of the publishers for easy, fast access.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6038/108.abstract 

Okay, here is a reference to a basic course that was taught at Colombia by a certain professor.  I suppose this is "fair use" allowed under copyright law.  I just looked and read but did not copy or prints any of these classical, well known basic research articles.  Since you appear to be a novice here is a good place to start studying psycholgy.  You should learn and know this basic information as any core of your knowledge of psychology.  Now you can't say I never tried to help you in your quest for knowledge about psychology.   (PS, please don't read this post if it bores you or offends you).  Cheers.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/terrace/w1001/readings/ 

Well, the first link was kind of cute, because it explains why all Prestons' second hand reports are all poppycock. The last link was just pointless, so it is pretty clear that it was meant as an insult to Mudwick, but I'm sure just about any one questioning Preston's credentials will do.

Sigh.

This is pedantic but-
it is more likely that if a researcher is affiliated with a university then it's the university library that is paying for the subscription, not the department. If the library doesn't subscribe then the resource is obtained via interlibrary loan (fees may or may not be a charged to the patron). Publishers aren't keen on electronic distribution of copyrighted articles via the Internet (not allowed under "fair dealing" - ie. Canadian copyright law).

Laura

Laura, how does this conflict with what I said????  And beetree, gee looks like your post was an insult to me.  But go for it.  I really don't mind.  Folks are still free to believe whatever they want, and that includes me too.

And just ignore my second hand reports, beetree.  You talk big so how about acting big.  Why not read the Finders Docs, Operation Northwoods, the Spence Barney Frank Franklin coverup pedophile white House Pageboy operation.  Then listen to Steve Pieczenik's public disclosure, then study the hundreds of claims of military, engineers, architects and pols that 911 was an inside job.

Nope, you just cannot do it (it won't fit into your head presumbaly), so you focus on info I never said was documented fact which I openly said it was second hand when it was. 

The truth can set you free Preston, if you realize that, then it is not an insult. What of your "ether sniffers" and other retorts, all's fair in love and forums.

Stop turning every thread into a conspiracy theory Preston!