• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Scientific study on virtue and victim signalling

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Scientific study on virtue and victim signalling

    PDF of Study

    Article

    The paper—from University of British Columbia researchers Ekin Ok, Yi Qian, Brendan Strejcek, and Karl Aquino—details multiple studies the authors conducted on the subject.

    Their conclusion? Psychopathic, manipulative, and narcissistic people are more frequent signalers of "virtuous victimhood."

    The so-called "dark triad" personality traits—Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—lead to characteristics like "self-promotion, emotional callousness, duplicity, and tendency to take advantage of others," the paper explains.
    An emerging literature on competitive victimhood documents the prevalence of victim signaling by various social groups and provides evidence for its functionality as a resource extraction strategy. For instance, victim signaling justifies victim groups seeking retribution against alleged oppressors.

    Retribution often takes the form of demanding compensation through some kind of resource transfer from nonvictims to the alleged victim. Claiming victim status can also facilitate resource transfer by conferring moral immunity upon the claimant. Moral immunity shields the alleged victim from criticism about the means they might use to satisfy their demands. In other words, victim status can morally justify the use of deceit, intimidation, or even violence by alleged victims to achieve their goals.

    Relatedly, claiming victim status can lead observers to hold a person less blameworthy, excusing transgressions, such as the appropriation of private property or the infliction of pain upon others, that might otherwise bring condemnation or rebuke. Finally, claiming victim status elevates the claimant's psychological standing, defined as a subjective sense of legitimacy or entitlement to speak up. A person who has the psychological standing can reject or ignore any objections by nonvictims to the unreasonableness of their demands.

    In contrast to victim signalers, people who do not publicly disclose their misfortune or disadvantage are less likely to reap the benefits of retributive compensation, moral immunity, deflection of blame, or psychological standing and would therefore find it difficult to initiate resource transfers.
    The authors stress that they "do not refute the claim that there are individuals who emit the virtuous victim signal because they experience legitimate harm and also conduct themselves in decent and laudable ways."
    "Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon Musk

    #2
    Originally posted by Jog On View Post
    #prayforbr14

    Comment


      #3
      No RT or ZH links???

      Comment


        #4
        Liberals tend to talk to minorities like they are idiots...

        APA PsycNet

        "do. you. understand. me? I. am. trying. to. help. you."

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by AtW View Post
          No RT or ZH links???
          Anything for you AtW, because we know how much you love ZeroHedge

          Narcissists, Psychopaths, & Manipulators Are More Likely To Engage In "Virtuous Victim Signaling", Study Finds | Zero Hedge
          Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

          Comment


            #6
            URL from ZH:
            /markets/narcissists-psychopaths-manipulators-are-more-likely-engage-virtuous-victim-signaling-study

            URL from "reason.com":
            /2020/07/07/narcissists-psychopaths-and-manipulators-are-more-likely-to-engage-in-virtuous-victim-signaling-says-study/

            Coincidental close naming with just slight changes? I think not.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              URL from ZH:
              /markets/narcissists-psychopaths-manipulators-are-more-likely-engage-virtuous-victim-signaling-study

              URL from "reason.com":
              /2020/07/07/narcissists-psychopaths-and-manipulators-are-more-likely-to-engage-in-virtuous-victim-signaling-says-study/

              Coincidental close naming with just slight changes? I think not.
              Yes I did originally see it on ZH - so what? Does that make it 'fake news'?
              "Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon Musk

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Jog On View Post
                Yes I did originally see it on ZH - so what? Does that make it 'fake news'?
                So why didn't you quote the original source?



                Here is my educated guess - both ZH and useful Mor Ons like you now know that quoting ZH is like quoting Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, so same disinfo designed to influence weak minds gets posted somewhere else and make it easier for people like you to share.

                Permbans are well overdue for ZH sourced content.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by AtW View Post
                  So why didn't you quote the original source?



                  Here is my educated guess - both ZH and useful Mor Ons like you now know that quoting ZH is like quoting Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, so same disinfo designed to influence weak minds gets posted somewhere else and make it easier for people like you to share.

                  Permbans are well overdue for ZH sourced content.
                  Eh I did - I posted the source that ZH quoted. They just reprinted the article from the source I quoted.

                  Now it's your turn to prove that this scientific study is 'disinfo'
                  "Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon Musk

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Jog On View Post
                    Eh I did - I posted the source that ZH quoted.
                    PDF yes, but not the (brainwashing?) article which is on different (affiliated with ZH?) site, despite you having read it on ZH in the first place.

                    Anything posted on ZH should be viewed as the material products by Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, 11-13 ulitsa Bol. Lubyanka, Moscow, 666666

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X