Your article suggests that you could have folks who were high on dark triad traits or sadism who are quite charming and well-liked by many, when they are able to target their victims carefully and keep their behavior subtle enough that others may not catch it. In fact, you even say they may not be aware of it.
It’s helpful to hear this, in part because I believe I’ve seen this behavior but in ways that are difficult to call out and can be very much unseen by others.
For instance, subtly devaluing others by making light of their contributions to a conversation. Or even making a positive acknowledgement of something said in a way that conveys they are being kind by allowing that person to contribute. I even sound petty trying to describe it.
It’s seems impossible to combat directly. Are there ways to screen for this in hiring?
I wonder if the inconsistency of narcissists obtaining status is caused by John Forbes Nash’s findings that over the long term, Win/Win behavior prevails but Win/Lose behavior prevails in brief bursts, in certain conditions. AKA a mathematical proof of “Karma.”
Please watch and review the series "Three Women" and write about their personality disorders. I could only get through two episodes (episode two sent a non-consensual dick pic to its viewers, and that's when I quit watching).
The book was far more nuanced than this idiotic (but brilliantly well acted) series.
The character of Sloane seems to be a grandiose narcissist, possibly with Machiavellian traits (she did not come across that way in the book).
The character of Lena comes across as a covert narcissist, who pities herself so much for having a cold fish for a husband that she starts masturbating in front of her sleeping toddler while in the parking lot waiting to pick up her older child from school.
This is supposed to come across as a "typical" woman's problem and we are supposed to identify with these very sick women.
It's tragic that such talented actresses were wasted on this trash, and that such a good book was diminished in this way (Lisa Taddeo is a wonderful writer, and she wrote both the book and the series - she should stick to books).
Anyway, I'd be interested into what you think of this series, especially since it seems to be saying that women should sacrifice love, faithfulness, and their children's safety and stability just to "get off". The series also dehumanizes Midwestern women, who are NOTHING like the women portrayed in this series.
Possibly off-topic, but related to "dark" traits, especially in opposition to psychopathy, in someone here has knowledge. I bring it up also because it appears common, and for that reason maybe interesting:
What seems completely missing here is those who come across as insulting, inconsiderate, etc., but are most often unaware of it until it is explained to them. They want to be liked by others, but do not know how to achieve it. They are thought of as jerks, but their jerkiness is never explained to them because they are assumed to always know what they are doing. And so, they are never able to (hobble to improved) non-jerkiness, except by becoming hypervigilant and hyperanalyzing, which itself becomes problematic. As they grow older, they are increasingly on edge because, upon examination, there appears to be no solution to what is, at root, a biological problem. (What solutions may exist can be exacerbated by memory/learning problems.)
It seems it could be thought of as the full inverse of a psychopath. It doesn't occur *only* in (certain) autistic people.
Have read the book Impro by Keith Johnstone? I came across the book on Ribbonfarm, it’s ostensibly about theatre improv but it’s really about status and particularly relevant to your mention of psychopaths identifying victims based on body movement and “walking gait." It’s also the closest thing I've come across to strategies for dealing with people who score highly on Dark Triad traits — have you come across anything relevant to that topic?
For anyone prosecuting major crimes, particularly homicides, it is invaluable to gain insight into a particular (and thankfully rare) type of sociopath.
"Interestingly, unlike with grandiosity, there are no sex differences in vulnerable narcissism."
This is interesting. I thought I had previously read that females more often demonstrated vulnerable or covert narcissism. I would prefer that to be the case because it explains many organizational workforce problems I have dealt with over the years. However, I do observe both a decline in overt narcissism in younger males and an increase in covert narcissism. I did read an article in the Atlantic (a magazine that I think is run by people, and tends to be read by people, highly neurotic and psychotic) that young fathers are exhibiting more anger and the suspicion is that they are unhappy in their modern non-traditional gender roles.
It is like the inability to demonstrate overt narcissistic traits because it is "toxic masculinity" creates pent-up dissatisfaction that erupts in periodic rage.
Reading this and the point that nearly everyone has Dark Triad traits on a spectrum, I was reminded of my principles for regulating my own personal development and behavior... a seemingly perpetual project until I die.
We must categorize behaviors for clinical diagnosis and treatment, but isn't the key to almost everything being balanced? And related to that point, are we not significantly influenced by exposure to others' behavior and traits that can make you unbalanced?
We are born with certain brain wiring and then experience the world and this experience provides us a constant feedback loop in how we need to behave to achieve what we want. The social sciences around mental and emotional "health" seem to focus more on the certain brain wiring and not the influence of experience. I think the latter is a bigger deal if we agree that everyone is on the spectrum AND that everyone can learn to regulate their own behavior and seek balance.
