Do you have a problem with cx3's take as well ?
You must if you do with me. He's leaning in on the cluster b side too.
Do you have a problem with cx3's take as well ?
You must if you do with me. He's leaning in on the cluster b side too.
I don't have a problem with CX3 considering Cluster B as a possibility. I think the friend should get an actual assessment privately from a professional who can advise him on further plans if he wants one, and whatever diagnosis he receives is ultimately his own business. It isn't something for other people to casually settle among themselves.
My concern is what happens after the speculation. Once you start assuming someone has NPD, BPD, or HPD, it's very easy to interpret everything they do through that label and start predicting their behavior from it. That's potentially misleading, especially when you're talking about someone who isn't present to give their own perspective.
So no, my objection isn't simply "Spatial thinks Cluster B and CX3 does too." My objection is that your response goes far beyond "this might be Cluster B." You're making deterministic claims about narcissists, hierarchy, masks, respect, and how CX3 should manage his friend. I think that's considerably less justified than focusing on the actual behaviors and boundaries involved.
If anything, I think CX3 would be better served by treating the diagnosis as uncertain and evaluating what actually happens between them. A professional assessment, if his friend wants one, could give him a more reliable basis for deciding what to do. Everything beyond that is speculation.
Do you have a problem with cx3's take as well ?
You must if you do with me. He's leaning in on the cluster b side too.
I don't have a problem with CX3 considering Cluster B as a possibility. I think the friend should get an actual assessment privately from a professional who can advise him on further plans if he wants one, and whatever diagnosis he receives is ultimately his own business. It isn't something for other people to casually settle among themselves.
But the title of this thread assumes a cluster b.
I did not base my initial assessment on the title.
I also mentioned multiple professionals WILL come up with multiple conclusions. I have a family member who was diagnosed as BPD. I said fuck no. Her family doctor said the same thing.
A professional doesn't get the full scoop. Only what the subject says. A cluster b would have to be willing to do the work and recognize they have a problem to begin with the give honest feedback. The people in the subjects life are the ones who can truly diagnose them. Often the professional will want to contact or sit down with their friends and family to reach their final conclusion.
My concern is what happens after the speculation. Once you start assuming someone has NPD, BPD, or HPD, it's very easy to interpret everything they do through that label and start predicting their behavior from it. That's potentially misleading, especially when you're talking about someone who isn't present to give their own perspective.
Part of my assessment is... It doesn't matter which one it is exactly. 20 years can go by and a professional can change their mind with updates.
It's not up to the professional to manage and cope with the behavior of their subjects.
My suggestions work on everyone, except when it comes to his friend, he's just more sensitive.
So no, my objection isn't simply "Spatial thinks Cluster B and CX3 does too." My objection is that your response goes far beyond "this might be Cluster B." You're making deterministic claims about narcissists, hierarchy, masks, respect, and how CX3 should manage his friend. I think that's considerably less justified than focusing on the actual behaviors and boundaries involved.
It's razor focused on the fried, and how to handle them with peace of mind. None of what I've said is ineffective for anyone seeking to maintain a connection with someone like that.
You on the other hand have no suggestion other than "seek a professional", nor are you the type to keep such a person in your circle, though I think you'd be the subject in your circle if you even have any.
The one who puts up with your bullshit, is your precious one.
SC used to be a psychology forum. Now it's just psychological.
If anything, I think CX3 would be better served by treating the diagnosis as uncertain and evaluating what actually happens between them. A professional assessment, if his friend wants one, could give him a more reliable basis for deciding what to do. Everything beyond that is speculation.
Everything I said works even when uncertain.
All cx3 has to do is give someone else a little attention and his friend starts acting up. That alone explains a lot along with every other detail.
His friend by description and his experiences, is a textbook cluster b personality. Maybe he already when to the psych forums and head the same thing from various people of various conditions.
.
.
.
I'll boast. I'm a gem in psychology forums.
I actually think the observations become much less useful once they're filtered through an unverified diagnosis and your own assumptions about how these people work. They aren't objective measurements, and in this case they're being used to justify advice that I think could actively reinforce the problem.
