I feel there's a big difference between people who say something like, "here's why I think I'm a victim of [x]" and "I'm a victim, so I deserve [y]".
I know when kids say they "deserve" anything I try to shut it down because while it may be true in some cases I think to embrace that kind of perspective can be damaging. In my opinion you shouldn't expect anything from the world, you should simply seek to be understood. If people understand your struggles then they most of the time they'll treat you well instinctively. Simply demanding that your understood and that you should be given what you deserve isn't a good way to approach things.
That said, I'll be honest and admit that I 100% weaponise victimhood if I feel I'm being attacked unfairly. When people start accusing me of being x, y or z, then I'll happily twist that back around on them by playing my own victim cards.
> In my opinion you shouldn't expect anything from the world, you should simply seek to be understood.
That’s expecting something, isn’t it? I much prefer the convention in Asia: don’t make yourself a burden; seek to make things easier for the people around you.
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.
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."
Just something I am curious about, privilege tends to mean an unfair advantage given to a group if I get it right. So how is an Ivy League education a privilege? Doesn’t it require a lot of hard work to get into or finish such school?
Isn’t it something rightfully gained?
Disregarding the general reality that socioeconomics broadly has an impact on academic performance as a result of the resources people have throughout their development, there are only so many scholarships an Ivy League school will offer. So regardless of your hard work you are potentially or primarily limited by your ability to pay to begin with.
Being able to afford an Ivy League education is a position of privilege. Both for tuition and also everything else someone needs to live.
Yes that is correct but that is of course correct for any higher education school be it Ivy League or not. Even public school education is restricted to some by economic situation and the quality is highly variable across locations.
By that logic community college is also a privilege granted upon those with enough money for tuition and enough time to attend
This is of course taking one facet of Capitalism, calling it by a scare word (privilege) and forgetting about at all the other identical parts
Having the right pedigree, a network of people encouraging and helping you, teachers who have the resources to help, and people who believe in you are all factors mostly outside of a minor's control. As are adequate nutrition, safe and secure housing, and a host of other privileges.
My point being is that barring any proof of cheating, merely graduating from an elite university does indicate some level of competence. It requires some very hard work which in STEM not just anyone could do, and therefore it is unfair to say this is some god given privilege
Also, you cannot say how many of these graduates had access to the advantages you’ve listed above, and how much of the general population as a whole does
I feel like we've seen this issue discussed a lot with the recent Harvard lawsuits but higher-education is not a meritocracy. If it were, the legacy system wouldn't exist.
I didn’t really follow these, does that mean that graduating a CS degree in Harvard does not indicate some kind of ability and perseverance? Is it completely rigged so I can safely assume that Harvard CS in a CV is a bad signal?
Legacy candidates might be some kind of privilege, however that does not exist in most schools and is only something that got you there. There is no privilege in graduating from higher education where people don’t cheat, as this is not as if you’ll take a random sample of the population, rich or poor, enroll them into a CS degree and get a high percentage of graduates.
You cannot call something that takes skill and hard work a privilege. Privilege is something you’re born with, such as gentry. It also completely excludes these that are not born with that privilege, which is not the case here
Did you get shot at in high school or have to fight off gangs everyday? Did you eat everyday?
Having a higher odds of getting something is privilege. Rich people’s kids have a much higher likelihood of being rich wouldn’t you say?
There are externalities that you seem to be simply ignoring - it is not a level playing field for all. And to work your way up is way harder based on your starting point in society. I have watched some very smart people wind up in very bad places due only to life circumstances.
I find it odd that some people can’t see how obvious this is - or maybe they just don’t want to.
By the way, I am not saying graduating from an Ivy League school is easy (or any school for that matter), or detracting from how much effort people put in to better themselves. Just that where some people start isn’t where everyone starts - therefore the heights one can climb to aren't the same.
What you're describing is true for the absolute majority of the US population. We're living in a capitalist system which restricts access to resources to different people.
Consider this, how much of the world population has access to running water? a computer? medicine? English is their first language or has a US visa? So how many of these can realistically study at one of the world’s top universities?
Consider this and you will understand that even this one kid that studied in the high school with gang violence is so called privileged, and so is any citizen of the US.
Think about it and you’ll see this is just a way to shift guilt to some magical top 1%, while anyone born in a western country has a significant advantage, and the way Capitalism is structured, anyone has an "unfair" advantage on some other person
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.
> overall this is real but, how should people of conscience act?
You mean people of privilege who want to ease their conscience? Talk is cheap, either donate your money or donate your time. Enough of the "raising awareness" bullshit. Talking about the problems other people have is the cheapest most useless way somebody with privilege could possibly ease their conscience. It should be mocked, not encouraged.
People of conscience can talk about issues that have profound negative effects on other people without acting like they see those issues at work in their own lives.
They could start by refusing to participate in the systems they say are so bad. At a certain point, it seems more like coping with the guilt of privilege (similar to survivor’s guilt) than any genuine intention to change anything.
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.
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.
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.
In my experience the people who need the most help are those that don't ask for it but are still looking around helpless or grumble.
It's a nice social cue to pick up on and feels great to help people like this.
Grumbling is a nice signal of: If you can spare a hand, I will be happy.
I think that there is something profoundly wrong when people aspire to be the victim rather than their hero in their own personal narrative. It is a form of stunted emotional growth. Virtue arises from overcoming challenges, not just suffering.
Ascribing virtue to suffering itself leads to a race to the bottom, where the most noble society is that which suffers the most
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had a famous critique of Christianity and modern Western morality that operated along similar lines, spelled out most famously in the book "On the Genealogy of Morals". He contrasts Classical virtue-based morality with the contemporary notion of the inherent virtue of suffering.
