
Signaling Virtuous Victimhood as Indicators of Dark Triad Personalities [pdf] - cscurmudgeon
https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/2020-ok.pdf
======
DubiousPusher
For some background and a word of warning regarding "dark triad" studies.

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/personality-and-
its-...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/personality-and-its-
problems/201907/don-t-believe-the-hype-shining-light-the-dark-triad)

I'm not saying this study is bad. But there are hot topics in all fields that
are usually well consumed with a bit of caution and extra awareness.

------
mellosouls
This seems a bit of an odd link. It's a publication copied to and linked from
a third party website with no context.

As an alternative, here's an actual discussion.

[https://reason.com/2020/07/07/narcissists-psychopaths-and-
ma...](https://reason.com/2020/07/07/narcissists-psychopaths-and-manipulators-
are-more-likely-to-engage-in-virtuous-victim-signaling-says-study/)

~~~
slothtrop
The link to the paper there is also to a 3rd party --
[https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Ok-...](https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Ok-et-al.-2020.pdf)

I imagine because otherwise the journals wall out the actual content.

~~~
mellosouls
Yeah, I saw that also after I'd posted. The pdf being third party hosted makes
more sense to me now.

------
ptbello
I see this behaviour every day. There is even a Neapolitan expression for
this: "chiagni e fotti" [1], which could be translated as "cry and screw
(others)".

[1]
[https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiagni_e_fotti](https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiagni_e_fotti)

------
jariel
At the risk of being overly glib, the pathways for this may seem a little bit
obvious: we are actually very empathetic people in general. When we see
someone being treated poorly, we react both emotionally (sympathy, empathy)
but also intellectually (moral condemnation).

Especially for those who have been real victims in the past, these issues can
be very poignant issues and cause us to 'trigger'.

In such circumstances, I think a lot of our 'reason' goes out the window and
we react purely emotionally.

This creates the perfect vector for manipulation by self-obsessed people with
total lack of self awareness.

In any large group of people, there will be a handful that will say and do
anything to get ahead, and if it's just 'really easy to reach out and touch
that victimhood button' \- they will.

Things are very confounded because A) there is usually a degree of truth in
the generalisation (i.e. racism, sexism etc. are very real and common things)
and B) there may be elements of truth to a specific ordeal (i.e. someone may
have been treated in a poor manner, but not in an egregious way).

For some people, because 'A' (such bad behaviour in general) absolutely
exists, then 'B' (the individual situation) 'must be an example of A' and then
some ham-fisted, lop-sided action ensues, especially in the realm of the
press.

Go ahead and watch the founders of the now infamous 'We Charity' as they were
grilled in a Parliamentary setting: with no understanding of what happened,
they seem like victims. But if you have an inkling as to what was actually
going on, it's clear they were exhibiting some of these Machiavellian
tendencies with, constant virtue/victim signalling.

Most of us are hard wired to be emotionally empathetic, that's a 'good thing'
\- it's just easy for a lot of people (and corporations) to take advantage of.

This phenom also metastasises in social settings: one of the _worst_ possible
things we can be perceived as, is 'unsympathetic'. How 'terrible' is the
person who doesn't care about that 'poor person who was a victim' of
something! The issue with skepticism, and especially how it's perceived by
others, is that is interpreted as a 'lack of sympathy' \- when in reality -
it's usually more or less a 'lack of belief in the factuality of the
situation' in which, it's possible the victim may not be deserving of sympathy
- which are different things.

Since there's way too much risk in being perceive as unsympathetic, the
popular response will usually be lopsided on any 'grey, ambiguous issue'.

~~~
gavinray
I'm not sure that I would agree that humans are largely empathetic.

And this is to be pedantic about the definition (because it matters to me, as
obnoxious as silly as that is), because "empathy" is the shared experience of
a feeling -- I scream in pain, you feel my pain, I cry my eyes out, you cry
your eyes out. "Sympathy" is acknowledging a feeling. "That's a bummer, I know
how you feel."

I would say that there is a small portion of people, let's ballpark 2-3%,
which are overwhelming and genuinely empathetic. These people actually care,
for the sole reason that they are interested in the well-being of everyone.

Many people are mildly sympathetic. You express your genuine emotions, and
they'll give you a heartfelt response and listen for minute or two.

A great number of people have very, very little empathy or sympathy. They will
feign interest or whatever response a social situation calls for so as to not
appear poorly. Unless they are particularly invested in you, and there's a
deep bond. (Hell, sometimes people you think were your closest friends will
disappear second you ever ask a small favor or inconvenience).

But from a rational standpoint, over-empathatecism (or moderate empatheticism,
for too many people) would lead to constant intense, and often negative,
psychological states/ imbalance. So I'm not complaining.

Though I'm not sure why the entire adult world cooperatively plays this game
where everyone pretends to care in public about everything, and makes a big
show about how "<insert canned positive adjective here>" they are.

