The Dark Triad and conservatism

[Ninjahedge]

Atreus, they are.

Holding someone suspected with no proof, being in favor of killing anybody, and trying to prevent people from doing something that has absolutely no bearing or effect on your own life are not examples of a healthy magnanimous personality.

 

[Atreus21]

Atreus, they are.

Holding someone suspected with no proof, being in favor of killing anybody, and trying to prevent people from doing something that has absolutely no bearing or effect on your own life are not examples of a healthy magnanimous personality.

That is entirely a matter of opinion, and in your case you're misrepresenting the motivations of your opponent.

There are cases where killing people is justifiable.
There are cases for holding people on suspicion and not proof.
There are cases for preventing people from doing things that have no bearing on your own life, on the basis that it's bad for society as a whole.

 

[Ninjahedge]

No, you are still reading it wrong. They are not talking about morality or other appellations. Killing someone, no matter HOW you justify it, is still a destructive antisocial behavior.

The nature of the question is telling, you really have to look at the context. If you have to start working to justify the support, it is usually not a social behavior.

"It's ok to kill him because...."

And your third point is just fluff. Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone. People that believe it is (a threat that is) are insecure and paranoid.

You are allowed to believe something is right or wrong, but if no harm is done (other than in your eyes according to your own moral standard) then trying to PREVENT it is not humanitarian, it is confrontational, invasive and aggressive.

 

[irishScott]

No, you are still reading it wrong. They are not talking about morality or other appellations. Killing someone, no matter HOW you justify it, is still a destructive antisocial behavior.

The nature of the question is telling, you really have to look at the context. If you have to start working to justify the support, it is usually not a social behavior.

"It's ok to kill him because...."

And your third point is just fluff. Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone. People that believe it is (a threat that is) are insecure and paranoid.

You are allowed to believe something is right or wrong, but if no harm is done (other than in your eyes according to your own moral standard) then trying to PREVENT it is not humanitarian, it is confrontational, invasive and aggressive.

Yes, let's keep it in context.

In the case for capital punishment one could argue that harm is being done due to taxpayer funds having to support the prisoner for life as an alternative.

In the case for holding people without proof, one could argue that the possibility of them hurting people is too high, and that preemptively arresting them helps more than it hurts.

The argument against gay marriage is that it would somehow corrupt culture, and thereby harm society as a whole in an indirect manner.

Not saying I agree with any of the above, just pointing out the alternative perspective and how its proponents see it as a selfless, productive act. In their minds there is harm being done, even if in your mind there isn't. Whether they're misinformed or not is irrelevant to this issue, we're discussing motivations. It's the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It all depends on one's perception of the facts, not some innate Machiavellian, psychopathic, or narcissistic personality trait. You could argue that those trait may influence perception towards a certain end, but the study in the OP doesn't address that from what I've seen.

 

[sm625]

Most "conservatives" dont even know what conservatism means. They think it means go vote for the hillbilly bible thumper from texas because he says he's not into nation building even though he was obviously lying his derrier off. They say cut taxes and cut spending, then they applaud the sycophants when they "cut taxes" and borrow so much money that the interest chokes off our economy far more than any tax ever could. And they applaud themselves for thinking they are so much smarter than the "libruls" even though their hero Rush Limbaugh is in fact by definition a liberal because he was for every war and every other costly major epic boondoggle this government has ever foisted upon us.

You think any of these pathetic hypocrites would have the ballz to actually make the cuts in the size of the federal government that a real conservative would make? Just cutting government down to the size it was 10 years ago would cause these so called conservatives to have a conniption and a total mental meltdown. The fact is all there is is liberal and more liberal. Dumb and frickin dumber. Two groups fighting each other over whether they can spend a lot of the taxpayers money or a HELLUVA lot of the taxpayers money. And all the occupy movements in the country arent enough to clue us in on how far gone, how bought, how corrupt, how broken this system is.

There is no opposition to the 15%+ deficit spending, even though we ALL know what 15%+ deficit spending would do to our own private finances after a couple years. The media and those who own it are seeking that debt. They are pushing that debt. If you want your place at the table then you aren't gonna oppose it. You aren't gonna to talk about. You want to be like that kook Ron Paul who gets no more than 10% no matter what he does? Ha! You are to just accept 15% destruction of your standard of living every year.

