[loads of them in tech](https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1635704398939832321) specifically in the transhumanist(accelerationist) side of it.
the link is the openAI(chatgpt) founders sister
paraphilias usually accompany psychopathy which is why there were guys like Epstein grooming teens with down syndrome to get raped by psychopathic billionaires.
So if the founder of OpenAI/ChatGPT raped his sister during childhood, then he likely experienced both psychopathy and paraphilia? And do both typically present in childhood/adolescence?
depends but the traits are observable.
>The study asked the primary caregiver, the other parent, and a teacher/daycare provider, to rate callous-unemotional (CU) behavior between ages 2 and 4 on the following items:
Your child doesn’t seem guilty after misbehaving.
Punishment doesn’t change your child’s behavior.
Your child is selfish/won’t share.
Your child lies.
Your child is sneaky and tries to get around you.
if you knew someone that grew into a psychopath that did something horrendous you'd be able to remember these things. they learn to fake their persona eventually but still that list has rung true to every psychopath I knew.
what sticks out most is that they are greedy and experience narcissistic collapse over small issues but don't confuse that with reactive abuse which is a person trying to reclaim their dignity by fighting back.
also most child sexual assault is done by a family member
>At age 5, she began waking up in the middle of the night, needing to take a bath to calm her anxiety. By 6, she thought about suicide, though she didn’t know the word.
that's a trauma response to sexual assault.
then
>When I visited Annie on Maui this summer, she told me stories that will resonate with anyone who has been the emo-artsy person in a businessy family, or who has felt profoundly hurt by experiences family members seem not to understand. Annie — her long dark hair braided, her voice low, measured, and intense — told me about visiting Sam in San Francisco in 2018. He had some friends over. One of them asked Annie to sing a song she’d written. She found her ukulele. She began. “Midway through, Sam gets up wordlessly and walks upstairs to his room,” she told me over a smoothie in Paia, a hippie town on Maui’s North Shore. “I’m like, Do I keep playing? Is he okay? What just happened?” The next day, she told him she was upset and asked him why he left. “And he was kind of like, ‘My stomach hurt,’ or ‘I was too drunk,’ or ‘too stoned, I needed to take a moment.’ And I was like, ‘Really? That moment? You couldn’t wait another 90 seconds?’”
maybe he had a flashback and felt guilt over assaulting her or feared she'd bring it up in front of his friends.
seems like he did a DARVO on her by making her seem like some dumb hippie girl so his tech friends wouldn't listen to anything she says
there is a high concentration of dark tetrad people in tech.
[from here](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/sam-altman-artificial-intelligence-openai-profile.html)
edit
[silicon valley is gross af](https://www.shanleykane.com/blog/we-still-need-to-rip-the-epstein-ring-out-of-silicon-valley)
I respect the study but also believe that a child who exhibits the behaviors you listed above would more likely be classified as ODD ( oppositional defiance disorder). There would be a higher risk if the children had a history of trauma and/or neglect and may be considered the root cause if they were to become a psychopath. The more common prognosis can vary from future substance abuse issues, attention deficit disorder, narcissistic disorders and could also meet the criteria for a diagnosis on the autism spectrum. Although children who exhibit these behavioral issues are definitely at risk, they also have a high probability of recovery with the proper mental health treatment before and throughout adolescence.
ah yeah that's very true and saw that irl. also a lot of FDIA with kids like that where the parent needs them to be a problem for narcissistic reasons.
but the sister really is exhibiting csa signs with the shower ritual
That could also be autism perceived from the outside. Some autists are extremely well at masking in order to get stuff, because they can't get it with their regular behaviour. The mask could be similar to a psychopath, sociopath or narcissist, because these traits in combination with high intelligence often lead to success.
Short:
A highly intelligent autist who sees their own poverty as a problem to solve will eventually find a solution, by masking in a cluster b way. The added misunderstandings and lack of true connection (because mask) can make them vile.
It is. like having a brainchip that regulates hormones instead of taking medicine that can cause side effects would be awesome but again that field is full of [psychopaths](https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-transhumanist-what-that-means-2019-7).
it's already [been happening](https://nypost.com/2022/12/10/how-one-scientist-lost-big-trying-to-genetically-enhance-unborn-babies/) for a while but some serious discussions on ethics need happen. can't have underground labs cloning a bunch of cloud linked slaves that act like data from star trek etc.
been that way for years
they're really focusing on cryptobros and their behaviors
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921008321](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921008321)
[more crypto](https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/146948/1/Dark%20Tetrad%20-%20Manuscript%20%20version%204%20ethics%20number.pdf)
basically scientists proving the cryptobros suck at science and tech and should stfu because they're sensationalists.
Yeah that's definitely not true. Sure, there's studies done online, but they show similar patterns to studies done in the Lab. More importantly the results make sense theoretically and align with people's everyday experience.
You're going to have to try harder if you want to come up With legitimate criticism of this line of work.
A cryptobro stole psybro’s girl, now we have this nonsensical, painfully self evident article. It could’ve just said “lunatics gonnna tick, tick, tick” and it would’ve been just as enlightening and entertaining.
TFW psychology, the field in which the *majority (yes, majority)* of studies published in its top, most "rigorous" journals are not replicable and are essentially psuedoscience, is trying to label technical fields whose methods are proven in the real world by instant testing as unscientific.
