Narcissism has recently become so popularized that the amount of pure guessing going on does a disservice to the ordinary person trying to understand this disorder.
Return to Table of Contents
Echo and the Narcissist
What Makes Narcissists Tick
Is NPD Caused by Chemical Imbalance?
The relative amounts of certain neurotransmitters (chemicals that transmit, or block the transmission of, electrochemical currents in the brain) are often associated with psychological problems. But that doesn't mean that an imbalance caused the problem. The imbalance may well be the result of the problem.
For example, after the death of someone near and dear, we are normally depressed for a while. The sad feelings and thoughts of grief cause the brain cells involved to produce certain neurotransmitters in the transmission of these currents through the circuits they belong to. As the concentration of these neurotransmitters builds, it takes less and less stimulus to cause that sinking feeling we get in grief. So, the increased level of the "depressing" neurotransmitters makes us think more depressed thoughts, releasing more of these neurotransmitters that make us feel depressed and . . . . You can see where this is going. Runaway feedback into a vicious cycle.
The brain, however, is a marvelous organ with many built-in controls. For example, high levels of these "depressing" neurotransmitters also feeds back to lower the threshold for stimulation in the circuitry that makes us laugh. In other words, Nature endows us with a chemistry that enhances our sense of humor at such times. Things seem funnier. Not only during times of grief, but during times of trauma and great stress. This is what's responsible for the phenomenon known as "foxhole humor."
This counterbalancing mechanism is an excellent example of how the body protects and heals itself. So, normally, after our loss we get back into the rhythm of life and its distractions. We laugh again. Over time our happier thoughts and our natural desire to be happy gradually bring the concentrations of those "depressing" neurotransmitters down to normal again. This is why the depression caused by such events is viewed as normal (and perhaps beneficial in some ways) unless it lasts too long and runs too deep. Temporary medication with drugs that restore the normal balance quicker can help.
But, of course, a person disposed to depression by habitual thinking patterns or some ongoing cause will soon become depressed again when drug therapy is stopped.
Hopefully, drugs will be found that can help narcissists through the pain of facing their true selves. This would make them less resistant to therapy and thus give treatment a chance to succeed.
See also:
- The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder by Alan V. Horwitz
- Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health by Elliot Vallenstein
Return to Table of Contents
For example, after the death of someone near and dear, we are normally depressed for a while. The sad feelings and thoughts of grief cause the brain cells involved to produce certain neurotransmitters in the transmission of these currents through the circuits they belong to. As the concentration of these neurotransmitters builds, it takes less and less stimulus to cause that sinking feeling we get in grief. So, the increased level of the "depressing" neurotransmitters makes us think more depressed thoughts, releasing more of these neurotransmitters that make us feel depressed and . . . . You can see where this is going. Runaway feedback into a vicious cycle.
The brain, however, is a marvelous organ with many built-in controls. For example, high levels of these "depressing" neurotransmitters also feeds back to lower the threshold for stimulation in the circuitry that makes us laugh. In other words, Nature endows us with a chemistry that enhances our sense of humor at such times. Things seem funnier. Not only during times of grief, but during times of trauma and great stress. This is what's responsible for the phenomenon known as "foxhole humor."
This counterbalancing mechanism is an excellent example of how the body protects and heals itself. So, normally, after our loss we get back into the rhythm of life and its distractions. We laugh again. Over time our happier thoughts and our natural desire to be happy gradually bring the concentrations of those "depressing" neurotransmitters down to normal again. This is why the depression caused by such events is viewed as normal (and perhaps beneficial in some ways) unless it lasts too long and runs too deep. Temporary medication with drugs that restore the normal balance quicker can help.
But, of course, a person disposed to depression by habitual thinking patterns or some ongoing cause will soon become depressed again when drug therapy is stopped.
Hopefully, drugs will be found that can help narcissists through the pain of facing their true selves. This would make them less resistant to therapy and thus give treatment a chance to succeed.
See also:
- The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder by Alan V. Horwitz
- Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health by Elliot Vallenstein
Return to Table of Contents
Is NPD Genetically Inherited?
Just because narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) tracks through families does not mean that it is genetically inherited. Narcissistic abuse tracks through those same families. That is TWO variables, either or both of which could be responsible. Good science can draw no conclusions from data with more than one variable.
In fact, since narcissists have two faces and behave like angels when they want, narcissistic behaviors are obviously volitional and are treated as such under the law. Also, most children of narcissists do not become narcissists. So the genetic hypothesis needs much stronger support, including tests of the normal children of narcissists, to be worthy of serious consideration.
Because there is more than one way to foul up a system, diseases often can have more than one cause. The odds are that the conclusion of good science will be that certain genes do make some people more susceptible than others to Narcissistic Injury and therefore more likely to make the choices that make them narcissists themselves.
Also, it is conceivable that some genes responsible for hard-wired circuitry in the newborn infant could impair normal child development and thereby cause some cases of NPD. We see something like this with autism: apparently children born blind are much more likely to become autistic and need to be actively parented to help the infant connect with an outside world he cannot see. Still, blindness is not the usual cause of autism. And we will probably find that genes are not the usual cause of NPD.
Nonetheless, we shall just have to wait for good science to let us know for sure.
That is why I'm skeptical at this point.
Return to Table of Contents
In fact, since narcissists have two faces and behave like angels when they want, narcissistic behaviors are obviously volitional and are treated as such under the law. Also, most children of narcissists do not become narcissists. So the genetic hypothesis needs much stronger support, including tests of the normal children of narcissists, to be worthy of serious consideration.
Because there is more than one way to foul up a system, diseases often can have more than one cause. The odds are that the conclusion of good science will be that certain genes do make some people more susceptible than others to Narcissistic Injury and therefore more likely to make the choices that make them narcissists themselves.
