Sam Vaknin - Narcissist or "I, Psychopath"?

[nicklebleu]

Re: I, Psychopath

Just posted on another thread without having seen this one ... not sure where to put my post.

The other thread is:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8381.msg148939#msg148939

Maybe the mods can place it here, if they find that this is more appropriate, or else delete this post.

Thanks!

 

[Laura]

I merged the two Vaknin threads and modified the subject header slightly to reflect that.

 

[rofo6850]

Psychologists and researchers disagree regarding the differences between narcissism and psychopathy. It seems, at least at the light of my research that severe cases of narcissistic personal disorder (NPD) are in the border or psychopathy or are definitely psychopats. The traits are the same and indistinguishable. To add to the confession there exist another term interchangeable and frequently used, sociopathy.

What is important to keep in mind, widely and accurately explained by Vaknin is that, in spite of appearances, people with this condition have no self love at all. Nobody can love what is not inside him or her; the void is a void, it is not something.

That's why the Narcissus myth talks about the character falling in love with his own image, an image that has to be returned by the other, to be found in the eyes of someone else. It's a kind of mirror gallery. Normal people needs to some extent to be somewhat defined by others look (except they had begun The Work), but in narcissist this need is vital, it defines what they are, their very identity. Without it they simply don't exist, there is the void.

Maybe this is the mental picture of a psychopath, though it seems to be something more regarding the latter, something indefinable, unknown and definitely sinister. Anyway it seems that people with severe NPD are borderline psychopaths.

 

[Rich]

In searching for ipsychopath, found a site with a streaming version: http://www.sprword.com/mustwatch.html (about half way down)

Interesting site too, carries a link to Sott.net and promotes political ponerology http://www.sprword.com/videos/politicalponer/

 

[daveOS]

Wow, illuminating back-story to the star of "I, Psychopath" Sam Vaknin. Particularly with regards to the Wikipedia methods of information skewing.

From a wikipedia discussion page:

under the topic: Narcissistic Personality Disorder External Links Suggested
Compromise

[...] What alarms me the most here is some person's agenda and their obsessive mission to dominate the information available on the internet concerning a psychiatric disorder. [...] The initial state of the article i reviewed a couple of days ago hosted a multitude of links to the very same Sam Vankin that i have been refering to, as a matter of principle i removed all of them, on the basis of his being unqualified to comment on the issue. [...]

[quote author=Wikipedia reply]
Please inform me which part of Vaknin's work you disagree with. I'm trying
to find out whether I can mediate this issue.

I think I have so far made my points clear. I consider this guy a fraud (as is clearly demonstrated by him posing as Dr. on an (his) npd support site), and I also consider him unqualified to be linking multiple links to his webside by virtue of his professed self diagnosis of npd (as qualified as ted bundy would be on writing on serial killers and linking his wesides - people suffering from such disorders npd's verging on sociopathy have little or no insight into their condition) and his having authored a book on the issue at some obscure publishing house, I find his contast spamming of the article with his links (either covertly or overtly) unacceptable, as are his intimidation tactics with respect to my person. [...]

[quote author=Wikipedia reply]
He is entitled to call himself Dr, unless you can prove he has no PhD in philosophy. It is true that a layperson writing on a medical subject creates the impression he is a doctor by calling himself Dr. I am investigating the other claims. [...]
[/quote]

"He is entitled to call himself Dr, unless you can prove he has no PhD in philosophy." Actually the burden of proof lies on him, otherwise everyone could declare any qualifications about their person and the rest of us would have to play investigative detectives to either verify or disprove that. I also have it from good sources that his only credentials are some obscure internet degrees. [...]

[quote author=Wikipedia reply]
I'm not sure if verifying Vaknin's credentials is a priority. The fact is, I want to know why you consider his work inappropriate. Just because he's written a lot of the narcissistic personality disorder related stuff here doesn't mean his content is poor quality (although I have my personal views on narcissism).
[/quote]
[/quote]

What a great example of Wikipedia's ulterior agenda keeping and fraud favoritism.

I think this thread makes plain an overt agenda to dilute diagnosis of NPD and psychopathy. Lobaczewski makes known practices of institutional disinformation for weakening scientific substance and corrupting scholarly distinction, and I appreciate observing an actual case and point here.

I find this disinformation proliferation alarming particularly in tandem with seeming glorification psychopathy appears to be receiving as noted by one of the "I, Psychopath" reader comments.
[quote author=SOTT comments]
Coming out of the Closet?
By: gdpetti

That was my impression as he doesn't seem to feel threatened by the public's perception of him. If they share the same tendencies, perhaps this is a sign of things to come? Now perhaps they feel they've made the world safe for open display of their kind?

