Author Topic: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"  (Read 3368 times)

Dr. Richard Grossman

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
    • http://www.voicelessness.com
Hi everybody,

The poll was inspired by Anastasia’s question:  can Narcissists really love their children?  Love is a complicated word, so I thought I would try to shed some light on it with the poll.  I tried to construct a parent-child attachment from least narcissistic to most narcissistic to see where members’ narcissistic parents would fit in.  If I had to choose a cutoff point, I would say that a parent who gets in the boat and allows their child to drown definitely does not love.  Of course, even this may be arguable.  For example, if there are other children on shore that  need care to survive, and the parent is certain the child on the boat will not survive, perhaps the parent is showing love to their shore offspring.  But I said nothing about this possibility in the scenario—and even if the child can’t row to shore, there is a possibility that he or she will be picked up by a passing boat.  I believe that the vast majority of non-narcissistic parents would not choose option 3 in any circumstance with the situation unfolding in front of them.  I posted the non-narcissistic poll as a kind of “control group.”  I wanted to be sure the first option would be picked by those who had non-narcissistic parents—an attempt to validate whether the first poll was measuring what it was supposed to be measuring.  From the results, it appears that it was.  I want to stress that this measure is non-scientific.  But I thought the exercise would be interesting on a number of levels (selfish gene theory, anyone?), albeit painful to some.  Comments please!

Best,

Richard

« Last Edit: March 05, 2008, 04:11:23 PM by Richard Grossman »

Lupita

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2008, 05:17:58 PM »
[edit] Genes and selection
Dawkins proposes that genes that help the organism in which they happen to be to survive and reproduce tend to also improve their own chances of being passed on, so – most of the time – "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism. An example of this might be a gene that protects the organism against a disease, which helps the gene spread and also helps the organism.


[edit] Genes can reproduce at the expense of the organism
There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense. Likewise, the existence of junk DNA that provides no benefit to its host, once a puzzle, can be more easily explained. A more controversial example is aging, in which an old organism's death makes room for its offspring, benefiting its genes at the cost of the organism.


[edit] Power struggles are rare
These examples might suggest that there is a power-struggle between genes and their host. In fact, the claim is that there isn't much of a struggle because the genes usually win without a fight. Only if the organism becomes intelligent enough to understand its own interests, as distinct from those of its genes, can there be true conflict. An example of this would be a person deciding to use contraception, even though their genes lose out due to this decision.
The Selfish Gene was first published in 1976 in eleven chapters with a preface by the author and a foreword by Robert Trivers. A second edition was published in 1989. This edition added two extra chapters, and substantial endnotes to the preceding chapters, reflecting new findings and thoughts. It also added a second preface by the author, but the original foreword by Trivers was dropped. In 2006, a 30th anniversary edition was published which reinstated the Trivers foreword and contained a new introduction by the author (alongside the previous two prefaces), and also some selected extracts from reviews at the back.



Lupita

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2008, 05:19:57 PM »
The purpose of evolution is not, as Darwin suggested, survival of the species, it is simply the survival of the information in the genes of the individual. The individual is almost irrelevant to the genes - they are useful containers of the genetic code, but are in the final analysis expendable, and can be cast away if doing so can cause a greater reproduction elsewhere.

Life and evolution is pattern reproducing for no other reason than this: patterns which are good at reproducing tend to reproduce themselves - other patterns do not. The behavior we see in living things is simply behavior which has a history of causing replicating the patterns. The genetic code dictates behavior, and behavior changes the success of the replication process. The genetic codes which cause behavior which causes a more replication of the pattern becomes more prevalent.


Lupita

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2008, 05:24:32 PM »
If you think of Darwinism in traditional terms—as competition among different organisms—the answer isn't obvious. A bird who sounds a call (and so perhaps gets eaten) is unlikely to have more offspring than a bird who keeps quiet (and so probably avoids getting eaten). And having more offspring is what Darwinism was supposed to be all about. But if you think of Darwinism in selfish gene terms— as competition among different genes —the answer is clearer. A gene that makes a bird emit an alarm may decrease the odds that the calling bird survives but it can increase the odds that the gene for alarm-calling survives. The reason is that the flock-mates who are saved by the alarm are, like all flock-mates, likely to be related to the caller; and relatives, by definition, tend to carry the same genes, including the gene for sounding the alarm. In effect, then, the alarm-call gene is warning—and saving— copies of itself. Those copies just happen to reside in other organisms. The counterintuitive conclusion is that a gene that sometimes causes an organism to sacrifice itself can increase its frequency by natural selection. The alternative kind of gene—one for not emitting an alarm call—can decrease in frequency, since such genes are on average less likely to be passed on to the next generation.[

