3 ms·
>"There have been times when I was willing to suffer some small harm so that I could punish someone else who deserved it" Is this really a dark trait? I admit
by 0134340 6y ago
>"There have been times when I was willing to suffer some small harm so that I could punish someone else who deserved it"
Is this really a dark trait? I admit to thinking this in the past but now I've learned to let things go and let someone else deal with it. I have sometimes thought about this and wonder if this is the darker version. I guess "correcting" someone is better but often these can be such obvious things that you'd think people would know anyway.
- 082349872349872 6y agoMy translation of "willing to suffer some small harm so that I could punish" was "willing to play negative sum games." (chess is like war in that the declared winner is the player who has lost the least.)
- yyyk 6y agoThink of the common experiment when people are offered an unfair but still beneficial exchange (they get $10 while the other side gets $1000), and still refuse. Is refusing that (which nearly everyone does) a dark trait? The typical behavioural article would have linked this to sociability, and considered not doing it leading to a worse result in the long run.
- 082349872349872 6y agoPeople accept the $10/$1000 situation all the time: it's often called "working on commission". Maybe I need to refresh my game theory, but I wouldn't call that a negative sum game, but a positive sum (+$1010) one, and refusing still leaves everyone in the status quo (+$0/+$0). My recollection of a negative sum game is that the overall outcome is negative. For instance, paying $10 (to get access to the car park) to cause $1000 worth of damage (slashing tyres). (I'm having difficulty imagining someone spending $1000 to make someone else worse off by $10, but can easily imagine a vindictive someone spending $1000 to make a much poorer someone else worse off by only $500.)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]