Anyone read manifesto by UCSB mass murderer Elliot Rodger?

[smalltownpsych]

I worked in the troubled teen industry for a few years and he doesn't need to meet any criteria other than have parents with ability to pay for treatment. Of course, that can lead to some abusive practices, but if this kid was not developing socially which is what it sounds like, medication and outpatient therapy or a life coach to teach you how to talk to girls would be of little use and probably make the situation worse. There are programs designed for kids like this and one of them might have helped. I worked with these kids that fell into the virtual world because it was easier to navigate than the real social world. In a supportive residential environment where they are disconnected from electronics and plugged into the natural world with others their age, they can develop the necessary skills and become quite successful. It's not really that hard, just expensive.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[touchpause13]

Have any of you guys seen some of the virtual circles he was frequenting? I know it's jezebel and I know the internets can be a dark place, but this crap really made my skin crawl.

http://jezebel.com/lessons-from-a-day-spent-with-the-ucsb-shooters-awful-f-1582884301

 

[erg923]

"Members of the forum start giddily reflecting on Rodger's fame and begin encouraging each other to write manifestos."

Part of what underlies my concern with people thinking we need to read said "manifesto" for all its deep insights and reasons, etc. Bull****. Kindergarten nonsense. Want what the can't get. Get angry. Throw tantrum.

I wouldn't trust anything people like this wrote anyway. Their views are so distorted, they only see what they wanna see.

 

[slappy]

If that made your skin crawl, I shudder to think how you'd feel if you accidentally stumbled upon the virtual circles in the deep web. Yeah, Google/Wiki it.

Alternatively, for those who believe they may have the heart/stomach for it: http://www.sickchirpse.com/deep-web-guide/

Caution: I'm not kidding. The above link is definitely not for the easy-queasy.

 

[touchpause13]

If that made your skin crawl, I shudder to think how you'd feel if you accidentally stumble upon the virtual circles in the deep web. Yeah, Google/Wiki it.

Alternatively, for those who believe they may have the heart/stomach for it: http://www.sickchirpse.com/deep-web-guide/

Caution: I'm not kidding. The above link is definitely not for the easy-queasy.

Yeah I know about the deep web, but the farthest I go is /b. I've seen some shet, but the pure misogyny of the PUAhate stuff just really messes with my head.

 

[Trismegistus4]

Have any of you guys seen some of the virtual circles he was frequenting? I know it's jezebel and I know the internets can be a dark place, but this crap really made my skin crawl.

http://jezebel.com/lessons-from-a-day-spent-with-the-ucsb-shooters-awful-f-1582884301

Yeah, it's jezebel. I dismiss them like erg923 dismisses Elliot Rodger's autobiography. OK, he hated women, but why did he hate women? According to the delusional fembots of jezebel, "misogyny" just falls out of the sky and lands on someone for no reason, or it's a product of "American masculinity culture" or patriarchy, an idea which would be laughable if it weren't so pervasive.

"Part of what underlies my concern with people thinking we need to read said "manifesto" for all its deep insights and reasons, etc. bullcrap. Kindergarten nonsense. Want what the can't get. Get angry. Throw tantrum.

As greenlion mentioned on page 1, it's not a manifesto; it can more accurately be described as a very candid diary. You don't even have to read it yourself to know that; you only have to believe what people who have read parts of it are telling you.

I wouldn't trust anything people like this wrote anyway. Their views are so distorted, they only see what they wanna see.

Just like people who assume anyone who perpetrates a shooting spree does so for "narcissistic" reasons and are so fixated on this idea that they refuse to consider any other information about the person. Projection, anyone?

 

[erg923]

I just think in terms of Occam's razor until there is reliable evidence to the contrary. I do NOT trust his view of his own problems. I do NOT trust the things that he said happened actually happened. People lie. People lie frequently.

