Yeah, really. Cluster B disorders are surprisingly common, but despite some strange … quirks on display, I’m fairly confident nobody on here would raise any alarm bells in a psychiatrist’s office.
You, TT, strike me as being completely uninteresting from a clinical perspective 
We used to have one member here who I suspect was BPD. That was several years back. Not sure what happened to her.
Ok, maybe I was a little harsh with NPD then. Go with that one.
I wonder what they would think about someone with no training making diagnoses of people they have never met based on Internet text…
You seem to have a big fixation on this, is it because you don’t have any? Some sort of compensation mechanism? Since you present as knowledgeable of diagnoses, please feel free to suggest one!
Dunning-Kruger effect? 
Why don’t you tell us? I mean, when you’re done reminding everyone of your alleged academic prowess for the 10th time again.
From NYU:
Narcissism is driven by insecurity, and not an inflated sense of self, finds a new study by a team of psychology researchers. Its research, which offers a more detailed understanding of this long-examined phenomenon, may also explain what motivates the self-focused nature of social media activity.
“Our work reveals that these narcissists are not grandiose, but rather insecure, and this is how they seem to cope with their insecurities.”
“More specifically, the results suggest that narcissism is better understood as a compensatory adaptation to overcome and cover up low self-worth,” adds Mary Kowalchyk, the paper’s lead author and an NYU graduate student at the time of the study. “Narcissists are insecure, and they cope with these insecurities by flexing. This makes others like them less in the long run, thus further aggravating their insecurities, which then leads to a vicious cycle of flexing behaviors.”
Overall, the results showed high correlations between FLEX and narcissism—but not with psychopathy. For example, the need for social validation (a FLEX metric) correlated with the reported tendency to engage in performative self-elevation (a characteristic of vulnerable narcissism). By contrast, measures of psychopathy, such as elevated levels of self-esteem, showed low correlation levels with vulnerable narcissism, implying a lack of insecurity. These findings suggest that genuine narcissists are insecure and are best described by the vulnerable narcissism subtype, whereas grandiose narcissism might be better understood as a manifestation of psychopathy. "
Consudering the possibility we are mistaken should be able given. In fact there is an entire arean devoted to such a mind set. they call it science.
Shame people dont buy into it much as everytime w open our mouth we are overwelmingly likely wrong.
I think that really depends a many factors. When it comes to BREAKING NEWS, yes, I would agree.
The debates where people genuinely know their stuff, yet have differing opinions, can be very interesting.
Science can inform you of the basic facts, but it doesn’t necessarily tell you “what does this fact mean? What are the implications?”. This is why I get so upset with politicians who blather on about “following the science”. Science doesn’t tell you what you ought to do. They’re just being indecisive, weak-minded numpties and blaming their own uselessness on “science”.
I dunno, I’m good with politicians ‘following the science’. What do you suggest they follow instead? We had a nice window of insight into what happense when politicians and their flock abandon science and rationality from 2016-2020. It didn’t work out too well.
In fact, respect for science should be an automatic prerequisite for public office.
Yup. John Tamny’s new book is all about that.
Speak of the Devil:
McDermott: The right has long rejected scientific facts. Now it’s costing lives.
"half-dozen years ago, a Forbes magazine piece perfectly summed up modern conservatism’s approach to science. It was about climate change, but it employed a thought process that could apply to evolution, vaccinations, trickle-down economics — and a pandemic in which America’s Republican-led response has been so catastrophic that the rest of the world may soon close its doors to us.
In the 2014 piece, conservative writer John Tamny announced up front that his analysis of the scientific issue of climate change “will be wholly free of science.” In case that astonishing disclaimer didn’t completely invalidate the article, he proceeded to make an argument that was wholly free of even basic logic.
Despite scientists’ warnings of future rising waters in coastal regions, Tamny wrote, “There’s no evidence that Shanghai and New York City planners intend to build high walls to surround each city.” Nonetheless, he noted, real estate prices in coastal markets continued to soar, which “suggests that some pretty smart people aren’t taking the warnings of … [climate] alarmists very seriously.”
This, Tamny concluded, didn’t indicate that real estate markets were wrong — rather, that scientists were wrong. “I’m not a scientist,” he wrote. “But I can look at market signals like anyone else can, and they reflect a catastrophe-free future that supports the view of global-warming ‘deniers.’”
