Hello, dwindling survivors of my channel.
Today you're going to watch a commentary on an article published recently in March 2024. The article was authored, written by Orth, O'R-T-H, back, and it was published a few months.
It is titled Development of narcissism across the lifespan: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. It was published in Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association, and there's a link in the bibliography, in the literature part in the description.
The article actually claims that some, one, possibly two, traits of narcissism mellow with age, as the narcissist gets older, he becomes less antagonistic and more empathic.
Moreover, this doesn't apply to all narcissists, and the variability between narcissists remains. Plus, the change, the amelioration, the reduction in antagonism, and the increase in empathy are super minimal. One could saymicroscopic.
So this is what the article claims.
Now the title of the article is very misleading because it says development of narcissism when actually the article definitely discusses traits of narcissism, not narcissism as a diagnosis or a disorder in its totality.
Consequently, the media has picked up on it and published its own renditions of this academic article saying narcissism mellows with age and other such nonsense, I regret to say.
So here's a commentary about academia, the addiction to fame and celebrity among academicians, theoreticians, scholars, and researchers, the corruption of science by the need to be famous for 15 minutes, the interface between media and science, which is not always wholly or whole or pure, the mistakes, methodological mistakes, substantial and very worrying methodological mistakes, the rising tide of meta-analysis and what's wrong with it, the nine traits or trait domains of narcissism and how they change with time over the lifespan as the narcissists gets older.
I'll give you a hint. Only two of them change. Seven others don't. Empathy does not, most definitely. Antagonism does.
And other topics which are tangential in some way, but also very critical to the continuing study of narcissism.
The flippant mentality of YouTube has invaded academia. And we are getting studies about dark empaths, eyebrows of narcissists, and other such unmitigated drivel. We are also getting studies which are not studies at all. They are kind of scavenging of previous studies.
And the totality of studies on narcissism is egregiously lacking in rigor and methodology.
So welcome to the party and have fun.
I've come to a shocking realization, devastating in effect.
I discovered that academics, scholars, researchers, professors, are not immune to the temptations of instant celebrity guaranteed by churning out a study about narcissism.
Self-styled experts abound not only in YouTube, but also in the ivory towers of academe.
First, a methodological note. There is a ginormous difference between a real study, also known as randomized trial with a control group. That's a real study, and that's the only form of a real study, a rigorous, vigorous, vigorous study, which we could rely on.
So there's a difference between this and a population study. And there is an even bigger difference between a randomized trial and a meta-analysis.
All the rage recently is meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis are not studies. Meta-analysis are lazy, parasitic endeavors, because a meta-analysis is simply a statistical review of previous studies conducted by others, a form of academic scavenging.
The Cochrane training program has this to say about meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis have the potential to mislead seriously, particularly if specific study designs, within study biases, variation across studies, and reporting biases are not carefully considered, which usually they are not.
Recently, a study has been published, and my diatribe is not directed at this study in particular, although it's a pertinent example of the corruption of academic work that I'm referring to.
My vitriol is directed at the totality of recent endeavors in academia, total endeavors which yielded nonsense like dark empaths and all kinds of things whose sole intention is to attract the attention of the media and of the YouTube crowds. Sole intention is to garner 15 minutes of fame and celebrity.
So here are some problems with this recent study, which has been reported obviously by the BBC and these problems pertain to most other studies and meta-analysis about narcissism now you can see the bibliographic reference to the study in the description I will not name it in order to not shame it, but it's there if you want to have a look.
What are the methodological and essential problems with this study and with most overwhelming vast majority of other studies and meta-analysis that deal with narcissism, huge portion of which, about 80%, cannot be replicated. This is known as a replication crisis.
What are the problems?
Number one, these studies are not randomized trials, which is a very gentle way of saying they're bloody useless.
Number two, many of these studies, many of the researchers use proprietary tests and questionnaires. Proprietary interview, structured interviews. Everything is invented for the sake of the so-called study.
The only problem is that these ostensible tests, alleged structured interview, these new vehicles of deciphering the human mind are not validated.
Not validated is again a fancy way of saying, they're not valid.
And so every time I open a study about narcissism, there's this new invention, a new test, a new classification, something new, a novelty.
Well, novelty is very good. It drives science forward, but it has to be based on randomized trials, and it has to be validated internally and externally.
And in 99% of the studies that I've read, no such validation has taken place.
Therefore, the tools and instruments used in these studies are not valid, which renders of course the studies invalid.
Next point.