And this gets me to my own theory that Dark Triad traits are both innate and learned, and because they are learned, they are subject to mass formation psychosis.
It the system rewards certain behavior, there will be more of that behavior. Where before, the rewards would go to those demonstrating more balance, today narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism are more likely to result in high achievement and high status if wielded by intelligent and educated people. As the system denigrates toward more of a "dark reward" the behavior of people within the system becomes more dark.
To hell with civility and good-faith negotiations. If I can screw you to get more for myself, then so be it.
This is where I end up unsatisfied with the social science work around personality traits. There seems to be a big missing piece for organizational, societal, tribal, etc... influence of these traits in individuals.
Just consider the clinical psychologist and/or psychiatrist that works with an individual to help them develop self-awareness of their behavior to help them find balance. This in itself confirms the malleability of human behavior, and should inspire a great missing component of the science to understand the mass formation psychosis contribution. For example, if society in general including our media feeds keep reinforcing behavior that is higher on the spectrum of Dark Triad, won't that result in more individual people testing higher in Dark Triad traits? And if so, isn't that a big problem?
I think we are growing dark behavior in the population because people in power have taken that path as a short-cut to get what they want. And what they want is more.
Is there any study that shows in increase in Dark Triad personality traits in the population? I would not be surprised to have that confirmed.
My perspective is that climate change is not a real threat to the world (energy technology will advance to green and sustainable soon enough), but dark personality trait change is the thing that will wipe us out... unless we halt it.
"The social sciences around mental and emotional 'health' seem to focus more on the certain brain wiring and not the influence of experience."
(1) From personal experience over about 45 years, this pendulum swings very wide. If, say, you tried (at least in the northeast U.S.) in the early 1980s to get a "happy pill", or even a mere acknowledgement of the possibility that biology could affect the mind, you'd know what I mean. Even though awareness of, say, alcohol's mental affects extends well into pre-history. Go figure.
(2) "the influence of experience" very arguably IS "brain wiring", simply caused BY experience, rather than by other effects (e.g. genetics, blood/tissue chemical levels, etc).
"Is there any study that shows in increase in Dark Triad personality traits in the population?"
Well, the US is a hell of a lot more insouciantly warmongering than it was in the late '70s, as well as unwilling to examine itself on it, I can tell you that, too, from personal experience.
Your article suggests that you could have folks who were high on dark triad traits or sadism who are quite charming and well-liked by many, when they are able to target their victims carefully and keep their behavior subtle enough that others may not catch it. In fact, you even say they may not be aware of it.
It’s helpful to hear this, in part because I believe I’ve seen this behavior but in ways that are difficult to call out and can be very much unseen by others.
For instance, subtly devaluing others by making light of their contributions to a conversation. Or even making a positive acknowledgement of something said in a way that conveys they are being kind by allowing that person to contribute. I even sound petty trying to describe it.
It’s seems impossible to combat directly. Are there ways to screen for this in hiring?
I wonder if the inconsistency of narcissists obtaining status is caused by John Forbes Nash’s findings that over the long term, Win/Win behavior prevails but Win/Lose behavior prevails in brief bursts, in certain conditions. AKA a mathematical proof of “Karma.”
Another great article!
Please watch and review the series "Three Women" and write about their personality disorders. I could only get through two episodes (episode two sent a non-consensual dick pic to its viewers, and that's when I quit watching).
The book was far more nuanced than this idiotic (but brilliantly well acted) series.
The character of Sloane seems to be a grandiose narcissist, possibly with Machiavellian traits (she did not come across that way in the book).
The character of Lena comes across as a covert narcissist, who pities herself so much for having a cold fish for a husband that she starts masturbating in front of her sleeping toddler while in the parking lot waiting to pick up her older child from school.
This is supposed to come across as a "typical" woman's problem and we are supposed to identify with these very sick women.
It's tragic that such talented actresses were wasted on this trash, and that such a good book was diminished in this way (Lisa Taddeo is a wonderful writer, and she wrote both the book and the series - she should stick to books).
Anyway, I'd be interested into what you think of this series, especially since it seems to be saying that women should sacrifice love, faithfulness, and their children's safety and stability just to "get off". The series also dehumanizes Midwestern women, who are NOTHING like the women portrayed in this series.
Possibly off-topic, but related to "dark" traits, especially in opposition to psychopathy, in someone here has knowledge. I bring it up also because it appears common, and for that reason maybe interesting:
What seems completely missing here is those who come across as insulting, inconsiderate, etc., but are most often unaware of it until it is explained to them. They want to be liked by others, but do not know how to achieve it. They are thought of as jerks, but their jerkiness is never explained to them because they are assumed to always know what they are doing. And so, they are never able to (hobble to improved) non-jerkiness, except by becoming hypervigilant and hyperanalyzing, which itself becomes problematic. As they grow older, they are increasingly on edge because, upon examination, there appears to be no solution to what is, at root, a biological problem. (What solutions may exist can be exacerbated by memory/learning problems.)
