Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Self-Image Issues
Neurotics often have damaged self-images that stem from low self-esteem. Disordered characters see themselves as superior which leads to a sense of entitlement. What’s more, disordered characters aren’t compensating for anything, they really do think they’re all that!
Neurotic individuals and disordered characters differ on many dimensions, such as what they need most from counseling, how they respond to adverse consequence, etc. (See, for example: “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Contrasting Needs in Therapy”, “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Responses to Adverse Consequences”.) But there is perhaps no aspect of their personsonality in which they differ more than the dimension of self-image. Neurotics often have significantly damaged or tenuous self-images. This typically arises out of a deficient sense of self-worth or self-esteem. Underneath it all, neurotics feel defective in some way and unsure that they are truly lovable. Sometimes their impaired self-esteem leads to a profound sense of inadequacy and weaknesses of character. Sometimes it prompts them to try far too hard to please others in order to feel of value. When these tendencies are not excessive, they can be critical inducements to being socially responsible. In other words, when a person thinks they must earn the approval of others, they can be motivated to develop certain qualities of character, make significant social contributions, and otherwise attempt to “earn” the approval of others to validate themselves and demonstrate their worth.
Disordered characters have problems with self-image too, but their problems most often arise from an inflated sense of self-worth. As some researchers have commented, they tend to be “legends in their own mind.” They see themselves as superior to others, which in turn leads to a sense of entitlement to use and exploit others as they see fit. The most severely disordered character, the psychopath (alt: sociopath), has such a pathologically inflated self-image that he tends to see all other creatures (by virtue of their inferior status) as rightful prey.
Traditional thinking has always been that ego inflation always represents a “compensation” for underlying deficiencies in self-esteem. Such thinking also led many to presume that “underneath it all,” bullies are really cowards. Fortunately, some fairly sound science in the last 20 years has helped debunk this myth. The “compensation” metaphor still has some validity when you’re dealing with neurosis. But it’s a risky and potentially damaging point of view to hold when you’re dealing with character disturbance. Disordered characters really do think they’re all that! Sometimes, it can appear like they’re struggling with compensation issues, but that’s because we often confuse the concepts of self-esteem and self-respect. I’ll be posting on self-image issue again and will expand upon the distinction that should be made between self-esteem and self-respect and how achieving a healthy balance of the two is critical to character formation.
Of all the issues raised in my first book, In Sheep's Clothing [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK], readers unanimously report this distinction to be one of the more illuminating and helpful concepts in understanding and dealing with persons with disturbed characters.
6 Responses (One Discussion Thread) to “Neurosis vs. Character Disorder: Self-Image Issues”
The comment form is currently closed.
I’d love to hear the relationship to children psychology on this bully issue. That they have debunked that they are cowards and they really think they are all that. hmmm… Since I have worked with kids often times one of the parents is of the same mainframe.
And relationship to the deluge of high school/College shootings that has escalated in the past 15 years.
What disorder or neurosis would apply here?
I’m not sure if I’m reading you correctly. You seem to me to be saying that neurosis can have pro-social consequences, while character disorder doesn’t?
Looking forward to the future posts.
Would schizoid personality disorder be considered neurosis or character disorder?
Great question, Kelvin about whether a person with Schizoid Personality Disorder would be considered more neurotic vs. character-disordered on balance. Schizoid PD is a rare condition, best conceptualized as an “asocial” personality pattern. That is, in contrast to the avoidant personality who desires intimate conduct but is so afraid of being hurt that he avoids it, the schizoid personality lacks the typical interest for human engagement. There are many who wonder whether the entire cluster of personality syndromes that are marked by some of these odd or eccentric qualities should rightfully even be thought of as personality disorders. It’s quite possible, for example, that what appears a personality preference of disengagement, is really the result of a low-level thought process disturbance or autistic-like tendency. Although schizoid personalities are probably best viewed as more neurotic than character disordered, neither metaphor appears adequate to describe this personality type.
You claim that the bullies are really cowards belief, has been debunked by “some fairly sound science in the last 20 years”. With respect, I disagree. I’m in my late 50′s and have observed many such bullies (all my family members are bullies). I once had a bully verbally attack me. He had his baby in his arms the whole time, using it as a shield. I have seen this again and again. They are bold roaring lions when they believe they have a soft mark, or have a shield of some sort (they are a parent, teacher, work-boss), but when when confronted with obvious danger, they are cowards. My reply to this “fairly sound science in the last 20 years”conclusion, is scratch the surface, don’t just take things at face value. Isn’t this the mistake Margaret Mead made in Samoa? And I would love to have details of this “fairly sound science” as well.
Thanks for your comment, Ken. I’m not sure what you disagree about, the accuracy of my reporting about the science or the prevailing interpretations stemming from the most recent research.
I too, have come across bullies who I felt reasonably sure were cowards “underneath.” However, the research is quite clear that it would be wrong to make such a sweeping generalization. Indeed, in MOST cases, not only are bullies not cowards, but the fact that they tend to victimize the weak is not a de facto proof that they fear more formidable opposition (though that’s a viable possibility, granted.) Science has more than scratched the surface on this issue.
You have had some experiences that appear to have convinced you that the traditional assumption about bullies is correct. I would ask you to consider that it’s always risky to for us to generalize from our experiences, no matter how many of them we have had. While I will easily grant you that not all bullies are alike, the evidence is fairly overwhelming about the majority of them. The principal causes of bullying are not low self-esteem and cowardice but aggressive temperament, lack of empathy development (could easily explain what appeared to be the use of baby as a shield) and deficient parenting with respect to the use of an control of power. And most bullies target the anxious, sensitive, and those prone not to retaliate not because they fear those who are stronger but because it gives them a “quick and easy” sense of “superiority” over those they perceive as “weaker.” They see more formidable opponents as “peers” and therefore can’t feel “superior” to them.
You indicate you’d like more details. Because the research is so abundant, I’d start with Dan Olweus and the research done at the University of Bergen.
Lastly, I wrote this piece and included the research on bullying as a way of illustrating a necessary point. It was not meant as on overly simplistic way of looking at bullies.
Rather, it was a way to illustrate that some of our longstanding assumptions about the underlying causes of behavior are not only not as accurate as they intuitively seem but also can inadvertently increase a person’s risk of being victimized by behavior that they misinterpret.