> People who suffered from oppression... and who were denied any effective recourse by relative powerlessness—developed a persistent, corrosive emotional pattern of resentful hatred against their enemies, which Nietzsche calls ressentiment. [1]
In his view modern society was poisoned by "ressentiment", leaving people unable to find authentic happiness as a result.
I think that for Nietzsche ressentiment is more of a toxic by-product that is generated when traditional aristocratic or virtue-based morality (where "good" equals success, excellence, victory, etc) is inverted into modern morality (where all the things that were previously held as bad like weakness, meekness, victimhood, etc are now "good"). He associated this so-called "slave morality" with Christianity but he also saw it as a coping mechanism that came about as humans learned how to contend with increasingly structured and regimented societies.
In his view this was an obstacle to true human flourishing, and he hoped for some kind of creative renewal where people invented new values that were more authentically life-affirming.
Nietzsche is probably one of the most misinterpreted philosophers out there (I definitely consider him a thinker to "handle with care"), and I'm not necessarily advocating for the correctness of his views. But I think it's interesting to see how previous thinkers have anticipated a lot of our current debates and questions.
If there is actually no choice, it is the easiest, hardest, and only thing you can do.
My personal experience that activation energy comes from knowledge. The process of finding it can be more unpleasant but not necessarily harder
to put it a different way, the decent to rock bottom is painful but easy. Inflection only occurs when and if someone discovers or internalizes something new.
As Marcus Aurelius once wrote, all men suffer, but not all men pity themselves. Somewhat tangentially: Thomas Aquinas once wrote that if we experience a loss, we may allow ourselves to grieve for a while, and then stop. The danger of sadness is that we may indulge it indefinitely and sink into despair.
A person who wallows in such despair and self-pity would be well served by considering whether he is poisoned by envy, perhaps the envy of egalitarianism. To paraphrase Chesterton, at least the aristocrats of old had the satisfaction of feeling superior than others. The egalitarian man cuts down all those he fears are better than he is (typically by denying the qualities of others)!
The majority of our suffering, especially the spiritual and psychological variety, is our own doing. There are plenty of people born with all sorts of conditions who live happy lives because they've accepted the immutable and made the best of the cards they were dealt. If self-pity deserves anything, it is not compassion, but contempt.
This is true (the article talks about some of what follows).
Feelings of weakness, inferiority, and envy, combined with pride, create the temptation to overcompensate (and involve all sorts of mental gymnastics involving denial, false fungibility of qualities, etc). So-called narcissists function this way which is why having their true character revealed causes such intense rage. It makes public what they feel about themselves, but wish to conceal.
Those who employ the victimhood strategy, specifically, lack the confidence or the ability to effectively bluff strength and will instead turn to manipulative and underhanded strategies like being a "nice guy", making others feel guilty, or trying to arouse feelings of pity in others in order to extract some good they could not, or believe they could not, receive otherwise. True victimhood presupposes injustice and injustice implies restitution and the legitimacy of some proportional degree of anger. Thus, by accepting a victim identity, entitled people rationalize (to themselves) their own chutzpah in making unjust claims of other people and demonizing and retaliating against those who refuse to be exploited by their emotional bullying. (This chutzpah is to be distinguished from boldness; fortune favors the bold, and the bold do not act from a dark place of entitlement, but the optimistic pursuit of opportunity.)
Prizes and rewards are given out for being the biggest victim, so it's natural that people want to out-victim one another for additional resources. Anytime there's resources at stake, people will do what they can to gain them. In Canada it's so perverse that it seems like everyday someone is outed, after gaining a prestigious position, for not having any indigenous heritage at all. But, they used that status to rapidly gain resources over competitors.
This is the problem with favoring equity over equality. Where equality’s aim is to reduce all bias in decision making, equity’s aim is to introduce bias for the benefit of a subset of the population. Naturally, people will vie to be in the population that the equity culture’s bias favors.
Which is sad because natives were massively victimized by the Canadian government. It's not exactly a prize or reward, more like a few peanuts being thrown at them by the government to shut up and bugger off.
Those just seek approval from others. It's one of three undesireable lines of growth: by seeking approval from superiors, by desiring to look better than peers and by desiring to invoke fear. All three can be traced to the early childhood of the individual: those who grew up in fear will learn to see the world thru this lens and so on. The three desireable lines of growth are: by compassion to others, by seeking the truth and by action of self sacrifice (not necesserarily in the literal sense).
I think the idea is that it takes courage / grit to overcome adversity. Some people have faced real adversity. For example, growing up in a gang infested neighborhood, where your social network is mostly criminals and junkies is a serious handicap. Others are just lying to make themselves look better.
Controversial views aside, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged really nailed the victimhood as cover for corruption narrative. The villains are that much more detestable because they're not competent people, they simply prevent others from out competing them through backroom deals, while claiming that it's to help the poor and downtrodden.
Much better resources than Rand are Nietzsche and Scheler (I know Rand draws from the former, per her own admission, but she doesn't have the penetrating intellect of the others). The "slave morality" Nietzsche discusses is precisely this inverted morality founded on ressentiment[0] toward the strong. From the "Genealogy of Morals":
"There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, 'These birds of prey are evil, and does this not give us a right to say that whatever of the opposite of a bird of prey must be good?', there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument - though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzically and say, 'We have nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them; nothing tastes better than a tender lamb."