If someone is jealous, controlling, defensive, or dependent on one person for validation, telling their friend to carefully manage their ego, maintain their preferred hierarchy, appeal to their narcissism, and avoid triggering them can teach the friend to accommodate the dysfunction rather than establish healthier boundaries. That's not something I'd describe as harmless management.
And if your advice supposedly works regardless of whether this is NPD, BPD, HPD, or even Cluster B at all, then the diagnosis is unnecessary. We can discuss the behavior without assigning a speculative disorder to someone who isn't participating in the discussion.
I also don't accept "the people closest to them can truly diagnose them" as a principle. They can provide information that a professional might not otherwise have, but they're also participants in the relationship and can misinterpret motives or their own role in the dynamic. Your own experiences don't become objective evidence simply because you've had several of them.
The fact that CX3's friend reacts badly when he receives attention from other people is worth taking seriously. It doesn't establish a diagnosis, a hierarchy, or some inevitable developmental process. You're repeatedly turning individual behaviors into a much larger psychological narrative and then using that narrative to justify how CX3 should manage him.
And I think that's where your advice becomes potentially dangerous. If someone is already dependent on CX3 for validation and emotional regulation, making CX3 responsible for maintaining the person's ego, staying on their level, avoiding "triggering" them, and appealing to their narcissism could deepen the dependency rather than improve it. It can make the relationship revolve even more around managing one person's reactions.
Your personal experience doesn't change that. You may have encountered people who behaved similarly, but that doesn't establish that your interpretation of their motives was correct, nor that the same strategy is appropriate here. And "I'm a gem in psychology forums" is certainly not evidence for the claims. If anything, the confidence you're displaying is part of what I'm questioning.
I'd rather judge the actual behavior and its consequences than build a speculative diagnosis around someone who isn't here to provide their own perspective. If the friend wants professional assessment and advice about what to do, that's ultimately his decision. Until then, I don't think casual diagnosis plus highly confident management advice is a particularly reliable approach.
I actually think the observations become much less useful once they're filtered through an unverified diagnosis and your own assumptions about how these people work. They aren't objective measurements, and in this case they're being used to justify advice that I think could actively reinforce the problem.
Absolutely not. These conditions are to be managed for life and part of that is endless monitoring.
If someone is jealous, controlling, defensive, or dependent on one person for validation, telling their friend to carefully manage their ego, maintain their preferred hierarchy, appeal to their narcissism, and avoid triggering them can teach the friend to accommodate the dysfunction rather than establish healthier boundaries. That's not something I'd describe as harmless management.
I never suggested telling anyone to carefully manage their ego, or maintain their preferred hierarchy, or appeal to their narcissism.
Between 2 friends there's the head and the tail. A good head makes for a fortunate tail. 2 heads don't work out, and 2 tails cannot exist.
With a narcissist, you don't lead at all. Unless you're that rare person. And trust me, you don't want them to lead. It's not a matter of preference that establishes a connection, it's whoever is more valuable to who. That's the real word, and it's more profound when "maintaining" cluster b connections. Cluster B types famously destroy connections, and all of those connections are of people who never lead it.
And if your advice supposedly works regardless of whether this is NPD, BPD, HPD, or even Cluster B at all, then the diagnosis is unnecessary. We can discuss the behavior without assigning a speculative disorder to someone who isn't participating in the discussion.
I did state that it doesn't matter what the diagnosis is, hence me having more to say with detail. I also know that cx3 genuinely likes that guy because, he's figuring him out. Usually people who are romantically interested in someone seeks input on their crush's mental illnesses.
There are 2 components.
- Kindness/consideration
- Boundaries.
As long as the kindness isn't mistaken for anything else, it will be seen as consideration. This is valuable to the subject. Boundaries enforces the kindness. Without boundaries they will walk over you and in comes abusive cycles.
