Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Typos, Grammar, Syntax, & Content Improvement - Megathread

Quote from Stef on May 27, 2021, 2:48 am

https://doi.apa.org/record/1968-08862-001?doi=1

RESULTS SUGGEST THAT THE EXPLANATION MAY LIE IN THE BYSTANDER'S RESPONSE TO OTHER OS THAN IN HIS INDIFFERENCE TO THE VICTIM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

Any idea what they want to mean?, it seems they did a typo at the end.

OFF-TOPIC

When the "diffusion of responsibility" first came to light, it was a big ruckus because it seemed to show most people wouldn't help, which called into question how "moral" of a species humans really were.

Further research showed that it's not so much about morals, ethics, and empathy as it is about group and power dynamics.
It was less about "individual in pain" and "potential helper" interaction, and more about "potential helpers" interactions -and inferences-.

It also takes courage to take action, as you risk potential embarrassment to be the only one who makes a move while everyone ignores -imagine if it was a prank, imagine if you bumble your help?-.
In that sense, it takes some strength and personal power to be the first one to move.

Quite relevant to personal empowerment and enlightened individualism, in the end.

OFF-TOPIC

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

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:

  1. What you can change
  2. What you want to change
  3. 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

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

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)

Lucio Buffalmano and Matthew Whitewood have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew Whitewood

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.

Matthew Whitewood and Stef have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodStef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

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!

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef

under what title?

something like:

-Humans true complex motivations- ?

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood

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.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef

One might must be careful here to differentiate between "good" and "effective"

I think - might must- can not be used together

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you Stef!

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

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.

Processing...