Nar 2.8
Mach 2.0
Psycho 1.1
Mach 2.0
Psycho 1.1
Dark Triad Personality Test Results (Post your results!)
- Thread starter andersen09
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2019
- Messages
- 21
Narcissism 2.8
Machiavellianism 3.9
Psychopathy 3.1
Most of the test focused on your views - I think this reflects my somewhat emotional disengagement towards people and an overwhelming need to control those around me.
Machiavellianism 3.9
Psychopathy 3.1
Most of the test focused on your views - I think this reflects my somewhat emotional disengagement towards people and an overwhelming need to control those around me.
Last edited:
Just another thing to consider:
All personality tests and "personality disorders" are based on a western post-industrial society, with all it's own norms.
Think about context.
For instance, by our definitions every single viking was A) A psychopath and B) An alcoholic.
It was an entire civilization based around raiding, pillaging, murder, rape and abduction (as well as copious alcohol use).
Does it make any sense at all, from a diagnostic perspective, to say "all vikings were psychopaths"? Doesn't that call into question the validity of the term "psychopath" or it's label as a disorder, if all the people in that society follow those norms?
In fact, wouldn't a "peace loving" a.k.a. "non-raiding/pillaging/murdering/raping/abducting" viking be considered disordered in that society? Wouldn't his friends and family disown him or worse?
Behaviors have to be considered as adaptive, getting people what they need/want, or maladaptive, not getting people what they need/want, within a specific context.
In fact, go a little deeper.
The vikings were so successful in their raiding lifestyle that the French eventually granted them an area of land just to stop them from raiding the rest of France (and to act as a buffer against other vikings). This place was known as Normandy, or "Land of the North Men".
From here, the bastard grandson of the original Duke of Normandy, William the Bastard (later William the Conquer), invaded England and took the throne, beginning the dynasty that exists today (1,000 years later).
The decedents of that dynasty eventually ruled over 60% of the earth, having immense wealth and power. So it can it be said that the vikings were "maladpative" if their decedents came closer to world domination than any other group in history?
Just something to think about when looking at anything from the DSM or other supposedly authoritative sources on what is or is not healthy psychology.
I wrote the above last night and I had some more thoughts on it, to really drive the point home to the purpose of this forum.
So, continuing with understanding the context, what is the context of western society with regards to relationships?
For instance, the implicit assumption that monogamy is the best and most healthy form of human romantic relationships (even if polygamy or simply "sleeping around" aren't explicitly labeled with their own disorders).
Also, that monogamy should be the goal of any emotionally healthy person from sexual maturity onward (and not allowing for a player period or hoe period, respectively).
All of this culminating in the ultimate goal being the ability to maintain a lifelong relationship with one partner where you raise children together (as opposed to a one man / four woman group, and as opposed to other "legacy projects").
Of course there are certain psychologists and certain schools of thought that are more flexible on any or all of these, but for the overall diagnostics (DSM), this is largely true.
So the question then becomes are the set of behaviors and beliefs that are most valued in western psychology, where the goal is one (beta) man to one woman, the most effective or useful if say your goal is one man to four women (as it is in some other societies currently, and as it was pre-Christianity with anywhere from 2 to 10,000 women to one man) or simply to go through a player period till you can understand women generally before making an informed decision about one woman in particular? (and, a personal theory of mine is that a man has to have more sexual experience than his female long term partner to avoid being taken advantage of.)
And would the DSM label behaviors that lead to one man and four women as disordered i.e. (perhaps, and to an extent) "dark triad"? Despite one man four women being an evolutionary stable, and very effective, strategy (just look at the spread and perpetuation of Islam).
And, in my opinion, wouldn't it be more effective to separate out the good behaviors of dark triads, while discarding the bad? Further, considering the bias, the bad parts of dark triad going along with the good may be a caricature i.e. what about the benevolent Machiavellian who does everything necessary to protect his family and people (dare I say, the "Prince", haha).
Also of note, overall western psychology in some ways has to minimize the antagonist nature of sexual reproduction. In many ways the interests of men and women are not aligned at the beginning of seduction (fast sex vs. slow sex for an obvious example), and while pickup tries to address this and find common ground and alignment (and persuade), western psychology acts like this doesn't exists at all.
