Self-victimhood is a personality type, researchers find(reason.com)
reason.com
Self-victimhood is a personality type, researchers find
https://reason.com/2020/12/10/tendency-for-interpersonal-victimhood-trauma-research-study-trigger/
57 comments
Hasn’t narcissism long been thought to have two forms: superiority and inferiority? Lots of behavioral overlap but basically opposite causality.
There was an interesting comment the other day from a person who was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25348799
Narcissists play the victim when it's convenient to them, they also feel victim in circumstances where they don't get what they want; but make no mistake: they are not victims by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd never heard it before, but it seems pretty obvious after reading this article.
Is this a genuine personality type or a reaction to incentives?
We're in an era which celebrates weakness and perceived victimhood over strength and perseverance, and rewards quite richly with attention, position, status, financial benefits, etc.
It's therefore not unsurprising there's no shortage of grifters willing to play the act in the pursuit of those incentives, whether actively (narcissists) or subliminally optimizing (TIV?) for the path of least resistance.
We get what we deserve or alternatively we get what we reward.
We're in an era which celebrates weakness and perceived victimhood over strength and perseverance, and rewards quite richly with attention, position, status, financial benefits, etc.
It's therefore not unsurprising there's no shortage of grifters willing to play the act in the pursuit of those incentives, whether actively (narcissists) or subliminally optimizing (TIV?) for the path of least resistance.
We get what we deserve or alternatively we get what we reward.
I've first met with people which fit to this template ~20 years ago. One of them transformed to a complete narcissistic personality after fixing his/her self-esteem deficiency, another one became lost in life. The last one made me see a shrink (this was the best match to the template given in the article).
So grifting is personality type? :)
I am glad there is a study behind this. However, I feel that it is too late to change victim hood culture though. It has become pervasive in society and the general mindset has changed already. We used to praise those who overcame obstacles, now we blame them for not giving up and joining the defeated.
This is about a personality type, not a culture. Using it as a tool to bludgeon folks who have actually been victimized would be wrong.
It's not clear that feeling like a victim is ever a good approach to life and maybe a bit of bludgeoning would help in the long run. No matter how bad things are because of someone harming you, it can be just as bad because of nobody's fault. For example, born with a disability vs acquired on from an assault or unemployed because of discrimination or unemployed because of lack of ability. The outcome is the same and perhaps we should be encouraging all people to make the best of their lives and not suffer from feelings of vengeance and blame.
The actual paper does conflate the personality type with the culture (i.e. intergroup conflict), at least in the first section, "The psychological dimensions of TIV: an integrative literature". See https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.11013... I think that's what the reporting is picking up on.
It actually made me curious what evidence there is, if any, in the domain of psychology showing a meaningful connection between individual personalities and cultural analogs, beyond a cultural phenomenon that is superficially similar simply making for a more hospital environment for the personality type, or vice-versa. In other words, by studying one (personality type or cultural phenomenon) can we draw substantive conclusions about the other in terms of genesis or remediation? We (as humans) love making such equivocations, but absent strong evidence they're mostly just exercises in, e.g., the composition fallacy.
It actually made me curious what evidence there is, if any, in the domain of psychology showing a meaningful connection between individual personalities and cultural analogs, beyond a cultural phenomenon that is superficially similar simply making for a more hospital environment for the personality type, or vice-versa. In other words, by studying one (personality type or cultural phenomenon) can we draw substantive conclusions about the other in terms of genesis or remediation? We (as humans) love making such equivocations, but absent strong evidence they're mostly just exercises in, e.g., the composition fallacy.
It's in fashion now, but I suspect a newer generation will rebel against the mainstream who embraces it.
I believe it is a phase too. You are right. Perhaps I was wrong to say it is too late. It is definitely a different discourse online from previous decades though.
It's interesting you think this is related to "victim hood culture" because the paper really doesn't make any claims it has to do with culture; rather it has to do with an individual's upbringing. The root-cause is suggested to be poor early attachment.
If this paper is correct, this is not something that can be corrected by merely changing culture or simply scolding it away; the behavior traits will manifest themselves quietly as per the experiment shows.
If this paper is correct, this is not something that can be corrected by merely changing culture or simply scolding it away; the behavior traits will manifest themselves quietly as per the experiment shows.