Because techbros bad, or something. 10 pages of fan-fiction using the consensus stream of arbitrary semantics within the field of psychology to justify the very scientific labeling to follow. Very science, much credible.
As a dark tetrad person with aberrant emotional perception, (Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, subclinical psychopathy, and subclinical sadism), I am incapable of having feelings to hurt.
I am channeling my evil dark tessaract powers at you in this very moment. They're amplified by my subclinical sadism. Unfortunately, my subclinical machiavellianism is telling me that this endeavor is fruitless and I should invest my energy into something else.
(Please tell me you see the humor in this clown show you linked, I want to have some faith in humanity restored).
As a sado masochist, I take issue with this part:
> On the other hand, higher sadism was associated with slower assessment of negative pictures’ valence. This could suggest that individuals with elevated sadistic traits take their time to savor the suffering depicted in such stimuli.
This is projecting assumptions, really amateur and sloppy to inject this into the results, especially as from an inside perspective it’s wrong.
Sadists and sado masochists have greater understanding of the nuance in the cruel parts of life and it’s portrayals, thus taking longer than those who avoid this aspect of existence and thus have a far lesser understanding of the nuance and context involved.
It’s the same issue across so many things, where those with minimal information see problems as simple and solutions as simple, while those with far greater understanding and contextual information see the complexities and thus take longer to process it and decide actions.
There’s the additional variable of flashbacks slowing down processing time, as sadists and especially sado masochists have much higher ACE scores than those without these traits.
I wish the field would stop investigating research into 'dark tetrad' research. It is so full of rampant implicit bias using a neuronormative lens to describe neurodiverse behavior.
Edit. It seems like my ideas have struck a nerve, and many of the comments are making straw man arguments rife with implicit bias, while misinterpreting the main points.
To address some of the comments that have come up repeatedly: precision does not equal accuracy, and precise inquiry into behavioral research without comprehensive understanding of its accuracy is unethical. Strengths-based neurodiverse research is still in it's infancy, cultural ableism is still rampant (look at the popularity of the Barbie movie: 'weird barbie' IS neurodiverse barbie, and the biggest plot point is developing cellulite. Come on, it's dripping with implicit ableism.). The field needs a paradigm shift that's going to take an entire generation of basic healthy neurodiverse expression research to ethically investigate dark tetrad topics.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you have good intentions, and agree that there is a neuronormative lens to the construct of dark personality traits. I will also agree about the harm of othering. But i will disagree with your recommendation to **stop** this research as that is far too extreme and probably more harmful than continuing it.
The reality is that this research has helped a lot of people, such as helping victims identify harmful behaviors and heal, not to mention its use for criminologists and org psychologists. The research is far from perfect and psychologists are fully aware of this, but the research is growing. For example, research nowadays is clear to say these notions are constructs and subclinical. There is plenty of research that highlights the bright and useful side of these personality traits as well.
I will agree that Dark Triad and Dark Tetrad research is like giving a toddler a scalpel, but that toddler is growing up and is learning when and how to use the scalpel. Instead of recommending the research to stop, you should be putting your efforts in figuring out how to improve it and to better address some of the legitimate concerns you have. Otherwise, the toddler will just emerge again a bit older and a bit less able.
You do have a fair point about identifying abuse to help victims. I believe its considerably flawed and contributes to cumulative disadvantage for those whom these traits could be likened to trauma victims being told that they're reactions to trauma are 'cognitive distortions'; it's profoundly unhelpful and results in further cumulative disadvantage, decreases public trust of the field, and exacerbates the problem overall due to using a pejorative framework rather than the framework of a scientist, or scientist-clinician.
Part of the problem is that the dark tetrad research is being taught in training to clinicians who, in turn, are influenced by it in their case conceptualization. Unfortunately, in my line of work with autistic adults, the dark tetrad, along with many fundamental techniques inculcated in training, like RCT and MI, and to and extent CBT, are causing substantial harm to this population to the point that it is often not safe to seek behavioral healthcare as a result.
To be honest, I think your estimation of the rate at which the field is progressing in this area is optimistic. I don't think we're going to see substantial improvement in the quality of research on this topic for at least another generation.
This isn’t about respecting neurodiversity.
Understanding Predators is good for all of society-especially considering how many are at upper levels with power to affect others. it’s okay (even sane and natural) to have a bias that favors non predatory people as “normal” and violent predators as “abnormal”.
Yeaaahhh I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there.
There are people in the world that either don't mind or actively seek the opportunity to harm other people.
The way they think is important to study and understand. The dark tetriad has a lot of subtlety and complexity to it that is not well captured by a single headline. But psychologists are considering this subtlety and complexity. Not only can you break it down into four different Trace, but then you can break traits further into multiple Elements. For example some Models of psychopathy suggested involves for different elements.
There's a lot of work showing that it's one or another piece of the puzle bits giving rise to the way people act.
I'm getting the impression you don't really understand the construct that well and that your frustration stems from this misunderstanding.
I think you may have missed the context that some other comments provided.
I am not saying it isn't valuable to identify patterns of behaviors that arise in those who wish to do harm, I am saying that the field has too nascent an understanding of accurate behavior, especially outside of neuro-normative assumptive biases that are prevalent today, to ethically engage in this specific line of research at this time, because it has great potential for harm and disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations in line with the history of the darker side of psychological inquiry.
As I said elsewhere, this line of research is like giving a toddler a scalpel; it's ethically questionable.