Or to put it more concretely, does it make sense to be more "dark triad" in the beginning of the seduction as opposed to after you've slept together? By the way, it's my observation that many so called players get this wrong and can't form stable relationships (which require empathy, accountability, honesty etc.). And, to show the agreement with the prevailing doctrine, people high on narcissism tend to have more short term relationships (and be better at forming them) and I believe by extension one night stands.
Finally, to agree some more with @Carousel, does it make sense to be more Machiavellian with strangers or people whose motives you don't know and whose interests with you may not align? Which is a connected to a point I'm fond on, "Politics isn't scale free" i.e. Capitalism is a better system among strangers (it assumes the worse), Socialism among family and friends (it assumes the best).
So, continuing with understanding the context, what is the context of western society with regards to relationships?
For instance, the implicit assumption that monogamy is the best and most healthy form of human romantic relationships (even if polygamy or simply "sleeping around" aren't explicitly labeled with their own disorders).
Also, that monogamy should be the goal of any emotionally healthy person from sexual maturity onward (and not allowing for a player period or hoe period, respectively).
All of this culminating in the ultimate goal being the ability to maintain a lifelong relationship with one partner where you raise children together (as opposed to a one man / four woman group, and as opposed to other "legacy projects").
Of course there are certain psychologists and certain schools of thought that are more flexible on any or all of these, but for the overall diagnostics (DSM), this is largely true.
So the question then becomes are the set of behaviors and beliefs that are most valued in western psychology, where the goal is one (beta) man to one woman, the most effective or useful if say your goal is one man to four women (as it is in some other societies currently, and as it was pre-Christianity with anywhere from 2 to 10,000 women to one man) or simply to go through a player period till you can understand women generally before making an informed decision about one woman in particular? (and, a personal theory of mine is that a man has to have more sexual experience than his female long term partner to avoid being taken advantage of.)
And would the DSM label behaviors that lead to one man and four women as disordered i.e. (perhaps, and to an extent) "dark triad"? Despite one man four women being an evolutionary stable, and very effective, strategy (just look at the spread and perpetuation of Islam).
And, in my opinion, wouldn't it be more effective to separate out the good behaviors of dark triads, while discarding the bad? Further, considering the bias, the bad parts of dark triad going along with the good may be a caricature i.e. what about the benevolent Machiavellian who does everything necessary to protect his family and people (dare I say, the "Prince", haha).
Also of note, overall western psychology in some ways has to minimize the antagonist nature of sexual reproduction. In many ways the interests of men and women are not aligned at the beginning of seduction (fast sex vs. slow sex for an obvious example), and while pickup tries to address this and find common ground and alignment (and persuade), western psychology acts like this doesn't exists at all.
Or to put it more concretely, does it make sense to be more "dark triad" in the beginning of the seduction as opposed to after you've slept together? By the way, it's my observation that many so called players get this wrong and can't form stable relationships (which require empathy, accountability, honesty etc.). And, to show the agreement with the prevailing doctrine, people high on narcissism tend to have more short term relationships (and be better at forming them) and I believe by extension one night stands.
Finally, to agree some more with @Carousel, does it make sense to be more Machiavellian with strangers or people whose motives you don't know and whose interests with you may not align? Which is a connected to a point I'm fond on, "Politics isn't scale free" i.e. Capitalism is a better system among strangers (it assumes the worse), Socialism among family and friends (it assumes the best).
I am always getting shit! from women that love me, they say "you are a,narcissist" "you are selfish" "you are in love with yourself", "your heart is made of rock" the thing is when they fall super hard in love with me, no exception, and they have options of other men, they sill "love" me and "Can't get over me" and is very simple reason, not sure if is all "confidence".... I just think that putting yourself first is extremely attractive even if is frustrating to them, the moment in any part of the seduction (other than giving her an orgasm) you stop putting yourself first, you are a bit fucked...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 1,059
Truth!!!
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2019
- Messages
- 21
Who is "our". I think you mean by your definition. Psychology takes into account culture and what they consider normal. So no they wouldn't label vikings as psychopathic because despite vikings being ruthless to everyone else they still had much care and empathy and altruism towards their in-group(other Vikings) and that is very uncharacteristic of psychopathy.
