Delay the Second

Okay, well, this week's post will take place later this week than usual due to some unfortunate circumstances.

Also I received my exam timetable this week and have to say that next week there will be no post, so apologies in advance. However, after that everything shall return to schedule.

Geez, who'd have though that a roughly 8-week series would have so many delays in it. -_-;

Anyway, since I don't want you going away empty handed, here's some Jonathan Coulton!




Also, noticing that my Battle of the Sex Hormones post has the most views. O_o That... surprises me, to say the least.

... unless the fact that was already at the top of the "popular posts / coherent thoughts?" list means that people click it but not the others, thus constantly reinforcing its place... which would be amusing.

Classified Killers

I'd like to point out three things before I get started.
Point the first: This post is really me to getting really pedantic about terms that crime shows misuse. Well... just one term that really gets on my nerves.
Point the second: I did mention that due to my assignments I wouldn't be doing a proper Disturbing the Disturbed post this week, however I did find some really neat studies while researching this so they will go in a different post.
Point the third: Half of this blog is me giving my thoughts some sort of structure. So this is a bit of an organizing process.

Firstly the "one phone call" rule means one phone call to your lawyer - not to the helpful old lady who will find the real killer for you. Just wanted to clear that up.

Now, the ones that actually sparked my desire to explain terminology: mass murderer, spree killer, and serial killer. Now, most of you have probably heard of the first and last ones from crime shows. The fact is that most of the “serial killers” on television are, in fact, spree killers – if there is a serial killer on a show, it will likely be the “big bad” for the season and their crimes will be a overarching plot between different shows, in which the individual crime will play second fiddle to the murder-of-the-week until the big confrontation episode. An example of a TV serial killer is the Dollhouse Killer of from the CSI franchise.

However, what is the actual difference?

Let’s start with mass murder.

First thing about mass murder is that all the killings take place in one place over a continuous period of time. This time span ranges from a few minutes to a day. They have to have killed at least 3 (or 4) people. Most high school shootings fit under Mass Murder, as well as crimes that involve the killing of multiple family members at a time.
The mentality to do with a mass killing is different to serials and sprees. For starters, while the demographic of serial killers and spree killers are typically white males from the ages of 20 to 30, the mass murderer, while also a white male, is typically between the ages of 25 and 40. Their “plan” tends to be disorganized and the motive is usually revenge or rejection.
Cases of rape are rare, and sadism is not usually a factor. The greatest difference would be that the attitude towards being caught is uncaring, or even suicidal. Typically the mass murderer is a frustrated individual, has lots of weapons, likes violence, have no partner, and lives alone or with a parent.


Next is the spree killer.

The spree killer will have killed two or more victims in multiple locations in a short period of time. The common time frame is from a few days to a week but the formal definition is that “there is no cooling-off period”. Timing is the key difference between the three categories with mass murderers having no distinctive time period between kills and with the crimes of serial killers being definitely separate events – a spree killer’s kills, though in different locations, are considered a single event.

Spree killers tend to be disorganized, and also tend to be fueled by revenge/rejection. Sadism is not a factor in their kills but rape may factor in. Spree killers usually don’t plan on being caught but there are exceptions to this.

Both mass murderers and spree killers fall under “rampage killers” and their victim demographic is usually spread between men and women (though more women do tend to die in mass murders). However, spree killers and serial killers are more likely to have partners than mass murderers.


Finally we come to serial killers.

The serial killer commits 3 or more murders over a period of more than a month with a “cooling off period” between, and has a motive based on psychological gratification. Usually the victims have something in common, such as race or sex, but in some cases such as that of the Zodiac killer there is no pattern. Due to the large time difference between kills it can be months, years, or even decades before a serial killer is caught, if they are caught at all.

While spree killers and mass killers tend to use guns, a serial killer will commonly use a knife or employ some means of strangulation to kill their victim. Both rape and sadism can play a part in their crimes and serial killers do not intend on being caught.

In terms of personal characteristics, there have been many studies done on this.

