3 ms·

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 radicall

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.

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.