Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Yeah. Today, we
are cracking open a file that feels a little
bit like we're profiling a team of supervillains.
Right. But, and here's the kicker, we aren't
talking about comic book characters, and we definitely
aren't talking about criminals locked away in
a high -security prison. No, not at all. In fact,
if you look at the research, we are essentially
profiling the person sitting in the cubicle next
to you. Oh, wow. Or the person you matched with
on a dating app last night. Which is a terrifying
thought to start the day with. We are talking
about people you interact with daily. They could
be your boss, your neighbor, or, well, let's
hope not. But they could be sleeping in your
bed. It is, yeah. It's a distinct possibility.
We are diving into the dark triad. It sounds
ominous, doesn't it? Like a secret society or...
I don't know, a heavy metal album. It does. And
for good reason. The Dark Triad is a psychological
theory that really gained traction after being
published by Delroy Paulus and Kevin Williams
back in 2002. And it groups together three specific
distinct personality traits that are, to put
it mildly, offensive. Offensive personality types.
I love that the academic literature just comes
out and says it. It's not challenging or difficult.
It's just offensive. They don't mince words.
But the crucial thing we need to establish right
at the start of this deep dive, the mission,
if you will, is that we are looking at subclinical
traits. Okay. This is the most important distinction
to make before we scare everyone listening. Okay.
Let's unpack that immediately. Subclinical means
we aren't talking about a medical diagnosis,
right? Sure. We aren't talking about someone
who needs to be institutionalized. Exactly. When
we talk about these traits in the dark triad,
we aren't talking about someone who has been,
you know, formerly diagnosed with personality
disorder, like antisocial personality disorder.
Although, as we'll see, they share some DNA.
These are non -pathological types found in the
general population. These are people who function
in society. They hold down jobs. They have relationships.
They pay taxes. But they possess these malevolent
qualities. That makes it almost scarier. They
walk among us undiscovered. They are operating
within the social contract, but they are breaking
the spirit of it constantly. That's a great way
to put it. So introduce us to the lineup. Who
are the three members of this triad? Okay, so
first you have narcissism. The one we all think
we know, the selfie taker. It's deeper than that.
I mean, it's about grandiosity, pride, egotism,
and a distinct lack of empathy. Then the second
member is Machiavellianism. Which sounds like
a political thriller. It's rooted in that, yes.
This is characterized by manipulation, a total
indifference to morality, and a calculated focus
on self -interest. Okay. And finally, the third
member, often considered the darkest of the bunch,
psychopathy. And what does that involve? This
is more about impulsivity, thrill -seeking, selfishness,
callousness, and remorselessness. So just to
give us a shorthand here. We have the entitled
egotist, the calculating schemer, and the callous
thrill seeker. That's a good shorthand, yeah.
And while they are distinct, and we will break
down exactly how they differ, what binds them
together into this triad is a specific interpersonal
style. The research calls it a callous manipulative
style. Basically a way of interacting with people
that lacks warmth and treats others as tools.
As objects. Precisely. And if you look at how
these traits map onto the big five personality
traits, which is sort of the gold standard model
in psychology, the strongest correlation for
the dark triad is with low agreeableness. Which
makes sense. They aren't nice. They're not agreeable.
They are not agreeable. But interestingly, neuroticism
and a lack of conscientiousness also play a role
depending on which trait you're looking at. And
the outcomes. Generally, high scores in these
areas correlate with higher crime rates, causing
social distress and creating severe problems
in organizations. But I read something in the
research that surprised me. It's not all bad
news for the person with these traits, is it?
There's a weird flip side where these traits
actually help people function in high stress
environments. There is. Yes. While they cause
distress to others, these traits are also associated
with certain, let's say. positive outcomes like
mental toughness these individuals are often
more willing to embrace challenges so the same
trait that makes someone a nightmare to work
for might make them the only person willing to
take on a high stakes high pressure project where
everyone else is crumbling exactly they just
don't feel the pressure the same way we do and
that complexity is what we are going to explore
we need to move past a simple good versus evil
and look at adaptive versus maladaptive. OK,
let's get into the weeds. I want to deconstruct
this triad piece by piece. Let's start with the
one that seems to dominate social media discussions
these days. Narcissism. Right. Narcissism is
the grand one. Individuals who score high here
display entitlement, dominance and a sense of
superiority. This is the do you know who I am?
energy very much so but here is where it gets
interesting regarding their personality profile
narcissism actually correlates positively with
extroversion and openness wait so they can be
the life of the party Oh, absolutely. They can
be incredibly charming. They are open to new
experiences and they are out there in the world.