Many of these studies include children and adolescents.
I cannot over-emphasize narcissism in childhood and adolescence is healthy. It is a foundation of self-esteem and self-confidence. It is the cornerstone of the formation of identity, especially positive identity.
Without narcissism, we would fall apart, we would never develop, never evolve into adults.
We cannot, and I have to emphasize this, I have to repeat this, we cannot and should not diagnose narcissistic personality disorder in anyone under the age of 18 and probably 21 or even 25 according to Twenge and Campbell anywhere between 18 and 25 we should absolutely absolutely not diagnose pathological narcissism in children and adolescents.
It's a powerful indicator of ignorance, misnomer, a powerful indicator of nonsense, BS meter, beeps alarmingly when I see a study which incorporates cohorts and populations under the age of 18.
For example, I've seen studies with children aged 8.
Insane. Simply insane.
And flies in the face of everything we know about the evolution of pathological narcissism across the lifespan.
Next I couldn't find a single study one out of hundreds that have inspected including the 250 to 250 studies used recently by a few meta-analysis.
I couldn't find a single study. One, one redeeming study in which the population studied was comprised of people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder without any comorbidities.
If you study someone who has narcissistic personality disorder and also borderline personality disorder, if you study someone who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder but also has a mood disorder, your results are contaminated. There's very little you can learn from this.
You need to find people who have been diagnosed only with narcissistic personality disorder, no comorbidities of any kind from any axis in the DSM, are willing to participate in a randomized trial and are collaborative.
There are no such narcissists.
People diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder are extremely unlikely to participate in studies unless somehow their grandiosity is triggered, provoked and rewarded.
Consequently, 99% of these studies do not incorporate people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder do not and yet they dare imply that their outcomes their results apply to the very population they have not been studying that is beyond corruption that is is fraud. This is fraudulent.
Most of the studies, most of the subjects in the studies, I'm sorry, were people with what we call narcissistic style, Lynn Sperry's work, narcissistic style, and or people with subclinical narcissism, kind of narcissism that cannot be diagnosed. For example, in dark triad and dark tetrad personalities.
These people participated in the studies were subjected to non-validated instruments and tests.
And now, you take people who are not narcissists, you subject them to tests and instruments that have never been validated, and you come out with bombastic pronouncements about narcissists, which you have not studied.
This is shocking. This is beyond shocking.
And of course the media lap it up, because narcissism is a hot button topic, it's sexy.
And so the media is hungry for such so-called studies, pseudo studies, fake studies. They're hungry for this. And this guarantees 15 minutes of celebrity to the renowned researcher or scholar who has come up with a study of non-narcissists as a proxy for narcissists.
I don't know what. It's insane. The picture is insane. I would dare, I would even say that there's more misinformation and ignorance in the academic sphere than on YouTube.
Honestly.
Next.
In all the studies that I've seen, let me qualify this, in all the recent studies that I've seen, the subjects studied, the people studied were from industrialized countries they hailed from rich countries they were white the overwhelming majority were male and very often they were college students this is the definition of a non-representative sample.
This alone invalidates all the results.
You cannot study a sub, sub, sub, sub, sub, sub, sub sub population and generalize for the total population.
You cannot study, for example, 20 year olds in Mumbai and generalize about 20 years, 20 years old all over the world. You can't do that. You can't study rich, affluent, white, male kids in college and then generalize from that to all of humanity or to a group, to a cohort, to a population, for example, narcissists. You cannot do this.
This is an utter methodological failure.
Next, many of the studies come up with their own arbitrary, idiosyncratic classifications of narcissism.
Neurotic narcissism, this narcissism, that narcissism, there's a proliferation, which is a very bad sign, by the way, because if there is proliferation of entities, the so-called science, the pseudoscience of psychology is not parsimonious. It does not adhere to Occam's razor. In other ways, it's not scientific.
So, every study I read comes up with a new classifications of narcissists, phallic, neurotic, antagonistic, this, that, we recognize only two basic forms of narcissism.
Overt grandiose and covert fragile.
End of story. All the rest in nonsense. All the rest, all the classifications of narcissists, all the other classifications which do not adhere to this binary classification.
They are not about narcissism in its totality, they're about traits.
In other words, in many studies, there's a confusion between trait domains, traits of narcissism, and total narcissism.
Antagonism is not narcissism. There's no such thing as antagonistic narcissists.
Antagonism is one of nine traits of narcissism. Nine.
Saying antagonistic narcissists is like saying green cucumber, more or less. It's nonsense. It's ignorant.
