Background

Abolish Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in DSM V?

Uploaded 12/4/2010, approx. 5 minute read

My name is Sanda. I am the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.


In 1997, three years before the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual was published, I proposed to abolish the diagnostic category of narcissistic personality disorder altogether. I suggested that since at the root of all personality disorder there is a common psychodynamic process, all personality disorders should be united into a single diagnostic category.

So a person would be diagnosed with personality disorder, with certain emphasis or certain traits. Personality disorder with narcissistic emphasis, personality disorder with antisocial or psychopathic emphasis, and so on and so forth.

Close to 15 years later, a committee that is now compiling the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Edition 5, seems to have taken notice. They propose to abolish a few personality disorders and lump all of them together into a single diagnostic category. That is a welcome development.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the current edition, the fourth edition, text edition, is published in the year 2000. It describes access to personality disorders as deeply ingrained, maladaptive, lifelong behavior patterns.

But the classificatory model that DSM has been using since 1952 is harshly criticized as woefully inadequate by many scholars and practitioners. The DSM is categorical. It states on page 689 that personality disorders are qualitatively distinct clinical syndromes, but this is by no means widely accepted.

As we saw, the professionals cannot even agree or must constitute normal, and how to distinguish normal from disordered or abnormal. The DSM itself does not provide a clear threshold or a critical mass beyond which the subject, the patient, should be considered mentally ill or mentally disordered.

Moreover, the DSM's diagnostic criteria are polythetic. In other words, suffice it to satisfy only a subset of the criteria to diagnose a personality disorder in a patient.

Consequently, people who are diagnosed with the same personality disorder may share only one criterion or even none. And this diagnostic heterogeneity, this great variance, is unacceptable, not to mention non-scientific.


Elsewhere, I've dealt with the five diagnostic axes employed by the DSM to capture the way clinical syndromes such as anxiety, mood and eating disorders, general medical conditions, psychosocial and environmental problems, chronic childhood and developmental problems, and functional issues interact with personality disorders.

Yet, the DSM's laundry lists obscure rather than clarify the interactions between the various axes. As a result, the differential diagnosis that are supposed to help us distinguish one personality disorder from all others, this diagnosis, differential diagnosis, are vague. They are equivalent.

In psych parlance, the personality disorders are insufficiently demarcated. This unfortunate state of affairs leads to excessive comorbidity. In other words, multiple personality disorders are very often diagnosed in the same patient.

For instance, people with antisocial personality disorderare also very often diagnosed with narcissism, narcissistic personality disorder, or borderline personality disorder. This is an unhealthy cocktail, a mixture which proves that the DSM is unclear, equivocal, ambiguous and vague.

The DSM also fails to distinguish between personality, personality traits, character, temperament, personality style, and full-fledged personality disorder. It does not accommodate personality disorders induced by circumstances, reactive personality disorders.

For instance, Millman's proposed acquired situation of narcissism, whereby someone is rendered narcissistic for a limited period of time or into life circumstances.

The DSM also doesn't efficaciously cope with personality disorders that are the result of medical conditions, such as brain injuries, metabolic conditions, or protracted poisoning. The DSM had to resort to classifying some personality disorders as not otherwise specified.

In other words, this is a catchall, meaningless, unhelpful, and dangerously vague diagnostic category.

One of the reasons for the dismal state of the taxonomy is the dearth of research and rigorously documented clinical experience regarding both the disorders and various treatment modalities.

The DSM's other great failing is that many of the personality disorders are culture-bound. They reflect social and contemporary biases, values, and prejudices. They do not reflect authentic and invariable psychological constructs and entities which have withstood the laboratory test. They reflect the biases and prejudices and value judgments of the psychiatrists and psychologists who set on the committee that compose the DSM.

The DSM-4 distances itself from the categorical model and hints at the emergence of an alternative in the DSM-5, the dimensional approach.

It says on page 688, an alternative to the categorical approach is a dimensional perspective, that personality disorders represent maladaptive variants of personality traits that merge imperceptibly into normality and also into one another.

Now that's a helpful approach because it reflects reality far better.

The new scientist issue of December 2009 had this to say, one aim of the workgroups compiling the DSM-5 is to cut through these scales.

They are streamlining diagnosis by removing various subtypes of schizophrenia, for example, and they intend to address the confusion created by the fact that many people with one condition meet the criteria for other disorders as well.

The DSM-5 task force is expected to propose a series of dimensions to be considered with a patient's main diagnosis. As well as deciding whether someone has, say, bipolar disorder, doctors will determine whether they are suffering from problems such as anxiety and sleeping disturbances and assess them on a simple scale of severity.

According to the deliberations of the DSM-5 committee, the next edition of this work of reference, due to be published in 2013 or 14, will tackle these long neglected issues, the longitudinal course of the disorders and their temporal stability from early childhood onwards, the genetic and biological underpinnings of personality disorders, the development of personality psychopathology during childhood and its emergence in adolescence, the interactions between physical health and disease and personality disorders, and the effectiveness of various treatments, top therapies, as well as psychopharmacology in treating personality disorders.