I also don't accept "the people closest to them can truly diagnose them" as a principle. They can provide information that a professional might not otherwise have, but they're also participants in the relationship and can misinterpret motives or their own role in the dynamic. Your own experiences don't become objective evidence simply because you've had several of them.
I co-diagnosed my own buddy. The head doctor doesn't experience a single subject more than the subjects inner circle. Also... Some of us can, some cannot. I can. Most people discard these types of people. Chances are cx3 is the guys only friend. High chance.
The fact that CX3's friend reacts badly when he receives attention from other people is worth taking seriously. It doesn't establish a diagnosis, a hierarchy, or some inevitable developmental process. You're repeatedly turning individual behaviors into a much larger psychological narrative and then using that narrative to justify how CX3 should manage him.
That 1 aspect doesn't establish diagnosis or a hierarchy, but it signals insecurity. That isn't the only aspect listed in the details about this character. I don't see any value in placing my speculation on a narrow acknowledgment of other indicators.
And I think that's where your advice becomes potentially dangerous. If someone is already dependent on CX3 for validation and emotional regulation, making CX3 responsible for maintaining the person's ego, staying on their level, avoiding "triggering" them, and appealing to their narcissism could deepen the dependency rather than improve it. It can make the relationship revolve even more around managing one person's reactions.
But Dragoon. Don't you know a good friend is responsible for looking after the wellbeing of their friends and family.
The idea is to maintain the relationship. Don't be a dick to your friends. If you're friend is retarded and you want to keep them for some reason, then be considerate. If you know something hurts your friend, don't do it.
Not a single thing what I said is dangerous. If you know walking ahead triggers your narcissistic friend, you'll know when you're doing it. Maybe he'll do it to cx3, he won't give a fuck cause cx isn't sensitive to it. cx will still be the shit to his friend. That is, if he is a friend.
Your personal experience doesn't change that. You may have encountered people who behaved similarly, but that doesn't establish that your interpretation of their motives was correct, nor that the same strategy is appropriate here. And "I'm a gem in psychology forums" is certainly not evidence for the claims. If anything, the confidence you're displaying is part of what I'm questioning.
There you go belittling me again. My personal interpretation of my personal experiences is a book. My results are positive. My friends families all love me. I show up and everyone behaves. I transformed people. I changed some of you, though not really. That distance you see happening with Med and Chapo. She isn't great at it, but I recognize she's trying to do what I told her to do. And yes I cut her off, because that was the right thing. I won't get any credit or respect, but yes. She let me know how she handled that call in that chatlog.
The essay I wrote here gets no feedback from cx3. But it's good feedback. Could be because I'm a theist, who knows.
I'd rather judge the actual behavior and its consequences than build a speculative diagnosis around someone who isn't here to provide their own perspective. If the friend wants professional assessment and advice about what to do, that's ultimately his decision. Until then, I don't think casual diagnosis plus highly confident management advice is a particularly reliable approach.
That's what I did on my way up. Observe. Other than that you, Dragoon cannot do what you're unable to do.
Some of us, get good at what we do. Even when it comes to recognizing behavioral patterns.
Most feedback cx3 would get, is to discard the guy. If he wants to keep him I'll say how, and it isn't far off from what he's already done, and why ? Because cx3 isn't mirroring the behavior, nor reacting to it the way most would.
I think we're using different words for essentially the same thing. You say you aren't advocating maintaining his preferred hierarchy or managing his ego, but you describe friendship as having a "head and tail," say that the more valuable person occupies the higher position, and repeatedly explain how CX3 should behave around his friend's sensitivities so the relationship remains stable. That's a hierarchy and a form of interpersonal management regardless of what you call it.
Kindness and boundaries are reasonable principles. But "if you know something hurts your friend, don't do it" becomes questionable when the thing supposedly hurting them is something ordinary, like giving another person attention or walking ahead of them. At some point the person having the reaction has to develop tolerance rather than everyone around them reorganizing their behavior around it. Otherwise boundaries become accommodation.