The metaphor behind Dawkins' theory can best be described by his opening statement: "we are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Barlow 193).  Dawkins links the natural behavior of unconscious bunches of nucleic acid (genes) to human behavior and personality by calling them "selfish." His use of this term conjures up the image of a separate individual, capable of making decisions to help its own good and disregarding our needs.  By calling human beings "survival machines" and "robots," Dawkins suggests some serious moral implications regarding our existence.  If we were just robots, it would seem that we would be no longer responsible for our actions, as people could attribute all evil to the gene programmers who created these robots.  Also, if our primary purpose were to serve as a "survival machine" for something else, life would seem insignificant. John Maynard Smith writes that Dawkins' book is just about evolution, and "not about morals . . . or about the human sciences" (195).  However, the attempt to disengage the selfish gene theory from its moral implications is seriously undermined by Dawkins' metaphors.
The origin of the selfish gene, and of evolution itself, began in something Dawkins calls the "primeval soup," where protein molecules, by pure chance, bonded together to form "replicators," the ancestors of DNA (198).  Even in this basic scientific background, Dawkins presents his theory in metaphor, using language like "primeval soup" to describe the contents of the seas before living things came about.  In this situation, Dawkins takes care to highlight the fact that the "struggle in the soup" between the replicators was an unconscious one: "they did not know they were struggling, or worry about it" (202).  Later, when Dawkins brings in the term “selfish” for us to understand these replicators and modern DNA, his metaphor causes confusion.  "Selfish" implies some sort of conscious control, or some entity that is able to control, actively, what it does and how it acts.  Thinking in these terms gets one in trouble, though, if Dawkins' scientific facts suggest the opposite of the metaphoric implications.  Here, the selfish metaphor doesn't hide something but is misleading and contradictory.

In the battle for survival, Dawkins believes that the replicators built, out of proteins that DNA can manufacture, "survival machines" to protect themselves, and the replicators with the most effective survival machines had the best chance to survive.  These survival machines may have started out as simple "protective coats," but over many years genes have improved upon their survival machines and in the process humankind, the most sophisticated survival machine to date, came into existence (202).  It is a scientific fact that genes, or DNA replicators, are made up of nucleic acid that codes for proteins, and could conceivably form containers around themselves that were made up of these proteins.  In this sense, Dawkins' science is correct.  Dawkins then makes the bold, and troubling, statement that "their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence" (203).  This is how he expresses his scientific idea, but it seems too loaded with outside implications. Again, a statement like this would seem to question human existence as we perceive it, and suggests the utter insignificance of life from our perspective.


Lupita

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2008, 05:31:17 PM »
Is pathological narcissism the outcome of inherited traits - or the sad result of abusive and traumatizing upbringing? Or, maybe it is the confluence of both? It is a common occurrence, after all, that, in the same family, with the same set of parents and an identical emotional environment - some siblings grow to be malignant narcissists, while others are perfectly "normal". Surely, this indicates a predisposition of some people to developing narcissism, a part of one's genetic heritage.

This vigorous debate may be the offshoot of obfuscating semantics.

When we are born, we are not much more than the sum of our genes and their manifestations. Our brain - a physical object - is the residence of mental health and its disorders. Mental illness cannot be explained without resorting to the body and, especially, to the brain. And our brain cannot be contemplated without considering our genes. Thus, any explanation of our mental life that leaves out our hereditary makeup and our neurophysiology is lacking. Such lacking theories are nothing but literary narratives. Psychoanalysis, for instance, is often accused of being divorced from corporeal reality.

Our genetic baggage makes us resemble a personal computer. We are an all-purpose, universal, machine. Subject to the right programming (conditioning, socialization, education, upbringing) - we can turn out to be anything and everything. A computer can imitate any other kind of discrete machine, given the right software. It can play music, screen movies, calculate, print, paint. Compare this to a television set - it is constructed and expected to do one, and only one, thing. It has a single purpose and a unitary function. We, humans, are more like computers than like television sets.

True, single genes rarely account for any behaviour or trait. An array of coordinated genes is required to explain even the minutest human phenomenon. "Discoveries" of a "gambling gene" here and an "aggression gene" there are derided by the more serious and less publicity-prone scholars. Yet, it would seem that even complex behaviours such as risk taking, reckless driving, and compulsive shopping have genetic underpinnings.

