"Cam looking at the film what do you need to do to improve?"

[PantherFanForLife]

Except for right here where you say:

my actual statement:

Notice: "positive aspects of a narcissist"?

Of course no comment about the above from you-

The part that you miss is that even their defintions of narcissism are (net)negative.

Further,if you try and paint Freud's view of narcissism as (net)positive then you don't know Freud or are misguided in your understanding.

(Notice that Freud and most other separate/qualify narcissism as either primary or positve when they are refering to the positive aspects?

If something is consider net-postive there is no need to qualify as such)

BTW-The definition you posted was not a defintion of narcissim it was a definition of a narcissitic leader.

Also, re:Alex the Grt; sharing the characteristics or traits of X doesn't make some X.

Its a point I mentioned in my last post that you of course ignored.

BTW-

I could care less about your argument with whomever else.

Please stop using big red font, I will address every point you make. Now personally, I still feel like I'm not assuming anything because you still don't seem to understand the current psychological definition of narcissism and you're also also starting to play with words, instead of just going ahead and listing what you believe is the accepted definition. And I also believe you are mixing two different things that we have been discussing. My assumption was in response to this from you:

While you may agree with a theory that esposes that being narcissistic is positive its not the accepted definition or view.

First of all I should have made it clear then that I do not agree with a theory that espouses being being narcissistic is positive. I think it can be either and I said this from the get go. But that was not the theory in the first place. The theory was that narcissists can make great leaders. You were drawing your own summation there.

Now, since everything we have been discussing has been in the realm of psychology, the reason I said I didn't assume anything is because it was an obvious conclusion: if you understood the difference between the definition and what Maccoby was saying you would not keep telling me it's "not the accepted definition". He's not defining narcissism. Having said that:

In psychology, the term[narcissism] is used to describe both normal self-love and unhealthy self-absorption due to a disturbance in the sense of self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

The currently accepted definition can be either positive or negative, depending on the context, right? That is what that says right?

But what you're telling me now is the net of all definitions I posted are negative....Ok, spinmastster, where are you going with this? Are you saying when looking at the psychological, dictionary and Freud's definitions, narcissism sounds mostly negative and can be a bad thing? Ok....I can see that. But what is your point?

The definition you posted was not a defintion of narcissim it was a definition of a narcissitic leader.

I'm not sure which one you are talking about exactly here. Which definition are you talking about?

But at least now you agree we are talking about two different things. Maccoby wasn't re-defining narcissism. And I wasn't defining narcissism when I used Maccoby. And Maccoby's viewpoint doesn't contradict what the accepted definition of narcissism is....or even the net of all definitions;) He's simply stating the same thing I did, that some of the greatest leaders were narcissists. And that narcissistic personalities can make great leaders.

Now before you twist my words any further I also wanna single this part out:

Further,if you try and paint Freud's view of narcissism as (net)positive then you don't know Freud or are misguided in your understanding.

(Notice that Freud and most other separate/qualify narcissism as either primary or positve when they are refering to the positive aspects?

I'm not trying to paint Freud's view of narcissism as "net" positive. Again you are playing with words. I simply used Freud to point out that Maccoby was not the first to say narcissists make great candidates for leaders and it's not some new, minor or obscure idea. Freud did as well and plenty of other psychologists.

So it is the accepted view that the greatest leaders were also narcissists, no matter which definition you use to define narcissist. Now whether or not you want to accept it as fact or just theory, I'm not going to argue with you too much on that point. And again it wasn't just Maccoby. Plenty of other psychologists have pointed this out dating all the way to Sigmund Freud, and before his time. It's not a new concept or viewpoint. It is widely accepted and has been widely accepted for some time.

Anyone can read more about this on wiki:

Narcissistic leadership is a common form of leadership. The narcissism may be healthy or destructive although there is a continuum between the two. To critics, "narcissistic leadership is driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption, and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_leadership

I think what you are trying to say is that Maccoby's particular theory, which tends to place narcissistic leaders in a more positive light, doesn't sit well with everybody. That is true, because of all those bad things listed in there too, but the fact the the greatest leaders throughout history have been labeled narcissists by a plethora of psychologists is also true. The fact that a narcissist's traits also make them pride candidates for leadership(whether seen as good or bad, positive or negative) has been documented for a long time.