Confusing trait domains with the diagnosis indicates that you don't know what you're talking about, as simple as that.
So arbitrary idiosyncratic classifications are the bane of studies of narcissism in academia.
Everyone and his dog is coming up with a new classification, totally confusing traits with disorders.
Therefore, online, for example, you have people with academic degrees who spew nonsense because they are not experts on narcissism. They present themselves as experts on narcissism. They are not.
And they say, for example, all psychopaths are narcissists because they confuse narcissism with grandiosity.
Grandiosity is a trait of narcissism. It's not narcissism. The totality of narcissism is much larger than grandiosity. And so many psychopaths are grandiose. It doesn't make them narcissists.
Confusion between disorder or diagnosis with and traits. Don't confuse traits with the totality.
There are nine clinical features and traits, confuse traits with the totality.
There are nine clinical features and traits domains of narcissism. And again, there are only two types of narcissism. Overt, grandiose and covert fragile.
End of story. There's no need to add any additional classifications.
And of course, everyone is confusing the traits of narcissism with narcissism. Huge mistake, methodological mistake.
What are the traits?
What are the nine clinical features?
Number one, a lack of empathy. A lack of empathy is lifelong. No, there is no possibility to learn empathy. No, you cannot develop empathy late in life. No, you cannot learn to become empathy. Enough with the nonsense.
Number two, fear of intimacy, also known as insecure attachment style.
The narcissists are incapable of being intimate with other people because they don't recognize people as external or separate and they don't care about other people. Except as far as what these people can do for them.
So narcissists care about sex, services, supply, and so on. But they don't care about this service provider. They care about this service.
Number three, a disturbed or diffuse identity. There's a problem. There's been a disruption in the formation of a self or an ego or a core identity. Doesn't matter how you call it. There's been a disruption in the formation of the narcissists.
So the narcissist doesn't have a stable identity, exactly like the borderline.
Number four, attention-seeking behaviors.istic supply enough said
Number five, grandiosity. Grandiosity is a cognitive distortion. It's a cognitive distortion. It involves impaired reality testing. The narcissist perceives himself or herself in inflated fantastic terms and imposes these inflated fantastic terms on others. That's a cognitive distortion.
Number six, I think, an anankastia. Anankastia is a fancy name for obsessive-compulsive features.
Next, negative affectivity. Negative affectivity means the narcissist is capable of experiencing only negative emotions, such as anger, envy, hatred, and so on. Not positive emotions, only negative emotions. Negative affectivity, that's in the ICD11.
Negative affectivity includes fragility, a sense of inferiority, what other theoreticians called the bad internalized bed object, what used to be called the primitive super ego, in a harsh inner critic, doesn't matter how you call it. There are voices inside the narcissists which generate a lot of negativity. So that's a feature of narcissism.
Next, dissociality. Dissociality is the term used in the ICD 11, which in the DSM, we use the word antisocial. So dissociality is simply antisocial, antisocial behavior, antisocial traits, and so and so forth.
And finally, antagonism, being prone to conflict, being prone to disagreement, being prone to externalized aggression, especially verbal aggression.
These are the nine traits. Of these nine traits, only the last two, dissociality or antisocial features and antagonism. Only these two mellow with age, but this is not because the narcissist is learning from his experience.
Narcissists are incapable of learning. It's probably because of biological reasons.
How do we know that?
The same process exactly of amelioration, mellowing is happening in psychopathy and in borderline personality disorder. Both psychopaths and people with borderline personality disorder become much less aggressive, much less antisocial and much less antagonistic as they age.
Something is happening in the brain.
Narcissists, psychopaths and borderlines, all of them become less conflictual, less in your face, less defiant, less contumacious, less antisocial, less dissocial, less antagonistic with age.
And we know that in psychopathy and borderline, there's a very powerful genetic, hereditary, biological component.
So it stands to reason that the same applies in narcissism. End of story.
All the rest are ill-founded speculations intended to attract the media attention. The whole field is corrupted with this.
Money, fame, celebrity, and the outcomes are as devastating as the nonsense spewed online.
When people came up with the idiotic label empaths, there were a few, luckily only very few academics who jumped on the bandwagon and started to talk about empaths, dark empaths and this empath and that empath.
There's no such thing as empathy. It's nonsense. There's no such clinical entity.
And yet there are academics who subvert their moral obligation. There are academics who compromise and prostitute themselves for the sake of fame and celebrity.
That is extremely unfortunate.