Also, it is conceivable that some genes responsible for hard-wired circuitry in the newborn infant could impair normal child development and thereby cause some cases of NPD. We see something like this with autism: apparently children born blind are much more likely to become autistic and need to be actively parented to help the infant connect with an outside world he cannot see. Still, blindness is not the usual cause of autism. And we will probably find that genes are not the usual cause of NPD.
Nonetheless, we shall just have to wait for good science to let us know for sure.
That is why I'm skeptical at this point.
Return to Table of Contents
What's Wrong With The Studies of Identical Twins
Studies of identical twins, raised both apart and together, have indicated hereditary influence on personality traits. Traits. Not whole personalities. It's unscientific to confuse the two. Confusing things with what they ain't is a propaganda trick, not Scientific Method.
I really hate abuse of statistics. Like when people say, "Research shows that 65% of personality is inherited."
Not true. That's not what the research shows.
The percentages researchers came up with were a creature of their instruments (evaluations and questionnaires), not a measure of how alike the twins actually were. For example, if most of your questions are aimed at eliciting evidence of narcissism, you are going to find a high percentage of correlation due to just that one trait. But what percentage of the package of that person's total personality is that? Perhaps minuscule.
No ones claims to have an instrument that measures the whole spectrum of human personality, so that it can be used in such a study to determine "how alike" the personalities of identical twins are.
What's more, the trait of narcissism exists to some extent in everyone and is a far different thing than NPD.
Return to Table of Contents
I really hate abuse of statistics. Like when people say, "Research shows that 65% of personality is inherited."
Not true. That's not what the research shows.
The percentages researchers came up with were a creature of their instruments (evaluations and questionnaires), not a measure of how alike the twins actually were. For example, if most of your questions are aimed at eliciting evidence of narcissism, you are going to find a high percentage of correlation due to just that one trait. But what percentage of the package of that person's total personality is that? Perhaps minuscule.
No ones claims to have an instrument that measures the whole spectrum of human personality, so that it can be used in such a study to determine "how alike" the personalities of identical twins are.
What's more, the trait of narcissism exists to some extent in everyone and is a far different thing than NPD.
Return to Table of Contents
What's Wrong With The "Theory"
First, it is no scientific "theory." It's an untested hypothesis.
Anthony M. Benis, an MD at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, is the main proponent of the hypothesis that narcissism is genetically caused: http://narcissism.homestead.com/. He calls this theory "NPA Theory." It's actually a resurrection of a hypothesis posed more than fifty years earlier by psychiatrist Karen Horney.
Woops, he didn't like that link: he's gone now, ain't he? You'll notice that the two links to his work on the website below now lead nowhere as well.
Great Ideas in Personality Disorders:
- Narcissism: a Genetic Trait: "This website contains articles and a message board on narcissism. By Anthony M. Benis."
- European Royalty: Inherited Personality Traits: "This website discusses the personality types of European royalty and other illustrious individuals based on Mendelian genetics. By Anthony M. Benis."
Not anymore, they don't. All those links are gone now. Links to this NPA "theory" were all over the net on narcissism websites, including Sam Vaknin's sites, Wikipedia, and other respected sources of information, like Psych-Net.
Note the reason Wikipedia eventually deleted it. Not because Benis hadn't produced any legitimate evidence or data to back up this "theory," not because the "theory" was really just a hypothesis, not because of its illogic and illegitimacy: only because the self-appointed editors of Wikipedia eventually noticed that Benis wasn't "widely cited in the scientific literature." And their discussion of the matter gives no indication that they understood why.
The reason Benis' work wasn't cited in the scientific literature is because it ain't science. Not even pseudoscience. Not even close. There are standards for what may be cited in scientific literature, standards this stuff didn't even come close to because it included zero clinical or laboratory data.
Unless you count "clinical trials" on dead people.
But that didn't keep this heap of pure guesswork from getting published in the "speculative" scholarly journals, like Speculations in Science and Technology 13 (3),167-175. Nor did it keep other experts from giving informal mention and credence to this junk. They obviously love the idea of blaming NPD on genes. Like Donna Hobgood, M.D. in writing for the Chattanooga Times Free Press. Or Dr. Ervin E Lambert at AllExperts.com. in "Cause of Narcissism," where Benis leaves his footprints. He leaves even more footprints here, where so much is copied that you see the kind of claims he makes. And finally, Google has an HTML copy (minus the graphics) of the entire "theory" here. Also see a saved copy here if that link goes dead too.
I debunked it in my blog post of Wednesday, March 28, 2007, "Is NPD Genetically Caused?." Benis claims that his "theory" is based on "Mendelian genetics." But it contains no Mendelian genetics, no data of phenotypic ratios of offspring to prove his claims about inheritance. Instead of diagnosing real people, he diagnoses famous dead people (mainly European royalty). How dead? So long dead as back to the 13th century.
I'm sorry, you can't diagnose CARICATURES of people that you read about in some Old English chronicle. What's more, Benis cites no sources and doesn't explain how he arrives at his diagnosis of each person.
Follows the text of my post:
-I shall explain what I find lacking here - EVIDENCE. VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. By the way, I'm no geneticist, but I have a Bachelor of Science degree in biology with graduate credit in advanced genetics. So, I'm not exactly clueless here.
-This "theory" is vague. What exactly does it assert? What it suggests and hints at is obvious, but what does it actually assert? That is impossible to nail down. There is a mile of wiggle room in it. This vagueness is unscientific.
- Check it out. It never comes right out and plainly says what it implies — that NPD and malignant narcissism are genetically caused. In fact, it defines malignant narcissism as coming to the attention of a mental healthcare professional. A very, very strange way to define a disease = as getting the attention of a physician. (I love unintended humor.)
- Right at the top, this site claims the "theory" (actually no more than a hypothesis) is "Based on Mendelian genetics." Okay, where? Show me the Mendelian genetics. I know that humans aren't as easy to deal with as garden peas, but if you're going to claim that your hypothesis is based on Mendelian genetics, I want to see the numbers.