 

[Trismegistus4]

I just think in terms of Occam's razor until there is reliable evidence to the contrary. I do NOT trust his view of his own problems. I do NOT trust the things that he said happened actually happened. People lie. People lie frequently.

Okay, what do you think Occam's razor dictates the explanation is in this case?

And what do you doubt about what he said? That his family moved from the UK to the USA when he was five? That his parents divorced when he was seven? That he was socially awkward and couldn't make friends? That he took a late-night drive to Palos Verdes with two guys he considered friends, and one of them stayed in the car because he was so tired, while the other one got out and took a walk with Elliot, on which he told him about his revenge fantasies, which scared his friend, prompting Elliot to say "don't worry, I'm not going to do anything stupid?" That he got drunk and walked into some random house party in Isla Vista, where he got so angry seeing all the beautiful girls with other guys that he started trying to push people off a ledge, spurring other people to push him off the ledge, leading to a broken ankle and a criminal charge that was later dropped? Because he wrote about all of those events, and more, and after his shooting spree they were all corroborated in news stories by people who knew him.

And for the umpteenth time, it's not necessarily about accepting, at face value, his own logical explanations of his problems. It's about getting a sense of how he thought and felt, that helps you understand, as someone upthread put it, what "made him tick."

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think you guys are going back and forth to little avail at this point.

 

[erg923]

That he chose kill people cause he wasn't getting what he wanted.

 

[NickNaylor]

That's he chose kill people cause he wasn't getting what he wanted from them.

My guess would be that he was chronically angry due the above. But I really don't care how he felt.

And yet you confidently assert a judgment about him?

I read a good chunk of the essay. I thought it was pretty damn interesting. No, you're not going to make any diagnoses after reading it, but reading an account of a person's life that is presented in a reasonably well-written way is an interesting exercise. It's a look at someone's attempt to understand and explain actions that are clearly anomalous.

 

[erg923]

And yet you confidently assert a judgment about him?.

Yep. Statistics are your friend.

 

[xlithiumx]

Yep. Statistics are your friend.

Of course statistics are our friend. And yet, you know that statistics are largely irrelevant in any given individual. Statistics have predictive value on a population level, but when you're 2 standard deviations from the mean, it pretty much all goes out the window.

 

[LPPSYD]

I realize it's really tempting and comforting to try to make sense of what he did on a deeper level, but I don't think this was some complex, interesting person. I don't see why this is much different than any other sociopath with some obviously narcissistic features thrown in. I didn't read the writings and have no desire to. I think our desire to read these things are part of the problem. I include myself in this problem, at least with other high profile cases (this particular case does nothing for me). I cringe at reading how "fascinated" everyone is by him and his writings. No offense to any of you intended, but this is likely what he wanted. I really agree with Erg's point that the fact that he felt inclined to write a "manifesto" speaks volumes.

 

[NickNaylor]

I realize it's really tempting and comforting to try to make sense of what he did on a deeper level, but I don't think this was some complex, interesting person. I don't see why this is much different than any other sociopath with some obviously narcissistic features thrown in. I didn't read the writings and have no desire to. I think our desire to read these things are part of the problem. I include myself in this problem, at least with other high profile cases (this particular case does nothing for me). I cringe at reading how "fascinated" everyone is by him and his writings. No offense to any of you intended, but this is likely what he wanted. I really agree with Erg's point that the fact that he felt inclined to write a "manifesto" speaks volumes.

He was clearly delusional. There's no doubting that. I don't see what's so wrong about reading what some now dead guy wrote, and I certainly don't feel bad knowing that I may or may not be fulfilling "what he wanted" (wherever you're pulling that motivation out of). Sure, plenty of people do crazy things, but not all of them can communicate those things in a way that is easily comprehensible.

I don't think anyone is commending him for this feat. As a source to see how a broken mind works in its own words, though, it's an interesting read IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LPPSYD]

He was clearly delusional. There's no doubting that. I don't see what's so wrong about reading what some now dead guy wrote, and I certainly don't feel bad knowing that I may or may not be fulfilling "what he wanted" (wherever you're pulling that motivation out of). Sure, plenty of people do crazy things, but not all of them can communicate those things in a way that is easily comprehensible.

