Maybe we should just trust the psychology community to decide what terminology they use and not act like we know better. If anything, some psychologists consider the current terminology too stigmatizing and sensationalistic to the point of being counterproductive.
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.”
“Look, I’m also suggesting we change course. I just happen to be suggesting we drive over a cliff, but the core idea is the same.”
I’m very, very glad that people vastly smarter than you are the ones with actual influence over this. Jesus christ.
Edit: Oh, I thought you might’ve actually been joking for a second. If you seriously think “defective personalities” is a less sensationalist alternative, then boy, whatever’s left of your brain must be dripping out of your ear like melted candlewax.
What you completely and deliberately remove from that article is that the subheader reads:
Calling the dark triad “antagonistic” may increase accuracy and decrease stigma.
If you seriously think “defective personalities” is a less sensationalist alternative, then boy, whatever’s left of your brain must be dripping out of your ear like melted candlewax.
Is there a name for the kind of personality that hurls uncalled for insults as a first resort?
> Literally advocating to systematically call other human beings “defective”.
> “Waaaah. The meanie on the Internet pointed out that I’m acting like an utter moron and abusing the credibility of actual psychologists to make it look like my suggestions weren’t absurd.”
“This dark core encompasses several well-known traits, including narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism.”
Reading this, some sort of mental deficiancy seems to be at aand tho and should be pointed out, to establish that These are not normal traits that benefit humanity, in fact are dooming it.
Yeah, I’ll still let the actual psychological experts sort this one out instead of people literally just learning what the “dark triad/tetrad” is this actual second, please and thank you.
Actually, I have no idea where you got that quote from, and a search returns nothing. Did you pull that from an LLM-generated summary?
Oh, sorry, I see now you were pulling from the dogshit source in the OP, not one of the two articles linked in this discussion – and that the article in the OP was apparently too new to be properly indexed by DDG for substring searching. That said, the fact you’re calling me the “mental deficiancy [sic] man” is pretty funny. Maybe learn how to spell “deficiency” first, you clown.
As you point out, the psychology community has been contemplating a similar conclusion.
The psychology community: “It’s inaccurate, sensationalistic, and stigmatizing.”
You: “Haha, yes, I agree. Let’s call human beings ‘defective’ instead. No stigma or sensationalism there. Nuh uh. I am very smart, and frankly, anyone who says my idea is obviously fucking stupid is contradicting the psychology community (whose opinions on this I’m literally just now glancing at).”
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?
I think the psychology community is probably mistaken, outdated, or out of touch on the “stigmatizing” point.
Okay, good for you. You clearly know literally nothing about the field and are pretending to know more than experts you’re simultaneously abusing as a shield, but good for you.
Where did the current “dark” terminology, which is apparently so problematic, come from?
It’s not “so” problematic. It could stand to be more accurate, less stigmatizing, and less sensationalist, but it’s not a major problem, and people within the psychology community are aware of it and are advocating for thoughtful change – not whatever spaghetti-at-the-wall trash you’re doing. And 2) shit, you’re right. I forgot the fact that scientific fields have made mistakes in the past means that we need to listen to outsiders who have no fucking idea what they’re talking about. That talking point has worked out so well in other fields. After all, science is a LIAR… sometimes.
So you don’t like “defective.”
The fact you even suggested it in the first place shows you lack even a bare minimum understanding of what you’re talking about and are in no position to be critiquing the field of psychology. Again, what you did here is the equivalent of suggesting someone drive off a cliff when you think they’re going the wrong way.
You cherrypicked “sensationalized”, somehow offered something more sensationalized anyway, and then totally ignored “stigmatizing” and “inaccurate”. When pressed on “stigmatizing”, you just decided that the psychologists you’re abusing as a shield for your moronic ideas – who would laugh in your face if they saw how you’re warping their ideas – actually don’t know what they’re talking about.
You clearly know literally nothing … The fact you even suggested it in the first place shows you lack even a bare minimum understanding
You’ve written so much abuse, without explaining a darn thing.
whatever spaghetti-at-the-wall trash you’re doing
Yeah, an anonymous internet message board is a pretty irresponsible place to throw spaghetti at the wall, I guess. Seeing as how the entire APA board is refreshing this very thread feverishly. I guess I better find a mop, huh?
You cherrypicked “sensationalized”, somehow offered something more sensationalized anyway,
No no, I did it the other way around. I started with the spaghetti-at-the-wall trash, and then I discovered the resources you so kindly provided supported my point pretty much exactly.
