[hoopladler]

As a fairly young guy, I think a lot of the fallout over narcissism is really a kind of sublimated culture shift.

Before about 1975, unemployment was typically under 5%, and underemployment or precarious employment was far more rare. Social safety nets (for white people, at least) existed and were strong. University wasn't terribly expensive, and the chances of getting a job that delivered an acceptable standard of life was really quite high.

This meant that, with their basic needs essentially met, generations born before a certain point tended to concern themselves with ideas like self-growth, fulfillment, and personal goals.

Between 1975 and 2008, those concerns became increasingly displaced by survival-level thinking, as unemployment ticked steadilly up, and jobs generally grew more time-consuming, and less well paid, while commodities and rents of all kinds increased.

I think for a lot of young people, there's a kind of fallacious misidentification between the concerns of older generations, and narcissism. To obsess over abstract personal concerns to the point that basic needs are not met is narcissitic - and if somebody of a generation that went into the workplace following 2008 obsessed over personal concerns to the degree that the older generations do, it would absolutely impact their abillity to cater to their basic needs.

However, because older generations are typically in a good financial situation, having profited both from the pre-80's social contract, and often, from its disassembly - it's not at all narcissitic to care about personal concerns! It's absolutely rational - they aren't going to become homeless if they decide to go on a buddhist retreat, or engage in a messy divorce, or start a new career.

Narcissism gets picked out as a culprit since it's a way to both categorically assert that a different way of life is wrong, and equally, to lay the blame for the current situation at the feat of our proximate frustrators - the boss, the mentor, the parent.

[c8d3f7b49897918]

> However, because older generations are typically in a good financial situation, having profited both from the pre-80's social contract, and often, from its disassembly - it's not at all narcissitic to care about personal concerns! It's absolutely rational - they aren't going to become homeless if they decide to go on a buddhist retreat, or engage in a messy divorce, or start a new career.

Thank you for your earnest and thoughtful post.

I'd like to say that it is to some extent narcissistic to sacrifice future generation's wellbeing to satisfy present desires and I think it is reasonable for millennials too accuse baby boomers and, to a lesser extent, genX'rs of that fault. I am an X'er and, admitting their faults, I get upset when I hear millennials held up for undo scorn, given the cards they have been dealt.

[squozzer]

Xers were cast as cynical and fatalistic. And I think often when one's desires are presented as harmful to the future, it helps to look at the source of the framing.

[Robotbeat]

It is pretty narcissistic if older generations, now having accumulated wealth and political/economic power, leave younger generations to fend for themselves with a big bill that they've racked up (environmental, underinvestment in infrastructure, large national debt, destruction of social safety nets of all sorts, consolidation of bargaining power in the hands of capital instead of labor, etc) while they pursue personal pleasures.

[TheOtherHobbes]

In psychology narcissism is defined by a well-defined syndrome of behaviours.

Trashing the planet for future generation is certainly reprehensible and not particularly clever, but it isn't narcissism in the official psychological sense. (DSM edits aside.)

The three two most telling indicators of narcissism are baseless entitlement, grandiosity, and lack of empathy.

I know someone who was married to someone with strongly narcissistic traits, and when she developed breast cancer he told her that it was "just a lump" and she shouldn't worry about it - and in fact sane people didn't worry about things they way she did, and why couldn't she just sort herself out? [1]

That's narcissism. There's always an element of aggressive, emotionally violent condescension that tips it past simple thoughtlessness and self-absorption into emotional or even physical abuse.

Examples abound in politics and business. Mildly narcissist CEOs assume everyone in a company exists to benefit them financially, and has no claim on an individual life. Less mild narcissists reinforce the point with public put-downs (sometimes masquerading as code reviews) and tyrannical and abusive working practices.

The tragedy of our political and financial systems is that they reward and reinforce these behaviours. Having no empathy makes it much easier to be "financially successful", and entire industries - finance, politics, and to some extent law, marketing, and entertainment - seem to have a questionable fondness for promoting and idolising people with narcissistic traits.

(Not convinced? When was the last time you saw a news item about someone being exceptionally empathic or thoughtful? How often are people actively selected to practice empathy or kindness on a national level?)

This is a cross-generational problem. I'm (informally) convinced that narcissists should be disqualified from public office or from company management - but of course in practice it's probably impossible to make that work in a way that doesn't infringe on individual rights. So we need a better solution, and I have no idea what that might be.

[1] She left him and recovered from the cancer, but only after delaying treatment for more than six months.

[hoopladler]

>Trashing the planet for future generation is certainly reprehensible and not particularly clever, but it isn't narcissism in the official psychological sense. (DSM edits aside.)

I absolutely agree. My point is more that, the hidden criterion in basically every entry in the DSM is, can they make it work?

If you're in and out of jail, psychiatric care, or homeless shelters, you're far more likely to be of interest to a psychiatrist than somebody who is 'high-functioning', simply because the notion of treatment only makes sense in the context of suffering, and treatment only works if the patient actively participates.

