Audra’s really happy that someone wrote this article:
23 Signs That You’re Secretly a Narcissist Masquerading as a Sensitive Introvert:
Let’s clarify something here: Narcissism is definitely not the same thing as introversion.
Have you ever met someone who constantly tells you how “sensitive” and “introverted” they are, but all you actually see is selfishness and egocentricity? I’m sure you have, because these people exist in spades.
So am I, not least because it provoked discussion, some of which was defensive, and some of which was thoughtful, about the extent to which individuals and communities can and should be expected to accommodate those whose pathologies make them … hard on communities or contribute to anti-social behaviour.
Should people who are less narcissistic simply expect that some of those with whom they interact will show a certain amount of disregard for the needs of other members of the community, and accommodate this self-centered behaviour? Let’s say, for example, that we plan a community event: say a pot-luck picnic, and we ask everyone who comes to the event to bring a contribution to the food or drink, help with transportation, and help with set-up or clean-up. Most people bring a contribution roughly equal to or greater than what they’ll consume, and do one or more “chores.” Some people do more chores, because they like doing chores. Some people bring more food or drink, because they like feeding people. And some people arrive late, without a contribution, eat, drink, and leave early, leaving their mess behind. Maybe they also request a lift home, because they don’t drive.
So at the next picnic, do we say “Oh, well, so and so is just like that, and we should include them anyway?” Or do we ask them to commit to a specific contribution/task, and then prompt them to follow through, the way I would have to with a group of 8-year-olds? Or do we decide that we prefer interacting with people who enter into the spirit of collective enterprise without prompting?
For the record, my preference with people whose anti-social but non-harmful behaviours* affect me negatively follows roughly this process:
1. Assess whether this is a person with whom I wish to maintain an association. If the person is a near-stranger, or not a member of my immediate community, then I have the option of simply ignoring them. But if the person is a member of my community, a co-worker, or someone whose presence I value for some reason, then I have to make another decision.
2. Determine how gravely the anti-social behaviour affects me personally, affects the people I care about, and makes the community less functional. In the picnic example above, if the organizers of the picnic are prepared to suffer non-contributing guests, then it’s not my place to tell them not to, though I may choose not to invite this person to my events. However, if someone’s behavior affects me personally: if, for example, they come to my home a lot, eat all my food, drink all my tea, and never offer to clean up or replace what they’ve used, then I choose to act on my own behalf.
3. Find a way to communicate to the offending party which behaviour I found offensive and to gently, constructively suggest other ways of behaving. It’s not fair to expect people to change if they have no way of knowing they’ve done something wrong. So I may explain that when someone comes to my home, they are welcome, but I need to kick them out in time to get an early night, and it would make me feel better if they offered to help with the dishes or asked if they could bring something with them.
4. Present opportunities to do better. Self explanatory, I hope.
5. Provide feedback. Tell people when I notice and appreciate their efforts. Thank them. Let them know when their behaviour has inconvenienced or hurt me or other people.
If, after all of this, and a considerable period of time, I find myself still consistently bothered, hurt, inconvenienced, or disappointed by someone’s behaviour, I adjust my expectations of that person accordingly. This may look like reducing contact with that person, or only seeing them in situations that won’t be affected by their anti-social behaviour. If someone is chronically extremely late, for example, I won’t do things that require me to be on time with that person. If someone habitually eats me out of house and home, I’ll meet them at a restaurant. If someone habitually complains, I’ll try to see them for brief periods of time and only when I’m feeling good to begin with. If someone habitually flakes out and doesn’t show up for commitments they’ve made, I won’t depend on them for anything. If someone really hurts me, I don’t see any reason to keep associating with them.
I feel like this approach balances my desire to include people in my community with my desire not to be run roughshod over and reflects how I hope the people in my life might treat me if at any time my behaviour were to cause them distress.
*If a person has actively harmed members of my community, then I am far more concerned with ensuring that nobody else gets harmed than I am with the personal development of the person doing the harm.
That's What She Said 