It seems it could be thought of as the full inverse of a psychopath. It doesn't occur *only* in (certain) autistic people.
Have read the book Impro by Keith Johnstone? I came across the book on Ribbonfarm, it’s ostensibly about theatre improv but it’s really about status and particularly relevant to your mention of psychopaths identifying victims based on body movement and “walking gait." It’s also the closest thing I've come across to strategies for dealing with people who score highly on Dark Triad traits — have you come across anything relevant to that topic?
"The Mask of Sanity" is still a great book.
For anyone prosecuting major crimes, particularly homicides, it is invaluable to gain insight into a particular (and thankfully rare) type of sociopath.
Like, say, OJ Simpson!
"Interestingly, unlike with grandiosity, there are no sex differences in vulnerable narcissism."
This is interesting. I thought I had previously read that females more often demonstrated vulnerable or covert narcissism. I would prefer that to be the case because it explains many organizational workforce problems I have dealt with over the years. However, I do observe both a decline in overt narcissism in younger males and an increase in covert narcissism. I did read an article in the Atlantic (a magazine that I think is run by people, and tends to be read by people, highly neurotic and psychotic) that young fathers are exhibiting more anger and the suspicion is that they are unhappy in their modern non-traditional gender roles.
It is like the inability to demonstrate overt narcissistic traits because it is "toxic masculinity" creates pent-up dissatisfaction that erupts in periodic rage.
Reading this and the point that nearly everyone has Dark Triad traits on a spectrum, I was reminded of my principles for regulating my own personal development and behavior... a seemingly perpetual project until I die.
We must categorize behaviors for clinical diagnosis and treatment, but isn't the key to almost everything being balanced? And related to that point, are we not significantly influenced by exposure to others' behavior and traits that can make you unbalanced?
We are born with certain brain wiring and then experience the world and this experience provides us a constant feedback loop in how we need to behave to achieve what we want. The social sciences around mental and emotional "health" seem to focus more on the certain brain wiring and not the influence of experience. I think the latter is a bigger deal if we agree that everyone is on the spectrum AND that everyone can learn to regulate their own behavior and seek balance.
And this gets me to my own theory that Dark Triad traits are both innate and learned, and because they are learned, they are subject to mass formation psychosis.
It the system rewards certain behavior, there will be more of that behavior. Where before, the rewards would go to those demonstrating more balance, today narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism are more likely to result in high achievement and high status if wielded by intelligent and educated people. As the system denigrates toward more of a "dark reward" the behavior of people within the system becomes more dark.
To hell with civility and good-faith negotiations. If I can screw you to get more for myself, then so be it.
This is where I end up unsatisfied with the social science work around personality traits. There seems to be a big missing piece for organizational, societal, tribal, etc... influence of these traits in individuals.
Just consider the clinical psychologist and/or psychiatrist that works with an individual to help them develop self-awareness of their behavior to help them find balance. This in itself confirms the malleability of human behavior, and should inspire a great missing component of the science to understand the mass formation psychosis contribution. For example, if society in general including our media feeds keep reinforcing behavior that is higher on the spectrum of Dark Triad, won't that result in more individual people testing higher in Dark Triad traits? And if so, isn't that a big problem?
I think we are growing dark behavior in the population because people in power have taken that path as a short-cut to get what they want. And what they want is more.
Is there any study that shows in increase in Dark Triad personality traits in the population? I would not be surprised to have that confirmed.
My perspective is that climate change is not a real threat to the world (energy technology will advance to green and sustainable soon enough), but dark personality trait change is the thing that will wipe us out... unless we halt it.
"The social sciences around mental and emotional 'health' seem to focus more on the certain brain wiring and not the influence of experience."
(1) From personal experience over about 45 years, this pendulum swings very wide. If, say, you tried (at least in the northeast U.S.) in the early 1980s to get a "happy pill", or even a mere acknowledgement of the possibility that biology could affect the mind, you'd know what I mean. Even though awareness of, say, alcohol's mental affects extends well into pre-history. Go figure.
(2) "the influence of experience" very arguably IS "brain wiring", simply caused BY experience, rather than by other effects (e.g. genetics, blood/tissue chemical levels, etc).
"Is there any study that shows in increase in Dark Triad personality traits in the population?"
Well, the US is a hell of a lot more insouciantly warmongering than it was in the late '70s, as well as unwilling to examine itself on it, I can tell you that, too, from personal experience.
Wow! I don’t think there can be any more to know about the dark triad…