Narcissists who are entitled and exploitative (as opposed to those who are merely grandiose) have relatively high levels of stress chemicals in their saliva, according to one study. According to another study, the ”vulnerable” (or “covert”) narcissists, as opposed to openly “grandiose,” are prone to dispositional envy and schadenfreude.
Our interpretation: Watch out for Salieri.
Reinhard DA, Konrath SH, Lopez WD, Cameron HG. Expensive egos: narcissistic males have higher cortisol. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30858. Epub 2012 Jan 23. PubMed PMID: 22292062; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3264640. (Free)
Krizan Z, Johar O. Envy Divides the Two Faces of Narcissism. J Pers. 2012 Jan 6. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00767.x. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22225413. (Paywall)
The taxonomic category “Narcissism” seems a bit superfluous to us: grandiose, exploitative, attention-seeking, lacking empathy – isn’t this all a phenotype relating to biological components of brain anatomy and perhaps genetic predisposition?
Perhaps narcissist sub-species taxonomy is due. From Zeigler-Hill V, Clark CB, Pickard JD., “Narcissistic subtypes and contingent self-esteem: do all narcissists base their self-esteem on the same domains?” Journal of Personality 76: 753-74 (July 2008): Epub 2008 May 12. PubMed PMID: 18482357 (Paywall), at page 756:
. . . Part of the confusion concerning the link between narcissism and contingent self-esteem may be due to narcissists actually being a heterogeneous group composed of two subtypes: grandiose narcissists and vulnerable narcissists. The possibility of narcissistic sub-types has been repeatedly suggested in the narcissism literature for decades [citations omitted]. Grandiose narcissism is characterized by arrogance, self-absorption, a sense of entitlement, and reactivity to criticism. This is the form of narcissism that is captured by the diagnostic criteria found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Vulnerable narcissism is similar to grandiose narcissism in that both subtypes share grandiose fantasies and expectations about the self, harbor feelings of entitlement, and display a willingness to exploit other individuals for their own gain [citations omitted]. However, and important difference between the two subtypes is that vulnerable narcissists conceal these feelings and behavioral tendencies beneath a façade of inhibiton, modesty, and concern for others, whereas grandiose narcissists do not bother to do so. Thus, a fundamental difference between grandiose and vulnerable narcissists is that grandiose narcissists regulate their self-esteem through overt strategies (e.g., self-aggrandizement, the devaluation of people who threaten their self esteem; [citation omitted]), whereas vulnerable narcissists are believed to rely primarily upon the approval of others [citations omitted]. . . .
This psychological labeling sounds like mumbo-jumbo to us, but we bend to convention and customary usage.
Openly grandiose narcissists are said to have internal fortitude to support an aggrandized self image, whereas the “vulnerable” narcissist is said to require second-party affirmation. We read into the description that the “vulnerable” narcissist is more Machiavellian. And so, those who closet their inflated self image perhaps are secretly envious? See, Mozart and Salieri. We’re also reading into this the cortisol aspect — it must be stressful to be the Salieri, and hiding that envy from Mozart (n.b., this stress was found in males, and the correlation seems inconclusive for females).
*Using the term “eternal golden braid” in the title is our self-aggrandizement.
(Updated to type out the page quotation that didn’t show up as a jpeg).
Although the stuff sounds like psychobabble, please consider the following:
Some narcissists just need to perform well to get adulation. E.g. a pro tennis player. So long as he’s the best, he gets what he needs to feel better than others.
Other narcissists are stuck needing positive feedback from their “audience”. E.g. think of the kids in the drama department; they need their audience’s love.
Yes, they’ll both be selfish, entitled, manipulative, grandiose, etc. But clearly the ones that just need to win are able to do their thing without trying to win over other fickle humans. The ones that need to be popular (while doing all the nasty stuff they do) are in a real jam, because winning is out of their control.
SD, the behavioral aspects we’re down with, it’s the imprecision of the labels that bugs us.
We’d like to see a more objective, quantitative description rather than “grandiose” narcissists versus “covert” or “vulnerable”. How about “individuals with oxytocin receptor allelic variant ___, amygdala volume ___, white matter connections ___,” etc.
As to the behaviors, we’ve seen people who are the bride at every wedding, and the corpse at every funeral, as they say. Then there are those who are cloyingly unctuous. Perhaps it is a matter of other, extraneous talent: unctuousness is a domain for the mediocre.
When you described the taxonomy as psychobabble mumbo jumbo (bravo, someone ought to take their egos down a peg), I thought you might be poo-poohing the actual differences between the narcissists. Just as you seem to poo-pooh the differences between say, shameful narcissists and shameless sociopaths.
Hopefully someone will figure out the correlations between the narcissist behavior and the alleles. That’d be fascinating.
I wonder if this stuff is static or plastic. E.g. I suspect that when I was younger, I just wanted to be the best at various things, and mostly ignored people. That’s why, for a long time, I was able to delude myself into thinking I was an aspie and not a nasty narcissist.
Now that I’m older and trying to charm certain people, my self-esteem is a lot more vulnerable, because less of the stuff that affirms my self-image is entirely under my control. If anything, failing at getting people to like me typically makes me think I need to figure out how to avoid that phenomenon altogether.
That said, for me (and my narcissistic friends), this stuff about different types of narcissists is an eye opener. We hadn’t considered that vulnerable narcissists exist. Are they mostly women?