I don't think anyone is commending him for this feat. As a source to see how a broken mind works in its own words, though, it's an interesting read IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say or imply anyone is commending what he did. Glorifying it a bit, yeah. Also, when someone writes a 150-page "manifesto" about himself and posts it on the internet, I'm not sure what other motivation there could be other than a desire for others to read it.

Where was the evidence he was delusional? Genuinely curious, not challenging it. I'm aware he may have been on an antipsychotic but I'm sure we all know that doesn't necessarily mean there was psychosis.

 

[erg923]

Of course statistics are our friend. And yet, you know that statistics are largely irrelevant in any given individual. Statistics have predictive value on a population level, but when you're 2 standard deviations from the mean, it pretty much all goes out the window.

That not a very good understanding of what I'm saying.

 

[Trismegistus4]

That he chose kill people cause he wasn't getting what he wanted.

Then you have to explain why the vast majority of people who aren't getting what they want don't kill people.

On that note, I have to say I've never found the "Occam's razor" argument convincing. The best explanation is the best explanation, not the simplest one. If the simplest explanation doesn't explain things as well as a more complex one, then it's not the best explanation.

I realize it's really tempting and comforting to try to make sense of what he did on a deeper level, but I don't think this was some complex, interesting person. I don't see why this is much different than any other sociopath with some obviously narcissistic features thrown in. I didn't read the writings and have no desire to.

Emphasis mine. I did read some of the writings and found him to be a complex, interesting person. Hitler and the Unabomer were also complex, interesting people. My saying that doesn't mean I condone what they did.

Also, for the umpteenth time, if you read what he wrote, you would see that narcissism was not the fundamental problem. He made some narcissistic statements, but they were quite obviously a defense mechanism against overwhleming feelings of inadequacy and social anxiety.

I think our desire to read these things are part of the problem. I include myself in this problem, at least with other high profile cases (this particular case does nothing for me). I cringe at reading how "fascinated" everyone is by him and his writings. No offense to any of you intended, but this is likely what he wanted. I really agree with Erg's point that the fact that he felt inclined to write a "manifesto" speaks volumes.

So you, too, are advertising your ignorance of the subject, and proudly proclaiming that it's better to be ignorant in this case, on the basis of... no knowledge whatsoever.

I didn't say or imply anyone is commending what he did. Glorifying it a bit, yeah. Also, when someone writes a 150-page "manifesto" about himself and posts it on the internet, I'm not sure what other motivation there could be other than a desire for others to read it.

It wasn't a manifesto. And he didn't post it on the internet. He emailed it to people he considered friends, his parents, and his psychiatrist. These are basic misconceptions held by people who, never mind reading his "autobiography," apparently aren't even paying attention to the news articles.

That not a very good understanding of what I'm saying.

Then what are you saying? What do you believe statistics prove so well in this case, that conclusions based on them in fact cannot be contradicted by actual, available information about the case?

 

[LPPSYD]

Then you have to explain why the vast majority of people who aren't getting what they want don't kill people.

On that note, I have to say I've never found the "Occam's razor" argument convincing. The best explanation is the best explanation, not the simplest one. If the simplest explanation doesn't explain things as well as a more complex one, then it's not the best explanation.


Emphasis mine. I did read some of the writings and found him to be a complex, interesting person. Hitler and the Unabomer were also complex, interesting people. My saying that doesn't mean I condone what they did.

Also, for the umpteenth time, if you read what he wrote, you would see that narcissism was not the fundamental problem. He made some narcissistic statements, but they were quite obviously a defense mechanism against overwhleming feelings of inadequacy and social anxiety.


So you, too, are advertising your ignorance of the subject, and proudly proclaiming that it's better to be ignorant in this case, on the basis of... no knowledge whatsoever.