- Where are the studies? Studies of people reliably diagnosed and their families. What does Dr. Benis get? Fifty-percent of every statistically valid sampling of the children of narcissists having NPD? I'll take 1 in 4 for a recessive trait. Show me them numbers, please. Why aren't there any numbers? Hey, it could be a blended trait among multiple genes and alleles, resulting in more complex mathematical probabilities. It's been too long since my graduate course in advanced genetics to remember all the common patterns, but I will take any definite ratio you prove exists as evidence for the claim. I don't care. Just show me that the ratio of offspring who have the disorder is always the same in every statistically valid sampling.
Show me.
That's what Brother Mendel did: he kept noticing that exactly 3/4 of the offspring of certain garden-pea-plant crosses always came out a certain way for some traits and that exactly 1/4 of the offspring for other crosses always came out the same way for other traits. He correctly reasoned that these traits must therefore be inherited. Otherwise the ratios wouldn't be constant from garden to garden, generation to generation.
Since we knew nothing about chromosomes at the time, three cheers for him. That was an awesome bit of science.
So, where are Dr. Benis' numbers? Gregor Mendel produced them for us. Everyone else who has established a genetic cause for something has produced the proof in those telling numbers that always come out in the ratio that echoes the laws of probability. So, where are Benis' numbers?
What does that site gives us instead? The section on Royal Genealogy. This is no substitute for scientifically valid data on real people — this "personality typing" (a euphemism for "diagnosing") of the CARICATURES of long dead people.
Now, I'm guessing that you don't need graduate credit in genetics to know what's wrong with that. Especially what's wrong with using the royal family of Europe.
For one thing, these people were horribly inbred and, as a result, carry a large "genetic load" of genetic abnormalities (usually as recessive alleles that don't express themselves except in children when both parents are carriers). They lead to such things as insanity and hemophilia. (Which is why Europe's royals don't intermarry anymore.) If you want to study something caused by the lack of one known enzyme, like hemophilia, they make a great test group. But not for something as cloudy as this. It would be impossible to sort out what genetic abnormality was causing what.
And looking for narcissism among royals? One might as well look for the color blue in the sky.
A royal may be as humble as Prince Hamlet, but his scripted performance is total narcissism. I mean, that's why he's called "my lord" and "your highness" and "your grace" and "your majesty" you know. He's supposed to act the part. You would have to know him personally as an intimate friend or family member to know the real him. Royals are trained from birth to ritually narcissistic behavior. They're supposed to be stuffy. Supposed to be imperious. Indeed, they were imperiors/emperors of their empires.
And of course royals will tend to actually be narcissistic as well. Just because of who they are and the way they are raised and treated. But narcissism isn't NPD. Where is the distinction between situational acquired narcissism and malignant narcissism? Benis makes none. A narcissistic personality isn't a narcissistically disordered one. What's more, a royal's narcissism will usually be elevated self esteem (situational acquired narcissism), not NPD, which is low self esteem in denial and acting haughty to dissimulate. They are very, very different things. One is malignant, the other is not.
And who diagnosed -'er, I mean "typed" all these generations of royals? From what examination? Of what evidence? Benis is diagnosing people way back to the 13th century. He knows that much about those hundreds of once famous people? Give me a break.
His hypothesis is just a proposed model, period. Pure speculation. Not a shred of evidence is cited in support of it.
His model may be right about some things, or even many things, but there is no way to know that. And no sound reason to believe it. In fact, there is reason for skepticism, because Benis just glosses over the caveats and objections to his hypothesis, as if doing that deals with the questions they raise. What's more, he first published this model in 1990. So, if he's so sure of this, why are there still no legitimate studies to supply any evidence to back it up?
I am a firm believer in leaning toward the most likely explanation for things, not the most unlikely one. Unfortunately, studies show that most people prefer the most unlikely one.
And political correctness has no time for any explanation that puts any responsibility for himself on the narcissist. Who has a higher opinion of him then? The bleeding hearts who regard him as a machine? Or me? I regard him as a person with the power to choose for himself whether he will abuse someone or not, whether he will face facts or not. The bleeding hearts are always misplacing their sympathy. It all goes to the narcissist. They don't "understand" the victim's anger: instead they preach at the victim to "understand" the narcissist's rage. I bet such folks really like this genetic hypothesis. It must be popular in that crowd.
Genotype may well contribute to a susceptibility or predisposition to NPD. Childhood narcissistic abuse may be an important factor. And it goes against reason to disregard the obvious - CHOICE - as a cause of the way a person with NPD habitually thinks and conducts himself.
We need evidence to know whether, and to what extent if any, genetics is a factor. We need evidence to know whether, and to what extent if any, childhood abuse is a factor. But we need nothing but common sense to know that choice is operating in people who behave quite normally in the presence of witnesses and only act crazy behind closed doors in the dark. And so, if it were a simple matter of This allele A of gene B causes NPD — or any combination of alleles on several genes — that would easily have been proved by now. The proponents of this hypothesis have been at it for 50 years though. So where's their proof? All they have to do is find narcissists and then test their children. The ratios of normal/NPD children would always come out the same if NPD is genetically caused.
This means that every time the data is collected from a statistically valid sample, that ratio would always come out the same. For example, we might always find that 1/4 children is a narcissist. The fact that we always get the same ratio is proof of genetic inheritance.
Not hard to do. Therefore, since the proponents of this "theory" haven't published such a test yet, my lie detector says that it is because they have run this test and found proof that NPD is not genetically caused.
They'd never do that you say? Wrong. In fact, cancer researchers have held back proof that their hypotheses are wrong in order to get more government funding for continuing on that wild goose chase. Pretty sick, eh? There's money to be made pursuing your false "theories." So, when they're stumped, some researchers just lie to keep the money coming in for research in what they know is a dead-end direction.
Which is why too much money for cancer research, or any kind of research, actually slows progress toward a cure. Those deep funding pockets attract too many greedy researchers who do anything for a fast buck. They compete for, and win, research dollars away from the people honestly trying to find a cure.
