There is no such diagnosis of "Malignant NPD".
en.wikipedia.org
Categories vs Dimensions
Absolutely correct - and if I said they CATEGORISED him as having malignant NPD I apologise. But I don't think I said that. If you go back, I think I said they
diagnosed him - not
categorised him.
You have to understand the DSM terms. It's been a few decades since I did my
little 2 year Advanced Dip in Social Sciences, but I don't think this is something that has changed. Indeed - if you just bothered to browse through the links in your quote above - you might
not have bombastically copied and pasted it here with your triumphant but incorrect assertions.
When they say malignant narcissism is not a diagnostic category, they are using a technical term. They are
not saying it is
not a thing. They are saying
malignant narcissism is still a thing - but described under
another technical method. It appears industry jargon threw you.
There are
categorical schemes and non-categorical schemes. The
categorical schemes try to be more
distinctive, and use scientifically observable
operational definitions - like observable phenomenon like increases in heart rate, blood pressure, etc.
The non-categorical schemes tend to describe things on a spectrum, aka
dimensional models. In this case - we know that all narcissists are hard to work with or live with, because they lack empathy and think they are entitled to everything. But within the NPD category - on that difficult spectrum - there are those with NPD that are particularly mean and seem to enjoy the suffering of others more than their NPD peers. It's a question of degrees within a disorder, not a different category. Red Green and Blue are Primary Colours. Teal is half way between Green and Blue, and is not a Primary Colour. But it
is still a
colour.
To make matters even worse - there is even debate about whether the
category system should be used at all! We all have bad days. We all can be a little narcissistic at times! Does that mean we all have NPD? Is this another area where one thing is art, but another is porn, and "I know it when I see it?"
Describing the incredible variety of human behaviours and quirks is
hard and technical.
Conceptually and theoretically
Highlighting "conceptually" and "theoretical" also betrays a lack of understanding as to how the DSM works. In another industry, it's the equivalent of going through a climate paper and highlighting every time they use the term "uncertainty" to argue that climate change isn't real. Or going through an oil reserves paper and highlighting "probability" or all the P numbers (P50, P80, whatever) to argue there is no such thing as oil!
Indeed, it's like you didn't even read the rest of the very Wiki you quoted from!
If "malignant narcissism" isn't a thing - please explain why the industry has been discussing it longer than I've been alive?
Early uses of the term
The
social psychologist Erich Fromm first coined the term "malignant narcissism" in 1964. He characterized the condition as a
solipsistic form of narcissism, in which the individual takes pride in their own inherent traits rather than their achievements, and thus does not require a connection to other people or to reality.
[11] Edith Weigert (1967) saw malignant narcissism as a "regressive escape from frustration by
distortion and denial of reality", while
Herbert Rosenfeld (1971) described it as "a disturbing form of narcissistic personality where grandiosity is built around aggression and the destructive aspects of the self become idealized."
[12] Psychoanalyst George H. Pollock wrote in
1978: "The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism".[13] In 1983,
M. Scott Peck used malignant narcissism as a way to explain evil.
[14]
Proposal as a diagnosis
Psychoanalyst
Otto Kernberg first introduced his ideas on narcissistic personalities in 1970. At that time, he used the word "
psychopathy" to describe a form of narcissistic personality that included antisocial and sadistic traits, but he did not yet use the term "malignant narcissism". He described the antisocial personality as fundamentally narcissistic and lacking morality, with a sadistic element that created, in essence, a sadistic psychopath.
[15]
If the
ICD is starting to abandon Categorical methods of describing even whole categories of different personality disorders themselves, and is moving towards a Dimensional description - should we be surprised that the DSM which still uses Categorical schemes settles for Dimensional models for sub-categories within NPD itself?