I'd argue that your sentiment is part of this alleged "victim hood culture". you're complaining here about people who feel offended and hurt on a regular basis. is that really affecting your life? would it affect you if _your_ personality would be what you consider the ideal - strong and unapologetic (as in apologizing when necessary but not just to please people)? you wouldn't give a f...
Sounds more like incels than SJWs. SJWs are often not members of their victim classes themselves.
Agreed, seems one could more accurately diagnose the so-called SJWs with Munchausen by proxy.
Though they are known to invent entirely new classes of victim into which categories they conveniently happen to fall.
Though they are known to invent entirely new classes of victim into which categories they conveniently happen to fall.
Victimhood chic is here to stay. There are too many forces at play both at the individual level and at the systemic level.
And that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in any divide.
But hey, now we have Apple's $549 AirPod Max to both alleviate the pain and create some more at the same time.
Happy complaining!
And that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in any divide.
But hey, now we have Apple's $549 AirPod Max to both alleviate the pain and create some more at the same time.
Happy complaining!
> Victimhood chic is here to stay
The linked article is about a psychology result, not a survey of social factors. Maybe it would be more productive to argue for or against the science than invent yet another battlefield on which to fight the culture war?
The linked article is about a psychology result, not a survey of social factors. Maybe it would be more productive to argue for or against the science than invent yet another battlefield on which to fight the culture war?
They're clearly supportive of the science, and postulating the results as an explanation for a social phenomenon.
> Participants were 249 Jewish-Israelis
You've got to be kidding me. How can anything possibly be concluded from such a uniform set of participants?
If nothing else I would have suggested that they throw a couple of Palestinians in there. See if people who have experienced real victimhood are more likely to perceive it when it doesn't exist.
You've got to be kidding me. How can anything possibly be concluded from such a uniform set of participants?
If nothing else I would have suggested that they throw a couple of Palestinians in there. See if people who have experienced real victimhood are more likely to perceive it when it doesn't exist.
Read the rest of the paper, that was study 1a. They ran multiple sets of experiments with much larger sets, cross-correlated their result sets, ran a solid confirmatory factor analysis, ran sub-assessments (like attachment style) to make sure they weren't rediscovering an already known factor, and reran the same inventory assessments with each group. I mean it is only one paper, but for a Social Psychology paper the math and methods are pretty solid. Given the institutions involved in the paper, I would expect this paper to at least pass the smell test for its own field (even if the results are garbage). I'm normally quite bearish on Social Psych as well, btw.
Is there any research on the distribution of personality types in the entire population and analysis whether traits that might seem annoying in a particular individual are, in the aggregate, an evolutionary benefit? You often hear studies (quality unknown) that whether someone is conservative or liberal is at some level (epi)genetic. It might seem annoying, but maybe there's some societal advantage. That or we'll self-annihilate - :-)
The personality differences between right vs left tend to be about maintaining social hierarchies vs freeing people from them (most effectively by generating new ones). You need both because no social hierarchy can fully account for the reality (or hyper-reality) it is in and needs to be challenged to adapt to the ever-changing landscape. You need maintenance of social-hierarchies, because mostly they are quite effective at generating the most positive outcomes for the largest number of people (at least at the point when they were generated).
Reiterating my comment in another sub-thread: It looks like TIV might be maladaptive because it is highly correlated to anxious-attachment styles, which usually results from poor childhood attachment. Someone with a very healthy attachment-style is unlikely to suffer from TIV (according to the paper). That being said, even individually maladaptive personalties can be adaptive for their social contexts, because if a social-hierarchy starts to generate a lot of victimhood that is probably a strong signal to healthy members of that social-hierarchy that the hierarchy they are in is generating too many negative outcomes and needs to be corrected somehow.
Reiterating my comment in another sub-thread: It looks like TIV might be maladaptive because it is highly correlated to anxious-attachment styles, which usually results from poor childhood attachment. Someone with a very healthy attachment-style is unlikely to suffer from TIV (according to the paper). That being said, even individually maladaptive personalties can be adaptive for their social contexts, because if a social-hierarchy starts to generate a lot of victimhood that is probably a strong signal to healthy members of that social-hierarchy that the hierarchy they are in is generating too many negative outcomes and needs to be corrected somehow.
> In one of this paper's experiments, for instance, a computer split a pot of money between itself and a human participant; this person was led to believe the computer was also a human participant. Sometimes the pot was split unevenly, and the human participant was given a chance to take vengeance by reducing the computer's pot without enriching his own. Researchers discovered that participants classified as having higher TIV scores were "strongly associated with behavioral revenge" in this scenario.
