Comment - FBXL Lotide

Comment on Authoritarianism acts as a psychological bridge for dark personalities, study finds

WesternInfidels@feddit.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

I think the psychology community is probably mistaken, outdated, or out of touch on the “stigmatizing” point. The TESCREAL assholes love to think of themselves as “dark triad” or “dark personality,” they fantasize about bringing about a “dark enlightenment.” “Dark” isn’t stigmatizing, it’s cool. It’s sensational. For that reason, I think it would be great to have a different term. One that wasn’t cool.

(A little aside here: You think the psychologists should be trusted to choose the most appropriate terms, yes? Where did the current “dark” terminology, which is apparently so problematic, come from? I don’t actually know the answer. Do you?)

So my suggestion was specifically to find a term that wasn’t cool like “dark” is. My focus wasn’t on avoiding stigma, because I don’t care if the sorts of people who would be happy to put me and my family in a concentration camp felt stigmatized. But hey, if you want to stick up for their feelings and dignity, you go ahead. You’re still free to do that. You will always be free to stick up for them.

So you don’t like “defective.” Okay. Maybe “antagonistic” would work.

I am very smart, and frankly, anyone who says my idea is obviously fucking stupid is contradicting the psychology community

The contrast you think you see is there because you’re not absorbing my point. Maybe that’s partly my fault. I think it’s partly your fault, though. You’ve charged into this with a chip on your shoulder.

whose opinions on this I’m literally just now glancing at

Yup! Is that a scientific argument, though? Should it matter if I’m an expert or not?

original

Sort:hotnew top

TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
I think the psychology community is probably mistaken, outdated, or out of touch on the “stigmatizing” point.

Okay, good for you. You clearly know literally nothing about the field and are pretending to know more than experts you’re simultaneously abusing as a shield, but good for you.

Where did the current “dark” terminology, which is apparently so problematic, come from?

It’s not “so” problematic. It could stand to be more accurate, less stigmatizing, and less sensationalist, but it’s not a major problem, and people within the psychology community are aware of it and are advocating for thoughtful change – not whatever spaghetti-at-the-wall trash you’re doing. And 2) shit, you’re right. I forgot the fact that scientific fields have made mistakes in the past means that we need to listen to outsiders who have no fucking idea what they’re talking about. That talking point has worked out so well in other fields. After all, science is a LIAR… sometimes.

So you don’t like “defective.”

The fact you even suggested it in the first place shows you lack even a bare minimum understanding of what you’re talking about and are in no position to be critiquing the field of psychology. You cherrypicked “sensationalized”, somehow offered something more sensationalized anyway, and then totally ignored “stigmatizing” and “inaccurate”. When pressed on “stigmatizing”, you just decided that the psychologists you’re abusing as a shield for your moronic ideas actually don’t know what they’re talking about.
original
- WesternInfidels@feddit.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  You clearly know literally nothing … The fact you even suggested it in the first place shows you lack even a bare minimum understanding
  
  You’ve written so much abuse, without explaining a darn thing.
  
  whatever spaghetti-at-the-wall trash you’re doing
  
  Yeah, an anonymous internet message board is a pretty irresponsible place to throw spaghetti at the wall, I guess. Seeing as how the entire APA board is refreshing this very thread feverishly. I guess I better find a mop, huh?
  
  You cherrypicked “sensationalized”, somehow offered something more sensationalized anyway,
  
  No no, I did it the other way around. I started with the spaghetti-at-the-wall trash, and then I discovered the resources you so kindly provided supported my point pretty much exactly.
  
  original
  - TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    supported my point pretty much exactly
    
    “Let’s make the terminology somehow much worse. And I’m going to abuse what you provided showing that my ideas were pointing in the wrong direction to claim that, actually, psychologists totally agree with me – because we both want change, see?”
    
    You can say there should be change. What you can’t do is come up with stupid-as-fuck alternatives and then hide behind actual experts and claim they’re saying basically the same thing. You can’t say the soup lacks flavor, suggest putting in antifreeze, and then say you were basically on the right track because a chef said the soup lacks flavor and suggested adding jalapeño.
    
    original