Talk:Michael Scott (The Office)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dunder Mifflin

I am going through several articles and changing instances of "Dunder-Mifflin" to "Dunder Mifflin" (no hyphen) as it is the proper "spelling" of the company name (see Talk page at Dunder Mifflin). Just leaving a note to say that I've gone through this page. :) Fieryrogue 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Page name

Why was the page name changed to "Michael Gary Scott"? Wikipedia guidelines specify that the page name should be the name by which the person is most commonly known, and Michael Scott's middle name is almost never used. -- Raymondc0 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Make "Michael Gary Scott" redirect to "Michael Scott (The Office)" instead. C1k3 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That's that. C1k3 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought that it would be good to be bold. My apologies for the inconvenience and distress caused. Ayavaron 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Ayavaron. Initiative is a good thing. --Milton 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

License plate numbers?

Michael's license plate numbers seems way too minute for inclusion in a Wikipedia. I took them out. If anybody can think of a reason why such information is of interest to anybody beyond minutia collectors, well, put them back. SnappingTurtle 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll dig them out tomorrow - I included them to show continuity errors within the show. --Mrmiscellanious 05:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be included. If it was one plate number for the whole series, that wouldn't be worth noting. But the fact that it changed is a little interesting. - Shaheenjim 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the fact that it changes is an argument against mentioning it. It demonstrates that the producers simply don't care about that level of detail, so why should we? (Besides, are continuity errors really "notable"? Unless they interfere with the topic, they're about as insignificant as things get.) -- Raymondc0 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the producers screwed it up doesn't mean they didn't care about it. For example, one assumes that Paris Hilton's parents cared about her. At least a little.

And I'd say continuity errors are notable. Lots of people find them interesting. Lists of them are pretty common. - Shaheenjim 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting != notable. I doubt anybody will write a thesis on "Continuity errors in The Office." -- Raymondc0 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Some notable things aren't interesting. But I'd actually say that all interesting things are notable. People might not write a scientific paper with a thesis on it, but it's common to have websites about it. Plus, it's not like people are writing a thesis about anything else from this article. So that's not the standard. - Shaheenjim 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"All interesting things are notable" is a position not shared by Wikipedia. The word "interesting" appears nowhere in the the Wikipedia criteria for notability. -- Raymondc0 21:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What you linked to was a guideline for whether or not the *topic* of an article is notable. But we're not discussing the article's topic. We're discussing a single sentence in an article. - Shaheenjim 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That notwithstanding, I think that unless the license plate is significant in some way, mentioning it is pure trivia. It carries no significance and is not encyclopedic. -- Raymondc0 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's trivia, but that doesn't mean it's insignificant, and it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's guildlines specifically say trivia is ok. It just shouldn't be in its own section. And it isn't here. So there's no problem. - Shaheenjim 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelscott.jpg

Image:Michaelscott.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Way too long

I can't believe this page exists in its current state. I'm nowhere near a big enough fan of the show to fix this but this page essentially summarizes the entire show. His personality and work demeanor can be summarized without literally dozens of examples. Anyone want to tackle this? Colte94 07:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As a fan of the show I enjoyed reading it, but it in no way resembles an encyclopedia article. It should probably be about half as long and better organized. The problem is the copious number of examples given, many of which aren't even relevant to the topic that they're in (particularly in the management style section). I also think the last three sections could be eliminated (characters and behind the scenes could be summarized in one sentence, comparison to david brent is unnecessary/perhaps original research). While I'd be happy to help fixing the article, this involves big enough changes that I'd like to hear what other people think first. Your thoughts?--Cms479 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I believe (as do many others on Wikipedia) that articles about TV show characters should only discuss a broad overview of what their character is. For example, this article should mention that Michael Scott is annoying, socially inept, and yet a good salesman. However, articles like this should not get into details that are only mentioned in one episode, such as Michael needing to repeat the second grade, etc. The problem I have found here (I tried fixing up the American Dad and Family Guy pages) is that you have a bunch of fans of the show simply reverting any changes and keeping the pages WAY too long. I will give it a shot and see what happens, because this article is ridiculously long. Squeemu (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed it down a bit. It still seems way too long, but it's a start. I didn't want to get delete happy, but I feel that everything I deleted was either a useless thing to mention on here, or mentioned way too many times. An incident with a waitress from Benihana was mentioned TWICE and I don't think it should have even been mentioned once! Squeemu (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Salary

What would you say is Michael Scott's salary? - Htra0497 23:32 19 June 2006 (AET)

I think it is 80,000 for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.86.110 (talk) 21:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