• A sample of 174 serial killers revealed a mean IQ of 93, with only bombers having IQs significantly greater than average.
• Often abandoned by their fathers and were raised by domineering mothers.
• Their families often have criminal/psychiatric/alcoholic histories.
• They were emotionally/physically/sexually abused by a family member.
• May have a large history of suicide attempts.
• Frequently bullied as children
• Interested in voyeurism, fetishism, and sadomasochism from an early age.
• A disproportionate number exhibit one, two, or three of the MacDonald Triad (predictors of psychopathy):
• Pyromania
• Sadistic tendencies (especially in children who have not yet reached sexual maturity – usually takes the form of torturing animals)
• Bed wetting beyond the age of 12.
• More than 60% did this but there have been debates on the statitistical significance of this figure.

There are exceptions to this, such as Harold Shipman, Dennis Nilsen>/a>, Vlado Taneski, and Russell Williams. These are only guidelines.

Some serial killers exhibit various degrees of psychopathy, a condition that will be covered in a later post but is mainly defined by having traits of both narcissism and antisocial personality disorder (also covered later). 50-80% of criminals exhibit ASPD but only 15-30% score as primary psychopaths on the PCL-R test. There is no data to identify the prevalence of psychopathy amongst serial killers.
However, serial killers who exhibit ASPD are often aware of how to hide the characteristics in order to blend in – an infamous case is that of Ed Kemper who tricked psychiatrists into thinking he was cured.

While there are female serial killers they are very rare and primarily kill for money, are emotionally close to the victims, and generally have a relationship with them (wife/mother/nurse). Once again, there are exceptions such as Aileen Wuornos.

A common theory as to why serial killers keep killing is that they are trying to live out a fantasy and since reality never meets up to fantasy, they are compelled to keep trying.

Serial Killers can be both organized, disorganized, and mixed (a three to four ratio on the first two). What this means is that
Disorganized:

•  More impulsive, often use whatever weapon is available at the time, don’t usually try to hide the body
• They usually have a history of mental illness, below average intelligence (the mean IQ of disorganized killers is 92.5), may be unemployed or a loner, and their crimes can be very violent.

Organized:

• Plan methodically, usually have above average intelligence (mean IQ of organized killers is 113), usually abduct victims, have different kill and dump sites, and may lure out victims by playing on sympathy (e.g. Ted Bundy) or target prostitutes due to their being more likely to walk off with strangers.
• Occasionally they have forensic knowledge to help them control the crime scene and cover their tracks.
• They are socially adequate, has friends/lovers, and even a family. These are the ones who would be described as “they wouldn’t hurt a fly”.

Serial Killers obviously have a motive of some sort – recognized motives are:

• Visionary: having suffered a psychotic break from reality, they sometimes believe that they are another person or are being compelled to murder by another entity.
• Mission-oriented: justify their actions in that they are “ridding the world” of a type of person whom they deem undesirable on the basis of sexual preference, occupation, ethnicity, religion, etc. It is important to note that these kinds are generally not psychotic.
• Hedonistic: thrill seeker and see people as expendable in order to get said thrills.
• Lust: sex is the primary motive here regardless of whether the victim is alive or dead. The fantasy plays a large part in their killings and the will use close contact weapons like knives or hands. As the killings continue the time between victims will decrease and/or the stimulation required increases.
• Thrill: primary motive is to inspire pain/terror in victims and thus excitement for themselves. They murder only for the kill – the attack is not prolonged and there is no sexual aspect. The victims are typically strangers but prolonged stalking may proceed the attack. They can abstain from killing for a long period of time and tend to refine their techniques as they go on – they aim for the perfect murder.
• Comfort (profit): material gain is the main purpose, thus the victims are usually family members or close acquaintances. Long periods of time between victims in order to avoid suspicion. Poison is the most popular weapon – especially arsenic.
• Power/control: main objective is to exert power over the victim. These killers were usually abused as children and they are trying to make up for their lingering feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy. In these cases rape is not about sex but domination.

[looks at the page]
Well… that’s enough of serial killers for me. >_>

A great graph that mostly summarizes most of this can be found here. And I like this site but failed to include – just read.

DISCLAIMER: In regards to the demographics of the killer (white/male/age) one must keep in mind that these are derived from figures taken from the USA. When these statistics are compared with those of other countries, it is found that Caucasians are no more likely to be a serial killer than any other race. This can be attributed to the media’s tendency to focus on crimes where the victims are “pretty white females”. However, of America, South Africa, and Australia, the latter has a much lower incidence of serial murders.

