White Knight Narcissism (Pro-Social NPD) | INFJ Forum

White Knight Narcissism (Pro-Social NPD)

  • Thread starter Deleted member 16771
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 16771

Hey, guys, have any of you ever come across the notion of 'White Knights', or 'pro-social narcissism'?


I'd like an open-ended discussion about this, if anyone is interested, because it generates a lot of questions for me, but in particular the idea that any behaviour can now be seen through the lens of narcissism, good or bad, and that therefore one's motives will always be questioned.

Of course, too, I'm asking myself if my lifelong interest in 'ethics' and 'doing the right thing' when push comes to shove are symptoms of this kind of NPD. Do I actually do things for some self-esteem boost rather than because my inner compass tells me its right?

Right now, I have to say that I don't feel like I do it for validation, because often the positions I take are oppositional or won't generate any social validation whatsoever; I feel motivated simply by that inner compass and the feelings I have upon doing something are often ones of resignation, because I'll be disliked for it, but that I have 'no choice'. I don't seek supply, either.

That being said, though, even this could be seen as giving myself supply - that I'm adhering to some 'code' that provides me with the self-esteem that I 'lack within', or something.

I dunno, but it's certainly interesting. If anyone wants to take me apart on this point, then feel free to do so.
 
I went through the list of 'commonalities' in the last article I posted above. Of course, the context is that my last ex (last year) is bipolar and pulled a lot of crazy shit and it took a while to disentangle myself after I left her.

Typically, white knights have a history that includes many of the following:
  • Self-defeating behavior that may involve substance abuse - No
  • Heightened awareness in childhood of a parent's hardships - Yes
  • Childhood neglect - No, but hard to say what counts.
  • Childhood emotional, physical, or sexual abuse - No
  • Loss or threat of loss of a significant caregiver in childhood - My father left before the age of 5, so Yes
  • Repeatedly finding partners who need rescuing - No. It was only the last one who was like this, and I only found that out later.
A white knight typically has many of the following character traits:
  • Fears emotional distance - I don't know about this one. I'm alright with it if there's a reason, but it's not something I like particularly. Maybe?
  • Is very emotionally vulnerable and sensitive - I wouldn't say so. No
  • Has a tendency to idealize the partner - I've idealised one person I was interested in; nobody else; not idealised any other partners/dates. No?
  • Has an extreme need to be viewed as important or unique - No.
  • Tends to be self-critical or reactively blames, devalues, and manipulate others - Self-critical sometimes, but No.
In relationships, a white knight tends to show many of the following behaviors:
  • Is attracted to a needy partner or a partner with a history of trauma, loss, abuse, or addiction - No.
  • Fears being separated from the partner, losing the partner's love or approval, or being abandoned by the partner - Not overmuch, but it's not nice, so I'd have to say Yes.
  • Engages in controlling behavior, often under the guise of helping - No.
  • Maintains or restores connection with the partner by being extremely helpful or good - Maybe. Let's say Yes, though I'm counting 'romantic gestures' here, in addition to honest conversations. If there's a problem, I'll flag it, and if connection needs restoring, I'll make a gesture.
  • Responds ambivalently to the partner's success - No, definitely not. Always proud.
  • Describes a sense of "oneness" with the partner - I don't know about this. I've experienced strong affinity/congruence, so I suppose Yes.
  • Fails to recognize the partner's manipulative behaviors - I'm too trusting generally, so Yes, though it's often done by ignoring my suspicions out of loyalty and trust.
  • Is seduced by the sexual or dramatic behavior of the partner - Yes, sometimes.
  • Evokes strong feelings in the partner in order to avoid his or her own emotional discomfort - Not sure what this means. No?
  • Maintains hope for a gratifying relationship by denying the reality of the partner's issues - Yes. Unless it's No, lol.
 
Hey, guys, have any of you ever come across the notion of 'White Knights'

I was a white knight before white knights were uncool
857ec4b4aca6880abf9c220550e9d5e8--fun.jpg
 
Ohhhh.... my thread is going to degenerate into neckbeard/milady jokes, isn't it :neutral:

lmao sorry, I just don't exactly know what you are driving at as far as your purpose here

Do I actually do things for some self-esteem boost rather than because my inner compass tells me its right?

I think this is kind of the focus maybe. It's a tough thing to illuminate.
 
I think it's probably a little more common to come across white knighting online, it's a little to cringey in person to be viable option for luring women to your windowless van with promises of feminist literature and boundary respecting (ironically)
 
I think it's probably a little more common to come across white knighting online, it's a little to cringey in person to be viable option for luring women to your windowless van with promises of feminist literature and boundary respecting (ironically)
Yeah.