It wasn't a manifesto. And he didn't post it on the internet. He emailed it to people he considered friends, his parents, and his psychiatrist. These are basic misconceptions held by people who, never mind reading his "autobiography," apparently aren't even paying attention to the news articles.

You can be informed of the case without reading his writings. That's his perception, it's not necessarily reality. He saw himself as the victim here, correct? My mistake about the "writings" (what are we calling them ?). Didn't he post the YouTube videos himself though? If so, that kind of makes it a moot point. Again, I never said anyone was commending or condoning him, but there is a surprising amount of defensiveness in this thread.

For reference, this is coming from someone who watched the Jodi Arias trial in its entirety. I, too, am part of the problem. I don't see her as a complex, interesting person either, though.

 

[erg923]

Because they chose not to. Free will. Again, parsimony-which you dont seem to fully undrstand. It's the default hypothesis until one can prove otherwise. All we have to prove otherwise is his own view of the situation. From a scientific perspective, the most biased and likely inaccurate evidence possible.

 

[Trismegistus4]

Because they chose not to. Free will. Again, parsimony-which you dont seem to fully undrstand. It's the default hypothesis until one can prove otherwise. All we have to prove otherwise is his own view of the situation. From a scientific perspective, the most biased and likely inaccurate evidence possible.

So the only difference between Elliot Rodger and the millions of people who are not getting what they want but are not killing people is that the latter are choosing not to? And you can simply declare this the "default" hypothesis? Whatever. I've provided numerous reasons in this thread why his writings are relevant, as well as numerous examples of factual incidents he refers to in them being corroborated by his friends and family. You simply don't want to hear it. I'm not sure why your mind is so closed on this topic, but it seems to be very important to you to cling to this a priori assumption of narcissism.

 

[erg923]

So the only difference between Elliot Rodger and the millions of people who are not getting what they want but are not killing people is that the latter are choosing not to?

Uh, I think that answer to that question is an obvious "YES."

 

[splik]

trismegistus - i think you identify too closely with elliot rodger and as a result of your concordant countertransference have fallen into a countertransferential blindspot where you fail to see what is quite clear to everyone else: he was a narcissist. I have read through his autobiography and whilst we obviously cannot make a full diagnostic formulation, the whole thing screams narcissism which often goes hand in hand with avoidant personality pathology (and some have even suggested that avoidant personality disorder be subsumed under narcissistic pathology). He reveals his destructive envy, rage, preoccupation with fantasies of imagined success and importance, vacillates between feeling of superiority and inferiority, omnipotence and helplessness, has an unnerving sense of entitlement, he believed he was special and has a sense of self-importance, shows a glaring lack of empathy believing his own needs and entitlements should come before that of others (particularly women). He wanted to be the center of attention and admired, and doesn't appear to have viewed women as people or capable of understanding what a loving relationship looked like. Women and sex represented power and status to him, and he defended against he inadequacy he felt with phantasies of his own brilliance that other people were apparently unable to see, and seeking retribution.

You seem to have glossed over information that reveals his misogyny and narcissism. For example you made it sound like he only sent his autobiography to a few choice people, but he also sent it to news stations which is much more in keeping with his inflated sense of self-importance. You seem to accept at face value that his disdain for women comes at the hands of rejection and maltreatment from them, and claim his step-mother was abusive towards him. Even he doesn't provide any evidence from his descriptions that she was abusive, but it was clear he had a deep disdain for her and resented her for behaving in perfectly (from his descriptions) reasonable ways because of his sense of entitlement. It is also clear that he regarded women as weak including his mother. His descriptions of men of the boyfriends of the women he supposedly coveted are more detailed than of women.

