23 signs you are secretly a narcissist masquerading as a sensitive introvert

[prplchknz]

so this thread has me wondering: why do people take lies as truths and truths as lies a lot of times when it comes to assessment of themselves?

 

[uumlau]

so this thread has me wondering: why do people take lies as truths and truths as lies a lot of times when it comes to assessment of themselves?

Confabulation.

Everyone confabulates to a degree, and it's usually completely invisible to oneself. Psychology experimenters can make it appear fairly reliably, where they know they just stimulated some sort of unconscious reaction, and when they ask the subject why they reacted as they did, they invariably invent some sort of confabulation to explain their actions.

This is fairly closely related to my elephant and rider thread. What is happening is the that elephant just goes and does something for some very deep psychological reason that cannot be verbalized, and when asked the rider is stuck having to come up with an explanation where there is no explanation. To resolve the cognitive dissonance, the rider makes up reasons that make sense on the spot. These are mostly just guesses, and sometimes the guesses are good and sometimes they're pretty bad.

People with especially severe mental disturbances can have a real disconnect between the elephant and rider, and so their confabulations, their lies to themselves, are painfully obvious to everyone except themselves. So this isn't like consciously lying to other people, where you come up with something elaborate and plausible and other people can't tell that you lied. When you're confabulating, it's mostly unconscious, because the person you're trying to convince isn't your audience, but your "elephant". And the elephant only knows whether it likes your explanation, it doesn't know whether it is true.

Once you realize how unconscious this behavior is, everything else makes so much sense. It isn't that people are that stupid, it's just that an entirely natural function of the brain (it's there for a reason that I'll go into in that thread, maybe later today) ends up being reflexively called up in a bad way. People who are more self-aware are very aware of their confabulations, but even then will have a hard time spotting them: we need other people to tell us that we're full of shit before we can see it, too. People with severe personality disorders will instead deny that anything is wrong with their absurd reasoning, even to the point of denying obvious facts or denying that they made just the opposite argument a few moments ago.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

This should be distinguished, as /DG/ notes, from egocentrism and the normal human need to feel approval from others. You can still emotionally connect with an egocentric person, they're just more selfish. You can't emotionally connect with a narcissist, because the ability to connect just isn't there. They might be able to fool you or fake it if they're highly functioning, at least for a while, but sooner or later you figure out beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing there to connect with.

This sounds like you're referring to actual Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Just want to point out again, context somewhat changes the meaning of the word 'narcissism'. In the self-help books I've read, if a person regularly needs more accommodating than they are able to give- even if it's possible to connect with them and they can empathize, if they regularly need more empathy than they can give- then, consistently according to contemporary self-help psychology, they are narcissistic. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, though, requires the absolute lack that you describe.

And yeah- a person can genuinely feel like they're accommodating others too much whilst actually needing copious amounts of accommodating themselves, needing more than they're actually dishing out and being blind to how much they actually take, so this description isn't helpful if a person is trying to figure out for themselves if they're narcissistic.

 

[uumlau]

This sounds like you're referring to actual Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Just want to point out again, context somewhat changes the meaning of the word 'narcissism'. In the self-help books I've read, if a person regularly needs more accommodating than they are able to give- even if it's possible to connect with them and they can empathize, if they regularly need more empathy than they can give- then, consistently according to contemporary self-help psychology, they are narcissistic. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, though, requires the absolute lack that you describe.

And yeah- a person can genuinely feel like they're accommodating others too much whilst actually needing copious amounts of accommodating themselves, needing more than they're actually dishing out and being blind to how much they actually take, so this description isn't helpful if a person is trying to figure out for themselves if they're narcissistic.

OK. That makes sense if you're talking in colloquial terms. I was responding as I did because the focus seemed to be more what was legitimately narcissism as recognized by psychologists.

 

[Eilonwy]

My elephant tells me that using the label narcissist colloquially is a cop out made up by the rider, when the relationship being analyzed is between two consenting adults. The elephant is pleased with this label because it means that the person being labeled a narcissist is wholly to blame for the problems in the relationship and the elephant using the label gets to absolve itself of making difficult choices and taking accountability for those choices.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Narcissism not only lacks empathy, but self love. They like they are lacking something but can't explain it. We can only love others as much as we love ourselves.

The codependent also lacks self love, so they put up abuse from narcissist and others who have various behavioral health challenges.

 

[/DG/]

I had reread the entire thread. You made the Wikipedia argument before and I answered it before.

I had only spoke of one line from one Wikipedia article and did not take into account multiple articles.

