Narcissus (mythology) Narcissus by Caravaggio depicts Narcissus gazing at his own reflection. Тhe myth of Narcissus has inspired artists for at least two thousand years, even before the Roman poet Ovid featured a version in book III of his Metamorphoses. This was followed in more recent centuries by other poets (e.g. Keats and Alfred Edward Housman) and painters (Caravaggio, Poussin, Turner, Dalí (see Metamorphosis of Narcissus), and Waterhouse). In Stendhal's novel Le Rouge et le Noir (1830), there is a classic narcissist in the character of Mathilde. She looks at herself instead of looking at you, and so doesn't know you.During the two or three little outbursts of passion she has allowed herself in your favor, she has, by a great effort of imagination, seen in you the hero of her dreams, and not yourself as you really are. Author and poet Rainer Maria Rilke visits the character and symbolism of Narcissus in several of his poems. "To stare, big-eyed Narcissus, into some spring Is beneath all adult dignity."
Superficial charm Superficial charm (or glib charm) is the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick and verbally facile.[1] The phrase often appears in lists of attributes of psychopathic personalities, such as in Hervey M. Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity,[2] and Robert D. Associated expressions are "charm offensive", "turning on the charm" and "superficial smile". Early history[edit] Classical rhetoric had early singled out the critical category of the superficial charmer, whose merit was purely verbal, without underlying substance.[4] In the nineteenth century, George Eliot explored the darker side of the Victorian feminine ideal, concluding bleakly that there was little worse than the narrow minded kind of femininity sheltering behind an artificial charm of manner.[5] Psychopathic charm[edit] Contemporary interest in superficial charm goes back to Hervey M. Subsequent studies have refined, but not perhaps fundamentally altered, Cleckley's initial assessment. Narcissism[edit] Social chameleons[edit] F.
Codependency Development and scope of concept[edit] Historically, the concept of codependence "comes directly out of Alcoholics Anonymous, part of a dawning realization that the problem was not solely the addict, but also the family and friends who constitute a network for the alcoholic."[3] It was subsequently broadened to cover the way "that the codependent person is fixated on another person for approval, sustenance, and so on."[3] As such, the concept overlaps with, but developed in the main independently from, the older psychoanalytic concept of the 'passive dependent personality' ... attaching himself to a stronger personality Some would retain the stricter, narrower dictionary definition of codependency, which requires one person to be physically or psychologically addicted, such as to heroin, and the second person to be psychologically dependent on that behavior.[5] Patterns and characteristics[edit] Narcissism[edit] Alan Rappoport identifies codependents of narcissists as "co-narcissists
On the difference between science and philosophy Attentive readers of this blog may have noticed that those who post comments to my entries often show two interesting and complementary attitudes: a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy , coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science. Take, for instance, my recurring argument that some (but not all!) of the “new atheists” engage in scientistic attitudes by overplaying the epistemological power of science while downplaying (or even simply negating) the notion that science fundamentally depends on non-empirical (i.e., philosophical) assumptions to even get started. It is perhaps appropriate to tackle the problem at the end of 2009, the year that marks not just the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the arguably even more momentous On Liberty by John Stuart Mill), but also the 50th anniversary of C.P. Philosophy, on the other hand, is much harder to define .
ICBS Everywhere › Narcissism + Incompetence = Ignorance and More Incompetence Last month I attended the Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association (WPA), at which two of my students were scheduled to present research. I will spare you the five-page (single-spaced) description of my peril-fraught journey to Cancun and the disappointment of losing the posters along the way and just tell you that I am very proud of how my students handled it. Totally unrelated lizard image. If you close your eyes, you might be able to imagine a beautiful poster with a couple of people standing in front of it. However, instead of our ugly makeshift poster, you can look at a great shot of an iguana that my co-author Dylan Keenberg took on our excursion to Tulum. Now for the science. In my experience, most teachers, particularly college instructors, believe that entitlement attitudes, student expectations, study strategies, work habits, and aptitude have changed dramatically in recent years. Our measures: In addition: References: Anchacoso, M.V. (2006).
Dark triad The dark triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy.[1][2][3] The use of the term "dark" reflects the perception that these traits have interpersonally aversive qualities:[4][5][6][7] Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.[8]Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and deception.[9]Psychopathy is characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callousness, and remorselessness.[10] All three traits have been associated with a callous-manipulative interpersonal style.[11] Jakobwitz and Egan carried out a factor analysis and found agreeableness strongly dissociated with these traits, and other factors, such as neuroticism and a lack of conscientiousness, associated with some traits. History[edit] Subclinical dimensions vs. disorders[edit] Perspectives[edit] As a disorder[edit]
Dependent personality disorder Dependent personality disorder (DPD), formerly known as asthenic personality disorder, is a personality disorder that is characterized by a pervasive psychological dependence on other people. This personality disorder is a long-term (chronic) condition in which people depend on others to meet their emotional and physical needs, with only a minority achieving normal levels of independence. The difference between a 'dependent personality' and a 'dependent personality disorder' is somewhat subjective, which makes diagnosis sensitive to cultural influences such as gender role expectations. Characteristics[edit] View of others[edit] Individuals with DPD see other people as much more capable to shoulder life's responsibilities, to navigate a complex world, and to deal with the competitions of life.[1] Other people appear powerful, competent, and capable of providing a sense of security and support to individuals with DPD. Self-image[edit] Relationships[edit] Comparison with other PDs[edit] General:
5 Most Common Regrets of the Dying It is very rare for HE to repost content from other websites, but this one cannot afford to be missed for originality’s sake. Bronnie Ware spent her life working with elderly people who were close to death. In this thought-provoking piece, she pieces together the most common regrets of the hundreds of people she stayed with until the end. The implications of these insights are incredibly vast and sobering. 1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me. This was the most common regret of all. It is very important to try and honour at least some of your dreams along the way. 2. This came from every male patient that I nursed. By simplifying your lifestyle and making conscious choices along the way, it is possible to not need the income that you think you do. 3. Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. We cannot control the reactions of others. 4. 5. This is a surprisingly common one.
Dunning–Kruger effect Cognitive bias about one's own skill The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. It was first described by Justin Kruger and David Dunning in 1999. Numerous similar studies have been done. There is disagreement about the causes of the Dunning–Kruger effect. There is also disagreement about where the effect applies and about how strong it is, as well as about its practical consequences. Definition[edit] The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability. Not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition. David Dunning Some researchers include a metacognitive component in their definition. Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks[edit] The most common approach to measuring the Dunning–Kruger effect is to compare self-assessment with objective performance. [edit]
Niccolò Machiavelli Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (Italian: [nikkoˈlɔ makjaˈvɛlli]; 3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer based in Florence during the Renaissance. He was for many years an official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He was a founder of modern political science, and more specifically political ethics. He also wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is renowned in the Italian language. He was Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici were out of power. "Machiavellianism" is a widely used negative term to characterize unscrupulous politicians of the sort Machiavelli described in The Prince. Life[edit] Machiavelli was born in a tumultuous era—popes waged acquisitive wars against Italian city-states, and people and cities often fell from power. Works[edit] The Prince[edit]
Defence mechanisms A defence mechanism is a coping technique that reduces anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful impulses.[1] Defence mechanisms are unconscious and are not to be confused with conscious coping strategies.[2] Sigmund Freud was one of the first proponents of this construct.[3] Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety and/or social sanctions and/or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[9] One resource used to evaluate these mechanisms is the Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ-40).[10][11] Structural model: Id, ego, and superego[edit] Freud believed that conflicts between these two structures resulted in conflicts associated with psychosexual stages.