6 ms·

The article talks about signals of virtue and victimhood being exploited by people high in the dark triad to get what they want. I don't think it is tied speci

The article talks about signals of virtue and victimhood being exploited by people high in the dark triad to get what they want. I don't think it is tied specifically to the dark triad at all.. but maybe people high in any of the triad have learned to exploit the technique to get what they want. You could make the case that virtue signaling and victimhood was always a conscious or unconscious act to extract something of value from people.

mjburgess 4y ago
Sure, under a kinda evo-psych/behavioural-eco analysis of why evolution, over a long span, has made us responsive to these signals.. yes. But that's a radically different kind of analysis than intention, which is under-determined by evolution. ie., say we're all subject to the same evo forces, but we all intend different things. To say that narcissists exploit a "victim-compassion" response is very different than saying genuine victims do. They "give off" the "genuine victim" signal with with good reasons and intending to act on those reasons, people help. Narcissists exploit the same signal but with the wrong reasons.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  This actually an interesting question. I would counter that the narcissists also have the same reasons as "true" victims. They seek to personally benefit from the compassion of others. What sets them apart is not the motive or reason, but the execution. Narcissists are more apt to use deception to cultivate compassion.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    That is what I would dispute. A victim who signals victimhood isnt necessary, indeed perhaps often, looking for help. Which is why so many victims arent helped, of course. If you're punched by a bully, you may just want to run away in shame -- yet, and onlooker may strongly desire to help you. By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture. This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different. Evolution is a blind machine with no intention; if you perform this elimination you will mistakenly assume the same of people.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think we are mixing up two ideas. A victim can communicate/signal a need for help by asking, posturing, expressing a need. This can be intentional or unintentional. An observer can also determine a need for help by analysis of observational information outside of an intentional or unintentional signal. Punching a bully might convey information that someone needs help, despite not being an intentional or unintentional signal. Similarly, I might conclude that someone needs help by looking at their bank account without them even knowing. >By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture. I don't think I follow your reasoning. How does reducing them to selfish actors eliminate psychology? >This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different. Not all actions are intended to be social signals. Some clearly are. I think the evo-psych/game theory models explain the purpose of social signals well. The point still stands that not every action an actor makes is a social signal. The role of psychology is to explain the state of individual, what leads them to make an action, or send a signal. The question of what message is sent by someone crying is different from why they are crying in the first place. evo-psych might say they are probably crying because crying signals a need for attention and support. Regular psych might say they are crying because their spouse died.
dkarl 4y ago
I think you're right that it's widespread beyond consciously selfish people. Most people naturally reproduce whatever behavior seems to be socially rewarded, and some people don't think very hard into it. For example, in my social group, who as you can imagine are a bunch of well-off privileged people, there is a small but persistent minority of people who complain about ills that plague less privileged people as if they affected them, too. They aren't a minority of the most selfish people; they might be a pious bunch but they're mostly just not thinking. So I hear complaints about anxiety over employment, from people with Ivy League degrees who could have ten interviews for higher pay lined up within 48 hours if they wanted. And not just acknowledgment of the emotions that everybody feels regardless of privilege, but explicitly linking their anxiety to real economic precarity and political and policy injustices. Complaints about how difficult it is to pay for health care, from people who have 1% incomes and walk out of a complex surgery owing a few hundred bucks. That's not the health care crisis that people are talking about! Complaints about exploitative employment, from salaried people who can and do take a few days off whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and can disappear from work anytime, no matter how awkward the timing, with no questions asked by saying the words "mental health." These people aren't consciously lying, but they aren't thinking concretely enough to realize that people aren't going to validate and applaud their words like they would if they came out of the mouth of someone less privileged. I tell them that if privileged people exploit the sensitivity to mental health in the workplace to such a ridiculous degree, there might be a backlash against it before some people even begin to see the benefits. And if people learn to associate "health care crisis" and "food islands" with wealthy people complaining about nearly imperceptible lifestyle compromises, it's going to make it much harder to make progress politically. But they don't get it. They aren't thinking below the surface. They're just thinking "people sympathize with and applaud these kinds of complaints so I should voice them as well."
- mistrial9 4y ago
  overall this is real but, how should people of conscience act? Maybe you are annoyed with their privileges, more than your respect for conscience feelings on their part? The ages-old solution here is to act collectively, through a group voice, lessening the individual differences. Many religious groups through the generations serve exactly this function.