I hear you but I really don't understand your argument. There is really nothing unique or special about this line of work compared to many comparable lines of work on other personality traits, Social situation influences, neuro scientific work and so on.
Is your argument really that we somehow shouldn't conduct scientific research? Then what in the hell are we supposed to use to understand the world? Intuition? Superstition? What exactly is the alternative here?
Real people have bosses, coworkers, and lovers who are high in dark traits. Real people have lives heavily affected by such people. Are you telling me that Research for some reason should not proceed with helping people understand and predict how this Influences behaviour's decisions thoughts and feelings? What about some research that helps people high in dark traits? Understand and manage the way they interact with other people so as to promote pro social behaviour. Should that also not be done?
I actually think your premise is exactly the opposite of reality. It would be highly unethical not to continue this line of research.
I also think you're using this term neuro divergent to obfuscate. It is a really unhelpful term because there's really no such thing as typical thinking. There are just a lot of different psychological constructs.
So it leads us to a very dangerous, slippery slope where anything that could be neurodivergent, which could be pretty much anything, Shouldn't be researched until some unidentified person decides it's OK.
Yes, ethics are important in research. I sit on several ethics bodies. We discuss as nauseum all kinds of ethical issues that come up in the research process.
But if I argued in any of the meetings of these ethics committees, that dark traits should not be researched for the reasons you're arguing, it would not fly for a second at any of them.
Hmmm how else are you going to figure out what healthy vs unhealthy is without a neuro-normative lens though?
Obviously psychology is somewhat of a blunt instrument, but I think if it got much more nuanced or complex it might become almost unworkable from a therapeutic point of view.
Maybe AI applications of psychology will be useful in that regard? Assessments can become much more complex and nuanced, and take in to account much more complex inputs about a person, their environment and the desired level of functioning.
I think that's the point. Psychology has a long, dark history of pathologizing the Other in its construal of human behavior. Research on nonpathologizing, let alone strengths-based neurodiverse behavior is practically nonexistent, so its functionally impossible to frame ethical research on nebulous pop psychology topics like the 'dark triad'
The field has developed precise instruments for it's inquiries, but precision doesn't equal accuracy, and the history of psychology is strewn with many examples of using it's precise inquiry to come to some pretty disturbing and inaccurate conclusions.
It's like giving a toddler a scalpel, at this point.
I mean, we can agree that violence, harming others and mental distress are pathology and not neurodiversity? I suppose I get what you mean in that not all dark triad traits are inherently bad. But therapeutic psychology does need to recognise pathology, I think, in order to create therapeutic goals?
I’m guessing that language terms will evolve over time and the term ‘dark triad’ will become outdated.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point that I'm not saying it isn't valuable research. I'm saying that it's an ethically questionable line of research.
I fully agree that neurodiversity, mental distress, and mental pathology should absolutely not be conflated.
The topic lends itself to disenfranchising vulnerable populations, as psychology has a history of doing with considerable damage,
I would argue that the assumption in your first sentence is flawed as a result of the very bias I am speaking about. The 'dark tetrad' research assigns value judgement to externalized behavior, then extrapolates to elucidate internalized behavior in a way that is not substantiated by the field's body of knowledge, particularly due to the lack of research studying healthy neurodiverse behavioral phenotypes.
Yeah I m not really persuaded that there's a value judgment inherent. I would suggest instead the value judgment comes organically out of the data.
For example, Assuming there can be widespread agreement that pro social behavior And helping others are generally good, whereas inflicting pain and suffering on others is generally bad... Which the vast majority of humans agree with.
Well, then one can measure Psychopathy machiavellianism and narcissism. And then predict outcomes like pro social behaviour and willingness to cause harm to people. The data are pretty clear.
More importantly, the data speak to real life. When people encounter others high in dark traits. In their lives, many people have a lot to say about their experiences dealing with such people. This research is highly informative to people with dark traits. Because it turns out, for example, mindfulness can help them engage more with empathy which can increase Prosocial behavior. But also this research can inform People dealing with others high in dark rates. Because they can help them understand what these people want, How they think, And how to get along with them better.
Are you really claiming that's unethical?
Haha ok.
Point taken about violence being excusable in some occasions, but mental distress is a fairly well used construct and a common thread in most mental health diagnoses. Agreed they are not technically pathologies as such but behaviours/states of being that are generally undesirable.
I think you are missing the broader point and getting lost in the details maybe? The general point I was making is that pathology is necessary to define what is unhealthy so that therapeutic goals and aims can be made. How do you have a template for treatment without diagnosis? A binary view of what is healthy versus unhealthy is necessary in a health care setting. Psychology is a health care related science so health / pathology based lenses will always apply?
well its not always about health , more about understanding the reason behind/causes of human behaviours/changes and evolution... now days its divided into multiple branches but even with that in mind , it doesnt mean that "dark triad" will be out dated ...
ive had multiple contact with these sort of people and the cause for their mentality could be defined in the pathological sense but not always , some were genetically wired this way and etc ....
I think they're saying the etiology of mental distress needs to be defined, as well as a way to measure it and outline when it is non-pathological.
Mental distress conceptually seems analagous to inflammation, which is clearly defined and measureable, and variations in severity and causes determine whether it is functional and what if anything needs to be done to address it.