Is he just a 'canary in the coal mine'?
Added: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:32 EDT
[/quote]

Personally I've come to believe endorsement of psychopathic conduct started coming out of the closet 50 or 60 years ago with the advent of broadcast television and has become increasingly overt with each new generation of technology. What I fear now is that we've reached some kind of critical mass acceptance that allows for open display and promotion of the condition as a sort of super power. I've personally had too many first-hand encounters with accomplished professionals revelling in their mastery over others through pernicious command and chaotic means to think flagrant display of psychopathic tendency is a new phenomenon. Given some of the fleeting TV gossip magazine material I've recently passed by, psychopathic conduct seems in full promotion mode. Especially with the female spellbinder replicants. I recently happened to catch sound bites of an apparently late-night TV-host gal - Chelsea somebody - promoting her latest book "Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang" and she's spewing about how she's a Jewish princess, "loves to lie", 'Karl Rove is my hero', all kinds of Ann Coltur clown absurdity with her bully routine and then we get the Palin dingbat flapping her firearms around.

Plus I recently came across this reality check I missed last August pertaining to the "Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of the World's Media".
_http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/08/25/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-world-1

Sparing the actual article for personal referencing, just the lead quote helps straighten up some thinking...
[quote author=Tzipora Menache]
You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…”[/quote]

So the psychopathic keepers have everyone brainwashed by constant endorsement of psychopathic conduct to allow 9/11 to go unchecked, and everybody's seemingly so dissociated by technology to know how to reverse the flow from force-fed to conscious consumption?

I've come to know first-hand a couple of comments Ian Walker makes at the outset of "I, Psychopath" about 'Sam possibly being one of the most honest people he's come to know' or 'Sam can be a lot of fun to be around'. And I can add how high IQ psychopath's can be a great stimulation to expanding knowledge and awareness. Even so, whatever "fun" a psychopath may avail the ends of their means always seem to conclude in a mess for others to clean up. Or as Vaknin's summarizes commenting on his own work (his book), "It is a dark, hopeless tome. Narcissists have no horizons, they are doomed by their own history, by their successful adaptation to abnormal circumstances and by the uncompromising nature of their defense mechanisms." (Cited from the first article of this thread).

I'm taking away a number of distinctions about some sort of psychopathic proliferation agenda possibly on the move and I really appreciate the insights afforded by SOTT highlighting "I, Psychopath" and the self-superior Sam.

1) Diagnostic dilution
2) Glorification of NPD and/or psychopathy
3) Permeation of population
4) Implications of psychopath hatching

 

[rofo6850]

Vaknin has made a good use of the tremendous reach of the Internet, not only his sites and information, but also several mail lists. A narcissist himself, maybe with plain psychopathic traits, his aim is certainly fame, exposition, influence and money, there is no secret about this. It is very important people can see him for what he actually is

However, his narcissist and psychopathic natural charisma will resonate with equal traits in many people who read him. It is not surprise "the many positive reactions we can see in people", many followers and admirers, a common phenomena in this world we live in.

This is a simple psychological truth, no matter how much we can warn everybody about the risks with people like him, many will choose to follow him. In my case, the information provided in his book was very precise and enlightening; of course this information came from experts, not from him; many researchers had studied pathological narcissism and borderline psychopathy, causes and prognosis.

One of them is Otto Kernberg, who studied in detail pathological narcissism; one of his books, "Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism" is a must read in this issue, maybe a little clinical and using psychological technical terminology, but clearly an excellent picture of pathological narcissism and borderline psychopathy.

 

[anart]

Vaknin has made a good use of the tremendous reach of the Internet, not only his sites and information, but also several mail lists. A narcissist himself, maybe with plain psychopathic traits, his aim is certainly fame, exposition, influence and money, there is no secret about this. It is very important people can see him for what he actually is

Speaking of which, there is enormous evidence that Vaknin is not a narcissist - he is a psychopath. This is a very important thing to understand. He does not merely have 'psychopathic traits' - he is a psychopath.

As far as concerning oneself with wikipedia entries as ear marks of truth, it's a rather futile exercise. Consider the fact that the wikipedia correspondent below even uses the phrase, "I have my personal views on narcissism", is enough to remind oneself, rather starkly, that to rely on wikipedia as an objective source of information is as wise as relying on neighborhood gossip. This most especially applies to areas of information that could be most damaging to the current power structure, such as psychopathy, politics, Zionism, religion, etc. fwiw.