What about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

It would seem reasonable to assume - though, at this stage, there is not a shred of proof - that the narcissist is born with a propensity to develop narcissistic defences. These are triggered by abuse or trauma during the formative years in infancy or during early adolescence (see http://samvak.tripod.com/faq64.html). By "abuse" I am referring to a spectrum of behaviours which objectifies the child and treats it as an extension of the caregiver (parent) or an instrument. Dotting and smothering are as much abuse as beating and starving. And abuse can be dished out by peers as well as by adult role models.

Still, I would have to attribute the development of NPD mostly to nurture. The Narcissistic Personality Disorder is an extremely complex battery of phenomena: behaviour patterns, cognitions, emotions, conditioning, and so on. NPD is a PERSONALITY disorder and even the most ardent proponents of the school of genetics do not attribute the development of the whole personality to genes.

From "The Interrupted Self" (http://samvak.tripod.com/sacks.html):

"'Organic' and 'mental' disorders (a dubious distinction at best) have many characteristics in common (confabulation, antisocial behaviour, emotional absence or flatness, indifference, psychotic episodes and so on)."

From "On Dis-ease" (http://samvak.tripod.com/disease.html):

"Moreover, the distinction between the psychic and the physical is hotly disputed, philosophically. The psychophysical problem is as intractable today as it ever was (if not more so). It is beyond doubt that the physical affects the mental and the other way around. This is what disciplines like psychiatry are all about. The ability to control 'autonomous' bodily functions (such as heartbeat) and mental reactions to pathogens of the brain are proof of the artificialness of this distinction.

It is a result of the reductionist view of nature as divisible and summable. The sum of the parts, alas, is not always the whole and there is no such thing as an infinite set of the rules of nature, only an asymptotic approximation of it. The distinction between the patient and the outside world is superfluous and wrong. The patient AND his environment are ONE and the same. Disease is a perturbation in the operation and management of the complex ecosystem known as patient-world. Humans absorb their environment and feed it in equal measures. This on-going interaction IS the patient. We cannot exist without the intake of water, air, visual stimuli and food. Our environment is defined by our actions and output, physical and mental.

Thus, one must question the classical differentiation between 'internal' and 'external'. Some illnesses are considered 'endogenic' (generated from the inside). Natural, 'internal', causes - a heart defect, a biochemical imbalance, a genetic mutation, a metabolic process gone awry - cause disease. Aging and deformities also belong in this category.

In contrast, problems of nurturance and environment - early childhood abuse, for instance, or malnutrition - are 'external' and so are the 'classical' pathogens (germs and viruses) and accidents.

But this, again, is a counter-productive approach. Exogenic and endogenic pathogenesis is inseparable. Mental states increase or decrease the susceptibility to externally induced disease. Talk therapy or abuse (external events) alter the biochemical balance of the brain.

The inside constantly interacts with the outside and is so intertwined with it that all distinctions between them are artificial and misleading. The best example is, of course, medication: it is an external agent, it influences internal processes and it has a very strong mental correlate (its efficacy is influenced by mental factors as in the placebo effect).

The very nature of dysfunction and sickness is highly culture-dependent.

Societal parameters dictate right and wrong in health (especially mental health). It is all a matter of statistics. Certain diseases are accepted in certain parts of the world as a fact of life or even a sign of distinction (e.g., the paranoid schizophrenic as chosen by the gods). If there is no dis-ease there is no disease. That the physical or mental state of a person CAN be different - does not imply that it MUST be different or even that it is desirable that it should be different. In an over- populated world, sterility might be the desirable thing - or even the occasional epidemic. There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE dysfunction. The body and the mind ALWAYS function. They adapt themselves to their environment and if the latter changes - they change.

Personality disorders are the best possible responses to abuse. Cancer may be the best possible response to carcinogens. Aging and death are definitely the best possible response to over-population. Perhaps the point of view of the single patient is incommensurate with the point of view of his species - but this should not serve to obscure the issues and derail rational debate.

