- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Most celebrities have at best graduated from high school. Hence, it is quite extraordinary that they should feel sufficiently knowledgeable as to "contribute" to complex issues in physics (Madonna), psychiatry (Tom Cruise), or medicine (Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Somers). Here is a thought: Entertain us at the movies and in concert halls, and leave the science for scientists. Celebrities might wish to take heed of the famous quote by Confucius: "When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge."
Celeb grandiosity
Mr. Saad,
You've made some interesting points, but I think you left out a key element. With the exception of Deepak Chopra, the celebrities that you cite all have histories in acting. An actor's basic task can be defined as convincing oneself that something unreal is real, that something that is not going on actually is. In fact, with the increasing use of green screens, more and more actors are being paid to pretend to do something when they're really standing in front of a blank screen. They spend their lives trying to get better at believing in something that is not real. I think that the ones who succeed tend to be people who are more suggestible by nature.
Now, if you take a person who has doesn't have much education, as you pointed out, enhance their ability to believe in things that aren't real, give them an audience of people who will believe anything they say, turn on a TV camera and stick a microphone in their hand, you've got the recipe for a feedback loop of stupidity.
Well said sir.
Many thanks for your astute comments. I am in full agreement with you.
GS
You're welcome.
And thank you.
Roy Blount
Roy Blount said: "As Roy Blount said, you can be so rich that no one will tell you when you're being silly."
But I think there is another aspect to this: the desire to appear to be control.
I have written about it here.
http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/when-magical-thinking-works-it.html
Well, we also treat them like experts
Erik Erikson's daughter wrote a memoir called In the shadow of fame (http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Fame-Memoir-Daughter-Erikson/dp/067003374X/...)in which she said, among other things, that her father worked very hard to achieve fame in order to compensate for a shaky sense of self--the basic narcissistic dynamic. (For what it's worth, I spent a little time with Erikson late in his life, and he certainly didn't strike me as narcissistic. But I only interacted with him professionally, obviously his daughter would know better than I). Anyway, I mention the basic idea--fame as compensation--in support of your thesis.
But (as you note) there's also an important social dimension here. We're the ones who want to know who Robert Redford supports for president, because of our conviction that he's such a special guy. I've been writing about this at my blog Sex, Drugs and Boredom.(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-drugs-and-boredom)
Memoir sounds fascinating
I will have to check out the memoir that you mentioned in your comment, as well as your blog.
GS
I have a question - is Deepak
I have a question - is Deepak Chopra displaying narcissism, or is Richard Dawkins, or is it both?
I actually think you may have stumbled on a good example, because many of the so called New Atheists, of whom Dawkins is one, display grandiose, narcissistic character traits. All are prominent in the public eye at this moment.
For example, to say Richard Dawkins is entirely convinced of his own views is something of an understatement. As far as Dawkins is concerned, if you disagree with him your either delusional (the title of his book!), you don't understand the arguments, don't know enough or are simply stupid, all of which betray grandiosity and a lack of empathy for others. You could imagine the exact same words coming from the leader of any other religious cult.
He is the self-appointed spokesperson for the "rational majority", and his website is a kind of cultish focal point for those who regard themselves as rational, and is branded a "clear thinking Oasis".
Richard Dawkins is not an individual who is willing to let his arguments alone speak for him either - he shows signs of being extraordinarily image conscious, and his features adorn everything he publishes, from websites to books.
His ideas about the meaning of life - it's an essentially meaningless means for genes to propogate themselves - can logically be interpreted as narcissistic.
Whether you sympathise with Dawkins or not, it's difficult to read a book such as the God Delusion and conclude that it isn't querulous, grandiloquent and disaparaging in tone - all classical N-behvaiour traits.
I think so called new rationality is providing us with some interesting examples of narcissistic drive, and no area more so than the New Atheists!!!
Unsure that Richard Dawkins can be construed as a narcissist.
Many thanks for your thoughts. My take on Richard Dawkins is that he is angered by belief systems that depart from rational thought and/or that cannot be tested using the scientific method. I do agree that he can be quite pugnacious in his approach but I am unsure that this would qualify him as a narcissist. To the extent that he is self-assured, this is backed by a career full of laudable scientific and literary accomplishments. The same could not be said of Madonna or other celebrities who pretend to be capable of participating in scientific discourse.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your position. Ciao for now.