Return to Table of Contents
Anthony M. Benis, an MD at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, is the main proponent of the hypothesis that narcissism is genetically caused: http://narcissism.homestead.com/. He calls this theory "NPA Theory." It's actually a resurrection of a hypothesis posed more than fifty years earlier by psychiatrist Karen Horney.
Woops, he didn't like that link: he's gone now, ain't he? You'll notice that the two links to his work on the website below now lead nowhere as well.
Great Ideas in Personality Disorders:
- Narcissism: a Genetic Trait: "This website contains articles and a message board on narcissism. By Anthony M. Benis."
- European Royalty: Inherited Personality Traits: "This website discusses the personality types of European royalty and other illustrious individuals based on Mendelian genetics. By Anthony M. Benis."
Not anymore, they don't. All those links are gone now. Links to this NPA "theory" were all over the net on narcissism websites, including Sam Vaknin's sites, Wikipedia, and other respected sources of information, like Psych-Net.
Note the reason Wikipedia eventually deleted it. Not because Benis hadn't produced any legitimate evidence or data to back up this "theory," not because the "theory" was really just a hypothesis, not because of its illogic and illegitimacy: only because the self-appointed editors of Wikipedia eventually noticed that Benis wasn't "widely cited in the scientific literature." And their discussion of the matter gives no indication that they understood why.
The reason Benis' work wasn't cited in the scientific literature is because it ain't science. Not even pseudoscience. Not even close. There are standards for what may be cited in scientific literature, standards this stuff didn't even come close to because it included zero clinical or laboratory data.
Unless you count "clinical trials" on dead people.
But that didn't keep this heap of pure guesswork from getting published in the "speculative" scholarly journals, like Speculations in Science and Technology 13 (3),167-175. Nor did it keep other experts from giving informal mention and credence to this junk. They obviously love the idea of blaming NPD on genes. Like Donna Hobgood, M.D. in writing for the Chattanooga Times Free Press. Or Dr. Ervin E Lambert at AllExperts.com. in "Cause of Narcissism," where Benis leaves his footprints. He leaves even more footprints here, where so much is copied that you see the kind of claims he makes. And finally, Google has an HTML copy (minus the graphics) of the entire "theory" here. Also see a saved copy here if that link goes dead too.
I debunked it in my blog post of Wednesday, March 28, 2007, "Is NPD Genetically Caused?." Benis claims that his "theory" is based on "Mendelian genetics." But it contains no Mendelian genetics, no data of phenotypic ratios of offspring to prove his claims about inheritance. Instead of diagnosing real people, he diagnoses famous dead people (mainly European royalty). How dead? So long dead as back to the 13th century.
I'm sorry, you can't diagnose CARICATURES of people that you read about in some Old English chronicle. What's more, Benis cites no sources and doesn't explain how he arrives at his diagnosis of each person.
Follows the text of my post:
-I shall explain what I find lacking here - EVIDENCE. VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. By the way, I'm no geneticist, but I have a Bachelor of Science degree in biology with graduate credit in advanced genetics. So, I'm not exactly clueless here.
-This "theory" is vague. What exactly does it assert? What it suggests and hints at is obvious, but what does it actually assert? That is impossible to nail down. There is a mile of wiggle room in it. This vagueness is unscientific.
- Check it out. It never comes right out and plainly says what it implies — that NPD and malignant narcissism are genetically caused. In fact, it defines malignant narcissism as coming to the attention of a mental healthcare professional. A very, very strange way to define a disease = as getting the attention of a physician. (I love unintended humor.)
- Right at the top, this site claims the "theory" (actually no more than a hypothesis) is "Based on Mendelian genetics." Okay, where? Show me the Mendelian genetics. I know that humans aren't as easy to deal with as garden peas, but if you're going to claim that your hypothesis is based on Mendelian genetics, I want to see the numbers.
- Where are the studies? Studies of people reliably diagnosed and their families. What does Dr. Benis get? Fifty-percent of every statistically valid sampling of the children of narcissists having NPD? I'll take 1 in 4 for a recessive trait. Show me them numbers, please. Why aren't there any numbers? Hey, it could be a blended trait among multiple genes and alleles, resulting in more complex mathematical probabilities. It's been too long since my graduate course in advanced genetics to remember all the common patterns, but I will take any definite ratio you prove exists as evidence for the claim. I don't care. Just show me that the ratio of offspring who have the disorder is always the same in every statistically valid sampling.
Show me.
That's what Brother Mendel did: he kept noticing that exactly 3/4 of the offspring of certain garden-pea-plant crosses always came out a certain way for some traits and that exactly 1/4 of the offspring for other crosses always came out the same way for other traits. He correctly reasoned that these traits must therefore be inherited. Otherwise the ratios wouldn't be constant from garden to garden, generation to generation.
Since we knew nothing about chromosomes at the time, three cheers for him. That was an awesome bit of science.
So, where are Dr. Benis' numbers? Gregor Mendel produced them for us. Everyone else who has established a genetic cause for something has produced the proof in those telling numbers that always come out in the ratio that echoes the laws of probability. So, where are Benis' numbers?
What does that site gives us instead? The section on Royal Genealogy. This is no substitute for scientifically valid data on real people — this "personality typing" (a euphemism for "diagnosing") of the CARICATURES of long dead people.
Now, I'm guessing that you don't need graduate credit in genetics to know what's wrong with that. Especially what's wrong with using the royal family of Europe.
For one thing, these people were horribly inbred and, as a result, carry a large "genetic load" of genetic abnormalities (usually as recessive alleles that don't express themselves except in children when both parents are carriers). They lead to such things as insanity and hemophilia. (Which is why Europe's royals don't intermarry anymore.) If you want to study something caused by the lack of one known enzyme, like hemophilia, they make a great test group. But not for something as cloudy as this. It would be impossible to sort out what genetic abnormality was causing what.
And looking for narcissism among royals? One might as well look for the color blue in the sky.
