White Knight Narcissism (Pro-Social NPD)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 16771
  • Start date Start date
Deleted member 16771 said:
So I guess you're mentally broken now? Lol

How's your work going, Pin?
Click to expand...
For the past week I've been waking up at around 5 or 6 am to study. I start clinicals on Monday. And... I'm doing well for myself, especially for the person I was a few years ago.

Today is my rest day.
 
DARKNESS said:
Harassment-and-Stalking-Constitute-One-Crime-in-NC.jpg
Click to expand...
That would be me if I didn't have other priorities. :cry:
 
Having gone through the topic over and over again, it seems the whole White Knight Narcissism blog post is a misinterpretation of another form that is Vulnerable Narcissism, that one is an actual official form of NPD.

I've added a paper that will give some light on it in regards to the correlation with Empathy. The original articles have mixed up 2 different disorders, as the OP and other people already have noticed. And only a clinical diagnosis will do a proper diagnostic and I doubt any of you here are Narcissistic.

@Deleted member 16771 , check the spoiler.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310503269_Dysfunctional_Empathy_in_Vulnerable_Narcissism

I'm adding this post because I do see these characteristics in myself and while I'm not officially clinically diagnosed either I see these traits as important to resolve.

Being someone who has bonding and self-esteem issues myself through my whole life and using the white knight method to seek self-healing when in a depth point, which I am aware of and hate doing. When empathy is used for selfish or rather destructive reasons to others or oneself, it is bad.

And let me state that I don’t have a need to exploit friends or people that i care about in real life, and if anything when I would be hurt/mad I rather direct that anger somewhere else than at them. Sometimes it is directed to this forum and that’s why I put a block on my general attitude here. Again, I am aware of that. And I don't want this.

This is not a request for support or understanding, I don't need that. It's just my expression and apology to this forum to say I'm working on it and doing my best to focus on both my boundaries as well as anyone's on this forum, that matters. I don't want to focus this thread on me either, thats not the intention with this post. I just hope that this paper will at least give some light on the subject.

When you asked me to make a thread on this subject, I wasn't aware of the implications on the forum, neither that it had impacted you, I'm sorry for that. You are a good person and got clear reasoning all over the forum. Keep at it man.
Peppermint said:
He's referring to your belief that once you're successful and made a place for yourself you will have access to to things like prosperity and women. That's not necessarily true. That's why he's calling it an illusion.
Click to expand...
Does it matter though? If Pin is focused on a good future for himself, all the better. Builds character.
 

Attachments

Deleted member 16771 said:
Typically, white knights have a history that includes many of the following:
  • Self-defeating behavior that may involve substance abuse - No
  • Heightened awareness in childhood of a parent's hardships - Yes
  • Childhood neglect - No, but hard to say what counts.
  • Childhood emotional, physical, or sexual abuse - No
  • Loss or threat of loss of a significant caregiver in childhood - My father left before the age of 5, so Yes
  • Repeatedly finding partners who need rescuing - No. It was only the last one who was like this, and I only found that out later.
A white knight typically has many of the following character traits:
  • Fears emotional distance - I don't know about this one. I'm alright with it if there's a reason, but it's not something I like particularly. Maybe?
  • Is very emotionally vulnerable and sensitive - I wouldn't say so. No
  • Has a tendency to idealize the partner - I've idealised one person I was interested in; nobody else; not idealised any other partners/dates. No?
  • Has an extreme need to be viewed as important or unique - No.
  • Tends to be self-critical or reactively blames, devalues, and manipulate others - Self-critical sometimes, but No.
In relationships, a white knight tends to show many of the following behaviors:
  • Is attracted to a needy partner or a partner with a history of trauma, loss, abuse, or addiction - No.
  • Fears being separated from the partner, losing the partner's love or approval, or being abandoned by the partner - Not overmuch, but it's not nice, so I'd have to say Yes.
  • Engages in controlling behavior, often under the guise of helping - No.
  • Maintains or restores connection with the partner by being extremely helpful or good - Maybe. Let's say Yes, though I'm counting 'romantic gestures' here, in addition to honest conversations. If there's a problem, I'll flag it, and if connection needs restoring, I'll make a gesture.
  • Responds ambivalently to the partner's success - No, definitely not. Always proud.
  • Describes a sense of "oneness" with the partner - I don't know about this. I've experienced strong affinity/congruence, so I suppose Yes.
  • Fails to recognize the partner's manipulative behaviors - I'm too trusting generally, so Yes, though it's often done by ignoring my suspicions out of loyalty and trust.
  • Is seduced by the sexual or dramatic behavior of the partner - Yes, sometimes.
  • Evokes strong feelings in the partner in order to avoid his or her own emotional discomfort - Not sure what this means. No?
  • Maintains hope for a gratifying relationship by denying the reality of the partner's issues - Yes. Unless it's No, lol.
Click to expand...

