Sick narrative bro
Posted on September 23, 2023.
Maybe it's because of their name, but somehow I'm not convinced. Maybe it's just a narrative. Maybe it's Maybelline.
So Scientific American thought, you know what is a fresh and new topic? Narcissism. And we're the ones to rebrand it, this misunderstood phenomenon. You wonder if anyone in the article ever read a book on narcissism. Or saw one in the wild. The mirror doesn't count.
I. The last two paragraphs are telling. Let’s dissect those and maybe we’ll gather some insight on the topic at hand while we’re at it.
“People with pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder have a reputation of not changing or dropping off from treatment,” Ronningstam says. “Instead of blaming that on them, the clinicians and researchers need to really further develop strategies that can be adjusted to the individual difference—and at the same time to focus on and promote change.”
The assumptions and allegations in this paragraph all point to the idea that every patient should get some therapy and more research enables therapists to achieve this point. So society could be happier? So expensive long term treatments can be justified? I don’t know.
It is a common phenomenon, but ‘blaming’ sounds a bit harsh. You can’t force someone to do therapy, if you do, it doesn’t work. It takes a lot of time to gain trust of someone with narcissistic traits, and the current favored model of therapy (cognitive-behavioral or go home) has a focus on concrete results and rather earlier on than later. The proposition becomes: I have to pay you a 100 bucks a session and the first year is me trying to trust you with my most shameful moments. I know something more fun and more shameful. And it becomes a societal issue in countries with national health insurance (must we pay for this?).
It is rather short-sighted to call therapists out that they blame patients for stopping therapy early. It’s akin to blaming your mother that you like certain fetishes. It might be true, but how useful is it? We have to deal with it anyway, no matter how many randomized control trials you do on the hub.
II.
Since discovering she has NPD, Tessa has started a YouTube channel called SpiritNarc where she posts videos about her experiences and perspectives on narcissism. “I really want the world to understand [narcissism],” she says. “I'm so sick of the narrative that's going around—people see the outside behavior and say, ‘This means these people are awful.’” What these people don't see, she adds, is the suffering that lies below the surface.
Understanding this paragraph is key. Let’s start the lecture, shall we.
Since discovering she has NPD, ….
She has it. So it’s a disease right? Is there a cure? It means I don’t have to change, but others have to help me get better. Just another round of therapy and maybe the NPD will get in remission. No, I don’t mean that there is no treatment. It is essential to the treatment to get some insight on why we do what we do. And that’s not going to happen if we explain it in this way; A) I have NPD, thus I handle my life in the NPD way. B) I handle relationships weird because of my narcissistic vulnerabilities. See how it’s different? Person A maybe needs some chemo to remove NPD, while person B maybe accepts that some change is necessary. Maybe.
..where she posts videos about her experiences and perspectives on narcissism.
While she ‘has’ this ‘disorder’, her experience and perspective is special enough for a whole YouTube channel. No it’s not grandiose. It’s like, influencers are the new normal right, so maybe it is kind of healthy.
…‘This means these people are awful.’” What these people don't see, she adds, is the suffering that lies below the surface.
How she treated her boyfriend is okay, you know, she suffered a lot from his betrayal.
“I'm so sick of the narrative that's going around…
She means any narrative other than her own. I don’t mean to bash, but they make it so easy.
III. It is a strange piece. On one hand there is the interesting part; showing of some ‘sufferers’ of NPD. Is it human interest or is Scientific American feeding into their disorder? They write about it as if it’s a disease, yet they let vulnerable people showcase their vulnerability. Or they don’t really believe what they write. Again, I don’t know.
On the other hand, they call on real hard ‘science’ - they did the magic magnet centrifuge (MRI for the uninitiated) trick, so we now know something true about the brain - to legitimize the statements and narratives they offer in their article. Namely narcissism deserves more attention and more treatment.
IV. So what are you saying, you think by yourself. I have this weird uncle that might be narcissistic based on family history and weird stuff he says during gatherings. He needs help! Let them do their science stuff and everybody will get better for it. For everybody who has read this far, which I imagine not that many - I write for fun, but my vulnerable side would love some fans for my narrative - the conclusion is a bit disappointing. The dynamic that is on display in this article is exactly that of a narcissist in therapy. The goal is change. What is achieved is maybe a bit of insight. It is mistaken for progress. We mark it a success. And nothing ever changes.