
Unraveling the Mindset of Victimhood - Udik
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-mindset-of-victimhood/
======
Hokusai
> While splitting the world into those who are “saints” versus those who are
> “pure evil” may protect oneself from pain and damage to their self-image, it
> ultimately stunts growth and development and ignores the ability to see the
> self and the world in all of its complexities.

I have seen this so many times in technical discussions that is not even
funny. "I am right and everybody else are idiots" is a disease in many
software companies.

Many technical solutions are trade offs. But creating absolute categories
"solution A is perfect" and "solution B is bad" many engineers protect their
egos and their own technical preferences. And that stalls growth, their own
and the growth of the team.

> Those with a greater tendency for interpersonal victimhood also had a
> greater negative memory bias, recalling more words representing offensive
> behaviors and feelings of hurt

In technical environments, I have seen it related to bugs. The victimhood
mindset tends to blame others for any production problems. And any try to
bring an open and candid discussion is seen as an aggression. No technical
review is possible as criticism of code or design is seen as just personal
criticism and violently disregarded.

In the best companies I have worked for, teams are doers open to discuss
designs without taking offense. All proposed solutions are understood as a
trade-off between different options and that personal preferences may create
bias on looking into problems. There is a growth mindset and are great
companies were to learn and grow yourself. There is no evils or saints, but
colleagues trying their best to solve a problem.

~~~
anonunivgrad
The line between good and evil runs straight through the heart of every man.
The lack of charity to other people’s souls (cancel culture), combined with
excessive charity to their incompetence (e.g. declining standards for customer
service, managers beating around the bush instead of calling out sloth, etc.),
seems to be the modern trend unfortunately.

~~~
monkeydreams
> The lack of charity to other people’s souls (cancel culture)

How is "cancel culture" a lack of charity to other people's souls? How is it
that largely powerless individuals who choose to embargo, sanction or ignore
the powerful is cast as a "lack of charity" or a paucity of mercy? It is a
backlash against the largely impersonal powers that hold sway over us; the
bland and ubiquitous media, corrupt political powers, and empty-headed
celebrity culture that fails to live up to the standards it expects in
everyone else.

Merely because Fox News has given it a catchy title, does not mean it is new,
unwelcome or a degradation in standards - it just means that the rich and
powerful are afraid of it.

~~~
anonunivgrad
Destroying someone’s life for having the wrong opinions is not charitable to
their humanity. It is not how America was until very recently. Sure, people
have always been vilified for their views, but they’ve most times been able to
continue making their private living nonetheless. Deviations from that, like
the McCarthy Era, are rightly seen as wrongful failures to live up to this
ideal.

As for the “rich and powerful”, do you mean high school kids making
inappropriate jokes that become national news stories, blue collar guys being
fired for not being up-to-speed on 2020 cosmopolitan sensibilities, or anyone
who says a single negative thing about BLM riots?

~~~
monkeydreams
"Cancel Culture" is the practice of naming and shaming PUBLIC figures and
organisations and so your comment is a wee bit off the mark. You can't cancel
a subscription to an individual, a high school kid who makes an off-colour
remark is not a product.

By linking the public disapprobation of people who make statements (such as
that scooter-driving gentleman in Florida who yelled "White Power" or the
angry young schoolboy who decided to stare down a native American who would
dare to try to defuse his incipient argument with some agitators) with
companies who are being boycotted for actively funding anti-LGBTQ lobbying
groups (for instance) is an attempt by politicians, companies and media groups
to apply a chilling effect to speech. People _should_ be able to boycott those
companies who attempt to impact their lives; celebrities are not owed our
respect, nor politicians the money they steal from public coffers.

~~~
theredlion
It is very much NOT limited to public figures and is pervasive in large
companies. Individuals get effectively blackballed because of disagreeing with
the mob

~~~
monkeydreams
> It is very much NOT limited to public figures and is pervasive in large
> companies.

That is not cancel culture. That is something else. Cancel culture, by
definition, requires something that can be cancelled. Equivocating the two
issues is an attempt to make public figures, organisations, etc less
accountable.

~~~
theredlion
Whelp... Go ahead and check your definitions, because it absolutely applies to
individuals in a private space

------
seigando
So the article maybe does an ok job with the expectations set by the main
title, but then there's this subtitle: "social science points to a better way"
and the article totally flops on that end with nothing more than an end
paragraph blurb of less-than-insightful opinions from the article's author.

edit:

Also FTA:

"the researchers found that an anxious attachment style was a particularly
strong antecedent of the tendency for interpersonal victimhood."

And from another comment I posted below:

"When a child feels safe, seen, and soothed by their parent in a consistent
way, they are able to form a secure attachment to that parent. However, when a
parent is available and attuned at times and insensitive or intrusive at
others, the child is more likely to experience an anxious ambivalent
attachment pattern"[1]

This is a valid and important area of inquiry and I wish the article did a
better job on this front.

[1][https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/compassion-
matters/2...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/compassion-
matters/201904/how-anxious-attachment-style-affects-relationships)

~~~
john_moscow
I think it gives as much hint as you can without causing a massive wave of
outrage:

>But there’s the thing: If socialization processes can instill in individuals
a victimhood mindset, then surely the very same processes can instill in
people a personal growth mindset. What if we all learned at a young age that
our traumas don’t have to define us? That it’s possible to have experienced a
trauma and for victimhood to not form the core of our identity? That it’s even
possible to grow from trauma, to become a better person, to use the
experiences we’ve had in our lives toward working to instill hope and
possibility to others who were in a similar situation? What if we all learned
that it’s possible to have healthy pride for an in-group without having out-
group hate?