This particular quote is a bit facetious, I think, because elsewhere Nietzsche is rather disgusted with slave morality as life-denying instead of life-affirming. But even if we disagree with some of Nietzsche's conclusions and characterizations (as fun as he can be to read and as insightful as some of his writings are, he was a bit nuts and some of his criticisms misplaced), we can certainly observe that ressentiment and envy cause people to invert the moral order within themselves, thus paving the way for their own self-destruction.
There's plenty of areas to criticize Rand over (the fact that her rationality based / think for yourself movement became a cult of personality centered around her for example). That's why I tried the "Controversial views aside." In many ways Rand pioneered an effect that Trump would later turn into a strategy: have opponents who are so single-mindedly hateful and spiteful that they make you look better every time they attack you.
It makes it so very tough when Rand's writing could inform or elevate a topic. There's just no way to do so that won't inspire an attempt at a flame war. That said, this particular portion of Atlas Shrugged is perhaps the best illustration of what I referenced in my earlier post:
Ayn Rand is a great critic of Stalinism, which was her formative experience. The current woke culture in the West is somewhere between the Stalinist show trials and the Maoist struggle sessions. That the majority of people don't see that insanity outside of twitter and their local HR department doesn't mean it's not a problem. Especially since 10 years ago it was just something that happened in humanities departments in universities.
> The current woke culture in the West is somewhere between the Stalinist show trials and the Maoist struggle sessions.
Not yet. There's not as much murder yet. There are certianly parallels though. Kafka-trapping is mainstream; if you deny a political charge brought against you, that denial is seen as further evidence of your guilt. If you deny you're an -ist, that 'proves' you're so thoroughly -ist that you can't even perceive it about yourself.
Remember, HR has never been your friend. Even in the purest form of HR uninfected with politics, HR exist to protect the company from the workers. But as you have observed, HR are now becoming political officers charged with enforcing correct political thought.
It's good to be hungry, because you will be well fed. It's bad to be well fed, because you will be hungry. Really? To me it seems like the Beatitudes make victimhood into virtue.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied." Matthew 5:6
This verse isn't talking about physical hunger caused by lack of food. Apparently if you read it in the original greek righteousness and justice are interchangable here. What it's saying is that people who suffer injustice in this life and hunger and thirst for that injustice to be made right will be satisfied.
As an aside from the textual citations, it does seem that there is a theme in the bible which inverts suffering and salvation. This shows up multiple times, with Mortification of the flesh, anchorites, ect.
After all, Jesus dying on the cross is perhaps the most virtuous and aspirational acts.
As it relates to this conversation, it is interesting that the nobility suffering for the sake of others has been simplified to or conflated with simply the nobility of suffering.
It's also interesting to note that in large swaths of modern American Evangelical Christianity suffering is not only to be avoided at all costs, but there's a promise of prosperity (Prosperity Gospel/Charismatic circles - actually a pretty large portion of US Christianity). These teachings seem to be directly at odds with many of these verses.
> Prosperity Gospel [...] These teachings seem to be directly at odds with many of these verses.
Are they? They both follow the form of 'impoverish yourself now to receive rewards later.' Sure, one promises reward in the afterlife and one promises reward in this life, but for those who truly believe the afterlife is just as real as this life, I don't think there's much meaningful difference. To such people, both promised rewards are real and desirable.
And in Luke it says "Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry." So being fortunate in this life will put you off on a bad foot in the next?
Having a bad life is good, having a good life is bad. It's an inversion of common sense to make victimhood a virtue. Of course it plays well to commoners who see themselves as victims in societies with great inequality. It's not surprising to me that Christianity became so popular.
And in James it says: "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you."
I think in both cases (the verse in Luke you mention which I believe is in Mary's Magnificat and this one in James) the idea is that if you were well fed now at the expense of the poor then woe to you - ie. if you exploited the poor so that you could be rich. You can see this theme in the prophets of the Hebrew bible as well. Also, there are wealthy people mentioned in the new testament (contributors to Paul's missions) who are commended for being generous. Wealth in itself isn't condemned, it's hoarding of wealth that's condemned.
Luke also says "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."
So it's bad to be well liked because some of the people who were well liked in the past had wrong beliefs or weren't good people? No sorry, I'd rather be popular. Why can't somebody be popular and good at the same time? Having lots of supportive social connections is good, saying otherwise is serving up cope for people who don't. Of course this plays well for the crowd because most people aren't as well liked as they would wish; Luke says their plight is actually a virtue so they can feel good about not being popular and pity those who are.
Note the part about the false prophets, though (that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets). They would make prophecies about how everything was going to be great so they could be tight with the king at the time. When in fact everything was about to go to shit. So they lied so they could have a good political position.
Being well liked at the expense of truth is often how the world works, but what's being said here is that it doesn't play well in the upside-down kingdom of God where the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
> Being well liked at the expense of truth is kind of how the world works
So there's no way to be well liked unless you tell lies? I don't believe that. I think that's cope for people who aren't well liked to feel morally superior to those who are. It's a form of sour grapes; I didn't want the grapes anyway because they're sour. I didn't want to be popular anyway, because those people are liars.
Before we go runaway with this, I think it's reasonable to also ask: how many people who are displaying victimhood are victims? Maybe people who desire to manipulate others may use victimhood to do so, but are they statistically significant in population to all victims?
For what it's worth, these questions have been asked in the context of women/men and sexual conduct. The pendulum swung from "women are ridiculed for being victims" to "men can't be victims and women are always victims". Research is now coming out that a lot of male victims go unnoticed and quite a few women are misusing the status quo. Now the pendulum threatens to swing back to "women are ridiculed" again.
The question itself only matters if no method exists where the pendulum can be dampened more quickly. Given history, there is reason to believe such a method exists.