As a result, it is logical to introduce the notion of 'positive aberration'. Certain hyper- or hypo- functioning can yield positive results and prove to be adaptive. The difference between positive and negative aberrations can never be "objective". Nature is morally-neutral and embodies no 'values' or 'preferences'. It simply exists. WE, humans, introduce our value systems, prejudices and priorities into our activities, science included. It is better to be healthy, we say, because we feel better when we are healthy. Circularity aside - this is the only criterion that we can reasonably employ. If the patient feels good - it is not a disease, even if we all think it is. If the patient feels bad, ego-dystonic, unable to function - it is a disease, even when we all think it isn't. Needless to say that I am referring to that mythical creature, the fully informed patient. If someone is sick and knows no better (has never been healthy) - then his decision should be respected only after he is given the chance to experience health.

All the attempts to introduce 'objective' yardsticks of health are plagued and philosophically contaminated by the insertion of values, preferences and priorities into the formula - or by subjecting the formula to them altogether. One such attempt is to define health as 'an increase in order or efficiency of processes' as contrasted with illness which is 'a decrease in order (increase of entropy) and in the efficiency of processes'. While being factually disputable, this dyad also suffers from a series of implicit value-judgements. For instance, why should we prefer life over death? Order to entropy? Efficiency to inefficiency?"

Read More

Liveslye, W.J., Jank, K.L., Jackson, B.N., Vernon, P.A.. 1993. Genetic and environmental contributions to dimensions of personality disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry. 150(O12):1826-31.

You can learn more about me and my work here:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/indexqa.html


Lupita

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2008, 05:34:52 PM »
Personality disorders
Where personality goes awry
A multifaceted research approach is providing more clues to the origins of personality disorders.

BY CHARLOTTE HUFF
Monitor staff
Print version: page 42

Over the years, few large-scale prospective studies have targeted the causes of personality disorders (PDs). But recently, a new body of research has begun to explore the potential influences of several factors, from genetics and parenting to peer influences, and even the randomness of life events.

Indeed, says Patricia Hoffman Judd, PhD, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, research into the origins of PDs is just beginning to take off. "I think for years people thought, 'It's just personality--you can't do anything about it,'" she explains. "There's also been moralism [that people with such disorders] are evil, that they are lazy," adds Judd, author of "A Developmental Model of Borderline Personality Disorder" (American Psychiatric Publishing, 2003).

But research is helping to turn such misconceptions around. Genetics researchers, for example, are closer to identifying some of the biological underpinnings that may influence PDs. Last year, for example, a team located--and described in Molecular Psychiatry (Vol, 8. No. 11)--a malfunctioning gene they believe may be a factor in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Other researchers are investigating genetic links to aggression, anxiety and fear--traits that could be influential in the later development of a personality disorder.

However, genetics don't work in a vacuum. Studies continue to indicate that abuse, even verbal abuse, can amplify the risk of developing a personality disorder.

For some disorders, such as antisocial PD, the evidence suggests that genetic factors play a significant role, while others, such as dependent personality disorder, appear to be more environmentally influenced, says longtime PD researcher Theodore Millon, PhD, DSc, editor of an ongoing book series, "Personality-guided Psychology" (APA).

But regardless of the specific disorder, researchers increasingly observe a back-and-forth interplay between genetic and environmental influences.

"We see a paradigm shift taking place in the field now toward a more interactionist perspective," says Jeffrey G. Johnson, PhD, associate professor of clinical psychology in Columbia University's psychiatry department. "I think the field is getting away from genetics versus environment--it's a major change."

The genetic/environmental convergence

One of the largest efforts to look at PDs, the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS), is attempting to gain insight into a cross-section of the disorders' characteristics, stability and progression. The multisite study, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health until 2005, has since 1996 enrolled 668 people with the diagnoses of avoidant, borderline, obsessive-compulsive or schizotypal personality disorders. A summary of the study's aims appeared in the Journal of Personality Disorders (Vol. 14. No. 4).

Although the study is not looking directly at causes, it's collecting historical information that may one day provide some insights, says Tracie Shea, PhD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown Medical School and one of CLPS's principal investigators. "I like to think of it as generating hypotheses that can be tested," she says.

Shea co-authored a 2002 study in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Vol. 190, No. 8) that looked at CLPS data and found an association between the severity of specific PDs and the number and type of childhood traumas. In particular, people with borderline PDs reported particularly high rates of childhood sexual trauma--55 percent detailing physically forced, unwanted sexual contact. The researchers note, however, that the type of analysis couldn't determine if the personality adaptations occurred in response to the trauma or whether the individuals' underlying character pathology predisposed them.