 

[rofo6850]

Speaking of which, there is enormous evidence that Vaknin is not a narcissist - he is a psychopath. This is a very important thing to understand. He does not merely have 'psychopathic traits' - he is a psychopath.

Yes, anart, this is so. I said psychopathic traits because we really do not know what is actually essential psychopathy. It is one of this things that seem to border in the unknown, facing essential psychopathy is like facing the unknown.

Narcissism can be psychologically explained by several models, psychoanalysis can do this with its theoretical background, Kernberg does a very good job with his object relations theory, you can see how this type of personality disorder can arise and be explained.

There seems to be a strong connection between narcissism and psychopathy. As I said, and as experts like Kernberg or Melanie Klein herself have studied this kind of psychological disorder extensively and their conclusions are straightforward.

Some years ago I read and excellent book that was a kind of introduction for me about this issues. It is Scott Peck's "People of the Lie", a remarkable book about what Peck calls "a scientific study of human evil". He speaks of pathological and severe narcissism and connect this traits with human evil and psychopathy. He states that central to human evil is the act of lying, a hallmark of human evil, if not the most important milestone.

What I am saying is that it is important to research and understand what pathological narcissism really is, it is, IMO, the road of access to psychopathy, they are intimately connected. Psychopathy is hardly capable of being modelled, however, pathological narcissism can be, and has been studied in detail. This is why I suggest that Kernberg, Kohut, Klein and Peck books are highly recommendable to everyone who wants to have knowledge about the deep roots of human evil. Sam Vaknin's book is too very useful and enlightening, at least for all of us who hold knowledge as the true key evolution.

In spite of what he is, his book is quite good and advisable for everyone who wants to understand what is evil of human origin. It is the only way, IMO, we can avoid suffering harm from others and doing harm to others.

 

[vinny]

Yes, anart, this is so. I said psychopathic traits because we really do not know what is actually essential psychopathy. It is one of this things that seem to border in the unknown, facing essential psychopathy is like facing the unknown.

Narcissism can be psychologically explained by several models, psychoanalysis can do this with its theoretical background, Kernberg does a very good job with his object relations theory, you can see how this type of personality disorder can arise and be explained.

There seems to be a strong connection between narcissism and psychopathy. As I said, and as experts like Kernberg or Melanie Klein herself have studied this kind of psychological disorder extensively and their conclusions are straightforward.

Some years ago I read and excellent book that was a kind of introduction for me about this issues. It is Scott Peck's "People of the Lie", a remarkable book about what Peck calls "a scientific study of human evil". He speaks of pathological and severe narcissism and connect this traits with human evil and psychopathy. He states that central to human evil is the act of lying, a hallmark of human evil, if not the most important milestone.

What I am saying is that it is important to research and understand what pathological narcissism really is, it is, IMO, the road of access to psychopathy, they are intimately connected. Psychopathy is hardly capable of being modelled, however, pathological narcissism can be, and has been studied in detail. This is why I suggest that Kernberg, Kohut, Klein and Peck books are highly recommendable to everyone who wants to have knowledge about the deep roots of human evil. Sam Vaknin's book is too very useful and enlightening, at least for all of us who hold knowledge as the true key evolution.

In spite of what he is, his book is quite good and advisable for everyone who wants to understand what is evil of human origin. It is the only way, IMO, we can avoid suffering harm from others and doing harm to others.

Although narcissism and psychopathy may result in some similar behaviours, the current understanding is that there are fundamental underlying differences in terms of brain function. Psychopathy can indeed be modelled - it is characterised by a particular lack of function in the instinctive substratum, involving emotional response relating to empathy. Those who have studied this in great detail include Hervey Cleckley, Andrew M. Lobaczewski, Robert D. Hare.

Narcissism, on the other hand, seems to be primarily related to emotional wounding / trauma of the kind which can only result when one is not psychopathic, because it relies on exactly that emotional component that psychopaths do not have - ie: psychopaths do not suffer these neuroses. This is studied in depth by, for example, Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman, Robert M. Pressman, Elan Golomb, and is a core subject for the 'big 5' psychology texts often referenced here on the forum.

As Cleckley points out in 'The Mask of Sanity' there is much confusion about the issue, which seems to have been deliberately instigated by those who wish to hide their pathological natures.

 

[rofo6850]

Although narcissism and psychopathy may result in some similar behaviours, the current understanding is that there are fundamental underlying differences in terms of brain function. Psychopathy can indeed be modelled - it is characterised by a particular lack of function in the instinctive substratum, involving emotional response relating to empathy. Those who have studied this in great detail include Hervey Cleckley, Andrew M. Lobaczewski, Robert D. Hare.