It is somewhat concerning that you seem to be unable to see or acknowledge that he obviously had severe narcissistic pathology. Most of the narcissistic patients we see are actually the covert narcissists who tend to present more with the feelings of inferiority, fear of inadequancy and rejection. This can often be missed in clinical practice unless you are following the patient for a long period of time. Highly recommend Broken Structures by Salman Akhtar. In the original DSM-III criteria "marked feelings of rage, inferiority, shame, humiliation or emptiness, in response to criticism or indifference from others, or defeat" featured prominently.

 

[erg923]

I saw Ted Millon speak about narcissism not long before his death (When I was on my personality assessment kick during graduate school). He then handed over the rest of the talk to some of his..."disciples" It was kinda a joke, but, uh not really.

 

[Trismegistus4]

trismegistus - i think you identify too closely with elliot rodger and as a result of your concordant countertransference have fallen into a countertransferential blindspot where you fail to see what is quite clear to everyone else: he was a narcissist. I have read through his autobiography and whilst we obviously cannot make a full diagnostic formulation, the whole thing screams narcissism which often goes hand in hand with avoidant personality pathology (and some have even suggested that avoidant personality disorder be subsumed under narcissistic pathology). He reveals his destructive envy, rage, preoccupation with fantasies of imagined success and importance, vacillates between feeling of superiority and inferiority, omnipotence and helplessness, has an unnerving sense of entitlement, he believed he was special and has a sense of self-importance, shows a glaring lack of empathy believing his own needs and entitlements should come before that of others (particularly women).

<snip>

Most of the narcissistic patients we see are actually the covert narcissists who tend to present more with the feelings of inferiority, fear of inadequancy and rejection. This can often be missed in clinical practice unless you are following the patient for a long period of time. Highly recommend Broken Structures by Salman Akhtar. In the original DSM-III criteria "marked feelings of rage, inferiority, shame, humiliation or emptiness, in response to criticism or indifference from others, or defeat" featured prominently.

Then, this seems actually to be a debate about what narcissism really is. I don't accept this psychoanalytic theory that narcissism fundamentally stems from feelings of inferiority, fear of inadequacy, and rejection. In the original Greek myth, Narcissus really did think highly of himself. He fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. The word should be used to refer to people who really do think too highly of themselves. If you're saying the fundamental problem really was feeling inferior and inadequate, you're agreeing with me. However, I think if you read what he wrote and still believe he really did have these feelings of superiority, that he really believed he was special and had sense of self-importance, you're missing the forest for the trees. I think it's fairly obvious the statements he made along those lines were a form of "whistling past the graveyard," an effort to counteract his feelings of inferiority and inadequacy.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Then, this seems actually to be a debate about what narcissism really is. I don't accept this psychoanalytic theory that narcissism fundamentally stems from feelings of inferiority, fear of inadequacy, and rejection. In the original Greek myth, Narcissus really did think highly of himself. He fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. The word should be used to refer to people who really do think too highly of themselves. If you're saying the fundamental problem really was feeling inferior and inadequate, you're agreeing with me. However, I think if you read what he wrote and still believe he really did have these feelings of superiority, that he really believed he was special and had sense of self-importance, you're missing the forest for the trees. I think it's fairly obvious the statements he made along those lines were a form of "whistling past the graveyard," an effort to counteract his feelings of inferiority and inadequacy.

Can't there be two types of Narcissism? Since the DSM doesn't use etiology in it's classification system, then you can have the same condition occurring from a variety of causes. We see this every day, don't we? On the one hand, you acknowledge the existence of compensatory narcissist defenses and describe it in the subject, then you say you don't agree with that theory. I'm confused.

 

[splik]

Then, this seems actually to be a debate about what narcissism really is. I don't accept this psychoanalytic theory that narcissism fundamentally stems from feelings of inferiority, fear of inadequacy, and rejection. In the original Greek myth, Narcissus really did think highly of himself. He fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. The word should be used to refer to people who really do think too highly of themselves. If you're saying the fundamental problem really was feeling inferior and inadequate, you're agreeing with me. However, I think if you read what he wrote and still believe he really did have these feelings of superiority, that he really believed he was special and had sense of self-importance, you're missing the forest for the trees. I think it's fairly obvious the statements he made along those lines were a form of "whistling past the graveyard," an effort to counteract his feelings of inferiority and inadequacy.

