Part 2: “Narcissism” Isn’t a Test You Can Take — So Why Are We Treating It Like One?

One of the most overlooked realities in psychology is this: personality disorders are not identified through blood tests, brain scans, or any form of biological marker.

There is no lab result for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is no objective medical test that confirms it. Instead, diagnoses such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder are constructed through clinical classification systems like the DSM, which rely on observed patterns of behavior, reported experiences, and functional impairment over time.

That fact alone should change the way these terms are used in public discourse.

Because what we are really dealing with is not “detection” in a medical sense—but interpretation within a framework.

And frameworks are not neutral.

They are shaped by:

evolving psychological theory

cultural assumptions about personality and behavior

shifting definitions of what is considered “normal” or “pathological”

and consensus among professional bodies at a given point in time

This is not a flaw in psychology—it is how the field operates. But it does raise an important issue: these constructs are often treated in public conversation as if they are fixed biological realities rather than evolving interpretive models.

That gap becomes especially problematic online, where terms like “narcissist” are increasingly used as if they are definitive explanations for behavior rather than clinical descriptors of long-term patterns of functioning.

In practice, this flattens complexity.

It turns:

patterns into identities

behaviors into diagnoses

and difficult relational experiences into single-label explanations

The result is a kind of psychological shorthand that feels precise but often isn’t.

In clinical contexts, these diagnoses are meant to describe enduring patterns of thinking, emotion, and interpersonal functioning—not to serve as global explanations for every harmful interaction a person has.

Yet in social discourse, the label often becomes the explanation itself.

And this is where the problem deepens: once a label becomes an identity, it stops being used as a tool for understanding and starts functioning as a conclusion.

This is why many contemporary approaches in psychology are moving toward dimensional models of personality, where traits are understood along continuums rather than as fixed categories. People do not simply “have” or “not have” a trait—they vary in expression across context, time, and relationship.

The issue is not whether personality disorders exist within clinical frameworks. The issue is how easily those frameworks are detached from their scientific and clinical grounding when they enter public conversation.

Because once that happens, psychological language stops describing behavior—and starts replacing it.

And when labels replace understanding, complexity is usually the first casualty.

About the Author

Manpreet Dhaliwal is a trauma-informed Punjabi counsellor based in Surrey, BC, providing culturally sensitive counselling services across British Columbia. She specializes in anxiety, trauma, emotional regulation, relationship issues, and healing using evidence-based approaches including CBT, DBT, and EMDR therapy.

Through the Psychology Now Blog, Manpreet shares practical mental health insights to help individuals better understand emotional patterns, trauma responses, relationships, and personal growth in a compassionate and accessible way.