I also don't think "Cluster B connections are maintained through monitoring" establishes that endless monitoring is beneficial. If the relationship requires CX3 to constantly monitor which ordinary behaviors might trigger his friend, that itself tells us something about the health of the relationship. Maintaining a relationship isn't automatically the same thing as improving it.
And I never said you can't recognize behavioral patterns. I'm saying pattern recognition isn't the same as knowing the underlying cause, and your confidence in your own pattern recognition doesn't remove the possibility of misinterpretation. Your personal experiences can be meaningful to you without becoming general psychological evidence.
Your claim that you have "transformed people" doesn't establish that either. People changing after interacting with you doesn't demonstrate that your explanation of their psychology was correct or that your methods caused the changes you attribute to yourself. There are too many variables involved.
The same applies to CX3. The fact that he hasn't discarded his friend and behaves differently from how most people might doesn't prove that your framework is correct. It could simply mean that CX3 has a different tolerance level, attachment, or set of reasons for maintaining the friendship.
And the repeated "you can't do what I can do" framing isn't really relevant. I'm not claiming to have your experiences. I'm questioning whether your conclusions follow from those experiences. If your advice is genuinely about kindness and boundaries, then those principles can stand on their own without the speculative diagnosis, hierarchy, "head and tail" model, or claims about what narcissists inevitably become.
I think we're using different words for essentially the same thing. You say you aren't advocating maintaining his preferred hierarchy or managing his ego, but you describe friendship as having a "head and tail," say that the more valuable person occupies the higher position, and repeatedly explain how CX3 should behave around his friend's sensitivities so the relationship remains stable. That's a hierarchy and a form of interpersonal management regardless of what you call it.
I also said it flips because cx is viewed as precious. This entails peace of mind. How cx performs under the same triggers is admirable. There's more buildups that eventually lead to cx being more than a source of admiration. The goal will be to assimilate these stable attributes as there's no arguing it is much cooler than losing your shit over things that doesn't phase such an amazing person.
The social dynamic between 2 friends is that one will more commonly be the leader. The head must also be generous for the relationship to function.
2 alphas can respect one another and bro out on occasion, but it won't work if there's an underlying struggle to assume the dominant role. An alpha will always want to be Batman, Can't have 2 Batmans, too much friction.
If you have any good friends ( probably not ) either you admire them more, or they admire you more. It can appear even cause of mutual respect. Even if the tail comes up with the bright ideas the head is still the captain and the captain does listen to suggestions.
If the head claims to be the leader, its comedy, but if the head is hostile about it, the relationship will crack.
Kindness and boundaries are reasonable principles. But "if you know something hurts your friend, don't do it" becomes questionable when the thing supposedly hurting them is something ordinary, like giving another person attention or walking ahead of them. At some point the person having the reaction has to develop tolerance rather than everyone around them reorganizing their behavior around it. Otherwise boundaries become accommodation.
If you know doing something hurts your friend, it's your call to be spiteful. With cluster b individuals you have to set boundaries. Same with anyone really but especially people with a lot of weight on their shoulders. They won't seek your concerns unless they are address.
In terms of maintaining and managing a narcissistic friend ( This is a very unconventional conversation cause the masses are advised to run, but we're not talking about a malignant narcissist ) but in terms of maintaining that, walking next to them and not ahead is a practice that promotes stability. If you're the better of the 2, They can do it to the caregiver, but the caregiver can't do it to them, and it's okay cause the caregiver doesn't give a fuck in the first place. These kind of things make the caregiver sweet, and the subject might not be able to put their finger on it, but there's a badge on the caregivers sleeve that makes them really nice to have.
For the record narcissist isn't the final diagnoses at this point but it is a clear attribute.
I also don't think "Cluster B connections are maintained through monitoring" establishes that endless monitoring is beneficial. If the relationship requires CX3 to constantly monitor which ordinary behaviors might trigger his friend, that itself tells us something about the health of the relationship. Maintaining a relationship isn't automatically the same thing as improving it.