They aren't hiding in the corner. Okay, so they're
outgoing. Very. But it correlates negatively
with agreeableness. So they are charming, but
they aren't kind. That is a dangerous combination.
It's like, I love you, but only because you're
listening to me talk about how great I am. That's
a very accurate way to put it. Now, historically,
assessing this required clinical interviews.
In 1979, Raskin and Hall developed the narcissistic
personality inventory or the NPI. That became
the standard for measuring this in the general
population. outside of a clinical setting. And
the research distinguishes between different
flavors of narcissism, right? It's not just one
monolithic thing. That's a crucial nuance. The
MPI mostly measures grandiose narcissism. That's
the bold, I am the greatest type, the classic
show off. But there is also pathological narcissism
and vulnerable narcissism, which we will definitely
touch on later. But generally, when we talk about
the dark triad narcissist, we are talking about
that grandiose, entitled figure. They genuinely
believe they're better. than you. It's not an
act. Right. They've bought their own hype. Okay.
Yeah. Moving to the second member, the one with
the coolest name, Machiavellianism. This comes
from Niccolo Machiavelli, the Renaissance philosopher,
right? Ideally, yes. The philosophy was sort
of formalized into a psychological trait by Christie
and Geis back in 1970. And what defines a high
mach, as they call them? A high mach is someone
who is callous, unprincipled, and excessively
motivated by self -interest. But the core belief...
The engine that drives them is the belief that
interpersonal manipulation is the key to life
success. So it's not just that they do manipulate,
it's that they believe manipulation is how the
world works. Like if you aren't manipulating,
you're just losing. Correct. They have a deeply
cynical view of human nature. They view people
as means to an end, pawns on a chessboard. How
does this differ from the other two? Because
the psychopath manipulates too, right? They do,
but the style is very different. Paulus notes
a key distinction here. Psychopaths tend to be
impulsive and careless. High Macs, on the other
hand, are calculating. They plan for the long
term. They have patience. Ah, okay. So the psychopath
might smash a window to grab a wallet because
they want it now. The Machiavellian befriends
the security guard, waits three months, gets
the code, and cleans out the safe without breaking
anything. That is a perfect analogy. Yes. Machiavellianism
is about strategy. It's a cold, patient game.
Low mocks, by contrast, are empathetic and believe
that people are generally good. And high mocks
think low mocks are suckers. Utter fools, yes.
That brings us to the third, and you said arguably
the darkest member, psychopathy. This is considered
the most malevolent of the three. Here we are
looking at low empathy, often referred to as
callous unemotional traits, or CU and high impulsivity
and thrill -seeking. And how do we spot this
one? I know there's a famous checklist. Yes,
Robert Hare's psychopathy checklist, the PCLR.
Hare really revolutionized this field. He noted
something very important. You can't just ask
a psychopath if they are a psychopath. Because
they'll lie. Because they'll lie, or they simply
lack the insight to even understand the question.
Self -reporting is incredibly tricky. However,
for the subclinical population, the people we
are talking about today, there are self -report
scales, things like the Levinson primary and
secondary psychopathy scales. And unlike the
Machiavellian who is planning that heist for
months, the psychopath is linked to recklessness.
Recklessness and carelessness. They simply do
not feel the anxiety or the remorse that stops
the rest of us from doing dangerous or harmful
things. It's like an absence of the brakes that
most of us have built into our brains. So we
have the entitled narcissist. The calculating
Machiavellian and the impulsive psychopath. That's
the triad. But the research suggests that three
might not be enough. There's a hidden fourth
member trying to get into the club. Yes, there's
a debate about expanding to the dark tetrad.
This sounds like a heavy metal band. What is
the fourth trait? Sadism. Oof. Okay. Why do some
researchers argue this needs to be separate?
