Maybe we should talk about “defective personalities” or “weak personalities” or “malformed personalities” or something else that sounds less cool to some people than “dark personalities.”
It is true many people love a murder mystery, especially one featuring a seemingly incorrigible protagonist. It’s also true that people are drawn to seemingly charismatic leaders who seem convinced of their own glory, often using this outward charm to advance their own nefarious ends. But these aren’t reasons, the VCU-led research team says, for psychology to dignify the dark triad concept with an attention-grabbing label.
Unbelievably, titles of published articles in the psychology literature will often adopt wording that seems more appropriate for a TV show or horror film: “The Making of Darth Vader…”, “Creatures of the Night,” and “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.”
I think the psychology community is probably mistaken, outdated, or out of touch on the “stigmatizing” point. The TESCREAL assholes love to think of themselves as “dark triad” or “dark personality,” they fantasize about bringing about a “dark enlightenment.” “Dark” isn’t stigmatizing, it’s cool. It’s sensational. For that reason, I think it would be great to have a different term. One that wasn’t cool.
(A little aside here: You think the psychologists should be trusted to choose the most appropriate terms, yes? Where did the current “dark” terminology, which is apparently so problematic, come from? I don’t actually know the answer. Do you?)
So my suggestion was specifically to find a term that wasn’t cool like “dark” is. My focus wasn’t on avoiding stigma, because I don’t care if the sorts of people who would be happy to put me and my family in a concentration camp felt stigmatized. But hey, if you want to stick up for their feelings and dignity, you go ahead. You’re still free to do that. You will always be free to stick up for them.
So you don’t like “defective.” Okay. Maybe “antagonistic” would work.
I am very smart, and frankly, anyone who says my idea is obviously fucking stupid is contradicting the psychology community
The contrast you think you see is there because you’re not absorbing my point. Maybe that’s partly my fault. I think it’s partly your fault, though. You’ve charged into this with a chip on your shoulder.
whose opinions on this I’m literally just now glancing at
Yup! Is that a scientific argument, though? Should it matter if I’m an expert or not?
Maybe we should talk about “defective personalities” or “weak personalities” or “malformed personalities” or something else that sounds less cool to some people than “dark personalities.”
‘Power Tripping Bastard/Bitch’
‘Fascist Personality Disorder’
‘Manipulative Egomaniacal Bully’
‘Malignant Sociopath’
Sounds like my kind of anarcho punk band.
Removed by mod
Okay but it says:
And this is exactly what I’m suggesting, even if I’m approaching from another angle.
Here’s more:
4 Reasons to Ditch the “Dark Triad” Label
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I honestly don’t understand how you think that’s any kind of parallel.
I think “dark” is a problematic word, it’s sensational and attractive to exactly the wrong people, I think we should use another term.
As you point out, the psychology community has been contemplating a similar conclusion. Starting before me, I wager.
Somehow, this makes me a moron, though.
Removed by mod
I think the psychology community is probably mistaken, outdated, or out of touch on the “stigmatizing” point. The TESCREAL assholes love to think of themselves as “dark triad” or “dark personality,” they fantasize about bringing about a “dark enlightenment.” “Dark” isn’t stigmatizing, it’s cool. It’s sensational. For that reason, I think it would be great to have a different term. One that wasn’t cool.
(A little aside here: You think the psychologists should be trusted to choose the most appropriate terms, yes? Where did the current “dark” terminology, which is apparently so problematic, come from? I don’t actually know the answer. Do you?)
So my suggestion was specifically to find a term that wasn’t cool like “dark” is. My focus wasn’t on avoiding stigma, because I don’t care if the sorts of people who would be happy to put me and my family in a concentration camp felt stigmatized. But hey, if you want to stick up for their feelings and dignity, you go ahead. You’re still free to do that. You will always be free to stick up for them.
So you don’t like “defective.” Okay. Maybe “antagonistic” would work.
The contrast you think you see is there because you’re not absorbing my point. Maybe that’s partly my fault. I think it’s partly your fault, though. You’ve charged into this with a chip on your shoulder.
Yup! Is that a scientific argument, though? Should it matter if I’m an expert or not?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is a dangerous path to go down.