Disturbing the Disturbed: Reflections on Narcissism

Greetings! I will first apologize for how late this post is – things happened. But that aside, this week we talk about Narcissism in its three main forms: narcissism, narcissistic personality disorder, and malignant narcissism. I will warn you now that this post will be very, very long.

Firstly, narcissism is not Histrionic Personality Disorder. The laconic version is that Histrionics desire attention, while Narcissists desire admiration. Histrionics are characterized by excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including a need for approval and inappropriately provocative behaviour, typically beginning in early adulthood. Other possible qualities include being easily influenced, over-dramatization of difficulties, egocentric, self-indulgent, in possession of good social skills, yet a tendency to be manipulative.

OK, before we decide that most teenagers suffer from HPD there are other symptoms that distinguish it. They tend to view their relationships as a sort of do-or-die deal, with many seeking counselling for depression when they end. They may go through multiple jobs due to becoming easily bored and having problems dealing with frustration. They are also thrill seekers and hence can end up in risky situations simply for the novelty.
The interesting thing about HPD is that its combination of symptoms actually put sufferers at greater risk of developing depression.

A useful way to remember the main traits of Histrionic Personality disorder is the mnemonic PRAISE ME. Both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR and The World Health Organization's ICD-10 lists reflect some combination of these symptoms.

• P - provocative (or seductive) behavior
• R - relationships, considered more intimate than they are
• A - attention, must be at center of
• I - influenced easily
• S - speech (style) - wants to impress, lacks detail
• E - emotional lability, shallowness
• M - make-up - physical appearance used to draw attention to self
• E - exaggerated emotions – theatrical

Others not covered above include, exhibitionist behaviour, constant seeking of approval/reassurance, extreme sensitivity to criticism, low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification, rapid shifts in emotional state to the point of appearing superficial, rashness in decision making, extreme resistance to all change, and having Somatic symptoms and using these symptoms as a means of garnering attention.

HPD is more often found in women as men with similar symptoms tend to be diagnosed with narcissist personality disorder. The cause of HPD is unknown but the trigger events include things like deaths in the family, divorce, illnesses in the family which provoke constant anxiety, and perhaps genetics.

Millon also has subtypes for HPD – these are:

• Theatrical histrionic - especially dramatic, romantic and attention seeking.
• Infantile histrionic - including borderline features.
• Vivacious histrionic - synthesizes the seductiveness of the histrionic with the energy level typical of hypomania.
• Appeasing histrionic - including dependent and compulsive features.
• Tempestuous histrionic - including negativistic (passive-aggressive) features.
• Disingenuous histrionic - antisocial features.

Note that we do not see anything that features Narcissistic Personality Disorder – this is because histrionic has symptoms similar to NPD but also piles on some more while detracting from others: you’ll see that later that the inverse is not true.

Now that that’s over we can start on Narcissism. So, what is narcissism? Let me ask you a riddle: “without it you will crawl, with it you will stand tall, too much and you will fall” – what is it?
The answer is pride and this is where we meet narcissism in its “garden variety” form – a personality trait, rather than a personality disorder. And just like any other personality trait, moderation is the key.
“Healthy” narcissism is the thing that gives you self-confidence – a highly valuable trait on leaders according to management theory. “Destructive” narcissism is when that confidence goes overboard. Self confidence is good – believing others inferior is not. Enjoying power is ok – pursuing it at all costs is not.
Basically, moderation is the key difference between healthy and destructive narcissism

Now, just because a person is narcissistic, it doesn’t mean they suffer narcissistic personality disorder – people are perfectly capable of being arrogant without having to blame it on a mental disorder.

Narcissistic personality disorder

Now, pathological narcissism can be put into a spectrum based on severity. The most extreme form is NPD. While usually I don’t go into the theories of causation, mainly because they hand-wave it as genetic or something, here I will discuss a few suspected causes.

Theories:

A sufferer of NPD believes that they are flawed in a way that makes them unacceptable to others. This belief is so deep in their conscious that they don’t even know they think it. So, to protect themselves from this belief and the horrible rejection it would entail, they try to control how others view them. Hence why they rage when people criticize them, and desire people to fear/admire them. This sort of thing, coupled with an inability to tolerate setbacks, makes them hard to work within a team environment.

A 1994 study by Gabbard and Twemlow reports that histories of incest, especially mother-son incest, are associated with NPD in some male patients.