Doesn't the psychopath hurt people? They do.
But here is the critical distinction. The dark
triad involves callousness, an indifference to
suffering. I don't care if I hurt you to get
what I want. Sadism involves enjoying inflicting
suffering. That is a terrifying distinction.
So the psychopath runs you over because you were
in their way. The sadist runs you over because
they like the sound it makes. In a graphic sense,
yes. That's the core of it. Studies show that
sadism predicts unprovoked aggression better
than the other three traits. Unprovoked. Unprovoked.
It implies a specific pleasure derived from cruelty.
Some experiments show that only people with sadistic
traits actually felt better. They experience
a positive affect after being cruel to someone.
The cruelty itself was the reward. And does it
predict behavior that the others don't? It does.
It predicts delinquent behavior in high school
students separately from the others. It predicts
harmful behavior against living creatures and
what they call brutal amoral dispositions. So
theirs is a very strong argument for the dark
tetrad. The motivation is just different. Now,
you mentioned earlier that narcissism has different
flavors. The outline mentions a vulnerable dark
triad. What happens when you flip the script?
Because we usually picture these people as confident
and loud. Right. This challenges the idea that
these traits are always loud and grandiose. The
vulnerable dark triad includes vulnerable narcissism,
secondary psychopathy, and borderline personality
traits. So what does that look like in a person?
How does that manifest? Instead of the grandiose,
I am the king of the world, it's more introverted,
disinhibited, and hostile. They are driven by
internal, embedded desires. They might be the
person who is quietly seething, feeling like
the world owes them something they aren't getting,
and reacting with the sort of passive or sometimes
active hostility. The resentful type. The person
who thinks they are a genius, but the world is
conspiring against them. Yes. While the classic
dark triad is often influenced by external factors
they can control, you know, seeking admiration,
seeking power, the vulnerable type is driven
by these internal storms of insecurity and negative
emotion. Before we move to where these traits
come from, we have to address a bit of academic
drama, the jangle fallacy. I love when academics
fight over terminology. Yes, the jangle fallacy.
This is a critique that suggests we might be
using different names for the same thing. Specifically,
are Machiavellianism and psychopathy actually
distinct? They do seem to overlap a lot. Callousness,
manipulation. They do. They share nearly identical
correlations with the big five, low agreeableness,
low conscientiousness. Some researchers, like
McCoskey, argued way back that Machiavellianism
is really just a measure of psychopathy in normal
people. A global measure of psychopathy. So a
Machiavellian is just a mild psychopath. Or a
more functional one. Exactly. That's the argument.
Even recent studies in 2016 suggest they are
almost indistinguishable in how they measure
on personality tests. But the counter argument,
championed by Paulus and others, brings us back
to that impulse control. Machiavellian's plan.
Psychopath's act. That might be the thin red
line that separates them. It's the difference
between a sniper and a guy with a sledgehammer.
Both destroy the target. But the method is totally
different. That's a very valid way to view it.
And that method matters when you're trying to
spot them in an organization or in your life.
One is a long term threat. The other is an immediate
one. All right. Let's get into the origin story.
The part everyone wants to know. Nature versus
nurture. Are people born this way or are they
made? As with most things in psychology, it's
a mix. But the ratios differ in really interesting
ways. Twin studies have been huge here. We know
that all three traits have substantial genetic
components. So it runs in families? It can, yes.
Which ones are the most genetic? Psychopathy
and narcissism are more heritable. If your parents
have these traits, there is a significant genetic
role of the dice there. The predisposition is
stronger. And Machiavellianism. That is the outlier.
Machiavellianism is the most influenced by the
environment. specifically shared environmental
factors like parenting or the neighborhood you
grew up in. Parenting plays a huge role. A study
of German adolescents showed links between parental
rejection from both parents' punishment and overprotection
and the development of these traits. Wait, overprotection?
I would have guessed neglect. That seems counterintuitive.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But overprotection
can be incredibly suffocating and controlling.
It can create an environment where the child
learns that direct requests don't work, so they
have to manipulate to get any breathing room
or autonomy. So you're breeding a little schemer.
