Ha ha ha.
Sorry I read your first sentence again. It's incorrect. I just stated that my feedback isn't a final diagnosis. It takes a while to figure these things out.
What I do know is how to handle cluster b personality types.
The reason why I laughed is because you're lost, then the rest of what you wrote would be you spiraling downward in the dark when I spelled it out for you clearly, and I can't be the one to go in and save you.
I didn't say you claimed it was a final diagnosis. I'm saying your argument repeatedly relies on NPD as though it were established enough to make categorical predictions about how this person will behave. Saying "we're talking about NPD here" and "a narcissist will always..." is treating it as an established premise regardless of the disclaimer.
And saying you "know how to handle Cluster B" doesn't establish that your interpretation is correct either. That's the point I'm challenging. Your personal experience can tell you what you've encountered, but it doesn't turn those experiences into general rules about how people with Cluster B traits behave.
The "you're lost and I'm the one who understands" framing also doesn't address the argument. If something I said is wrong, you can point to the specific inference that fails. Telling me I'm spiraling because I don't accept your interpretation just replaces an argument with an assertion of authority.
All cluster B personalities have traits of one another. The list of symptoms and experiences do indeed point to that.
My first guess is BPD. 2nd NPD. cx3 thinks it's HPD. The one we never covered is APD.
While they do vary, handling them all is similar, and they can only really be managed if your foot is in the door.
EDIT: That being said, in order to manage that, appeal to the narcissist in them.
All cluster B personalities have traits of one another. The list of symptoms and experiences do indeed point to that.
My first guess is BPD. 2nd NPD. cx3 thinks it's HPD. The one we never covered is APD.
While they do vary, handling them all is similar, and they can only really be managed if your foot is in the door.
EDIT: That being said, in order to manage that, appeal to the narcissist in them.
Overlapping traits don't establish that someone belongs to Cluster B. That's exactly why the same behaviors can point toward multiple possibilities, or toward none of them. You have BPD as your first guess, NPD as your second, CX3 has HPD, and now ASPD is the remaining category. That doesn't narrow it down very much.
More importantly, "handling them all is similar" doesn't follow from them sharing some traits. The appropriate response depends on the actual person and behavior, not simply putting them into a Cluster B category.
And "appeal to the narcissist in them" seems especially questionable. If someone already has problems with ego, validation, jealousy, and hierarchy, deliberately appealing to those traits could reinforce the exact dynamics causing the problems. It might produce short-term compliance, but that's different from actually improving the behavior.
I think that's also where your "management" framework becomes circular. You assume a Cluster B/narcissistic structure, interpret their reactions through that structure, and then recommend managing the structure rather than questioning whether the interaction is reinforcing it.
The symptoms are there.
Between cx3 and myself, we have it narrowed down to 3.
It won't matter which one his friend is. He can be under the looking glass for years by multiple specialists and they will all come up with different things.
The one best to diagnose a cluster b, are the people in their lives.
The symptoms being present doesn't establish the diagnosis. That's precisely why the same observations can fit several different explanations. Narrowing it down to three between you and CX3 isn't the same as actually narrowing it down clinically.
And I don't think "it won't matter which one it is" really solves the problem. If the diagnosis doesn't matter, then there's even less reason to make categorical claims about what "a narcissist" will inevitably do or how they must be managed.
People close to someone can obviously provide important information about their behavior, but that doesn't make them the best people to diagnose them. They're also directly involved in the relationship and therefore subject to their own interpretations and biases. Specialists aren't infallible either, but "multiple specialists might disagree" doesn't make personal speculation more reliable.
Ultimately, I'd focus on the observable behavior rather than trying to force it into a Cluster B category. If someone is jealous, controlling, hostile when corrected, or dependent on one person for emotional regulation, those behaviors can be addressed whether or not there's an NPD/BPD/HPD label attached to them.
I know you haven't claimed a formal diagnosis. That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the amount of certainty you're deriving from the hypothesis.
You say the diagnosis isn't established, but then make statements like "a narcissist will always wear masks," "will never change unless they have someone they respect," "the friend will do all of that," and "appeal to the narcissist in them." Those are categorical claims about a person whose diagnosis you're simultaneously saying isn't established.
If we're only saying "these behaviors could be consistent with Cluster B traits," that's reasonable. But once the diagnosis becomes the basis for predicting what the person inevitably will do and how CX3 must manage them, the distinction between "not formally diagnosed" and "not established" becomes pretty important.
That's why I'd rather focus on the actual behaviors and their consequences instead of treating an uncertain label as the framework that explains everything.
Exactly. That's what I'm criticizing. You acknowledge that the diagnosis isn't established, but then speak with a level of certainty as though the underlying diagnosis and its predicted behavior are already established.
"A narcissist will always wear masks," "will never change unless they have someone they respect," "the friend will do all of that," and "appeal to the narcissist in them" aren't tentative observations. They're categorical claims. If the diagnosis is uncertain, the predictions based on it should be uncertain too.
That's the distinction I'm making. I'm not demanding a formal diagnosis. I'm questioning why an uncertain hypothesis is being used to produce such confident conclusions about someone's psychology and future behavior.