Among those exploring the genetic and environmental influences linking normal and abnormal personality is Robert Krueger, PhD, associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota. In 2002, Krueger co-authored a study in the Journal of Personality (Vol. 70, No. 5) that looked at the personality traits of 128 twin pairs who had been raised apart. The study found that the identical twins were more similar in personality traits than the fraternal twins.

Thus, although both genetics and environment contributed to the association between normal and abnormal personality, genetics appeared to play the greater role overall, Krueger says. "The predominant reason normal and abnormal personality are linked to each other is because they are linked to the same underlying genetic mechanisms," he explains.

With borderline PD, for example, ongoing research indicates that there may be a genetic base for the problems with impulsivity and aggression, says the University of California's Judd. But environmental influences are significant and can extend deep into childhood, even infancy, Judd adds.

"There is a pretty high prevalence of maltreatment by caregivers across all personality disorders," she notes. "One of the key problems appears to be neglect. Probably more of an emotional neglect--more of a lack of attention to a child's emotional needs."

Judd points to several studies by Johnson, including one published in 1999 in the Archives of General Psychiatry (Vol. 56, No. 7) that followed 639 New York state families and their children for nearly two decades. Children with documented instances of childhood abuse or neglect were more than four times as likely to develop a PD in early adulthood, according to the research.

Another study, led by Johnson and published in 2001 in Comprehensive Psychiatry (Vol. 42, No. 1), came to a similar conclusion when examining maternal verbal abuse in the same New York group of families, involving this time 793 mothers and their children. The prospective study asked mothers a variety of questions, including whether they had screamed at their children in the previous month and whether they had told their child they didn't love them or would send them away. Offspring who experienced verbal abuse in childhood--compared with those who didn't--were more than three times as likely to be diagnosed as adults with borderline, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive and paranoid PDs.

Shea cautions, though, that at this point research into childhood neglect and abuse, albeit intriguing, has largely been suggestive because prospective studies remain limited.

"It's likely that these childhood abuse factors do play an important role," he explains. "It's hard to say what and how big that role is, more specifically."

The parent-blame problem

The role of abuse is particularly controversial among family members of people with a borderline disorder, who say they are being unfairly blamed--similar to what happened in the early days of schizophrenia research. Emphasizing maltreatment and abuse is misleading and has a devastating effect on families, says Valerie Porr, president of a New York-based nonprofit group, Treatment and Research Advancements National Association for Personality Disorder (www.tara4bpd.org/tara.html).

Porr doesn't deny that parental behavior can play a role in borderline PD. "But it's not like it's the evil mother beating her children," she says. Rather, she explains, the child's "behavior is so off the wall [that] the family's responses are off the wall."

Porr, who has a family member with borderline personality disorder, points to emerging research, including that of Harvard University-based psychologist Jerome Kagan, PhD, identifying the high sensitivity to outside stimuli of some children as significant. Family members of people with borderline PD report unusual responses even in the first months of life, Porr says, noting that, "They say, 'The light bothers them. They are sensitive to noise. Texture bothers them.'"

But Kagan, in a 2002 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience article (Vol. 4, No. 3), says that the role of high reactivity in infancy is far from clear-cut. It's true, he says, that highly reactive infants are more likely to develop shy, timid or anxious personalities. Still, there are puzzling questions, including the significant gap between the percentage of children--20 percent--who are highly reactive infants and the prevalence--less than 10 percent--of those who develop social phobias.

"This fact suggests that many high reactives find an adaptive niche in their society that allows them to titer unpredictable social encounters," Kagan writes.

In the end, says Johnson, the goal of research into environmental influences is not to blame, but to help parents. "We must understand what parenting behaviors are associated with greater risk to the child," he says. "When we identify those parenting behaviors, we can use them to design intervention."

The role of peers

Psychologists' findings also suggest that caregivers, teachers and even peers may play a role in PDs--both in positive as well as negative ways. Even a single strong positive relationship--say a close bond with a grandmother--can offset negative influences in a dysfunctional household.

"The child with a predisposition toward developing a personality disorder doesn't need the perfect teacher or the perfect friends to not develop the disorder," says Judith Beck, PhD, director of the Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research in suburban Philadelphia. "If the child is in an extreme environment, such as abuse or neglect, that may make the difference in terms of developing a personality disorder."

And life events can help tip the balance, Beck says. For example, a child with obsessive-compulsive tendencies who has alcoholic parents may assume the responsibility of caring for his younger siblings--a move that may amplify his propensities until he meets the diagnosis of a disorder. "It's the fit between your environment and your personality," Beck explains.

