New study suggests people with dark personalities weaponize victimhood (2021)
psypost.org
psypost.org
I know when kids say they "deserve" anything I try to shut it down because while it may be true in some cases I think to embrace that kind of perspective can be damaging. In my opinion you shouldn't expect anything from the world, you should simply seek to be understood. If people understand your struggles then they most of the time they'll treat you well instinctively. Simply demanding that your understood and that you should be given what you deserve isn't a good way to approach things.
That said, I'll be honest and admit that I 100% weaponise victimhood if I feel I'm being attacked unfairly. When people start accusing me of being x, y or z, then I'll happily twist that back around on them by playing my own victim cards.
That’s the crux of all social issues, isn’t it?
Understanding the other means allowing yourself to be stood over and to stand under the other.
Of course, it is quite difficult to determine and come to a consensus on the limits of understanding.
Godwin’s Law, etc.
What does that mean? Is this some kind of post-modern critique of meaning?
That’s expecting something, isn’t it? I much prefer the convention in Asia: don’t make yourself a burden; seek to make things easier for the people around you.
It helps to stay young, rich, beautiful, healthy and free of any disability.
I don't think it is tied specifically to the dark triad at all.. but maybe people high in any of the triad have learned to exploit the technique to get what they want.
You could make the case that virtue signaling and victimhood was always a conscious or unconscious act to extract something of value from people.
But that's a radically different kind of analysis than intention, which is under-determined by evolution. ie., say we're all subject to the same evo forces, but we all intend different things.
To say that narcissists exploit a "victim-compassion" response is very different than saying genuine victims do. They "give off" the "genuine victim" signal with with good reasons and intending to act on those reasons, people help.
Narcissists exploit the same signal but with the wrong reasons.
I would counter that the narcissists also have the same reasons as "true" victims. They seek to personally benefit from the compassion of others.
What sets them apart is not the motive or reason, but the execution. Narcissists are more apt to use deception to cultivate compassion.
A victim who signals victimhood isnt necessary, indeed perhaps often, looking for help. Which is why so many victims arent helped, of course.
If you're punched by a bully, you may just want to run away in shame -- yet, and onlooker may strongly desire to help you.
By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture.
This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different.
Evolution is a blind machine with no intention; if you perform this elimination you will mistakenly assume the same of people.
An observer can also determine a need for help by analysis of observational information outside of an intentional or unintentional signal.
Punching a bully might convey information that someone needs help, despite not being an intentional or unintentional signal. Similarly, I might conclude that someone needs help by looking at their bank account without them even knowing.
>By seeing help as something a victim intentionally seeks for the sake of their own benefit, we reduce them to selfish actors and eliminate psychology from the picture.
I don't think I follow your reasoning. How does reducing them to selfish actors eliminate psychology?
>This is often the trap evo-psych falls into: its adhearnts mistake an explanation of how X could evolve, for an explanation of why a given person in a given situation Xs. These are radically different.
Not all actions are intended to be social signals. Some clearly are.
I think the evo-psych/game theory models explain the purpose of social signals well. The point still stands that not every action an actor makes is a social signal.
The role of psychology is to explain the state of individual, what leads them to make an action, or send a signal.
The question of what message is sent by someone crying is different from why they are crying in the first place.
evo-psych might say they are probably crying because crying signals a need for attention and support.
Regular psych might say they are crying because their spouse died.
For example, in my social group, who as you can imagine are a bunch of well-off privileged people, there is a small but persistent minority of people who complain about ills that plague less privileged people as if they affected them, too. They aren't a minority of the most selfish people; they might be a pious bunch but they're mostly just not thinking.
So I hear complaints about anxiety over employment, from people with Ivy League degrees who could have ten interviews for higher pay lined up within 48 hours if they wanted. And not just acknowledgment of the emotions that everybody feels regardless of privilege, but explicitly linking their anxiety to real economic precarity and political and policy injustices.
Complaints about how difficult it is to pay for health care, from people who have 1% incomes and walk out of a complex surgery owing a few hundred bucks. That's not the health care crisis that people are talking about!
Complaints about exploitative employment, from salaried people who can and do take a few days off whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and can disappear from work anytime, no matter how awkward the timing, with no questions asked by saying the words "mental health."