A royal may be as humble as Prince Hamlet, but his scripted performance is total narcissism. I mean, that's why he's called "my lord" and "your highness" and "your grace" and "your majesty" you know. He's supposed to act the part. You would have to know him personally as an intimate friend or family member to know the real him. Royals are trained from birth to ritually narcissistic behavior. They're supposed to be stuffy. Supposed to be imperious. Indeed, they were imperiors/emperors of their empires.
And of course royals will tend to actually be narcissistic as well. Just because of who they are and the way they are raised and treated. But narcissism isn't NPD. Where is the distinction between situational acquired narcissism and malignant narcissism? Benis makes none. A narcissistic personality isn't a narcissistically disordered one. What's more, a royal's narcissism will usually be elevated self esteem (situational acquired narcissism), not NPD, which is low self esteem in denial and acting haughty to dissimulate. They are very, very different things. One is malignant, the other is not.
And who diagnosed -'er, I mean "typed" all these generations of royals? From what examination? Of what evidence? Benis is diagnosing people way back to the 13th century. He knows that much about those hundreds of once famous people? Give me a break.
His hypothesis is just a proposed model, period. Pure speculation. Not a shred of evidence is cited in support of it.
His model may be right about some things, or even many things, but there is no way to know that. And no sound reason to believe it. In fact, there is reason for skepticism, because Benis just glosses over the caveats and objections to his hypothesis, as if doing that deals with the questions they raise. What's more, he first published this model in 1990. So, if he's so sure of this, why are there still no legitimate studies to supply any evidence to back it up?
I am a firm believer in leaning toward the most likely explanation for things, not the most unlikely one. Unfortunately, studies show that most people prefer the most unlikely one.
And political correctness has no time for any explanation that puts any responsibility for himself on the narcissist. Who has a higher opinion of him then? The bleeding hearts who regard him as a machine? Or me? I regard him as a person with the power to choose for himself whether he will abuse someone or not, whether he will face facts or not. The bleeding hearts are always misplacing their sympathy. It all goes to the narcissist. They don't "understand" the victim's anger: instead they preach at the victim to "understand" the narcissist's rage. I bet such folks really like this genetic hypothesis. It must be popular in that crowd.
Genotype may well contribute to a susceptibility or predisposition to NPD. Childhood narcissistic abuse may be an important factor. And it goes against reason to disregard the obvious - CHOICE - as a cause of the way a person with NPD habitually thinks and conducts himself.
We need evidence to know whether, and to what extent if any, genetics is a factor. We need evidence to know whether, and to what extent if any, childhood abuse is a factor. But we need nothing but common sense to know that choice is operating in people who behave quite normally in the presence of witnesses and only act crazy behind closed doors in the dark. And so, if it were a simple matter of This allele A of gene B causes NPD — or any combination of alleles on several genes — that would easily have been proved by now. The proponents of this hypothesis have been at it for 50 years though. So where's their proof? All they have to do is find narcissists and then test their children. The ratios of normal/NPD children would always come out the same if NPD is genetically caused.
This means that every time the data is collected from a statistically valid sample, that ratio would always come out the same. For example, we might always find that 1/4 children is a narcissist. The fact that we always get the same ratio is proof of genetic inheritance.
Not hard to do. Therefore, since the proponents of this "theory" haven't published such a test yet, my lie detector says that it is because they have run this test and found proof that NPD is not genetically caused.
They'd never do that you say? Wrong. In fact, cancer researchers have held back proof that their hypotheses are wrong in order to get more government funding for continuing on that wild goose chase. Pretty sick, eh? There's money to be made pursuing your false "theories." So, when they're stumped, some researchers just lie to keep the money coming in for research in what they know is a dead-end direction.
Which is why too much money for cancer research, or any kind of research, actually slows progress toward a cure. Those deep funding pockets attract too many greedy researchers who do anything for a fast buck. They compete for, and win, research dollars away from the people honestly trying to find a cure.
Return to Table of Contents
What Effect Genes May Have On NPD
This isn't to say that genes are not a factor in NPD. We don't know that, but there is some evidence that appears supportive of that hypothesis. Further, just from what we know about the human genome and how it works, we can say that it is probably true that genetic factors may make one person more likely to develop NPD than another.
For instance, there are alleles of genes (at least in combinations) that affect how much transmitter substance certain brain cells release. One unlucky person could have a bad mix of several that make him more upset when someone pays little attention to him. Bingo — a factor that makes him likely to brood more as a child when Mother is too busy.
That doesn't make him a narcissist, but it makes him more likely to choose the path in life that leads to NPD.
It's easy to imagine other genetic scenarios, such as one that makes one child empathize more readily than another.
These genetic scenarios could be very complicated, and therefore it isn't hard to see why research hasn't established any yet.
But note that you can't say a gene makes anyone beat or slander another person. Genes may affect "affect" (emotion) but they can't control behavior.
In fact, you can't even say that NPD makes anyone beat or slander another person. Behavior just doesn't work that way. Beating your girlfriend or slandering your best friend is voluntary behavior. And a narcissist proves that he isn't forced to do such things, because he never does them while anyone else is looking.
He beats his girlfriend only behind closed doors when they are alone. He slanders his best friend behind the back and by whispering into one ear at a time. That behavior is pure sneakiness, which can't be blamed on NPD or any gene.
His temptation to do these things certainly comes from NPD. And maybe this temptation has something to do with some genes he carries. But we all have feelings and temptations. They are no excuse for our behavior, let alone a cause. In fact, the narcissist's ability to act like a saint whenever there are witnesses proves that no gene is controlling him like a robot. That proves he is acting out of free will.
And what about all the normal children of narcissists there are? If they carry potent narcissistic genes, those genes must have some effect on them. So, you'd expect them to be attracted to people they feel they can easily dominate. But it is generally believed that the opposite is true.
Therefore, if there are genes that produce narcissistic tendencies, they simply did NOT work in the normal children of narcissists. These children chose not to be like that through their own free will. They deserve some credit for that!