The cause for NPD is still unknown but there are a lot of theories about it. I shall list some of them as these were observed in patients by many researchers according to Groopman and Cooper.

• An oversensitive temperament at birth is the main symptomatic chronic form
• Being praised for perceived exceptional looks or abilities by adults
• Excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback
• Excessive praise for good behaviors or excessive criticism for poor behaviors in childhood
• Overindulgence and overvaluation by parents
• Severe emotional abuse in childhood
• Unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents
• Valued by parents as a means to regulate their own self-esteem

In this list you can see that they could fall under two categories for the most part, in a way that links to the theories of psychiatrist Glen Babbard. He believes that NPD can be broken down into two subtypes: “Oblivious” and “hypervigilant”.
The “oblivious” are grandious, arrogant, and thick-skinned –which could be the result of overindulging parents– and wish to be admired and envied in order to protect the weaker internalized self. The “hypervigilant” is very sensitive to criticism, easily hurt, and ashamed and consequentially views devaluation as unjust – a possible consequence of overcritical or neglectful parents.

This is further backed by the psychological concept of “splitting”. This is the idea that NPD sufferers use splitting as a defence mechanism. To quote the psychoanalyst Kernberg:

“the normal tension between actual self on the one hand, and ideal self and ideal object on the other, is eliminated by the building up of an inflated self concept within which the actual self and the ideal self and ideal object are confused. At the same time, the remnants of the unacceptable images are repressed and projected onto external objects, which are devalued.”

Basically NPD sufferers merge the idea of their inflated self and their actual self, and other people are either an extension of the sufferer’s self (the givers of admiration) or are worthless (those who disagree with the NPD sufferer’s inflated view).

But enough of the theory, let’s see the symptoms!

Symptoms

The main thing about a narcissist is that they are preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige, and vanity. So, their symptoms tend to include the following:

• Reacts to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation
• May take advantage of others to reach his or her own goal
• Tends to exaggerate their own importance, achievements, and talents
•  Imagines unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance
• Requires constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
• Easily becomes jealous
• Lacks empathy and disregards the feelings of others
• Obsessed with oneself
• Mainly pursues selfish goals
• Trouble keeping healthy relationships
• Is easily hurt and rejected
• Sets unreal goals
• Wants "the best" of everything
• Appears as tough-minded or unemotional

It can be easily seen how these symptoms can be similar to the traits of people who have a high-self esteem, confident or even arrogant, but the fact is that the underlying psychological structures of why they react this way is considered pathological.
While a narcissist believes that they “are all that” they are very susceptible to criticism and actually have a fragile self-esteem and will lash out by belittling in order to back up their own self-worth. In layman’s terms, the expression “Blowing out another’s candle won’t make yours glow any brighter” has little bearing here. This is the defining trait of sufferers of NPD – the need to back up their own idea of their self-worth with reasons why others aren’t as worthy.

(Author’s note: So basically, the minds of NPD sufferers are so broken that they don’t even know or aren’t capable of accepting the idea that they’re broken.)

While usually I reference the World Health Organization’s ICD-10 lists for clarification of the symptoms, they only have NPD listed under “other specific personality disorders”. So, this time I will reference symptoms from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Note that it has to satisfy this criteria as well as the list of general personality disorder criteria (which has been retroactively added to my original Disturbing the Disturbed post).
Firstly, the individual must have a pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour) everywhere, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. These symptoms begin in early adulthood and are present in a variety of areas. They must also have five or more of the following symptoms:

1. A grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations
6. Interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling/unable to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Millon also has subtypes for NPD, these being:
• Unprincipled narcissist – including antisocial features. Iis a fraudulent, exploitative, deceptive and unscrupulous.
• Amorous narcissist – including histrionic features. Is erotic, exhibitionist, acts like a Casanova.
• Compensatory narcissist – including negativistic (passive-aggressive), avoidant features.
• Elitist narcissist – variant of pure pattern.
• Fanatic narcissist – including paranoid features. Self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, usually displays major paranoid tendencies, and holds on to an illusion of omnipotence. They are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value, and trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.
There are actually lots of theories as to subtypes of narcissist. Alexander Lowen has some too, but I like to stick to Millon as they show how the disorders can relate to each other. As you can see the histrionic adds a more sexual side to the narcissist’s pride.