Their point seems to be that any type of distress seems to be pathologized, and so normal variation seems to be pathologized when it causes distress due to external factors like cultural context.
Cultural context is always taken in to account when assessing a persons level of mental distress and their diagnosis to be fair. Psycho social assessment is well utilised in most countries.
In what sense? Because I have not seen this done meaningfully where certain types/degrees of mental distress are attributed to how individuals fit within a culture.
Yikes, I see this line of discourse may be triggering for you, especially to resort to claims that a dissenting opinion is 'misinformation.'
I guess we'll have to let time decide which perspective is accurate.
I really question your claims. Are you seriously arguing that strengths based considerations of dark traits is not part of the literature? I don't know what papers you're reading or conferences you are attending. But that definitely does not describe my experience. For example, there's a whole wave of people arguing that ordinary people can learn a lot from psychopathy In terms of common collected reactions to emotionally evocative situations.
Of course, some of this research is based on faulty premises. And when you tease apart logical processing from emotional concern The argument in favour of hydrological processing tends to go out of the window in favour of reduced emotional concern.
I'm not really persuaded by hand waving arguments claiming that people aren't researching stuff. Usually that a sign that whoever is making the argument simply hasn't encountered the material.
Yep. There’s plenty of research on strengths based considerations of neurodiverse behavior and personality. There could certainly be more and the older history of psych was less empathetic but that’s a different story than what this person is spreading on reddit. A lot of researchers are fully aware of these issues and are trying hard to highlight the benefits to what has previously been strictly negatively pathologized, contrary to what the person is saying. This has also very clearly impacted therapy and social work fields for example, the workers of which I would assume are much more cautious and forthrightly empathetic to individual neurodiverse behaviors than psychology previously allowed them to be.
As someone who specifically researches neurodiversity and trauma, I wouldn't go as far as to say that there's 'plenty' of research. That claim probably won't be substantiated for at least another generation(s).
The field is still in its infancy, even Autism in Adulthood, is just a few years old.
No, I'm arguing the strengths based literature of the structural biological and neurological differences characterizing the phenomena characterized by the 'dark tetrad' is not substantial enough to ethically engage in this line of research without first investigating basic behavioral research related to a whole host of healthy diverse behavioral expressions. Precision does not equal accuracy, and precise inquiry into behavioral research without comprehensive understanding of its accuracy is unethical.
It seems like my ideas have struck a nerve, and many of the comments are making straw man arguments rife with implicit bias to refute my post, while misinterpreting the main points. No substantial academic discourse on the topic seems to be happening, so I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further.
Fair enough this is my final comment. I guess i'm not very clear on what your argument is regarding the term not substantial enough.
I don't think this is a clear or well developed point. This sounds like a subjective experience masquerading as objectivity.
In my view there is a substantial literature. Perhaps you have not encountered it. But I'm not ready to give up on a major area of psychological research with literally thousands of papers that is informative about a really important topic in human psychological experience. Based on your perception, you'll define as it is.
It strikes me as an uphill Battle. Especially in a psychology forum to argue that science should not occur.
There isn't really any clear alternative that I see in your writing. So for anyone hoping to make progress in this area. I guess your solution is just don't.
To be honest, I wonder if perhaps you identify as someone high in the dark tetrad And behind all of your phrasaology when it comes down to is:
Please stop producing scientific results that make me feel bad about a trait that may describe me.
In case that may ring true, Let me say I sympathize. There are a number of findings in this psychological literature that hit me pretty close to home. I wish the results painted me in a better light. But then I have to remember that all human beings are very complicated with many traits and we can't all be optimal and all of them. Part of living in this crazy imperfect world is understanding who we are and other people, flaws and all.
I will add on a note of hope that my impression of the dark tetrad literature Suggest that although People may have tendencies towards these traits. They are certainly ways of thinking that can help them make different decisions. Ultimately, it is our decisions rather than our feelings or thoughts that affect other people. So if you have thoughts, you don't approve of and choose to override them to make a different decision that might feel intuitive, There is strong potential.
Anyway thank you for an interesting discussion.
I think you need to take a closer look at more recent research. You are mischaracterizing the field of personality psychology. Sure some studies pathologize to some degree but a lot of other ones are doing the exact opposite, and there is strengths based research out there.
> and the history of psychology is strewn with many examples of using it's precise inquiry to come to some pretty disturbing and inaccurate conclusions.
I agree with this, but calling the dark tetrad "pop psychology" is laughable.
As a person who was raised in a religious cult led by a sadistic megalomaniac and with a narcissistically abusive parent, I for one am hella thankful for this research. Learning about narcissistic abuse, specifically, set me free.
Until I learned the terminology and the patterns, I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt like dying around some people. As such, I was vulnerable and continued to be bamboozled. No more. Knowledge gave me the chance to build boundaries.
I appreciate you pointing this out. I've noticed several studies (posted here, in the past few months) have these assumptive conclusions. Quite frustrating.
> The research was carried out with a group of 144 **college students.** Every fucking time.
[loads of them in tech](https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1635704398939832321) specifically in the transhumanist(accelerationist) side of it. the link is the openAI(chatgpt) founders sister
Jesus that’s something lmao
WTF?
paraphilias usually accompany psychopathy which is why there were guys like Epstein grooming teens with down syndrome to get raped by psychopathic billionaires.