The connections like any, are managed. With good management they will go long without any significant episodes, until there is one. There is no avoiding "monitoring" for the caregiver, they are right fucking there. They will in many cases hear about what happened when not around and they'll be around for good bad and neutral times.
And I never said you can't recognize behavioral patterns. I'm saying pattern recognition isn't the same as knowing the underlying cause, and your confidence in your own pattern recognition doesn't remove the possibility of misinterpretation. Your personal experiences can be meaningful to you without becoming general psychological evidence.
Knowing the reason for them being as they are won't change anything that happened in the past.
My first suggestion in this thread was indeed a misinterpretation, cause it's common for people to research stuff like this when it's a romantic interest. BPD is also the broadest of the cluster b types. APD is the diagnosis for a sociopath, while a BPD in my opinion can deal more emotional damage than a sociopath. With the listed behaviors, If the subject's emotions are intense, I'd lean toward BPD. I'll tell you this, BPD emotions are rass. They are either really lovely, are bewilderingly cold when they devalue/discard.
Your claim that you have "transformed people" doesn't establish that either.
Correct. It's not the claim that established it, it is, it, that establishes the claim.
It's not my fucking job to prove that to you. Take it or leave it.
People changing after interacting with you doesn't demonstrate that your explanation of their psychology was correct or that your methods caused the changes you attribute to yourself. There are too many variables involved.
It's not my thoughts about them that inspires. Its my treatment.
There was a member that used to come here named Virus. He's an OG from the nabble forums. A rotten place. They caused his divorce. He made the mistake of bringing his wife here, he was attacked by the swarm and his wife joined the bandwagon, seemingly by pure social pressure. Nasty group. After his divorce he still attended Luna's for awhile. He is SGT. Thomas Hill. Bad ass. We'd at times take jabs at one another but meh. It was reasonable. It's what we do here. Some days he'd warm up other times go cold. His some came here wondering what this place is, and we spoke one on one. Talked about his Father, how he's a dick yada yada, ( Trying to make this short ) I told him what his Father's been through in the military, with the divorce and to not take it personal.
Tom's Son Johnny never knew what happened here, Tom never wanted to talk about getting bullied and betrayed by his coward ex wife at the same time. Fucking UKan and some other bitches. Nastiest bunch you'd ever see, these people are actually real. What happened in the Nabble forum between Tom and his wife, not something a man wants to tell his son. Johnny never understood psychology. The only reason why he came here is because of joint custody and his Father was at this weird site for sociopaths, so his Father must be some sick fuck. I fixed that shit. Showed him how to manage that man, what to do, what not to do and why. Boy came to understood, came back saying I was right. I got updates. His Father was smiling and laughing more. Tom was pretty suicidal. Cunty ex wife would full that boys head with shit.. Tom came at me in a DM "I know what you did" After that things were cool as a cucumber between us and he was more chipper in his last days here. Last thing I saw, Johnny looked after his Father, and his Father looked after his Son.
My diagnosis for Tom, PTSD. That happens to Marines and this one was a killer.
https://www.2ndmardiv.marines.mil/Photos/igphoto/144474/
Nathan would remember Virus/Tom, and what happened to him in the old SC.
.
Elli came here earlier this year. Stayed a while and took off again. Never spoke to any of you, just me. Probably doesn't even remember TC. I get a sense that she was disappointed in seeing me here. She doesn't like when I fence with you fools, or when I curse, or whatever dumb jokes I make. To her I'm supposed to be the good guy. I inspired change in her. She used to be hardcore, then she kinda lightened up. Kinda turned into an atheist nun, just better and she credited me for it. Back then Raven was her lovely, not easy to befriend. When I say borderline, and mean Bor Der Line. Not my diagnosis but her claim. When Raven was here letting us know her husband died, I did bring up how she's changed. Not trying to take any credit or anything, I couldn't really help her, only entertain but I got my respect.
There more from here alone, more from other places, and more in person.
The same applies to CX3. The fact that he hasn't discarded his friend and behaves differently from how most people might doesn't prove that your framework is correct. It could simply mean that CX3 has a different tolerance level, attachment, or set of reasons for maintaining the friendship.