Yes, in the context of sexual misconduct what is the percentage of victims who are actually victims? Like if narcissists lying about sexual misconduct is statistically a rounding error, that's really important to know.
This is changing all the time due to the way it is reported, extrapolation, etc. But let's be extreme and pretend half are false. Of the half that are false, only a portion has a narcissist false flagging. All the cases are man on woman.
Now I don't believe the number of false accussations is close to half (yet, anyway), but even if it were, ask yourself:
Would you want to ignore the half of true victims,
Would you utilize an aggressive method (e.g. Duluth model) or utilize a safer method, if you know one exists, and
Does any of this mean woman on man sexual misconduct should be downplayed?
Sure, the actual statistics matter once trade offs come into play. But people are already failing the basic litmus test of answering the questions above. And that's how the pendulum of grief swings on.
I'm not asking about hypotheticals. I want to know any actual studies or even attempts at studies. There's no point in speculating about pendulums or anything if there aren't basic numbers and population sizes to work with. If people are funding research to determine how often narcissists accuse falsely of sexual misconduct I'd be interested to know what percentage of sexual misconduct are false to begin with so I know how to contextualize the study.
Nonvictims who display victimhood are overrepresented in media, government, and the corporate world compared to actual victims, because (almost by definition) they don't face the same barriers of access that actual victims do.
The fact is a lot of people in this comment section will use articles like this to attack all victims which is pretty terrible. It's important to remember dark traid types are a sheer minority of people, so it is not at all likely for example your co-worker bringing up things to HR is a dark-triad person.
As usual, people should trust but verify. If some people are clamoring that today's "mob" doesn't give due process, the important thing is to actually give due process in deed, and not dismiss people's grievances out of hand.
This discussion in the comments involves a lot of talk about “victimhood”, “narcissism”, “privilege”, etc. without a formal definition of these terms.
A lot of the heat in the discussion would disappear if a common definition of these terms were proposed and agreed to. Even more would disappear if those definitions were measurable in some objective sense. Otherwise I find discussions like this devolve into an unnecessary and unpleasant exercise in semantics and a waste of good photons. It seems like a generational malady.
As a side note, I find it is more rhetorically and psychologically powerful to simply describe a disadvantaged situation you (or someone else) are in, rather than adding “and I’m/they are a victim”. When you add the word “victim”, you leave yourself open to bickering about what a “victim” is and how you/they should respond as such, which is distracting from the main point of effectuating change.
Allowing the reader/listener themselves to complete the thought “wow, you/they really got screwed over” in their own mind takes advantage of their natural psychological need for closure. Since the reader/listener themselves will be making that closure, your/their disadvantaged situation will make a more powerful impact on them and the description would be more likely to lead to positive action.
If you are simply looking for an enabler to help feed your psychological need for being perceived as a victim, well, call yourself a “victim” all you want, and good luck in finding someone to complete that folie à deux.
This seems related to David Graeber's idea that money was originally a moral instrument more associated with temples, than a purely secular phenomenon emerging from trade.
To have-been-wronged becomes a fact of accounting.
I think of --
-- sacrifices that people make. Mortifications of the flesh and so on. "Wrong yourself so the universe owes you something."
-- blood money paid in the Islamic and old Germanic worlds.
-- a brokerage account, with assets and liabilities.
-- how much of the New Testament is full of financial metaphors. The rich man accumulates his fortune on earth, but the righteous man accumulates his fortune in heaven.
But then I also think of
-- central bankers, who magic money into existence
-- Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the rest.
Which brings me back to the observation --
-- Bitcoin is structured like a cult, in which you make a sacrifice to join (exchanging money for it, or wasting electricity), after which you then have an incentive for membership in the tribe (ownership of Bitcoin) to confer benefits (i.e., for the price to appreciate faster than other assets).
You really want to be able to say "to hell with it" and escape the game. To stop accumulating karma and live perched up on a cliff face.
Manipulative people will always use whatever is the popular/dominant ideology of their time and location to get any sort of benefit they can. It might be manifested as being the most fervent communist, fascist, pious/religious, or whatever it is the the society at the time holds high and dear. In our times it just happens to be victimhood and social justice things.
Just because a bunch of dark triad types have a propensity for lying about having been victimised, does not mean that most people who say they've been victimised are dark triad types lying about it.
Yes, you should keep in the back of your mind that it's possible that someone who claims to be victimised might not be telling the truth, but your first instinct should be a presumption that they're telling the truth, and to act with compassion as if they are. Especially if you're not familiar with the ways in which they claim to have been victimised - your instincts about how you think that plays out might not be great if you've not actually been through it yourself.
It takes around 1 or 2 years for the current LGBT flag to become outdated until a new minority in the minority wants its own colors and its own letter.
New study, the sky is blue the majority of the time.
Anyone with a "dark personality" will use any means of manipulation they can. This includes playing on people's sympathy.
Slight tangent to the article which is more generic:
The sad fact is things like acceptance of mental health and acknowledgement that sexual assault is far more common than people want to amit, will result in more people claiming these things falsely. Which causes further harm to the people this would help.
Is this related to the problem of teenagers glorifying mental illness? Awareness and tolerance is good, but receiving attention by simply claiming you have it is addictive especially for those who are not getting enough attention e.g. from parents. I wonder if this is orthogonal to the topic or how it starts...
Yes, you are thinking down the correct thread. It gets scarier the further you go. Not because what it implies people are willing to do, but what people can be made to become.
I have never met anyone who doesn't think of themselves as a victim. I include myself. It is almost like a fundamental human trait. I think Dale Carnegies "7 habits" book should have made this concept well known.
