Oh okay.
You're free to criticize me.
Oh okay.
You're free to criticize me.
I'm not asking permission to criticize you. I'm criticizing the reasoning, not asking whether I'm allowed to criticize the person making it. The question is whether your confident claims about an uncertain diagnosis actually follow from the evidence. Saying "you're free to criticize me" doesn't address that.
last edit on
8/20/2026 4:30:42 PM
Being experienced doesn't resolve the issue either. Experience is only useful evidence if your observations and interpretations are reliable, and I don't think you've established that here. You were one of the participants in those relationships, so you can't simply treat your own account of them as an objective record of what the other people were like. You may have accurately described some things, but you could also be overlooking your own contribution to the dynamics or interpreting conflicts through your existing framework.
That's especially relevant when your explanation consistently places you in the position of the person who understands, manages, or is above the other person. Your experiences don't independently establish that your interpretation of narcissism is correct.
There is an issue, though. You're treating your own interpretation of past relationships as sufficiently reliable to support very broad claims about how Cluster B people supposedly behave, while also acknowledging that the diagnosis in this case isn't established.
You can be confident in your interpretation, but that doesn't make it independently established. The issue is the reasoning, not whether you personally feel experienced enough to make it.
Just because you take issue, doesn't mean there is one.
That's not really an argument. The fact that I take issue with something doesn't establish that there's a problem, but neither does your assertion that there isn't one establish that there isn't. The issue has to be evaluated by the reasoning and evidence.
I've already identified the specific problem: you're making categorical claims about how Cluster B people behave and how they must be managed while simultaneously acknowledging that the diagnosis here isn't established. If you disagree, address that inference rather than simply declaring that there is no issue.
Just because you take issue, doesn't mean there is one.
That's not really an argument. The fact that I take issue with something doesn't establish that there's a problem,
Correct.
but neither does your assertion that there isn't one establish that there isn't. The issue has to be evaluated by the reasoning and evidence.
You're speaking as though I finalised my diagnosis. You want me wrong too bad.
I've already identified the specific problem: you're making categorical claims about how Cluster B people behave and how they must be managed while simultaneously acknowledging that the diagnosis here isn't established. If you disagree, address that inference rather than simply declaring that there is no issue.
Yes. Cluster B exhibit behaviors that are typical of them and it's documented.
People are examined not only from what they say, but what they do. There's also the ones who are closest to the person who can solve them better than a person whose paid to do it. Personal experience.
Title of this thread entails a cluster b personality type. Despite cx3 seeking opinions, he would know best.
I too am leaning on cluster b. 2 of them to be exact. Nothing wrong with any of that.
I never said there was anything wrong with considering Cluster B as a possibility. The problem is the certainty you've attached to the possibility.
Yes, Cluster B disorders have documented behavioral patterns. That doesn't mean that observing some of those behaviors establishes that a particular person has one of those disorders. Otherwise the diagnostic criteria would be unnecessary.
And I don't think "the people closest to them can solve them better than professionals" follows either. People close to someone have access to observations a clinician may not see, but they also have their own biases, involvement in the relationship, and incomplete information. Their observations can be useful evidence without making them inherently better diagnosticians.
CX3 can obviously have his own opinion, and you can have yours. But "CX3 would know best" doesn't make his interpretation established either. The title of the thread doesn't establish the diagnosis, and neither does your personal experience with people you've interpreted as Cluster B.
So I don't object to "this could be Cluster B." I object to the next step, where an uncertain hypothesis becomes the basis for categorical claims about what this person will do, how narcissists always behave, and how CX3 must manage him. That's the part that still hasn't been justified.