“Let’s make the terminology somehow much worse. And I’m going to abuse what you provided showing that my suggestions were pointing in the wrong direction to claim that, actually, psychologists totally agree with me – because we both want change, see?”
You can say there should be change. What you can’t do is come up with stupid-as-fuck alternatives and then hide behind actual experts and claim they’re saying basically the same thing (edit: but of course only the parts you personally like; throw everything else in the trash). You can’t say the soup lacks flavor, suggest putting in antifreeze, and then say you were basically on the right track because a chef said the soup lacks flavor and suggested adding jalapeño.
Maybe we should just trust the psychology community to decide what terminology they use and not act like we know better. If anything, some psychologists consider the current terminology too stigmatizing and sensationalistic to the point of being counterproductive.
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
“Look, I’m also suggesting we change course. I just happen to be suggesting we drive over a cliff, but the core idea is the same.”
I’m very, very glad that people vastly smarter than you are the ones with actual influence over this. Jesus christ.
Edit: Oh, I thought you might’ve actually been joking for a second. If you seriously think “defective personalities” is a less sensationalist alternative, then boy, whatever’s left of your brain must be dripping out of your ear like melted candlewax.
What you completely and deliberately remove from that article is that the subheader reads:
Is there a name for the kind of personality that hurls uncalled for insults as a first resort?
> Literally advocating to systematically call other human beings “defective”.
> “Waaaah. The meanie on the Internet pointed out that I’m acting like an utter moron and abusing the credibility of actual psychologists to make it look like my suggestions weren’t absurd.”
“This dark core encompasses several well-known traits, including narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism.”
Reading this, some sort of mental deficiancy seems to be at aand tho and should be pointed out, to establish that These are not normal traits that benefit humanity, in fact are dooming it.
Yeah, I’ll still let the actual psychological experts sort this one out instead of people literally just learning what the “dark triad/tetrad” is this actual second, please and thank you.
Actually, I have no idea where you got that quote from, and a search returns nothing. Did you pull that from an LLM-generated summary?
Is the mental deficiancy man too stupid for Ctrl+f?
You can rely on expert authority, i use my right as free human to shape society to benefit humanity
Oh, sorry, I see now you were pulling from the dogshit source in the OP, not one of the two articles linked in this discussion – and that the article in the OP was apparently too new to be properly indexed by DDG for substring searching. That said, the fact you’re calling me the “mental deficiancy [sic] man” is pretty funny. Maybe learn how to spell “deficiency” first, you clown.
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.
The psychology community: “It’s inaccurate, sensationalistic, and stigmatizing.”
You: “Haha, yes, I agree. Let’s call human beings ‘defective’ instead. No stigma or sensationalism there. Nuh uh. I am very smart, and frankly, anyone who says my idea is obviously fucking stupid is contradicting the psychology community (whose opinions on this I’m literally just now glancing at).”
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?
Okay, good for you. You clearly know literally nothing about the field and are pretending to know more than experts you’re simultaneously abusing as a shield, but good for you.
The fact you even suggested it in the first place shows you lack even a bare minimum understanding of what you’re talking about and are in no position to be critiquing the field of psychology. Again, what you did here is the equivalent of suggesting someone drive off a cliff when you think they’re going the wrong way.
You cherrypicked “sensationalized”, somehow offered something more sensationalized anyway, and then totally ignored “stigmatizing” and “inaccurate”. When pressed on “stigmatizing”, you just decided that the psychologists you’re abusing as a shield for your moronic ideas – who would laugh in your face if they saw how you’re warping their ideas – actually don’t know what they’re talking about.
You’ve written so much abuse, without explaining a darn thing.
Yeah, an anonymous internet message board is a pretty irresponsible place to throw spaghetti at the wall, I guess. Seeing as how the entire APA board is refreshing this very thread feverishly. I guess I better find a mop, huh?
No no, I did it the other way around. I started with the spaghetti-at-the-wall trash, and then I discovered the resources you so kindly provided supported my point pretty much exactly.
“Let’s make the terminology somehow much worse. And I’m going to abuse what you provided showing that my suggestions were pointing in the wrong direction to claim that, actually, psychologists totally agree with me – because we both want change, see?”
You can say there should be change. What you can’t do is come up with stupid-as-fuck alternatives and then hide behind actual experts and claim they’re saying basically the same thing (edit: but of course only the parts you personally like; throw everything else in the trash). You can’t say the soup lacks flavor, suggest putting in antifreeze, and then say you were basically on the right track because a chef said the soup lacks flavor and suggested adding jalapeño.