These people aren't consciously lying, but they aren't thinking concretely enough to realize that people aren't going to validate and applaud their words like they would if they came out of the mouth of someone less privileged.
I tell them that if privileged people exploit the sensitivity to mental health in the workplace to such a ridiculous degree, there might be a backlash against it before some people even begin to see the benefits. And if people learn to associate "health care crisis" and "food islands" with wealthy people complaining about nearly imperceptible lifestyle compromises, it's going to make it much harder to make progress politically.
But they don't get it. They aren't thinking below the surface. They're just thinking "people sympathize with and applaud these kinds of complaints so I should voice them as well."
The ages-old solution here is to act collectively, through a group voice, lessening the individual differences. Many religious groups through the generations serve exactly this function.
You mean people of privilege who want to ease their conscience? Talk is cheap, either donate your money or donate your time. Enough of the "raising awareness" bullshit. Talking about the problems other people have is the cheapest most useless way somebody with privilege could possibly ease their conscience. It should be mocked, not encouraged.
My point being is that barring any proof of cheating, merely graduating from an elite university does indicate some level of competence. It requires some very hard work which in STEM not just anyone could do, and therefore it is unfair to say this is some god given privilege
Also, you cannot say how many of these graduates had access to the advantages you’ve listed above, and how much of the general population as a whole does
Yeah, “they” have to work hard, but not as hard as some people to get even halfway there. That’s what privilege means.
You cannot call something that takes skill and hard work a privilege. Privilege is something you’re born with, such as gentry. It also completely excludes these that are not born with that privilege, which is not the case here
Having a higher odds of getting something is privilege. Rich people’s kids have a much higher likelihood of being rich wouldn’t you say?
There are externalities that you seem to be simply ignoring - it is not a level playing field for all. And to work your way up is way harder based on your starting point in society. I have watched some very smart people wind up in very bad places due only to life circumstances.
I find it odd that some people can’t see how obvious this is - or maybe they just don’t want to.
By the way, I am not saying graduating from an Ivy League school is easy (or any school for that matter), or detracting from how much effort people put in to better themselves. Just that where some people start isn’t where everyone starts - therefore the heights one can climb to aren't the same.
Consider this, how much of the world population has access to running water? a computer? medicine? English is their first language or has a US visa? So how many of these can realistically study at one of the world’s top universities?
Consider this and you will understand that even this one kid that studied in the high school with gang violence is so called privileged, and so is any citizen of the US.
Think about it and you’ll see this is just a way to shift guilt to some magical top 1%, while anyone born in a western country has a significant advantage, and the way Capitalism is structured, anyone has an "unfair" advantage on some other person
Being able to afford an Ivy League education is a position of privilege. Both for tuition and also everything else someone needs to live.
By that logic community college is also a privilege granted upon those with enough money for tuition and enough time to attend
This is of course taking one facet of Capitalism, calling it by a scare word (privilege) and forgetting about at all the other identical parts
Ascribing virtue to suffering itself leads to a race to the bottom, where the most noble society is that which suffers the most
Sometimes you are tired of grinding endlessly with little if anything to show for it, all because we threw a bad dice at birth.
A person who wallows in such despair and self-pity would be well served by considering whether he is poisoned by envy, perhaps the envy of egalitarianism. To paraphrase Chesterton, at least the aristocrats of old had the satisfaction of feeling superior than others. The egalitarian man cuts down all those he fears are better than he is (typically by denying the qualities of others)!
The majority of our suffering, especially the spiritual and psychological variety, is our own doing. There are plenty of people born with all sorts of conditions who live happy lives because they've accepted the immutable and made the best of the cards they were dealt. If self-pity deserves anything, it is not compassion, but contempt.
Yeah or rather that man sees tbat often those who are better have counter-balanced that better by a marginal worse in other dimensions :)
I can confidently say that it is a lot easier to go through life not feeling like a victim.
It takes extra work and introspection to change states, but it is far easier in the long run.
If you can't achieve the activation energy needed to change, then staying stuck in that rut is the easiest thing you can do.
My personal experience that activation energy comes from knowledge. The process of finding it can be more unpleasant but not necessarily harder
to put it a different way, the decent to rock bottom is painful but easy. Inflection only occurs when and if someone discovers or internalizes something new.
It's like trying to explain water to a fish.
