Clarification: the book is 45 years old and is available online as a PDF file. It's hard to read without a lot of background in the field. Psychiatric residents who used to read it often felt they had the disorder even if they didn't. I apologize for the snarky suggestion that you read it.
Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 7, 2017 10:06 PM, "Frank Wimberly" <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Glen, > > If you want to see how NPD is amenable to type 2 treatment see "Analysis > of the Self" by Kohut. I dare you. > > Frank > > > > > Frank Wimberly > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Jun 7, 2017 9:51 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Here is Glen's thoughtful post of January 20, reborn. To be honest, I >> don’t understand it. Not a bit. I am hoping that perhaps one or more of >> the rest of you can help me get it. Let’s start with one baby step. What >> is meant by LAYER in this text? The possible meanings open to me are, (1) a >> kind of hen; (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical >> descriptive scheme. So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of >> these meanings relevant to Glen’s post? >> >> >> >> Please help me out here. Intuition tells me that there is gold, here, >> but I just don’t have the tools to mine it out. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Excellent! Thanks, Eric (and everyone -- I'm enjoying this). So, here's >> my, in class, answer to Nick's quiz: >> >> >> >> nick> What is the difference between a circular explanation and a >> recursive one. What is the key dimension that determines whether an >> explanation is viciously circular? Is the virtuus dormitiva viciously >> circular? Why? Why not? >> >> >> >> *Recursive explanations contain layers of reasoning (e.g. mechanism vs >> phenomenon) whereas circular ones are flat.* [bolding by NST] Vicious >> circularity simply means "has only 1 layer". (I disagree with this >> idea.[*]) The virtus dormitiva has multiple (abstraction of language) >> layers and, by the single-layer defn of "vicious" is not vicious. >> >> >> >> Now, on to N[arcissitic]P[ersonality]D[isorder], I think we have 2 types >> of recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to >> me before, and 2) phenomenological. When we land in an attractor like >> "something is wrong with Trump", we're still within a single layer of >> reasoning (intuition, emotion, systemic gestalt, whatever). If we have a >> tacit feeling for NPD, we can stay within that single layer and simply >> assign a token to it: NPD. But if we're at all reductionist, we'll look >> for ways to break that layer into parts. Parts don't necessarily imply >> crossing layers. E.g. a meaningful picture can be cut into curvy pieces >> without claiming the images on the pieces also have meaning. So 1) we can >> simply name various (same layer) phenomena that hook together like jigsaw >> pieces to comprise NPD. Or 2) we can assert that personality traits are >> layered so that the lower/inner turtles _construct_ the higher/outer >> turtles. >> >> >> >> What Frank says below is of type (1). What Jochen (and others) have >> talked about before (childhood experiences, etc.) is more like type (2). >> The question arises of whether the layering of symbolic compression >> (renaming sets of same-layer attributes) is merely type (1) or does it >> become type (2). To me, mere _renaming_ doesn't cut it. There must be a >> somewhat objectively defined difference, a name-independent difference. >> So, if we changed all the words we use (don't use "narcissism", >> "personality", "disorder", "emptiness", etc. ... use booga1, booga2, >> booga3, etc.), would we _still_ see a cross-trophic effect? Note that >> mathematics has elicited lots of such demonstrations of irreducible >> layering ... e.g. various no-go theorems. But those are syntactic >> _demonstrations_ ... without the vagaries introduced by natural language >> and scientific grounding. To assert that problems like natural selection >> vs. adaptation or the diagnosis of NPD also demonstrate such cross-trophic >> properties would _require_ complete formalization into math. Wolpert did >> this (I think) to some extent. But I doubt it's been done in evolutionary >> theory and I'm fairly confident it hasn't been done in psychiatry. (I >> admit my ignorance, of course... doubt is a good mistress but a bad master.) >> >> >> >> More importantly, though, I personally don't believe a recursive cycle is >> _any_ different from a flat cycle. Who was it that said all deductive >> inference is tautology? I have it in a book somewhere, cited by John >> Woods. Unless there is some significantly different chunk of reasoning >> somewhere in one of the layers, all the layers perfectly _reduce_ to a >> single layer. >> >> >> >> Hence, my answer to Nick's quiz (at the pub after class) is that _all_ >> cycles are "vicious" (if vicious means single layer), but if we take my >> concept of "vicious", then only those cycles that _hide_ behind (false) >> layers are vicious. >> >> >> >> >> >> [*] I think a cycle is vicious iff it causes problems. Tautologies don't >> cause problems. They don't solve them. But they don't cause them either. >> So a vicious cycle must have more than 1 layer. >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? >> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:57 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com >> > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: >> Any non-biological complex systems? >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Having been called a "troll" for most of my adult life, I'd love to hear >> why Owen lobs the insult. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 06/07/2017 01:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> > Owen, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I don’t understand this comment. Who’s a troll? Are you trolling, >> here? Is this irony? I don’t follow. >> >> > >> >> > [...] >> >> > >> >> > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com >> <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf Of Owen >> >> > Densmore >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:40 PM >> >> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> > <friam@redfish.com> >> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem >> WAS: Any non-biological complex systems? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Troll >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ☣ glen >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
