You are absolutely correct. The words that an article like this use to describe narcissism are completely inadequate. They can’t express:
1) the damage that a narcissist does to those around them,
2) nor the protective networks of weak personalities they surround themselves with (e.g. as spies or enforcers),
3) nor their capacity to completely fool people who only deal with them from a distance.
Trump is definitely NOT a narcissist. Closer would be Obama.
“Trump is definitely NOT a narcissist. Closer would be Obama.”
I don’t agree with Obama, he is calculating in his actions and has tremendous focus. Pathologically speaking, they should publish any DSM with a picture of Hilary at the top. Remember how desperately angry and pitifully cried out “what difference, now, does it make?”
Boom. There it was. Her ego could not withstand the narcissistic blow that colossal screw up produced. Think of the anguish, anger and touch of accusation in her voice. It wasn’t her feeling of empathy or sorrow or regret or feeling for the victims.
It was all for her. Her in the WH produces REAL chills down my spine. And it takes a lot to put any there.
That's right. Certainly according to the Freudian definition. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the term has come to be confused with "egomania", which is a different thing. Narcissism is passive and self-absorbed, in accordance with the defining myth wherein Narcissus is captivated by his own image. Freud gives the examples of a tiger, or a beautiful woman, each of whom is self-satisfied, and unmindful of their surroundings. ( In the second of these, we may think of that scene from ANIMAL HOUSE. )