Yes. It’s an arrogance that is rooted in their poor self-esteem. Only a confident person is comfortable accepting what they know and what they don’t know—or who they are and who they are not—as you express about your own sense of self. All antisocial behavior among neurotypicals is rooted in their self-loathing or poor sense of self. Psychopaths are the exceptions. As you explain so clearly, psychopaths who display anti-social behavior are driven by their unobstructed desire to seek pleasure.
Humans evolved to seek emotional and physiological comfort, but ALSO to never be satiated. That’s how we survive—we keep wanting more and more. The reason addiction is such a crisis in the human population is that addition is still a very effective way survival mechanism—it’s the people addicted to creating things, discovering things, impacting others that keep civilization moving forward. But we have yet to find ways to generate the drive we need to keep going without the destructive effects of that same drive—which is revealed in all the destructive addictions that temporarily make the pain less painful. The need for instant gratification is strong.
Would you say that you lack the fight-flight response (sometimes referred to as an amygdala hijack) that originated as a very effective warning of imminent danger when humans were still living in the wild? That primitive survival mechanism, when not appropriate for the actual level of danger one faces, is ABSOLUTELY miserable. In fact, being put into that uncontrollable physiological response is what I fear most in life. I take meds (Zoloft) to control it as much as possible—and I am very grateful for the relief it offers.
The addictive nature of neurotypical humans is also reflected in their choice to fabricate a sense of hope any way they can (religious beliefs are a major form of fabricated hope and so is a belief in free will)—EVEN if it means enduring the fears. I’m worn out from the fears but I am still resisting letting go of hope; I don’t know how to move forward without it.
My guess is that “distrustful self-alliance” is a belief that you must do everything for yourself because others are not to be trusted. For instance, anti-vaxxers distrust doctors and the government so much so that they believe they can make a safer, more sensible decision about whether or not to be vaccinated than tens of thousands of doctors and scientists who have been hyper-focused on the study of vaccines for decades.
Jun 4, 2022·edited Jun 4, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
Distrustful self-reliance - distrust towards oneself which causes distrust towards others as well as lack of accountability (I don't trust myself, therefore I don't trust you, therefore I don't trust you to hold me accountable for anything, and if I hold myself accountable, I won't trust myself to be accountable).
Fancy way of saying "blame-shifting and lack of accountability for own actions".
That said, I don't believe anyone really understands the dark triad, lol.
Anytime you see a triangle shape in science, it's meant to be a representation of "synergistic effects", where the whole is much bigger than the sum of its' parts, kinda like when you add together feelings, thoughts and experiences, and end up wth consciousness.
That's why some of the constructs CAN share the same parts (and in fact, they have to, even though, in this particular example I agree that the whole triangle merits re-designing, starting with new assumptions) and the whole will still be bigger than the sum of its' parts.
Let's get back to our "feelings" + "thoughts" + "experience/memory" trichotomy. We would have to say that they form a triangle, and we would have to say that they contain the same parts (namely, dopamine, as each one of those cognitive functions rely on dopamine) and yet it's true that added together, they make up what we call consciousness.
If that sounds inadequately logical to you (for a reason, I would say, as there is no proof that we need all of that to be conscious), let's do it with "genes" + "upbringing" + "environment", which I call the "epigenetic triangle".
Genes we get from our ancestors. Upbringing, we most of the times also get from our ancestors ( a part of them, anyway), so the overlap here is guaranteed. Finally, we choose and shape our environment with our behaviors, which are largely determined by the latter two parts of the triangle. That environment consequently shapes us, and the cycle starts anew --> this is a triangle, whose sides all overlap, and yet the result is a complex system that we call "(epi)phenotype" - therefore, a synergistic effect has been achieved.
But back to the dark triad, yeah it's completely bullshit. It would make much more sense if the "psychopathy" part was exchanged for "hypersensitivity" and the resulting triangle then called "Antisocial triad" or even "Secondary sociopathic triad", but that's just one example - many thus far fictional triangles would make more sense than the dark triad.