Cx is someone that can. To the subject, as I mentioned, cx isn't easily replaced. Cx is in the position to be able to help that guy while most won't or can't even.
And the repeated "you can't do what I can do" framing isn't really relevant. I'm not claiming to have your experiences. I'm questioning whether your conclusions follow from those experiences. If your advice is genuinely about kindness and boundaries, then those principles can stand on their own without the speculative diagnosis, hierarchy, "head and tail" model, or claims about what narcissists inevitably become.
Soggy man. It's relevant cause you really can't and why ? Lack of knowledge and experience. You don't know me. Pretty sure you're the only one here that has no idea what I even look like.
I'm a cluster B doctor without a degree, and why ? I had to understand this shit.
Next time I'll sprinkle some sugar on what I say, knowing what's true will upset you.
Gemini, head and tail relationship between 2 friends.....
Gemini said:In social dynamics, this balance of roles between two friends is incredibly common. Relationships often naturally develop a leader and a follower, or a "head" and a "tail."
The "Head" Friend
- Initiates plans: Sets the calendar, picks the venue, and pushes the group to action.
- Makes decisions: Chooses the restaurant, selects the movie, or decides the travel route.
- Provides energy: Drives the social momentum and sets the overall mood.
The "Tail" Friend
- Brings flexibility: Goes with the flow, adapts easily, and rarely creates conflict over plans.
- Offers support: Grounds the relationship and provides a steady, reliable presence.
- Balances control: Keeps the "head" from burning out or becoming too overbearing.
Why this Dynamic Works
- Zero friction: Avoids constant arguments because both people naturally prefer different roles.
- Complementary strengths: Decisiveness matches perfectly with adaptability to get things done.
When it Becomes a Problem
- Resentment grows: The "head" feels exhausted by doing all the work, or the "tail" feels voiceless.
- Unequal power: One person completely dominates, turning a partnership into a dictatorship.
The thought of there being no head and tail relationship with the subject is amature.
.
.
.
Once again I had to bring the Ai, and why ? Cause you can't do the research yourself. Instead it makes you cry, when you hear about the social dynamics between 2 friends.
You have equality issues, thinking everyone should have the same role, while straying away from what functions. Disgusting creature.
Have you final word.
I think you've actually clarified the disagreement. I don't object to friends having different roles. One person can initiate more, make more decisions, be more adaptable, or take on more emotional support. That's not the same thing as saying one is the "head," the other is the "tail," and that the more "valuable" person therefore occupies a higher position.
Your Gemini example doesn't establish your conclusion either. It describes complementary roles and explicitly says unequal power becomes a problem. You keep turning ordinary differences in behavior into a status hierarchy, then treating that hierarchy as natural.
The same applies to CX3. You keep treating his ability to tolerate his friend's behavior as evidence that CX3 is inherently above him, then using that supposed superiority to explain why the friend will admire, imitate, and eventually defer to him. That's circular. And saying CX3 is "precious" or "not easily replaced" doesn't establish any of it either.
I also don't think your anecdotes establish what you think they do. If people changed after being treated well by you, that's perfectly possible. But you can't infer from the outcome alone that your psychological interpretation was correct or that you "transformed" them. There are too many possible explanations. Your experience gives you experience, not immunity from being wrong.
And that's really my objection to the "cluster B doctor without a degree" framing. You repeatedly present speculative interpretations as though your experience makes them established facts, then dismiss disagreement as lack of knowledge or experience. That's not evidence.
I'm also not arguing that everyone must have identical roles. I'm arguing that different roles don't require one person to be above the other. If the relationship genuinely works through mutual respect, kindness, and boundaries, those things can be discussed directly without inventing a head/tail hierarchy or assuming that one person's value must eventually place them above the other.
So yes, friends can have different roles. No, that doesn't establish the hierarchy you're describing, and an AI agreeing that role differentiation exists doesn't establish your much stronger claims about status, narcissism, or what CX3's friend will inevitably become.