I claim to be right based on the merits of my argument alone.
My history informs my claim, but I'm not saying that my experience defacto overrides or invalidates any other claim, experiential or otherwise.
Perhaps it would be ironic if I refuse to hear contrary ideas due to my special class as a victim. I did not do this and think it is toxic to debate.
Moreover, I specifically don't identify as a victim.
Do you not believe that some people are more knowledgeable or can have insights on any topic.
Do you have a point you are trying to make?
That they use the victimization as power over others may not even be consciously acknowledged by them, or others.
34% of white Americans who applied to colleges or universities admit to lying about being a racial minority on their application
48% of people who lied claimed to be Native American
3/4 of people who faked being a racial minority on their applications were accepted by the colleges to which they lied
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/57...
Not yet. There's not as much murder yet. There are certianly parallels though. Kafka-trapping is mainstream; if you deny a political charge brought against you, that denial is seen as further evidence of your guilt. If you deny you're an -ist, that 'proves' you're so thoroughly -ist that you can't even perceive it about yourself.
Remember, HR has never been your friend. Even in the purest form of HR uninfected with politics, HR exist to protect the company from the workers. But as you have observed, HR are now becoming political officers charged with enforcing correct political thought.
It makes it so very tough when Rand's writing could inform or elevate a topic. There's just no way to do so that won't inspire an attempt at a flame war. That said, this particular portion of Atlas Shrugged is perhaps the best illustration of what I referenced in my earlier post:
"There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, 'These birds of prey are evil, and does this not give us a right to say that whatever of the opposite of a bird of prey must be good?', there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument - though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzically and say, 'We have nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them; nothing tastes better than a tender lamb."
This particular quote is a bit facetious, I think, because elsewhere Nietzsche is rather disgusted with slave morality as life-denying instead of life-affirming. But even if we disagree with some of Nietzsche's conclusions and characterizations (as fun as he can be to read and as insightful as some of his writings are, he was a bit nuts and some of his criticisms misplaced), we can certainly observe that ressentiment and envy cause people to invert the moral order within themselves, thus paving the way for their own self-destruction.
Feelings of weakness, inferiority, and envy, combined with pride, create the temptation to overcompensate (and involve all sorts of mental gymnastics involving denial, false fungibility of qualities, etc). So-called narcissists function this way which is why having their true character revealed causes such intense rage. It makes public what they feel about themselves, but wish to conceal.
Those who employ the victimhood strategy, specifically, lack the confidence or the ability to effectively bluff strength and will instead turn to manipulative and underhanded strategies like being a "nice guy", making others feel guilty, or trying to arouse feelings of pity in others in order to extract some good they could not, or believe they could not, receive otherwise. True victimhood presupposes injustice and injustice implies restitution and the legitimacy of some proportional degree of anger. Thus, by accepting a victim identity, entitled people rationalize (to themselves) their own chutzpah in making unjust claims of other people and demonizing and retaliating against those who refuse to be exploited by their emotional bullying. (This chutzpah is to be distinguished from boldness; fortune favors the bold, and the bold do not act from a dark place of entitlement, but the optimistic pursuit of opportunity.)
It's good to be hungry, because you will be well fed. It's bad to be well fed, because you will be hungry. Really? To me it seems like the Beatitudes make victimhood into virtue.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied." Matthew 5:6
This verse isn't talking about physical hunger caused by lack of food. Apparently if you read it in the original greek righteousness and justice are interchangable here. What it's saying is that people who suffer injustice in this life and hunger and thirst for that injustice to be made right will be satisfied.
Having a bad life is good, having a good life is bad. It's an inversion of common sense to make victimhood a virtue. Of course it plays well to commoners who see themselves as victims in societies with great inequality. It's not surprising to me that Christianity became so popular.
I think in both cases (the verse in Luke you mention which I believe is in Mary's Magnificat and this one in James) the idea is that if you were well fed now at the expense of the poor then woe to you - ie. if you exploited the poor so that you could be rich. You can see this theme in the prophets of the Hebrew bible as well. Also, there are wealthy people mentioned in the new testament (contributors to Paul's missions) who are commended for being generous. Wealth in itself isn't condemned, it's hoarding of wealth that's condemned.