Brain function is not the best way to explain psychopathic behaviour. This is so because in many cases brain dysfunction can be no more than the effect of something that goes beyond the brain, brain patterns could be no more than the "imprints" this qualities leave as traces in the brain. The condition originates in other realms, impossible of qualifying and naming, the realms of the soul, spirit, psychological, whatever you would want to call it. Conversely, many times psychopathy may be an acquired condition were brain anomalies are the source, many times as a result of psychical injury. In this case it would be the cause, however a physical cause, not the essential source of psychopathy.

It is true that Cleckley, Lobaczewski and Hare have gone in detail researching psychopathy; it is true also their work is majorly descriptive, they are describing the phenomena and providing details and characteristics of it. They do not go more deep trying to construct a psychological model. It is very useful to understand the process, but not so useful to understand the deep core of it. Lobaczewski observed an impaired instinctive substratum, however we do not know how this substratum is composed and why; the issue is quite complex.

Narcissism, on the other hand, seems to be primarily related to emotional wounding / trauma of the kind which can only result when one is not psychopathic, because it relies on exactly that emotional component that psychopaths do not have - ie: psychopaths do not suffer these neuroses. This is studied in depth by, for example, Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman, Robert M. Pressman, Elan Golomb, and is a core subject for the 'big 5' psychology texts often referenced here on the forum.

This is not what many researchers have found; the psychological frame they found regarding pathological narcissism shows clearly there is no guilt and internal questioning and suffering, the disease is ego-synthonic (the subject feel he is ok, there is nothing wrong with him). This guilt and self-criticism is the evidence of neuroses, (neurotics are ego-dysthonic) its very definition, and is completely absent in narcissistic subjects.

It is not clear if narcissitic traits can stem from traumas and emotional woundings. The impairment of some basic psychological functions show a deep psychological alteration, not easily explained by trauma. If this is the case it would be necessary to explain how this trauma can cause such a damage in narcissistic subjects and not in neurotic, whose emotional and relational functions are healthy, not an easy task.

Narcissism is characterized by well known psychological processes aimed to avoid introspection and self-criticism, for example, projection (blaming others of their own mistakes), or splitting (separating good and evil traits and objects, keeping the good ones and throwing the bad ones to others). These are well known psychopathic "defense mechanisms".

I suspect Donaldson, Pressman and Golomb are talking of psychopats in opposition to subjects with normal emotional function. This is not the case of pathological narcissists, that shows a shocking similarity with psychopathy regarding a serious impairment of the emotional functions.

Neurotics show the opposite condition, they tend to blame themselves even for others mistakes, there is no projection and splitting. However their psychological structure, emotional and relational functions are healthy.

My reference are Kernberg and Kohut, two widely known experts in pathological narcissism and borderline condition.

I am not so sure we could say taxatively we know the difference between both conditions. It is probable there exists something like an "essential psychopathy" though only a small percentage of people show this condition, Lobaczewski talks about a 6%.

Also it is more than probable psychopathy could appear "by proxy", as a result of environmental conditions. We all know that capacities we do not use usually get lost, empathy needs not to be the exception. If this were not the case it would be impossible for evil behaviour to spread and dominate a whole civilization, 6 % of essential psychopaths do not seem to be enough people.

Sure essential psychopathy is a real mystery, maybe we will never know what it is, how and where it is originated. For the rest of narcissistic individuals, psychos by proxy, Kernberg and Kohut models are excellent to understand the root of the phenomena, at least this is what I have found.

 

[Laura]

Yes, there is a clear distinction between those who have narcissistic traits due to narcissistic wounding and pathological narcissism.

Rofo, you may enjoy reading this:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/154258-A-Structural-Theory-of-Narcissism-and-Psychopathy

 

[rofo6850]

Maybe there is some confusion about the term narcissism. All I have written about narcissism is actually about NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

This is not to be confounded with narcissistic elements we all have, usually different degrees of egocentrism and personal needs and desires. These are normal and are a matter of degree in different normal persons, as well as neurotic traits.

NPD is a personality disorder in its own right and , a more or less permanent and abnormal psychological structure whose cause and origin is pretty unknown.

Laura, I was talking of what you call pathological narcissism, this condition, when it is severe, is what is difficult to distinguish from psychopathy. It is precisely NPD which is modelled by Kernberg. If you read Kernberg books you will find no differences with what you call psychopathy. NPD is generally impervious to therapy and treatment, the same as psychopathy.

In SOTT article:

We now come to the point of bifurcation: the difference between narcissistic wounding and NPD/psychopathy.