Over time, researchers will continue probing that fit and will likely identify more than a few causes even for a single personality disorder, says Millon, dean of the Florida-based Institute for Advanced Studies in Personology and Psychopathology. Narrowing down potential causes will help psychologists more quickly isolate what might be influencing a particular patient, he says.

Millon explains: "Once you identify the one cause that seems most probable and most significant, then you can design your therapy in order to unlearn what seemed most problematic for that individual."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Huff is a freelance writer in Fort Worth, Texas.

Lupita

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2008, 05:36:43 PM »
Borderline Personality Disorder: An Overview
by John M. Oldham, M.D.

July 2004, Vol. XXI, Issue 8


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the term borderline has been in clinical use since the late 1930s, it only became an official Axis II diagnosis in 1980 with the publication of DSM-III. Currently, DSM-IV-TR emphasizes that patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) show a "instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," and any five out of nine listed criteria must be present for the diagnosis to be made.

Classification and Diagnosis

Gunderson (2001) portrayed DSM-defined BPD as a diagnostic category layered between neurotic and psychotic disorders, and he differentiated BPD from Otto Kernberg, M.D.'s, theoretical concept of intrapsychic structure referred to as borderline personality organization, an umbrella concept that encompasses a number of Cluster A and Cluster B personality disorders that are characterized by the presence of primitive defenses and identity diffusion, yet with the maintenance of reality testing (Kernberg, 1975). It is now clear that DSM-IV-defined BPD is a heterogeneous construct that includes patients on the mood disorder spectrum and the impulsivity spectrum (Siever and Davis, 1991), in contrast to the original speculation that these patients might be near neighbors of patients with schizophrenia or other psychoses. Patients with schizotypal personality disorders are, instead, the genetic cousins of those patients with schizophrenia.

Considerable controversy exists regarding the use of a categorical diagnostic system for the personality disorders because dimensional models of personality are widely utilized in personality studies and can accommodate style, traits and pathology (e.g., the five-factor model of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness [Costa and McCrea, 1992]). A reasonably robust literature supports the validity of a quantitative model (sometimes referred to as a "hypertension" model), implying that pathological functioning, disability and distress accompany the extreme exaggeration of an otherwise adaptive trait (Oldham and Morris, 1995). However, it has been difficult to achieve consensus on a single dimensional model, and the dimensional approach is not easily applicable to medical systems of classifying pathology.

Etiology and Neurobiology

A general convention that has been relatively universally accepted in personality studies is that personality itself involves two components: temperament (largely the genetic/constitutional component) and character (largely the component resulting from the molding and shaping influences of life events and development). There are a number of theories of the etiology of BPD (Oldham, 2002; Zanarini and Frankenburg, 1997), which need not be mutually exclusive. Due to the extensive heterogeneity within the DSM-IV-TR definition of BPD, there are inevitably multiple combinations of temperamental and environmental factors that lead to its development.

A general stress/vulnerability conceptual framework is useful in considering varying combinations of predisposing genetic risk factors and stressful life experiences (Paris, 1999). Among the factors contributing to the etiology of BPD that have been suggested are:

Affective dysregulation (Akiskal, 1981; Akiskal et al., 1985; Klein and Liebowitz, 1982)
Deficit in impulse control (Hollander, 1993; Links and Heslegrave, 2000; Siever, 1996; Zanarini, 1993)
Excessive aggression, either as primary temperament or secondary to severe and sustained childhood abuse (Kernberg, 1975; Zanarini and Frankenburg, 1997)
Impaired development of autonomy, perhaps related to parental separation-resistant pathology, resulting in intolerance in the patient with BPD to being alone (Gunderson, 1996; Masterson, 1972; Masterson and Rinsley, 1975)
Lack of a stable sense of self or identity, perhaps secondary to inconsistency, neglect or abuse in early parenting (Adler, 1985; Adler and Buie, 1979)

Increasing numbers of studies are exploring the neurobiology of BPD, but findings to date are relatively nonspecific. It has been recognized that a complex process of gene-environment interaction is involved in the determination of personality types and disorders (Cloninger, in press; Siever et al., 2002; Torgersen, 2000). Endophenotypes are being studied, such as impulsive aggression in BPD, that are thought to reflect underlying genetic vulnerabilities (Siever et al., 2002). Reductions in central nervous system serotonin levels have been correlated with impulsive aggression in patients with BPD (Hansenne et al., 2002; New and Siever, 2002; Skodol et al., 2002b). Affective instability characterizes other patients with BPD, perhaps related to cholinergic irregularities (New and Siever, 2002; Pally, 2002).