So it's bad to be well liked because some of the people who were well liked in the past had wrong beliefs or weren't good people? No sorry, I'd rather be popular. Why can't somebody be popular and good at the same time? Having lots of supportive social connections is good, saying otherwise is serving up cope for people who don't. Of course this plays well for the crowd because most people aren't as well liked as they would wish; Luke says their plight is actually a virtue so they can feel good about not being popular and pity those who are.
Being well liked at the expense of truth is often how the world works, but what's being said here is that it doesn't play well in the upside-down kingdom of God where the first shall be last and the last shall be first.
So there's no way to be well liked unless you tell lies? I don't believe that. I think that's cope for people who aren't well liked to feel morally superior to those who are. It's a form of sour grapes; I didn't want the grapes anyway because they're sour. I didn't want to be popular anyway, because those people are liars.
After all, Jesus dying on the cross is perhaps the most virtuous and aspirational acts.
As it relates to this conversation, it is interesting that the nobility suffering for the sake of others has been simplified to or conflated with simply the nobility of suffering.
Are they? They both follow the form of 'impoverish yourself now to receive rewards later.' Sure, one promises reward in the afterlife and one promises reward in this life, but for those who truly believe the afterlife is just as real as this life, I don't think there's much meaningful difference. To such people, both promised rewards are real and desirable.
> People who suffered from oppression... and who were denied any effective recourse by relative powerlessness—developed a persistent, corrosive emotional pattern of resentful hatred against their enemies, which Nietzsche calls ressentiment. [1]
In his view modern society was poisoned by "ressentiment", leaving people unable to find authentic happiness as a result.
It is hard to tell from the quote, but is he claiming that that modern views infer virtue from holding hatred/ resentment?
In his view this was an obstacle to true human flourishing, and he hoped for some kind of creative renewal where people invented new values that were more authentically life-affirming.
Wikisource has the book online: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Genealogy_of_Morals
Nietzsche is probably one of the most misinterpreted philosophers out there (I definitely consider him a thinker to "handle with care"), and I'm not necessarily advocating for the correctness of his views. But I think it's interesting to see how previous thinkers have anticipated a lot of our current debates and questions.
The question itself only matters if no method exists where the pendulum can be dampened more quickly. Given history, there is reason to believe such a method exists.
Now I don't believe the number of false accussations is close to half (yet, anyway), but even if it were, ask yourself:
Would you want to ignore the half of true victims,
Would you utilize an aggressive method (e.g. Duluth model) or utilize a safer method, if you know one exists, and
Does any of this mean woman on man sexual misconduct should be downplayed?
Sure, the actual statistics matter once trade offs come into play. But people are already failing the basic litmus test of answering the questions above. And that's how the pendulum of grief swings on.
As usual, people should trust but verify. If some people are clamoring that today's "mob" doesn't give due process, the important thing is to actually give due process in deed, and not dismiss people's grievances out of hand.
A lot of the heat in the discussion would disappear if a common definition of these terms were proposed and agreed to. Even more would disappear if those definitions were measurable in some objective sense. Otherwise I find discussions like this devolve into an unnecessary and unpleasant exercise in semantics and a waste of good photons. It seems like a generational malady.
As a side note, I find it is more rhetorically and psychologically powerful to simply describe a disadvantaged situation you (or someone else) are in, rather than adding “and I’m/they are a victim”. When you add the word “victim”, you leave yourself open to bickering about what a “victim” is and how you/they should respond as such, which is distracting from the main point of effectuating change.
Allowing the reader/listener themselves to complete the thought “wow, you/they really got screwed over” in their own mind takes advantage of their natural psychological need for closure. Since the reader/listener themselves will be making that closure, your/their disadvantaged situation will make a more powerful impact on them and the description would be more likely to lead to positive action.
If you are simply looking for an enabler to help feed your psychological need for being perceived as a victim, well, call yourself a “victim” all you want, and good luck in finding someone to complete that folie à deux.
To have-been-wronged becomes a fact of accounting.
I think of --
-- sacrifices that people make. Mortifications of the flesh and so on. "Wrong yourself so the universe owes you something."
-- blood money paid in the Islamic and old Germanic worlds.
-- a brokerage account, with assets and liabilities.
-- how much of the New Testament is full of financial metaphors. The rich man accumulates his fortune on earth, but the righteous man accumulates his fortune in heaven.
