I'm a bit more sceptical/cynical even, about the people PhD programmes typically attract.
Very low-EQ, highly competitive, highly self-regarding. In my experience PhD departments are worse that top-tier software engineering groups, as PhDs tend to be depressed and underappreciated in addition.
I think the whole model is one big mental health meat grinder, and the meat going in is quite bitter in the first place.
God forbid anyone pursues higher education because they want to become a better researcher.
I would suggest you spend some time thinking about your EQ rather than spending time on the internet posting nonsense generalizations about entire classes of people.
I can only speak from my experience; and it seems perfectly reasonable for me to do so.
I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in a mild sense) in the first place. It's what produces such contention in similar software engineering groups.
There is no conflict between this motivation and my description of the psychology of people that tend to persue PhDs.
I am completely baffled by this response. At a minimum, that is not what narcissistic means in any sense of the word. I cannot understand how trying to improve yourself, whether as a research, programmer, or just general human being, makes one "narcissistic." I would love to understand this if you care to explain.
Imagine having to work with someone that judges based on your education rather than you as an individual! Probably something only a PhD would do, right? :)
> The meaning of narcissism has changed over time. Today narcissism "refers to an interest in or concern with the self along a broad continuum, from healthy to pathological ... including such concepts as self-esteem, self-system, and self-representation, and true or false self".[2]
PhDs typically have, as an aspect of their core identity, their role as a scientist/philosopher/(..researcher) (cf. doctors being doctors, etc.).
Concern with excellence in this dimension then can often lead to narcissistic injury (aka., a threat to self-esteem, ego, etc.). ie., to fail to be excellent is a threat to one's identity. It makes the whole affair rather fraught.
Contrast with one's life passion being, say, a parent -- or a volunteer. A passionate volunteer is typically a less bitter pursuit, insofar as ones "psychological economy" depends only in sacrifice which is under one's control.
The bitterness of the PhD world, which I observe, frequently comes with this cycle: I am a philosopher; I am an excellent philosopher; but some other PhD is better than me; so I am not the best philosopher; so I am a terrible philosopher; but I must be the best philosopher etc.
And so on in ruminative cycles.
....
The building up of one's own intellect, one's own skill, one's own ... is a narcissistic (self-oriented) project. The pursuit engages in a significant amount of material and emotional sacrifice for the sake of internal intellectual gratification.
It is useful for society that such people exist: those who act to further their own ability to such (prima facie) pathological and self-destructive ends. Those caught up in it, however, are often rather bitter about it.
Most people understand "narcissism" to be pathological behavior. If you use it to not mean pathological behavior, most people are likely to not understand you.
I’d be careful with “most people” claims. A narcissist is in the dictionary as “a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.” That includes above average, not limited to a pathology (which people who are not doctors are unable to diagnose). I’m certain I’ve heard and/or said something along the lines of ‘oh he’s a bit narcissistic’ multiple times in my life. Having completed an advanced degree, I’ve met quite a few researchers I think are reasonably described as being a little narcissistic about their work.
I object to projecting your own personal non-dictionary definitions on others. Are you thinking of clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder? That is not the same thing as Narcissism.
My personal usage and understanding is quite close to the dictionary definition (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narcissism): inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. Those are not positive traits, which goes back to my original point: if you use the term not intending to imply something negative about the person, you're likely to confuse others. That confusion is why this subthread exists.
@mjburgess was using it to refer to negative attributes, and so was I. You stretched the idea into something it's not by saying it has to be "pathological", and that it has to negatively impact others, and you claimed that unless people adhered to those criteria, the term wouldn't be understood. Neither of those claims of yours is supported by the definition you just provided, nor have you demonstrated that "most people" agree. Narcissism can be a negative attribute about someone without being pathological and without affecting other people in a material way. Being narcissistic is judged as a negative attribute to have by the dictionary.com definition with the purely subjective words "inordinate" and "excessive", but it doesn't otherwise agree with what you said above.
I am unaware of any colloquial use of "narcissism" that would include going to grad school to learn more about a subject. Poster steev was also confused by this usage. You are correct, I have provided no evidence our confusion will be universal, but: don't be surprised if it is.
I don't speak for mjburgess, is that really an entirely fair or good faith summary of what @mjburgess said? Is it the strongest plausible interpretation of the comments above? If it was said that learning alone is narcissistic, then I agree with you, that'd be confusing. I don't quite see that anywhere above, but maybe that's what was meant.
Don't you think that researchers sand-bagging paper reviews with requests for citations of their own work is a tad narcissistic? That behavior is rampant in academics, among many other behaviors seeking public name recognition. I don't fully agree with the views above, and they seem to have a pessimistic flavor, but I don't see the word narcissism being misused according to the dictionary definition you provided.
Anyway, I don't really care what the definition of the word is, it just seemed like you had an extreme version in the opposite direction that is at least as prone to confusion. It doesn't exactly help prove the point if your version has the same defect, or if weasel words are used to back-up the claim, right?
> I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in a mild sense) in the first place.
This claim is independent of the negative behaviors; it's intended as independent support by claiming that the desire to be a better researcher is inherently narcissistic, without regard to the negative behaviors. As to my personal definition being extreme: well, yeah. I've never heard someone use it to mean anything remotely positive. The justification for using it that context was, to me, non-sensical. But I am a descriptivist; words mean how people use them. So I won't call it wrong. Just: don't be surprised if people are confused.
Very low-EQ, highly competitive, highly self-regarding. In my experience PhD departments are worse that top-tier software engineering groups, as PhDs tend to be depressed and underappreciated in addition.
I think the whole model is one big mental health meat grinder, and the meat going in is quite bitter in the first place.