~~~
jariel
When the average person sees a man beating a woman, they are sympathetic.

When we see starvation and poverty (and we don't attribute it to 'their own
behaviour') - we are generally sympathetic.

" I'm not sure why the entire adult world cooperatively plays this game" \-
again I believe it's because to appear 'unsympathetic' is a very bad thing
among most people. It generally doesn't pay to appear stern, cold or callous
among most people (though for some it does). Sympathetic positions are usually
more popular, which is why you see corporate messaging overwhelmingly on this
side.

~~~
gavinray
> It generally doesn't pay to appear stern, cold or callous among most people
> (though for some it does). Sympathetic positions are usually more popular,
> which is why you see corporate messaging overwhelmingly on this side.

Sure, but it's obviously brazenly disingenuous. Do you think the companies
believe that people buy that. That a company actually cares about XYZ. And
that the social media/advertising/marketing campaign staff they pay to come up
with this had nothing to do with it.

Why is the idea that a company has zero interest in your personal well-being
or anything else about you, outside of how much potential revenue you're
worth, so taboo?

There are businesses and products that incorporate some level of social good
or net-positive impact, but you can bet if continuing to do so put them in the
red that would be quietly ushered out stage left.

But it's a business, not a charity.

Do I think Coca-Cola _really cares_ about (insert recent tragic event or
latest social cause)? No. Do you? Does anyone? Do we care that they don't
care?

So why does the entire world keep up the charades, and not stay "Stop posting
trite corporate marketing, do you think you're fooling anyone?"

~~~
jariel
"Do you think the companies believe that people buy that. That a company
actually cares about XYZ. "

Oh, they absolutely do.

100%.

Marketing is all about aspiration, and companies are falling over themselves
to be perceived as moral, credible, caring - it makes a huge difference.

In a very poignant example, Nike's switched from endorsing athletes for their
prowess ... to their politics. The Kaeperinck sponsorship was a massive win
for Nike.

Lulu Lemon is selling the 'ethics' of Yoga (for $200 yoga pants that make your
butt look good!).

You noticed that the brand of water Starbucks sold forever was 'Ethos'. That's
not an accident.

Terms such as 'ethically sourced', 'locally sourced', 'fair trade', 'eco
friendly' etc. all over the place.

The marketing absolutely works, even if on a cognitive level we have some
degree of cynicism, the messaging goes right past our logic to associates a
brand directly with an emotion, possibly sympathetic, possibly other thins
like the love we have for our children etc..

If you look at celebrity brand marketing these days (i.e. how celebs market
themselves), it's at least 1/2 social signalling. It's all about their
politics, their charities, their causes, this is driven by smart agents, PR
managers etc..

People are smart but crowds are stupid.

~~~
gavinray
This hurts me somewhere deep in my soul.

I wouldn't consider myself cynical but everything about this social-politics
and fake-caring shenanigans deeply unsettles me. Like plastic humans.

------
afpx
Is this for real? I'm lost at the first paragraph. The authors list out a lot
of valid reasons why one would not want to be a victim.

Then, in the same paragraph:

"Yet in the current historical period, many observers have argued that in the
United States and in other Western societies being a victim does not always
carry these negative connotations or produce unwanted outcomes. ... (Bawer,
2012; Campbell & Manning, 2018; Sykes, 1992) "

I haven't read the references, but this sounds silly. They're not
"connotations" \- they're physical ailments caused by trauma. No one with PTSD
would want to have it.

BTW, I have PTSD from early childhood violence. And, I would probably score
higher than average on the (Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psy-chopathy)
questionnaire. But, I blame that on damage to my Amygdala.

~~~
burfog
The point is that one without PTSD might want to claim to have it. This gets
sympathy, disability benefits, etc.

There are also borderline cases of victimhood. Do those get rounded to "yes"
or "no"? If you've had a difficult experience, you could talk that up into
PTSD or brush it off. If being a victim brings social or financial benefits,
that will make the difference for some people.

~~~
afpx
Sure. But, their premise is that PTSD can be net-positive.

~~~
skinkestek
> But, their premise is that PTSD can be net-positive.