In retrospect, dictator game allocation scenarios presented to a pile of undergraduates by way of a screen were probably nonsensical back when I was helping my social science grad student friends implement them as crappy Perl CGI in like 2003. I'm disinclined to expect much better from this one.
In retrospect, dictator game allocation scenarios presented to a pile of undergraduates by way of a screen were probably nonsensical back when I was helping my social science grad student friends implement them as crappy Perl CGI in like 2003. I'm disinclined to expect much better from this one.
Reason is well known right wing propaganda. No place for it on HN.
Would a direct link to the paper be more to your liking?
Also, as a side note, the amount of negative karma you have suggests that you probably don't understand what belongs on HN in the first place.
Also, as a side note, the amount of negative karma you have suggests that you probably don't understand what belongs on HN in the first place.
My friend, has HN ever been anything other than right-leaning? Realistically speaking.
I've always thought it has been left leaning, but that could be a cognitive bias since I'm right leaning (capitalist, libertarian, corporatist, globalist, etc).
A real life case of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13110004. I need a name for these!
The Overton window is reasonably pegged to the right, within the US if not globally. The dense tech community here espouses a lot of ideas around meritocracy and capitalism that make it reasonably center/right-leaning.
This is of course not to suggest right wing extremism is present here, but merely a general lean. A lot of folks mistake being “socially liberal” as sufficient to be “left-leaning” when in reality the fiscal part of the equation is inextricably linked as well.
The big government and regulation one often sees as part of implementing an equitable society is not supported here. You know that as well as I do. This is a community with a lot of hackers and startup minded folks who see regulation / government involvement as an impediment rather than a platform to lift up the disenfranchised.
Disruptors don’t like the forces that squash disruption. Fairly unremarkable.
This is of course not to suggest right wing extremism is present here, but merely a general lean. A lot of folks mistake being “socially liberal” as sufficient to be “left-leaning” when in reality the fiscal part of the equation is inextricably linked as well.
The big government and regulation one often sees as part of implementing an equitable society is not supported here. You know that as well as I do. This is a community with a lot of hackers and startup minded folks who see regulation / government involvement as an impediment rather than a platform to lift up the disenfranchised.
Disruptors don’t like the forces that squash disruption. Fairly unremarkable.
Just peek in on any Uber or Airbnb related thread and you'll be cured of the idea that regulation is not supported here.
Like a lot of right-leaning folks are inclined to do, affordances are made for “free markets” that adversely affect their property or net worth.
There are certainly plenty of more progressive voices with broader concern sets about services like AirBnB. It was never being proposed that there are no progressive voices.
They just represent a thinner, less upvoted slice.
I will, however, concede that libertarian does not necessarily mean right-leaning, though they presently seem to hang together.
There are certainly plenty of more progressive voices with broader concern sets about services like AirBnB. It was never being proposed that there are no progressive voices.
They just represent a thinner, less upvoted slice.
I will, however, concede that libertarian does not necessarily mean right-leaning, though they presently seem to hang together.
The people on the other side argue passionately that yours is the fatter slice.
I’m sure they do!
The comments that bubble up (or get otherwise suppressed with votes) speak otherwise.
But “centrists” in 2020 are far closer to right-leaning because of said Overton window.
If you want to call center in 2020 a true center then sure, the site is drawing from the “whole range” equally. To the extent you acknowledge the impact of global cultural shifts and the deeper meaning of ‘left’ or ‘right’ then I would contend otherwise.
The comments that bubble up (or get otherwise suppressed with votes) speak otherwise.
But “centrists” in 2020 are far closer to right-leaning because of said Overton window.
If you want to call center in 2020 a true center then sure, the site is drawing from the “whole range” equally. To the extent you acknowledge the impact of global cultural shifts and the deeper meaning of ‘left’ or ‘right’ then I would contend otherwise.
> The comments that bubble up (or get otherwise suppressed with votes) speak otherwise.
I really don't think so. They speak more loudly to you because you're primed to hear them (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). The opposite side is primed the opposite way and so it makes the opposite generalization.
If you stop to think about what this means, it's pretty staggering. It means that we experience ourselves as being surrounded by enemies or, as I metaphorically sometimes put it, demons: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
This cognitive bias is one of the most powerful forces on the internet, including HN, and if there's one thing I've learned from years of moderation, it's "underestimate it at your peril".