Doesn't matter if you're unfamiliar with the "hypersensitivity" construct - it should be logical to your that anything "hyper" tends to lead to extreme results (imagine hypersensitivity to thrill/entertainment, which should be a part of you, for example). Hypersensitivity to feedback (overlaps with narcissistic dependance on external validation as well as their weakness to criticism) of any kind makes a person inherently unstable and volatile - intuitively, you can't have serial killers and antisocial people of any kind without this trait. Perhaps that is why you don't understand serial killers - there IS NOTHING logical about that, it's all feelings.
Do you think it's possible for a psychopath to act a certain because of the way they were raised?
Say a kid, that turns out to be a psychopath, is told their whole life that taking risks is dangerous. Then, when they are fully grown, they are afraid to take risks even though they don't feel fear.
I am not a psychopath, but I can relate to everything you write but two experiences, including fear, I now doubt.
For me fear and impulse control come when I recognize dangers of something I want to do.
When I am not aware that it’s dangerous, I will just do it, or better say, would have just done it, because I got in the habit of researching about what I want to do before doing it, as my estimation of dangerousness of things by sight proved to be wrong most of the time.
When I am aware that something is dangerous, while I am still not afraid to do it, I choose to do it as safely as possible or more rarely choose not to do it. For example, if I wanted to go climbing, I wouldn’t go climbing with bad gear, because I have heard hundreds of stories about what happens when people do so and I don’t want that to happen to me. So most high-risk activities I approach mindfully.
Granted, when it comes to things I really want to do, the impulse is much harder to override, but it’s still possible to a degree. For example, I really like strong wind and I have stayed outside during storms to enjoy it several times. I would do it again without a second thought, and only if it’s really bad I would talk myself out of it, though I would do it anyway, just rereading the safety recommendations first.
It makes me wonder if impulse control in such cases is possible without fear or if I do have fear, but it’s not strong enough to be noticeable.
I agree that Machiavellian tactics are used by both neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals, just as any immoral or evil behavior is found in both. The impulses to do evil acts are present in a continuum in all humans. In the neurotypical community, it’s emotions like anger, jealousy, vengeance and hatred that drive the evil behavior. And the drive is so strong that even guilt, shame or fear can stop them. The guardrails created by humanity to stop such impulsive behavior essentially broke down. In a neurodivergent, there’s nothing to break down because the guardrails don’t exist for them. So those in the neurodivergent community who have impulses to do evil, generally go ahead and do evil…that is, unless the desire not to be locked up stops them.
Distrustful self-reliance sounds like paranoid insistance on doing everything alone and being secretive and putting up all sorts of defenses, because surely everynone around is out to use everything against you. How is that narccisistic I don'tknow. Unless they want to say that the narccisist thinks everyone else but them will botch the job, because everyone else is beneath their level of capacity.
Hmm... In regards to manipulation... Beside unequal footing it might also come down to deliberate act vs involuntary reflexive reaction. When you do it, you always do it intentionally with full awareness and control, whereas NT hides a bit behind reflexive reactivity. Certainly some lie about how much they cannot help it, for sure we are capable of cold-blooded calculation and full-blown acting. But the fact there is some reflexive reactivity obscures it. Subsequently yours approach gets blown out of proportion through a bit of sweet projection and there we are with horrible manipulativeness of psychopaths. At least that's what occured tome. Could be wrong.
Maybe they separate thrill seeking and risky behaviour beause not all thrills are risky. But it is funny that this is like exact reverse of how they approached aggressive/impulsive.
Now impulsivity could be a cause of aggressive behaviour, but aggressive behaviour can be carried out without an ounce of impulsivity and impulsivity can lead to many other things beside aggressive behaviour. I am a bit surprised they did not lump this together with thrill seeking.
