About the Dark Triad

Evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller explains the concept:

Remember, kids:

The 'Dark Triad' of personality traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism) is hugely over-represented among people who manage to make themselves famous.

And it explains why so many of them, sooner or later, adopt toxic, delusional beliefs that make them infamous.

Rob Henderson adds this:

Dark Triad personality traits correlate with victim-signaling (e.g., "Expressed how people like me are underrepresented in the media and leadership.").

Psychopathy (r = .58), Machiavellianism (r = .43) and narcissism (r = .30)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614222/

Psychologist Jordan Peterson:

Jordan Peterson:

We're talking about this Machiavellian personality triad, the dark triad, ... Okay, so here's something really interesting. It's the bad boy paradox. They call it that. Young, naive women are attracted to those Machiavellian types, but when they get older and more experienced, they start to be able to see through that. The reason they're attracted to it, as far as I can tell, and I talked about this with bus to see if I was way off on the wrong track, is that those reckless, fearless people mimic real, fearless competence. And young women aren't good at distinguishing between the two, and so they get sucked in by the sort of psychopathic recklessness, because they think it's fearless competence. And of course, the guys who are doing that, they'll prey on that because they're trying to ape competence. But what the women are really after in their heart of hearts, they might be out for an adventure too, because there's that element of it. But they want that fearlessness that does go along with true generosity and competence and also the ability to keep, you know, real darkness away so well.

[Unknown speaker]

A lot of those people who display that kind of, what you call mimicking fearlessness macho, that's they're actually hiding the opposite. They're actually very, very riddled with insecurities. They're not, you know, and they're, they're, they kind of create this sort of bravado and this false front, and they go to an extreme to kind of project this machismo when, in fact, they're riddled with insecurities. And that's their way of dealing with it. With it.

Continue ReadingAbout the Dark Triad

Therapy that Cannot Stand the Pain

In talking with some acquaintances and viewing videos of people who are clearly struggling to cope, I'm often distracted by their use of language that abstracts away from human-to-human conflict. Their focus has been repackaged into sterilized abstruse terminology. It's as though the emotions and suffering have been packed away into the basement and they are trapped upstairs in a nonstop web of psychological chatter that is facilitated by their therapists.

Freya India points out the increasingly common problem of therapy buzzwords in a communication to Ayishat Akanbi, a writer:

I’m very skeptical of therapy-speak, unconvinced it even helps us open up. More often I think it actually closes down our ability to have honest conversations.

But you got to the heart of what bothers me about it, the insincerity. If someone tells me about their “fearful-avoidant” attachment style or how they are learning to “hold space” for others, I find it hard to feel anything. But if they tell me about their hurt and heartbreak, or how they are trying to be less selfish, I’m listening. We are talking human to human now.

As you write, “We’re encouraged to describe even ordinary interpersonal conflict in the language of pathology and melodramatic categories. So we start treating every slight like persecution because exaggeration is the only way to make pain legible.”

But I’ve been wondering lately if two things are happening at once. On one hand, we have this therapeutic group-speak, this exaggeration of suffering. But on the other hand, I think we are also losing the ability to talk about actual pain.

The writer Samuel Kronen, in a piece about chronic illness, put it like this: “There still appears to be a lot of unrewarded suffering in the world and our culture can seem pretty cruel and callous toward the vulnerable…If anything, I think our screen-addled, instantly-gratifying, digitally-intoxicated culture actually makes people less sensitive and conscious of suffering in certain ways, contributing to a more casual cruelty.”

I think he’s right. We might pathologise ordinary feelings and exaggerate small slights, but we also seem unwilling to accept genuine suffering. We can’t seem to cope with it. It’s hard, for example, to have a sincere conversation about something like family breakdown. I hear so many young women talking about their attachment styles, about “reparenting” themselves and healing their inner child, but not so much about the pain of divorce. I think this is why, as a culture, we have ended up with so much therapeutic advice and so little wisdom. Because we aren’t speaking about our problems in any recognisably human way. Maybe we are trying to make things easier on ourselves. If you phrase your problem as “anxious attachment”, you need a therapist. If you phrase it as your parents’ divorce, you need a difficult conversation with your dad.

As I read India's email to Akanbi, I was reminded of a book I read in college: The Myth of Mental Illness (1961), by Thomas Szasz. I think Szasz overstated his case in his book, but he did draw necessary attention to whether metaphoric terms like "mental illness" been literalized to unduly justify psychiatry's authority, turning common problems of living into impenetrable diagnoses, often harming individuals by stripping them of agency and responsibility for their actions.