Or it causes societal damage already by people taking it too seriously. Like people used to believe that graphology was a serious thing and that using your left hand might cause brain damage. Those things got replaced by psychology
This quote is a bit odd, it could easily be interpreted as a justification for authoritarian rule by entitled criminals:
> "“Fortune and human imperfection assure that at some point in life everyone will experience suffering, disadvantage, or mistreatment,” wrote the authors of the new study. “When this happens, there will be some who face their burdens in silence, treating it as a private matter they must work out for themselves..."
So, if one is a victim of a crime, or repression, or some other injustice, and one makes it a public issue (by, for example, seeking redress in a court of law), one is engaging in 'narcissisim, psychopathy and Machiavellianism'? What does the US Constitution have to say about this?
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Yes there are those who abuse the courts (and the court of public opinion) in the manner the authors describe, but I think the vast majority of cases don't fall into that category.
So what you see in the US political landscape is that there are people who, at least by global standards and even by domestic standards, have incredible privilege who love nothing more than to adopt an oppression aesthetic (eg the Great Replacement [1]).
We also have seen the stratospheric rise of narcisism.
I've wondered if this is a new phenomenon. If so, why now? If not, why was it seemingly less prevalent historically?
Things like "hyper-individualism as a virtue", a core tenet of many modern American cultures, raiise the question: is this because of narcisism or the cause of it? Culturally we seem to celebrate what are (literally) psychopathic behaviors (eg CEOs of large companies).
But here's another thought: maybe the attraction of a sense of oppression is closely related to the human need for a sense of purpose, to be part of something. Organized religion in the West is in decline but it usually provided this structure. It's scary for many to think that everything is just random and when you die, that's it. There's a certain comfort and structure in being part of soemthing, even if that something is (or is construed as) oppression.
I believe this is a strong motivator for the resilience of conspiracy theories.
As for weaponizing victimhood, here's a good rule to live by: from a narcissist, every accusation is a confession. It tends to work in reverse too, meaning if you find someone making really hpocritical and logically inconsistent statements or accusations, which they themselves don't abide by or are guilty of, it tends to be fairly strong evidence of narcissism.
> We also have seen the stratospheric rise of narcisism.
> I've wondered if this is a new phenomenon
Christopher Lasch in the 70s has a very precise answer to your question. Narcissism is the inevitable defense mechanism to navigate a society in which all organization of civic and family life are increasingly bureaucratic, state-governed, and transactional, a defense mechanism in a society in which all models and ideals are mediated by imagery and advertisement.
In such a society, man cannot but end up with a personality that's hesitant to make close bonds of affection or develop personal loyalty. It is inevitable to nurture insecurities about one's own station in life or one's role in the power structure, about one's physical appearance. To thrive in such a society of impersonal bureaucracy and cult of youth, one almost has, by necessity, to be low key manipulative, congenial on the surface, effortless "cool", preoccupied with projection of identity and youthful vigor.
His are two important insights imho: His analysis precedes internet-era, the preconditions are more fundamental than just social media-fueled victim culture. Also, current epidemic of absorption is at its core a survival strategy for a bureaucratic, technisized world; we cannot expect any change unless the relations between labor, family, and state do not fundamentally become less bureaucratic.
The title sounded like a joke at first. But the term “dark personality” is explained inside:
> New research provides evidence that narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism — maladaptive personality traits known as the “Dark Triad” — are associated with overt displays of virtue and victimhood
I feel like the title could also have been: “people with dark personalities suck”
Narcissists have completely invaded and taken over every “safe space” as the predators they are. This has been my going thesis for a while now.
Most humans have natural empathy for each other. There is a natural sense of fairness, desire for equanimity and caring for others that is built in to our social systems. This was recently experimentally shown that all humans share two social traits: a sense of fairness and that unprovoked violence is unjust
Over the last 70-80 years society has made huge strides (though nowhere near "done") in supporting entire classes of people who have been systematically oppressed or otherwise victims of marginalization.
More importantly though, we as a society have decided to give more grace and patience to victims because they need healing and support - something that non-victims and non-protected people don't get because they simply don't need it as much.
Further we have systematically expanded the definition of what a victim looks like. I recall as a child that physical abuse was the only thing we would consider “abuse” but now we know better. Mental and emotional abuse can be as devastating if not more than physical, so we give grace to those who are struggling mentally – and usually in ways that do not present obviously.
As a species, we have righteously determined that it is traumatic, crude and uncouth to interrogate someone on their victim credentials in order to prove they are actual victims. So the barrier to entry for being part of a marginalized group is simply telling your story.
To people who aren't victims, this looks like a power shift but also a "break" from having to be a good person. Specifically there is a sense that political/social power is being systematically transferred from non-protected groups that have traditionally held power, to marginalized or protected classes of people.
Whether the above shift in political power is true or not is irrelevant - as the true nature of who holds power hasn't shifted in any significant way from what I can tell.
Malignant narcissists want to play life on easy and if throwing up a victim card just works then they will lie and do whatever it takes to be part of that group.
So what can a malignant narcissist to do if they aren't truly a victim, that will confer on them the most prized status, that of victim?
The answer is simple: Join a traditionally oppressed community by lying about your experience, exploiting the inclusive nature of the community so you can claim the moral high ground as a victim, usurp the organization for your own ends and continue to keep marginalized people oppressed.
Rachel Dolezal [1] is the poster child of this.
So, how do you spot it?
At least for me, the most obvious cases are when a person from a non-protected class, identifies strongly and loudly as someone from a marginalized or protected group - especially if that marginalization is subtle and/or non-verifiable.