That’s right: When it comes to a question of science, don’t trust the scientists — trust your Realtor.
This is the crowd, after all, that gave us “intelligent design” as a made-up alternative to the actual science of evolutionary biology. It’s the crowd responsible for anti-vaccination outbreaks of measles in libertarian bastions where “freedom” is defined as being allowed to endanger other people’s kids. It’s the crowd that, in 2017, gave us a tax cut for the rich that economists warned would just explode the deficit without doing much for the economy — which is exactly what happened.
And it’s the crowd responsible for some unknowable but undoubtedly real portion of the more than 500,000+ U.S. coronavirus deaths to date.
That’s virtually undeniable at this point, with a president who has purposefully twisted the simple scientific recommendations of mask-wearing, social distancing and testing and tracing into culture-war affronts. He’s been abetted by a right-wing mindset that, for years now, has viewed science as a tool of “the libs,” rather than a rational arbiter of fact.
Does someone have a better explanation for why America has been hit harder in the pandemic than any other nation? And, no, it’s not because we’re “testing too much.” More Americans have died of COVID, by far, than any other nationality.
After an earlier flattening of the curve in America, led by proactive measures in blue states like New York and Illinois, infections are rising again, driven mostly by red states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Missouri and others. These are places where Republican governors, bucking the scientists, issued stay-at-home orders generally later than in blue states, and lifted them earlier and more completely. What made them think, in defiance of the experts, that this wouldn’t bring new waves of infections?
A couple decades of denying climate change data and other inconvenient science, that’s what.
The phrase is meaningless. Someone who says they’re “following the science” probably has no idea what science is.
Good judgement and experience.
I’m not suggesting they should be ignorant of science. Quite the opposite. I’m saying it’s necessary but not sufficient for good performance.
Partly, they actually haven’t. The impact on the US has not been remarkably different to several European countries, but because journalists are hopelessly innumerate they don’t realise that. And in any case facts rarely get in the way of a good story.
The basic reason that American are (undeniably) dying like flies, though, is because they’re all chronically ill, and all medicated up to the eyeballs with pills that they don’t need.
You used it, not me. You even put quotation marks around it highlight it.
Isn’t that what science is, pretty much to the letter?
See the article above I just linked to. We have 500,000 plus COVID deaths in America because of the psychology of denying science.
I can’t believe we’re actually debating the importance of science actually. It seems like a given.
No. It has absolutely buggerall to do with either of those things. Science is a logical and philosophical framework for determining whether a given hypothesis is false. You can go a long way with that, but that’s all it is.
We’re mot. We’re debating its relevance to complex political decisions.
What are you talking about? Empirical science is all about making assessments based on testing and experience, and makings sound judgements based upon reason. You know, like science does.
OK, well then please look at the article I posted above that gave two very clear examples of how science denial leads to deaths, and economic collapse:
Climate Change Denial (Tamny, guilty and then some)
Covid denial/anti mask wearing.
How many deaths and how much money wasted because we didn’t listen to science in these cases? Why would you want elected officials that don’t recognize science as fundamental? Should we go back to witch burning trials maybe?
Or we can ask anti-Science thug/academic hero Jim Desantis how well his science denial went in his state.
Science gives fact, philosophy gives meaning. Either way, this was a thread for psychlogy not @McNulty’s personal axes to grind. If you can’t keep it relevant @McNulty, please take it somewhere else.
Just a wild guess, but I have to assume from this that you don’t have a science degree. Science has nothing to say on the subject of “sound judgements”. As TT correctly said, all it gives you is facts. What amounts to “sound judgement” in light of those facts can vary dramatically depending on the views of the individual.
Just a wild guess, but I think you’re just kind of being knee jerk right now for argument sake. If you’re trying to deny that experience and testing are a part of the scientific process, you’re on your own magic carpet ride at that point.
I’m using your terms, Doc. Actually to be fair you said “good judgments”, not “sound judgements”.
Again, we’re really debating science has a role in government? I’m no historian either, but I think that was the prevailing idea around the 1500s and 1600s.
… aaaand thus we come full circle to the article about Drs. Dunning and Kruger.