[edromeo]

Please stop using big red font, And I also believe you are mixing two different things that we have been discussing. My assumption was in response to this from you:

Wouldn't it be easier just to say, my bad bro I forgot I said that? Instead of forcing me to use large red font to spell out when and where you yourself said that you were making an assumption?

It needlessly took away from the discussion.

I will address every point you make

I'm sure you make the effort, but you've missed/ignored some clearly stated points in a few posts.

Now personally, I still feel like I'm not assuming anything because you still don't seem to understand the current psychological definition of narcissism

Like I said before you can assume whatever you like; but it doesn't make it true.

I like to assume that if Beyonce and Jessica Biel met me they would like to spend the night with me.

I would point out that the current psychological definition of narcissism has not changed.

and you're also also starting to play with words, instead of just going ahead and listing what you believe is the accepted definition.........But that was not the theory in the first place. The theory was that narcissists can make great leaders. You were drawing your own summation there..

Actually I suggested that you define your view because after all the discussion is about your view of narcissism not mine.

Any way the main statement that you made that I disagree with:

but Newton, is a narcissist. I'm not assuming it, I've just personally seen enough of him to believe he fits the description. I just don't view it as a negative.

My response:

While you may agree with a theory that esposes that being narcissistic is positive its not the accepted definition or view (Also I think its important to define your view of the terms narcissistic and narcissism i.e. urban/mainstream? clinical? etc)

So it is the accepted view that the greatest leaders were also narcissists, no matter which definition you use to define narcissist.

No.

It is not the accepted view that the greatest leaders were narcissists its Macoby's theory.

And more specifically he's talking about leadership style.

But leadership style doesn't necessarily equate to the persons personality.

but the fact the the greatest leaders throughout history have been labeled narcissists by a plethora of psychologists is also true.

I wouldn't consider Macoby's labeling certain leaders as narcissists a fact.

The fact that a narcissist's traits also make them pri[m]e candidates for leadership(whether seen as good or bad, positive or negative) has been documented for a long time

Again it depends on your view of leadership.

Again their are traits common with narcissists that are largely incongruent with leadership.

But at the same time:

Cam like many other driven and successful people share some of the positive aspects of a (Howard Roarkian) narcissist.

-Cheers

[usmcpanthers]

Im surprised this thread hasnt been closed by mods, im a lurker and im tired of reading it.

[PantherFanForLife]

Wouldn't it be easier just to say, my bad bro I forgot I said that? Instead of forcing me to use large red font to spell out when and where you yourself said that you were making an assumption?

It needlessly took away from the discussion.

I'm sure you make the effort, but you've missed/ignored some clearly stated points in a few posts.

Like I said before you can assume whatever you like; but it doesn't make it true.

I like to assume that if Beyonce and Jessica Biel met me they would like to spend the night with me.

I would point out that the current psychological definition of narcissism has not changed.

Actually I suggested that you define your view because after all the discussion is about your view of narcissism not mine.

Any way the main statement that you made that I disagree with:

My response:

No.

It is not the accepted view that the greatest leaders were narcissists its Macoby's theory.

And more specifically he's talking about leadership style.

But leadership style doesn't necessarily equate to the persons personality.

I wouldn't consider Macoby's labeling certain leaders as narcissists a fact.

Again it depends on your view of leadership.

Again their are traits common with narcissists that are largely incongruent with leadership.

But at the same time:

I'm sorry but you are wrong. And despite the fact that I have given you examples of multiple credible, educated, even famous and well known sources that have shared the same exact view with Maccoby for the past 100 years...you continue to tell me it's not the accepted view, without any evidence to back up YOUR argument. To me, that's just ignorance. You keep spouting your personal opinion as fact, without backing it up with anything and continue to tell me how I'm wrong or how my sources are not credible enough.

But fine you have a different view on it. Then why don't you name me one famous narcissistic leader on the planet that you would consider a narcissist, by your viewpoint, and then describe to me what makes him one, with backed up evidence! Can you do this for me?

Please.

[bauss]

seriously. stfu. Nobody cares. take it to PM. Let this thread die naturally instead of being locked for going full retard.