I think your responses to these questions show good self-awareness, Hos. My external viewpoint (with its limitations of course) would align pretty much with your internal viewpoint. And given the alignment here, if we just look at your answers, then it's obvious that you don't showcase enough traits to count as a 'White Knight narcissist'.

What is perhaps more interesting to look at is the 'tendency' you refer to here:

Deleted member 16771 said:
I have a tendency to stick up for underdogs in order to make sure scapegoating and witch hunting don't get out of hand. That was the whole point of the 'Arsehole Protection League', if you remember - to advocate for a fair and balanced response to belligerent and normally unsympathetic types while still acknowledging that they are behaving like arseholes.
Click to expand...

Do you have an 'internal grid' of sorts where you first determine whether there is a risk of scapegoating?

My honest opinion is that I've seen that risk appear very rarely on the forum. Most of the 'assholes' were deliberate in their intentions and got the spanking they deserved, imo. I guess based on that premise, your decision to stick up for the 'underdog' would seem arbitrary and even possibly counter-productive. So I'm interested to know if you disagree with my premise, and if you have evidence for that disagreement. Basically: do you have in mind concrete examples of scapegoating on the forum?
 
Ren said:
Basically: do you have in mind concrete examples of scapegoating on the forum?
Click to expand...

I can think of instances when I've seen that, and I haven't even been on the forum that much lately. But I'll let Hos answer this himself in more detail if he wishes to. I've seen this forum be very quick to judge newcomers if one of the regulars feels offended, and established members are viewed more sympathetically even when they throw tantrums. I guess it's just human, but as Hos said, it's good to be aware of our biases.

Deleted member 16771 said:
For instance, we've decided that all human beings are equal, and yet our brains will give us more of the sympathy/empathy molecules for the plight of a vulnerable-looking girl than a big scary guy in a similar predicament, despite both probably needing/deserving the same amount of compassion and support. In this case it's important to be aware of this bias and simply to look past it. It's why I'm sometimes suspicious of times when people quickly and easily side with the prima facie 'obvious' victims (as my discussion with Asa shows), because I'm trying to counteract a natural impulse that may nonetheless be morally wrong. It's to say, 'right, who's the ugliest, most unsympathetic motherfucker in this situation? Oh it's that guy with the attitude problem; let's be the only person on his side.'
Click to expand...

In recent years I've started taking more time choosing sides, because often indeed we judge situations hastily based on 'obvious' victims. Both arguing people are most likely behaving in a way that to them seems rational and justified, yet it's easier for us to side with the person who seems more sympathetic or vulnerable or just more offended, and think the other person is irrational and horrible. In real life it's rare (for me) to meet anyone who wouldn't have good intentions, even though they may behave in ways I don't understand. In MBTI terms you could say I'm becoming aware of how flawed the quick Ni judgement can be, and how it needs the support of the thinking function in particular. Some people are also very good at using vulnerability as social capital, manipulating others to take their side when no real harm has been intended. It quickly turns into a competition on who can most convincingly show how offended they are, and hence what an arse the opponent is.

Also, especially when there's bitterness involved, people breaking up etc., they may disparage each other, even say things that clearly aren't true. It may be difficult for an outsider to determine who's the victim, if anyone, yet on account of friendships or gender bias we tend to draw conclusions very quickly. Narcissism is actually one of those labels that's often put on someone when relationships go sour, and the accusation is now so common that most people have learned to take a similar step back and reconsider whether it is actually true or just the post-breakup bitterness behind such judgements.
 