No, it really doesn't, and even you admit as much right here:

My issue with it is this is that "covert narcissism" is not even a category in the Wikipedia article. It is a massive article, yet only a few sentences seem to mention it. So it seems that it may not be a thing, or that it has a different name than what everyone is calling it.

No one is arguing that it is true for all types of narcissism, not even the main article quoted in the OP, therefore we would all appear to be in agreement.

Many people in this thread are in fact stating this. The post right above me implies it for example.

If you are interested in what constitutes an official diagnosis of narcissism, that requires the DSM and a trained psychologist/psychiatrist:
(from this link: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm )

So it isn't just a straightforward case of "this is real narcissism and that isn't", but rather an elaborate set of both positive criteria (things that must be present to be narcissism) and negative criteria (things that must NOT be present to be narcissism) that aren't simple enough to allow a layman to make a diagnosis.

Yeah, the DSM is a good place to start, though I do not have access to one myself. I could probably find one on the internet if I looked for it though I suppose.

I guess I also wanted to learn more about this topic from a credible source as more than just a list of bullet points. I don't just want to know what it looks like. I want to know a bit more about what it is. Idk.

So absent a professional psychologist, the best we can do is get a general idea about what comprises NPD. I found this site to have a particularly nuanced understanding and description of NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) : How to Recognize a Narcissist The site describes itself as being intended for those who have had to deal with narcissists, and not as "ammunition" to accuse people of being narcissistic. It provides a sense of what NPD is like in very layman-friendly terms.

This seems like a potentially interesting link, although discussion NPD seems a tad different than looking at different forms of narcissism, but I am unsure.

----

[MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION] - I think that was a great post. And I do agree that it seems that my issues are in the semantics and definitions of it all. How exactly are we defining narcissism? Many in this thread seem to have their own ideas.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

OK. That makes sense if you're talking in colloquial terms. I was responding as I did because the focus seemed to be more what was legitimately narcissism as recognized by psychologists.

I would guess that the authors of the books I've read on the matter- licensed counselors and psychologists- might take issue with being told they're using the term in a colloquial way, but I see where you're coming from. (eta: I tend to associate 'colloquial use of narcissism' with pejoratives, about vanity- what I'm referring to is the way Fromm describes narcissism. So I personally wouldn't call it a colloquial use of the term, but I do see where you're coming from.)

***

And I can see how putting the label "narcissistic" on something can be a crutch to avoid taking responsibility for one's own part, but that's rarely what the books I've read direct people to do. In fact, the best books on the topic (that refer to "narcissism" as being a spectrum, instead of only using it in the extreme cases) give very good advice on how to avoid being manipulated and/or how to stand up for oneself. I've only found one so far that really did seem like it was a crutch for people to externalize their part in the tango, and it felt pretty slimy to read.

And I do agree that it seems that my issues are in the semantics and definitions of it all. How exactly are we defining narcissism? Many in this thread seem to have their own ideas.

Yeah, my own greatest frustration with the term "narcissism" is that there is no common go-to definition yet people seem to treat their own understanding as if it's the 'real' one. In this forum, and even IRL when the topic comes up. It gets confusing (which is why coming up with subtypes- before really even defining the thing itself- is funny to me, but anyway).

 

[Cowardly]

I'm perfectly capable of being a sensitive introvert and a narcissist. However, I'm much more likely to masquerade only as a narcissist.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

FWIW, I finally started Craig Malkin's Rethinking Narcissism, and he actually opens with this paragraph on the first page (affirming the discussion here, about the ubiquity of the term without there being a solid consensus on the meaning- italics are author's):

But what does narcissism mean exactly? For a word that gets hurled about with such frequency and fear, its definition seems alarmingly vague. Colloquially, it's become little more than a popular insult, referring to an excessive sense of self-- self-admiration, self-centeredness, selfishness, and self-importance. The press is apt to slap the description on any celebrity or politician whose publicity stunts or selfie habits have spiraled out of control.

But is that all narcissism is? Vanity? Attention-seeking? In psychological circles the meaning is no less confusing. Narcissism can either be an obnoxious yet common personality trait or a rare and dangerous mental health disorder.
​

Elsewhere (in the introduction) he refers to NPD as "the most extreme form of narcissism". While it wouldn't surprise me if there were those in the mental health profession who held fast to some view that any use of "narcissism" outside of actual NPD would be colloquial- that doesn't seem to be the consensus. I tend to use the term in the way this author uses it- but that's probably because I've picked up my understanding of it from these kinds of self-help books.

[And if it matters- Malkin is "a Harvard Medical School Instructor and clinical psychologist with more than two decades of clinical experience".]

 

[Forever]

Well since I'm leaving, I kept wanting to put this thread off to the very end. I just did it for the first time because I was willingly refusing to do this, it seemed so gross to me. But now I'll come out with it. Yes I am a covert narcissist.