[PantherFanForLife]

seriously. stfu. Nobody cares. take it to PM. Let this thread die naturally instead of being locked for going full retard.

Obviously if he's still discussing it with me, he cares. You know it's never failed to amaze me how when a few guys get into a discussion and someone else doesn't approve of it, and wants it to die, that they continue to come into that discussion, and make a reply which all it does...is bump it up!

That's always been mind boggling to me. If you don't care,....don't post! That's what makes a thread disappear. Not what you are doing.

PS: Having said that, enromeo if you would like to continue this discussion in this thread so we can just have one, I'm cool with that: http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/68667-a-few-thoughts-everyone-should-remember-about-sunday-21.html. Just copy and paste your reply in there.

[edromeo]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. And despite the fact that I have given you examples of multiple credible, educated, even famous and well known sources that have shared the same exact view with Maccoby

Wrong about what specifically?

You know what 2 things would help the discussion?

If you (a) were more specific

(b) were less contentious

Wrong about this:

Again their are traits common with narcissists that are largely incongruent with leadership

This statement is obviously true and has been echoed by your boy Macoby when he discusses the 'inevitable cons' of narcissistic leaders.

or about this?

It is not the accepted view that the greatest leaders were narcissists its Macoby's theory.

Where are the multiple credible sources that make the claim that the 'greatest leaders were narcissists'?

Because the only theory I've read in this thread espousing that claim is Macoby.

I'm still waiting to see these:

examples of multiple credible, educated, even famous and well known sources that have shared the same exact view with Maccoby

...you continue to tell me it's not the accepted view, without any evidence to back up YOUR argument.

You're right.

I don't know how to argue/prove that the greatest leader aren't narcissists.

And I'm not going to try.

The burden of proof rests with you to prove that the 'greatest leaders' were narcissists.

Or:

The greatest leaders that have ever lived, politicians, presidents, kings, athletes, from Julius Caesar to Napoleon to Muhammad Ali....were all narcissists.

You keep spouting your personal opinion as fact, without backing it up with anything and continue to tell me how I'm wrong or how my sources are not credible enough

C'mon dude really? Because I disagree with you I'm spouting my opinion as fact?

Also, please make accurate claims.

Re: Where have I said your sources aren't credible enough?

Your sources simply don't prove what you think they prove.

You posted various snippets of people talking about the leadership/narcissism but none save for Macoby have made the claim I disagree with. (Highlighted above in red)

But fine you have a different view on it. Then why don't you name me one famous narcissistic leader on the planet that you would consider a narcissist, by your viewpoint, and then describe to me what makes him one, with backed up evidence! Can you do this for me?

I said a while ago, that I can easily accept that we disgaree on this issue.

And again like I ssaid before you might want to define what a leader/leadership means before even broaching the relationship between leaders/leadership and narcissism.

-Cheers

And why would I want to do what you suggest above?

[PantherFanForLife]

Wrong about what specifically?

You know what 2 things would help the discussion?

If you (a) were more specific

(b) were less contentious

Wrong about this:

This statement is obviously true and has been echoed by your boy Macoby when he discusses the 'inevitable cons' of narcissistic leaders.

or about this?

Where are the multiple credible sources that make the claim that the 'greatest leaders were narcissists'?

Because the only theory I've read in this thread espousing that claim is Macoby.

I'm still waiting to see these:

You're right.

I don't know how to argue/prove that the greatest leader aren't narcissists.

And I'm not going to try.

The burden of proof rests with you to prove that the 'greatest leaders' were narcissists.

Or:

C'mon dude really? Because I disagree with you I'm spouting my opinion as fact?

Also, please make accurate claims.

Re: Where have I said your sources aren't credible enough?

Your sources simply don't prove what you think they prove.

You posted various snippets of people talking about the leadership/narcissism but none save for Macoby have made the claim I disagree with. (Highlighted above in red)

I said a while ago, that I can easily accept that we disgaree on this issue.

And again like I ssaid before you might want to define what a leader/leadership means before even broaching the relationship between leaders/leadership and narcissism.

-Cheers

And why would I want to do what you suggest above?