Ren said:
Do you have an 'internal grid' of sorts where you first determine whether there is a risk of scapegoating?

My honest opinion is that I've seen that risk appear very rarely on the forum. Most of the 'assholes' were deliberate in their intentions and got the spanking they deserved, imo. I guess based on that premise, your decision to stick up for the 'underdog' would seem arbitrary and even possibly counter-productive. So I'm interested to know if you disagree with my premise, and if you have evidence for that disagreement. Basically: do you have in mind concrete examples of scapegoating on the forum?
Click to expand...
You'll forgive me for not mentioning names here and speaking in generalities, but yes:

1. The clearest cases are when friends are being attacked in private without their knowledge, and in that case I'll adopt this role.

2. With the 'public arseholes', it's a question of balance and proportion. My decisions aren't arbitrary, but based upon the community response to the level of the offense. I defended ClevelandINTP in public as well as in private, and he stuck around to keep adding value to the community - he could easily have been booted off the back of feeling like he had no allies and the runaway response of people calling him a dick.


However, it's not simply about cases like this in isolation, but in carving a groove where one can adopt these positions and not have it affect preexisting relationships. If people can think to themselves 'oh that's just Hos doing his underdog white knight thing; it doesn't mean he's attacking me or hates me now, but that he's trying to balance this discussion. I'll listen, see if he has a point on this or not, and re-judge my take on this.' I think @Wyote got this very early on. I would like this kind of behaviour to be normalised, ideally, because it serves the purpose of 'the centre'; the public forum (again, ancient sense), and democratic mindsets.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
If people can think to themselves 'oh that's just Hos doing his underdog white knight thing; it doesn't mean he's attacking me or hates me now,
Click to expand...
Well ideally people always think "Oh that's just someone offering up a different point of view, let's think about that" regardless of who it is, rather than "someone's attacking me", but that's not very realistic I'm afraid.
 
Lady Jolanda said:
Well ideally people always think "Oh that's just someone offering up a different point of view, let's think about that" regardless of who it is, rather than "someone's attacking me", but that's not very realistic I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
It could be.

Culture has the capacity to overwrite/bypass/rewire almost any aspect of 'human nature'. I'm convinced of this.
 
Fidicen said:
I've seen this forum be very quick to judge newcomers if one of the regulars feels offended, and established members are viewed more sympathetically even when they throw tantrums.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this can happen, and it annoys me too. That said, I'm not sure these qualify as cases of scapegoating.

Are there people that you felt were treated unfairly and left the forum as a result?

Deleted member 16771 said:
You'll forgive me for not mentioning names here and speaking in generalities, but yes:

1. The clearest cases are when friends are being attacked in private without their knowledge, and in that case I'll adopt this role.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can speak from direct experience that this happens :D But don't you think that in this case it's just decent human behaviour to defend those who are attacked behind their backs? It seems quite different from cases where you agree that someone is an asshole but still stick up for them out of principle.

Deleted member 16771 said:
2. With the 'public arseholes', it's a question of balance and proportion. My decisions aren't arbitrary, but based upon the community response to the level of the offense. I defended ClevelandINTP in public as well as in private, and he stuck around to keep adding value to the community - he could easily have been booted off the back of feeling like he had no allies and the runaway response of people calling him a dick.
Click to expand...

He was being very disruptive, I personally don't think he deserved to be defended, but I get you. If anything I felt the reaction to his actions was too soft. I mean, the dude literally created a thread openly defying Wy for no reason except to troll. I think it's quite a serious case where the authority of a mod is called into question like that. But ultimately I suppose my different take is rooted in a different valuation.

This reminds of the little 'altercation' you had with Korg. I didn't really see the scapegoaty treatment of those who essentially put an end to that thread gratuitously. So I did agree with Korg (despite disagreeing with some of his more personal attacks) that your reaction seemed a bit out of proportion to the facts of the case. That said, I would never doubt that you were acting in good faith, and that's fundamental. I have no doubt that you act from principle, not shadowy ulterior motives.

