4 ms·

I assume their rationale is that if X% (say 5%) are the ones who stay up late into the early hours for their scheming they are less likely to be noticed for wha

I assume their rationale is that if X% (say 5%) are the ones who stay up late into the early hours for their scheming they are less likely to be noticed for what they do. However being inactive when the other Y% (95%) are active isn't as risky as anyone plotting against you is easily going to be witnessed. There's a problem with this theory though. A lot of the witch trials contained accusations about late night activities, which given that a lot of it was obviously fraudulent (IIRC the last witch trial in Sweden[?] ended with the execution of several of the accusers after one confessed after the execution and the flogging of the witnesses for perjury) it would be arguable that we actively targeted those who were 'night time chronotypes'. One could equally argue it wasn't that narcissist and psychopaths got ahead by being active late at night, but that they were the ones who were best able to survive being active late at night. Narcissists are typically well aware of what those around them think of them - they're charming but distant. Psychopaths are not likely people you'd want to openly confront with weak accusations, and Machiavellians are not people you wanted to openly accuse! There's quite a few witch trial stories where the accusers end up being punished, which to me sounds exactly like the work of a Machiavellian. Survival of the fittest works two ways. One is "out performing" and the other is "out surviving". Why do we still have alligators, crocodiles? They certainly don't out perform mammals, neither do snakes or other reptiles. They all live on the fringe and "out survive" the mammals. Reptiles excel at surviving - low metabolism and low water needs means infrequent hunting and infrequent drinking, which are two things mammals can't survive without. The Dark Triad personalities could easily be the reptiles of the personality world. They don't thrive, they just out survive.

lkrubner 12y ago
About this: "A lot of the witch trials contained accusations about late night activities, which given that a lot of it was obviously fraudulent" The rationale behind the accusations was 100% fraudulent (consorting with the devil) so 100% of the accusations were fraudulent under any modern understanding of due process. There might be some crazies out there who really do believe that the Devil exists and that people consort with him, but I assume most folks on Hacker News are part of the modern world and reject supernatural explanations for events. Possibly apocryphal, but I recall in The Crucible (1952), by Arthur Miller, one accusation is that a woman peed on the edge of a farmers field, and that peeing was a signal to the Devil, and a few months later the farmer's crop was destroyed by flood. This is not an accusation that would survive in a modern court room.
- electromagnetic 12y ago
  You're misinformed if you think all the witchcraft trials had anything to do with "consorting with the devil". A lot of women in the records appeared to have been healers and midwives. Many of the records contain evidence of the practice of folk medicine/magic. It not only brings in the issue of unhappy customers. They also take place when the apothecary system was beginning to form in Europe, who were skilled practitioners of herbal medicine. It's not hard to presume these early healers had the knowledge to produce poisons, much like their successors the apothecarist. The majority of witchcraft trials were performed by the Catholics and most were done so for heresy. Predominantly for pagan practices. It was the English witchcraft trials, and those that occurred later in the Americas that focused on the aspect of Satan/Devil. However, some of these get confusing when according to the records the accused admit to murder and poisoning/killing livestock before they're tortured, and we could well be seeing violent schizophrenics who could well have believed they're possessed. I'm not saying that any of these would pass modern due process, but assuming away all credibility to all the claims is equally naive. There was high levels of scepticism present right from the beginning with records of trials being dismissed due to mental illness and 'unbalanced humours'. Assuming they're 100% fraudulent would be extremely naive. You're no more intelligent than they were, we've just been gifted with easier access to more information than they ever were.

lkrubner 12y ago

About this: "A lot of the witch trials contained accusations about late night activities, which given that a lot of it was obviously fraudulent" The rationale behind the accusations was 100% fraudulent (consorting with the devil) so 100% of the accusations were fraudulent under any modern understanding of due process. There might be some crazies out there who really do believe that the Devil exists and that people consort with him, but I assume most folks on Hacker News are part of the modern world and reject supernatural explanations for events. Possibly apocryphal, but I recall in The Crucible (1952), by Arthur Miller, one accusation is that a woman peed on the edge of a farmers field, and that peeing was a signal to the Devil, and a few months later the farmer's crop was destroyed by flood. This is not an accusation that would survive in a modern court room.

electromagnetic 12y ago
You're misinformed if you think all the witchcraft trials had anything to do with "consorting with the devil". A lot of women in the records appeared to have been healers and midwives. Many of the records contain evidence of the practice of folk medicine/magic. It not only brings in the issue of unhappy customers. They also take place when the apothecary system was beginning to form in Europe, who were skilled practitioners of herbal medicine. It's not hard to presume these early healers had the knowledge to produce poisons, much like their successors the apothecarist. The majority of witchcraft trials were performed by the Catholics and most were done so for heresy. Predominantly for pagan practices. It was the English witchcraft trials, and those that occurred later in the Americas that focused on the aspect of Satan/Devil. However, some of these get confusing when according to the records the accused admit to murder and poisoning/killing livestock before they're tortured, and we could well be seeing violent schizophrenics who could well have believed they're possessed. I'm not saying that any of these would pass modern due process, but assuming away all credibility to all the claims is equally naive. There was high levels of scepticism present right from the beginning with records of trials being dismissed due to mental illness and 'unbalanced humours'. Assuming they're 100% fraudulent would be extremely naive. You're no more intelligent than they were, we've just been gifted with easier access to more information than they ever were.