The Narcissism Thread

Wouldn't the reason for lingering in the nest be more about economics than psychology? Millenials are poor.
 
Xanatic* said:
Wouldn't the reason for lingering in the nest be more about economics than psychology? Millenials are poor.
Click to expand...

In some cases economics will certainly be, and has always been, a contributing - if not deterministic - factor.

My point concerned folks who never manage to establish and maintain an independent life outside the nest - either because they never seriously tried or, though they'd tried, couldn't maintain it. I wasn't alluding to folks who go back and live at their original home on a temporary or transitional basis (e.g., between jobs), but rather those who (e.g.) at some point (usually still within their 20's ... ) simply retreat to the nest permanently or by the age of, say, 30 hadn't really even tried.

Similarly, I wasn't alluding to folks who spend their adult lives in the original nest as a result of their having explicitly agreed to serve as (e.g.) housekeeper / caregiver for family members. This was much more common in the earlier generations of my own family (who were fully self-sufficient farmers only 3 generations before me). This sort of explicit arrangement is rare nowadays, largely owing to the rise of professional services (e.g., nursing / retirement homes) that relieve families of the need to 'recruit internally' for such care.

On the other hand, I can point to multiple of the discretionary permanent nesters (the focus of my comments ... ) I personally knew who invoked the notion of such caregiving (in most cases wholly hypothetical and never actually performed ... ) as an excuse for their self-encapsulation back home.

The pathological cases from my own experience were not determined by economics, insofar as every one of my family members and friends (of my or later generations ... ) who've ended up permanent nesters had the credentials, demonstrated capability, and / or opportunities to live outside the nest if they so desired. In most of these cases, the individuals had lived elsewhere for a while, only to fall back into the nest (and eventually stay there ... ) at their own discretion. In some of these cases, the returning nesters maintained good-paying jobs all along, while others progressively slipped out of the workforce entirely once they'd retreated home.
 
EnolaGaia said:
My point concerned folks who never manage to establish and maintain an independent life outside the nest - either because they never seriously tried or, though they'd tried, couldn't maintain it. I wasn't alluding to folks who go back and live at their original home on a temporary or transitional basis (e.g., between jobs), but rather those who (e.g.) at some point (usually still within their 20's ... ) simply retreat to the nest permanently or by the age of, say, 30 hadn't really even tried.
Click to expand...
In the UK in the late 50's and the 1960's marriage rate rose as people sought to leave the homes of their parents. Of course these homes were small and cramped for the most part and not quite as comfortable or as well supplied with means to pass one's time. It was easier to find full time employment then, so one might set up a house-hold with some security and the knowledge there was a pension to aid you when you'd retired and an NHS to deal with illness.

Today's teens and tweens, especially those who are not highly educated or skilled struggle to find 40 hours a week at any wage - even supermarkets don't offer 40 hour contracts in the main and high-street fast food places are the same. Manufacturing work is thinner on the ground than it once was. While there are failures to launch without a doubt, and speaking as one with two tweens working as close to full time as they can get (by begging every piece of 'overtime' going), it's hard to see how they might afford any kind of residence, barring a shared house.

They pay peppercorn rent for now, they get a two year start, but progressively the rent will increase after that - I'm not putting them on the street, but I'm not subsidising them either. I was once of a mind to show them the door, kindly and firmly after a couple of years, but that would cripple them financially as things stand.
 
min_bannister said:
A webpage on 8 ways to handle a narcissist. You can get vulnerable and grandiose narcissists apparently.

......
Click to expand...

I have a sibling who shows definite vulnerable or 'covert' narcissistic traits. It's a bloody nightmare and learning techniques to cope with it like 'grey rock' are helpful. It's very sad to see someone so obviously affected and knowing you cannot 'help' them at all.

I could see it all becoming stronger and more prevalent and couldn't deny what I saw and heard (having worked previously in the mental health field). Even more sad was explaining it & prepping my mother and other sibling about the facts of the PD.
 
Last edited:
Coal said:
it's hard to see how they might afford any kind of residence, barring a shared house.
Click to expand...
I lived in shared houses for many years before getting married.

EnolaGaia said:
The pathological cases from my own experience were not determined by economics, insofar as every one of my family members and friends (of my or later generations ... ) who've ended up permanent nesters had the credentials, demonstrated capability, and / or opportunities to live outside the nest if they so desired.
Click to expand...
The scariest one I know is a woman with four children, all of whom stayed in the home. One left temporarily but moved straight back when his landlord "looked at him funny" when asking for the rent. Two of the children have since died. One is eligible for retirement this year. Mother is still alive.
 
min_bannister said:
I lived in shared houses for many years before getting married.
Click to expand...
I've done the same, but it's harder to find such!

min_bannister said:
The scariest one I know is a woman with four children, all of whom stayed in the home. One left temporarily but moved straight back when his landlord "looked at him funny" when asking for the rent. Two of the children have since died. One is eligible for retirement this year. Mother is still alive.
Click to expand...

