You see five people:
A young child in the supermarket, only seconds parted from its loving mother, cries and cries.
An athletic man at the gym takes his shirt off, flexing his muscles in front of the mirror.
A pink-haired obese woman shares tik-tok videos of her and her various ‘ailments’.
A well-dressed politician remarks on the brilliance of his party, and the quality of his leadership.
A celebrity, beautiful and charming, expresses her capacity for charity and goodwill, on a late-night talk show.
Only a shred of cynicism is required for the beginnings of a snarl: “What we might have here,” you say to yourself, “is one amongst us that is self-obsessed…
“What we might have here, is a narcissist.”
Excluding titles that infer activities of heinous morality [murderer, rapist, white-European male], narcissist is arguably the most hated. The other dark tetrad traits are despised or disliked [psychopathy, machiavellianism, sadism]; yet in the case of psychopathy, it is partly excused for how fascinating it is; and in the case of machiavellianism, nobody knows it is, so people lack opinions. Sadism, pleasure from inflicting pain, is probably the one trait that if raised in conversation, would reach narcissism’s disparaging quality; yet, at least in my experience, it is rarely discussed. Relevant is the ease at which people can spot a narcissist - at least the overt grandiose types. Psychopathy, and especially machiavellianism and sadism can be easily hidden, yet narcissistic qualities are like a shit on the living room floor: So obvious, and in the completely wrong place.
Narcissists are assholes. Their conception of reciprocity is fucked. Fairness is important to everyone. Except narcissists. Attention to them is an addiction akin to a Medici’s banking Empire: Accrue as much as possible. They obsess about themselves more than anything else, and thus why they are named after Narcissus, the character in Greek mythology who fell in love with his own reflection. To the degree it is sexual:
“... the attitude of a person who treats his own body in the same way in which the body of a sexual object is ordinarily treated-who looks at it, that is to say, strokes it and fondles it till he obtains complete satisfaction through these activities” (Freud, p. 73).
Narcissists think they are special - and when it’s to a pathological level like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it can destroy them. They inflate their abilities and to others, appear to have a strong sense of entitlement - something that to common folk is usually repulsive … except to those idiots that value entitlement [that’s a psychopathology in itself].
Narcissists are ideal hate-objects.
Our mothers tell us to never embody hate. Yet one of the most popular topics in general psychology podcasts is why hate is okay when directed at a narcissist. It is delicious to those who discuss it and to those who hear it, because hate is atop the pyramid of emotions most savoury - no royal English roast can compare to the satiation of hate.
So it sells.
What is ironic is the hypocrisy of the sellers:
A podcaster interviews a psychologist.
They discuss narcissism, eager to imply why it is okay, in this one instance, to hate.
The sub-trait of attention-seeking comes up. They mention that narcissists, more than the average human, desire attention; and in those intelligent, along with their manipulative skills, can be experts in gaining, and holding attention.
Donald Trump is mentioned as an example. Everybody with a critical moral eye should hate Donald Trump, right? …
All appears well, and interesting, until you consider something:
The podcaster has millions of subscribers … The psychologist has sold millions of books, and goes on long lecture tours …
Their success is dependent upon their ability to gain and maintain attention. Without attention they would be nobodies. They talk about themselves every single day. Is it possible they have narcissistic tendencies? It seems logical.
The hypocrisy is revealed. They are telling you why it is okay to despise the very traits that made them successful, without admitting that it made them successful. If one were an evolutionary psychologist, one might say:
“Here we have individual-level competition at work. It’s quite brilliant, really. These people know that in their game, to be successful, one needs certain abilities, those both good and bad … and I emphasise good and bad. You cannot win without being part demon. In knowing this, using their wide-ranging platform, they seek to disseminate a message that suggests only the good is required. Thus, admirers desiring to be like them - and eventually compete with them - are hamstrung. The game is rigged against them by the very people they look up to. The tragedy and the beauty of the whole thing is remarkable.”
If this is true, at least in some cases, then fuck them right? Should we listen to their original implications in their discussions about narcissism; that it is okay to hate, in this one instance, and so disparage them?
Utilitarianism is judging something on its overall effect on well-being for the greatest number of people. What is the moral utility of the action or behaviour or event? As a man who professed non-violence to the extreme, Gandhi once observed that it was okay to kill 50 stray dogs if overall, this saved the town from greater harm.
While these attention-grabbers, the podcasters and psychologists I speak of, may lack integrity (ironically a sign of narcissism), and be doing something devious and thus immoral, what is the overall outcome of their podcast? I don’t know about whatever podcasts you watch and listen to; but those I listen to, appear to do others good, and I know for certain, have done me a world of good. Almost daily, scrolling through youtube - and it doesn’t have to be a podcast, it can be a simple education video - I come across something remarkable that interests me, and inspires me. I don’t think people are grateful for this shit. If you want to learn something, become good at something, or be something, it’s mostly all fucking there.
But wait … aren’t there some implications I’m missing here? If in sum, podcasters, youtubers, and their guests, do good for society, despite their narcissistic tendencies … Does this mean what I think it means? Enter syllogism:
Podcasters, youtubers, and their guests can have narcissistic tendencies…
Podcasters, youtubers, and their guests overall do good…
Narcissistic tendencies can do good.
