Does this explain anything?

[bilbous]

This story seems to be everywhere (if you look for it ) Has anyone else seen it? Is it a boomer conspiracy? Do you experience it daily? My ivory tower may be somewhat tarnished but it still does a pretty good job of keeping the world out so I don't know about this.

[zanzibar]

Hmm.  Psychologists tackling a sociological topic while using positivist methods in analyizing inherently subjective data and materials.  Wonderful.

"Current technology fuels the increase in narcissism. By its very name, MySpace encourages attention-seeking, as does YouTube.

Ha!

The researchers traced the phenomenon back to what they called the "self-esteem movement" that emerged in the 1980s, asserting that the effort to build self-confidence had gone too far.

Actually it dates back to the 1960's and new wave parenting techniques.

"Permissiveness seems to be a component," he said. "A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for."

And no bright colours!

[emeraldfool]

Although the "research" does seem a little questionable, I think it's a fair point.

If you take, for example, Irish culture versus American culture - Ireland is still rather backwards (condoms weren't even available 'til about the 1980s), and most Irish parents still believe in the principal of 'tough love'. This is beginning to change, just like everything else, to meet the American way, but currently it's still the major belief. As a result, anyone who attempts to 'boast', or establish themselves as better than anyone else in society is automatically ridiculed until the concepts of humility and tact are hammered into them.

Personally I prefer the "everyone's equal so shut yer mouth ya gobshite" mentality. Americans in general are too full of themselves 

[bilbous]

I'm thinking that if there is any connection between that story and this one it may be a good time for the arts and a very bad time for everything else. A good many of you may become "hot properties", but property nonetheless as the entertainment industry buys up your souls. Do we really need more versions of Peter Pan?

[zanzibar]

Although the "research" does seem a little questionable, I think it's a fair point.

If you take, for example, Irish culture versus American culture - Ireland is still rather backwards (condoms weren't even available 'til about the 1980s), and most Irish parents still believe in the principal of 'tough love'. This is beginning to change, just like everything else, to meet the American way, but currently it's still the major belief. As a result, anyone who attempts to 'boast', or establish themselves as better than anyone else in society is automatically ridiculed until the concepts of humility and tact are hammered into them.

Personally I prefer the "everyone's equal so shut yer mouth ya gobshite" mentality. Americans in general are too full of themselves 

American culture, especially in the deep south, is extremely backwards.  Political threads aren't permitted... but it's a hotbed of religious fundamentalism and intolerance.

I'm thinking that if there is any connection between that story and this one it may be a good time for the arts and a very bad time for everything else. A good many of you may become "hot properties", but property nonetheless as the entertainment industry buys up your souls. Do we really need more versions of Peter Pan?

Most celebrities are uneducated.

[bilbous]

So are most University graduates particularly when cheating has become so prevalent. The best education is experience.

[zanzibar]

So are most University graduates particularly when cheating has become so prevalent.

Right, because most university students cheat.

The best education is experience.

I'm not sure how that applies to Stravinsky, but most celebrities would still be considered uneducated if that were true.

[bilbous]

This Macleans article discusses the Canadian aspect, I am sure if you look you can find similar reports from elsewhere.

More than 50% does qualify as most doesn't it?

[zanzibar]

This Macleans article discusses the Canadian aspect, I am sure if you look you can find similar reports from elsewhere.

More than 50% does qualify as most doesn't it?

The article leaves the definition of cheating very ambiguous.  After reading it, I'm still not sure I know what "50%" means since I don't know what they consider cheating to be.  Assuming that it means 50% of all students have done or would do something dishonest, that's pretty high.

That said, a cheater can be well educated so this is all irrelevant to the discussion.

[bilbous]

Let me see if I can connect the dots for you. First from Wikipedia:

Signs and symptoms

People who have a narcissistic personality style rather than narcissistic personality disorder are generally psychologically healthy, but may at times be arrogant, proud, shrewd, confident, self-centered and determined to be at the top. They do not, however, have an unrealistic image of their skills and worth and are not dependent on praise to sustain a healthy self-esteem.