mjburgess 4y ago

Sure, under a kinda evo-psych/behavioural-eco analysis of why evolution, over a long span, has made us responsive to these signals.. yes. But that's a radically different kind of analysis than intention, which is under-determined by evolution. ie., say we're all subject to the same evo forces, but we all intend different things. To say that narcissists exploit a "victim-compassion" response is very different than saying genuine victims do. They "give off" the "genuine victim" signal with with good reasons and intending to act on those reasons, people help. Narcissists exploit the same signal but with the wrong reasons.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
This actually an interesting question. I would counter that the narcissists also have the same reasons as "true" victims. They seek to personally benefit from the compassion of others. What sets them apart is not the motive or reason, but the execution. Narcissists are more apt to use deception to cultivate compassion.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  That is what I would dispute. A victim who signals victimhood isnt necessary, indeed perhaps often, looking for help. Which is why so many victims arent helped, of course. If you're punched by a bully, you may just want to run away in shame -- yet, and onlooker may strongly desire to help you. By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture. This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different. Evolution is a blind machine with no intention; if you perform this elimination you will mistakenly assume the same of people.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think we are mixing up two ideas. A victim can communicate/signal a need for help by asking, posturing, expressing a need. This can be intentional or unintentional. An observer can also determine a need for help by analysis of observational information outside of an intentional or unintentional signal. Punching a bully might convey information that someone needs help, despite not being an intentional or unintentional signal. Similarly, I might conclude that someone needs help by looking at their bank account without them even knowing. >By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture. I don't think I follow your reasoning. How does reducing them to selfish actors eliminate psychology? >This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different. Not all actions are intended to be social signals. Some clearly are. I think the evo-psych/game theory models explain the purpose of social signals well. The point still stands that not every action an actor makes is a social signal. The role of psychology is to explain the state of individual, what leads them to make an action, or send a signal. The question of what message is sent by someone crying is different from why they are crying in the first place. evo-psych might say they are probably crying because crying signals a need for attention and support. Regular psych might say they are crying because their spouse died.

dkarl 4y ago

I think you're right that it's widespread beyond consciously selfish people. Most people naturally reproduce whatever behavior seems to be socially rewarded, and some people don't think very hard into it. For example, in my social group, who as you can imagine are a bunch of well-off privileged people, there is a small but persistent minority of people who complain about ills that plague less privileged people as if they affected them, too. They aren't a minority of the most selfish people; they might be a pious bunch but they're mostly just not thinking. So I hear complaints about anxiety over employment, from people with Ivy League degrees who could have ten interviews for higher pay lined up within 48 hours if they wanted. And not just acknowledgment of the emotions that everybody feels regardless of privilege, but explicitly linking their anxiety to real economic precarity and political and policy injustices. Complaints about how difficult it is to pay for health care, from people who have 1% incomes and walk out of a complex surgery owing a few hundred bucks. That's not the health care crisis that people are talking about! Complaints about exploitative employment, from salaried people who can and do take a few days off whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and can disappear from work anytime, no matter how awkward the timing, with no questions asked by saying the words "mental health." These people aren't consciously lying, but they aren't thinking concretely enough to realize that people aren't going to validate and applaud their words like they would if they came out of the mouth of someone less privileged. I tell them that if privileged people exploit the sensitivity to mental health in the workplace to such a ridiculous degree, there might be a backlash against it before some people even begin to see the benefits. And if people learn to associate "health care crisis" and "food islands" with wealthy people complaining about nearly imperceptible lifestyle compromises, it's going to make it much harder to make progress politically. But they don't get it. They aren't thinking below the surface. They're just thinking "people sympathize with and applaud these kinds of complaints so I should voice them as well."

mistrial9 4y ago
overall this is real but, how should people of conscience act? Maybe you are annoyed with their privileges, more than your respect for conscience feelings on their part? The ages-old solution here is to act collectively, through a group voice, lessening the individual differences. Many religious groups through the generations serve exactly this function.