3 Narcissists: Faker, Iconoclast, Doomsayer

Meeting context

• Speaker: Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited and professor of psychology.
• Topic: A nosology (classification) of a subtype of narcissism: the pro-social or communal narcissist.
• Purpose: To define this subtype, distinguish principal variants, describe their psychology and social functions, and provide historical and contemporary examples.

Core definition

• Pro-social (communal) narcissist: a narcissist who ostentatiously presents themselves as morally upright, altruistic, compassionate, supportive, or a savior/leader of a community. They seek admiration for their perceived benevolence and moral credentials.
• Presentation: Emphasizes moral superiority, sanctimony, pseudo-humility, and visible public displays of virtue. May claim roles such as leader, guru, teacher, rescuer, or messiah.

Three principal subtypes (taxonomy)

1) The Faker (Impostor)

• Description: Publicly feigns morality, compassion, empathy, and altruism. Utilizes pseudo-humility and humble-bragging. Acts as a conformist who plays by existing rules to gain status and advantage.
• Psychological dynamics:
  • Conformity to existing social games and institutions; does not attempt to challenge or change the system.
  • Faking is strategic signaling: demonstrates willingness to invest effort to blend into or be accepted by the in-group.
  • Motivated by perceived benefits—leverages loopholes in social codes and norms.
  • Underlying insecurity: pretence arises from a belief that one’s authentic self or talents are insufficient; the faker “becomes someone else” to gain acceptance.
• Social reception:
  • Often viewed sympathetically or even flattered by targets, because imitation can be interpreted as a compliment—someone went to lengths to appear likeable or worthy.
  • Less likely to provoke intense resentment when discovered because it affirms the value of existing social norms.
• Example contexts: Dating (where feigned affection can be interpreted as flattery), media visibility, and institutional advancement.

2) The Iconoclast

• Description: Rejects and attacks the established order and prevailing norms; exposes weaknesses and hypocrisies of the current narrative. Seeks to dismantle the old system and replace it with a new order that the iconoclast designs.
• Psychological dynamics:
  • Nonconformist in relation to the existing order, yet conformist to a novel system the iconoclast creates—thus paradoxically both rebellious and prescriptive.
  • Offers a prescriptive, ideologically framed path forward (a new set of rules, values, or identity for followers).
  • Provides hope, purpose, and direction to disaffected constituencies; mobilizes in-group loyalty by vilifying out-groups.
• Social reception:
  • Often embraced by those who feel neglected or betrayed by elites or the establishment; perceived as offering real change and recognition.
  • Can rapidly build cults of personality and political movements.
• Historical and contemporary examples: Abraham (as an iconoclast in religious narrative), Adolf Hitler (replacing the old order with a racist new order), Donald Trump (dismantling institutions and promoting a new MAGA-oriented order).

3) The Brutally Honest (Doomsayer / Sadistic) Narcissist

• Description: Presents as ‘‘honest’’ or a truth-teller but weaponizes honesty to hurt, humiliate, and destroy. Uses ‘‘brutal honesty’’ as a socially acceptable mask for aggression and contempt.
• Psychological dynamics and traits:
  • Misanthropy: deep contempt or hatred for humanity; rejects social games and norms entirely.
  • Sadism: derives pleasure from inflicting psychological pain via supposedly honest observations or critiques.
  • Aggression: externalizes hostility under the guise of candid truth-telling, making the aggression difficult to criticize because honesty is socially valued.
  • Contempt: holds targets in profound disdain and uses moralistic language to justify attacks.
  • Recklessness: denies offering constructive solutions—focuses on destruction, denunciation, and rupture rather than repair.
• Social reception:
  • Can be glamorized or condoned because ‘‘honesty’’ is often culturally prized; thus sadistic cruelty can be shielded by claims of moral duty or awakening.
  • Not equivalent to constructive bluntness or ‘‘tough love’’—this subtype aims to harm rather than help.
• Examples referenced: Biblical prophets (when expressed as punitive denunciation), the Unabomber, and the speaker (self-referenced), as manifestations of this category.

Comparative analysis across subtypes

• Shared feature: All three present as pro-social or morally driven while centrally motivated by narcissistic needs (admiration, control, superiority).
• Differences in relation to existing order:
  • Faker: seeks inclusion within the current order—conformist and manipulative.
  • Iconoclast: rejects the old order and proposes a new one—revolutionary yet prescriptive.
  • Brutally honest narcissist: rejects all orders and seeks to punish or annihilate others—antisocial and destructive.
• Social utility and reception:
  • Faker: least likely to provoke outrage; seen as flattering or adaptive to norms.
  • Iconoclast: often admired and followed by disenfranchised groups; offers hope and direction.
  • Brutally honest: widely loathed and feared; may be socially praised under the mantle of honesty, but is ultimately destructive and offers no real solutions.

Moral and social implications

• All three types exploit socially valued attributes (morality, honesty, reformist fervor) to mask narcissistic aims.
• Increased prevalence: The speaker notes these subtypes are increasingly common in postmodern societies and warns of their growing influence.
• Danger: Particularly concerning are iconoclasts and brutally honest narcissists who can mobilize followers or inflict widespread harm while operating under socially approved veneers (reform, truth-telling).

Conclusions and warnings

• The taxonomy clarifies how communal/pro-social presentation can disguise divergent narcissistic strategies: assimilation (faker), revolutionary leadership (iconoclast), and destructive truth-telling (brutal honesty).
• Each subtype serves distinct psychological functions and social roles but converges on narcissistic goals (admiration, supremacy, or domination).
• Vigilance is needed to distinguish genuine pro-social motives from narcissistic masquerade, especially as these variants gain prominence.

Recommended attention points (implicit takeaways)

• Scrutinize public figures who claim moral superiority—evaluate whether they build inclusion, propose constructive change, or revel in destruction.
• Be wary of ‘‘brutal honesty’’ framed as virtue—assess intent and outcomes (helpful correction vs. harmful humiliation).
• Recognize that imitation (faking) can be both manipulative and experienced as flattery; detect underlying motives and systemic loyalties.

(End of summary.)