While I've accepted it may be best to allow the tweens to live on at home, we've made it quite clear that it's not a 'given'. The grace period of low rent is aimed at getting them to work, save some money and to understand nothing is free - in truth we'd give that two years rent back to them if they go into higher education. There are also chores.

The alternative, which is no job, no rent, might well end badly...like real life.

Failing those arrangements, we'd be failing them to let them live here for free while we wait on them hand and foot. It is in effect a shared house, so everyone pulls their weight (more or less).
 
Coal said:
While I've accepted it may be best to allow the tweens to live on at home, we've made it quite clear that it's not a 'given'. The grace period of low rent is aimed at getting them to work, save some money and to understand nothing is free - in truth we'd give that two years rent back to them if they go into higher education. There are also chores.
Click to expand...
Sounds fair. If they reach retirement age though, I would suggest that is too much. :D
 
Coal said:
... While I've accepted it may be best to allow the tweens to live on at home, we've made it quite clear that it's not a 'given'. The grace period of low rent is aimed at getting them to work, save some money and to understand nothing is free - in truth we'd give that two years rent back to them if they go into higher education. There are also chores.

The alternative, which is no job, no rent, might well end badly...like real life.

Failing those arrangements, we'd be failing them to let them live here for free while we wait on them hand and foot. It is in effect a shared house, so everyone pulls their weight (more or less).
Click to expand...

Agreed ... and kudos ... The pathological instances of persistent nest-living I've witnessed didn't involve the young folks' having to meet consensus obligations and responsibilities in return for their room and board. Carrying one's own weight and / or paying for one's basic needs are key life lessons which can't be learned unless the young person is required (beyond some point) to engage in, and maintain, a quid pro quo arrangement.
 
One aspect of whatever-it-is-we-criticize-as-narcissism concerns claims that modern children are now being coddled to an extent that facilitates unwarranted positive self-assessments at the expense of admitting and correcting mistakes. This new study provides some peripherally suggestive evidence for how a persistent 'I'm-OK-and-need-not-improve' mindset affects attention to learning from mistakes as well as the prospects for such learning ...

Why Kids Should Pay Attention to Their Mistakes

Kids who think they can get smarter if they work hard are more likely to bounce back from their mistakes than those who think their level of intelligence is set in stone, a new study finds.

This may be because kids with a so-called growth mind-set, who believe intelligence is changeable, are more likely to focus on their mistakes than those with a fixed mind-set, who believe intelligence is not changeable, the researchers said. ...

"The main implication here is that we should pay close attention to our mistakes and use them as opportunities to learn," rather than glossing over mistakes, study researcher Hans Schroder, a doctoral student in psychology at Michigan State University, said in a statement. ...

The study found that children with a growth mind-set were more likely to have a larger brain response after making a mistake, compared with children who had a fixed mind-set. This suggests that children with a growth mind-set were paying more attention to their mistakes, the researchers said. What's more, children with such a mind-set were more likely to improve their accuracy on the task after they made a mistake, compared with children who had a fixed mind-set, the study showed.

The study also found that children with a fixed mind-set could still improve their accuracy on the task, but only if they paid close attention to their mistakes.

The findings may have some practical implications for parents and teachers.

"It is a seemingly natural reaction to comfort children when they make mistakes," but some ways of doing this may distract children from learning from their mistakes, the researchers said.

Instead of shying away from children's mistakes, parents and teachers could offer this advice: "Mistakes happen, so let's try to pay attention to what went wrong and figure it out," Schroder said.

The study was published online Jan. 16 in the journal Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.
Click to expand...


SOURCE: http://www.livescience.com/57700-kids-mistakes-brain.html
 
These Cognitive studies will be ransacked for the next wave of marking-strategies. Anxiety about receiving a blunt cross in the margin will be replaced by "How many improvement-points short of an almost-adequate rating on the monthly star-chart am I, Sir?" or, much more likely, "Effoff. I've got my Opportunity-Reflect chill-card, so I'm outta your rubbish class free, you posh c...t!" :rolleyes:
 
EnolaGaia said:
One aspect of whatever-it-is-we-criticize-as-narcissism concerns claims that modern children are now being coddled to an extent that facilitates unwarranted positive self-assessments at the expense of admitting and correcting mistakes. This new study provides some peripherally suggestive evidence for how a persistent 'I'm-OK-and-need-not-improve' mindset affects attention to learning from mistakes as well as the prospects for such learning ...

