Talk:Grandiosity

References

where are the links to the references on this page? this page needs more reliable references. Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references are from textbooks/journals. They can't be linked to unless that portion of the text is published online. It would be good to have the ISBN or DOI for the publications as though (per WP:CITE). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite request

I am of the opinion that the majority of this article should be rewritten to be more concise and encyclopedic. As it stands, I think the excess of inline quotations makes it difficult to read. I'm adding a cleanup notice; if anyone has similar opinions or alternative feedback, please share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmisov (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiosity or Gregariousness?

At one point in DSM 5 development they had dozens of facets that were mix and match linked to about a handful of personality disorders. That model never made it to prime time but was published as experimental. [[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201303/whats-new-and-old-in-the-dsm-5-personality-disorders. Likewise the Big Five personality traits model has been broken down into dozens of more granular "facets" that link up into the big five.

Strikes me that Grandiosity is really quite granular - more like a Big 5 or DSM 5 (experimental) facet.

By itself it doesn't really tell you much. By itself it's nowhere near definitively pathological. Mild to moderate grandiosity may tightly correlate with Revised NEO Personality Inventory Extroversion - gregariousness, and as such not rise to the level of any pathology.

However grandiosity with several anti-social traits also in the mix would easily cross over into real pathology.

The APA itself struggled with facets for personality disorders so it doesn't surprise me there is potential for much confusion here too. Rick (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everything have to be a DISORDER nowadays?

What if people were simply different and not MENTALLY ILL? We already had the Nazis classify anyone not complying with the social standards as "ill" and you know where that ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:9181:1C76:B507:177C:AEC7:A7BA (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be. Wikipedia exists to display the current facts. This article , and countless others, does that. Brettwardo (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. One believing that "it does and so therefore it must be" is not an argument. Psychiatry is so politically charged that it is often used to classify and enable discrimination against those who do not conform to the little man "you're nobody" equality utopia dreams of socialists and their dependent "academic" sycophants on their gold paved paths to distopia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.226.183.174 (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and that one can only be understood by a few, very special people"

If you are a mathematician, this is not at all a delusion. You may counter that maths is only a peripheral and boring aspect that of life that does not affect the core of one's personality, which is of course the point of what is being discussed, but again, this is not so if you are a mathematician. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3D88:C2ED:A71F:4D19 (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

prone to grandiosity as follows

you can try and repeat, if prone to grandiosity, ingesting glutamic acid and glycine proves the result for being a glutaminergic disorder. --0dorkmann (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

glycine alternatives such as creatinine also applies. --0dorkmann (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]