NPD occurs in less than 1% of the general population and is seen more frequently in males than females. Narcissistic traits are very common in adolescents, however, most adolescents grow out of this behaviour – those who don’t, if the behaviour intensifies, become diagnosed with NPD. It’s common for successful people to become narcissistic but this doesn’t mean they suffer from NPD: only when the behaviour is “distressing or disabling” does it become grounds for seeking a diagnosis.

Malignant narcissism

As for this section, there are a few problems. The first problem is that most psychologists have not actually recognized this as a term. The second problem is those who do recognize it can’t seem to decide whether it’s psychopathy, another name for NPD, or a disorder all on its own. As a friend noticed, the term “malignant narcissist” is rather emotionally loaded, so I’m inclined to believe that someone decided to get fancy with their dislike of NPD by using a word that sounds really nasty that they can fall back on the secondary meaning of “likely to spread” when they get accused of bias.
Therefore, I am forced to skip this disorder at least until somebody gives me an official health site that has it. This annoys me on many levels and I apologize for being unable to find more information on it.

Author's Notes:

Now for miscellaneous information I found while searching the net. Or, more appropriately, misinformation. I won’t go into specifics but some sites have claimed things like the “common expressions of a narcissist”, which is logically flawed. Things like “I had them eating out of my hands” were taken as a subconscious expression of their belief that manipulating people is the best way to get things. For starters, you don’t have to be a narcissist to be good at or enjoy manipulating others. Secondly, if we’re going to take that expression as such a serious thing then a lot of kids should start calling the cops when their parents say “I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it” because clearly they wish to murder them.
I will admit that turns of phrase can help reveal what a person is actually thinking, basing an entire diagnosis on whether someone calls you a control freak is beyond ridiculous. Also it kind of strikes me as a cop out for those who are actually control freaks (or other insult) to just say that the person who says them is a narcissist.
Think about it, when you insult someone are you insulting them to prop yourself up, because the insult actually applies, or because you’re angry and words are just flying? Are you so willing to assume the first, even though so many of us are just doing the second two options?

For the sake of full disclosure, I have not included every piece of information I have read. Mainly because they either disagreed with the medical documents, were stand-alone (or crackpot) theories, or were written as though they were describing a supervillain. The last one especially... just because someone is an abuser it doesn’t make them mentally ill, and just because someone is mentally ill it doesn’t mean they are an abuser. A lot of sites tend to be dedicated to supporting the victims of “bad” NPD’s and spend a lot of words vilifying the NPD. I’m not blaming the victim, but I don’t think the solution is to create a concentrated ball of hate against the entire demographic that the abuser just happens to fall under. Also, there tends to be the implication that all abusers can be classified as psychopaths, sociopaths, or narcissists – I will dedicated a later post to statistics proving this implication wrong. Statistics are fun like that.
After all, we know from last week’s post that “sane” people are just as capable of being indifferent to suffering.

Now, obviously I can’t stop you from reading this and then deciding that “OMG I know an undiagnosed narcissist!” but hey I’m going to try. Are you a psychiatrist/psychologist? If you answered yes then you already knew all this. However, if you answered no then you do not have the technical know-how to do this.
So if you think that someone is up themselves then just stop there – that’s all they have to be. Don’t go off and decide that clearly they need to be insane too.

 

I will not be doing a Disturbing the Disturbed post (at least not one of the usual structure) next week as I have a major assignment to get done as well a cosplay costume to sew. Depending on the assignment I may not be able to post until the week after that. However, rest assured we will be continuing with (Spoilers sweetie!) Antisocial Personality Disorder and Psychopathy.

See you in a week or two!

Disturbing the Disturbed: Empathy, Where Art Thou?

Unfortunately, the post I wish to make is not fully researched yet... this can be blamed on three things:
The first thing, is my uni work.
The second thing is that I have over 40 links to go through.
The third thing is that of those 40 links I have to extract the useful information from the piles of "mean narcissists" pages. I have found no less than 3 blogs that explicitly state their contempt for narcissists.

To clarify, I am not a narcissist. While I am fairly vain and rather proud, I have other characteristics that definitely don't fit the criteria as well as missing key parts.
In my posts I try to be objective - which is why I stick to medical journals and Wikipedia... more so towards the former. I'm not going "if someone has this, stay clear", I'm trying to be informative as to what these terms actually mean - hence why I try to include both the good, the bad, and the difficulties faced by sufferers (also a few statistics never hurt).