What I don't like is that he just leaves it, saying haha sucks for you. Not very nice. Even then I am displaying a trait of it because he never said it.

It resembles many similarities to borderline personality disorder. Some enneatype 3/4/5 tendencies and some strongly similarities to an INF personality and obviously HSP.

Now I know why I don't have friends.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anxiety-zen/201508/shy-sensitive-introverted-and-narcissistic

INFJ is mentioned in this one^

It's unfortunate that when we feel a storm
We can roll ourselves over when we're uncomfortable
Oh well, the devil makes us sin
But we like it when we're spinning in his grip

 

[uumlau]

[MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION] -

I don't think you're narcissistic: I think you have plenty of empathy for others. The hard part of connecting with other people, especially for Ni doms like us, is being OK with the fact that no relationship, no human connection, is entirely on our own terms. If it were entirely on our own terms, it wouldn't be a connection, then, would it? It's difficult to let go and allow someone else to influence our lives, but without that mutual influence, it's not a connection.

 

[entropie]

Narcissm before the age of 30 is perfect healthy

 

[Forever]

[MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION] -

I don't think you're narcissistic: I think you have plenty of empathy for others. The hard part of connecting with other people, especially for Ni doms like us, is being OK with the fact that no relationship, no human connection, is entirely on our own terms. If it were entirely on our own terms, it wouldn't be a connection, then, would it? It's difficult to let go and allow someone else to influence our lives, but without that mutual influence, it's not a connection.

I would see that you are right uumlau. I think it is beautiful that we both allow ourselves to join into a friendship, although it's easier said than done. I'm trying my best to overcome my shyness on talking with strangers. My roommate is always out working and he never has time to hang out. I self-disclosed too fast on him, knowing some things I said made him very uncomfortable. (Like trying to say in non-jcf terms trying to take an Fi morality into an Fe morality poorly worded)

I guess it's just that I'm hoping there's something to fix my problems. I just need to be patient and take the proper steps into integration of my personality and be ready to make some changes that are uncomfortable and be comfortable that friendships don't need to have full disclosure to work out.

 

[Galena]

[MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION],

My take is...the INFJ section of that article you linked to feels like a writing problem mostly. The author goes "Enter the INFJ", right in an early heading like they're setting up the subject of the article, but next section, drops that type focus abruptly never to mention it again. Even if they did, the typology bit would still stick out as awkwardly narrow and inessential to the main point when compared to the advice that follows, which targets anybody who can relate (like, so can I to more points than I'd like).

It reads like they changed their mind about their audience halfway through and forgot to edit the beginning. I agree with that change of mind, though:



Stay.

 

[nonsequitur]

33.

I'm self-centered but scored low 'cause I'm low-energy and high-maintenance people are too much work to bother with..

[MENTION=5494]Amargith[/MENTION] I think that is very frequently true. And I think that's why narcissists are often children of narcissists, or other people who were too wrapped up in themselves to be a decent parent.

I just spotted this and wanted to add that there's been a bit of discussion in my SzPD (schizoid personality disorder) community about its relation to narcissism, and recognition of the links between being schizoid and being a narcissist. There's a split in response to the same neglectful/non-validating stimuli - narcissistic parents. Either people become like their parents and place their own needs first (become narcissists), or they reject the idea that they have any needs (become schizoid).

Among people with SzPD, I've observed a further split - between those who avoid circumstances in which they could possibly need anything from anyone (avoidant), and those who talk themselves into not acknowledging any of their needs, yet still hold expectations of people so they act passive-aggressive (covert narcissists).

I've never quite spelt it out like that before and it remains a theory of mine, but thought I would share.

 

[Mole]

Narcissm before the age of 30 is perfect healthy

Narcissism is a necessary part of our psychological development as babies. To survive as babies we need to be loved unconditionally, and this need for unconditional love is called infant narcissism.

And if we are only partly loved unconditionally as babies, we carry over into childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, our unmet need narcissistic need for unconditional love.

And for most adults with unmet narcissistic needs, they are unconscious but colour our thoughts and actions, as though they are the most natural things in the world, as it is natural for babies, but is a neurosis in adults.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

[MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION], I wouldn't take online narcissism test results too seriously. It's just a quick online test *and* narcissists on the extreme end aren't likely to begin to admit they have a problem, or even entertain the possibility for very long. Paragraph from the book I mentioned to describe what I'm talking about:

When feeling special becomes an addiction, there's no room to acknowledge any flaws, no matter how obvious they are to everyone else. People like Gary are notoriously bad partners and friends. The lack of empathy hobbles them relationally, leading them to frequent lies and infidelity. But people who live around 9 don't see it. In fact, ask them if they're comfortable with deeper intimacy, capable of sharing sadness and loneliness with those they care about, and they'll often say they're good at that, too. They have such little self-awareness they can't even recognize the limits of their own ability to love.
​

[When he says "9", he's talking about on a scale of one to ten. So, really narcissistic.]