That's the flip-side of relieving narcissists of their responsibility for themselves: you also deny the normal children of narcissists the credit they deserve. That sucks.
In other words, most children of narcissists turn out normal and are therefore standing evidence against any hypothesis that blames narcissism on genes. Though it is likely that genes are a factor making one child more likely than another to choose the wrong path, it is unlikely that genes are a potent enough factor to constitute an excuse.
Return to Table of Contents
For instance, there are alleles of genes (at least in combinations) that affect how much transmitter substance certain brain cells release. One unlucky person could have a bad mix of several that make him more upset when someone pays little attention to him. Bingo — a factor that makes him likely to brood more as a child when Mother is too busy.
That doesn't make him a narcissist, but it makes him more likely to choose the path in life that leads to NPD.
It's easy to imagine other genetic scenarios, such as one that makes one child empathize more readily than another.
These genetic scenarios could be very complicated, and therefore it isn't hard to see why research hasn't established any yet.
But note that you can't say a gene makes anyone beat or slander another person. Genes may affect "affect" (emotion) but they can't control behavior.
In fact, you can't even say that NPD makes anyone beat or slander another person. Behavior just doesn't work that way. Beating your girlfriend or slandering your best friend is voluntary behavior. And a narcissist proves that he isn't forced to do such things, because he never does them while anyone else is looking.
He beats his girlfriend only behind closed doors when they are alone. He slanders his best friend behind the back and by whispering into one ear at a time. That behavior is pure sneakiness, which can't be blamed on NPD or any gene.
His temptation to do these things certainly comes from NPD. And maybe this temptation has something to do with some genes he carries. But we all have feelings and temptations. They are no excuse for our behavior, let alone a cause. In fact, the narcissist's ability to act like a saint whenever there are witnesses proves that no gene is controlling him like a robot. That proves he is acting out of free will.
And what about all the normal children of narcissists there are? If they carry potent narcissistic genes, those genes must have some effect on them. So, you'd expect them to be attracted to people they feel they can easily dominate. But it is generally believed that the opposite is true.
Therefore, if there are genes that produce narcissistic tendencies, they simply did NOT work in the normal children of narcissists. These children chose not to be like that through their own free will. They deserve some credit for that!
That's the flip-side of relieving narcissists of their responsibility for themselves: you also deny the normal children of narcissists the credit they deserve. That sucks.
In other words, most children of narcissists turn out normal and are therefore standing evidence against any hypothesis that blames narcissism on genes. Though it is likely that genes are a factor making one child more likely than another to choose the wrong path, it is unlikely that genes are a potent enough factor to constitute an excuse.
Return to Table of Contents
Psychological Causes
Many believe that the curse of malignant narcissism is transmitted from generation to generation through narcissistic abuse of a child, especially before the age of reason. Though my own observations suggest an element of free will in the equation, no little child should be expected to deal with that and choose the right path.
A word of caution in jumping to the conclusion that parents are to blame, however. Narcissistic personality disorder hasn't been studied nearly as thoroughly as its near neighbor, psychopathy. In fact, recent study has brought into question whether they are distinct. Of course only a small subset of all psychopaths have been studied — mainly those in the prison population = those who have committed violent crimes and gotten caught. But leading researchers in psychopathy say that they sometimes come from fine homes.
So, what do we make of this? Anyone who has grown up in a home with a narcissistic parent knows that, to all outward appearances and as far as anyone on earth knows, it's an idyllic home. But inside it's Hell.
So, these researchers could be wrong: psychopaths/narcissists could all be coming from abusive homes. But not all the children from those homes turn out abnormal. So, there definitely is an element of choice in the matter. Indeed, if childhood abuse caused NPD, there would be almost no normal children of narcissists.
What's more, strange things do occasionally happen. Take the case of Ted Bundy, for example. He was born of a young unwed mother and raised as her brother, believing that his grandparents were his parents. This was because it was a great shame to have an illegitimate child back then. And doubtless that showed in his grandparent-parents' and sister-mother's faces. They probably didn't look at this infant as a bundle of joy bestowed on their lives. Moreover, what does this deception do to him when he finds out the truth? His real father rejected him. And so did his mother, didn't she? Yes, if she denied being his mother, she rejected him as her child. Ouch!
She didn't mean to, but she did. Not exactly "abuse," is that? But it was bound to give him a narcissistic identity crisis. (What Bundy says to psychologists of his grandfather-father sounds like the description of a malignant narcissist, but you can't take Bundy's word for any of that. Narcissists lyingly blame their parents as easily as they blame anyone else for their problems.)
In any case, two roads diverge in a wood when the time for choosing how to deal with it comes: some children choose one path, and some choose the other. Obviously, the more narcissistic the parents are, the more tempted down the wrong path a child will be.
It leads to Never Never Land (the land of a child's Magical Thinking), where he goes to lick his wounds. He never leaves.
His own guilt keeps him imprisoned there. It's the "demon at the door" that won't let him turn his life around and escape this runaway freight-train ride.
Why? Stop and think for a moment what kinds of things the budding little narcissist does to prop up his ego, to make himself feel grand and strong and important. He does what his narcissistic parent taught him to do, what the schoolyard bully taught him to do: hit on and disregard someone smaller. That makes you mighty. So, he does things like kick the puppy aside, right?
Here comes Puppy, running up to him with its eyes bright and tail wagging — only to get kicked.
I don't care how young you are, that's wicked. Does anyone ever accept the shame they deserve for doing something as malignant as that?
No. No one can bear to acknowledge what that means about them. So, instead, they just revise history. They go into denial.
That's the neat thing a child discovers about the mind: it's omnipotent; it can create the world. You can unknow anything you want. You can imagine anything you want. The mind is the ideal child's playground. It's a place to escape reality by playing "Pretend" in.
Therefore, who needs a conscience? Without one, he has a carte blanche to do anything he thinks he can get away with:
· Imagine what he'll do to be mighty on a toddler if no one is looking. That toddler gets too much attention, and your budding little narcissist resents it for that.