I really don't think so. They speak more loudly to you because you're primed to hear them (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). The opposite side is primed the opposite way and so it makes the opposite generalization.
If you stop to think about what this means, it's pretty staggering. It means that we experience ourselves as being surrounded by enemies or, as I metaphorically sometimes put it, demons: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
This cognitive bias is one of the most powerful forces on the internet, including HN, and if there's one thing I've learned from years of moderation, it's "underestimate it at your peril".
I spent about six years in psychology with some graduate school so understand the biases you’re referring to. Generally awareness of them helps minimize their impact.
Perhaps it is merely that we disagree on the matter (or where “center” lies, which is interesting in and of itself).
And that’s fine. The political environment of grad school in social sciences, then hard sciences, industry in the more formal sciences and industry in software. Growing up around strong conservatives in rural areas. I’ve seen a decent sampling of perspectives.
I do not fault HN for its (generalized) leanings. It’s just a feature of this specific community and I enjoy it for reasons unique to it. No indictment or whatever.
Perhaps it is merely that we disagree on the matter (or where “center” lies, which is interesting in and of itself).
And that’s fine. The political environment of grad school in social sciences, then hard sciences, industry in the more formal sciences and industry in software. Growing up around strong conservatives in rural areas. I’ve seen a decent sampling of perspectives.
I do not fault HN for its (generalized) leanings. It’s just a feature of this specific community and I enjoy it for reasons unique to it. No indictment or whatever.
> A lot of folks mistake being “socially liberal” as sufficient to be “left-leaning” when in reality the fiscal part of the equation is inextricably linked as well.
Yes. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative is textbook libertarian, which is not inherently right-wing, though many libertarians do lean that way.
Yes. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative is textbook libertarian, which is not inherently right-wing, though many libertarians do lean that way.
Yeah I'd say HN is more dem-left on average with some ansoc leanings.
Might be fun to do a poll though.
Might be fun to do a poll though.
The modern democratic party is centrist at best. Things are a bit skewed in our ever-unequal society.
Realistically speaking, the community here spans the range and seems to have significant representation from every part of the left-right spectrum. If it seems right-leaning to you that's probably because you're left of the theoretical median hn community member.
Reason is explicitly libertarian, not right wing. (Though if you are on the left they are still to your right).
Skipping the editorializing and going right to the paper, and I'm quite interested the paper quite notably appears to skip over surveying the tendency for this personality trait to appear- ie. we don't yet have statistics of what demographics have higher likelihood of elevated scoring for this trait. It seems intuitive to me that this would be one of the primary ways to evaluate that this trait is legitimate; why was it so left out?
based on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918... key conclusion from paper
The findings highlight the importance of understanding, conceptualizing, and empirically testing tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood (TIV), and suggest that victimhood is a stable and meaningful personality tendency.
Key graf from Reason article:
The study distinguishes TIV from narcissism. Narcissistic individuals also experience moral superiority and vengeful desires, but these feelings tend to spring from the belief that their authority, capability, or grandiosity is being undermined. TIV, on the other hand, is associated with low self-esteem. And while narcissists do not want to be victimized, high-TIV individuals lash out when their victimhood is questioned.
The findings highlight the importance of understanding, conceptualizing, and empirically testing tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood (TIV), and suggest that victimhood is a stable and meaningful personality tendency.
Key graf from Reason article:
The study distinguishes TIV from narcissism. Narcissistic individuals also experience moral superiority and vengeful desires, but these feelings tend to spring from the belief that their authority, capability, or grandiosity is being undermined. TIV, on the other hand, is associated with low self-esteem. And while narcissists do not want to be victimized, high-TIV individuals lash out when their victimhood is questioned.
I think the most interesting part of the paper is the inventory of attachment styles as they relate to TIV. It looks like anxious-attachment styles are more likely to have it.
The thing to think about when you run into someone like this is that, for whatever reason, their victimhood has been the only reliable tool that has enabled them to receive positive attachment from others. It's no wonder they get highly defensive about their victimhood being called into question.
These issues are probably intransigent (narcissism, for example, is one of the most immune-to-therapy personality disorders), but maybe one way around victimhood with a friend or family member is to notice positive things about them that don't have anything to do with their victimhood (which is a tough task with some people).