In a way, yes. Generally, Machiavellianism seems
to be something you learn. It's a strategy you
adopt based on your environment. It's a worldview
you develop. That makes perfect sense. If you
grow up in a house where everything is a transaction
or a power play, you learn to be a skeever. You
learn that trust is a weakness. Exactly. You
adapt to the ecosystem you are in. Psychopathy
might be the hardware you're born with, but Machiavellianism
is the software you install based on your early
experiences. Now this is the part that always
blows my mind. Evolution. If these traits are
so toxic, if they hurt the tribe, so to speak,
why hasn't natural selection weeded them out?
Why are they still here after thousands of years?
That is the paradox, isn't it? And the answer
might lie in what's called life history theory.
OK, break that down for us. It posits that organisms,
including humans, generally follow one of two
strategies, a slow reproductive strategy or a
fast life strategy. Slow is. We think of as traditional
parenting. Slow is investing heavily in parenting,
long -term pair bonding, delayed gratification,
building for the future. You have fewer kids,
but you invest everything in them, ensuring they
survive and thrive. Okay. And fast life strategy.
Fast life strategy is an emphasis on mating over
parenting, immediate rewards over delayed ones,
opportunistic behavior. It's about quantity over
quality in a biological sense. So living fast,
dying young, and leaving a lot of offspring.
In a way, yes. The theory suggests that dark
triad traits are an evolutionary adaptation for
a fast strategy. If the environment is volatile
or dangerous, it might make evolutionary sense
to be opportunistic, to meet with as many partners
as possible, and to take what you can right now
because tomorrow isn't guaranteed. That completely
reframes it. So in a stable village, the nice
cooperative guy wins. Because he builds trust.
But in a chaotic war zone or a collapsing society,
the dark triad guy might pass on more genes.
Potentially. It's a high -risk, high -reward
strategy. And even in modern society, these individuals
can be highly successful. They acquire resources.
They attain status, which are proxies for reproductive
fitness. The catch is that this success is usually
short -lived. They burn bridges. They burn every
bridge. It's a strategy that works for a sprint,
not a marathon. But if you can sprint fast enough
to reproduce before you burn out or get cast
out, Evolution keeps you in the gene pool. Speaking
of burning bridges, let's talk about these traits
in the wild. Section four, behaviors. Let's start
with the workplace, because I think a lot of
listeners are going to be nodding their heads
here. The workplace is a prime hunting ground.
The research is very clear that dark triad traits
are linked to acquiring leadership positions
and, in some cases, better salaries. Especially
the Machiavellians, right? They're playing the
long game. Yes. If you view people as tools,
management can seem like a natural fit. But what's
fascinating is how they manipulate to get there.
Jonathan and colleagues did a big meta -analysis
on this. What's the breakdown? How do they trick
us into promoting them? Machiavellians use excessive
charm. They schmooze. They are masters of impression
management. They figure out exactly what the
boss wants to hear and they say it. And the narcissists?
They rely on physical appearance, they look the
part, they dress well, they groom impeccably,
they walk into the room with an aura of confidence,
and they just feel like a leader, even if they
have no substance. And the psychopaths? Physical
threats. Whoa. In the office. We aren't talking
about punching people in the break room, are
we? It can be very subtle. Intimidation, standing
too close, a certain look, the implication of
don't cross me. It's an aggression that forces
compliance through fear, not persuasion. So they
get the job. Narcissist ace the interview because
they make a great first impression. But what
happens once they are in charge? Destruction
of value. This is the critical warning for any
hiring managers listening. A 2017 UK study found
that companies with leaders showing psychopathic
characteristics actually destroy shareholder
value. How so? They tend to have poor future
returns on equity. They make reckless decisions
that benefit them in the short term but harm
the company long term. So they might boost the
stock price for a quarter by slashing jobs or
cooking the books. But in the long run, they
tank the company. Precisely. They optimize for
their own bonus, not the company's health. They
also engage in knowledge hiding and knowledge
sabotage. They hoard information to maintain
power, which cripples the team's ability to function
and innovate. Let's move from the boardroom to
the internet. Trolls. We've all dealt with them.
Is there a connection? Ah, the internet troll.
