LOL! I can understand your dilemma, Hops. This is the kind of circular logic that was the basis of so many passionate art school discussions. Thanks - I enjoyed this article. As it happens, I also read the Financial Times article referred to; Dr G posted a link awhile back. And it makes some good points... and some we could also refute, too. It's in the bits and pieces that I'm finding things to agree/disagree with - not the article itself, which sort of self-reflexively criticizes and exemplifies what's being criticized, making it funny to me.
Anytime someone starts talking about "two kinds of people" my radar goes up. There are lots more kinds of people than two - always. But, as a construct for the sake of making the author's point... I can go along with it for a bit. In this case, it rather clearly (and humorously) expresses a question that I've had for years now - where is the line between Healthy N (self-esteem) and the dreaded NPD? When am I simply being selfish - at other people's expense - and when am I "allowed" to be selfish and take care of my self first?
I noticed that the author never mentions empathy and the capacity for it. Huge hole and oversight in his/her argument, I think. And a very important one - because I believe that it's the lack of a capacity for empathy that is probably the big difference and the element that shifts the state of a person from healthy N to NPD. This is less of a personal problem for the N, than it is for those of us who grew up with weak boundaries... I've believed for some time, that N's couldn't wreak as much havoc... if only "we" didn't encourage, enable, and play into their games unwittingly. That's not to say that I'm blaming the "victims"... far from it. We were never taught that boundaries were OK to have and/or never allowed to create and develop them... for the whole variety of reasons that are talked about here.
The other thing, that I sort of agree with... is that the mainstreaming of a term (which is labelled psychobabble) like N... means that it's so overused that the real meaning gets lost... and it becomes an easy way to shift self-responsibility (for those boundaries) and change the gear to "blame"... because "X is an N". I noticed that I've started to do this - and I don't think it's really justified or even accurate - so I'm trying to use different words that specify individual character traits, instead of invoking the NPD "monster". Words like Arrogance... hard-hearted... selfish... closed minded...abusive apply way more often to some of the people I've had contact and difficulty with and the shoe fits better than just lumping them all into the N-category.
There are degrees - different levels and different kinds of N, I think. From the classic "I'm prettier than anyone else and need to be treated like a princess" to the "Screw everyone else; it's dog eat dog and I'm getting mine - by whatever method I need to use" (Bernie Madoff and murderers come to mind in this extreme). What about people who believe their religion is the only "true" religion? Isn't that just a tad N? Or politicians who don't spare an empathetic thought for the unintended consequences of legislation or regulation - who insist that "they know the only solution" and then demonize anyone who disagrees with them or has another point of view?????
If not N - it must be something else - but what?