However, after reading "X" number of pages with titles like "Narcissists Suck" (which I am only enduring to see if they have anything the journals don't) one begins to see a very large "them versus us" mentality. I found a similar thing when I researched Borderline Personality Disorder.
(Not to mention the number of pages where the author declares they will use "narcissist" and "psychopath" interchangeably which, to borrow a phrase from my sibling, makes me want to rip their heads off.)

This is a sample bias - people don't tend to talk about something if they're happy with it. My very first statistics unit taught me this, which is why voluntary participation is a nuisance. The people who know "normal" people with mental disorders won't speak up because they're content, only the ones with bad experiences will.

Psychologists are still trying to figure out narcissism and are not sure what causes it yet. People who suffer from personality disorders and other mental illnesses are not to blame for their disorder - just because someone has a disorder it doesn't mean they'll play up to the the "evil insane person" image that is so prominant.

Take sociopaths for instance: one of their symptoms is a lack of empathy. They're not all going to use this to hurt people! Most of them will "just" have a hard time getting on in society - it hurts the sufferer, not the "sane people". There's a reason why I call them sufferers and not beneficiaries!
Admittedly some of the mentally ill channel their tendencies into less than socially beneficial activities, but then so do "sane" people!

Anyone else noticed the irony that while narcissists and sociopaths are reviled for not having empathy a lot of the "normal sane people" who have empathy don't even want to try and sympathize with them? And television's no help: any character who isn't the main one who sympathizes with the "villain" is guaranteed to be dead within half an hour - we're being told that it isn't acceptable to try to understand. It's a big reason why I don't watch crime dramas with my mum - eventually some mentally ill person will be cast as the criminal and it'll lead to an argument. (I'm not saying I defend every mentally ill criminal, but some of them are just heartbreaking.)
My sibling is on board with this - we actually had a nice long conversation on the matter after a TV cop sneered "typical narcissist" - as though the guy woke up one day and said "Hey, you know what would be really fun? Being a narcissist." The cop's statement was especially jarring because the main murder in the episode was committed by a "sane" woman in complete cold blood - she wasn't even sad that she murdered the wrong person: "They looked the same from behind" was her justification.

Hell there are people with "empathy" who don't care to know about people's problems when it doesn't directly involve them - even a few who don't want to know when it does involve them.
Actually, here's a blog post that mentions the Milgram experiment. 65% of the participants would electrocute someone with 450V because they were told to, and the 35% that didn't still did some electrocuting and never checked on the "slow-learner". Wait! It gets better. They did variations on the study and tested how compliance went depending on the subject's proximity to the experimenter and found that compliance decreased to 30% when the subject had to physically move the person's hand onto the shockplate. My sentiments? That's right - 30% of people are willing to do that. Fun fact: 30% of the population are not sociopaths, so those were "sane" people.

(Before someone brings up my sampling bias again I will mention that subjects were not told that they would be playing Zeus when they signed up - just that they would be particpating in a learning thing. So, no we didn't just get sadists sign up.)

Tell me, where's this empathy thing again? Because I'm failing to see it.

How are they better than a sociopath who cannot feel empathy even if they wanted to? Doesn't that strike you as sad - a barrier that they just aren't able to cross?

Whatever happened to compassion? You can be compassionate without being stupid, it's not hard.

... and now I'm ranting when I should be researching. Well... maybe this was informative. Maybe... to the readers who are not the one who already knows this rant... and who made a post strikingly similar to this now that I think about it. However since I held this belief prior to meeting them it... [appropriate end of sentence which I am too tired to think of right now].
Ah, well, this is my rant done in my way (read: more sarcasm, sneering, and fist-shaking most likely) at 1:30am. Next week I shall have a proper post.

All I can say is that if this is how badly people are reacting to narcissists I am not looking forward to researching for the sociopath and psychopath post...

Disturbing the Disturbed: The Dark Triad

Hello! It's still Wednesday!