There's a term for that, and that term is hyperinflation, and its happening right now. And as I predicted years ago, not a soul has the common sense to even call it what it is. There's just these pathetic debates over how there is no inflation because we haven't had a COLA increase in 3 years! Come on they had this crap figured out in the early 1980s. Do you think the inflation is going to show up in the statistics? Of course it isnt. It's called racketeering. But no one has the guts or the mental fortitude to see it for what it is. That's how broken our political system is. But it is more than that; it is a sign of a totally broken society. Years from now you're going to wonder how the hell, why the hell, what the hell happened to make people so blind to what was right in front of your face. They stole everything. They're doing it right now. But no one seems to give a damn. Like a drugged population... they just keep chattering aimlessly about issues of no substance... like gay marriage.

 

[Atreus21]

No, you are still reading it wrong. They are not talking about morality or other appellations. Killing someone, no matter HOW you justify it, is still a destructive antisocial behavior.

The nature of the question is telling, you really have to look at the context. If you have to start working to justify the support, it is usually not a social behavior.

"It's ok to kill him because...."

It matters very little to me if I'm labeled antisocial and destructive because I acknowledge that sometimes killing is necessary, as in the case of self defense or because you're ordered to do so in times of war.

If the author would label that antisocial and destructive, I'd call them psychotically naive and a delusional idealist.

And your third point is just fluff. Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone. People that believe it is (a threat that is) are insecure and paranoid.

You are allowed to believe something is right or wrong, but if no harm is done (other than in your eyes according to your own moral standard) then trying to PREVENT it is not humanitarian, it is confrontational, invasive and aggressive.

Polygamy isn't a threat to anyone either. Nor is consensual incest or beastiality or consensual pedophilia. Gay marriage isn't like any of these, granted, but the notion that we cannot oppose behavior unless it directly affects us without being called antisocial is ridiculous.

 

[Phokus]

Considering we have publicly elected republicans calling for raising taxes on the POOR, this is no big surprise. Conservatives would probably cheer Scrooge stealing Tiny Tim's crutches.

 

[irishScott]

Considering we have publicly elected republicans calling for raising taxes on the POOR, this is no big surprise. Conservatives would probably cheer Scrooge stealing Tiny Tim's crutches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SHNJqvFqt4

 

[woolfe9999]

Then unless I'm missing something, I'm fulfilling your prophesy that someone would accuse the author of left-wing bias. I don't think any political position on any single one of those issues can be honestly construed with psychopathy, narcissism, or machiavellianism.

Being in favor of capital punishment is arrived at for reasons to do with the definition of justice, not any one disorder of the dark triad.

The same could apply for the detention of suspected terrorists. Since they're not American, they're not entitled to a trial, or whatever. Whatever the reasoning is, I don't see how arguments in favor of it can be ascribed to a psychological disorder.

Waging war in violation of UN agreements deals with issues of state sovereignty. Attributing support for this issue to a psychological disorder is presupposing that the UN's political process is the only sane way to wage war, and that's a political opinion.

Being against gay marriage: I can sorta see a psychological motivation behind some conservative's opposition to it. If any criteria might be applicable to this study, this one is.

Attributing opposition to governmental intervention in markets to a psychological disorder is presupposing that governments are rightly involved in the markets, and that's a political opinion.

Almost every political position known to man has an articulated theory that has nothing to do with sociopathy or narcissism. But the articulated theory isn't the issue, nor indeed, is the degree of "correctness" of the viewpoint. What the study measures is whether there is an actual, real life correlation of a personality trait with a given political view. It isn't saying the theory behind the view is inherently sociopathic. If the study was saying that, it would be saying it isn't possible to hold the view without having the personality trait, and clearly the study acknowledges that this isn't the case.

 

[Greenman]

This is great information. Up until now, I've simply been a white male, the most feared creature on this planet. Now it turns out that I'm a super villain as well. Could it get any more awesome?

 

[akahoovy]

I want in on this villainy. Is the Dark Triad accepting applications?

 

[Greenman]

I want in on this villainy. Is the Dark Triad accepting applications?

You have to be white and conservative, the rest is just nature.

I'll send you a pm with the secret handshake info.

 

[shira]

It's best to look at the study on an issue basis, rather than on a broad ideological basis.

