• residentoflaniakea@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It’s a bit more nuanced than able to work == disorder free and I think you know that and are exaggerating. It is true however that the ideology is to not diagnosing a person unless there’s a level of insight. What good does it do to label a narcissist when they don’t suffer from it or suffer from a different condition even if that secondary condition is brought on by narcissism? A diagnosis should help a person and benefit them, not pass moral judgment.

    • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      True.

      About the narcissist, it could help the people around the person afflicted, if they are in a position of power for example. But I guess it’s not a clear cut.

      • residentoflaniakea@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, I get where you’re coming from but this are the limitations of the context of therapy: it is beyond the scope to help others aside from the patient unless that is the intent of the patient but this requires insight and empathy and those are no strengths of a typical narcissist. A propos people in power and personality disorders: there are ethical guidelines preventing mental health specialists to diagnose people with disorders (like the Goldwater rule). In my own opinion we should do away with these guidelines: not educating the public does more social harm vis-a-vis democratic decline then any other implications these guidelines prevent.