Yes. It’s an arrogance that is rooted in their poor self-esteem. Only a confident person is comfortable accepting what they know and what they don’t know—or who they are and who they are not—as you express about your own sense of self. All antisocial behavior among neurotypicals is rooted in their self-loathing or poor sense of self. Psychopaths are the exceptions. As you explain so clearly, psychopaths who display anti-social behavior are driven by their unobstructed desire to seek pleasure.
Humans evolved to seek emotional and physiological comfort, but ALSO to never be satiated. That’s how we survive—we keep wanting more and more. The reason addiction is such a crisis in the human population is that addition is still a very effective way survival mechanism—it’s the people addicted to creating things, discovering things, impacting others that keep civilization moving forward. But we have yet to find ways to generate the drive we need to keep going without the destructive effects of that same drive—which is revealed in all the destructive addictions that temporarily make the pain less painful. The need for instant gratification is strong.
Would you say that you lack the fight-flight response (sometimes referred to as an amygdala hijack) that originated as a very effective warning of imminent danger when humans were still living in the wild? That primitive survival mechanism, when not appropriate for the actual level of danger one faces, is ABSOLUTELY miserable. In fact, being put into that uncontrollable physiological response is what I fear most in life. I take meds (Zoloft) to control it as much as possible—and I am very grateful for the relief it offers.
The addictive nature of neurotypical humans is also reflected in their choice to fabricate a sense of hope any way they can (religious beliefs are a major form of fabricated hope and so is a belief in free will)—EVEN if it means enduring the fears. I’m worn out from the fears but I am still resisting letting go of hope; I don’t know how to move forward without it.
My guess is that “distrustful self-alliance” is a belief that you must do everything for yourself because others are not to be trusted. For instance, anti-vaxxers distrust doctors and the government so much so that they believe they can make a safer, more sensible decision about whether or not to be vaccinated than tens of thousands of doctors and scientists who have been hyper-focused on the study of vaccines for decades.
Distrustful self-reliance - distrust towards oneself which causes distrust towards others as well as lack of accountability (I don't trust myself, therefore I don't trust you, therefore I don't trust you to hold me accountable for anything, and if I hold myself accountable, I won't trust myself to be accountable).
Fancy way of saying "blame-shifting and lack of accountability for own actions".
That said, I don't believe anyone really understands the dark triad, lol.
Anytime you see a triangle shape in science, it's meant to be a representation of "synergistic effects", where the whole is much bigger than the sum of its' parts, kinda like when you add together feelings, thoughts and experiences, and end up wth consciousness.
That's why some of the constructs CAN share the same parts (and in fact, they have to, even though, in this particular example I agree that the whole triangle merits re-designing, starting with new assumptions) and the whole will still be bigger than the sum of its' parts.
Let's get back to our "feelings" + "thoughts" + "experience/memory" trichotomy. We would have to say that they form a triangle, and we would have to say that they contain the same parts (namely, dopamine, as each one of those cognitive functions rely on dopamine) and yet it's true that added together, they make up what we call consciousness.
If that sounds inadequately logical to you (for a reason, I would say, as there is no proof that we need all of that to be conscious), let's do it with "genes" + "upbringing" + "environment", which I call the "epigenetic triangle".
Genes we get from our ancestors. Upbringing, we most of the times also get from our ancestors ( a part of them, anyway), so the overlap here is guaranteed. Finally, we choose and shape our environment with our behaviors, which are largely determined by the latter two parts of the triangle. That environment consequently shapes us, and the cycle starts anew --> this is a triangle, whose sides all overlap, and yet the result is a complex system that we call "(epi)phenotype" - therefore, a synergistic effect has been achieved.
But back to the dark triad, yeah it's completely bullshit. It would make much more sense if the "psychopathy" part was exchanged for "hypersensitivity" and the resulting triangle then called "Antisocial triad" or even "Secondary sociopathic triad", but that's just one example - many thus far fictional triangles would make more sense than the dark triad.