But then I also think of
-- central bankers, who magic money into existence
-- Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the rest.
Which brings me back to the observation --
-- Bitcoin is structured like a cult, in which you make a sacrifice to join (exchanging money for it, or wasting electricity), after which you then have an incentive for membership in the tribe (ownership of Bitcoin) to confer benefits (i.e., for the price to appreciate faster than other assets).
You really want to be able to say "to hell with it" and escape the game. To stop accumulating karma and live perched up on a cliff face.
Manipulative people will always use whatever is the popular/dominant ideology of their time and location to get any sort of benefit they can. It might be manifested as being the most fervent communist, fascist, pious/religious, or whatever it is the the society at the time holds high and dear. In our times it just happens to be victimhood and social justice things.
I feel like the constant bickering over who should be included on the flag distracts from the real problems.
Yes, you should keep in the back of your mind that it's possible that someone who claims to be victimised might not be telling the truth, but your first instinct should be a presumption that they're telling the truth, and to act with compassion as if they are. Especially if you're not familiar with the ways in which they claim to have been victimised - your instincts about how you think that plays out might not be great if you've not actually been through it yourself.
Anyone with a "dark personality" will use any means of manipulation they can. This includes playing on people's sympathy.
Slight tangent to the article which is more generic:
The sad fact is things like acceptance of mental health and acknowledgement that sexual assault is far more common than people want to amit, will result in more people claiming these things falsely. Which causes further harm to the people this would help.
Predators, parasites, mimikry.
There must be some social-ecological equivalent.
Don't be envious, it's natural.
> "“Fortune and human imperfection assure that at some point in life everyone will experience suffering, disadvantage, or mistreatment,” wrote the authors of the new study. “When this happens, there will be some who face their burdens in silence, treating it as a private matter they must work out for themselves..."
So, if one is a victim of a crime, or repression, or some other injustice, and one makes it a public issue (by, for example, seeking redress in a court of law), one is engaging in 'narcissisim, psychopathy and Machiavellianism'? What does the US Constitution have to say about this?
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Yes there are those who abuse the courts (and the court of public opinion) in the manner the authors describe, but I think the vast majority of cases don't fall into that category.
We also have seen the stratospheric rise of narcisism.
I've wondered if this is a new phenomenon. If so, why now? If not, why was it seemingly less prevalent historically?
Things like "hyper-individualism as a virtue", a core tenet of many modern American cultures, raiise the question: is this because of narcisism or the cause of it? Culturally we seem to celebrate what are (literally) psychopathic behaviors (eg CEOs of large companies).
But here's another thought: maybe the attraction of a sense of oppression is closely related to the human need for a sense of purpose, to be part of something. Organized religion in the West is in decline but it usually provided this structure. It's scary for many to think that everything is just random and when you die, that's it. There's a certain comfort and structure in being part of soemthing, even if that something is (or is construed as) oppression.
I believe this is a strong motivator for the resilience of conspiracy theories.
As for weaponizing victimhood, here's a good rule to live by: from a narcissist, every accusation is a confession. It tends to work in reverse too, meaning if you find someone making really hpocritical and logically inconsistent statements or accusations, which they themselves don't abide by or are guilty of, it tends to be fairly strong evidence of narcissism.
> I've wondered if this is a new phenomenon
Christopher Lasch in the 70s has a very precise answer to your question. Narcissism is the inevitable defense mechanism to navigate a society in which all organization of civic and family life are increasingly bureaucratic, state-governed, and transactional, a defense mechanism in a society in which all models and ideals are mediated by imagery and advertisement.
In such a society, man cannot but end up with a personality that's hesitant to make close bonds of affection or develop personal loyalty. It is inevitable to nurture insecurities about one's own station in life or one's role in the power structure, about one's physical appearance. To thrive in such a society of impersonal bureaucracy and cult of youth, one almost has, by necessity, to be low key manipulative, congenial on the surface, effortless "cool", preoccupied with projection of identity and youthful vigor.
His are two important insights imho: His analysis precedes internet-era, the preconditions are more fundamental than just social media-fueled victim culture. Also, current epidemic of absorption is at its core a survival strategy for a bureaucratic, technisized world; we cannot expect any change unless the relations between labor, family, and state do not fundamentally become less bureaucratic.
It would make about as much sense as believing everyone who comments on HN.
