On Zeraeph at Wikipedia
I have no idea who Zeraeph is, but (s)he seems to be central to the
pscyhological section of Wikipedia. (S)he has claimed that my npd pages
are ill-informed and amateurish. The original comments are at:
I replied to the messages there and the result of it is below. I'd like
to mention that an initial search has shown that Zeraeph seems to talk
over people in general and appears to take on a rather superior position
for a reason which I did not quite get. It is a sad fact, that the npd
section of wikipedia seems to support Sam Vaknin without clear reason
In any case here is the conversation as taken place on the 5.06.06 to
Regarding external links part II
I can see that this discussion is a bit old, but I very much welcome
comments about my web-site and particularly comments which demonstrate
that all I say is so ill informed etc. Why did the author not bother to
contact me personally and inform me about my short comings? I am always
open and very keen to discuss matters. Additionally, I would like to
point out that a lot of what I wrote was based on my personal
experience and I state this as well. I must have read ca 100 papers on
the issue, several books and had conversations with quite a lot of
people on this issue. At one point I run a npd forum. Finally, I must
have counselled something like 50 people who suffered from a npd
relationship seemingly successfully. If I am still amateurish, I must
be an idiot.
Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl 05.06.06
P.S. I don't know who tried to add my link to the npd site here, but I
can only say that a lot of people have emailed me expressing that my
pages have helped them.
P.P.S The biggest difference between my (cognitive) approach and the
psycho-dynamic approach is that I don't believe in the myth that npd's
are traumatised victims. As we know most bullying in school comes from
middle class, well-off girls who think they are above everyone else.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hofmannengl (talk •
Your web pages are entirely composed of unverified,
unreferenced, personal opinion and "click to donate" buttons, none of
which is appropriate to wikipedia. If you ever choose to upgrade them
to an academic standard and dispense with the "profit" element, please
feel warmly welcome to post the link to be evaluated, once again, on
the merits of the content of the site alone, rather than any of your
other reading and activities. --Zeraeph 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I must add that now the
"click to donate" buttons have finally disappeared which, while it is a
considerable improvement, the rest of the page remains one man's
journey into defining NPD soley in terms of specific relationships that
have not suited him (without even passing reference to the DSM IV), and
a veritable mine of misinformation.--Zeraeph 21:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for the comment. Would you please specify what exactly is wrong
with my pages. I really would not want someone to follow some wrong
advice I have given.
The pages are not thought to be of academic nature (nor are the
wikipedia pages) but there to help people who encountered the problem.
The site makes this very clear.
However, if you want to read something more academic of mine related to
this issue, you could try:
but I doubt whether it is of help to the general public. Even academics
seem to be puzzled over it.
Still, as said I would be interested to learn about my mistake. --Dr
Very simple, you are making up NPD as you go along,
to suit yourself, without reference to the DSM IV or other accredited
sources (which IMHO would NOT include Sam Vaknin, but even what you say
about him and his "work" is grossly inaccurate) which will never help
anybody including you. You are a Doctor of music, you aren't qualified
to go around re-inventing personality disorders to rationalise your
last divorce (yes it is THAT obvious). NPD may be an unpleasant
condition but it isn't even close to your "account" of it!
And what you have written on other topics is of no
relevance to whether your site is worthy of inclusion in this article.
The abuse essay seems properly sourced and validated (thus proving
conclusively that you DO know better). On close examination, much of
your source material is so obscure as to be untraceable and the notion
of breaking down child abuse into mathematical equations as a
conclusion is so bizarre that, frankly, I am not in the least bit
surprised academics are puzzled by it! I can't see how it tells us
anything new or useful and, even if it did, it is not relevant to this
article. --Zeraeph 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, if you read my paper on child abuse, you
will find that I am referring there to three scales related to NPD. I
really don't think someone in distress can be helped by referring to a
manual. Additionally my paper does what all psychometric measuring
does: Formalize the evaluation process. The only difference to some
other mathematical models is, that my math is more complex than the
math of some others.
I also would like to add that there is no standard
definition of NPD and the term narcissist has undergone a lot of
changes and probably will undergo further modifications. I think my
paper is relevant because it points to Wiehe (2003) who established
that narcissistic hypersensitivity is the main characteristic of an
abuser, and my pages make this very clear that this is the case. As a
psychologist, I am reluctant to follow the psychiatric tradtion of
dealing with psychological issues in analogy to the medical science. It
is a rather unfortunate fact of history.
