In this rejoinder, we comment on Wright’s response to our reanalysis and reinterpretation of the data presented by Wright and colleagues. Two primary differences characterize these perspectives. First, the conceptualization of grandiose narcissism differs such that emotional and ego vulnerability, dysregulation, and pervasive impairments are more characteristic of Wright’s conception, likely due to the degree to which it is tied to clinical observations. Our conceptualization is closer to psychopathy and describes an extraverted, dominant, and antagonistic individual who is relatively less likely to be found in clinical settings. Second, our approach to construct validation differs in that we take an empirical perspective that focuses on the degree to which inventories yield scores consistent with a priori predictions. The grandiose dimension of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI-G) yields data that fail to align with expert ratings of narcissistic personality disorder and grandiose narcissism. We suggest that caution should be taken in treating the PNI-G as a gold standard measure of pathological narcissism, that revision of the PNI-G is required before it can serve as a stand-alone measure of grandiose narcissism, and that the PNI-G should be buttressed by other scales when being used as a measure of grandiose narcissism.