[here today]

I was diagnosed 5 years ago with PDNOS and DDNOS. I probably had OCPD before I fell apart after my late husband died. I have been in and out of therapy for 50 years, worked very hard, tried to be honest, etc. -- OCPD attitude. Finally made some good progress the last 5 years but my experience has been that good therapy for PD's and dissociation has been very hard to find (or even get diagnosed with).

What do some others think and feel about these 2 blog posts?

10 Signs You?re Dealing With An Emotionally Needy Narcissist | Caregivers, Family & Friends

Identifying Borderline Personality Disorder in a Friend or Loved One | World of Psychology

I felt very hurt by the judgmental attitude of the first article. I don't have NPD. If I didn't I might not feel the hurt. But since I don't have that kind of "armor" or even my OCPD armor any more, I feel both hurt and scared by the blogger's attitude. What if I had happened to land in her office for help?

The author of the second article seemed to have a much safer, helpful attitude.

Any others' reactions?

[vonmoxie]

I think there's a certain amount of crowd mentality that happens, whereby when enough people feel entitled to speak disparagingly about a specific group of persons, it creates an opportunity for people to release unexpressed hostility that may or may not even be fully to do with a situation at hand. Everybody's certainly entitled to their own feelings, and for processing individual hurts, but I think it's short-sighted, of anyone but especially of therapists, to remotely suggest that demonizing those embodying an NPD construct (or any other personality construct) is a viable method for resolve. To me that's approximately tantamount to suggesting that bullying can be an effective means of conflict resolution. Anyway, I think that it perpetuates unresolve.

But then, psych practitioners aren't immune from their own feelings of unresolve and stored hurt.. or just simple battle fatigue from struggling to help certain subsets of clients.. as can come across more clearly than they may realize sometimes, though I can see where both of these writers made good-faith efforts, albeit perhaps littered with some unfortunate phrasings.

I'm of the opinion that it is in one's best interests, at least initially, to be as much interviewing one's practitioners as much as they are interviewing you, because there is a lot at stake in putting that kind of trust in someone. Sadly that can be a difficult task at times, but what's the alternative?

[here today]

Very well put, Vonmoxie. Thanks.

[MiddayNap]

I found the first article to be terribly written, for start. I could scarcely read one sentence without my stomach churning-it read like a middleschool essay hastily written between bites of cereal. However, I suppose it was the content you wished to discuss; not how said content was presented.
The tone of the article was indeed very judgmental.
It would seem to me that the people described have emotional issues which need desperately to be worked out, but the purpose of this piece was to incite disgust, not compassion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping readers identify patterns in those who may be emotionally harmful, I simply don't believe that was the purpose of the article. Rather, I think a sentence from its very own opening paragraph sums up the writer's intent quite nicely.
"The topic of sociopathy and narcissism are by far the most popular topics on the web to date."
The second article felt a lot more professional. Not only was it better written, but the symptoms were presented as just that-symptoms. Facts should not be saturated in personal bias.
The second urged understanding, the first did not.

[crosstobear]

Originally Posted by vonmoxie

I think there's a certain amount of crowd mentality that happens, whereby when enough people feel entitled to speak disparagingly about a specific group of persons, it creates an opportunity for people to release unexpressed hostility that may or may not even be fully to do with a situation at hand. Everybody's certainly entitled to their own feelings, and for processing individual hurts, but I think it's short-sighted, of anyone but especially of therapists, to remotely suggest that demonizing those embodying an NPD construct (or any other personality construct) is a viable method for resolve. To me that's approximately tantamount to suggesting that bullying can be an effective means of conflict resolution. Anyway, I think that it perpetuates unresolve.

But then, psych practitioners aren't immune from their own feelings of unresolve and stored hurt.. or just simple battle fatigue from struggling to help certain subsets of clients.. as can come across more clearly than they may realize sometimes, though I can see where both of these writers made good-faith efforts, albeit perhaps littered with some unfortunate phrasings.

I'm of the opinion that it is in one's best interests, at least initially, to be as much interviewing one's practitioners as much as they are interviewing you, because there is a lot at stake in putting that kind of trust in someone. Sadly that can be a difficult task at times, but what's the alternative?

Excellently written.

[here today]

Originally Posted by MiddayNap

I found the first article to be terribly written, for start. I could scarcely read one sentence without my stomach churning-it read like a middleschool essay hastily written between bites of cereal. However, I suppose it was the content you wished to discuss; not how said content was presented.
The tone of the article was indeed very judgmental.
It would seem to me that the people described have emotional issues which need desperately to be worked out, but the purpose of this piece was to incite disgust, not compassion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping readers identify patterns in those who may be emotionally harmful, I simply don't believe that was the purpose of the article. Rather, I think a sentence from its very own opening paragraph sums up the writer's intent quite nicely.
"The topic of sociopathy and narcissism are by far the most popular topics on the web to date."
The second article felt a lot more professional. Not only was it better written, but the symptoms were presented as just that-symptoms. Facts should not be saturated in personal bias.
The second urged understanding, the first did not.

Thanks. I wondered if my feelings were just me or if there was really anything there in the articles. Like I said I’ve made a lot of progress, I used to be numb to judmentalism, tone, etc. Nowadays I pretty much know how I feel but not sure how much is “out there” or just triggering old experiences.