[steev]

I am completely baffled by this response. At a minimum, that is not what narcissistic means in any sense of the word. I cannot understand how trying to improve yourself, whether as a research, programmer, or just general human being, makes one "narcissistic." I would love to understand this if you care to explain.

Imagine having to work with someone that judges based on your education rather than you as an individual! Probably something only a PhD would do, right? :)

[mjburgess]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism

> The meaning of narcissism has changed over time. Today narcissism "refers to an interest in or concern with the self along a broad continuum, from healthy to pathological ... including such concepts as self-esteem, self-system, and self-representation, and true or false self".[2]

PhDs typically have, as an aspect of their core identity, their role as a scientist/philosopher/(..researcher) (cf. doctors being doctors, etc.).

Concern with excellence in this dimension then can often lead to narcissistic injury (aka., a threat to self-esteem, ego, etc.). ie., to fail to be excellent is a threat to one's identity. It makes the whole affair rather fraught.

Contrast with one's life passion being, say, a parent -- or a volunteer. A passionate volunteer is typically a less bitter pursuit, insofar as ones "psychological economy" depends only in sacrifice which is under one's control.

The bitterness of the PhD world, which I observe, frequently comes with this cycle: I am a philosopher; I am an excellent philosopher; but some other PhD is better than me; so I am not the best philosopher; so I am a terrible philosopher; but I must be the best philosopher etc.

And so on in ruminative cycles.

....

The building up of one's own intellect, one's own skill, one's own ... is a narcissistic (self-oriented) project. The pursuit engages in a significant amount of material and emotional sacrifice for the sake of internal intellectual gratification.

It is useful for society that such people exist: those who act to further their own ability to such (prima facie) pathological and self-destructive ends. Those caught up in it, however, are often rather bitter about it.

[scott_s]

Most people understand "narcissism" to be pathological behavior. If you use it to not mean pathological behavior, most people are likely to not understand you.

[dahart]

I’d be careful with “most people” claims. A narcissist is in the dictionary as “a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.” That includes above average, not limited to a pathology (which people who are not doctors are unable to diagnose). I’m certain I’ve heard and/or said something along the lines of ‘oh he’s a bit narcissistic’ multiple times in my life. Having completed an advanced degree, I’ve met quite a few researchers I think are reasonably described as being a little narcissistic about their work.

[scott_s]

If you object to the word "pathological," then substitute "behavior with some negative impact on others."

[dahart]

I object to projecting your own personal non-dictionary definitions on others. Are you thinking of clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder? That is not the same thing as Narcissism.

[scott_s]

My personal usage and understanding is quite close to the dictionary definition (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narcissism): inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. Those are not positive traits, which goes back to my original point: if you use the term not intending to imply something negative about the person, you're likely to confuse others. That confusion is why this subthread exists.