No way. 80,000 would be pretty good, and his salary is supposed to be laughable. I'd say 50,000 before his raise. - Shaheenjim 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

$50,000 per year sounds approximately correct, because he asks the accountants to "find in the numbers" about $50,000 on the day he has to fire someone (who ends up being Devon). and we know that he "barely makes more than" Darryl from the horse's mouth as it were (Michael shows him a paystub, and that is his reaction). However, since it is TOO inconclusive, it should not be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.110 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Claimed relationship with Pam

The last episode, Dinner Party, shows that Michael told Jan that he once was in a relationship with Pam. That seems like a pretty important part of that character, but I have no idea where to add it as this article has a few places for that.--DeviantCharles (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pam has repeatedly refuted this. Jan confronted her on it in "Fun Run," too. She has always shown disgust with respect to physical dealings with Michael (like when she lets her hair down and then gets creeped out by his reaction or when he tells her to come in when he's changing his pants). In other words, in his dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.110 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Education is biased

The education section is quite biased against michael and contains unsourced information, such as it being said a talk about politics would no doubt leave him in a state of confusion. While that may or may not be true, its unsourced, and obviously just someones personal view of his. This section needs to be much more neutral, because while basically he is a bit of an idiot at times, saying he is mentally challenged is out of line, and again, unsourced.58.106.107.55 (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The education section should be shortened and reworked. After a while it just stops talking about his education altogether. It could be half of what it is and be much better. Needs to be concise. More so, the entire article is cluttered and filled with unnecessary references to things that happened one time in an episode, yet somehow serves as glaring evidence to whatever the author decides is true for the character. I'd fix it but I really don't care enough.Larphenflorp (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler on article intro

Come on people, do we really need that info about Jim's promotion on the article intro? It's a huge spoiler and I didn't even watch that episode, that sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.223.75 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hair

Should a note be mentioned about his hair? (Perhaps this talk page is the appropriate place). During the first season, his hair was combed back, giving him a somewhat "balding" look. With the advent of The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Carell becoming more recognizable, his hairstyle on the Office changed to a standard brush-to-the-side to increase recognizability. Personally, I think that this change affects the manner in which the character is portrayed, but heck, who else even noticed?!

• Well spotted! I hadn't even noticed it until you pointed it out, but i did notice 'something different' about him in the second season. Of course being a guy i couldn't figure out what it was, but well done. Yeah i'd make a note, thats an interesting piece of info. THE KING 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.31.106 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC) been saying i for awhile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbobsmith (talk • contribs) 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

•I am a straight male and I noticed immediately upon the second season's release. He looks younger and more handsome. This is like when Kevin's voice changed and in-continuity of Pam's mom. - Thomas Macias (Watched entire Office series over five times. Long time fan of The Office).

Pam

Why wasn't it mentioned that he has a caring side to him? After watching "Business School", you do get to see a different side of him and was shown to be very supportive in Pam's artwork at her gallery, just after she received harsh critique from Gil and the lack of interest from Roy (even though he showed up). I wasn't sure if he was joking on buying her painting of the office but she was taken by it and went as far as hugging him. He even hung the painting in the office after taking down a plaque of some sort.

I hope this gets put into the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsia (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Scott on Wikipedia

In an episode of the office the character Michael Scott delivers this following statement about wikipedia: wikipedia is the best thing ever anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject so you know you are getting the best possible information.

I dont have the name of the episode where he said it in yet, and the statement can be seen as that wikipedia isnt that great (from the author`s of the office point of view) since the character is quite dumb but i personally think that wikipedia is awesome so this section shouldnt be seen as that im trying to push the writter`s of the office opinions on anyone, i thought it would be an fun trivia to add to the Michael Scott wikipedia article.--212.181.199.36 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Expected To Return as Salesman

Untrue. There was a statement in this article that read: "He is expected to make his return to the show in the upcoming season as a salesman in the office.[1]". Its source was from an article in 2006. This clearly isn't relevant. 71.59.181.111 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Too much fancruft?

