Narcissistic Personality - What's Wrong with the "Theory"

What's Wrong with the "Theory"

Home Contents

First, it is no scientific "theory." It's an untested hypothesis.

Anthony M. Benis, an MD at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, is the main proponent of the hypothesis that narcissism is genetically caused: http://narcissism.homestead.com/. He calls this theory "NPA Theory." It's actually a resurrection of a hypothesis posed more than fifty years earlier by psychiatrist Karen Horney.

Woops, he didn't like that link: he's gone now, ain't he? You'll notice that the two links to his work on the website below now lead nowhere as well.

Great Ideas in Personality Disorders:

Narcissism: a Genetic Trait: "This website contains articles and a message board on narcissism. By Anthony M. Benis."

European Royalty: Inherited Personality Traits: "This website discusses the personality types of European royalty and other illustrious individuals based on Mendelian genetics. By Anthony M. Benis."

Not anymore, they don't. All those links are gone now. Links to this NPA "theory" were all over the net on narcissism websites, including Sam Vaknin's sites, Wikipedia, and other respected sources of information, like Psych-Net.

Note the reason Wikipedia eventually deleted it. Not because Benis hadn't produced any legitimate evidence or data to back up this "theory," not because the "theory" was really just a hypothesis, not because of its illogic and illegitimacy: only because the self-appointed editors of Wikipedia eventually noticed that Benis wasn't "widely cited in the scientific literature." And their discussion of the matter gives no indication that they understood why.

The reason Benis' work wasn't cited in the scientific literature is because it ain't science. Not even pseudoscience. Not even close. There are standards for what may be cited in scientific literature, standards this stuff didn't even come close to because it included zero clinical or laboratory data.

Unless you count "clinical trials" on dead people.

But that didn't keep this heap of pure guesswork from getting published in the "speculative" scholarly journals, like Speculations in Science and Technology 13 (3),167-175. Nor did it keep other experts from giving informal mention and credence to this junk. They obviously love the idea of blaming NPD on genes. Like Donna Hobgood, M.D. in writing for the Chattanooga Times Free Press. Or Dr. Ervin E Lambert at AllExperts.com. in "Cause of Narcissism," where Benis leaves his footprints. He leaves even more footprints here, where so much is copied that you see the kind of claims he makes. And finally, Google has an HTML copy (minus the graphics) of the entire "theory" here. Also see a saved copy here if that link goes dead too.

I debunked it in my blog post of Wednesday, March 28, 2007, "Is NPD Genetically Caused?." Benis claims that his "theory" is based on "Mendelian genetics." But it contains no Mendelian genetics, no data of phenotypic ratios of offspring to prove his claims about inheritance. Instead of diagnosing real people, he diagnoses famous dead people (mainly European royalty). How dead? So long dead as back to the 13th century.

I'm sorry, you can't diagnose CARICATURES of people that you read about in some Old English chronicle. What's more, Benis cites no sources and doesn't explain how he arrives at his diagnosis of each person.

Follows the text of my post:

I shall explain what I find lacking here - EVIDENCE. VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. By the way, I'm no geneticist, but I have a Bachelor of Science degree in biology with graduate credit in advanced genetics. So, I'm not exactly clueless here.

This "theory" is vague. What exactly does it assert? What it suggests and hints at is obvious, but what does it actually assert? That is impossible to nail down. There is a mile of wiggle room in it. This vagueness is unscientific.

Check it out. It never comes right out and plainly says what it implies — that NPD and malignant narcissism are genetically caused. In fact, it defines malignant narcissism as coming to the attention of a mental healthcare professional.

A very, very strange way to define a disease = as getting the attention of a physician. (I love unintended humor.)

Right at the top, this site claims the "theory" (actually no more than a hypothesis) is "Based on Mendelian genetics."

Okay, where? Show me the Mendelian genetics.

I know that humans aren't as easy to deal with as garden peas, but if you're going to claim that your hypothesis is based on Mendelian genetics, I want to see the numbers.

Where are the studies? Studies of people reliably diagnosed and their families.

What does Dr. Benis get? Fifty-percent of every statistically valid sampling of the children of narcissists having NPD? I'll take 1 in 4 for a recessive trait. Show me them numbers, please. Why aren't there any numbers?

Hey, it could be a blended trait among multiple genes and alleles, resulting in more complex mathematical probabilities. It's been too long since my graduate course in advanced genetics to remember all the common patterns, but I will take any definite ratio you prove exists as evidence for the claim. I don't care. Just show me that the ratio of offspring who have the disorder is always the same in every statistically valid sampling.

Show me.

That's what Brother Mendel did: he kept noticing that exactly 3/4 of the offspring of certain garden-pea-plant crosses always came out a certain way for some traits and that exactly 1/4 of the offspring for other crosses always came out the same way for other traits. He correctly reasoned that these traits must therefore be inherited. Otherwise the ratios wouldn't be constant from garden to garden, generation to generation.

Since we knew nothing about chromosomes at the time, three cheers for him. That was an awesome bit of science.

So, where are Dr. Benis' numbers? Gregor Mendel produced them for us. Everyone else who has established a genetic cause for something has produced the proof in those telling numbers that always come out in the ratio that echoes the laws of probability. So, where are Benis' numbers?