GS
That's true, although his
That's true, although his latest innovation - atheist summer camps in which participating children can win a £10 note signed by him for disproving the invisible unicorn, is interesting.......!!
This is made more ironic by the fact that one of his central arguments is that theism leads inevitably to religion. I actually think religions, particularly destructive ones, usually have narcissistic drive at their core, not theism, and there have been plenty of destructive atheist "religions" (e.g. communism) with narcissistic, even psychopathic individuals driving their expansion.
Is Richard Dawkins inspiring (or creating!) a religion? We shall see, although Dawkins seems to lack any insight into how he might be, which I can scarcely believe in someone who is supposedly intellectual.
On a seperate note, I think as western cultures become increasingly individualistic and certain N-Traits become, almost, appropriate, understanding the manifestation of narcissistic drive and psychopathy will become completely key to enjoying the kind of economic and technological boom we have had without the down sides of Enrons and Credit Crises, or worse.....
Celeb grandiosity
It was refreshing to read something intelligent written to help explain how celebs have both the gall to make these claims, as well as the short-sightedness to actually believe their nonsensical notions. I had not heard of Madonna's Lake cleansing but LOL at this preposterous claim! Are you sure she was serious?
Celebs may be narcisstic but
Celebs may be narcisstic but so are everybody else. We are just showing it differently. I don't know if Jenny Mccarthy is talking nonsense but I know that science has its limitations and many times it has been proven wrong.
Proven wrong by science and
Proven wrong by science and scientific studies, not by celebrities or public opinion or reaction-ism. Anyways, science is constantly evolving. There is never an absolute "right."
Your article is pompous,
Your article is pompous, derisive, and speculative to the extreme, while essentially castigating celebrities for the same nasty quirks. There's a mirror with your name on it, Dr. Whomever.
Are you the publicist for one of the celebrities in question? :)
I am unsure which elements of my post were speculative other than the "existential guilt" explanation, which I began with the following proviso: "This next point is somewhat speculative so I hope that you’ll grant me some leeway." So congratulations "anonymous"... you've proven to us all that you know how to read. There I go being derisive again!
If I understand you correctly, it is pompous of me to point out that celebrities pretend to be experts in physics, evolutionary theory, medicine, and psychiatry. I can only conclude that you must be a representative of one of the celebrities in question. :)
Incidentally, hurling personal insults whilst hiding under the cloak of anonymity will not win you awards of bravery and intellectual courage.
Nonetheless, many thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
GS
My thoughts exactly. Hey pot,
My thoughts exactly. Hey pot, you are black. signed Kettle.
I guess if your not University educated, you shouldn't comment on anything. What a lofty view you have from your ivory tower. These celebrities are using their status to do some good, or at least what they think is good. Maybe it's not based on proven science, but they have the ability to broadcasts their beleifs and are doing so to help others. Remember, Psychology is an immature pseudoscience, its growing up, yet still has much to learn. Show some humility! Your article makes giant leaps, entirely convinced of its own views. If you disagree, you're either delusional, you don't understand the arguments, don't know enough or are simply stupid, all of which betray grandiosity and a lack of empathy for others. eg. Narcisism.
I am going to assume that you are Tom Cruise.
Given your disdain for science and your claim that psychology is a pseudo-science, I can only imagine that you must be Tom Cruise. Hey Tom, I really enjoyed you in Top Gun. Great movie.
By the way Tom, given that psychology is a pseudo-science, I wonder why you bother trolling the Internet and visiting sites that support "pseudo-science" such as Psychology Today. You should be using your might to cure mental illness via the power of Scientology.
Celebrities do indeed use their fame to contribute to society. However, when they opine about topics that they know nothing about then this is exactly what is meant by grandiosity and narcissism.
Spare me your insults Tom. You need to work on your logic. Also, you should have enough courage to fully identify yourself when posting insults rather than hiding behind the "anonymous" appellation.