> New research provides evidence that narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism — maladaptive personality traits known as the “Dark Triad” — are associated with overt displays of virtue and victimhood
I feel like the title could also have been: “people with dark personalities suck”
Most humans have natural empathy for each other. There is a natural sense of fairness, desire for equanimity and caring for others that is built in to our social systems. This was recently experimentally shown that all humans share two social traits: a sense of fairness and that unprovoked violence is unjust
Over the last 70-80 years society has made huge strides (though nowhere near "done") in supporting entire classes of people who have been systematically oppressed or otherwise victims of marginalization.
More importantly though, we as a society have decided to give more grace and patience to victims because they need healing and support - something that non-victims and non-protected people don't get because they simply don't need it as much.
Further we have systematically expanded the definition of what a victim looks like. I recall as a child that physical abuse was the only thing we would consider “abuse” but now we know better. Mental and emotional abuse can be as devastating if not more than physical, so we give grace to those who are struggling mentally – and usually in ways that do not present obviously.
As a species, we have righteously determined that it is traumatic, crude and uncouth to interrogate someone on their victim credentials in order to prove they are actual victims. So the barrier to entry for being part of a marginalized group is simply telling your story.
To people who aren't victims, this looks like a power shift but also a "break" from having to be a good person. Specifically there is a sense that political/social power is being systematically transferred from non-protected groups that have traditionally held power, to marginalized or protected classes of people.
Whether the above shift in political power is true or not is irrelevant - as the true nature of who holds power hasn't shifted in any significant way from what I can tell.
Malignant narcissists want to play life on easy and if throwing up a victim card just works then they will lie and do whatever it takes to be part of that group.
So what can a malignant narcissist to do if they aren't truly a victim, that will confer on them the most prized status, that of victim?
The answer is simple: Join a traditionally oppressed community by lying about your experience, exploiting the inclusive nature of the community so you can claim the moral high ground as a victim, usurp the organization for your own ends and continue to keep marginalized people oppressed.
Rachel Dolezal [1] is the poster child of this.
So, how do you spot it?
At least for me, the most obvious cases are when a person from a non-protected class, identifies strongly and loudly as someone from a marginalized or protected group - especially if that marginalization is subtle and/or non-verifiable.
That only works for the very obvious cases. Plenty of 'protected class' individuals exist who in reality live far more privileged than those not in a 'protected class'.
The basis being people are trying to substitute empathy and common sense with catch-all rules. Which in the context of humans has worked out a grand total of 0 times across our entire existence.
This is useful: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/toxic-relationships/...
No? If this is a joke it seems like an odd place to put it.
Otherwise you really need to get out more and talk with ordinary folks anywhere in the world, especially in the construction trades, because the vast majority of them don't ascribe to this at all.
This kind of catastrophic virtue signalling spiral simply doesn't occur among large segments of the working population.
I work with "ordinary folks" everyday and have since forever. With only maybe one or two notable exceptions, if someone shares a personal story of being a victim in a sober way, I've never encountered anything other than sympathetic responses.
Perhaps you are thinking of "suck it up" culture - which is emphatically not what we are discussing here, and is quite different - and one I have almost 20 years of experience with as a former Military Officer and Iraq war veteran.
What I was referring to is that among nearly everyone I know of in the trades, I think very few, perhaps zero, would let even the most sober claim of victimhood go unremarked without a 'Really?', 'Uh-huh', upturned eyebrow, etc.
Sure, if the claim doesn't seem too exaggerated or unusually suspicious they may not say anymore on it. That doesn't mean they fully believe the alleged victim.
If it's someone they know to be genuine making the claim then I agree sympathetic responses are the norm, and even then they may still harbour doubts.
But that's the point, they don't easily believe just anyone, nor do they care much about social status advantages, so they almost never get into these signalling games.
The people who appear to easily trust anyone and appear to be sympathetic to every claim, are usually either very naive and sheltered or are very cunning and devious. Very few adults fall in-between.
Consider that Blackstone's ratio is a logical formalism of what I describe above as "giving the benefit of the doubt."
Obviously the world is continuous and not discrete, so stochastic variability still counts and there will be ranges of credulity - however most people are more willing to "buy a story" than they are to be "aggressively incredulous" and as a result that's the perfect place for exploitative people to live.