This whole time, though I may not hate narcissists, and think that hating someone for their personality alone is reprehensible, you might have thought that I was against them. Think again:
The Argument For Narcissism
Clarity is important now. Before we continue, a few things need be laid out:
Narcissism, like any other personality trait, lies on a spectrum, and its expression, generally, comes in two types:
Grandiose - higher self-esteem, superiority-complex, fantasies of success and power, self-promoting interpersonal style, charismatic, short-term relationship strategies …
Vulnerable - lower self-esteem, resentment of others' success, social withdrawal, fear of not being accepted, incredibly needy, vengeful when these needs are unmet, longer-term relationship strategies …
One can also be a mixture of the two, or lack certain sub-traits. Generally, both are selfish, manipulative, and attention-seekers. Research also suggests even those with grandiose aims, suffer from feelings of inferiority, and thus their outward self-aggrandisement is like a single spray of disinfectant in a room full of rotting corpses. Men are more often grandiose, and women more often vulnerable. Thinking about these two types now, and the ideal hate-objects of each political team, we have in the red (grandiose) corner: Handsome giga-chad stock-trader who has a tinder roster and thinks social welfare is for betas; and in the blue (vulnerable) corner: Woke marxist who professes to care for the poor when it is really obvious she just hates the rich and in reality has no skills whatsoever beside from complaining.
(Grandiose narcissist: hate-object of the left)
(Vulnerable narcissist: hate-object of the right)
Even though it is not part of my argument, it is important to say that on a sub-clinical level narcissism can benefit the individual’s well-being, especially in grandiose types. Higher self-esteem, and belief in one’s abilities, is associated with psychological well-being and material success.
Narcissism is negatively correlated with more prosocial personality traits, but it is entirely possible to have narcissistic tendencies, perceived by society as bad, and other traits that are perceived by society as good. It is idiotic to think someone with narcissistic tendencies therefore lacks empathy or compassion for others. This is why you probably have a friend who, while being likeable in some ways, “always talks about themselves and what they’ve done”, or “gets moody if they’re not the centre of attention”. If you don’t, you either have no friends, or you’re it.
What type would the podcasters, the youtubers, and their guests be? Before I make a guess, importantly, I DO NOT, from those I watch or listen to*, think they have pathological narcissism [maybe Bobby Lee is a pathologically vulnerable narcissist … it would be close], only that some may have narcissistic tendencies and likely have other ‘society-perceive-as-good’ traits.
Anyway, I generally watch men in these discussions, and most of the time, their high self-esteem and belief in their abilities [sometimes veiled by false humility - check Lex Fridman], and now captured success and power, would go hand in hand with their attention-accumulation and adulation. This suggests grandiose narcissism. If one were a tik-tok or Instagram watcher, which I am not, and following more of the ‘influencer’ sub-type of online personality rather than ‘intellectual’, then it could be either … depending on the ‘influencer’. For instance, a diagnosis accumulator on tik-tok, similar to the one I described up top, could easily be a vulnerable narcissist. Also, video-gamers, in their cloistered world, could be high in either sub-type. I want to make clear however that these are speculations, no more. The important point is that online personalities - people who make money off sharing their ideas and what occurs in their lives, probably have narcissistic tendencies … even in the ones who not only do good by utilitarian calculus, but who actively profess pro-social behaviours for people … like Lex Fridman, Jocko Willink, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson … and many others.
But my argument is not focussed merely on those intellectuals who profess ‘pro-social behaviours’ on youtube. It is more fundamental:
“It is probably not an exaggeration to state that if individuals with significant narcissistic characteristics were stripped from the ranks of public figures, the ranks would be perilously thinned.” Jerrold M. Post (1993, p. 99).
Winston Churchill; Adolf Hitler.
One man sought to destroy the free world, literally. The other saved it. Both ascended to power in times of extraordinary crisis; times when their respective populations desired one with absolute confidence in their abilities and the outcome it would produce, an unbounded charisma, and a powerful grand vision … all qualities of a narcissist.
Anticipating my argument, one could say: “Well, we wouldn’t need a ‘good narcissist’ like Churchill if we didn’t have ‘bad narcissists’ like Hitler…”, and I might agree. Except what was likely predisposing Hitler for true evil, was not his narcissism alone, but its combination with sadism and psychopathy [and disgust sensitivity]; traits that Churchill lacked. Judging leaders and what they have done based solely on the fact they are narcissists is primary-school univariate analysis.
If narcissism is restricted, i.e. - not pathological, and not combined with the other other dark tetrad traits, especially psychopathy and sadism, then I believe it is entirely possible that narcissism does good, at least by utilitarian calculus; that great public figures overall, do good for society.
If you so despise narcissist tendencies and want them gone, then so too would go missing most of your beloved artists, from Beethoven to Bon-Jovi [who once said “I'm an egomaniacal leader of men…”], your precious actors and actresses, from Leonardo de Caprio to Margo Robbie, your exalted sports-stars, from Michael Jordan to Serena Williams, your all important philosophers and thinkers, from Socrates to Freud, the goddamn scientists, from Galileo to Einstein, the religious prophets, from Jesus to Mohammad, and troublingly, for all those history buffs, every single one of those leaders of populations who altered history, either by enlightenment [Gandhi], or savage force [Alexander the Great].
Even the most positive and supportive world is filled with conformity, mediocrity, doubt, and those around you who are always willing to chop you down. To ridicule you for trying to strive above what is considered ‘normal’. It is only those with a secure [or inflated] self-concept, who are visionaries, who refuse to accept the status quo, that can overcome this. Despite their arrogance; despite their false humility; despite their self-obsession; they alter the world you live in.
Human society is driven by these idols. In whatever domain it might be.
So you either put your hat in the good narcissist corner, or the bad narcissist corner. Ask yourself the question: Does this highly self-motivated person have insight into his or her own self-concept? Do they have people around them who are willing to tell them they have no clothes on? Do they appear sadistic, or psychopathic? Is their narcissism so pervasive that it may be pathological, to the point that they might not only destroy themselves, but an organisation or a country?
Saying “I will never vote for a narcissist” is like saying “I will never vote.”
Narcissism is inescapable.
Chur,
The Delinquent Academic