No “witty” title here – this week we discuss the Dark Triad. Okay, the next three weeks (including this one) will be done somewhat oddly as I am actually building up to the concept of a psychopath – a definition that gets pretty much butchered... at least as far as I’ve noticed. However, it comes in this nice little package with two other personality traits that I am fond of so I wanted to discuss them first as one of them is also very relevant to a future post.
But I’m getting ahead of myself...

The Dark Triad is a group that consists of three personality traits: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Now, the reason these guys are part of this dark little club is that while each is distinct in theory, they often overlap in life.

An argument to try and separate the three in terms of an example is that while the narcissist will attack when threatened, the psychopath will attack when threatened; also in a academic view, the Machiavellian will plagiarize an essay to cheat, the psychopath will try to copy another’s exam answers without forethought.
However, those examples are rather negative... and kind of sound like a David Attenborough documentary.

So instead I will give each disorder its own post... mainly because my Narcissism section was long enough to warrant a post of its own. I’m sure it’s very happy that it no longer has to share with Machiavellianism as originally intended.

Okay, I will first tackle Machiavellianism.

I assume we’ve all heard the expression “the ends justify the means”? Well, this is a misappropriation to Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian diplomat and political writer. Much like the “It is better to be feared than loved” quote it’s been taken out of context and shortened. The correct versions are as follows:

"look to the consequences before you act"

And

Whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with...
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated.
— Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 17

However, it is this popular understanding that gives us the general gist of this personality trait.

Commonly, Machiavellians use deception and manipulation to trick others for their personal gain. An entity’s capacity for Machiavellianism is called Machiavellian Intelligence. This behaviour may be demonstrated through:
• Blaming and forgiveness;
• Lying and truth-telling;
• Making and breaking alliances
• Making and breaking promises
• Making and breaking rules;
• Misleading and misdirection.

Yes, I think this list is rather, well, silly. I mean, forgiveness? I presume that it is talking about using the above to manipulate others/events – this fits with the fact that Machiavellians feel little remorse or empathy when their actions harm others.

One method Machiavellians may use is known as "gaming the system - "[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome".
If you’re a gaming fan then “gaming the system” is the same as rules-lawyering (also known as “ignoring rule 0: the Game Master is always right”).

The Machiavellianism trait also strongly correlated with the belief that it is fine to lie for the greater good to be achieved – a sentiment which makes sense to me. NOTE: One of the “defining” traits of Machiavellianism is supposed to be cynicism towards morality, however the acknowledgement of a “greater good” contradicts that idea and yet these people still have enough traits to be classified as Machiavellian. Therefore, just because someone is Machiavellian, it doesn’t make them a “bad” person.
(Actually, most descriptions vary between “cynical towards morality” and “cynical towards people” – you could actually link the latter to basic economic theory in that if everyone acts in their own self-interest then you get a better result overall. Economic interests. -_-)

Ok, in essence Machiavellianism is " the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct ” which sounds less judgemental.

A great villainous example of Machiavellianism is Edmund from King Lear – not only does he deceive his father into thinking his half-brother was plotting to kill him, he manages to trick Goneril and Regan into thinking he’s in love with them. Through these deceptions he gets himself an estate, and almost a kingdom – you know, if Edgar hadn’t come and stabbed him.

As you may have noticed by now, this trait is common amongst fictional villains – the ones usually termed “psychopaths”. When we get around to discussing psychopaths you’ll see it to be rather different. However, as I stated earlier, the Dark Triad do occur together fairly often so it may be were the misconception is rooted.

This trait is not a bad one per say – no mental condition or personality trait is inherently bad. It’s all to do with how it’s applied. Machiavellianism has so far stayed through to its roots in politics - politicians with this trait fare much better than those without it. This is partially because Machiavellianism is highly correlated with charisma – whether this is as a result of their manipulation skills or as assistance to it, I’ll leave to you... though I reckon it could go either way since I know many charismatic people who aren’t manipulative but I also know a lot who are (but then out of those few are maliciously manipulative, if you understand what I mean).

Now, the charm is especially prevalent in short-term social interactions – I would consider this the difference between genuine charisma and good acting.

There were some studies that correlated High Mach with Type A personalities, but since the Type A/Type B personality thing has since been discredited I won’t talk of it.

I think I’ll close on this quote, which in my opinion summarizes Machiavellianism... which could be paraphrased from the Evil Overlord list as “I will not be a damned fool".

Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn now not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as a necessity requires. - Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527