I'm not talking about 'white knighting', though, I'm talking about 'White Knight Narcissism' or 'pro-social narcissism'.

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded harsh or anything, Reason, I know the title is misleading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think your track could lead you down a rabbit hole Hos. It’s inevitable that people will have an irrational blend of motivation behind the way we think, feel and behave - a lot of it not conscious. There is such a thing as perfect, pure, selfless orientation to the world. it’s called things like enlightenment or sainthood and these take a lifetime (or even many lifetimes ;)) of struggle to attain. In the meantime we poor mortals have to just get on living with all the mess. Someone may very well do good or behave well because they get a kickback from it, and that may even lead to unhealthy interdependencies with needy folks. But on the other hand it can be (eg) the bedrock of a relationship that works by satisfying the needs of two people in a win-win. There’s nothing wrong with feeling good about helping or supporting someone if the outcome is two positives. You may argue as is the case with Christianity that love of God is a higher motive for avoiding sin than fear of hell, but the latter is still a perfectly acceptable motive even so - I mean this as a metaphor here btw. I agree that altruism with a self-serving component can definitely get out of hand and become pathological, where we become dependent on another’s neediness and this is a lose-lose situation, but that doesn’t condemn the normal satisfaction and affirmation that comes from altruism without which most people wouldn’t persist in it. Most of us need positive and negative feedback from those around us in order to assess our own ok / not-ok state.

Don’t get me wrong because this issue is real and significant and one that I have struggled with myself over my lifetime - but just be careful that the way you have spotlighted the issue isn't recursive or it could lead you to a block, or a rabbit hole. For example if you became concerned with equal force that this very process you are using to question these things is itself contaminated by a hint of pathological self-indulgence rather than a genuine quest for the truth. The intellectual saga can itself be partly or wholly motivated by a feel good reward, both internally sourced and from the affirmation of others - this too is just fine imho in healthy folks.
 
I think your track could lead you down a rabbit hole Hos. It’s inevitable that people will have an irrational blend of motivation behind the way we think, feel and behave - a lot of it not conscious. There is such a thing as perfect, pure, selfless orientation to the world. it’s called things like enlightenment or sainthood and these take a lifetime (or even many lifetimes ;)) of struggle to attain. In the meantime we poor mortals have to just get on living with all the mess. Someone may very well do good or behave well because they get a kickback from it, and that may even lead to unhealthy interdependencies with needy folks. But on the other hand it can be (eg) the bedrock of a relationship that works by satisfying the needs of two people in a win-win. There’s nothing wrong with feeling good about helping or supporting someone if the outcome is two positives. You may argue as is the case with Christianity that love of God is a higher motive for avoiding sin than fear of hell, but the latter is still a perfectly acceptable motive even so - I mean this as a metaphor here btw. I agree that altruism with a self-serving component can definitely get out of hand and become pathological, where we become dependent on another’s neediness and this is a lose-lose situation, but that doesn’t condemn the normal satisfaction and affirmation that comes from altruism without which most people wouldn’t persist in it. Most of us need positive and negative feedback from those around us in order to assess our own ok / not-ok state.

Don’t get me wrong because this issue is real and significant and one that I have struggled with myself over my lifetime - but just be careful that the way you have spotlighted the issue isn't recursive or it could lead you to a block, or a rabbit hole. For example if you became concerned with equal force that this very process you are using to question these things is itself contaminated by a hint of pathological self-indulgence rather than a genuine quest for the truth. The intellectual saga can itself be partly or wholly motivated by a feel good reward, both internally sourced and from the affirmation of others - this too is just fine imho in healthy folks.
Thanks for your intervention, John, I think you're right. It provoked a mini crisis-of-faith in me because ideas about 'right conduct' form the bedrock of my worldview, really.

However, I did reject this (in my blog), which was made easier by the fact that I couldn't actually find any research on the concept except those few pop articles by Elinor Greenberg - it appears to be her pet theory.
 
Thanks for your intervention, John, I think you're right. It provoked a mini crisis-of-faith in me because ideas about 'right conduct' form the bedrock of my worldview, really.