Basically, focus on your strong sides rather than weaknesses. Find people that
make you happy and spend time with them doing things that make all of you
happy, instead of focusing your attention on those who offend you. Pretty
sound advice, IMO.

------
motohagiography
It's vindicating to read that Scientific American has finally used science to
describe the out-group. Read it and weep, out-group!

Kidding aside, I have been guilty of at least one of these more than once in
life, and it's really a question of whether it's a defining characteristic,
and to whom. Treat it like any other cognitive bias, and recognize that
noticing it in others doesn't protect us from it.

------
devmunchies
For people interested in philosophy, I'd say the concepts of "Ressentiment"
and "Slave Morality" from Nietzsche (from the late 1800's no less!) are super
relevant today and can be applied to the left or right political camps.

> _The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of
> resentment becoming creative and giving birth to values—a resentment
> experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of
> action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge. While
> every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own
> demands, the slave morality says "no" from the very outset to what is
> "outside itself," "different from itself," and "not itself": and this "no"
> is its creative deed. This volte-face of the valuing standpoint—this
> inevitable gravitation to the objective instead of back to the subjective—is
> typical of "resentment": the slave-morality requires as the condition of its
> existence an external and objective world, to employ physiological
> terminology, it requires objective stimuli to be capable of action at
> all—its action is fundamentally a reaction._

—Nietzsche in _The Genealogy of Morals_ (source:
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52319/52319-h/52319-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52319/52319-h/52319-h.htm))

Here is a video comparing Nietzsche's "Ressentiment" and Dostoevsky
"Underground Man":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgmgI08iIAg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgmgI08iIAg)

~~~
jariel
This is really quite interesting and I think speaks to the character of a lot
of supposedly political views.

In the war of ideas, I think it helps to classify them simply as 'antagonist'
and 'normative' instead of anything else.

When people are young and they don't have power, they may feel aggrieved
(possibly legitimately so, or internalise the grievances of other groups), or
even simply want to 'rage against the machine' (i.e. what they perceive to be
'a machine'). This aggression may be creative, but I think often it's a
visceral intellectualism. It's a 'challenge to power' through a vector of
ideas and ideals. But the vector is actually not as important as the
motivating impetus ... which is the 'challenge' not the 'ideal'. But this
mentality does not at all lend well to the ugly, grinding, material reality of
power and real management of systems.

Castro had some legit things to say about Cuba pre-revolution. But what
happened when he actually took charge? A few nice things, but then it went
pretty quickly into despotism.

If your identity is caught up in antagonism and you live and breathe lofty,
impractical slogans that never actually have to be tested because they're
never going to be actually tested, what happens when you _do_ get power, and
then have to deal with the bureaucracy, unions, police, very legitimate
violent threats (internal and external), geopolitical shenanigans, poverty,
yada yada? Any ideologue who actually tried to do a good, responsible job,
would be considered a total sellout by his own vanguard.

It's odd because often real change does come from some of the more
legitimately aggrieved voices ... at the same time, I'm not sure if waves of
revolutionary leaders are able to handle 'the 99% of the rest of the job'.

------
john_moscow
One important point that the article totally misses is the economic part.

Someone with a personal growth mindset very likely spend most of their time
minding their own business, whatever that would be.

A person with a victim mentality could be an order of magnitude more socially
active. They feel that they are fighting for justice and changing the world to
the better, so they would spend countless hours trying to argue their point.
And in the world where the views and clicks translate into advertisement
dollars, this creates a very unhealthy incentive. Literally, a permanently
unhappy person obsessed with pouring their unhappiness on others generates
more advertising revenue than a happier person spending their evening cooking
or playing video games with their friends.

------
alexpetralia
I have meditated quite a bit on victimhood. In many cases I think it is
justified. But fundamentally it is a historiographic view of the world, not an
operative one. It is dominated by stasis - the way things were - and not the
way things ought to be. This is not to malign those who are victims. But I
suspect that most therapists dealing with such victims seek to impart an
operative view of the world: one with plans, growth, change - not stasis.

~~~
dwaltrip
Individuals benefit greatly from developing personal agency and
responsibility, whatever their circumstance.

Society at large must do systemic and holistic analysis (on multiple scales,
e.g. neighborhoods, cities, states, and countries), which is where various
forms of oppression can be most clearly identified and addressed. Of course,
grassroots efforts can and often do lead the way.