I responded to you here:http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/68667-a-few-thoughts-everyone-should-remember-about-sunday-25.html#post3340108

Let's let this thread die because that's where the discussion originally started and there's more people still talking about it in that thread at the moment.

[edromeo]

I responded to you here:http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/68667-a-few-thoughts-everyone-should-remember-about-sunday-25.html#post3340108

Let's let this thread die because that's where the discussion originally started and there's more people still talking about it in that thread at the moment.

No worries do whatever you like.

I'm sure you can have your discussion without me.

It was never my intention to have a discussion about Macoby nor narcissistic leadership.

I responded to something specific that you said not knowing it would lead for lack of a better word, to your agenda.

-Cheers

I actually want to talk about where Cam needs to improve:

"Cam looking at the film what do you need to do to improve?"

My only gripes:

o understand/recognize and exploit the best pre-snap match-ups (e.g.-Smith vs Woodson or DeAngelo vs Hawk or Olsen vs Bishop) IMO he favors Smitty too much

o don't be afraid to be a playmaker or to pick up yards on the ground.

I'm not saying run all the time but on 2 of his INTs I think he would have been better served using his legs to make a play.

But, he gave the best answer to the question and hopefully that answer will happen come Saturday:

WIN

[PantherFanForLife]

Not sure what agenda you believe I had, but ok, we can talk about that too.

"Cam looking at the film what do you need to do to improve?"

My only gripes:

o understand/recognize and exploit the best pre-snap match-ups (e.g.-Smith vs Woodson or DeAngelo vs Hawk or Olsen vs Bishop) IMO he favors Smitty too much

o don't be afraid to be a playmaker or to pick up yards on the ground.

I'm not saying run all the time but on 2 of his INTs I think he would have been better served using his legs to make a play.

But, he gave the best answer to the question and hopefully that answer will happen come Saturday:

WIN

The reason he favors Smitty, is because Smitty is the biggest inverted narcissist we have. So they feed off each other and it works out perfect.;)

Seriously though, it's his field awareness, which is what I said last week. And I was just joking last week when I said it appeared as if Cam was racist towards left, but I have reason to be concerned now. I'm probably late to this party and I'm sure it has been mentioned before but I just recently noticed how cross eyed he is. Couldn't that affect his peripheral vision?

[Just Can't Ban Dtan]

I have a vagina and a penis.

[edromeo]

Seriously though, it's his field awareness, which is what I said last week. And I was just joking last week when I said it appeared as if Cam was racist towards left, but I have reason to be concerned now.

Keep in mind that I post in a conversational manner.

As if I was at a bar watching a game with other guys that know their football to varying degrees.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or contentious, so there is no need to get all defensive.

I think Cam's field awareness is fine all things considered.

But field awareness is kinda of vague term, so I don't know want to get your meaning mixed up, so I'm asking you what you mean by field awareness?

Do you mean he isn't aware of the blitz, he doesn't feel pass rush pressure?

Or that he isn't aware of all his receiving options?

I'm not sure what you mean in the rest of your post either.

You think Cam throws too much or to little towards the left?

[PantherFanForLife]

Keep in mind that I post in a conversational manner.

As if I was at a bar watching a game with other guys that know their football to varying degrees.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or contentious, so there is no need to get all defensive.

I think Cam's field awareness is fine all things considered.

But field awareness is kinda of vague term, so I don't know want to get your meaning mixed up, so I'm asking you what you mean by field awareness?

Do you mean he isn't aware of the blitz, he doesn't feel pass rush pressure?

Or that he isn't aware of all his receiving options?

I'm not sure what you mean in the rest of your post either.

You think Cam throws too much or to little towards the left?

Huh? I didn't you were. I'm not being defensive. I think you're still stuck in argue mode from earlier.

Awareness as far as looking for other open options instead of taking double coverage throws. If it's not there I understand. But when there is, he should take the easy throws...but he needs to see them.

And the second part refers to our discussion from the first week. I made a joke at that time that Cam was racist towards left, cause he never seemed to look left on the final set of downs.

But then a couple of days ago, I just noticed for the first time that Cam's actually very cross eyed, and it looks more like an issue with his left eye.. I'm saying maybe it's not so funny. Could that be an issue with his peripheral vision? I wonder if that really might affect his vision.