Correctly defined, isn't it? The parts of it that I'm able to hear and understand, that is. (My hearing is slightly impaired.)
“… is somebody who sees himself in a grandiose way, they have very little empathy for other people, the rules don’t apply to them, they have a sense of entanglement (?) that goes beyond anything that is (…?)
And you can put up a whole bunch of evidence of things that have come before them (…?)”
How does she end this last sentence? I am particularly interested in this part of it because of a pet theory of mine:
That narcissism is a major part of the problem of superstition.
Why don't quacks, for instance, the ones who are not in it for the money, try to prove that their alleged remedies actually work? If they actually cared for the well-being of their clients/patients, they would try to make sure that they really do help them. But they don't appear to be interested in
actually helping other people. Instead they are interested in being
recognized as the kind of people who help other people. The two things may sound similar, but they are actually very, very different, and, as we know on this forum, fatally so, sometimes.
Notice the similarity between this attitude and one of the very worst kinds of narcissism, Munchausen by proxy, also a killer:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/sick/munchausen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_Syndrome_by_Proxy
Would it help our cause if we came up with a
name for this psychological disorder?
(And even though I would feel extremely recognized, I would not appreciate e.g.
Dann by proxy!)
The attitude also is not very different from the one you find in people who are not really interested in making sure that their horoscopes or alleged conversations with the dead or with extra-terrestrials are actual phenomena.