My point wasn't that older generations are narcissistic. It's simply that, those in younger generations who have the same mindset probably would be - since you would find them in the aforementioned homeless shelters, or at the very least, in deeply dysfunctional material circumstances.

Equally, as culture shifts, so do attitudes towards what we consider appropriate empathy, self-love, grandiosity, or self-involvement.

So across the generational divide, sound strategies like 'follow your heart' become things that only people who are severly, practically dysfunctional would say - since it's neither in keeping with the material circumstances of the new generation, nor in keeping with their discourse.

EDIT: I just realized I thought you were responding to me, then realized you were responding to the poster above.

[dragonwriter]

> My point is more that, the hidden criterion in basically every entry in the DSM is, can they make it work?

That's usually not hidden; criteria involving degree of social problems are associated with other of the symptoms are openly part of the criteria for many disorders.

[hoopladler]

Sure - but I think it's understated how important that stuff is. If you go into a psychiatrists office looking like a mess, you're absolutely, by the book, going to be more likely to accrue a diagnosis. This isn't a critique of psychiatry - it's just a natural result of the DSM being a statistical manual.

It also makes any notion of 'absolute' personality disorder a kind of contradiction in terms.

[TheCoelacanth]

How does using resources unsustainably at the expense of future generations not indicate baseless entitlement and a lack of empathy?

[sheepmullet]

> How often are people actively selected to practice empathy or kindness on a national level?

How much of this is highly empathetic people opting out?

I was an emotional wreck for close to a month when I had to layoff half my team.

And in the grand scheme of things I'm not particularly empathetic and laying people off is nothing compared to the choices made at a national level.

[maemilius]

Actually, I would argue that what you did was more difficult, emotionally, than what goes on in government.

You had a personal relationship with those people and you were put into a position where you had to, in a way, harm them. I would argue that most people in politics don't have anywhere near that level of personal connection with the people they affect which makes it much easier to rationalize and justify.

[Bucephalus355]

I really appreciated your post.

There is a trend I notice where current generations use the strategy of the last generation in order to live their lives.

In a sense, they’re using strategies / ways of thinking that are often 30 years out of date.

Since narcissism is such a well known issue now, I wonder if in the future there will be a “crisis of conformity” like there was in the 50’s? Maybe going to Law School will be considered a sound investment, or the mid-west will once again be the place to live. It makes you wonder if it’s all an endless cycle of old trend, new trend, countertrend, and so on.

[grasshopperpurp]

Yes, art works this way, too. Everything is a reaction to a reaction. We're constantly trying to find balance - rarely achieving it on an individual level, likely never achieving it on a societal level.

*perfect balance

[gt_]

I agree. I just feel like elaborating on my understanding of this.

And, as in art, success requires a mix of past combined with strategic changes to what is understood of the current contextual state, which is dependent on individual conscience for accuracy, or enlightenment. Societies do not have a conscience beyond the sum of individuals who influence it’s character. Once they become influential, they establish behaviors that resemble ‘lack of conscience’ as a norm. Although individuals acknowledge the narcissistic norms, gaining influence requires conformity with them. It takes a keen and educated bunch to break the trend, hence an Enlightenment.

[rdiddly]

I dunno if I buy the separation of "survival concerns" and "personal concerns." There are narcissistic ways of responding to survival concerns. In fact some responses are more advantageous in meeting those concerns than the less-narcissistic responses.

[dasil003]

> Before about 1975, unemployment was typically under 5%...

Between 1945 and 1975 American enjoyed an unprecendented period post-war prosperity owing to the destruction of the rest of the newly industrialized world. This was not the case before and will never be the case again.

[hoopladler]

I'm not the biggest fan of Keynes, myself. I'm assuming that's what you're referencing - since of course, the rest of the industrialized world also enjoyed unprecedented prosperity.

But for my sakes, I honestly think the idea that blowing stuff up just so you can build them again is a bit more abstract than the question demands. After the war, many nations, the USA included, produced large and comprehensive social programs. This undoubtedly wasn't that great for the economy in general (the US share of global GDP steadilly ticked down for the entire period, putting an end to a century of rapid growth). It was however, undoubtedly great for Americans in general.

Between 1975 and today, until a few years ago, American share of world GDP hasn't gone down all that much, indeed, it's descended less than it did in the period between 1945 and 1975. The USA is richer as a nation than it has been at any point in its history. It's simply unwilling to pay for all the New Deal stuff.

[marcosdumay]

> prosperity owing to the destruction of the rest of the newly industrialized world prosperity owing to the destruction of the rest of the newly industrialized world. I get that you are implying the prosperity came from competitive advantages. But it is hard to believe that the destruction of most of the world did in fact power the 50's and 60's growth.

There are several competing theories, and even taking international competitiveness into account, bankrupting your clients isn't a good way to grow.

[perl4ever]

It is not the case that "before about 1975 unemployment was typically under 5%". Especially if you are alluding to the 1970-75 period.

See: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Edit: nor did unemployment go "steadily up" from 1975 to 2008.