· Imagine what he does to be greater than his brother or sister. Narcissism carries sibling rivalry to the heights. So, imagine the lies he goes around telling about that brother or sister. Imagine how he even works to make Mommy and Daddy like him better than them. Imagine how he gets them into trouble for things they didn't do.
· Imagine what he does to humiliate his little friends. Imagine how he sidles up to some kid everybody picks on and then takes advantage of the situation to lord it over that already downtrodden kid. And if he's bigger than the other kids, imagine what a bully he is in the schoolyard.
That's what any kid with no conscience and an inferiority complex will do.
All too soon, like Macbeth, he passes the point of no return. For, there are some things a person can do that you just do not repent. These bottomless acts are treacherous betrayals and predatory acts that have done permanent damage to brothers, sisters, playmates or pets and other animals who had every reason to trust him — that class of offenses so sickening that Dante found the guilty parties' souls in hell from the moment they chose to do the deed, though their bodies still wandered the earth as living persons.
Why? Because they are unconscionable. So, what does a kid (or anyone) do with them? The only thing he can do with the unconscionable = relieve his conscience of them. It's easy.
One thing you do is prove it wasn't stupid and wrong by doing it again, and worse, tomorrow. And you keep doing that as often as necessary to prove you're shameless.
Another thing you do is get rid of your guilt and shame by projecting it off onto a scapegoat. You say to yourself, "I'm not that bad. Not as bad as" ... cast a quick look around ... "So-and-So over there." Projection is a kind of baptism, isn't it? You cleanse yourself by scraping yourself off and smearing So-and-So.
Preferably, you pick a So-and-So with the corresponding virtue instead of the vice you're smearing on him. That way you kill two birds with one stone: you not only "cleanse" yourself, you obliterate a shining virtue in someone else that puts you to shame. In fact, when you attack him, you project that bad deed on him too, accusing him of attacking you and pretending that he is the malicious one.
In other words, you get caught up in a vicious cycle of bad behavior that has you doing a worse thing today because of a bad thing you did yesterday. It's a runaway freight-train ride, because this crazy way of getting rid of guilt and shame only increases it. Hence, you become a one-man witch hunt that gets furiouser and furiouser as you get drunk on the blood of your scapegoats.
You are like Macbeth seeing the blood on his hands, frantically washing and washing and washing in — guess what? Nothing but blood.
Consequently, at a young age a narcissist not only has done such unrepentable things, he also already has mortal enemies as a consequence. These are people he's victimized who want nothing more than to expose him for what he is.
And not just for revenge: since much of the damage he does is by lying about others, these are people who can undo the damage he has done to them only by exposing him for what he is.
What's more, there's always the danger that people he has lied to will compare notes and discover what he is.
So, from an early age, a narcissist has a past. His whole life is a race to keep one step ahead of his past. So, he is paranoid and with good reason.
If his victims succeed in saving themselves from the degrading reputation he has laid on them — which they can do only by exposing him for what he is — everyone will abhor him. Therefore, he must "block the kick" by making sure those people never are viewed as having any credibility. Everyone must view them as liars and crazy.
Hey, even a kid of only seven or eight years old will figure this out. Which is one big reason why malignant narcissist is practically synonymous with professional character assassin.
What he does to "protect" himself from his "enemies" (i.e., those he's victimized and now fears retribution from) increases the danger he's in. Now he has to become a little con artist who gets between people to break lines of communication so Person A won't compare notes with Person B revealing what he says to each about the other.
In fact, eventually people do get suspicious and start comparing notes. This results in periodic upheavals in his life, during which virtually everyone in his class or workplace rises up in outraged hatred and drives him away with all the vehemence of a town riding someone out on a rail. Unfortunately, no real good comes of it, because nobody will clue in his family on what he is.
And so guilt/shame and the vicious cycle of increasing it by trying to ditch it through projection rides herd on him all the way through the tragedy that is his whole life.
He can never admit, even to himself, what he has done and how malignant he has become. If he did, he'd have to kill himself, "without even leaving a note" as one narcissist told me while she was in college.
Indeed, who would leave a note that said, "I am killing myself because I abhor myself and can't bear being evil." Therefore, like Macbeth, he is so "deep in blood already" that to save himself by admitting the truth so he might turn his life around is a more horrible proposition that riding that runaway freight train to its calamitous end.
Return to Table of Contents
A word of caution in jumping to the conclusion that parents are to blame, however. Narcissistic personality disorder hasn't been studied nearly as thoroughly as its near neighbor, psychopathy. In fact, recent study has brought into question whether they are distinct. Of course only a small subset of all psychopaths have been studied — mainly those in the prison population = those who have committed violent crimes and gotten caught. But leading researchers in psychopathy say that they sometimes come from fine homes.
So, what do we make of this? Anyone who has grown up in a home with a narcissistic parent knows that, to all outward appearances and as far as anyone on earth knows, it's an idyllic home. But inside it's Hell.
So, these researchers could be wrong: psychopaths/narcissists could all be coming from abusive homes. But not all the children from those homes turn out abnormal. So, there definitely is an element of choice in the matter. Indeed, if childhood abuse caused NPD, there would be almost no normal children of narcissists.
What's more, strange things do occasionally happen. Take the case of Ted Bundy, for example. He was born of a young unwed mother and raised as her brother, believing that his grandparents were his parents. This was because it was a great shame to have an illegitimate child back then. And doubtless that showed in his grandparent-parents' and sister-mother's faces. They probably didn't look at this infant as a bundle of joy bestowed on their lives. Moreover, what does this deception do to him when he finds out the truth? His real father rejected him. And so did his mother, didn't she? Yes, if she denied being his mother, she rejected him as her child. Ouch!
She didn't mean to, but she did. Not exactly "abuse," is that? But it was bound to give him a narcissistic identity crisis. (What Bundy says to psychologists of his grandfather-father sounds like the description of a malignant narcissist, but you can't take Bundy's word for any of that. Narcissists lyingly blame their parents as easily as they blame anyone else for their problems.)