I am not sure where you get your information from
but my PhD was in psychology (Dep. of Psychology, Keele University,
UK). Additionally, I have been working in the mental health field for
about 4 years.
If you don't mind me saying this, but your messages
indicate some form of anger. I am not sure why you feel so angry, but
there must be some reason.
I am not particularly interested in Sam (although
you still have a link to him on your npd site. Why?). It's just that a
lot of people felt quite hurt by the forums he runs. At times, I picked
up the pieces.
Finally, I would like to point out that none of my
references are obscure. In the majority they are taken from the leading
scientific journals. If you want to get hold of them, it might be an
idea to go to a university library. --Dr Hofmann-Engl 06.06.06
Music Psychology - totally unrelated to clinical psychology. (music
tuition is not generally considered a "mental health field" even when
the pupils are "special needs".)
Though frankly, even if you were the Dean of Harvard Medical School it
would not render the amateur, unverified, subjectivity of your website
suitable for inclusion in this article.
think you will find a "standard definition" of Narcissistic Personality
Disorder in the DSM IV. You may not agree with it, but that is the only
topic of this article. You may find Anti-psychiatry a more appropriate
place for your link?
Vaknin's link remains here after prolonged discussion and agreement to
which I was not a party. If you feel it should be removed feel free to
open a discussion on the subject, but be prepared to validate your case
considerably better than on your stated homepage. --Zeraeph 11:17, 6
June 2006 (UTC)
You say music psychology has nothing to do with
clinical psychology. How do you know?
I only can repeat that my pages clearly state that
they draw on my personal experience. Additionally, you still have not
pointed out which of my statements is amateurish or ill informed.
I also may add that it was not me who included my
link in wikipedia at first. Someone else did that. After it was removed
I tried to put it back on a few times, because I couldn't quite get why
it would be removed. After a few attempts I moved on.
You are right, I am not a clinical psychologist (at
this moment in time), but my field has been cognitive psychology
(cognitive similarity particularly which has a lot do with conditioning
etc.). I still claim that a more cognitive approach to npd is more
useful than a psycho-dynamic or a psychiatric one. Still, this does not
make me anti-psychiatry
Would you mind explaining in what capacity you are
judging my pages. Are you a cognitive psychologist? What is your
background and what are your qualifications?
I am happy to reply but only if you state a concrete
example of me being ill-informed. Judgmental statements just don't do
it for me. --Dr Hofmann-Engl06.06.06
Funny thing, every single
time that link was placed, it was from the same UK internet provider
http://www.global.net.uk/, no variations. I, personally and
subjectively, dislike fibbers. Wikipedia, as a whole, is set up to be
able to detect and ban all forms of sockpuppetry as soon as they are
Let us be more specific, you
have never been a clinical psychologist either. You "field" is music, a
treatise on providing a groundwork on cognitive similarity in music is
hardly clinical cognitive psychology! To suggest that it is is like
suggesting work on cognitive similarity in linguistics is equivalent to
speaking fluent cantonese.
As a vitriolic vent against
your ex spouse your pages may be, for all I know, well informed, though
hardly presented objectively or impartially. On the topic of NPD they
are irrelevant, from start to finish.
I do not have to explain my
background. I am not the one trying to insist that my website diatribe
against both my ex spouse and (for variety, apparently) Sam Vaknin is
valid information on a Personality disorder. --Zeraeph 12:03, 6 June
Your claims are becoming more hostile than
necessary. However, cognitive similarity (as a psychological concept)
forms an essential part in my thesis relating it to all major work in
the field at the time when the thesis was written (Goldstone is
probably the most important expert on it). Cognitive similarity in
linguistics - interesting question. I have not come across it. Are you
talking about psycho-linguistics?
To imply that I have been lying without any proof (I
am not the only person living in the UK, which might have escaped your
attention) is defamatory, and I don't appreciate it.
As yet you have failed to provide a single example.
I guess, let's call it a day. If you can't see that this is not an
acceptable form of communication, well I can see it. I don't like the
rules of your shpiel as we would say in Yiddish.
Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl
You can judge for yourself what you think of it.
L H E 06.06.06
Group of Composers © 2006