[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.