Whatever happens, the DSM-5 is bound to be a major improvement over the murky state of things with regards to personality disorders in the DSM-4.

If you enjoyed this article, you might like the following:

Future of Personality Disorders: ICD Revolutionary, DSM Craven

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the revolution in understanding personality disorders, with the ICD-11 leading the way in revising and reforming the way personality disorders are regarded. The ICD-11 proposes a single general personality disorder severity rating and a five-domain dimensional trait model. However, the DSM-5 failed to make a similar shift due to special interest groups and is now considered behind the times compared to the ICD-11. The DSM-5 committee's lack of courage and intellectual integrity led to a messy and confusing manual that still relies on the outdated categorical model.


DSM V Alternative Model for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is the bible of the psychiatric and psychological profession. The DSM-5 provides diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but these criteria are deeply flawed and do not reflect the knowledge accumulated over the last 14 years. The DSM-5 attempts to remedy these shortcomings by proposing an alternative model of narcissism, which is more advanced than the DSM-4 but still falls short in certain areas. Overall, the DSM-5 is light years more advanced than the DSM-4 in subsuming and synthesizing current knowledge about narcissists, but there is still a long way to go.


International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) has evolved significantly since its inception, particularly in its approach to mental health disorders. The ICD-8 introduced a descriptive and operational framework but struggled with issues of comorbidity and diagnostic clarity. The ICD-10 improved upon this by incorporating extensive research and providing multiple sets of diagnostic criteria tailored for different users, including practitioners and researchers. Despite some criticisms regarding its reliability for diagnosing personality disorders, there remains potential for further development and refinement of the ICD.


Morally Insane Psychopath: A Brief History of Psychopaths and Antisocials

The concept of personality disorders began less than a hundred years ago, with the French psychiatrist Pinel coining the phrase "mal de son" to describe patients who lacked impulse control and were prone to outbursts of violence. The term "moral insanity" was widely used for almost a century, but physicians sought to replace it with something more objective and scientific. The diagnosis of psychopathy has been expanded to include people who harm and inconvenience themselves, as well as others. Today, most practitioners rely on either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or the International Classification of Diseases to diagnose personality disorders.


Shyness or Narcissism? Avoidant Personality Disorder

Avoidant personality disorder is characterized by feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and a lack of self-confidence. People with this disorder are shy and socially inhibited, and even constructive criticism is perceived as rejection. They avoid situations that require interpersonal contact and find it difficult to establish intimate relationships. The disorder affects 0.5 to 1% of the general population and is often co-diagnosed with mood and anxiety disorders, dependent and borderline personality disorders, and cluster A personality disorders.


Study: Weak Self of Covert Narcissists, Secondary Psychopaths

A study has found that individuals with Cluster B personality disorders, specifically those with dark triad traits, have a weak, unstable, and unclear sense of self. The study's authors suggest that recognizing these traits is important in predicting behaviors and avoiding destructive, impulsive, and callous behaviors. The study also found that high-level dark triad traits are associated with a weaker sense of self, regardless of gender and age. However, when analyzing sub-traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, the study found that vulnerable narcissism and secondary psychopathy are most strongly correlated with a weaker or unclear sense of self.


Borderline Woman as Dissociative Secondary Psychopath

Borderline Personality Disorder and Psychopathy may not be as different as previously thought. Recent studies suggest that Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders may be manifestations of secondary type psychopathy in women. Survivors of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) also exhibit psychopathic and narcissistic behaviors. Borderline Personality Disorder can be described as a subspecies of Dissociative Identity Disorder, with mood lability and emotional dysregulation being outward manifestations of changes in self-states.


Personality Disorders Gender Bias

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) confesses to gender bias, with personality disorders such as borderline and histrionic being more common among women, while narcissistic, antisocial, schizotypal, passive compulsive, schizoid and paranoid disorders are more prevalent among men. The reason for this gender disparity may be due to culture-bound syndromes, with personality disorders reflecting biases and value judgments of the prevailing culture. Upbringing, environment, socialization, cultural mores, and genetics may also play a role in the pathogenesis of personality disorders. Ultimately, the ambiguity and equivocation of the diagnostic criteria may be the problem, with gender bias being everywhere in the psychiatric profession.


Narcissists and Negativistic (Passive-Aggressive) Personality Disorder

Negativistic, passive-aggressive personality disorder is characterized by chronic pessimism, resistance to authority, and a tendency to undermine others in social and workplace settings. Individuals with this disorder often exhibit behaviors such as procrastination, neglect, and sabotage, while feeling unappreciated and victimized by their circumstances. They display a range of negative emotions, including irritability and envy, and often react to perceived slights with sulking or the silent treatment. Despite their obstructive behavior, they may seek forgiveness and promise change when confronted, but these promises typically go unfulfilled.


Controversial P Factor Unifying Mental Illness

The P factor is a controversial concept in psychology that suggests a common denominator to all mental disorders. It challenges the traditional approach of diagnosing people based on lists of symptoms or behaviors. The debate surrounding the P factor raises questions about the usefulness of labels and the need for customized treatments. Early intervention is key to preventing severe mental illness later in life.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2024, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2024
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy