That's just a theory. Some would argue narcissists genuinely think the world is their sandbox. One camp tends to argue that narcissists are stuck in a primitive developmental stage as far as personality and morality goes, and thus genuinely believe they are entitled to certain treatment and are better than others. Another camp would say as you say. In fact, the outward behavior isn't necessarily frowned upon in some contexts.

Why assume something tragic or painful must have occurred to create a Cluster B personality? For instance, borderlines become borderlines through continued instances of abandonment (think being left alone in a shopping mall or inconsistent care, and not necessarily sudden death of both parents) and invalidation during sensitive periods, combined with sensitive temperament as a result of genes. These changes reflect in the way the growing brain adapts and thus develops. Likewise is true for narcissists, antisocials, etc. It doesn't have to be a major trauma, it's more often than not a continuous effort to function in a particularly structured family environment, it's what's adaptive during those sensitive periods where our brains are most plastic. If your environment promotes or enables egocentric behavior and you have a biological predisposition to it, that's the way the cookie sometimes crumbles. It's not necessarily a defense mechanism, either. Rather its a cluster of traits that developed for the aforementioned reasons.

Everyone views everyone else as X, Y, or Z. It's subjective and we live in a world of intersubjectivity. The fact, however is that we are social animals who are genetically programmed to survive in small bands. If you are utterly concerned with yourself and your interests, you're a liability to the group and get ostracized. You'll be the first to run when a sabre-toothed tiger pops up in the vicinity, and you'll be the one who hogs the biggest piece of the mammoth. Having empathy for such a person is antithetical to survival, being able to dehumanize them and dismiss them keeps the group functional. Now that civilization has largely turned survival of the fittest into a metaphorical phenomenon, the implications aren't so damning, but still, biology hasn't yet caught up with technological and social advancement. Humankind as a species, in its current form, hasn't been around extremely long, and given the extremely rapid advancement of society in the last few hundred years and the subsequent changing of what it means to be a human, our programming hasn't quite kept up with the times. We still think in terms of in-groups and out-groups and a person who is unabashedly about him or herself (given the context of the society they are in) and does nothing reciprocal to keep that system going is going to be seen as a liability and a drag on the others.

I'll agree to disagree. Life isn't fair or just. After some point I reached the conclusion that some people are irredeemable and not worth my concern. Let me ask you- are you male or female? Because this type of thinking is so female, lol.

I have some traits, but I don't have a full-blown diagnosis of any personality disorder. Take my answer for what its worth. Some people will empathize, and some won't, regardless of your personality or disorder. That's just life. You gravitate toward others if you see your needs aren't getting met. And let's be frank, most people don't truly take the time to get to know others. Add projection and transference into the mix and you have the cluster**** that is known as modern human interaction. I can make a case in court that the repeat-offending murderer is a product of brain abnormalities, an insensitive and disagreeable temperament and a lack of significant attachments; after all, psychopathy is a clinical disorder rooted in these factors. Will anyone try to empathize with the defendant? The disease model that assumes people are sick is useful for treatment and medical purposes, but it ends there. Most of the world sees things in regards to decisions and choices, and there are certain traits and actions which inhibit empathy. Although you can always make the entirely valid case that our choices, actions, and thoughts are confined to our biological and developmental "cards". I could care less if someone could "understand" me. No one can ever truly understand another person. Much of what we do is project onto others. At the end of the day, I'm fine being myself. I don't ask others to empathize with me because I will admit, I don't empathize with alot of people. There are some instances where I can empathize with people, like in my line of work, and with people who are important to me or of value to me, but often I could care less, and that's how lots of people are. My maxim is that I look out for myself, and my future family. No one else is of my concern unless they fulfill a valued role to me. And most people are like that, if you strip all the societal niceties. No one sheds a tear for you in the grand scheme of things, so look out for yourself and love yourself.