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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Regarding_External_Links

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 why.

In any case here is the conversation as taken place on the 5.06.06 to the 6.06.06:


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 • contribs) .

    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 Hofmann-Engl06.06.06

    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".) http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/members/cv.pdf

            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.

            I 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?

            Sam 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 noted.

        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 2006 (UTC)

    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


Chameleon Group of Composers © 2006