Men are More Narcissistic than Women, Psychologists Say

a reply to: bb23108

Doesn't your statement that you often feel better than others imply that you are looking down on others?

Don't you sometimes feel that you are better than others? Never mind feel, don't you know?

Doesn't an Olympic runner know she's a better runner than 99.something percent of the human race?

Doesn't the winner of the annual spelling bee know his spelling is better than most other American children's?

Doesn't the kid who scores most touchdowns for the school team know he's a better footballer than most of his schoolmates?

Doesn't the girl everybody comes crying to with their troubles know she's a better listener than most of her friends?

I cannot believe there isn't something you can do better than most other people you know.

Even if we're talking mere generalities here, I'm sure most of us are better all-round human beings than Martin Bormann ever was. Or the leader of ISIS is.

Maybe there is some cosmic sense in which we are all equal, but there's no real evidence for that.

originally posted by: bb23108
Doesn't your statement that you often feel better than others imply that you are looking down on others?

If someone feels superior to others it usually means they feel they are above them, so they must be also looking down on them.

Why do you feel better than others? There is inevitably skills that one can do better than some others, but there is almost certainly others that can do those same skills better. So why feel better (or worse) than others?

Nah, I don't believe that feeling better automatically makes us look down on others. For example : A teacher to his pupil.

I'm totally aware that everything I do, someone, somewhere does it better than me. But in overall, I'm very confident in my skills.

a reply to: Astyanax

What I was actually getting at was that such feelings that I am better than others are simply ways of trying to feel good about myself in some separative way. Such feelings are very shallow and meaningless to me because they reinforce a deluded sense of being separate, or out of relationship with others - in other words, Narcissus at the pond.

Many super stars are known for not just their great skills, but their "super" egos too. Not all, but I think you know what I am getting at. This is certainly not to say that people should not excel at what they do, but from an early age we should understand what our actual situation is here.

If you simply observe our actual condition here, it is an unlimited indivisible condition of relatedness. If one feels deeply into this actual condition, these old patterns of trying to reinforce our own separate identity (the felt sense of an internal ego-I) become obsolete and the great force of relatedness becomes our primary source of feeling, intelligence, and love.

Though we are obviously separate in terms of body-minds, we are not separate in terms of the whole - we arise in a field of indivisible unity. When you love someone completely, this feeling of relatedness is what you experience, not these separative inward contractions of the body-mind to reinforce an illusory inner sense of self.

Yes, the body-mind is apparently separate, but one's actual being is not. Once we stop trying to glorify an illusory self-image, and participate fully in non-separative relationship, the body-mind opens up, the heart opens up in love, everything changes because we have hooked up with our real condition, indivisible reality itself.

originally posted by: theMediator
Nah, I don't believe that feeling better automatically makes us look down on others. For example : A teacher to his pupil.

A teacher is obviously better than a pupil at performing whatever they are teaching, but if a teacher actually feels better than his pupil in some kind of superior, egoic, self-glorifying manner, then they are not the best of teachers, in my opinion.

At heart, everyone values relationship, because it is our native actual condition here. The best way to teach someone is to not assume one is somehow a better person than another, but to always be in relationship with them. This establishes trust, and is the right foundation for learning. Now that relationship may even involve some tough love, but always in relationship if one is truly skilled in teaching.

a reply to: bb23108

What I was actually getting at was that such feelings that I am better than others are simply ways of trying to feel good about myself in some separative way. Such feelings are very shallow and meaningless to me because they reinforce a deluded sense of being separate, or out of relationship with others - in other words, Narcissus at the pond.

No, they are not. If you genuinely feel you're better than someone at something, you're either right or delusive. If you tell others (and yourself) that you're better than others, then you probably aren't. There's a big difference.

People trying to feel good about themselves are to be encouraged and praised, because they are trying to maintain a positive outlook, sometimes under very trying conditions. Their feelings are the opposite of 'shallow and meaningless'; they are in fact very deep, and are strongly motivating.

And we all need to acknowledge our separateness from others at times. A good healthy ego is invaluable for a satisfactory and successful life.

a reply to: bb23108

if a teacher actually feels better than his pupil in some kind of superior, egoic, self-glorifying manner, then they are not the best of teachers, in my opinion.

What if he just feels better?