My friends and I are mostly grandiose (not vulnerable). We are proud of our brains, looks, degrees, accomplishments, friends, etc. To the extent that we try to be liked by people, we often screw it up (we aren’t smoooooth like Bill Clinton). We agree that deriving self-esteem from being liked by other people is very dangerous (and weak), and fundamentally stupid, given how contemptuous we are of most of humanity. Basically, we look down on everyone the way many people look down on the “people of Wal-Mart”.
SD – thank you for your considered remarks.
We find that psychpath/narcissists/whatevers are long on contempt/disgust, in general. This jibes with considering everyone else in the “uncanny valley.” Or, perhaps the “neuroaesthetic” pathways are disrupted, so you are incapable of perceiving beauty? (See here).
Yet, in our orbit, some of these people are pretty disgusting themselves. So it is interesting to us that “narcissists” have a tough time recognizing disgust in others. (Here). And so, they walk around being disgusting, while complaining about how disgusting others are, and failing to notice that others consider them disgusting. It’s sort of like a hyper-judgmental Pepe LePew. (SD, of course, we’re not making personal remarks about you, only generalizations).
There are lots of papers on the biology of feeling and recognizing disgust. “Contempt” may be more of a cognitive thing, rather than autonomic reaction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=disgust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=contempt
My understanding of the contempt we feel for most people: we’re hypercompetitive. As people we suck, but, for instance, we’ll work a room, dress nicely, diet, work out, work hard at our careers and do what it takes to compete. Then we walk around and see others. If I see someone unattractive/unskilled/etc, I have a moment to wallow in my hubris and gaze on that person with contempt. I can’t typically feel good without the contempt & hubris – the satisfaction that comes from that trumps all other sensations (e.g. eating a good meal, enjoying a spring breeze, etc).
If I see a guy who is better dressed, or more jacked, or somehow better than me (e.g. he’s like me but younger), I get upset and engage in a bunch of rationalizations (e.g. he’s stronger but probably stupider).
That’s how a narcissist thinks. Fundamentally, there’s a huge amount of self-delusion going on:
* finding fault in others
* finding ways to excuse my own faults
* experiencing negative emotions (upon seeing my own faults or inferiorities) and trying to hide those from myself
I’ve got a much better sense of what I’m thinking about and how I’m spending my life, and I’m purposefully choosing to do different things.
Also, narcissists are disgusting hypocrites (dish it out but can’t take it), and malignant narcissists like myself are the worst (all that, plus cruel & paranoid – and able to endlessly justify their terrible behavior with “he made me do it”).
So it is no surprise that narcissists walk around being disgusted yet being awfully disgusting at the same time. That’s what self-delusion gets you.
I’m not sure narcissists suck at reading emotions. Here’s something to suggest some of them might be a bit better at it: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201202/are-narcissists-better-reading-minds
If you read stuff like this, it is clear that these guys (the sociopaths, not narcissists) are really in to intentionally studying people so that they can hurt them when needed: http://www.sociopathworld.com/2012/04/confronting-sociopath.html
SD:
Is this like an addiction? Is it like pain avoidance? Or is it more like dopamine hit/thrill seeking?
Incidentally, we noticed some remarks on Sociopath World that the sociopaths would like “empaths” to make more efforts to be around sociopaths. We don’t get that. Why would you want us around if we’re objects of contempt? (Making generalizations, not specifically “you”). Is it so that you (collective “you”) can feel good/not feel bad?
“Is this like an addiction? Is it like pain avoidance? Or is it more like dopamine hit/thrill seeking?”
If you go to a party, you’ll see women compulsively checking out other women, to see who is prettier, who is acting unacceptably slutty, etc. You’ll see women in cliques making catty comments about enemy women.
Are they doing that to avoid pain or to seek thrills? I suspect you are just seeing habits. Women see enemies and they feel fear/envy. In response to the emotions, they feel a compulsion to say something catty to their girlfriend(s), so they say it.
A narcissist goes out. He has the catty dialogue in his head, in a not-quite-conscious sort of way. He’ll appraise people (the way you’d appraise goods at a flea market) and then have an ongoing dialogue about how he’s better than everything else. He’s not necessarily even aware what he’s thinking or feeling, because he’s not good at introspection. He’s too busy making comparisons (and coming out on top) to notice what he’s doing.
I think a lot of the commenters at sociopathworld are a bunch of nuts living in their moms’ basement. I have no idea what’s wrong with them, but they seem very disturbed. I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with them.
I only referred you to that so you could see that those people are quite able to study others so that they can hurt them when they want to. So not only are they able to read peoples’ emotions, but they are good at “figuring out” people. That’s stunning and terrible: they “know” other people intimately and hurt them anyway.
SD, this “habit” of self-talk sounds like it is a tough one to quit, and, anyway, if it “works” there is no cognitive reason to stop. (And there may be a “reward” or dopamine-type component).
The impaired introspection could have an anatomical correlate: Brain regions relating to introspection identified.
Introspection also relates to how in-control you think you are over things, versus what you think others are doing to you (paranoia?) A recent report is that schizophrenia involves mistakes in determining when you are in control or if there is external control over something. (Here)(paywall). That’s an interesting paper: people were subject to a video game where they tried to click on x’s as they fell down the screen, but avoid the falling o’s. Sometimes the test subjects were in control over the screen display, sometimes there was a millisecond lag or some other distortion. Control, healthy subjects could recognize when they were in control and when the game was randomly distorted; schizophrenia patients had a tougher time recognizing “agency”: “. . .The patients, unlike the healthy controls, used only publically available external cues about performance in making judgements of ‘agency’ and did not rely on any additional access to internal self-relevant cues that were diagnostic in indicating whether or not they were, in fact, in control.”