NPD is entirely a psychoanalytic concept. It wouldn't exist if it weren't for psychoanalysis and particularly the contributions of Kernberg and Kohut and the self-absorption and rise of self-obsessed American culture from the 1970s onwards. If you reject psychoanalytic ideas on NPD, then you pretty much reject the construct itself. In fact countries that do not subscribe to those ideas do not believe in the disorder at all. The World Health Organization does not include the diagnosis in the International Classification of Diseases and the personality disorders working group says they never will.

You obviously don't know the original Greek myth. First, Narcissus, comes from the greek work narke which means "numb" or "numbness". In the original stories, he didn't die because he fell in love with his reflection, he committed suicide by drowning because he realized he could never be loved in the way he wanted.

In the DSM-5:
Vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with narcissistic personality disorder very sensitive to “injury” from criticism or defeat. Although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack. Such experiences often lead to social withdrawal or an appearance of humility that may mask and protect the grandiosity. Interpersonal relations are typically impaired because of problems derived from entitlement, the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others. Though overweening ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement, performance may be disrupted because of intolerance of criticism or defeat. Sometimes vocational functioning can be very low, reflecting an unwillingness to take a risk in competitive or other situations in which defeat is possible. Sustained feelings of shame or humiliation and the attendant self-criticism may be associated with social withdrawal, depressed mood, and persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia) or major depressive disorder.

The concept of narcissistic pathology is one of the hardest concepts in psychiatry to wrap one's head around, but it's interesting you have redefined narcissism in order to deny that he wasn't one despite fitting all the descriptive criteria.

 

[Trismegistus4]

Can't there be two types of Narcissism? Since the DSM doesn't use etiology in it's classification system, then you can have the same condition occurring from a variety of causes. We see this every day, don't we? On the one hand, you acknowledge the existence of compensatory narcissist defenses and describe it in the subject, then you say you don't agree with that theory. I'm confused.

The people who say he did what he did because of narcissism seem to think that while the narcissism may have originated as a defense mechanism, he really did think too highly of himself. I don't think he did. I think he thought very lowly of himself, and felt this low self-esteem acutely. I think the narcissistic statements he made were very superficial window-dressing and he didn't even believe them himself.

NPD is entirely a psychoanalytic concept. It wouldn't exist if it weren't for psychoanalysis and particularly the contributions of Kernberg and Kohut and the self-absorption and rise of self-obsessed American culture from the 1970s onwards. If you reject psychoanalytic ideas on NPD, then you pretty much reject the construct itself. In fact countries that do not subscribe to those ideas do not believe in the disorder at all. The World Health Organization does not include the diagnosis in the International Classification of Diseases and the personality disorders working group says they never will.

Yeah, I don't really believe in narcissistic personality disorder. I've never met anyone who fulfilled its criteria.

You obviously don't know the original Greek myth. First, Narcissus, comes from the greek work narke which means "numb" or "numbness".

I googled this, and it seems to be speculation. Some of the sources say "possibly."

In the original stories, he didn't die because he fell in love with his reflection, he committed suicide by drowning because he realized he could never be loved in the way he wanted.

I admit I wasn't very well-versed in it, but I just pulled my copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses off the shelf and it supports what I said. He fell in love with his reflection, then died or committed suicide because he essentially realized he could never have a consummated love affair with himself.