If a teacher does not believe he is better at his subject than his pupil, whence comes his authority to teach? Where does he obtain the necessary conviction to believe that he is teaching well? And why should the pupil listen to him?

At heart, everyone values relationship, because it is our native actual condition here.

Just as everyone values the self, because in the end that is all we have and are.

The best way to teach someone is to not assume one is somehow a better person than another, but to always be in relationship with them.

Are you a teacher?

Men are More Narcissistic than Women, Psychologists Say

No kidding.

I see more guys than girls staring at themselves in mirrors as they pass by. I see women look in a mirror to fix makeup, not to admire themselves. Men are just the opposite. They don't think they need make up and they like what they see of themselves. You can see it in their eyes.

Sorry. But that's been my experience.
I see more narcissistic men than women.

originally posted by: Astyanax

No, they are not. If you genuinely feel you're better than someone at something, you're either right or delusive. If you tell others (and yourself) that you're better than others, then you probably aren't. There's a big difference.

Of course people vary in terms of their skills, that is not what I am getting at. I am talking about the difference between feeling superior to others (and therefore separate) - not whether someone is actually better at doing something than me.

originally posted by: Astyanax
People trying to feel good about themselves are to be encouraged and praised, because they are trying to maintain a positive outlook, sometimes under very trying conditions. Their feelings are the opposite of 'shallow and meaningless'; they are in fact very deep, and are strongly motivating.

I guess that depends on the person and circumstance. Praising someone's service or performance is great - but praising someone's ego-I, which is an illusion, is just a game we all tend to play because we have been duped into believing a separate ego-I exists.

But yes, I agree, praise is food for the heart.

originally posted by: Astyanax
And we all need to acknowledge our separateness from others at times. A good healthy ego is invaluable for a satisfactory and successful life.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Just as everyone values the self, because in the end that is all we have and are.

The ego is not an entity. It is an activity of contracting in order to feel a separate sense of self - it is out of relationship, divorced from the actual reality we all exist together in - just like Narcissus staring at the pond rather than loving Echo.

If one really examines this matter, the ego-I does not exist except as the whole body-mind - not some inner self that needs to be consoled or congratulated. As the whole body-mind, we are actually never separated from the condition of relatedness. What the whole body-mind is, including awareness, is for us each to discover.

originally posted by: Astyanax

If a teacher does not believe he is better at his subject than his pupil, whence comes his authority to teach? Where does he obtain the necessary conviction to believe that he is teaching well? And why should the pupil listen to him?

I thought I clearly stated that the teacher is obviously better at his subject matter than the pupil. If this was not communicated properly, my apologies.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Are you a teacher?

I have trained many people on various applications I programmed over the years, and it is obvious that I know more about the applications than those being trained, but if I come across superior and not in a feeling relationship to the whole circumstance, I will lose their attention and the training will typically not be as complete as necessary.

In other words, giving them my full attention, rather than trying to get some kind of congratulations or sense of feeling good about myself, is the best way to teach, in my experience.

a reply to: bb23108

I am talking about the difference between feeling superior to others (and therefore separate) - not whether someone is actually better at doing something than me.

I know what you're talking about. It doesn't exist. The psychology is all wrong.

The ego is not an entity. It is an activity of contracting in order to feel a separate sense of self - it is out of relationship, divorced from the actual reality we all exist together in - just like Narcissus staring at the pond rather than loving Echo.

The ego is not an entity?

Look up the dictionary definition of the word 'ego'. Check out its Latin roots. Investigate its use by Freud, who introduced it as a very specific piece of terminology with a meaning it retains in psychological science to this day. Or is this some kind of bargain-basement folk-Buddhism? 'It's all an illusion, Om bom bom boom'? Give me a break. I have Buddhists coming out of my ears where I live, and believe me, they have serious egos.

a reply to: Astyanax
The ego is the me sense.
The separate me does not exist - it is a false identity.

There is only what is happening - this.

The separate me lives in the stage show in the head - the mental realm of 'there and then' - the show plays here and now.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I wish to hear from the person I was addressing. You are free to express your opinion, of course. It's not my web site.