In the first group, you're often better assuming "default open" (that everyone in the group is a non-narcissist) - in the second group you may need defenders to protect the members (or somehow combine the two types).
For example, I was homeless as a teenager. Should I have just laid down and shown my belly to the world, or stand up on my own two feet and move forward with my life?
It sucks, but at some point people have to be made of sterner stuff or they'll never accomplish anything. That doesn't mean the bad things that happen are ok, or that they shouldn't deal with them, but if you roll over and show your belly every time something bad happens to you then you're depending on other people for your success.
This is why standards and boundaries are important, and why inclusivity is not an unalloyed virtue.
Well, in some sense the big, true power-holders haven't really shifted all that much. You still have an unfortunate amount of Iraq war fanboys in the Federal world. There is still a mess of "old white guy" in business. Only, this isn't a whole, true, and good picture for the Average Joe. To a bottom-status person there is a contiuum of power above.
Now, if a "victim class" makes a stink at work a non-victim is liable to be on the losing end even if the "victim" is a genuine shit-bag. This isn't particularly new to the era, the "Jesse Jackson" victim-grifter class has existed for decades now but much like publishing, the internet has democratized the ability to raise a lynch mob against a target.
EDIT: It would be swell if the down-voter would be forced to provide some semblance of feedback...
Or they could simply be members of the marginalized group. People in such groups are still human beings, and a certain percentage of all humans are "malignant narcissists." It's simply part of the human experience. You don't need to go to the lengths of looking for people lying about identification to find them.
Affinity groups for marginalized populations attract malignant narcissists at a higher rate than other organizations
So you should always be alert for them, but even more alert if you are part of a marginalized group, as you're at higher risk of exploitation
I simply mean any curated community with high openness, high conscientiousness and low judgment centered around supporting people.
When I was young, hearing that someone was raped immediately brought to mind an understanding of the heinousness of the crime.
Today I assume it's not true and start asking questions. Do I like having that mindset? No, I obviously don't want anyone to be raped, men and women included.
But at some point I have to protect _MYSELF_ from manipulation, and these people manipulate entirely too often. And the people who are truly hurt by this are the ones who truly need help.
I mean hell, when I see a statistic about rape my first question is to see the questions asked in the poll. Because it turns out, many of the respondents THEMSELVES wouldn't consider their response to imply rape, but it gets labelled as such for the statistics.
One way that's worked for me in the past is to give in slightly to the person's demands (even by just conceding their point in an argument), and observe how they react. If this cools their rage, then they are expressing sincere pain due to a wrong that has been done to them, and only desire justice in some form. This person has legitimate concerns and deserves support.
If getting their demands met enrages them even more, then by listening to them you are only feeding a fire in their heart that will consume everything if allowed to. You have to stay away from those people.
Emotions cause some noise in this process so you shouldn't rush to judgment.
I call this the difference between "Social Justice Warriors" (shameful that this has become a negative term because being a warrior for social justice describes every great leader) and "Social Grudge Warriors".
It's something that _most_ people grow out of and mature and realize that not every slight is intentional and demands wrath and justice. To be clear, I'm not saying they don't have a point, but that sometimes their messaging is very, very aggressive.
My rule of thumb follows yours, but I also make allowances for young people striving to make their mark in ways their peers tell them they should.
The power hasn't shifted, but the rules for how that power is used have changed. And that has real-world impacts.
To use an example, Joe Biden is an old white guy, like all but one President before him. In that sense the power hasn't shifted. But his administration has created government programs that make benefits available to, e.g., wealthy Indians, but not poor Appalachians: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/sba-cant-priorit.... That's an economically meaningful change in how power is used.
To use another example, universities, film, the media, etc., are still controlled by white people. But those white people openly discriminate in favor of non-whites, creating a powerful incentive to identify as some sort of minority and make that identification a prominent part of one's scholarship.
In my view, America has become minoritarian, in a way that has diverted our attention from the general welfare, and created perverse incentives for members of minority groups. The story from the other day is a great example: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us/sundance-jihad-rehab-m.... We have created a system where a Lebanese-American film maker has every incentive to attack a movie about Muslims made by a white woman, regardless of the movie's merit. We should not be surprised that people respond to those incentives.
"Good Intentions" Pavers now for sale