One way that's worked for me in the past is to give in slightly to the person's demands (even by just conceding their point in an argument), and observe how they react. If this cools their rage, then they are expressing sincere pain due to a wrong that has been done to them, and only desire justice in some form. This person has legitimate concerns and deserves support.
If getting their demands met enrages them even more, then by listening to them you are only feeding a fire in their heart that will consume everything if allowed to. You have to stay away from those people.
Emotions cause some noise in this process so you shouldn't rush to judgment.
I call this the difference between "Social Justice Warriors" (shameful that this has become a negative term because being a warrior for social justice describes every great leader) and "Social Grudge Warriors".
Most narcissists thrive on social validation. Virtue signaling is almost always a narcissistic trait. Just observing people or having a conversation with them that involves solving a problem, but not necessarily their way, straight up outs narcissists and their tendencies.
There is another complication here though. I remember from my years as a political activist in college, those years can be quite angry, about everything. It's very easy to fall into the outrage trap, and there's also peer pressure to do so if your other friends are involved.
It's something that _most_ people grow out of and mature and realize that not every slight is intentional and demands wrath and justice. To be clear, I'm not saying they don't have a point, but that sometimes their messaging is very, very aggressive.
My rule of thumb follows yours, but I also make allowances for young people striving to make their mark in ways their peers tell them they should.
>At least for me, the most obvious cases are when a person from a non-protected class
That only works for the very obvious cases. Plenty of 'protected class' individuals exist who in reality live far more privileged than those not in a 'protected class'.
The basis being people are trying to substitute empathy and common sense with catch-all rules. Which in the context of humans has worked out a grand total of 0 times across our entire existence.
>So what can a malignant narcissist to do if they aren't truly a victim, that will confer on them the most prized status, that of victim? The answer is simple: Join a traditionally oppressed community by lying about your experience, exploiting the inclusive nature of the community so you can claim the moral high ground as a victim, usurp the organization for your own ends and continue to keep marginalized people oppressed.
Or they could simply be members of the marginalized group. People in such groups are still human beings, and a certain percentage of all humans are "malignant narcissists." It's simply part of the human experience. You don't need to go to the lengths of looking for people lying about identification to find them.
The issue is they take over and then they hurt the very people trying to be helped.
When I was young, hearing that someone was raped immediately brought to mind an understanding of the heinousness of the crime.
Today I assume it's not true and start asking questions. Do I like having that mindset? No, I obviously don't want anyone to be raped, men and women included.
But at some point I have to protect _MYSELF_ from manipulation, and these people manipulate entirely too often. And the people who are truly hurt by this are the ones who truly need help.
I mean hell, when I see a statistic about rape my first question is to see the questions asked in the poll. Because it turns out, many of the respondents THEMSELVES wouldn't consider their response to imply rape, but it gets labelled as such for the statistics.
Marginalized populations have low social capital (that's what it means to be marginalized), so they will always be more vulnerable to the tyranny of structurelessness, and its attraction for dark-triad personalities. But I think you may be right that the way most so-called "safe spaces" are managed actively exacerbates this issue.
Does that mean these groups are no longer marginalized and should be ignored, because it seems like you can get a lot done by accusing someone of rape or racism.
> As a species, we have righteously determined that it is traumatic, crude and uncouth to interrogate someone on their victim credentials in order to prove they are actual victims. So the barrier to entry for being part of a marginalized group is simply telling your story.
No? If this is a joke it seems like an odd place to put it.
Otherwise you really need to get out more and talk with ordinary folks anywhere in the world, especially in the construction trades, because the vast majority of them don't ascribe to this at all.
This kind of catastrophic virtue signalling spiral simply doesn't occur among large segments of the working population.
Not a joke at all - and I fully agree that those spirals aren't common in regular everyday life because most people aren't dealing with malignant narcissists.
I work with "ordinary folks" everyday and have since forever. With only maybe one or two notable exceptions, if someone shares a personal story of being a victim in a sober way, I've never encountered anything other than sympathetic responses.
Perhaps you are thinking of "suck it up" culture - which is emphatically not what we are discussing here, and is quite different - and one I have almost 20 years of experience with as a former Military Officer and Iraq war veteran.
There is 'suck it up' and 'stiff upper lip' culture which by their nature are suspicious of claims of unusual victimhood. Though that is becoming less common nowadays.
What I was referring to is that among nearly everyone I know of in the trades, I think very few, perhaps zero, would let even the most sober claim of victimhood go unremarked without a 'Really?', 'Uh-huh', upturned eyebrow, etc.
Sure, if the claim doesn't seem too exaggerated or unusually suspicious they may not say anymore on it. That doesn't mean they fully believe the alleged victim.
If it's someone they know to be genuine making the claim then I agree sympathetic responses are the norm, and even then they may still harbour doubts.
But that's the point, they don't easily believe just anyone, nor do they care much about social status advantages, so they almost never get into these signalling games.
The people who appear to easily trust anyone and appear to be sympathetic to every claim, are usually either very naive and sheltered or are very cunning and devious. Very few adults fall in-between.
I understand your perspective but I think it's a bit more cynical than reality actually is.
Consider that Blackstone's ratio is a logical formalism of what I describe above as "giving the benefit of the doubt."
Obviously the world is continuous and not discrete, so stochastic variability still counts and there will be ranges of credulity - however most people are more willing to "buy a story" than they are to be "aggressively incredulous" and as a result that's the perfect place for exploitative people to live.
stoicism is useful to properly function in your life.
For example, I was homeless as a teenager. Should I have just laid down and shown my belly to the world, or stand up on my own two feet and move forward with my life?