In addition, patients with BPD who have experienced sustained childhood abuse may demonstrate hyperresponsiveness of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system (Rinne et al., 2002). Neuroimaging studies have suggested abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex in patients with BPD (Juengling et al., 2003; New and Siever, 2002), as well as reduced volume in the hippocampus and the amygdala (Schmahl et al., 2003). Further work is needed before the relevance and specificity of these findings for patients with BPD can be elucidated.

Epidemiology and Course

Borderline personality disorder is thought to occur in 1% to 2% of the general population, although there have only been a few large-scale, population-based epidemiological studies that included BPD and utilized structured interview methodology. In a careful analysis of the limited literature on the topic, Torgersen (in press) tabulated the prevalence of BPD in eight published studies, including his own Norwegian study (Torgersen, 2000). Across all eight studies, the median prevalence for BPD in the population was 1.42%, and the mean was 1.16%. The prevalence of BPD was estimated to be 10% to 20% in psychiatric outpatient populations and 15% to 20% in psychiatric inpatient populations (Gunderson, 2001).

Extensive comorbidity has been documented for BPD with other Axis II disorders (Oldham et al., 1992), as well as with Axis I disorders (Gunderson, 2001; Skodol et al., 2002a). Prominent among Axis I/BPD patterns of comorbidity are BPD and mood disorders (Skodol et al., 1999b), anxiety disorders (Skodol et al., 1995) and substance use disorders (Grant et al., 2004; Skodol et al., 1999a). The presence of comorbidity is reported to complicate the patient's treatment response (Skodol et al., 2002a). Evidence is persuasive that patients with BPD frequently have high levels of disability (Skodol et al., 2002a) and are high treatment utilizers (Bender et al., 2001).

All personality disorders, according to DSM-IV-TR, have their onset in adolescence or early adulthood and show an enduring pattern of dysfunction that is stable and of long duration. New data, however, are challenging this view of the stability of the personality disorders over time, and this is clearly the case for BPD (Grilo and McGlanish, in press). The multisite Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, is a naturalistic study involving careful standardized sequential assessments over time. Recent data indicate that substantial percentages of patients who met semi-structured interview-based DSM-IV diagnosis of BPD at intake did not sustain that diagnosis at 24 months post-intake. Defining remission as two consecutive months during which no more than two BPD diagnostic criteria remain present, 42% of patients with BPD had remitted; if remission is defined as showing no more than two criteria for 12 consecutive months, the BPD remission rate was 28% (Grilo et al., in press). Clearly, then, the diagnosis of BPD is more variable over time than the DSM-IV generic criterion of longitudinal stability would imply. Other studies have shown similar results (Lenzenweger, 1999; Zanarini et al., 2003).


Iphi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2008, 05:53:52 PM »

It was a really thought provoking question and one that I revisited in the hours after answering.   I am still contemplating aspects of it.  


I liked the non-narcissistic companion poll because it helps me to visualize a scenario where love is demonstrated.  Also, a loving rescue never occurred to me.  Neither of my parents is capable of that.  It was a deep insight for me to see what could be and what is not.  And not a grievous one actually, but more of a release.  I am free to seek such relationships.  I know what is impossible and that's that.  What is possible - that is interesting!
Character, which has nothing to do with intellect or skill, can evolve only by increasing our capacity to love, and to become lovable. - Joan Grant

Certain Hope

  • Guest
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2008, 06:09:27 PM »
Well... I never did vote in this poll because I can't imagine myself, at age 8, being allowed to need to be saved. The very thought blows my mind. My mother never noticed when I was sick, suffering, upset... or if she did, she didn't ask why or try to help. As far as I can get, still, with my imaginings of this scenario is that she'd spend all her time and energy trying to cover up any signs that she may have made an error (either tactical or in judgment), even if it cost both of us our lives. My own individual predicament would not have factored in to her, I don't think... and I never would have let on to her that I was terrified. I can see myself going down for the third time, without a word.
That's why I felt so sick even thinking about this when you first posted the poll, Dr. G.

Carolyn

papillon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2008, 08:05:10 PM »
Hi Dr Grossman,

Thanks for the poll. I found quite a few things interesting about this poll. The results for a start. That the last 2 options scored so low surprised me. My expectations were different, and that was a pleasant surprise. Also, I found the member comments just so varied and some really quite sad. Then Tayana's for some reason put a smile on my dial. It was quite an interesting exercise which just confirmed how uniquely individual everyone's life experiences are. We're just like snowflakes.