I'll only add to the above that sometimes they actually do acknowledge flaws, but not the flaws they actually have- they'll concede to having other flaws that have little or nothing to do with their worst flaws. I'm not sure I can remember the explanation for that enough right now to do it justice- something about it being 'safer' to get rejected for flaws that aren't real than to get rejected for flaws they truly have, and conceding to having some flaws is all part of perfecting the 'false self' because it adds a veneer of humility.

It's one thing to be needy, it's another to be narcissistic. Both are needy, but narcissists won't admit it. Especially to themselves. They suck the life of out of people because they're needy, but it's like they see giving someone an opportunity to interact with them as some kind of gift instead of the energy-suck that it is. When their needs don't feel met, they get angry at others for not seeing what a gift their presence bestows on the world. I haven't interacted a whole lot with you, but from a few recent posts- in which you pretty much admit you feel very needy- I'd say this is just a case of feeling needy instead (and there's nothing wrong with that: it sucks to experience, I've certainly been there, I'll certainly be there again, and ultimately it's actually an experience to be grateful for because it can strengthen compassion). I don't think someone who is truly on the far side of narcissism would admit to feeling needy (unless they admit to feeling needy in a confabulated way, for the reason I described in previous paragraph).

****

I also just want to point out that narcissists (in whatever degree) can empathize- as pointed out in the description of the communal narcissist, they can actually have an identity based on being empathetic, and have quite a few people seeing them as being genuinely empathetic because they can genuinely empathize- it's just that they empathize when it's easy. It's easy to empathize with people who make us feel good. Narcissists can be very good at getting others to idealize them (in large part because they idealize themselves, and overconfident people are likely to be overrated), and it's VERY easy to empathize with people who idealize us. But it becomes a challenge when there's something threatening about a person. <- This is true about everyone, more or less- but narcissists have an exceptionally low threshold for external threats (fragile ego) and this tendency for empathy to shut off when threatened is amplified for them. [Not to mention, they're so preoccupied with getting their needs met that they have very few internal resources to give- but they see the empathy they do dole out as being more 'special'/important than it actually is/than that of others.]

Even extreme narcissists empathize- but it's the cold empathy, where they use it to figure out how to elicit the reaction they want, it's not actually about caring in any unconditional capacity.

 

[Eilonwy]

I think it's important to look at why a label is being applied. IMO, two useful reasons to apply labels are 1) to communicate a large amount of information in a brief and, hopefully, concise way, assuming that everyone discussing the label has the same general understanding of the large amount of information being conveyed by the label, and 2) to narrow down a problem in order to come to an efficient and effective plan of action.

Using the label of narcissist in the context of reason #1 would probably look like a rational discussion--something like what the OP is shooting for, I assume. Applying the concept of elephant and rider to that discussion, I think it's reasonable to assume that all of us participating in the discussion are, at some level, pushing our own unconscious agendas/ideas/beliefs/rationales/biases. So, imo, the label has some usefulness because discussion participants can work out if they actually are understanding it in the same general way, and also they can be exposed to different pov's regarding that label which can be useful in refining each person's general understanding of the label. Whether that usefulness can be labeled "good" or "bad" depends on the thinking, actions, and consequences that result from the discussion, and also depends heavily on each elephant's moral definition of "good" and "bad". How do we evaluate that? What are we each taking away from this discussion--a better understanding of the label narcissist? How is that understanding useful in our daily lives? Are we now going to apply that label, or is this just an intellectual exercise?

Using the label of narcissist in the context of reason #2 is a bit more dangerous, imo. To simplify, let's assume that there are three ways to use the label in order to come to an efficient and effective plan of action: 1) Apply the label to yourself in order to take your own effective action, 2) Apply the label to someone else in order to take your own effective action, and 3) Apply the label to someone else in order to try to get them to take their own effective action. The dangerous part, in my opinion, is that #2 and #3 can so easily end up being about the other person and yet be rationalized to the conscious mind as being "for the best". Heck, there's even danger in labeling yourself in order to take effective action, especially when the label has acquired a social stigma, but at least you might have some modicum of control as to action taken when labeling yourself.

 

[Eilonwy]

My rider is starting to believe that there is no such thing as an intellectual exercise. The elephant is always involved.