The thing to think about when you run into someone like this is that, for whatever reason, their victimhood has been the only reliable tool that has enabled them to receive positive attachment from others. It's no wonder they get highly defensive about their victimhood being called into question.
These issues are probably intransigent (narcissism, for example, is one of the most immune-to-therapy personality disorders), but maybe one way around victimhood with a friend or family member is to notice positive things about them that don't have anything to do with their victimhood (which is a tough task with some people).
After reading the article, I have gone through the inventory of people who left a mark in my life.
One or two people fits to this template perfectly. Weak, soft, approachable in the beginning but, becomes silently more dominant and sucking your energy for their survival. If you cannot regenerate fast enough, they throw you to the side to find their new victim. Sad, damaging.
> These issues are probably intransigent...
My guess is TIV is not intransigent if you can attack it from right angle. The profile looks like grounded in good person turned bad for real or so, this looks like a winning strategy. Both foundations can be disassembled. First one needs someone who can cut through to anger to reach to the core of the personality. Second one needs an encounter with a bite-resistant person so, they have to think their strategy.
I'm overly generalizing here, but hope I could communicate the idea behind my rationale.
One or two people fits to this template perfectly. Weak, soft, approachable in the beginning but, becomes silently more dominant and sucking your energy for their survival. If you cannot regenerate fast enough, they throw you to the side to find their new victim. Sad, damaging.
> These issues are probably intransigent...
My guess is TIV is not intransigent if you can attack it from right angle. The profile looks like grounded in good person turned bad for real or so, this looks like a winning strategy. Both foundations can be disassembled. First one needs someone who can cut through to anger to reach to the core of the personality. Second one needs an encounter with a bite-resistant person so, they have to think their strategy.
I'm overly generalizing here, but hope I could communicate the idea behind my rationale.
> Weak, soft, approachable in the beginning but, becomes silently more dominant and sucking your energy for their survival. If you cannot regenerate fast enough, they throw you to the side to find their new victim.
That sounds a lot like Borderline Personality Disorder. Another tricky one because the disorder itself causes resistance to diagnosis and treatment.
That sounds a lot like Borderline Personality Disorder. Another tricky one because the disorder itself causes resistance to diagnosis and treatment.
Just took a quick look to BPD. There seems to be a difference. If I understood correctly:
- BPD stems from a real distorted self image and manifests itself to protect one from abandonment or being left behind.
- TIV uses victimhood psychology to appear weak (or it already feels weak) but, can use this allure to slowly and surely feed itself. More importantly, TID lacks the wild or fierce side of BPD and narcissism. The process is slower and less painful until it ends. The pain is felt when the process is almost over, and the victim is ejected when it's completely powerless.
Even writing this brings memories back. On the bright side, experiencing these kinds of people once or twice is a very maturing experience (with an expense of course).
- BPD stems from a real distorted self image and manifests itself to protect one from abandonment or being left behind.
- TIV uses victimhood psychology to appear weak (or it already feels weak) but, can use this allure to slowly and surely feed itself. More importantly, TID lacks the wild or fierce side of BPD and narcissism. The process is slower and less painful until it ends. The pain is felt when the process is almost over, and the victim is ejected when it's completely powerless.
Even writing this brings memories back. On the bright side, experiencing these kinds of people once or twice is a very maturing experience (with an expense of course).
Sure, TIV has appearing weak and BDP has rages but since you didn't state that explicitly, I wondered if you'd omitted it because it wasn't present in those people you knew.
I kind of wonder though, if the way we end up classifying these things is unreasonably influenced by the existing classifications which maybe just sort of coalesced from observations that psychologists have made of their patients. Since they're often things that people won't get treated or don't even think of as disorders. The data must be very biased and flakey.
I kind of wonder though, if the way we end up classifying these things is unreasonably influenced by the existing classifications which maybe just sort of coalesced from observations that psychologists have made of their patients. Since they're often things that people won't get treated or don't even think of as disorders. The data must be very biased and flakey.
> I wondered if you'd omitted it because it wasn't present in those people you knew.
Yes, I only mentioned people which were consistent with the TIV template in the article.
> I kind of wonder though, if the way we end up classifying these things is unreasonably influenced by the existing classifications which maybe just sort of coalesced from observations that psychologists have made of their patients. Since they're often things that people won't get treated or don't even think of as disorders.
Unfortunately, It's possible. Moreover, some traits are not considered as illnesses until it starts to affect one's life (hoarding, some forms of OCD, etc.).