Per the studies conclusions, the big "dark triad" correlations were with: 1) pro-capital punishment; 2) support for detention of suspected terrorists without trial; 3) support the right of the government to wage war in violation of UN resolutions; 4) believing the government should "never" intervene in free markets except to enforce contracts; and 5) being against gay marriage.

Other "conservative" positions had no correlation or only weak correlations. For example, being against wealth redistribution and/or social safety nets, per se, did not correlate much. Being pro-gun rights and against affirmative action didn't correlate at all.

Oddly enough, there was no question on abortion.

- wolf

I suspect that being against abortion even in cases of rape and incest would strongly correlate with D3, but not a less absolute opposition to abortion.

 

[Greenman]

I suspect that being against abortion even in cases of rape and incest would strongly correlate with D3, but not a less absolute opposition to abortion.

And now we have a cool acronym. This is the best day I've ever had in P&N.

 

[Ausm]

Considering we have publicly elected republicans calling for raising taxes on the POOR, this is no big surprise. Conservatives would probably cheer Scrooge stealing Tiny Tim's crutches.

Oh don't forget also cutting Bob Cratchit's wages in half so he has to work 80 hrs/week to buy new ones for the poor kid.

 

[MagickMan]

That has to be sarcasm right? You are the king of bumping quotes with nothing but a :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Because he's a hypocritical sheep?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Yes, let's keep it in context.

In the case for capital punishment one could argue that harm is being done due to taxpayer funds having to support the prisoner for life as an alternative.

I am not questioning the validity of the argument iS... just that you have to justify it through extended explanation.

Killing = bad, no matter how you look at it. I am not saying it is not JUSTIFIED, but PSYCHOLOGICALLY, it is classified as an aggressive behavior.....

In the case for holding people without proof, one could argue that the possibility of them hurting people is too high, and that preemptively arresting them helps more than it hurts.

See what I am saying? Your statements themselves fall right in with what I am saying. "You could ARGUE that..."

If you have to argue something, if you have to go through more than a direct connection to establish any bad effect, then we are back to square one and direct cause and relation....

Holding someone on suspicion, with no real proof, is invasive. It is rather McCarthy like AAMOF....

The argument against gay marriage is that it would somehow corrupt culture, and thereby harm society as a whole in an indirect manner.

Argue.......

Not saying I agree with any of the above, just pointing out the alternative perspective and how its proponents see it as a selfless, productive act. In their minds there is harm being done, even if in your mind there isn't. Whether they're misinformed or not is irrelevant to this issue, we're discussing motivations. It's the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It all depends on one's perception of the facts, not some innate Machiavellian, psychopathic, or narcissistic personality trait. You could argue that those trait may influence perception towards a certain end, but the study in the OP doesn't address that from what I've seen.

Here's the thing though. People do not like to break things down to their roots. Humans take everything and associate it up the wazoo. Sex is no longer a simple act of procreation or even pleasure... It is one that involves dieties, customs, varying modes of dress, etc etc.....

The problem with HAVING a brain is that we do not see the hackles of another as just what they are, we throw it around 9 ways from Sunday.

The other example is the misassociation of definitions with perceived definition. "Liberal" being the big one now. The dictionary definition is simply "willing to accept alternate viewpoints", but our own political discourse has changed it into a political party.

the only thing I am saying about this is that I can see where any invasive act, conservative or "liberal", can be seen as entering the realm of the Dark Triad. Where it goes from there depends on the person.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It matters very little to me if I'm labeled antisocial and destructive because I acknowledge that sometimes killing is necessary, as in the case of self defense or because you're ordered to do so in times of war.

Again, you have to qualify it. You are saying "Killing is bad if someone wants to kill you"... but in order to justify it, someone has to be doing something equally bad.... So therefore killing is STILL bad.

If the author would label that antisocial and destructive, I'd call them psychotically naive and a delusional idealist.

They aren't. You are.

Polygamy isn't a threat to anyone either. Nor is consensual incest or beastiality or consensual pedophilia.

Red herring and straw man.

Gay marriage isn't like any of these, granted, but the notion that we cannot oppose behavior unless it directly affects us without being called antisocial is ridiculous.

No, again you are taking this as a political issue and not a clinical definition. You are getting defensive because aggressive invasive acts that you yourself have justified are being labeled as such and you feel uncomfortable with someone saying that ANYTHING you believe in could have a dark side to it.