I think there's too much fancruft. For example, most of "management style" is really a play-by-play of the character arc. The "Characters of Michael Scott" section seems gratuitous. (Only Michael Scarne is notable; the others are one-episode jokes.) And the "Comparison with David Brent" feels like independent research. Do others agree or is it just me? I'll try to reorganize it regardless, but I think it's too much. -- Raymondc0 01:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's way too much junk in this article overall. I tried to improve it, but it's very flawed. Enigmaman (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's too much. I'm not sure how to approach it & not sure I have time. (The same applies to the Dwight Shrute article.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a strong case for most of the "Comparison with David Brent" section to be removed. It mentions Brent as irredeemably incompetent, but the source for this is the Wikipedia article on David Brent. Is this good practice? Also, given the differences between the shows, I'm not sure the comparison makes a lot of sense anyway. The UK version is a lot more realistic - most of the staff of the office are just background characters who sit there doing work. Half the characters on the US version have done things that would have seen them fired at the very least and in some cases landed them in prison - in the universe where they get away with all those things, maybe Michael Scott is a more competent boss, but for all his faults David Brent actually seemed to leave his staff to get on with their work for the most part. Shinigami27 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Scott (The Office). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110616110602/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo5lg_Jl2p8 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo5lg_Jl2p8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Scott (The Office). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514201615/http://www.tvguide.com/news/bj-novak-office/051004-10 to http://www.tvguide.com/News/bj-novak-office/051004-10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Howard in lead

someone needs to change the link to Ryan in the lead, as it current goes to the baseball player Ryan Howard, not Ryan Howard (The Office). 108.199.123.95 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Done ... thanks for pointing that out. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentions in Pop Culture

Micheal Scott is mentioned in the song 'Candy Paint - Post Malone'. The lyrics go like "...Goddamn, I love paper like I'm Michael Scott (Yeah)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurumef (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

sexual orientation?

Is there any doubt as to what Michael's sexual orientation is? The statement - "at 42, Michael is still single, but says he "does all right," presumably with women" -- is misleading. Man-crush on Ryan aside, nothing I've seen suggests that Michael may be other than a lonely straight guy.

• Yea he's dated Jan off and on for over a year plus after the events off Gay Witch Hunt he's straight.--68.220.111.227 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think Michael could be bicurious. Anyway, just a summary of all the things Michael does to Ryan that are too long for the article:
  • Declares "I would definitely have sex with Ryan"
  • Sends Ryan kisses and calls him the belle of the ball
  • Says loudly that he wants to see Ryan put a hot dog in his mouth (Beach Games deleted scene)
  • Pins Ryan down on his lap, which he earlier says whoever sits there would know it's a real male Santa
  • Squeezes Ryan's nipples
  • Asks Ryan when they're sleeping together "Do you miss us?" (Night Out deleted scene)
  • Says that he will miss Ryan the most after he dies (Safety Training deleted scene)
  • Stalks Ryan and constantly talks about how attractive he is to Carol (Diwali deleted scene)
  • Repeatedly awards Ryan "hottest in the office", indicates how hot he is in his diary, calls him a gorgeous young man (Crime Aid deleted scene), and numerous other occasions

2A0A:A543:F68:0:B4D3:860E:74D5:2547 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Do the deleted scenes entirely count though? They aren’t officially considered a part of The Office. LithuanianBagel (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless he's stated his orientation in the show, for us to comment on it beyond the facts of what's shown occurring would be original research. We could state what reliable sources have said regarding the situation, but we shouldn't be drawing our own conclusions. DonIago (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Date of Birth

What proof is there that Michael was born in 1964? I know he said was born on the same day as Eva Longoria, but does that also include the year? I think we should just leave the year blank as there really is no proof of the exact year. NYCDOT (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Age

Is Michael 42 or 43, what episode did he say he was 42 and was it before or after his birthday, i remember him saying it I just don't know what episode it was thanks.--68.220.108.46 17:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is way too late of a response, but at the point in the show in 2007 he is 44. FuturisticPat07 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Howard

At the footer of the article, the Office infobox states that 'Ryan Howard' is a primary character. Objectively, he is not. I understand that he was a writer and producer for the show; but important doesn't equal primary character on the show. In fact, when compared to the other spoken lines of dialogue throughout the show, Ryan actually ranks 10th - Falling even below Erin Hannon's spoken lines. I believe he should be moved out of this category for all of the related pages. More information below.

https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/a-complete-guide-to-every-line-of-dialogue-spoken-on-the-office

I believe he's considered "primary" in that he appeared in the opening credits. If you feel that's improper I'd suggest raising the question at the Talk page for the main Office article, or possibly the Talk page for the navbox (the term for the boxes in article footers). Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

College Degree?