From Wikipedia:

The classic version is by Ovid, found in book 3 of his Metamorphoses (completed 8 AD); this is the story of Narcissus and Echo. One day Narcissus was walking in the woods when Echo, an Oread(mountain nymph) saw him, fell deeply in love, and followed him. Narcissus sensed he was being followed and shouted "Who's there?". Echo repeated "Who's there?". She eventually revealed her identity and attempted to embrace him. He stepped away and told her to leave him alone. She was heartbroken and spent the rest of her life in lonely glens until nothing but an echo sound remained of her. Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, learned of this story and decided to punish Narcissus. She lured him to a pool where he saw his own reflection. He didn't realize it was only an image and fell in love with it. He eventually realized that his love could not be addressed and committed suicide.[1]

An earlier version ascribed to the poet Parthenius of Nicaea, composed around 50 BC, was recently rediscovered among the Oxyrhynchus papyri at Oxford.[2] Like Ovid's version, it ends with Narcissus committing suicide. A version by Conon, a contemporary of Ovid, also ends in suicide (Narrations, 24). In it, a young man named Aminias fell in love with Narcissus, who had already spurned his male suitors. Narcissus also spurned him and gave him a sword. Aminias committed suicide at Narcissus's doorstep. He had prayed to the gods to give Narcissus a lesson for all the pain he provoked. Narcissus walked by a pool of water and decided to drink some. He saw his reflection, became entranced by it, and killed himself because he could not have his object of desire.[1]

From http://www.pantheon.org/articles/n/narcissus.html:

In the Roman poet Ovid's retelling of the myth, Narcissus is the son of the river god Cephissus and the nymphLiriope. Tiresias, the seer, told his parents that the child "would live to an old age if it did not look at itself." Many nymphs and girls fell in love with him but he rejected them. One of these nymphs, Echo, was so distraught over this rejection that she withdrew into a lonely spot and faded until all that was left was a plaintive whisper. The goddess Nemesis heard the rejected girls prayers for vengeance and arranged for Narcissus to fall in love with his own reflection. He stayed watching his reflection and let himself die. It is quite possible, however, that the connection between Echo and Narcissus was entirely Ovid's own invention, for there is no earlier witness to it.
An important and earlier variation of this tale originates in the region in Greek known as Boeotia (to the north and west of Athens). Narcissus lived in the city of Thespiae. A young man, Ameinias, was in love with Narcissus, but he rejected Ameinias' love. He grew tired of Ameinias' affections and sent him a present of a sword. Ameinias killed himself with the sword in front of Narcissus' door and as he died, he called curses upon Narcissus. One day Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection in a spring and, in desperation, killed himself.

In the DSM-5:
Vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with narcissistic personality disorder very sensitive to “injury” from criticism or defeat. Although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack. Such experiences often lead to social withdrawal or an appearance of humility that may mask and protect the grandiosity. Interpersonal relations are typically impaired because of problems derived from entitlement, the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others. Though overweening ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement, performance may be disrupted because of intolerance of criticism or defeat. Sometimes vocational functioning can be very low, reflecting an unwillingness to take a risk in competitive or other situations in which defeat is possible. Sustained feelings of shame or humiliation and the attendant self-criticism may be associated with social withdrawal, depressed mood, and persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia) or major depressive disorder.

The concept of narcissistic pathology is one of the hardest concepts in psychiatry to wrap one's head around, but it's interesting you have redefined narcissism in order to deny that he wasn't one despite fitting all the descriptive criteria.

We don't really know much about his response to criticism; he didn't describe much criticism in his autobiography because he interacted with people so little. And his grandiose thoughts weren't, as this paragraph seems to imply, primary, with social withdrawal added as a compensatory mechanism. It was the other way around. The social withdrawal came first.

 

[smalltownpsych]

NPD is entirely a psychoanalytic concept. It wouldn't exist if it weren't for psychoanalysis and particularly the contributions of Kernberg and Kohut and the self-absorption and rise of self-obsessed American culture from the 1970s onwards. If you reject psychoanalytic ideas on NPD, then you pretty much reject the construct itself. In fact countries that do not subscribe to those ideas do not believe in the disorder at all. The World Health Organization does not include the diagnosis in the International Classification of Diseases and the personality disorders working group says they never will.