Yes, recent studies have found a very, very strong
link between internet trolling and the dark triad,
specifically sadism and psychopathy. So it's
not just boredom or people having a bad day.
No. Trolling is described in the literature as
a manifestation of everyday sadism. They are
getting genuine pleasure from the distress of
others online. The suffering is the point. That
explains why you can't reason with them. They
aren't looking for a debate. They're looking
for your pain. Exactly. Engaging just feeds the
sadism. You are giving them the supply they crave.
The best strategy is to starve them of it. What
about actual crime? Not just mean tweets, but
real world and cybercrime. In the real world,
high scores predict violent delinquency and interpersonal
violence. But when we look at cybercrime, we
see a fascinating specialization based on the
traits. It's like a heist movie where everyone
has a specific role. Okay, I like that. So who
does what? A study showed that psychopathy correlates
with speed, fast exploitation. They smash and
grab the data. They want the quick hit, the immediate
reward. And the narcissist. Privilege, escalation,
and persistence. They want the high -level access.
They want to be the admin. They want to be the
one in charge. Because of the status, the power.
But likely, they want to be the god of the system.
And Machiavellianism, true to form, correlates
with stealth. Avoiding detection. They are the
ones who stay in the system for months without
you knowing, siphoning off data slowly and carefully.
That is wildly specific. It makes total sense.
Okay, let's talk about love. Or maybe love isn't
the right word. Sex and relationships. Mating
strategy is probably the more accurate biological
term here, yes. The dark triad is heavily linked
to a short -term focus. One -night stands, hookups,
friends with benefits. They aren't looking for
a soulmate to settle down with. Generally, no.
They're also much more prone to mate poaching.
Sealing someone else's partner. Yes. It's a game
to them, a sign of status and dominance. And
interestingly, they're willing to lower their
standards significantly for short term mates.
They aren't picky if it's just for the night.
Now, here's something I found contradictory in
the notes. Are they attractive? Because we always
hear about the bad boy appeal. It's complex.
Narcissists, yes, they are often perceived as
hot or attractive. Why? Are they just born better
looking? Likely because they put a tremendous
amount of effort into it. They care about their
appearance. They groom. They dress well. They
go to the gym. It's part of the grandiosity.
They are their own best product. But what about
the Machiavellians? This is fascinating. They
are often rated as the least attractive to the
opposite sex. Really? Why is that? Yes. It turns
out visible cynicism isn't sexy. That cold, calculating
vibe is often a turnoff on a subconscious level.
And facial features associated with dark triad
traits in general, aside from the narcissist's
grooming, are often rated less attractive. So
the narcissist draws you in with the polished
looks, but the Machiavellian might repel you
on a primal level. That seems to be the case.
Your gut knows something is off, even if you
can't put your finger on it. Let's look at who
these people are. Demographics. Are men really
darker than women? The stereotype is there. The
findings are very consistent across cultures.
Men tend to score higher than women on narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. This is known
as the dirty dozen data from the name of one
of the popular scales. Is that gap closing at
all? It might be for narcissism. Some data suggests
women's scores have been rising over time, shrinking
that gender gap. But generally, men still hold
the lead, especially in psychopathy. The difference
is most pronounced there. And what about their
worldviews, ideology, and politics? This seems
like a minefield. This is where we have to be
careful and just report what the data shows.
But it's interesting. These traits correlate
with support for extremist ideologies. We side,
left or right. That's the thing. It can be both.
It correlates with support for the alt -right
and right supremacist groups, but other studies
show it also correlates with what's called politically
correct authoritarianism. So it's not about the
specific policy. It's about the control, the
authoritarian impulse. Precisely. It correlates
with a social dominance orientation, the desire
for one's group to be supreme. Whether that group
is defined by race, nationality, or certain political
correctness, the underlying drive for dominance
and group -based supremacy is the link. They
want to be on top of the hierarchy regardless
of what the hierarchy is. And they also link
to prejudice. Yes. Anti -immigrant prejudice
and hostility toward outgroups are positively
correlated with the dark triad. It's an us versus
them mentality and they want to be on the winning
side. Now I want to touch on race and generation
because there is some controversy here. There
is. Regarding race, the data is very sparse and
often mixed. Some studies show Caucasians scoring
higher on narcissism or Machiavellianism, but
others show no difference at all in psychopathy
between groups. It's not a clear picture. And
we have to mention a specific researcher, Richard
Lin, whose work in this area has been debunked.