I'm not sure whether Michael has a college degree. Sometimes it seems like he does, and I remember seeing a diploma that is framed in his office. Can anyone confirm?--Irutavias 20:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article under "Education". I think you're mistaking his Seyko Watch certificate for a diploma. -- Raymondc0 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Darryl asks him where he went to college "again" before they left (with Pam and Oscar) for the high school career day. He quickly ignored the question and changed the subject. We know for sure that he has no education beyond the undergraduate level in any case, as Ryan is in business school, and Michael admits he never went. He tries to compensate by "being street smart." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.110 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Very late response but in season 2 episode 4 "The Fire," Dwight specifically says Michael "didn't even go to college." Michael doesn't deny it and actually gets very defensive. -- Larry 07:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.229.2.225 (talk)

Michael Scott - Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) would explain majority of the character, Michael Scott's personality quirks and behavioral oddities which include such things as extreme self-centeredness, attention seeking, fantasy thinking, etc. Asperger Syndrome has some similarities with NPD and could possibly explain certain aspects of this his social ineptness, although NPD seems to be more accurate diagnosis of this fictional character's condition.

Narcissistic personality disorder and/or Asperger syndrome explain Scott's interpersonal 'style' pretty well (much better than BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder), please see below).

NPD DSM IV-TR criteria that apply to Scott:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. requires excessive admiration
4. has a sense of entitlement
5. is interpersonally exploitative
6. lacks empathy
7. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
8. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Scott also displays the following Asperger traits:

1. lack of social or emotional reciprocity, and impaired nonverbal behaviors in areas such as eye contact, facial expression, posture, and gesture
2. [tendency to] engage in one-sided, long-winded speeches about favorite topics, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener's feelings or reactions, such as a need for privacy or haste to leave
3. failure to react appropriately to social interaction, possibly appearing as disregard for other people's feelings, and possibly coming across as insensitive (See Asperger's#Social_interaction.)
   

Both Dwight and Andy show some symptoms of one or the other, or a combination, as well.

'BPD' - a highly disputed diagnosis anyway - requires a damaged sense of self far beyond what Scott presents, in my opinion, and he simply doesn't meet the criteria. He functions far too well to have 'BPD'.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the criteria for histrionic personality disorder as well. He may lack the "seductive behavior" part of the disorder (which is not necessary for a diagnosis), but he's pretty spot on for most the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.1.236 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The very first time I had seen The Office I was sure Michael Scott had an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Does the network ever make it official?72.219.148.166 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He fits the NPD criteria, but not HPD, BPD or ASD.

• In regard to HPD, he doesn't have excessive emotionality, seductive or provocative behavior, he doesn't use his appearance to attract attention to himself and doesn't have an impressionistic way of speaking.
• He's nowhere near having BPD, which is a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image and effects, and marked impulsivity. He's not unstable or particularly impulsive. He has none of the nine features of it.
• In regard to autism, he doesn't have significant social impairment - nor he doesn't have any obsessive interests. Jim Michael (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this section isn't a psychologist, because Michael isn't remotely narcissistic (nor any of the other suggested diagnoses). He's a well-intended guy with limited self-awareness and terrible social skills. Nothing more. It's tempting to treat the DSM like a cookbook, but it doesn't work that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.92.81 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As the previous reply said, Michael is not narcissistic and he certainly doesn't lack empathy either. He shows examples of all three of the different types of empathy throughout the series:

Emotional empathy - When you feel something because someone else does, this is emotional empathy. You may have noticed this when you cried watching a very sad scene in a movie.

Cognitive empathy - Involving thinking more than feeling, cognitive empathy means putting yourself in someone else's shoes. When you talk to a friend about something that is bothering you and feel understood by that person, it's often because your friend was using cognitive empathy.

Compassionate empathy - This is any kind of empathy that leads to action. When you see someone in need and offer that person some food or money, that is compassionate empathy.

Some examples of Michael's empathy that come to mind: - he cries watching films - he cries with joy at his friends' happiness - he comforts co-workers/friends when they're upset - he tries to cheer people up and help them with their problems - he gets sad when his co-workers' jobs are at risk - he's compassionate to his co-workers when they commit fireable offences - and it may have been an incredibly misguided agreement, but wanting to pay for the college education of a class of underprivileged kids is very empathetic NebulaSky (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

More to the point, without sources this discussion seems to be entirely theoretical with regards to improving the article. DonIago (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In general, a narcissist "lacks" empathy, but this does not mean they don't have ANY empathy. Lacking means "having none or not enough". You can lack imagination, but that doesn't mean you don't have ANY. Michael Scott CLEARLY has a multitude of NPD traits - he can still have strong NPD while occasionally demonstrating empathetic, caring and well-intended (though often selfish) traits. It is true that the DSM does not provide a direct and definitive diagnosis, but that is the point - it lists the general descriptions of these disorders, so it is up to a therapist to diagnose. That does NOT remove the fact that Michael Scott repeatedly behaves in a classis narcissistic manner - random saving graces aside. 199.154.251.42 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)