Another problem is, as noted by some other comments, TIV looks like a siamese twin of narcissism when looked from a specific angle. It might be just narcissism without self esteem, or as I've seen in one person might be completely different trait because it can be devoid of narcissistic traits or traces while being extremely efficient in draining someone without giving itself away until just before the victim proverbially dies.
Since psychology is not an exact science, it'll always be up to debate I think, however this trait is a good candidate to think well on. It's much more common than it seems.
Yes, I only mentioned people which were consistent with the TIV template in the article.
> I kind of wonder though, if the way we end up classifying these things is unreasonably influenced by the existing classifications which maybe just sort of coalesced from observations that psychologists have made of their patients. Since they're often things that people won't get treated or don't even think of as disorders.
Unfortunately, It's possible. Moreover, some traits are not considered as illnesses until it starts to affect one's life (hoarding, some forms of OCD, etc.).
Another problem is, as noted by some other comments, TIV looks like a siamese twin of narcissism when looked from a specific angle. It might be just narcissism without self esteem, or as I've seen in one person might be completely different trait because it can be devoid of narcissistic traits or traces while being extremely efficient in draining someone without giving itself away until just before the victim proverbially dies.
Since psychology is not an exact science, it'll always be up to debate I think, however this trait is a good candidate to think well on. It's much more common than it seems.
Christopher Lasch argues for the existence of something like this (somewhere between TIV and narcissism) not merely as a stable personality type, but a trend affecting a growing number of Americans. Would be interesting to see longitudinal data, although the tests for "traits" like this are often fairly contrived.
That doesn't read to me as something distinguished from narcissism. That sounds like it is exactly the same traits as narcissism, the only difference is how the person ranks himself in regards to his peers. Some maybe the level of self-esteem shouldn't be considered a determining factor for narcissism?
In my experience narcissistic traits start with a normalish personality appearance with a bit overconfidence, then it reveals itself.
TIV is a more soft, hurt presentation with silent/passive strategies to damage someone. It's more silent, slower and harder to stop if your self esteem is also low. This makes it a double-whammy since the person looks weak, approachable and gentle. Other party is also weak and attached to this approachable person hence, is somewhat powerless.
When everything is over, the victim is damaged much more deeply. Same person's encounter with a narcissistic person is much more harmless since person with low-esteem will be driven away by the dominant, narcissistic person.
TIV is a more soft, hurt presentation with silent/passive strategies to damage someone. It's more silent, slower and harder to stop if your self esteem is also low. This makes it a double-whammy since the person looks weak, approachable and gentle. Other party is also weak and attached to this approachable person hence, is somewhat powerless.
When everything is over, the victim is damaged much more deeply. Same person's encounter with a narcissistic person is much more harmless since person with low-esteem will be driven away by the dominant, narcissistic person.
I agree with your reading. For what it’s worth, my agreement was initially based on personal experience with people who exhibit NPD traits, but I decided to refresh my memory of the DSM criteria. I know the DSM isn’t the only, or even best, resource for diagnosis questions[1]... but of its 9 criteria, 7 are either in whole or in part accommodating to low self esteem and the kinds of things described in this article.
I may be biased by the article’s prose (and by the site itself), but I get the sense that this is a diagnostic motivated to associate general expressions of victimhood (including the more visible expressions of trauma and oppression alluded to in the article) with harmful and manipulative expressions of victimhood that are plenty common in NPD (and certainly BPD).
I’m not qualified to draw that conclusion in a meaningfully scientific way, but I’m certainly skeptical that there’s a distinction in this classification that warrants distinction. And I think the harm it could do if adopted is pretty significant.
[1]: From personal experience, I likely wouldn’t have been diagnosed ADHD without being prepared with some creativity.
I may be biased by the article’s prose (and by the site itself), but I get the sense that this is a diagnostic motivated to associate general expressions of victimhood (including the more visible expressions of trauma and oppression alluded to in the article) with harmful and manipulative expressions of victimhood that are plenty common in NPD (and certainly BPD).
I’m not qualified to draw that conclusion in a meaningfully scientific way, but I’m certainly skeptical that there’s a distinction in this classification that warrants distinction. And I think the harm it could do if adopted is pretty significant.
[1]: From personal experience, I likely wouldn’t have been diagnosed ADHD without being prepared with some creativity.