Yes, it is very important to address that. Lin
published research claiming racial differences
in psychopathy, but it was widely criticized
and debunked for serious conceptual errors. He
confused antisocial behavior with personality
traits and completely ignored critical socioeconomic
factors. It's considered fringe science and is
unreliable. We need to be very skeptical of data
that tries to racialize these traits without
accounting for environment. Good to know. And
what about Generation Me? Are kids these days
more narcissistic? Yeah. Or do we just think
they are because they have Instagram? That is
a huge debate. Gene Twenge's analysis of college
students from 1979 to 2006 suggested a significant
increase in narcissism. The selfie generation
narrative. That's the narrative. But other researchers
push back hard. They argue the cohort changes
are minimal or that what we are seeing is actually
just an increase in cynicism, which might look
like narcissism but isn't the same thing. So
the jury is still out on whether we are actually
becoming more self -absorbed. as a species or
if we were just documenting our lives more publicly.
We spent a lot of time in the dark. I feel like
I need a shower. Is there any hope? Is there
a flip side to this? An antidote? There is. And
thank goodness for that. Enter the light triad.
The light triad. Tell me everything. Who came
up with this? Scott Barry Kaufman and his colleagues.
They wanted to see if there was a profile for
the everyday saint to counter the everyday villain.
They felt psychology was too focused on the dark
side. I agree. So what are the three components
of the light triad? First, humanism. This is
about valuing the dignity and worth of every
individual. Okay. Makes sense. Second, Kantianism.
Named after the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Exactly.
This is the direct opposite of Machiavellianism.
It means treating people as ends unto themselves,
never as a mere means to an end. You help someone
because they are a person, not because they can
do something for you later. I like that. And
the third? Faith in humanity. Which is just what
it sounds like. Believing that people are fundamentally
good. That sounds lovely. But be honest. Are
most people dark or light? Where does the average
person fall? That is the best news of the entire
deep dive. The average person actually leans
toward the light triad. We aren't all villains.
Most people are fundamentally pretty good. Phew.
That restored my faith in humanity a little bit.
It should. High scores on the light triad linked
to life satisfaction, empathy, secure attachment
styles and relationships, and a quiet ego. Quiet
ego. I like that phrase. But is there a catch?
Is there a downside? Do the nice guys finish
last? There is a tradeoff. It appears so. Light
triad scorers tend to have less achievement motive.
They're less assertive. So the dark triad guy
is aggressively pushing for the promotion at
all costs. And the light triad guy is happy just
doing a good job and collaborating with the team.
Potentially. The lack of assertiveness might
make it harder for light triad individuals to
reach certain challenging goals, even if they
are highly competent. The dark triad has that
killer instinct that can propel them forward,
at least in the short term. So what does this
all mean? We've looked at the narcissist, the
schemer, the psychopath, and even the sadist.
We've seen how they operate in offices and relationships.
What's the so what here? I think the big takeaway
is understanding the complex, sometimes contradictory
nature of human personality. These aren't monsters
under the bed. They are dimensions we all have
to some degree. We all have a little bit of the
dark triad in us. We might. We all have moments
of self -interest or moments where we lack empathy.
But the dark triad as a concept helps us understand
how bad traits can lead to successful outcomes
in certain contexts and why they persist in our
gene pool. It's about survival strategies, not
just morality. Exactly. Different strategies
for different environments. So here's my final
thought for you listening. Is the concept of
the dark triad too simple? Maybe. Does it glorify
these traits? Maybe. But look around your office
tomorrow. Look at your social circle. Can you
spot the difference between a high achiever who
is just driven and a high mock who is moving
chess pieces around you? And ask yourself this.
Which strategy... actually wins the long game,
the fast, explosive, but often self -destructive
success of the dark triad, or the slow, steady,
collaborative build of the light? That is the
question. Thanks for diving deep with us. A pleasure.
Anytime.