SOURCE: http://www.livescience.com/57700-kids-mistakes-brain.html
Click to expand...
Circles back to my concern about how relentless praise for everything produced by children irrespective of quality, doesn't teach reliance or confidence, rather a reluctance to to tackle any activity where failure might be possible, plus a tendency to not stretch oneself.

You get outwardly confident people who never try anything they might fail at.

Personal growth absolutely needs trial and error and continued learning. If you're educating, it's essential to teach that it's OK to make a mistake if one learns from it.

UK society as a whole over demonises mistakes, so much harm is done in the name of not admitting mistakes.
 
Something I have only just heard about is the Milkshake Duck. Milkshake Duck is a cute duck who drinks milkshakes. The video goes viral and everyone loves Milkshake Duck. Then it is discovered that Milkshake Duck is racist. Everyone hates Milkshake Duck.

More about the Milkshake Duck phenomenon here on the BBC

I posted it here because the phenomenon is actually a symptom of narcissism. The idea that someone who has been built up to be a perfect hero without actually any evidence, and who then turns out to be less than perfect is enraging to the narcissistically inclined. They have projected all of their hopes and fears onto this one hapless person who asked a question on TV while wearing a red jumper. He is to be their leader! Then it turns out that the Shining One has a dull patch and they fight to be the one to tear him down the most ruthlessly as he is no longer worthy.

I think it fits in with the phobia about making mistakes mentioned above. It is particularly awful because people nowadays get onto the internet very young and every stupid childish thing they wrote has the potential to come back and haunt them when they enter the job market. I can't remember enough details to find the story but there was a young woman a couple of years ago who was employed by parliament (I think) as a sort of young persons advocate. Then once her engagement had been announced publically, it mysteriously "emerged" that she had posted a couple of tweets with racist words in them when she was 14. She lost the job. Imagine having every stupid thing you said when you were 14 flung back in your face for all eternity! Horrible.
 
There's another angle - more straightforward and not mutually exclusive - on a linkage between narcissism and the Milkshake Duck phenomenon.

This is the notion that one's cheap (as in 'talk is cheap') expression of approval or rejection is worthwhile solely because it was expressed. There's more than a whiff of narcissism in the presumption online users worldwide surely give a rat's ass about one's opinion. This stench is amplified by the presumption an opinion worthy of credit need not consist of anything more substantive than a cursory action demonstrating nothing beyond the ability and willingness to follow the rest of the herd.

It's analogous to a certain animal leaping to its death under the conceit it's acting meaningfully in everyone else's eyes, even though it's really doing nothing more than mindlessly chasing the butts of the similarly-clueless lemmings out front.
 
EnolaGaia said:
There's more than a whiff of narcissism in the presumption online users worldwide surely give a rat's ass about one's opinion. This stench is amplified by the presumption an opinion worthy of credit need not consist of anything more substantive than a cursory action demonstrating nothing beyond the ability and willingness to follow the rest of the herd.
Click to expand...
Good point. Social media seems to have amplified and twisted a normal human trait. Discussing opinions is a normal human thing. It is nice to find someone who shares your opinion. When that happens on an enormous scale because you tweeted it to your one thousand followers rather than said it to a couple of friends in the pub, it must be pretty addictive. Things going viral on a huge scale is very new. Thus you suddenly have the case that a perfectly normal person going about their business can suddenly become an internet sensation. Then once they do, have their life wrecked when someone finds something slightly unsavoury in their past. It is very extreme behaviour and unlikely to lead to anything good.
 
EnolaGaia said:
This stench is amplified by the presumption an opinion worthy of credit need not consist of anything more substantive than a cursory action demonstrating nothing beyond the ability and willingness to follow the rest of the herd.
Click to expand...
People are herd and social creatures, this type of behaviour is to be expected on one level. We all of us try to fit in and not rock the boat to some degree. "Me to" behaviour is the go-to social behaviour for the majority of us. It avoids conflict and being part of a group (any group) feels good.

Min Bannister said:
Good point. Social media seems to have amplified and twisted a normal human trait. Discussing opinions is a normal human thing. It is nice to find someone who shares your opinion. When that happens on an enormous scale because you tweeted it to your one thousand followers rather than said it to a couple of friends in the pub, it must be pretty addictive.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I put on another thread, social media acts to provide positive feedback for almost any zany idea, due in part to very large numbers engaged with said social media, which provide a significant amount of positive feedback for almost any stupid thing.