    * Overreacts to criticism, becoming angry or humiliated
    * Uses others to reach goals
    * Exaggerates own importance
    * Entertains unrealistic fantasies about achievements, power, beauty, intelligence or romance
    * Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
    * Seeks constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
    * Is easily jealous [4]
    * Has a sense of entitlement
    * Is interpersonally exploitative
    * Lacks empathy
    * Displays arrogant, haughty behaviours

Diagnostic criteria
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):

   1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
   2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
   3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
   4. requires excessive admiration
   5. strong sense of entitlement
   6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
   7. lacks empathy
   8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
   9. arrogant affect.

That was 50% of students admitted to cheating the reality is likely much higher, the discussion is about narcississtic behaviour and I believe cheating falls into several of the qualifiers above. I'll leave other conclusions to the casual viewer.

[zanzibar]

Riiiiiiiight, but the point is that not all cheating is equal.  Some cheating is worse than other examples of cheating, and since we don't know what the studies considered to be cheating it's possible that some of the criteria they used are debatable - resulting in inflated numbers.

[bilbous]

Cheating is cheating, the only difference I see is in the effectiveness of the methods. Tying  this together with this thread (sheep/lamb) indicates that if you are going to cheat you may as well cheat effectively and hopefully not get caught. That would be the pragmatic approach. And of course the reason for cheating would be that because you (or your parents) are paying all this money for a piece of paper, you are entitled to get it whether you have earned it or not. Since you are entitled to get what you pay for just by paying for it you are also entitled to party hard while you are paying lip service to the education you are buying but not consuming. There is an old saying that "cheaters never prosper" but we know that is for the sheep, and not the wolves, as those who cheat the best without receiving crippling punishment are those who run the world. Sometimes when a wolf shows too much potential the Alpha wolf will cause the pack to turn on it before he can be usurped. Examples need to be made!

[lordraleigh]

Hmm.  Psychologists tackling a sociological topic while using positivist methods in analyizing inherently subjective data and materials.  Wonderful.

Classifying personality traits as disorders based on the societal "role model" is another example of such thing, for me it is just another social construct.

But if it is true, where is the border between narcissistic personality style and narcissistic personality disorder?

There would be a pretty blurred line between them, but as stated before, in my opinion, some people have gone too far on classifying different personality traits as disorders, based on a social standard model of behavior. I could claim that conformism is the null personality disorder as well.

Daydreaming as symptom of  a disorder?

For me these "disorders" are not different from the Soviet Union Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia or from the racist Drapetomania. Social constructs...

Certain parts of Mainstream psychiatry are as flawed as new age studies on paranormality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

[zanzibar]

Cheating is cheating

We do not live in a black and white world.  Some forms of cheating are more severe than others, plain and simple black and white.   To group them all together is to create potential for being misled.

Classifying personality traits as disorders based on the societal "role model" is another example of such thing, for me it is just another social construct.

Sometimes known as:  Conformity + Obedience = "The Good".  This is especially true when talking about the way young people are viewed.

But if it is true, where is the border between narcissistic personality style and narcissistic personality disorder?

Some would say that it becomes a disorder when it interferes with your life.

Certain parts of Mainstream psychiatry are as flawed as new age studies on paranormality.

Psychology works by creating theoretical models using abstract representations based on indirect observations.  This is because psychological processes cannot be observed in a direct and scientific way.  They can only be observed indirectly.  The theoretical models describe "processes" of the mind, however those models are at the same time used as evidence for the existence of those processes.  This is an extremely flawed method.  What compounds the problem is that the method is treated as scientific.  While the methodology has been designed to give the appearance of the scientific method and the appearance of objectivity, by the very nature of the methodology we know that this portrayal is a falsehood.

So yeah, I'm not big on psychology either.