Doesn't matter if you're unfamiliar with the "hypersensitivity" construct - it should be logical to your that anything "hyper" tends to lead to extreme results (imagine hypersensitivity to thrill/entertainment, which should be a part of you, for example). Hypersensitivity to feedback (overlaps with narcissistic dependance on external validation as well as their weakness to criticism) of any kind makes a person inherently unstable and volatile - intuitively, you can't have serial killers and antisocial people of any kind without this trait. Perhaps that is why you don't understand serial killers - there IS NOTHING logical about that, it's all feelings.
Do you think it's possible for a psychopath to act a certain because of the way they were raised?
Say a kid, that turns out to be a psychopath, is told their whole life that taking risks is dangerous. Then, when they are fully grown, they are afraid to take risks even though they don't feel fear.
I am not a psychopath, but I can relate to everything you write but two experiences, including fear, I now doubt.
For me fear and impulse control come when I recognize dangers of something I want to do.
When I am not aware that it’s dangerous, I will just do it, or better say, would have just done it, because I got in the habit of researching about what I want to do before doing it, as my estimation of dangerousness of things by sight proved to be wrong most of the time.
When I am aware that something is dangerous, while I am still not afraid to do it, I choose to do it as safely as possible or more rarely choose not to do it. For example, if I wanted to go climbing, I wouldn’t go climbing with bad gear, because I have heard hundreds of stories about what happens when people do so and I don’t want that to happen to me. So most high-risk activities I approach mindfully.
Granted, when it comes to things I really want to do, the impulse is much harder to override, but it’s still possible to a degree. For example, I really like strong wind and I have stayed outside during storms to enjoy it several times. I would do it again without a second thought, and only if it’s really bad I would talk myself out of it, though I would do it anyway, just rereading the safety recommendations first.
It makes me wonder if impulse control in such cases is possible without fear or if I do have fear, but it’s not strong enough to be noticeable.
I agree that Machiavellian tactics are used by both neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals, just as any immoral or evil behavior is found in both. The impulses to do evil acts are present in a continuum in all humans. In the neurotypical community, it’s emotions like anger, jealousy, vengeance and hatred that drive the evil behavior. And the drive is so strong that even guilt, shame or fear can stop them. The guardrails created by humanity to stop such impulsive behavior essentially broke down. In a neurodivergent, there’s nothing to break down because the guardrails don’t exist for them. So those in the neurodivergent community who have impulses to do evil, generally go ahead and do evil…that is, unless the desire not to be locked up stops them.
Distrustful self-reliance sounds like paranoid insistance on doing everything alone and being secretive and putting up all sorts of defenses, because surely everynone around is out to use everything against you. How is that narccisistic I don'tknow. Unless they want to say that the narccisist thinks everyone else but them will botch the job, because everyone else is beneath their level of capacity.
Hmm... In regards to manipulation... Beside unequal footing it might also come down to deliberate act vs involuntary reflexive reaction. When you do it, you always do it intentionally with full awareness and control, whereas NT hides a bit behind reflexive reactivity. Certainly some lie about how much they cannot help it, for sure we are capable of cold-blooded calculation and full-blown acting. But the fact there is some reflexive reactivity obscures it. Subsequently yours approach gets blown out of proportion through a bit of sweet projection and there we are with horrible manipulativeness of psychopaths. At least that's what occured tome. Could be wrong.
Maybe they separate thrill seeking and risky behaviour beause not all thrills are risky. But it is funny that this is like exact reverse of how they approached aggressive/impulsive.
Now impulsivity could be a cause of aggressive behaviour, but aggressive behaviour can be carried out without an ounce of impulsivity and impulsivity can lead to many other things beside aggressive behaviour. I am a bit surprised they did not lump this together with thrill seeking.
So I tried to look up info on the dark triad. I got what is included but, I'm wondering, what is it suppose to be used for?