I was precisely referring to the second cathegory NPD/psychopathy.

 

[daveOS]

As far as concerning oneself with wikipedia entries as ear marks of truth, it's a rather futile exercise. Consider the fact that the wikipedia correspondent below even uses the phrase, "I have my personal views on narcissism", is enough to remind oneself, rather starkly, that to rely on wikipedia as an objective source of information is as wise as relying on neighborhood gossip. This most especially applies to areas of information that could be most damaging to the current power structure, such as psychopathy, politics, Zionism, religion, etc. fwiw.

I agree Wikipedia's truth keeping cannot be trusted. I've seen clues to its bias, but I never realized they were so blatant in their deliberations with researchers as to demonstrate they favor fraud as revealed in the exchange posted at the outset of this thread. I find it to be overt evidence of ponerized process and the freedom the propagandists feel to show their cards, which dovetails with concerns I'm awakening to about the promotion of psychopathic traits prevalent in the media.

From my vantage point, I can observe all kinds of good people adopting narcissitic behaviors and flaunting the empowerment they derive therein. I don't think this is unique to my situation or perspective and recognize that promoting psychopathic behavior can be traced back to early examples of film and TV. However, what I haven't noticed until recently is plain glorification of narcissistic behavior as an advantageous survival trait. I've just glimpsed a couple examples of this as noted in my post in this thread immediately prior to this one, and will be keeping my eyes open for it.

Yes, there is a clear distinction between those who have narcissistic traits due to narcissistic wounding and pathological narcissism.

Rofo, you may enjoy reading this:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/154258-A-Structural-Theory-of-Narcissism-and-Psychopathy

That is a helpful exploration of the matter, all the way from examining the "apologia for Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Psychopathy" to "Learned Helplessness". All of the factors the article summarizes from learned behaviors to mechanical or genetic retardation are helpful to think about in considering the factors giving rise to the dissociative pathologies. But in particular the article's extraction of "attachment theory" (or infant grandiosity from the initial examination of NPD by the Self-Psychology symposium) I find especially helpful to ponder in tandem with the factor of "heritable, adaptive life strategy" Harrison Koehli recently highlighted with his Ponerology 101 article.

 

[Laura]

Maybe there is some confusion about the term narcissism. All I have written about narcissism is actually about NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

Yes, I realized that. And I realized that Nomad was talking about something different so the terms were not clearly defined.

This is not to be confounded with narcissistic elements we all have, usually different degrees of egocentrism and personal needs and desires. These are normal and are a matter of degree in different normal persons, as well as neurotic traits.

Exactly so. For example, Nomad, or you, or I, could be quite narcissistic and do a lot of totally narcissistic things, (as nearly everyone is/does) and it would not be the same thing as the Personality disorder.

NPD is a personality disorder in its own right and , a more or less permanent and abnormal psychological structure whose cause and origin is pretty unknown.

Yes, that is part of the definition of a Personality Disorder, an "enduring pattern" that is pervasive. Enduring means it doesn't change, and pervasive means it affects all areas of the person's interactions with the world. One's personality is how one thinks, feels, relates and behaves. A pervasive disorder affects all those areas: thinking, feeling, relating and behavior.

Laura, I was talking of what you call pathological narcissism, this condition, when it is severe, is what is difficult to distinguish from psychopathy.

And that is why I think that it is part of the psychopathy scale.

It is precisely NPD which is modelled by Kernberg. If you read Kernberg books you will find no differences with what you call psychopathy. NPD is generally impervious to therapy and treatment, the same as psychopathy.

Yup. And the interesting ones, I have found, are the covert ones. George Simon, in his book "In Sheeps Clothing" talks about covert aggression. He describes perfectly - though he never uses the term - one type of psychopath that Martha Stout talks about in her book "The Sociopath Next Door" - the kind that really uses emotional hooks and maneuvers to control others.

 

[daco]

This documentary reminds me of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk

I put this video here becouse it can be helpful.One girl later shows that she has no conciscence at all.
Why psychologies dont use this experiment in goverment and high positions in society it is crucial to see which people are sick,I mean this is perfect test to see how people are mind control and manipulated and perfect test to discover psychopaths.

For me the shock is that 9 of 12 people go to the end of experiment-450 volts
Conclusion is that "normal" people dont think at all or they dont have any instictive "feeling" to see what is wrong here.
My question is that how "normal" people who have conciscence in this situtations can do this,most of "normal" people have conciscence but they dont use it at all becouse of brutal life that human have today,they just dont use it even if they have conciscence.
Weird.