posted April 21, 2015 06:19 PM            

Here's the link where the abstract is from, I have the full study if anyone wants it (not directly available online:

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/18/0146167214535812.abstract

posted April 21, 2015 06:29 PM            

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/98/1/132/

On the basis of a realistic behavioral approach, the authors showed that narcissists are popular at zero acquaintance and aimed to explain why this is the case. In Study 1, a group of psychology freshmen (N = 73) judged each other on the basis of brief self-introductions using a large round-robin design (2,628 dyads). Three main findings were revealed: First, narcissism leads to popularity at first sight. Second, the aspects of narcissism that are most maladaptive in the long run (exploitativeness/entitlement) proved to be most attractive at zero acquaintance. Third, an examination of observable verbal and nonverbal behaviors as well as aspects of physical appearance provided an explanation for why narcissists are more popular at first sight. Results were confirmed using judgments of uninvolved perceivers under 3 different conditions for which the amount of available information was varied systematically: (a) full information (video and sound, Study 2), (b) nonverbal information only (video only, Study 3), or (c) physical information only (still photograph of clothing, Study 4). These findings have important implications for understanding the inter- and intrapersonal dynamics of narcissism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

The PDF is available if you go to Google Scholar, but here are some summary points:

"In the situation in which individuals introduced themselves to potentially meaningful peers, narcissists exhibited neater and flashier appearances, more charming facial expressions, more self-assured body movements, and more humorous verbal expressions."

"Unacquainted observers judged narcissists more favorably when exposed to very brief video clips of their self-introductions. Mediational analyses suggest that narcissists were more popular because they had a more neat and flashy appearance, a more charming facial expression, more self-assured body movements."

"In contrast to the consistent specificity hypothesis and in line with the paradoxical specificity hypothesis, the most maladaptive facet of narcissism (Exploitativeness/Entitlement) was most strongly related to popularity at first sight. People with a sense of entitlement and a tendency to manipulate and exploit others were liked more at zero acquaintance."

posted April 21, 2015 06:41 PM            

http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/thomaes2009.pdf

"There are two things that the normative development of self-esteem and the motivations that surround it may tell us about the development of narcissism. First, if narcissism involves at its core an overinvestment in self-esteem, then its first observable manifestations are unlikely to emerge before about age 8....Second, if narcissism is viewed as an extreme form of universal self-esteem motivation, then its first observable manifestations may often emerge at some point in or just after late childhood, when children become increasingly motivated to hold favorable self views."

"Initial research findings support the notion that narcissism is manifest and measurable beginning at age 8"

"Theoretically, there is good reason to assume that narcissists are high in approach temperament. First, narcissists show many behavioral characteristics (e.g., aggression, impulsiveness, risk taking tendencies) and personality characteristics (e.g., extraversion, competitiveness, need to achieve) that are typical for individuals high in approach temperament. Second, similar to people high in approach temperament, narcissists are strongly oriented toward obtaining personally significant goals"

posted April 21, 2015 06:51 PM            

Connection between narcissism and perfectionism:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.21896/abstractdeniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Treating narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) successfully is possible but requires a thorough understanding of the pathology and appropriate clinical procedures. Perfectionism is one prominent feature often associated with narcissistic difficulties. Metacognitive Interpersonal Therapy (MIT) for NPD adopts manualized step-by-step procedures aimed at progressively dismantling narcissistic processes by first stimulating an autobiographical mode of thinking and then improving access to inner states and awareness of dysfunctional patterns. Finally, adaptive patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting are promoted, together with a sense of autonomy and agency and a reduction of perfectionistic regulatory strategies. Throughout, there needs to be constant attention to regulation of the therapy relationship to avoid ruptures and maximize cooperation. We describe here a successful case of MIT applied to a man in his early 20's with narcissism, perfectionism, and significant co-occurrence of Axis I and Axis II disorders.

NDP and disturbed emotional regulation:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178111008262

Although theoretically the lack of empathy is a supposed key symptom of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), empirical studies examining empathy in NPD are scarce. In the present study it was examined whether patients with NPD differ from healthy controls and a psychiatric control group in their empathic abilities. In order to examine this question, 20 patients with NPD, 20 patients with a personality disorder in the Cluster C spectrum and 20 healthy control participants were presented with a questionnaire and a facial recognition task designed to measure empathic abilities. It was found that patients with NPD did not differ from the two control groups on a self-report questionnaire indicating that patients regard themselves as sensitive to the feelings of others. On the contrary, it was found NPD patients generally performed worse on a facial emotion recognition task compared to both control groups. In addition to this general deficit in emotion recognition, patients with NPD showed a specific deficit for emotions representing fear and disgust. These results provide the first empirical evidence for impaired emotion recognition in patients with NPD.

