Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Typos, Grammar, Syntax, & Content Improvement - Megathread
and it’s actually very common to be value-givers while being self-interesrted.
Similar to narcissism and cynicism, it might be helpful to start from the nihilistic bottom.
In this case, to accept that you’re ultimately on your own, that people are self-interested, and that your own family would leave you within the right circumstances.
I agree, however this doesnt even sounds like nihilism to me, its just healthy realism
nihilism is something more extreme
Nihilism "Different nihilist positions hold variously that human values are baseless, that life is meaningless, that knowledge is impossible, or that some set of entities do not exist."
It is hard to fathom how you can pull something good out of hardcore nihilism, yet I wont be surprised to know some people derive benefits from starting from that position.
both over-pride other groups’ and debasement will start sounding petty and narrow-minded.
first part of the sentence meaning is not clear to me
I think you mean that -over-valuing one's own group and devaluing the other’s groups start to seem petty.
But when we realize how meaningless “infinity” is
I have always have a problem with the concept of infinity, and with its use in mathematics
I think trying to comprehend or manipulate (as in “doing” calculations using a symbol supposedly represeniting infinity) with a finite mind or with “finite” processing power/time will allways be nonsensical.
If the leader is a poor leader, leave the group.
Or “coup d'etat” him
So quit the social complainers, and focus on being a thriving individual.
social complaining?
And you’ll find out that you most oftne end up leading those groups.
the distance (proximity law)
Is this related to the concept of propinquity?
Everything falling outside of these three spheres of:
- What you can change
- What you want to change
- What people want to have changed
Is noise and distraction to be ruthlessly cut out.
This syntax makes the reader have to expend effort having to keep in mind the first sentence while reading the 3 spheres and then connecting with the end, it cuts the "flow"
I will suggest:
We can consider noise and distraction, that we need to ruthlessly cut out, everything falling outside of these three spheres:
1
2
3
https://thepowermoves.com/machiavellianism-the-psychology-of-manipulation/
So the real question is if the final outcome is win-win, or win-lose.
and it can be even more complex, maybe my win is big enough to justify a small loss on the other person side, or maybe he deserves a lose on this time for different reasons.
They have a penetrating, rational and sober mind undisturbed by emotions.
that sounds like a compliment to my hears
moral percepts
precepts
They are also more likely to approach dating with a more malevolent bent, and use more value-taking strategies, including making their partners or drunk,
And once the reality of who they really are emerge
double real , I would keep just one
I don’t fully agree that psychopaths all necessarily enjoy other people’s suffering, but I do agree with the general point he makes
because not all psychopaths are sadists, maybe
People often judge Machiavellians to be intelligent even though research shows they’re not anymore intelligent
not more
or maybe any more (separated)
Definition of anymore
: any longer
They might be poorer at understanding their own demotions
emotions?
And once the agreeableness effect was eliminated the negative relationship between Machiavellianism and emotional intelligence disappeared.
Cause it evidently does not make sense that high machs would be good manipulators if they had really bad emotional intelligence and a bad theory of mind (of others).
Several authors suggested that narcissism does not belong to the cluster of malevolent personality traits (Egan, Chan, & Shorter 2014; Kowalski, Vernon, & Schermer 2017) and proposed instead a “dark dyad” with psychopathy and Machiavellianism.
Then sadism can take the place of narcissism to have a triad again.
People who are as low extraversion, high neuroticism, and high agreeableness are highly vulnerable to social manipulation
When Machs contributed more to public accounts the author it was “yet another example of pretended altruism, for unselfish behavior served to increase private gains in this case as well”.
I don’t see it that way at all: Mach’s behavior still resulted in win-win.
I would add that human motivation can be complex, as is, you can do something 60% for the publicity, and 40% because you really do want to help those people or any other numbers, and it is not like as if you are a calculater and can put precise numbers on the weight of each specific motivation you are concious of, or as if this "numbers" keep static all the time...( you may start doing something for the good publicity and then you discover you really enjoy doing that good thing for others, etc)
Thank you, Stef!
Stef: I would add that human motivation can be complex, as is, you can do something 60% for the publicity, and 40% because you really do want to help those people or any other numbers, and it is not like as if you are a calculator and can put precise numbers on the weight of each specific motivation you are concious of, or as if this "numbers" keep static all the time...( you may start doing something for the good publicity and then you discover you really enjoy doing that good thing for others, etc)
Yes, great point.
That author did a great job, just had a rather strong frame that "Machiavellians are bad" and seemed to have a hidden belief that "seeking to increase personal well-being is bad (no matter if others win as well)".
And sometimes that also resorted in a black and white categorization: you're either selfish, or altruist, while, as you say, things are often more complex.
Stef: I would add that human motivation can be complex, as is, you can do something 60% for the publicity, and 40% because you really do want to help those people or any other numbers, and it is not like as if you are a calculater and can put precise numbers on the weight of each specific motivation you are concious of, or as if this "numbers" keep static all the time...( you may start doing something for the good publicity and then you discover you really enjoy doing that good thing for others, etc)
This is very interesting.
Maybe it warrants opening up a thread for this.
How rigid should your drivers and values be?
I guess the idea is to have clarity at all times but to constantly be self-aware to re-evaluate your drivers.
And also extend the same concept to the people around you.
Because people do change and have different interests over time.
Thanks a lot for putting in the time to make all these improvements!
under what title?
something like:
-Humans true complex motivations- ?
I think that would work.
I haven't thought about what to discuss though.
Maybe it's time for me to re-evaluate my motivations.
One might must be careful here to differentiate between "good" and "effective"
I think - might must- can not be used together
Thank you Stef!
Hi Lucio,
In your recent article Underdog Dating, this video link right above Summary does not make the video appear in place:
https://youtu.be/43qgmnWa5yk
It seems to be private so we cannot view it even when I type in the video link into the address bar.
Thank you, Matthew!
Yes, that's still in private mode and will be released soon. After the release, it will appear -but the article doesn't need that video, it doesn't add anything that's not already there, that's why I didn't worry about it-.
I'm experimenting with a new approach to YouTube videos.
YouTube might never be TPM's favorite channel, but I still think it can do better than what it's currently doing.