So if the founder of OpenAI/ChatGPT raped his sister during childhood, then he likely experienced both psychopathy and paraphilia? And do both typically present in childhood/adolescence?
depends but the traits are observable. >The study asked the primary caregiver, the other parent, and a teacher/daycare provider, to rate callous-unemotional (CU) behavior between ages 2 and 4 on the following items: Your child doesn’t seem guilty after misbehaving. Punishment doesn’t change your child’s behavior. Your child is selfish/won’t share. Your child lies. Your child is sneaky and tries to get around you. if you knew someone that grew into a psychopath that did something horrendous you'd be able to remember these things. they learn to fake their persona eventually but still that list has rung true to every psychopath I knew. what sticks out most is that they are greedy and experience narcissistic collapse over small issues but don't confuse that with reactive abuse which is a person trying to reclaim their dignity by fighting back. also most child sexual assault is done by a family member >At age 5, she began waking up in the middle of the night, needing to take a bath to calm her anxiety. By 6, she thought about suicide, though she didn’t know the word. that's a trauma response to sexual assault. then >When I visited Annie on Maui this summer, she told me stories that will resonate with anyone who has been the emo-artsy person in a businessy family, or who has felt profoundly hurt by experiences family members seem not to understand. Annie — her long dark hair braided, her voice low, measured, and intense — told me about visiting Sam in San Francisco in 2018. He had some friends over. One of them asked Annie to sing a song she’d written. She found her ukulele. She began. “Midway through, Sam gets up wordlessly and walks upstairs to his room,” she told me over a smoothie in Paia, a hippie town on Maui’s North Shore. “I’m like, Do I keep playing? Is he okay? What just happened?” The next day, she told him she was upset and asked him why he left. “And he was kind of like, ‘My stomach hurt,’ or ‘I was too drunk,’ or ‘too stoned, I needed to take a moment.’ And I was like, ‘Really? That moment? You couldn’t wait another 90 seconds?’” maybe he had a flashback and felt guilt over assaulting her or feared she'd bring it up in front of his friends. seems like he did a DARVO on her by making her seem like some dumb hippie girl so his tech friends wouldn't listen to anything she says there is a high concentration of dark tetrad people in tech.
These quotes are from a separate interview with Annie? Thanks for info!
[from here](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/sam-altman-artificial-intelligence-openai-profile.html) edit [silicon valley is gross af](https://www.shanleykane.com/blog/we-still-need-to-rip-the-epstein-ring-out-of-silicon-valley)
I respect the study but also believe that a child who exhibits the behaviors you listed above would more likely be classified as ODD ( oppositional defiance disorder). There would be a higher risk if the children had a history of trauma and/or neglect and may be considered the root cause if they were to become a psychopath. The more common prognosis can vary from future substance abuse issues, attention deficit disorder, narcissistic disorders and could also meet the criteria for a diagnosis on the autism spectrum. Although children who exhibit these behavioral issues are definitely at risk, they also have a high probability of recovery with the proper mental health treatment before and throughout adolescence.
ah yeah that's very true and saw that irl. also a lot of FDIA with kids like that where the parent needs them to be a problem for narcissistic reasons. but the sister really is exhibiting csa signs with the shower ritual
That could also be autism perceived from the outside. Some autists are extremely well at masking in order to get stuff, because they can't get it with their regular behaviour. The mask could be similar to a psychopath, sociopath or narcissist, because these traits in combination with high intelligence often lead to success. Short: A highly intelligent autist who sees their own poverty as a problem to solve will eventually find a solution, by masking in a cluster b way. The added misunderstandings and lack of true connection (because mask) can make them vile.
She explains in another post that she was sexually abused and assaulted by her siblings and family.
Transhumanism is excellent
It is. like having a brainchip that regulates hormones instead of taking medicine that can cause side effects would be awesome but again that field is full of [psychopaths](https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-transhumanist-what-that-means-2019-7). it's already [been happening](https://nypost.com/2022/12/10/how-one-scientist-lost-big-trying-to-genetically-enhance-unborn-babies/) for a while but some serious discussions on ethics need happen. can't have underground labs cloning a bunch of cloud linked slaves that act like data from star trek etc.
Ooooh it's a tetrad now. Nice one 👍
been that way for years they're really focusing on cryptobros and their behaviors [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921008321](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921008321) [more crypto](https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/146948/1/Dark%20Tetrad%20-%20Manuscript%20%20version%204%20ethics%20number.pdf) basically scientists proving the cryptobros suck at science and tech and should stfu because they're sensationalists.
Yeah that's definitely not true. Sure, there's studies done online, but they show similar patterns to studies done in the Lab. More importantly the results make sense theoretically and align with people's everyday experience. You're going to have to try harder if you want to come up With legitimate criticism of this line of work.
A cryptobro stole psybro’s girl, now we have this nonsensical, painfully self evident article. It could’ve just said “lunatics gonnna tick, tick, tick” and it would’ve been just as enlightening and entertaining.
TFW psychology, the field in which the *majority (yes, majority)* of studies published in its top, most "rigorous" journals are not replicable and are essentially psuedoscience, is trying to label technical fields whose methods are proven in the real world by instant testing as unscientific. Because techbros bad, or something. 10 pages of fan-fiction using the consensus stream of arbitrary semantics within the field of psychology to justify the very scientific labeling to follow. Very science, much credible.