Continue ReadingTherapy that Cannot Stand the Pain

People Tend to Value Pets More than They Value People

I've often assumed that many people have pets instead of riskier potentially unmanageable children.  And sometimes I've assumed that many people cherish pets more than they cherish people.  If a dog and a person fell overboard and you could only save one, who are you going to save?

Now we have this study: "Pet owners often see dogs as soulmates and value them more than human lives."

Abstract:

Dogs have ascended to core family members in American households. Across three studies, we show that modern dogs now occupy roles historically reserved for close human relationships and often receive greater moral concern than people. Approximately three out of four dog owners view their dogs as primary sources of emotional support and companionship, and this “soulmate” bond is associated with a tendency to prefer and prioritize dogs over people. Childless dog owners are especially likely to view their dog as a soulmate, and national and county-level analyses further reveal that declining birth rates are strongly associated with increased pet-related spending. This suggests that dogs may fulfill caregiving roles once reserved for children and close kin. To assess the implications of this shift, we presented dog owners with moral dilemmas pitting the welfare of dogs against humans. Owners who viewed their dogs as soulmates were more likely to feed, fund, and save the life of a dog over a person. More than half of dog owners chose to save their dog over a human stranger, one in five chose to save an unfamiliar puppy over a person, and one in four chose to give money to a puppy in need over a child in need. The moral elevation of dogs may reflect—and potentially contribute to—declines in human social connection.

Is there a downside to this pet worship?

This same study points out:

While dogs may seem easier than human relationships, favoring them could come at the cost of human connection. Research suggests that social connection can be zero-sum; forming deep bonds with some often results in less concern for others. Reflecting this phenomenon, owners strongly bonded to their pets often socialize less, opting instead to stay home with their pets.

Increased attachment to dogs may also have ethical consequences. Animals, especially dogs, are frequently cast as helpless victims and receive greater concern than vulnerable humans. Many report feeling more distress for dogs than for adult people, and dog owners in particular often prioritize their pet over a human stranger in life-or-death scenarios.

Continue ReadingPeople Tend to Value Pets More than They Value People

Are We Being Afflicted by the Devouring Mother?

Are we being afflicted by the "Devouring Mother"?

JULIAN ADORNEY, MARK JOHNSON, AND GEOFF LAUGHTON explain at Reality's Last Stand.  Their article is titled: "How Safetyism Is Robbing Our Children of the Hero’s Journey" Excerpt:

One key element of the devouring mother archetype is that she prevents her child from going on the hero’s journey. The great psychologist Erich Neumann tells a story to describe how this works in The Origins and History of Consciousness.

The basic theme of the work is the mother’s resistance to the growth and development of her son,” Neumann writes. “He has always lived with her, but now he threatens to go away.” The boy’s father “understands that the son is a hero, a god’s son, and, with the help of his wife’s familiar spirit, he tries to make the hero’s fate and its necessity apparent to her and the boy.” Yet he fails. His assertion that “their son is a hero” is “poisonous to her ears.” He says that the world “has need of him [the son],” but the mother rejoins, “My son is no hero, I need no hero son.

Why is the devouring mother so determined to prevent her son from becoming a hero? Because his becoming a hero means he will leave her. He will strike out on his own, beyond the orbit of her love. Neumann notes that “the mother denies him his right to a future, lest the child grow away from her.” When the son suggests that he might have a destiny and could potentially do something valuable with his life, the devouring mother “slaps his face and tells him he is to remain his mother’s son and not have an ego.”

This archetype of the devouring mother, who refuses to let her child mature and become autonomous, is starting to be reflected in the data. Perhaps due to societal overprotectiveness, members of Gen Z are slower to hit developmental milestones than previous generations. They are less likely to obtain their driver’s licenses at 16 and engage in dating during high school. They are more likely to live with their parents, even through their 20s and early 30s. While some trends might seem positive—such as the decline in alcohol consumption among youth—these are also indicative of a larger pattern: young people are not severing ties with their parental homes as early as they once did.

The devouring mother harms her own children, of course. It is difficult to avoid concluding that our societal overprotectiveness contributes significantly to Gen Z’s increasing rates of obesity, anxiety, and depression. But the damage likely extends beyond individual families, affecting society as a whole. The concern is not merely that young people are driving less and dating less; they are also becoming less entrepreneurial. Writing in the prestigious journal Work, Aging and Retirement, researchers noted a steady decline in the percentage of 12th graders aspiring to own their own businesses from the late 1980s through 2014 (the last year the study collected data for). In 1985, 46 percent of high school students said that they would like to be self-employed. By 2015 that number had fallen to just 31 percent.

Continue ReadingAre We Being Afflicted by the Devouring Mother?