Deleted member 16771 said:
If people can think to themselves 'oh that's just Hos doing his underdog white knight thing; it doesn't mean he's attacking me or hates me now, but that he's trying to balance this discussion. I'll listen, see if he has a point on this or not, and re-judge my take on this.' I think @Wyote got this very early on. I would like this kind of behaviour to be normalised, ideally, because it serves the purpose of 'the centre'; the public forum (again, ancient sense), and democratic mindsets.
Click to expand...

I think it depends. If someone was truly wronged by another member they might think you're being unfair to them by defending the wrongdoer—'underdog' is a really unfortunate term I think, I would be cautious about using it in those cases because it casts the wrongdoer under a positive, benevolent light—and I would understand where they are coming from. If someone has been wronged, the onus should not be on them to make sense of why you're taking their aggressor's defense, even if the nature of the defense is principled/abstract. So I suppose the best course of action would be to always make sure it's clear you're supportive of the 'victim' first and foremost, and then like you said, taking a step back and balancing the discussion.

I'm not saying I disagree with your approach, but I do think it requires exceptional communicative and ethical skills to pull off.
 
Ren said:
Yeah, this can happen, and it annoys me too. That said, I'm not sure these qualify as cases of scapegoating.

Are there people that you felt were treated unfairly and left the forum as a result?



Yeah, I can speak from direct experience that this happens :D But don't you think that in this case it's just decent human behaviour to defend those who are attacked behind their backs? It seems quite different from cases where you agree that someone is an asshole but still stick up for them out of principle.



He was being very disruptive, I personally don't think he deserved to be defended, but I get you. If anything I felt the reaction to his actions was too soft. I mean, the dude literally created a thread openly defying Wy for no reason except to troll. I think it's quite a serious case where the authority of a mod is called into question like that. But ultimately I suppose my different take is rooted in a different valuation.

This reminds of the little 'altercation' you had with Korg. I didn't really see the scapegoaty treatment of those who essentially put an end to that thread gratuitously. So I did agree with Korg (despite disagreeing with some of his more personal attacks) that your reaction seemed a bit out of proportion to the facts of the case. That said, I would never doubt that you were acting in good faith, and that's fundamental. I have no doubt that you act from principle, not shadowy ulterior motives.



I think it depends. If someone was truly wronged by another member they might think you're being unfair to them by defending the wrongdoer—'underdog' is a really unfortunate term I think, I would be cautious about using it in those cases because it casts the wrongdoer under a positive, benevolent light—and I would understand where they are coming from. If someone has been wronged, the onus should not be on them to make sense of why you're taking their aggressor's defense, even if the nature of the defense is principled/abstract. So I suppose the best course of action would be to always make sure it's clear you're supportive of the 'victim' first and foremost, and then like you said, taking a step back and balancing the discussion.

I'm not saying I disagree with your approach, but I do think it requires exceptional communicative and ethical skills to pull off.
Click to expand...
Legitimate critiques. I like the way this is going.

Just quickly, though:
Ren said:
He was being very disruptive, I personally don't think he deserved to be defended, but I get you. If anything I felt the reaction to his actions was too soft. I mean, the dude literally created a thread openly defying Wy for no reason except to troll. I think it's quite a serious case where the authority of a mod is called into question like that. But ultimately I suppose my different take is rooted in a different valuation.
Click to expand...
I'm not referring to his most recent antics. I meant back in the day when he first turned up on the scene and ruffled feathers.

I suppose it's being a bit like a defense attorney or devil's advocate. Sometimes the defendant is such a twat that people will begin to find him/her guilty of things that he/she never actually did, and that needs some balancing through a social mechanism.

The key point is this: individuals don't need to be balanced, as long as the system is balanced.

In the case of the discussion with Korg, I was taking a position to play a role in such a balanced system. It doesn't matter if I, personally had to position myself off-centre slightly, as long as the effect of my influence rebalanced the system.

Or, to put it another way - suppose that the balance of a system currently resides at '+5' but really you would like it to reside at '0'. Attempting to influence the system by hitting it with '0' (even if that's what you believe) isn't going to be as effective as putting in a '-5'. You're not trying to get to '-5', you're trying to get to '0' by advancing an individually unbalanced perspective that balances the system as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top