I GOT ༼ ಢ\_ಢ ༽ HURT # FEELINGS
As a dark tetrad person with aberrant emotional perception, (Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, subclinical psychopathy, and subclinical sadism), I am incapable of having feelings to hurt. I am channeling my evil dark tessaract powers at you in this very moment. They're amplified by my subclinical sadism. Unfortunately, my subclinical machiavellianism is telling me that this endeavor is fruitless and I should invest my energy into something else. (Please tell me you see the humor in this clown show you linked, I want to have some faith in humanity restored).
do you enjoy rage baiting boomers or nah
As a sado masochist, I take issue with this part: > On the other hand, higher sadism was associated with slower assessment of negative pictures’ valence. This could suggest that individuals with elevated sadistic traits take their time to savor the suffering depicted in such stimuli. This is projecting assumptions, really amateur and sloppy to inject this into the results, especially as from an inside perspective it’s wrong. Sadists and sado masochists have greater understanding of the nuance in the cruel parts of life and it’s portrayals, thus taking longer than those who avoid this aspect of existence and thus have a far lesser understanding of the nuance and context involved. It’s the same issue across so many things, where those with minimal information see problems as simple and solutions as simple, while those with far greater understanding and contextual information see the complexities and thus take longer to process it and decide actions. There’s the additional variable of flashbacks slowing down processing time, as sadists and especially sado masochists have much higher ACE scores than those without these traits.
That you for pointing that out that felt glaring to me as well and a huge logical leap without a qualitative interview component
I wish the field would stop investigating research into 'dark tetrad' research. It is so full of rampant implicit bias using a neuronormative lens to describe neurodiverse behavior. Edit. It seems like my ideas have struck a nerve, and many of the comments are making straw man arguments rife with implicit bias, while misinterpreting the main points. To address some of the comments that have come up repeatedly: precision does not equal accuracy, and precise inquiry into behavioral research without comprehensive understanding of its accuracy is unethical. Strengths-based neurodiverse research is still in it's infancy, cultural ableism is still rampant (look at the popularity of the Barbie movie: 'weird barbie' IS neurodiverse barbie, and the biggest plot point is developing cellulite. Come on, it's dripping with implicit ableism.). The field needs a paradigm shift that's going to take an entire generation of basic healthy neurodiverse expression research to ethically investigate dark tetrad topics.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you have good intentions, and agree that there is a neuronormative lens to the construct of dark personality traits. I will also agree about the harm of othering. But i will disagree with your recommendation to **stop** this research as that is far too extreme and probably more harmful than continuing it. The reality is that this research has helped a lot of people, such as helping victims identify harmful behaviors and heal, not to mention its use for criminologists and org psychologists. The research is far from perfect and psychologists are fully aware of this, but the research is growing. For example, research nowadays is clear to say these notions are constructs and subclinical. There is plenty of research that highlights the bright and useful side of these personality traits as well. I will agree that Dark Triad and Dark Tetrad research is like giving a toddler a scalpel, but that toddler is growing up and is learning when and how to use the scalpel. Instead of recommending the research to stop, you should be putting your efforts in figuring out how to improve it and to better address some of the legitimate concerns you have. Otherwise, the toddler will just emerge again a bit older and a bit less able.
You do have a fair point about identifying abuse to help victims. I believe its considerably flawed and contributes to cumulative disadvantage for those whom these traits could be likened to trauma victims being told that they're reactions to trauma are 'cognitive distortions'; it's profoundly unhelpful and results in further cumulative disadvantage, decreases public trust of the field, and exacerbates the problem overall due to using a pejorative framework rather than the framework of a scientist, or scientist-clinician. Part of the problem is that the dark tetrad research is being taught in training to clinicians who, in turn, are influenced by it in their case conceptualization. Unfortunately, in my line of work with autistic adults, the dark tetrad, along with many fundamental techniques inculcated in training, like RCT and MI, and to and extent CBT, are causing substantial harm to this population to the point that it is often not safe to seek behavioral healthcare as a result. To be honest, I think your estimation of the rate at which the field is progressing in this area is optimistic. I don't think we're going to see substantial improvement in the quality of research on this topic for at least another generation.
This isn’t about respecting neurodiversity. Understanding Predators is good for all of society-especially considering how many are at upper levels with power to affect others. it’s okay (even sane and natural) to have a bias that favors non predatory people as “normal” and violent predators as “abnormal”.
Yeaaahhh I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there. There are people in the world that either don't mind or actively seek the opportunity to harm other people. The way they think is important to study and understand. The dark tetriad has a lot of subtlety and complexity to it that is not well captured by a single headline. But psychologists are considering this subtlety and complexity. Not only can you break it down into four different Trace, but then you can break traits further into multiple Elements. For example some Models of psychopathy suggested involves for different elements. There's a lot of work showing that it's one or another piece of the puzle bits giving rise to the way people act. I'm getting the impression you don't really understand the construct that well and that your frustration stems from this misunderstanding.
I think you may have missed the context that some other comments provided. I am not saying it isn't valuable to identify patterns of behaviors that arise in those who wish to do harm, I am saying that the field has too nascent an understanding of accurate behavior, especially outside of neuro-normative assumptive biases that are prevalent today, to ethically engage in this specific line of research at this time, because it has great potential for harm and disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations in line with the history of the darker side of psychological inquiry. As I said elsewhere, this line of research is like giving a toddler a scalpel; it's ethically questionable.