Isn't it rather that _signalling_ PTSD can be a net positive?

~~~
Traster
It would seem relevant to determine whether the signalling is a true
reflection of reality. If I'm telling people I have PTSD without PTSD then
it's entirely unsuprising that I show other bad traits. If I actually have
PTSD then that's quite distinct and would be an interesting study- amonst the
poeple who have X, how many of them signal X and why. Then of course how many
of the people signalling (for example) PTSD are people with PTSD.

It would seem like a really bad conclusion to say people signalling PTSD are
psychopath if actually, there are people with PTSD and then psychopaths who
signal PTSD - because you're essentially lumping people with real pain into a
group with people who are exploiting thier pain.

------
DenisM
I'm wondering a "by proxy" follow up research is in the works?

~~~
DubiousPusher
You mean "Munchausen"? Isn't that a bit of psudoscience? Genuinely asking. I'm
under the impression it is not good science.

Edit: To be more clear I'm not denying that the clinical descriptions of it
are lies. Rather my impression is that they do not amount to a diagnosable
condition. The variance between the reported cases leave it as a very open
ended and even dangerous diagnosis. This is my current impression and I could
be wrong.

------
keenmaster
"We show that individuals with Dark Triad traits—Machiavellianism, Narcissism,
Psychopathy—more frequently signal virtuous victimhood, controlling for
demographic and socioeconomic variables that are commonly associated with
victimization in Western societies."

I know that the study controlled for socioeconomic and demographic variables,
but I can think of a couple potential problems. One is that the overall study
is composed of several smaller studies, each of which uses what may be a
flimsy way of assessing negative traits from surveys and games. The other
problem is as follows: take two African American women who make the same
amount of income. Generally, they have the same demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics. However, if one believes that she must, on the margins,
extract more from an oppressive system, and the other believes that she must
completely work with the system and take what she can get (regardless of her
beliefs about the system), then can the former be classified as a
Machiavellian psychopath and the latter be classified as a normative angel?
(rhetorical question)

Note: I used the term "the system" to abstract from a lot of variables to keep
things brief.

Note 2: Don't get me wrong, I'm not a post-modernist on ethics. Quite the
opposite. I'm just skeptical about many psychological studies like the one in
the OP. The correlations could be true (or not, or smaller in magnitude), and
the research is worth doing, but I see no reason to update my priors yet.

~~~
merpnderp
Can she prove it is oppressive, or is it just her opinion? Because if she can
prove she's being oppressed, there are a large number of legal prescriptions
(in the US) rather than ruining her professional career by being cunning and
duplicitous. Nobody likes working with lying cheaters, regardless of their
stated goals.

~~~
jstanley
> Because if she can prove she's being oppressed, there are a large number of
> legal prescriptions

But if it is the entire "system" that is oppressing her, then she is likely to
find that these legal prescriptions do not apply in her case. Isn't that quite
obvious?

If you're being oppressed by a system, the system oppresses you, no matter how
loudly it claims that it has resolutions for anyone who is being oppressed.

The fact that the system does not work for you is what it _means_ to be
oppressed in the first place.

~~~
merpnderp
If you can't articulate, in detail, how you're being oppressed, are you being
oppressed of just suffering from paranoia?

------
pmiller2
Aside: I am upvoting this before I even read it. gwern.net in the URL is all I
need to know that it's a quality submission.

~~~
mola
That's nothing to be proud of. You like gwern, legit. But upvoting because of
a brand and not because of content is not very helpful for the community.

~~~
slothtrop
It's implicit in his suggestion that it reflects quality content. Ironically,
this is the sort of post that community guidelines suggests not to write.
Because it's not helpful for the community.

~~~
keenmaster
Another issue is that such comments produce negative externalities. What if
everyone thought that way and automatically upvoted every gwern post? I'm not
sure gwern themselves are confident that their post quality would remain the
same. Personally, I'm sure it would decline, and they would put out ever more
self-serving content, because why not? Everyone loves it anyway.

~~~
pmiller2
If everybody made such comments on, say, gwern.net posts, then, the most that
would probably happen is that upvotes would lose their signaling value
regarding the quality of gwern.net posts. The comments not saying "I upvoted
this because gwern.net" would still be an accurate gauge of submission
quality, IMO. Based on reading a good bit of their writing, I don't think
u/gwern [0] would modify their posting style at all, just to garner HN
upvotes.

\---

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gwern](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gwern)

~~~
keenmaster
I'm not talking about gwern specifically. I'm talking about literally anyone.
No one, not even gwern, is a completely rational, stoic being incapable of
sliding backwards if constructive criticism is attenuated. There isn't a huge
danger of gwern not getting enough constructive criticism. I'm sure they get a
firehose of it. But this is a platform, and in this thread we're talking about
the marginal effect of comments of a certain kind on the platform and the
authors of contributions to the platform in general. Moreover, and for related
reasons, we need more good faith scrutiny in this world. Unconditional love of
this kind reduces and crowds out scrutiny.