I meant the DSM. I mentioned it in the last line of that post. But I can understand why that would not be 100% clear.
The DSM doesn't have, to my knowledge a disclaimer that says "applies primarily (or exclusively) to western industrialized societies".
And it certainly doesn't have a disclaimer that says "here are the basic assumptions made about human romantic choices (like monogamy vs. polygamy) that underlie our recommendations about beliefs and behaviors".
So the DSM being where I believe the definitions for this test would be drawn from, and that being the original purpose of this thread, was why I explained it that way.
Also I said the opposite of what you claim I said, I said Psychology should take into context, but that it brings up all kinds of difficult questions to judge ex. Is it good or bad to live like a viking (murdering, raping) if it leads to your civilization controlling more resources than any other on the planet?
Or for a more immediate question, if the attention span of all people under 35 is so decimated today (from tech etc.), and then if say 50% or more of the population would be considered to have "ADHD", what then is the diagnostic value of "ADHD", that is once it becomes the new normal?
You are a narcissist Skills.
But a lovable one.
On a more serious note, I agree with you in overall principle, but I'd say it's hard to quantify.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2019
- Messages
- 21
The ICD has very similar diagnostic criteria and it's used everywhere else in the world.
They do take things into context. It's not Psychology's job to judge what is good or bad, rather, they study behaviors and mental processes.
A diagnosis of ADHD is so much more than a short attention span. I don't know where you got that number from.
I fear we're talking past each other year.
I made the opposite point (that trying to use the same criteria everywhere in the world is bad).
I addressed this before with "adaptive" vs. "maladpative" behaviors and beliefs in a previous reply (which you haven't read?).
Attention span is part of it, and I used that as a broad an example of a trend (the numbers were just to illustrate).
The test questions were kinda lame but anyway:
Machiavellianism 3.6
Narcissism 2.9
Psychopathy 1.3
I was a bit surprised that I scored so high on Machiavellianism. It probably reflects my somewhat utilitarian approach to achieving quite noble goals.
I thought that my narcissism score was pretty respectable as too little is as bad as too much, and I do happen to have a lot to be proud of personally.
I’m not particularly surprised that I scored so low on psychopathy. It’s just alien to me, despite my occasional Machiavellian streak.
Machiavellianism 3.6
Narcissism 2.9
Psychopathy 1.3
I was a bit surprised that I scored so high on Machiavellianism. It probably reflects my somewhat utilitarian approach to achieving quite noble goals.
I thought that my narcissism score was pretty respectable as too little is as bad as too much, and I do happen to have a lot to be proud of personally.
I’m not particularly surprised that I scored so low on psychopathy. It’s just alien to me, despite my occasional Machiavellian streak.
Someone in Mensa once told me IQ tests are more so measures of how good you are at taking them.
I also once got hardcore voyeur on a bdsm test because I was like, of course I like to look at naked women in sexual situations...
So I doubt these are that accurate, but maybe it can offer insight.
Machiavellianism: 4.4
Narcissism: 3.6
Psychopathy: 3
I also once got hardcore voyeur on a bdsm test because I was like, of course I like to look at naked women in sexual situations...
So I doubt these are that accurate, but maybe it can offer insight.
Machiavellianism: 4.4
Narcissism: 3.6
Psychopathy: 3
You are right; this test seems inaccurate.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2020
- Messages
- 636
Machiavellianism: 1.7
Narcissism: perfect 3 ('coz I'm peeerfect lmao)
Psychopathy: 2.2
I felt weird at first that Psychopathy is higher than Machiavellianism for me, I mean, I think Machiavellianism it's like the classic "cold evil" people, but I guess I'm a bit more passionate when it comes to not being so pleasant with others.
Narcissism: perfect 3 ('coz I'm peeerfect lmao)
Psychopathy: 2.2
I felt weird at first that Psychopathy is higher than Machiavellianism for me, I mean, I think Machiavellianism it's like the classic "cold evil" people, but I guess I'm a bit more passionate when it comes to not being so pleasant with others.