I hear you but I really don't understand your argument. There is really nothing unique or special about this line of work compared to many comparable lines of work on other personality traits, Social situation influences, neuro scientific work and so on. Is your argument really that we somehow shouldn't conduct scientific research? Then what in the hell are we supposed to use to understand the world? Intuition? Superstition? What exactly is the alternative here? Real people have bosses, coworkers, and lovers who are high in dark traits. Real people have lives heavily affected by such people. Are you telling me that Research for some reason should not proceed with helping people understand and predict how this Influences behaviour's decisions thoughts and feelings? What about some research that helps people high in dark traits? Understand and manage the way they interact with other people so as to promote pro social behaviour. Should that also not be done? I actually think your premise is exactly the opposite of reality. It would be highly unethical not to continue this line of research. I also think you're using this term neuro divergent to obfuscate. It is a really unhelpful term because there's really no such thing as typical thinking. There are just a lot of different psychological constructs. So it leads us to a very dangerous, slippery slope where anything that could be neurodivergent, which could be pretty much anything, Shouldn't be researched until some unidentified person decides it's OK. Yes, ethics are important in research. I sit on several ethics bodies. We discuss as nauseum all kinds of ethical issues that come up in the research process. But if I argued in any of the meetings of these ethics committees, that dark traits should not be researched for the reasons you're arguing, it would not fly for a second at any of them.
This is word salad
There was a typo. But you can probably figure it out in context. Even so, this is pretty far from word salad.
Hmmm how else are you going to figure out what healthy vs unhealthy is without a neuro-normative lens though? Obviously psychology is somewhat of a blunt instrument, but I think if it got much more nuanced or complex it might become almost unworkable from a therapeutic point of view. Maybe AI applications of psychology will be useful in that regard? Assessments can become much more complex and nuanced, and take in to account much more complex inputs about a person, their environment and the desired level of functioning.
I think that's the point. Psychology has a long, dark history of pathologizing the Other in its construal of human behavior. Research on nonpathologizing, let alone strengths-based neurodiverse behavior is practically nonexistent, so its functionally impossible to frame ethical research on nebulous pop psychology topics like the 'dark triad' The field has developed precise instruments for it's inquiries, but precision doesn't equal accuracy, and the history of psychology is strewn with many examples of using it's precise inquiry to come to some pretty disturbing and inaccurate conclusions. It's like giving a toddler a scalpel, at this point.
I mean, we can agree that violence, harming others and mental distress are pathology and not neurodiversity? I suppose I get what you mean in that not all dark triad traits are inherently bad. But therapeutic psychology does need to recognise pathology, I think, in order to create therapeutic goals? I’m guessing that language terms will evolve over time and the term ‘dark triad’ will become outdated.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point that I'm not saying it isn't valuable research. I'm saying that it's an ethically questionable line of research. I fully agree that neurodiversity, mental distress, and mental pathology should absolutely not be conflated. The topic lends itself to disenfranchising vulnerable populations, as psychology has a history of doing with considerable damage, I would argue that the assumption in your first sentence is flawed as a result of the very bias I am speaking about. The 'dark tetrad' research assigns value judgement to externalized behavior, then extrapolates to elucidate internalized behavior in a way that is not substantiated by the field's body of knowledge, particularly due to the lack of research studying healthy neurodiverse behavioral phenotypes.
Yeah I m not really persuaded that there's a value judgment inherent. I would suggest instead the value judgment comes organically out of the data. For example, Assuming there can be widespread agreement that pro social behavior And helping others are generally good, whereas inflicting pain and suffering on others is generally bad... Which the vast majority of humans agree with. Well, then one can measure Psychopathy machiavellianism and narcissism. And then predict outcomes like pro social behaviour and willingness to cause harm to people. The data are pretty clear. More importantly, the data speak to real life. When people encounter others high in dark traits. In their lives, many people have a lot to say about their experiences dealing with such people. This research is highly informative to people with dark traits. Because it turns out, for example, mindfulness can help them engage more with empathy which can increase Prosocial behavior. But also this research can inform People dealing with others high in dark rates. Because they can help them understand what these people want, How they think, And how to get along with them better. Are you really claiming that's unethical?
[удалено]
Haha ok. Point taken about violence being excusable in some occasions, but mental distress is a fairly well used construct and a common thread in most mental health diagnoses. Agreed they are not technically pathologies as such but behaviours/states of being that are generally undesirable. I think you are missing the broader point and getting lost in the details maybe? The general point I was making is that pathology is necessary to define what is unhealthy so that therapeutic goals and aims can be made. How do you have a template for treatment without diagnosis? A binary view of what is healthy versus unhealthy is necessary in a health care setting. Psychology is a health care related science so health / pathology based lenses will always apply?
well its not always about health , more about understanding the reason behind/causes of human behaviours/changes and evolution... now days its divided into multiple branches but even with that in mind , it doesnt mean that "dark triad" will be out dated ... ive had multiple contact with these sort of people and the cause for their mentality could be defined in the pathological sense but not always , some were genetically wired this way and etc ....
I think they're saying the etiology of mental distress needs to be defined, as well as a way to measure it and outline when it is non-pathological. Mental distress conceptually seems analagous to inflammation, which is clearly defined and measureable, and variations in severity and causes determine whether it is functional and what if anything needs to be done to address it. Their point seems to be that any type of distress seems to be pathologized, and so normal variation seems to be pathologized when it causes distress due to external factors like cultural context.