However, I did reject this (in my blog), which was made easier by the fact that I couldn't actually find any research on the concept except those few pop articles by Elinor Greenberg - it appears to be her pet theory.
Just caught up with the latest in your blog - sounds like an appropriate response to me. My bollocks detector went off earlier, the moment I followed the links you posted in there lol. The most insidious rubbish weaves threads of profound validity into the nonsense that give it a false plausibility. There’s no doubt that there are people with disorders in this space - but that’s easily separable from normal behaviours. And as you say, what’s normal is very dependent on our culture.
 
I'm no "White Knight," the women I usually pursue have the means of taking care of themselves financially, emotionally, physically.

Honestly, if I went after needier women, I'd probably have an "easier" time with dating but that isn't what I want.
 
If you don't mind, I'm going to keep my views on this rather simple and lamens please with a hint of spirituality.

Conditioning, lack of charm, being unloved (main contributor), and not being properly shown how to carry yourself are key factors.

Sure, there is complications behind all of it but we should be blaming society and how we as human beings analyze one another in the current structure that has been bestowed on us, more than the 'actual' person and their behavior/past.

As absurd as it sounds, I consider trauma, negative energies, and attachments from others' or the world's nihilism as well as things unseen from the human eye as large contributors to narcissism. White knighting is just a mask they wear in order to lure the proper prey that matches their inferiority complexes. Anyone has the potential to unwillingly become a narcissist(or traits) especially once they fufilled their current lust for another person. Which further proves the statements, "you don't know who someone is until you live with them" or "you're acting just like your father/mother". :p

I'm a firm believer that unconditonal love in an overabundance and with patience is a legitimate cure to narcissism. Don't fight fire with fire or man-made meds that turn you into a zombie that only makes your wounds lay dormant in your subconscious. The rest is nitpicking a psyche that cannot be cured any other way imho.

Forgive my boldness, It's existence is unnatural, especially since we are supposed to be uplifting and social creatures. Epigenetics come to mind as to why we are hindered.
 
Last edited:
Did you start this thread about Korg standing up for the women of the forum? :rage:
I'm not passive-aggressive, Asa, it's why I tagged Korg in the first place. I'm disappointed that you would think that of me. In fact Korg's input on this topic has been very valuable, and if I had any 'problem' with him I'd PM him as he invited. It's possible to disagree with someone, even call them out on their bullshit (which happened both ways), and still respect them at the same time.

I started this thread because I was worried about myself. If you look in my blog, you'll see what it's about.

I'm glad you're standing up for people, though. It's a testament to your character.
 
I'm glad you're standing up for people, though. It's a testament to your character.

Either an asset or a fault, but it is my way. I haven't read your new blog yet. You've been one of my favorite peeps here since you joined. I find you intelligent, interesting, deep, educated, and I admire that you work toward being a better man, but I was angry with you about the Women's Sexuality thread. I needed time to cool off. So, apologies for being behind on your blog and out of the loop.
 
Either an asset or a fault, but it is my way.
It's a good way :sunglasses:

I haven't read your new blog yet. You've been one of my favorite peeps here since you joined. I find you intelligent, interesting, deep, educated, and I admire that you work toward being a better man,
Thanks, Asa, I feel the same about you.

but I was angry with you about the Women's Sexuality thread. I needed time to cool off. So, apologies for being behind on your blog and out of the loop.
What were you angry with specifically?

Truth be told, I actually stopped following that thread after the 69 post, but having looked at it the other day, yeah I can see how it degenerated even further.

My reasoning wasn't that I didn't agree with Korg/Odyne/SE - I did agree.

It's just that sometimes you can't simply side with the people you agree with when there are matters of 'justice' in the balance. In this case, I disagreed with the extent to which the offending parties were being attacked ('incels' 'jerking off in the bushes', &c.) and advocated for them to try to avoid them getting tarred with the creep brush by the whole community. That brush can be sticky.

I have a tendency to stick up for underdogs in order to make sure scapegoating and witch hunting don't get out of hand. That was the whole point of the 'Arsehole Protection League', if you remember - to advocate for a fair and balanced response to belligerent and normally unsympathetic types while still acknowledging that they are behaving like arseholes.

Personally, because I don't worry about my own reputation, or being seen to fall on the 'right' side of debates, I can play this role.
 
That was the whole point of the 'Arsehole Protection League', if you remember - to advocate for a fair and balanced response to belligerent and normally unsympathetic types while still acknowledging that they are behaving like arseholes.
This bullshit, lol:
View attachment 62950

I should have flashed my badge...
View attachment 62951

I was making fun of myself, for sure, but there's truth to it. I 'White Knight' for people who I don't particularly like in that moment because it's 'right', and I can honestly say that I never defended @ClevelandINTP because I was trying to fuck him.