Fear and decision-making- NPD:

Full article link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811090/

Linking psychoanalytic studies with neuroscience has proven increasingly productive for identifying and understanding personality functioning. This article focuses on pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), with the aim of exploring two clinically relevant aspects of narcissistic functioning also recognized in psychoanalysis: fear and decision-making. Evidence from neuroscientific studies of related conditions, such as psychopathy, suggests links between affective and cognitive functioning that can influence the sense of self-agency and narcissistic self-regulation. Attention can play a crucial role in moderating fear and self-regulatory deficits, and the interaction between experience and emotion can be central for decision-making. In this review we will explore fear as a motivating factor in narcissistic personality functioning, and the impact fear may have on decision-making in people with pathological narcissism and NPD. Understanding the processes and neurological underpinnings of fear and decision-making can potentially influence both the diagnosis and treatment of NPD.

posted April 21, 2015 08:27 PM            

Those are intriguing and reflecting on that it makes me wonder how many are falsely labeled narcissist?

Even ignoring those who throw out every negative word they can think of against someone they just don't like or that plenty of people can see 3 different professionals and get diagnosed with 3 different things (let alone frightening experiments like the Rosenhan experiment) there is a tendency for humans to become corrupted by power. Most think of those who seek power and become intoxicated with it once achieved (and thus dictatorships are rightly feared) as well as where the power is overt (such as in the famous Standford prison experiment and the Third Wave), but social clout is a type of power as well. Celebrities get the most expensive stuff for free, get waited on fast, and typically have different standards of justice, and on a lesser scale the popular people can get a laugh from the very same joke that failed when told by someone else and have all sorts of favors shown toward them.

That's power. And power can corrupt. Many who have been in high school (especially girls) know what I'm talking about.

So if people find a way to become more popular then that sets up feelings of entitlement...and for many people there never is "enough power" they always need more (I laugh when I read articles seriously saying "don't rich white males in the US deserve a break for once?") and they can fear losing what power and thus relevance they have (this is also in profits so that a lot of problems with YT and Google is that after making several billions in profit one year they have to make EVEN MORE of an obscene profit the next and so on or they feel they're losing relevance, likewise when celebrities start becoming obscure a scandal or boring sex tape surfaces that puts them back in the spotlight again, frequently translating into additional sales and thus opportunities).

And on a smaller scale, if a person is popular they come to feel entitled rather than blessed or fortunate AND there's the raging insecurities promoted by people with callous selfish motivations to sell something you don't really need (which contributes to others who are mean in petty ways to feel better about one's self) COMBINED that would translate into many of the symptoms of NPD (at least to the layman), which could easily explain why the sites on NPD are so popular and a significant portion of the population talk about parents and exes as having NPD. In this case they don't really have it, however, they're just entitled jerks who can probably adjust once they lose their status (as frequently happens as people get older, or at least they find better ways to feel good about themselves). (Of course many people saying their ex or whoever has NPD may actually have BPD now devaluing the one they used to idealize!)

Otherwise, NPD is epidemic. Probably many of the people (including professional psychiatrists) labeling others as narcissists have it (see also the description of evil in People of the Lie).

posted April 22, 2015 01:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
^ A choice?
Hmmm Would *you* choose to have NPD if you had the option?

---

posted April 22, 2015 07:45 AM            

Exactly

**--my edit

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 09:43 AM            

For every researcher that says A, another says B. For every Harvard Phd that says A, a Yale Phd ones says B. Then, a Duke Phd/Md one says C. Then, a Colombia Phd says D etc lol

That is why personal discernment is needed.

You can't blindly follow authority as if they are gods because authority differs

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 10:01 AM            

Let's look at nutrition. Not too long ago, Harvard/Yale/Duke/ Columbia top research told us that food had NOTHING to do with disease.

Now, many top researcher says food has a great deal to do with disease.

Yet, others still differ. Hence, the DIFFERENCES in academic scholars.

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 10:03 AM            

Now, all think they should.

Let's take thousands of such topics.

I could write a tome on them but I have learned to think for myself because that is really the way to wade through academic esoterica.

So,it is foolish to blindly follow any study, research etc

In ten years, it could be recanted and where would you be lol

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 10:10 AM            

Do you know the TOMES of articles on cancer?

Cancer can be cured, in most cases, by simple methods given by God such as fasting, raw organic foods, wheatgrass, clean water, etc

Thousands of people attest to it but these people have had to think for THEMSELVES, not follow authority blindly.