GS
One other quick point.
When celebrities promulgate ideas such as vaccines cause autism or that mental illness can be cured by taking vitamins and exercising, this is not "doing good" as you proclaim. When they deny evolution, which is the foundational mechanism to explain biological diversity, they are not "doing good." When they proclaim that leeches are the elixir of youth, they are not "doing good." As a matter of fact, they are causing GREAT HARM.
When your tooth aches, you visit a dentist and not an actor. When your car breaks down, you take it to a mechanic and not an actor. When you get on a plane, you assume that it is flown by a trained airline pilot and not by Tom Cruise (who played a Navy pilot in Top Gun). Accordingly, do you not think that physicists, evolutionary scientists, chemists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and epidemiologists might know more about their respective fields than the celebrities that I mentioned in my post? Tell me again who is arrogant?
GS
This is silly
Everyone feels self-entitled and better than everyone else. Everyone wants fame and fortune and money and grandeur. Everyone secretly feels disconnected from society and the universe. Everyone fears death and does whatever he/she can do to pretend it's not going to happen. Everyone has lingering feelings of self-doubt. Everyone manipulates and uses others to their own end. Everyone would like to walk down the street and have all the people around know them and love them and respect them and find them endlessly fascinating. That's what it means to be human.
There is no difference between a "narcissist" and everyone else, except perhaps a slight matter of degree.
There's a difference
If you believe the only difference between a narcissist and everyone else is the degree to which they experience these feelings and display these characteristics, you've probably not dealt with a true malignant narcissist in your own life. If that is the case, I am envious! They are not like everyone else, and in a gross simplification, it's as though they possess all that makes one human except for the precise thing that makes one human - that is to say, a mature conscience (or even a rudimentary one, for that matter). They are to be avoided at all costs. They cannot be cured. Your life depends on extricating yourself from their influence. Please excuse the melodrama but in this case, it's warranted.
You cannot be serious
The one thing that comes to mind after reading this post is: "Perception is Projection." There are more than one way to make sense of our world, and scientific method is as limited as any other approach - any researcher can point it out. The only saving grace of science is the acknowledgement of its limitations, and in this post you missed that key point. People you mentioned operate from a different paradigm, with a different set of presupositions and beliefs. Claiming that you are right and they are wrong is really a very old tune.
The postmodernist manifesto. Good work.
I see that you are chanting the central tenets of postmodernism (all knowledge is subjective; there are no universal truths; science is only one of many ways of knowing).
If you were to require a medical intervention, would you rely on the fact that "people...operate from a different paradigm, with a different set of presupositions [sic] and beliefs" or would you place your hands in a physician trained in the latest medical knowledge? Would you solicit the help of a shaman who chants to the "cholesterol" spirits or take a statin? The next time that you fly in a plane, will this be due to the fact that engineers have mastered the aerodynamic laws associated with flight, or will you rely on "different set of presupositions [sic] and belief" to get you to the postmodernist conference that you'll be attending? That you and I can communicate via this electronic medium, is it due to a mastery of scientific principles associated with computer engineering or is it based "on different set of presupositions [sic] and beliefs"?
Your mantra is the only "old tune" here. It is part of a movement known as anti-science that is on its way out of the university campuses. No serious scholar has ever taken the obscurantist nonsense espoused by your position seriously. Sorry buddy but this is a "no postmodernism" zone.
GS
P.S. I do appreciate the fact that you've identified yourself. Too many contributors hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
Fantastic read!!
Fantastic read!!
Narcissism
10/4/11
WHEN are American psychologists/psychiatrists going to "get it"...how long do people have to suffer...?
Narcissism isn't necessarily linked to celebrity. It is, however, linked to a certain psychological function -- introverted feelings!
Feelings directed inwardly...
"love of self"...
hmmm.
this article is a joke
Writing an opinion in Psychology Today (a source of some of the worst, inaccurate, offensive, and most irresponsible pop psychology failings) will not make you famous. Oprah a narcissist?! Obviously you have no real clinical training. AND, before you poke too much fun at ancient spiritual beliefs, you might want to read up on your quantum physics...
Post new comment