It sucks, but at some point people have to be made of sterner stuff or they'll never accomplish anything. That doesn't mean the bad things that happen are ok, or that they shouldn't deal with them, but if you roll over and show your belly every time something bad happens to you then you're depending on other people for your success.
One difference between the "construction trades" and a "victim group" is that the first is setup around something else (working construction, working on a job) and the second is setup around a particular aspect (victim of X).
In the first group, you're often better assuming "default open" (that everyone in the group is a non-narcissist) - in the second group you may need defenders to protect the members (or somehow combine the two types).
> as the true nature of who holds power hasn't shifted in any significant way from what I can tell.
Well, in some sense the big, true power-holders haven't really shifted all that much. You still have an unfortunate amount of Iraq war fanboys in the Federal world. There is still a mess of "old white guy" in business. Only, this isn't a whole, true, and good picture for the Average Joe. To a bottom-status person there is a contiuum of power above.
Now, if a "victim class" makes a stink at work a non-victim is liable to be on the losing end even if the "victim" is a genuine shit-bag. This isn't particularly new to the era, the "Jesse Jackson" victim-grifter class has existed for decades now but much like publishing, the internet has democratized the ability to raise a lynch mob against a target.
EDIT: It would be swell if the down-voter would be forced to provide some semblance of feedback...
I have nothing to contribute but it's nice to see someone can appreciate the positive changes that have been made while also acknowledging the problems that have arisen as a result. Without addressing these, we risk ceding to the reactionaries with their much simpler "solutions."
I don't think it's narcissists for the most part that are abusing victimhood. In most cases, it's just regular people who are taking advantage of people's empathy, but I suspect that they don't even know that they're doing it. When you're used to receiving something unconditionally, you start to treat it as an entitlement.
I watched a documentary about Rachel Dolezal and obviously documentaries have an perspective of their own, but her story didn't seem to be a simple one of narcissism. She seemed genuine in her beliefs.
> To people who aren't victims, this looks like a power shift but also a "break" from having to be a good person. Specifically there is a sense that political/social power is being systematically transferred from non-protected groups that have traditionally held power, to marginalized or protected classes of people. Whether the above shift in political power is true or not is irrelevant - as the true nature of who holds power hasn't shifted in any significant way from what I can tell.
The power hasn't shifted, but the rules for how that power is used have changed. And that has real-world impacts.
To use an example, Joe Biden is an old white guy, like all but one President before him. In that sense the power hasn't shifted. But his administration has created government programs that make benefits available to, e.g., wealthy Indians, but not poor Appalachians: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/sba-cant-priorit.... That's an economically meaningful change in how power is used.
To use another example, universities, film, the media, etc., are still controlled by white people. But those white people openly discriminate in favor of non-whites, creating a powerful incentive to identify as some sort of minority and make that identification a prominent part of one's scholarship.
In my view, America has become minoritarian, in a way that has diverted our attention from the general welfare, and created perverse incentives for members of minority groups. The story from the other day is a great example: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us/sundance-jihad-rehab-m.... We have created a system where a Lebanese-American film maker has every incentive to attack a movie about Muslims made by a white woman, regardless of the movie's merit. We should not be surprised that people respond to those incentives.
Just because bad actors can take advantage of a more expansive idea of privilege and victimhood does not mean it's a bad thing. If anything, it exposes those who take advantage as exactly the type of people the article is talking about. Although some people may successfully use the queer label, or any other label, disingenuously as a shield or a weapon, I'd consider that most of the time those abuses are transparent and draw ire from people who more genuinely align with a stigmatized label. In other words, it's a somewhat self-correcting problem. There will always be people who take advantage. Let's not let them ruin it for the rest of us.
One might also say that it is similar to the phenomenon of people joining the police or aligning themselves with religions to abuse others under the color of “justice” or “god”. That does not invalidate police or religions.
Rather than finger pointing at one particular group or another, it might be more useful to just say that bullies will use any excuse they can to get away with bullying people. And organizations should have mechanisms for identifying and ostracizing those types - which sometimes may be abused by the bullies themselves.
The two are indeed very similar but I don't agree with the idea that there should be no "finger pointing". Of course there should be finger pointing and problems should be identified, no issue is solved without being diagnosed first. Otherwise, avoiding to name and appropriately describe is very usually a way to sweep it under the carpet.
Bully in the sense in someone who gets off on hurting other people; and preferentially targets those who can’t or won’t fight back. I’d say that is pretty spot on here, no? Hiding behind some group or cause is a means of achieving this.
There is of course some sort of power differential involved in the target not being able to respond in kind; however it need only be a tactical advantage — as opposed to a strategic advantage.
Power is different, people are using these movements to wield power, not necessarily to harm others.
Someone with power is going to harm others (for some definition of harm) because wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. But it's often inadvertent, what you're describing is someone who does it on purpose.
This is why it's important to differentiate, if I pay tuition for my children and it takes up slots such that other kids cannot go to that school, I'm wielding some form of monetary power, but my intent is not to harm the ones who end up not being able to go to that school.
Many of these people are after power itself rather than trying to harm others.
> wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else.
I don’t know if I would describe this as power as opposed to Economics? And when we talk about something like economics (the systems by which resources are allocated) I think we are at a level of organization that transcends individuals in the way that bulk materials transcend individual atoms or electrons.
Using your example, you can pay your child’s tuition, but you simply operating with a system you have no real control over. You as an individual are powerless to determine tuition rates, or that there is a financial component in the allocation of seats in the school in the first place.
What I am talking about is individuals who abuse systems to hurt other people. Like the person who willfully misinterprets something you said, or makes up a rumor about you to turn others against you or justify beating you up.
rather than worry about the specific example, try to understand the overarching point.