What does that site gives us instead? The section on Royal Genealogy. This is no substitute for scientifically valid data on real people — this "personality typing" (a euphemism for "diagnosing") of the CARICATURES of long dead people.

Now, I'm guessing that you don't need graduate credit in genetics to know what's wrong with that. Especially what's wrong with using the royal family of Europe.

For one thing, these people were horribly inbred and, as a result, carry a large "genetic load" of genetic abnormalities (usually as recessive alleles that don't express themselves except in children when both parents are carriers). They lead to such things as insanity and hemophilia. (Which is why Europe's royals don't intermarry anymore.) If you want to study something caused by the lack of one known enzyme, like hemophilia, they make a great test group. But not for something as cloudy as this. It would be impossible to sort out what genetic abnormality was causing what.

And looking for narcissism among royals? One might as well look for the color blue in the sky.

A royal may be as humble as Prince Hamlet, but his scripted performance is total narcissism. I mean, that's why he's called "my lord" and "your highness" and "your grace" and "your majesty" you know. He's supposed to act the part. You would have to know him personally as an intimate friend or family member to know the real him. Royals are trained from birth to ritually narcissistic behavior. They're supposed to be stuffy. Supposed to be imperious. Indeed, they were imperiors/emperors of their empires.

And of course royals will tend to actually be narcissistic as well. Just because of who they are and the way they are raised and treated.

But narcissism isn't NPD. Where is the distinction between situational acquired narcissism and malignant narcissism? Benis makes none.

A narcissistic personality isn't a narcissistically disordered one. What's more, a royal's narcissism will usually be elevated self esteem (situational acquired narcissism), not NPD, which is low self esteem in denial and acting haughty to dissimulate. They are very, very different things. One is malignant, the other is not.

And who diagnosed -'er, I mean "typed" all these generations of royals? From what examination? Of what evidence? Benis is diagnosing people way back to the 13th century. He knows that much about those hundreds of once famous people? Give me a break.

His hypothesis is just a proposed model, period. Pure speculation. Not a shred of evidence is cited in support of it.

His model may be right about some things, or even many things, but there is no way to know that. And no sound reason to believe it. In fact, there is reason for skepticism, because Benis just glosses over the caveats and objections to his hypothesis, as if doing that deals with the questions they raise. What's more, he first published this model in 1990. So, if he's so sure of this, why are there still no legitimate studies to supply any evidence to back it up?

I am a firm believer in leaning toward the most likely explanation for things, not the most unlikely one. Unfortunately, studies show that most people prefer the most unlikely one.

And political correctness has no time for any explanation that puts any responsibility for himself on the narcissist. Who has a higher opinion of him then? The bleeding hearts who regard him as a machine? Or me? I regard him as a person with the power to choose for himself whether he will abuse someone or not, whether he will face facts or not. The bleeding hearts are always misplacing their sympathy. It all goes to the narcissist. They don't "understand" the victim's anger: instead they preach at the victim to "understand" the narcissist's rage. I bet such folks really like this genetic hypothesis. It must be popular in that crowd.

Genotype may well contribute to a susceptibility or predisposition to NPD. Childhood narcissistic abuse may be an important factor. And it goes against reason to disregard the obvious - CHOICE - as a cause of the way a person with NPD habitually thinks and conducts himself.

We need evidence to know whether, and to what extent if any, genetics is a factor. We need evidence to know whether, and to what extent if any, childhood abuse is a factor. But we need nothing but common sense to know that choice is operating in people who behave quite normally in the presence of witnesses and only act crazy behind closed doors in the dark.

And so, if it were a simple matter of This allele A of gene B causes NPD — or any combination of alleles on several genes — that would easily have been proved by now. The proponents of this hypothesis have been at it for 50 years though. So where's their proof? All they have to do is find narcissists and then test their children. The ratios of normal/NPD children would always come out the same if NPD is genetically caused.

This means that every time the data is collected from a statistically valid sample, that ratio would always come out the same. For example, we might always find that 1/4 children is a narcissist. The fact that we always get the same ratio is proof of genetic inheritance.

Not hard to do. Therefore, since the proponents of this "theory" haven't published such a test yet, my lie detector says that it is because they have run this test and found proof that NPD is not genetically caused.

They'd never do that you say? Wrong. In fact, cancer researchers have held back proof that their hypotheses are wrong in order to get more government funding for continuing on that wild goose chase. Pretty sick, eh? There's money to be made pursuing your false "theories." So, when they're stumped, some researchers just lie to keep the money coming in for research in what they know is a dead-end direction.

Which is why too much money for cancer research, or any kind of research, actually slows progress toward a cure. Those deep funding pockets attract too many greedy researchers who do anything for a fast buck. They compete for, and win, research dollars away from the people honestly trying to find a cure.

© 2004 � 2008, Kathleen Krajco � all rights reserved worldwide.
The URL of this page is: http://www.narcissism.operationdoubles.com/whatswrongwiththetheory.htm.
It was last updated on 3/6/2008.
SITEMAP | INDEX
Email a friend about this site.