You obviously don't know the original Greek myth. First, Narcissus, comes from the greek work narke which means "numb" or "numbness". In the original stories, he didn't die because he fell in love with his reflection, he committed suicide by drowning because he realized he could never be loved in the way he wanted.

In the DSM-5:
Vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with narcissistic personality disorder very sensitive to “injury” from criticism or defeat. Although they may not show it outwardly, criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack. Such experiences often lead to social withdrawal or an appearance of humility that may mask and protect the grandiosity. Interpersonal relations are typically impaired because of problems derived from entitlement, the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others. Though overweening ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement, performance may be disrupted because of intolerance of criticism or defeat. Sometimes vocational functioning can be very low, reflecting an unwillingness to take a risk in competitive or other situations in which defeat is possible. Sustained feelings of shame or humiliation and the attendant self-criticism may be associated with social withdrawal, depressed mood, and persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia) or major depressive disorder.

The concept of narcissistic pathology is one of the hardest concepts in psychiatry to wrap one's head around, but it's interesting you have redefined narcissism in order to deny that he wasn't one despite fitting all the descriptive criteria.

I have never actually diagnosed anyone with NPD, but many of my patients with anxiety or depression or substance abuse are extremely self-focused. I think I would side with the WHO on this one. I have serious issues with the entire diagnostic classification system, but the personality disorders are the worst of the bunch IMO.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Don’t be too hard on Narcissism, we have lost a lot of personality disorders (my favorite was inadequate PD), but this one tends to be held onto because, although poorly defined, it describes some people very well.
To quote Justice Potter Stewart, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it”.
I grant all of the arguments about validity and co-morbidity, but just try treating a few then read Kohut and Kernberg's. Their ideas about narcissistic characteristics involving self-love and aggrandizement that are formed as a defense against a child's experience of extreme frustration in early object relationships fits like a glove sometimes. You don’t need too many experiences where you are listening to a patient and your internal dialogue keeps leading you to “boy this guy sure has a lot of narcissistic traits, and all of the sudden the patient starts listing the products of his injustice collecting all the way back to his earliest memories without you leading him anywhere.
Before everyone start reminding me that hammers see nails, and we need to abandon these invalidated concepts if we are ever going to have credibility as a science, let me just say that I am aware of this. Of all of the invalidated concepts in the DSM (granted fewer over time), I prefer to keep the useful ones that help me frame a patient’s maladaptive behaviors so I can create a therapeutic approach that has worked for me in the past. It just feels like there is worse trash yet to be taken out of DSM before we get rid of this one.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I actually have read Kohut extensively as self psychology is the foundation of my theoretical orientation and Kernberg's book on conceptualizing and treating Borderline Personality, which also refers to other types of personality organization such as narcisstic, is one book I highly recommend. Maybe I just see diagnosis and personality functioning or structure as two separate yet related constructs.

 

[Trismegistus4]

I forgot to say, also, that were are potentially confusing at least three different meanings of the word "narcissist" here:

1. The colloquial meaning, which dictionary.com defines as "a person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish."
2. The psychoanalytic meaning, which I'm not very familiar with, but it's listed in dictionary.com defines as "a person who suffers from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes."
3. A person who meets DSM criteria for narcissistic personality disorder.

Now, it seems to me that no one could read Elliot Rodger's autobiography and come away with the impression that he was a "narcissist" according to definitions 1 or 2. If I'm reading erg923 correctly, either definition 1 or 2 is what he's tagging Elliot Rodger with, but he's not willing to consider a rebuttal because he doesn't think Rodger's autobiography is a valid source of information about him.

splik, on the other hand, seems to be saying Rodger met criteria for NPD, which I still don't think is entirely accurate, but I think is less inaccurate than saying he was a "narcissist" in sense 1 or 2. And, to the extent that in NPD, apparent narcissism is really just a cover for inadequacy and shame, maybe that is a valid descriptor for Rodger, but I object to using the word "narcissist" in that sense.