What are you, Jesus? Let it go man. Everyone has a bit of darkness in them, bet we are all reluctant to acknowledge it.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I suspect that being against abortion even in cases of rape and incest would strongly correlate with D3, but not a less absolute opposition to abortion.

I guess the turning point would be more along the line of:

PERSONALLY against abortion, and saying so when asked, but NOT trying to get others to the same agreement.

So you can say that you are against it, tell people so when asked and advise against it, but being in favor f making a law to prohibit it is trying to control others over an issue that does not effect you and, depending on who you talk to, does not effect another "living" being (and that is the debate point, although I see it more as a justification than a root reason for the opposition...)


Problem is, people take definitions and automatically extrapolate.....


*shrug*

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, let's keep it in context.

In the case for capital punishment one could argue that harm is being done due to taxpayer funds having to support the prisoner for life as an alternative.

Except that's not true at all in our society. It's cheaper to hold a prisoner his whole life than to execute him, and the costs are amortized over a longer time frame.

In the case for holding people without proof, one could argue that the possibility of them hurting people is too high, and that preemptively arresting them helps more than it hurts.

And rational people see right through that, recognizing that doing so is authoritarian in the extreme. Who makes such decisions, and why should we trust them? If they decide *you* are dangerous, who's to say otherwise?

The argument against gay marriage is that it would somehow corrupt culture, and thereby harm society as a whole in an indirect manner.

Closeted gay sex is extreme corruption, one of those "If you don't think sex is dirty, then you're not doing it right" sort of things...

Not saying I agree with any of the above, just pointing out the alternative perspective and how its proponents see it as a selfless, productive act. In their minds there is harm being done, even if in your mind there isn't. Whether they're misinformed or not is irrelevant to this issue, we're discussing motivations. It's the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It all depends on one's perception of the facts, not some innate Machiavellian, psychopathic, or narcissistic personality trait. You could argue that those trait may influence perception towards a certain end, but the study in the OP doesn't address that from what I've seen.

Running other people's lives is always for their own good, or for the good of society, even when it's not based on facts at all. It's simulated rationality, where conclusions are reached before any facts are established, and only highly selected "facts" are used in support.

Innate personality traits determine one's perception of "facts", not vice versa.

 

[Schadenfroh]

This is great information. Up until now, I've simply been a white male, the most feared creature on this planet. Now it turns out that I'm a super villain as well. Could it get any more awesome?

Indeed, plus, it seems that if we become more conservative, we might be able to finally liberate ourselves from pesky emotions like empathy, guilt, etc. and focus all of our attention on becoming the 1%!

 

[monovillage]

Gonad the barbarian the OP of this article didn't even have the honesty to link where he found the story ..... looks like foxnews scores another coup at ATP&N.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-tied-to-personality-disorders-study-claims/

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Gonad the barbarian the OP of this article didn't even have the honesty to link where he found the story ..... looks like foxnews scores another coup at ATP&N.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-tied-to-personality-disorders-study-claims/

I found the study itself linked to in a post on another forum. What exactly does that Fox news link show? That conservatives would take issue with this? Shocker. I love how you have to go through the Fox filter when the direct source of the story is in the OP.

 

[HendrixFan]

I found the study itself linked to in a post on another forum. What exactly does that Fox news link show? That conservatives would take issue with this? Shocker. I love how you have to go through the Fox filter when the direct source of the story is in the OP.

It is ok, now he will have some mindless talking points to bring to the discussion.

 

[spittledip]

This is laughable at best. To suggest that holding "conservative" views or any other views can be correlated to any personality disorder with any significance is to readily admit that one is a complete hack. You have to do alot more than "hold a view" to be considered to have a personality disorder.

More importantly, you don't test the public with Personality Disorder profile tests. You only test those who are already known to have psychological issues in order to determine what their issues are. There is a big difference between a test that tests for personality and personality disorders. There is a small segment of any population that have antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder. Again, to even imply that holding a certain view can correspond to having a personality disorder (note, correspond to) is disingenuous at worst, ignorant at best. The idea behind a study like this is to SMEAR, and that alone.

So many studies out there are so much garbage, just like this one.

To be fair, I have included a reference to something that is equally reprehensible and dishonest:
http://madisle.info/2011/09/07/comp...iberalism-is-a-mental-disorder/#axzz1dQnxR3Pq