If I have three cats and 2 hands, 1 of them is naturally not going to get pets. I'm wielding power in the form of that decision, not because I'm egomaniacal and love leaving the 3rd cat out of pets, but because I've chosen to employ both hands to pet two cats.
People chase power. The woke movement is 1 mechanism for doing so (there are others). It doesn't mean all those chasing power using the woke movement are specifically doing it to bully others.
And while YOU may want to limit to bullies, you responded to a post talking about the woke movement in general, my point stays within that context even if you've chosen to go outside that context.
2. Fortitude - the ability to carry out one’s will
Those are two entirely separate things. And it is entirely possible to have one without the other. You may decide one cat deserves all the pets, but he / she may have different ideas and decide to run off and go bat at a fly. This you were the arbiter of justice, but had no power.
Social justice movements are generally concerned with justice. The question of what is fair. Power generally rests in the hands of the state / mob / body politic. Laws mean nothing without some mechanism of enforcement.
Now what the OP article is saying is that malevolent people will often try to abuse social norms to protect themselves from the consequences of their malevolent behaviors. My reply to OP is saying that this is a very human trait and not specific to any particular social movement or social norm. As evidence I give a couple of similar examples that happen in different socio-political contexts.
AKA 'cancel culture' or 'political correctness gone mad'. I would glibly define it as 'high-stakes competitive virtue signaling by expressing empathy or acknowledging historic injustices harder than your rivals'.
A fairly recent form of social movement where, unlike previous historical social forces, the overarching principle is not religious ("the Church said") or ideological ("Communist Manifesto"), but solely based on the subjective feeling of "being offended".
Example: "I am offended, this is non-negotiable, therefore the society must change its dictionary and add 35 pronouns."
Isn't it a bit unfair to paint such a massive group of people with such a harsh generalization? I know plenty of conservatives who don't see anyone as "below" them. That's not to say there aren't conservatives who do this (of course there are inconsiderate jerks among any group that size), but surely you don't think that EVERY conservative is a conservative just because of a hierarchical position attributable to circumstances of birth, none of them achieved anything by their own merit, and that they all view other types of people as "below" them, do you?
Say I'm the comedian and I make jokes about everyone. I'm still a piece of shit if I mock someone's fresh, personal tragedy without checking in with them and ensuring they're open to it. I've come to disagree with the appropriateness of telling jokes about everyone-- there are definitely circumstances where it is totally inappropriate to tell jokes about specific people.
That being said, I'm not trans so idk about whether or not Dave's jokes about trans people was like that. I just wanted to specify that I don't think telling jokes about everyone is appropriate at the lines of other people's tragedies or pain.
I agree that comedy and appropriateness aren't necessarily related. That's why I disagree with the rhetoric about making fun of everyone as if that's an acceptable reason to be hurtful and mean. I'm only responding in the belief that "well he's just making fun of them because he makes fun of everyone" is an extremely weak defense for backlash because not everyone is equally appropriate to mock.
Do you know when a trans joke from a comedian is not transphobic? When it's actually funny.
I didn't laugh once, it felt uninspired and click-baity which made it appear as though he was trying to exclude trans people from being in on the joke that is about them, regardless of whether that was his intention.
The reason I rewatched The Closer is because a new video from Chappelle was released in which he talks about the artistic intent behind his jokes. "Dave Chappelle What's in a Name." I thought "Space Jews" was offensive, but as an artistic concept it's funny.
You know what else is funny? The transgender community has nothing to say about "Space Jews" afaik. In Ricky Gervais' most recent special he told a few transgender jokes, which I thought were not too bad and kind of funny, but then went on to be extremely offensive on other topics. I think his meta joke here is that he would only be criticized for the trans jokes. He was right.
I was more offended by his Space Jews jokes than anything else. I am not Jewish but I think he went too far, but that's what comedians do. Nobody except grandma wants to go see a politically correct comedian.
I think you along with many other people are missing his point. He has a problem with how black people are treated in this country, rightly so, and he has a problem with transgenders who want to say they have suffered more than his community and he is "punching down" on them. Like he said, some transgenders are victims until they need to white, then they call the cops. He signs off the special asking transgender community to stop "punching down" on black people.
He's pretty clear about this but psychopaths will often deliberately misunderstand to make their case.
Yes, because punching on an even smaller minority is a good way to make a point about how black people are treated /s instead of punching up to the majority. In fact, he cares so much about his community, that he is against affordable housing because of course he is a NIMBY [1].
The transgender people (not transgenders), do not claim they have suffered more than his community, that's a strawman. Let's ask black trans people how their community has treated them.
This is a disgusting degree of mental gymnastics to excuse outright reprehensible behaviour.
So the person who claims to care about his own community doesn’t put his money where his mouth is, but gets to joke about a marginalised minority who in their overwhelmingly majority support racial equality (because they themselves are an oppressed minority and overwhelmingly liberal) in the name of defending his community (instead of attacking those who actually do the violence), and that is unrelated to his actions and behaviour because … ?
Clear it up for me, how are his actions congruent with what he claims he does?
I know when kids say they "deserve" anything I try to shut it down because while it may be true in some cases I think to embrace that kind of perspective can be damaging. In my opinion you shouldn't expect anything from the world, you should simply seek to be understood. If people understand your struggles then they most of the time they'll treat you well instinctively. Simply demanding that your understood and that you should be given what you deserve isn't a good way to approach things.
That said, I'll be honest and admit that I 100% weaponise victimhood if I feel I'm being attacked unfairly. When people start accusing me of being x, y or z, then I'll happily twist that back around on them by playing my own victim cards.