And yes, the selfish gene theory. I'm sure there were more than a few narcissistic types on the Titanic but eternal shame-shame-shame on any surviving or deceased male who didn't place children and women first. And then on any woman who didn't place children first. The notion of breeding and defending young to ensure the survival of our species is a perfectly valid, logical and intelligent paradigm for plants animals, mushrooms and people.  We sentient beings on the other hand add an even deeper and slightly more absurd concept to that - our desire for personal immorality. Personal opinion coming on ...... no offence to anyone's belief system intended .... but I think that causes a whole heap of extra anxiety, fear, unease and trouble.

Papillon 

   

jordanspeeps

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • tiffany
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2008, 10:24:22 PM »
Hey there,

With this poll I just keep thinking of how terribly difficult it must be for a narcissist to have to choose between his superior sense of ability/importance and his superior sense of morals.  That inflated superego of theirs' gets them in trouble quite a bit, I bet.  Deferring to undesireable acts just because they "seem" morally correct, in the face of their own self-importance and superiority is the very bane of an N's existence, in my opinion.  It's a delicate balancing act and requires quite a bit of covert manipulation on their part.

and:

Quote
It would have been awfully nice to have a "non" parent.

 :lol: :lol: :lol:  Too true, Lollie, too true!  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks
« Last Edit: March 05, 2008, 10:41:20 PM by jordanspeeps »

dandylife

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2008, 11:32:41 PM »
I didn't vote. Mostly because I happened to have 2 really busy days and time didn't permit. I glanced and then went away.

But, I did think about it as I worked. Which I guess, is best for me - as I process slowly!

I have given alot of thought to the concept of "what would you do if.....____?" And I guess there are just so many instances in life that I've been surprised to find myself in the middle of - doing exactly what I said I WOULDN'T EVER do.

So - like you say, Dr. Grossman - an unscientific poll.

Many people are driven by covert/unconscious drives that we aren't even aware of. I guess the Narcissistic person is, as well. Does that mean that their behavior can be predicted in this instance? That certain TYPES of N-people can be predictable? I suppose that's what you're getting, at, eh?

I just want to point out that unknown factor - we really don't know what we'd do in a given situation - although it's fun to speculate.

Cheers,

Dandylife
"All things not at peace will cry out." Han Yun

"He who angers you conquers you." - Elizabeth Kenny

teartracks

  • Guest
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2008, 12:03:04 AM »





Hi Dr. G,

I really struggled with the questions relating to the narcissistic parent.  It surprised me that the only honest answer for me was, I don't know.  It ended up that I gave the same answer, A,  for both parents.  The surprising thing was that for the non N parent there was no struggle.   

Very interesting.

Your presence on the board this last week has been a comfort.

Sincerely,

tt


Leah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2894
  • Joyous Discerner
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2008, 09:24:29 AM »

Hello Dr Grossman,

I also found both topics most interesting, and also, I would like to express my thanks for your presence on the board this last week.

Grateful thanks, for the board and your continual endeavours.

Kind regards,

Leah
Jun 2006 voiceless seeking

April 2008 - "The Gaslight Effect" How to Spot & Survive by Dr. Robin Stern - freedom of understanding!

The Truth About Abuse VIDEO

gratitude28

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2582
Re: Some thoughts about the "mini-Titanic, narcissistic parent poll"
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2008, 09:39:24 AM »
I also could not vote here, and I have been thinking about this poll a lot. I have no clue what my NM would do. Honestly, I am not sure I really know anything about her or what motivates her. I do remember a time when we were at the beach and I was swimming with a cousing (I was 4 or so, the cousin was maybe 9 and one of those VERY troubled kids). My mother was sunbathing - never even glanced my way I am sure. I got caught in a rip tide. We shouted for help and after what seemed like a very long time, a man came and saved us. My mother laughed and said she though we were just playing around. I almost died and she was making excuses for why she didn't even feel the need to check on her 4 -year-old swimming alone in the ocean. Also, my mother took me to the beach and pool a lot, but cannot swim herself.
I don't know... this poll brought this story back up for me. I could see her taking part in any of the scenarios except for letting me take the boat and saying she loved me. I have never had her say she loved me and actually mean it.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." Douglas Adams