------
droidno9
I wonder if a part of this mindset can be explained by the inability, i.e.,
lack of skills, to deal with confrontation. We all have to confront people and
life circumstances at various points in our lives in order to grow, and if we
don't have the skills to deal with them, fight or flight kicks in. The latter,
overtime, result in a gradual buildup of low self-esteem, resentment, and
anger.

Dealing with confrontations is a skill that can be learned, like most of the
life skills out there.

------
eska
I found the article very enlightening. It is useful to have proper names for
the phenomena that I have witnessed in others and partially myself.

The conclusion gives some good ideas how to fix interpersonal victimhood

> What if we all learned at a young age that our traumas don’t have to define
> us? That it’s possible to have experienced a trauma and for victimhood to
> not form the core of our identity? That it’s even possible to grow from
> trauma, to become a better person, to use the experiences we’ve had in our
> lives toward working to instill hope and possibility to others who were in a
> similar situation? What if we all learned that it’s possible to have healthy
> pride for an in-group without having out-group hate? That if you expect
> kindness from others, it pays to be kind yourself? That no one is entitled
> to anything, but we all are worthy of being treated as human?

------
loopz
The need for redress and criminalization is indeed a problematic and
distressing mindset for all involved, usually just ending in an evolutionary
dead-end and non-constructive waste of time and effort.

However, that doesn't mean operation from unbiased justice and fairness, or
that we should focus on solutions rather than chart the problems to be solved
first!

------
galaxyLogic
I think what the article could have talked more about is that claimed
victimhood is often used as an excuse to (continue to) victimize others.

------
EricE
I dunno - if you eliminate shades of gray and stick to black and white you
don't need critical thinking. Critical thinking takes effort - it's far easier
to toss a label on someone and then dismiss them.

------
tus88
This sounds very politically incorrect.

~~~
nomel
Something can be both politically incorrect and correct at the same time.

------
hristov
This is mostly crap. It is a thin scientific redressing of the old right wing
slogan of "stop whining". "Stop whining about being oppressed, look at me I am
not whining about doing the oppressing".

There is a lot of injustice in our society and there is nothing wrong in
standing up and demanding justice. And don't let anyone tell you that
demanding justice or seeking fairness is some kind of a personality disorder.

But while most of the article is pure bs, there is a kernel of truth in one of
the details. And that is that often when you are wronged and you are angry you
tend to ignore other people's feelings. Generally when you are angry you tend
to stop thinking. And often you tend to lash out at everyone and think
everyone is against you when you may have many potential allies. When I try to
remember when I was bullied when I was younger, this is my regret. I would get
angry and think everyone is against me and lash out at people, even when they
leaned on my side. The bullies of course being psychopaths would never get
angry, they would be calm and always kept their psycho charming personalities
up, and would eventually gain allies and become socially acceptable even after
the bad things they did.

So it is ok to be angry. But you have to always keep thinking and consider the
feelings of others.

------
sicnus
The 5 questions seem to ignore peoples backgrounds and circumstances.

If you typically aren't facing injustice often then you aren't going to think
you are a victim.

It is a privileged position to assume everyone should "score" the same if they
aren't marginalized.

~~~
bityard
It seems like you didn't read the full article.

The research that the article talks about was careful to separate the
_mindset_ of victimhood from the actual experience of being a victim of
someone else's antisocial or even violent behavior. The two are not the same.
One can experience prejudice, social bias, and outright physical violence
without developing a permanent self-image as a victim. But we all know that
one crazy friend or family member who thinks (and says) the world is against
them yet never had a truly traumatic experience in their whole life.

~~~
watwut
But like, I also know people who talked about being wronged and then it
eventually turned out they really have been wronged. And it took them quite a
lot of effort to get made sorta kinda equal - had they been accepting and
silent, none of that would happen.

~~~
lopmotr
If it can be made right, then yea but if not, then it's probably better to
imagine you weren't wronged.

I have a personal experience with this. I suffered an injury that caused a
permanent disability, but because I was also knocked out, I don't know what
caused it. Maybe I was assaulted or maybe I had an accident. Should I feel
wronged just in case it turns out to be an assault? No! I'm kind of lucky not
knowing whether to blame someone else or myself! Maybe if I knew, that emotion
of being wronged would motivate me to fight for justice and the perpetrator
could get convicted but I'm comfortable assuming it was an accident. That's a
lot better than fighting and losing.

~~~
watwut
In cases I have in mind, it looked futile until it did not.

In the situation you described, you don't know what happened. So a good guess
of your feelings would be confusion, I see no reason to force "feeling lucky"
or "blaming yourself" or "feeling wronged" or any other emotion you don't
actually feel.

I don't understand this prescribing what people _should feel_ and I think it
does more harm then good. People _do feel_ , they also think and the two
interacts. It is much more important to understand what your feelings actually
are and how they are influencing you, rather then analyse what theoretical
person should feel or try to force yourself to feel the things you dont.

~~~
lopmotr
Though I agree it's not helpful to force your feelings directly. I do think
that there are things we "should" feel and those are the things that give
better outcomes to us. Sometimes emotions are telling us something true and
important but are also harming our wellbeing and we'd be better off without
them. If we're lucky enough to lack some harmful knowledge, then all the
better.