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 10:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
So, it is foolish to blindly follow any study, research etc

In ten years, it could be recanted and where would you be lol

---

Couldn't the same then be applied to Astrology, to you and all of the thousands of charts you claim to "study and interpret" for people? Absolutely. So what point are you trying to prove here? What are gaining riling people, Ami? Why are you wasting your energy and time out of your day commenting? It's because you enjoy drama and get off on irritating people. How sad that your days are filled with such pointlessness, such nothingness and misery that you resort to harassing people on the Internet.

posted April 22, 2015 10:28 AM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 10:47 AM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 10:51 AM            

Too much and we have an inflated sense of self. Too little, and we have little sense of self.

We all struggle with this balance.

Mal Narc is another category. This is having no empathy.

This is rather rare.

The scale for Narcissism has a spectrum with Mal Marc at the end.

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 11:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Probably many of the people (including professional psychiatrists) labeling others as narcissists have it (see also the description of evil in People of the Lie).

---

I thought and still think this as well.

quote:

---

As for genuine NPD (however rare or epidemic it may be)...I'm not really sure, and I neither overestimate my ability to truly know other people at a godlike level to say nor give too much credit to psychiatry which is still stumbling along in the dark for the most part. But I have noticed that enough people experience radical changes in their personality, including just from a bump on the head, that I think anything is possible in this regard. And I'm inclined to think inner change is possible by those determined to do so, though it's also hard work (for anyone really), and the very hardest part is to admit one has a problem and to take those first few steps. Support is almost certainly required but one would have to be careful to be genuinely supportive as opposed to creating a codependent relationship (or worse, a cult-like one). I still believe my mom could become a phoenix someday, though she probably won't. But usually when I turn out to be wrong it's because I'm not cynical enough (despite that many tell me I'm too cynical).

---

I agree that some areas of psychiatry are still stumbling however it's come such a loooong way. That's why I personally believe it to be so important to educate and create more awareness on this subject. There are many out there that don't even know about any of this. It's really easy to google and think that you have ___ when most of the time you don't have that but something else or nothing at all.

posted April 22, 2015 11:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
Bella

For every researcher that says A, another says B. For every Harvard Phd that says A, a Yale Phd ones says B. Then, a Duke Phd/Md one says C. Then, a Colombia Phd says D etc lol

That is why personal discernment is needed.

You can't blindly follow authority as if they are gods because authority differs

---

Valkin's a narcissist (self-diagnosed!!!) with no formal education or evidence- no one respects him in the clinical world. I'm not even going to address your research comments because none of your theories (loyal moons? Nah) have any evidence. We didn't know the world was round thousands of years ago so are we going to claim science as invalid because we didn't get it right the first time? No, science isn't perfect but we cannot drive the field further without trying new things, but it has validity and reliability that gives it merit.

Btw, a ton of people have died trying to cure their cancer with natural methods- that is what happens when people are told misconceptions about treatment and follow things without true evidence.

You can continue to try and antagonize me with your "I hate Aqua sun females derp derp," "I don't post things trying to look smart," bump random comments I make to get a response, make moronic comments about how science is lol invalid because it refutes your logic, and make inflammatory comments meant to rile up those who call you out on your lies-- I'm going to continue to ignore you so you are just wasting your time here.

Now, the rest of us are just trying to have good conversation. Set a better example as a mod, and if you can't, excuse yourself from the thread and post elsewhere.

posted April 22, 2015 11:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:

For every researcher that says A, another says B. For every Harvard Phd that says A, a Yale Phd ones says B. Then, a Duke Phd/Md one says C. Then, a Colombia Phd says D etc lol

That is why personal discernment is needed...

---

So we should ignore all science?

The main reason studies differ from each other is that they are studying different facets of a question (so aren't really studying the same thing), or the studies are designed differently, or the population studied is different (men vs women, or Chinese vs. American or 20 year olds vs 65+ year olds), or they use different statistical methods, etc.

One has to look at the entire body of evidence, not any single study in isolation. And to understand the results, one has to understand enough about research design and actually read the study (or at least a good abstract of it), rather than just a popular press summary.

So I agree that personal discernment is necessary.

But the argument you seem to be making - that you can never believe scientific studies (in psychology or nutrition or any other subject) - because they vary and change over time is ridiculous.

posted April 22, 2015 12:01 PM            

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 12:05 PM            

I think for myself. For example, coffee was supposed to cause cancer from REPUTABLE studies. Now, it is said to protect you against disease from REPUTABLE studies.

I have a great wealth of knowledge of natural health. it is one of my areas of interest and expertise( not to brag/be narcissistic )

Hence, I take studies with a grain of salt. They change, my Friend.

------------------
Want to Read Simple, Fun,Sexy Articles on Astrology? Check Me Out, DUDE.

posted April 22, 2015 12:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
In this Forum, everyone is allowed to post as they wish.

---

Wrong. You are not allowed to antagonize people and derail a thread for your own selfish enjoyment. You are continuously ruining it. Why can't you ignore it and move on?