In any case, two roads diverge in a wood when the time for choosing how to deal with it comes: some children choose one path, and some choose the other. Obviously, the more narcissistic the parents are, the more tempted down the wrong path a child will be.
It leads to Never Never Land (the land of a child's Magical Thinking), where he goes to lick his wounds. He never leaves.
His own guilt keeps him imprisoned there. It's the "demon at the door" that won't let him turn his life around and escape this runaway freight-train ride.
Why? Stop and think for a moment what kinds of things the budding little narcissist does to prop up his ego, to make himself feel grand and strong and important. He does what his narcissistic parent taught him to do, what the schoolyard bully taught him to do: hit on and disregard someone smaller. That makes you mighty. So, he does things like kick the puppy aside, right?
Here comes Puppy, running up to him with its eyes bright and tail wagging — only to get kicked.
I don't care how young you are, that's wicked. Does anyone ever accept the shame they deserve for doing something as malignant as that?
No. No one can bear to acknowledge what that means about them. So, instead, they just revise history. They go into denial.
That's the neat thing a child discovers about the mind: it's omnipotent; it can create the world. You can unknow anything you want. You can imagine anything you want. The mind is the ideal child's playground. It's a place to escape reality by playing "Pretend" in.
Therefore, who needs a conscience? Without one, he has a carte blanche to do anything he thinks he can get away with:
· Imagine what he'll do to be mighty on a toddler if no one is looking. That toddler gets too much attention, and your budding little narcissist resents it for that.
· Imagine what he does to be greater than his brother or sister. Narcissism carries sibling rivalry to the heights. So, imagine the lies he goes around telling about that brother or sister. Imagine how he even works to make Mommy and Daddy like him better than them. Imagine how he gets them into trouble for things they didn't do.
· Imagine what he does to humiliate his little friends. Imagine how he sidles up to some kid everybody picks on and then takes advantage of the situation to lord it over that already downtrodden kid. And if he's bigger than the other kids, imagine what a bully he is in the schoolyard.
That's what any kid with no conscience and an inferiority complex will do.
All too soon, like Macbeth, he passes the point of no return. For, there are some things a person can do that you just do not repent. These bottomless acts are treacherous betrayals and predatory acts that have done permanent damage to brothers, sisters, playmates or pets and other animals who had every reason to trust him — that class of offenses so sickening that Dante found the guilty parties' souls in hell from the moment they chose to do the deed, though their bodies still wandered the earth as living persons.
Why? Because they are unconscionable. So, what does a kid (or anyone) do with them? The only thing he can do with the unconscionable = relieve his conscience of them. It's easy.
One thing you do is prove it wasn't stupid and wrong by doing it again, and worse, tomorrow. And you keep doing that as often as necessary to prove you're shameless.
Another thing you do is get rid of your guilt and shame by projecting it off onto a scapegoat. You say to yourself, "I'm not that bad. Not as bad as" ... cast a quick look around ... "So-and-So over there." Projection is a kind of baptism, isn't it? You cleanse yourself by scraping yourself off and smearing So-and-So.
Preferably, you pick a So-and-So with the corresponding virtue instead of the vice you're smearing on him. That way you kill two birds with one stone: you not only "cleanse" yourself, you obliterate a shining virtue in someone else that puts you to shame. In fact, when you attack him, you project that bad deed on him too, accusing him of attacking you and pretending that he is the malicious one.
In other words, you get caught up in a vicious cycle of bad behavior that has you doing a worse thing today because of a bad thing you did yesterday. It's a runaway freight-train ride, because this crazy way of getting rid of guilt and shame only increases it. Hence, you become a one-man witch hunt that gets furiouser and furiouser as you get drunk on the blood of your scapegoats.
You are like Macbeth seeing the blood on his hands, frantically washing and washing and washing in — guess what? Nothing but blood.
Consequently, at a young age a narcissist not only has done such unrepentable things, he also already has mortal enemies as a consequence. These are people he's victimized who want nothing more than to expose him for what he is.
And not just for revenge: since much of the damage he does is by lying about others, these are people who can undo the damage he has done to them only by exposing him for what he is.
What's more, there's always the danger that people he has lied to will compare notes and discover what he is.
So, from an early age, a narcissist has a past. His whole life is a race to keep one step ahead of his past. So, he is paranoid and with good reason.
If his victims succeed in saving themselves from the degrading reputation he has laid on them — which they can do only by exposing him for what he is — everyone will abhor him. Therefore, he must "block the kick" by making sure those people never are viewed as having any credibility. Everyone must view them as liars and crazy.
Hey, even a kid of only seven or eight years old will figure this out. Which is one big reason why malignant narcissist is practically synonymous with professional character assassin.
What he does to "protect" himself from his "enemies" (i.e., those he's victimized and now fears retribution from) increases the danger he's in. Now he has to become a little con artist who gets between people to break lines of communication so Person A won't compare notes with Person B revealing what he says to each about the other.
In fact, eventually people do get suspicious and start comparing notes. This results in periodic upheavals in his life, during which virtually everyone in his class or workplace rises up in outraged hatred and drives him away with all the vehemence of a town riding someone out on a rail. Unfortunately, no real good comes of it, because nobody will clue in his family on what he is.
And so guilt/shame and the vicious cycle of increasing it by trying to ditch it through projection rides herd on him all the way through the tragedy that is his whole life.
He can never admit, even to himself, what he has done and how malignant he has become. If he did, he'd have to kill himself, "without even leaving a note" as one narcissist told me while she was in college.
Indeed, who would leave a note that said, "I am killing myself because I abhor myself and can't bear being evil." Therefore, like Macbeth, he is so "deep in blood already" that to save himself by admitting the truth so he might turn his life around is a more horrible proposition that riding that runaway freight train to its calamitous end.
Return to Table of Contents