This is likely to be biased. Take Sociopathy for example. There is a 4:1 ratio of male:female with this description. Then you take a part the label and the reason becomes obvious. There is a female equivalent of sociopathy, called borderline. Guess what happens? The ratio remains the same, but the sexual prevalence flips. 4:1 female to male. I think the way we're describing narcissism here is more likely to describe the male version here, in the instances where we find there to be more males. Women tend towards socialization more, social manipulation, and passive-aggressiveness. It's still aggression when it's passive.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The ego is not an entity?

Right. It is a moment-to-moment activity of contracting upon a point in the body-mind to create a separate sense of self. This was a necessary function to emerge when we were infants, to create our boundaries, etc., - but as adults, this constant self-meditation on our image in the pond, cripples us in terms of feeling the unlimited, indivisible force of reality or relatedness that we all arise in.

Once we see that we are actively contracting from relationship (and that it hurts), we gain some insight into what is actually happening here in terms of what is even obvious to the eye - that we exist in relationship, always.

LOL! Buddhists coming out your ears?

a reply to: bb23108

Thanks. I don't buy it. As for 'ego', it's just another word meaning 'I' or 'me'. If you wish to convince me that the self does not exist as a psychological entity, you'll be convincing a nonexistent entitiy. Why are you wasting your time?

People who think the ego doesn't exist are going into la-la land of immense circular reasoning. You can't keep a logical through process and continue to think on these lines. It does not compute. I'm in another one of those corrective thinking (oh the irony!) state-approved courses. We're told to read "chapters" that are a few paragraphs thick, and go through each step to become a whole individual again. One of these steps involves denying the psychological understanding of ego, and acknowledging that this is a false self, and really our "higher-self" is the real us.

There's so many holes in this line of reasoning, it's obviously meant for someone with a 3rd to 5th grade reading level, and the corresponding adult IQ to match it. I have to balance in class trying to be authentic, with being comprehended, and somehow still aligning my words with what will fit both into their narrative, and my own. The interesting thing is that many who possess below-average intellect still find the ability to feel out people who are not being entirely honest. Street smarts vs book smarts... I don't know.

The issue is not in dissolving the ego, trust me it's not something that should saught of people who wish to continue interacting in society. If you dissolve the ego, you're effectively insane and without the ability for a great many things necessary to be a well-rounded individual. The goal should be to align the ego's desires in ways which are beneficial for both the individual and hopefully the society and culture which the person finds him self in. Another way would be to find the ego as a pivot point in a balance of the "super ego (or ego ideals)" and the "ID (or unconscious desires)". Highest yet, would be to slowly engulf that which is balanced into that which is tasked in doing the balancing.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: bb23108

Thanks. I don't buy it. As for 'ego', it's just another word meaning 'I' or 'me'. If you wish to convince me that the self does not exist as a psychological entity, you'll be convincing a nonexistent entitiy. Why are you wasting your time?

If we look at the ego-I as the whole body-mind, then that makes the most sense. In fact, we relate to one another as body-minds. I don't relate to my neighbor as some separate sense of self inside his head or wherever. I relate to him as the body-mind just like he apparently relates to me in the same manner.

Why do we tend to relate to our own body-mind as though it was separate from us?

no this "31 years of data" forgot to take into account. the hind brain, you know that thing that we have been repressing for a couple thousand years. so i think they should of worked out that men are going to be more narcissistic because it is what we are programmed to do. this research is out to destroy men "interpersonal dysfunctions" we are meant to be semi ass holes. emotion clouds judgement like what does the saying go like think with the head not with the heart . im not saying emotions are bad. but this whole comparing men and women # is fricking annoying we are completely different fundamentally.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: bb23108

As for 'ego', it's just another word meaning 'I' or 'me'. If you wish to convince me that the self does not exist as a psychological entity, you'll be convincing a nonexistent entity.

Okay, just to be clear, you are saying that the self exists as a "psychological entity" - and does this mean that this self is not the body-mind, but some separate entity within the body-mind? And this is what you call yourself or "I"? If so, what or who is that?

Sad but true,

I just spent 10 minutes on my lunch break looking in the mirror and preening my hair in the restroom. I have really nice long brown hair that goes past my shoulders with natural banana curls and natural golden highlights here and there. I literally caught myself saying "damn my hair looks good"

I don't know if that makes me like half a girl or a dude with a strong feminine side or if I'm just a self absorbed douch. But I just caught myself doing something I never though I do. But apparently I do.

Bass lowers head in shame