Although Dawood, Wu, Bliton, and Pincus (this volume) generally describe narcissistic personality pathology, and NPD in particular, in a reasonable and thoughtful way that aligns with our own perspective, the authors’ treatment of narcissism as a largely monolithic and unified construct contributes towards obscuring three important and longstanding methodological issues in the literature. First, variability in the measurement of NPD makes conclusions about the functioning of NPD, broadly defined, vulnerable to error. Second, variability in vulnerable content contained in measures of NPD is likely to be exerting a biasing effect on the strength of internalizing correlates of NPD (e.g., suicidality). Third, the prevalence of small samples containing high levels of vulnerable features may bias researchers toward stronger relations between NPD and internalizing correlates. Overall, the authors urge researchers to empirically resolve disagreements about the structure and process of narcissistic personality pathology in order to move the field towards more precise definition and measurement, and greater scientific confidence in conclusions related to narcissism’s nomological network.