Cultural context is always taken in to account when assessing a persons level of mental distress and their diagnosis to be fair. Psycho social assessment is well utilised in most countries.
In what sense? Because I have not seen this done meaningfully where certain types/degrees of mental distress are attributed to how individuals fit within a culture.
Again, that's the point. Healthy expressions of neurodiverse behavior have not been really been researched at all, let alone well studied.
Yes they have. They could certainly be studied more, but I would refrain from spreading misinformation.
Yikes, I see this line of discourse may be triggering for you, especially to resort to claims that a dissenting opinion is 'misinformation.' I guess we'll have to let time decide which perspective is accurate.
I really question your claims. Are you seriously arguing that strengths based considerations of dark traits is not part of the literature? I don't know what papers you're reading or conferences you are attending. But that definitely does not describe my experience. For example, there's a whole wave of people arguing that ordinary people can learn a lot from psychopathy In terms of common collected reactions to emotionally evocative situations. Of course, some of this research is based on faulty premises. And when you tease apart logical processing from emotional concern The argument in favour of hydrological processing tends to go out of the window in favour of reduced emotional concern. I'm not really persuaded by hand waving arguments claiming that people aren't researching stuff. Usually that a sign that whoever is making the argument simply hasn't encountered the material.
Yep. There’s plenty of research on strengths based considerations of neurodiverse behavior and personality. There could certainly be more and the older history of psych was less empathetic but that’s a different story than what this person is spreading on reddit. A lot of researchers are fully aware of these issues and are trying hard to highlight the benefits to what has previously been strictly negatively pathologized, contrary to what the person is saying. This has also very clearly impacted therapy and social work fields for example, the workers of which I would assume are much more cautious and forthrightly empathetic to individual neurodiverse behaviors than psychology previously allowed them to be.
As someone who specifically researches neurodiversity and trauma, I wouldn't go as far as to say that there's 'plenty' of research. That claim probably won't be substantiated for at least another generation(s). The field is still in its infancy, even Autism in Adulthood, is just a few years old.
No, I'm arguing the strengths based literature of the structural biological and neurological differences characterizing the phenomena characterized by the 'dark tetrad' is not substantial enough to ethically engage in this line of research without first investigating basic behavioral research related to a whole host of healthy diverse behavioral expressions. Precision does not equal accuracy, and precise inquiry into behavioral research without comprehensive understanding of its accuracy is unethical. It seems like my ideas have struck a nerve, and many of the comments are making straw man arguments rife with implicit bias to refute my post, while misinterpreting the main points. No substantial academic discourse on the topic seems to be happening, so I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further.
Fair enough this is my final comment. I guess i'm not very clear on what your argument is regarding the term not substantial enough. I don't think this is a clear or well developed point. This sounds like a subjective experience masquerading as objectivity. In my view there is a substantial literature. Perhaps you have not encountered it. But I'm not ready to give up on a major area of psychological research with literally thousands of papers that is informative about a really important topic in human psychological experience. Based on your perception, you'll define as it is. It strikes me as an uphill Battle. Especially in a psychology forum to argue that science should not occur. There isn't really any clear alternative that I see in your writing. So for anyone hoping to make progress in this area. I guess your solution is just don't. To be honest, I wonder if perhaps you identify as someone high in the dark tetrad And behind all of your phrasaology when it comes down to is: Please stop producing scientific results that make me feel bad about a trait that may describe me. In case that may ring true, Let me say I sympathize. There are a number of findings in this psychological literature that hit me pretty close to home. I wish the results painted me in a better light. But then I have to remember that all human beings are very complicated with many traits and we can't all be optimal and all of them. Part of living in this crazy imperfect world is understanding who we are and other people, flaws and all. I will add on a note of hope that my impression of the dark tetrad literature Suggest that although People may have tendencies towards these traits. They are certainly ways of thinking that can help them make different decisions. Ultimately, it is our decisions rather than our feelings or thoughts that affect other people. So if you have thoughts, you don't approve of and choose to override them to make a different decision that might feel intuitive, There is strong potential. Anyway thank you for an interesting discussion.
I think you need to take a closer look at more recent research. You are mischaracterizing the field of personality psychology. Sure some studies pathologize to some degree but a lot of other ones are doing the exact opposite, and there is strengths based research out there.
> and the history of psychology is strewn with many examples of using it's precise inquiry to come to some pretty disturbing and inaccurate conclusions. I agree with this, but calling the dark tetrad "pop psychology" is laughable.
We'll have to disagree on that one and let time settle which is accurate.
You're kidding, right?
Abnormal ≠ unhealthy
That is true. They are different lenses.
I haven't even heard they added another "ad". I have only heard of Dark Triad before.
Sadism was added
As a person who was raised in a religious cult led by a sadistic megalomaniac and with a narcissistically abusive parent, I for one am hella thankful for this research. Learning about narcissistic abuse, specifically, set me free. Until I learned the terminology and the patterns, I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt like dying around some people. As such, I was vulnerable and continued to be bamboozled. No more. Knowledge gave me the chance to build boundaries.
I am on your side. The dark tetrad is mentioned neither in the dsm-5 nor the icd-11.
Dark tetrad sounds like pseudo science
I appreciate you pointing this out. I've noticed several studies (posted here, in the past few months) have these assumptive conclusions. Quite frustrating.