This is opposite of how people learn to behave (and do behave) in normal society. That is if you act like a twat with real people, you can expect to be socially censured. This is how we learn not to be twats.

People haven't changed since we had social media, but nature of peoples interactions with social media is causing changes in the way some people act. Facebook (et al) have something to answer for.
 
Coal said:
People are herd and social creatures, this type of behaviour is to be expected on one level. We all of us try to fit in and not rock the boat to some degree. "Me to" behaviour is the go-to social behaviour for the majority of us. It avoids conflict and being part of a group (any group) feels good.



Exactly. As I put on another thread, social media acts to provide positive feedback for almost any zany idea, due in part to very large numbers engaged with said social media, which provide a significant amount of positive feedback for almost any stupid thing.

This is opposite of how people learn to behave (and do behave) in normal society. That is if you act like a twat with real people, you can expect to be socially censured. This is how we learn not to be twats.

People haven't changed since we had social media, but nature of peoples interactions with social media is causing changes in the way some people act. Facebook (et al) have something to answer for.
Click to expand...

I call this ‘Shoaling and Emoting’. I’m not sure some posters believe the sentiments they’re putting out there but the main aim is trawling for likes to bolster self worth. It’s all a bit pathetic really. Thanks again Facebook.
 
jimv1 said:
I’m not sure some posters believe the sentiments they’re putting out there but the main aim is trawling for likes to bolster self worth.
Click to expand...
Siriusly!! That is the biggest load of shite written in the 19 years of this board. I take it personal like. I am angry with you for actual. I mean it. Go back over my last several years of posting and tell me I'm rong!

 
skinny said:
Siriusly!! That is the biggest load of shite written in the 19 years of this board. I take it personal like. I am angry with you for actual. I mean it. Go back over my last several years of posting and tell me I'm rong!
Click to expand...
:rollingw::rollingw:

Ok 'if you insist'. To the chimes of Big Ben then...
Wrong wrong wrong wronnng,
Wrong wrong wrong wrong,
Wrong wrong wrong wrong,
Wrong wrong wrong wronnnng,
WRONG,
WRONG,
WRONG,
WRONG,
WRONG,

:cool2:

(I know you're kidding @skinny I couldn't resist the gag.)
 
..It's analogous to a certain animal leaping to its death under the conceit it's acting meaningfully in everyone else's eyes, even though it's really doing nothing more than mindlessly chasing the butts of the similarly-clueless lemmings out front..

Of course, it's very possible that the lemming hasn't the faintest idea that it is leaping to it's death.

The is one school of thought that thinks it is automatically following a migration route that didn't originally have a death-dealing drop.

Always a bit risky giving animals human characteristics like altruism.

INT21
 
...Then once her engagement had been announced publically, it mysteriously "emerged" that she had posted a couple of tweets with racist words in them when she was 14. She lost the job. Imagine having every stupid thing you said when you were 14 flung back in your face for all eternity! Horrible.

It could be argued that she fell at the first post.

She should have known that the internet never forgets.

After all, we are constantly being told that the young are so much more computer savvy that the old.

It's exquisitely Darwinian.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
It could be argued that she fell at the first post.

She should have known that the internet never forgets.
Click to expand...
Why would she know that? Children have notoriously poor judgement. For a fourteen year old, leaving school is too far into the future to be bothered with. Never mind predicting that you might be employed by the government some day and that someone would sit going through all your old tweets.
 
Min,

..Children have notoriously poor judgement...

Exactly.

It's just more evidence why you should not give adult responsibility to those who are too young to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

Would you want 16 year olds voting on such things as which party is in power when at least one of the parties would scrap our nuclear deterrent ?

The voting age is low enough as it is, but labour in particular, would bring it further down to get a few votes.

The young are easily led and by definition inexperienced.

INT21
 
skinny said:
Siriusly!! That is the biggest load of shite written in the 19 years of this board. I take it personal like. I am angry with you for actual. I mean it. Go back over my last several years of posting and tell me I'm rong!

Click to expand...

I guess everyone’s going to get some social media hate at some point. But I’d be careful. Santa reads this site you know.
 
Min Bannister said:
Why would she know that? Children have notoriously poor judgement. For a fourteen year old, leaving school is too far into the future to be bothered with. Never mind predicting that you might be employed by the government some day and that someone would sit going through all your old tweets.
Click to expand...

I say give the little fuckers the vote. Just for shits and giggles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top