# DARK TRIAD (incl poll)



## PurpleTree (Nov 3, 2010)

Ezra said:


> I guess no woman would seriously admit to anyone (least of all themselves) that they like a cheating, scheming, unempathic guy. But I guarantee that most women, when in a bar/club/pub near a DT guy, they will respond positively.
> 
> The sociopathic element you can't tell about until they've broken your heart  it's the very thing that makes them so attractive in the first place: their "don't care" attitude.
> 
> Quite frankly it's fucking illogical to me hahaha. But then I am ENTJ.


...and I’m an INTJ with Dark Triad tendencies and find it equally illogical. 
I’m attracted to what you apparently see as feminine guys/girls, not people like me. :wink:


----------



## Daenad (Apr 5, 2011)

Machiavellianism 65
Narcissism 29
Psychopathy 25

Guess I'm not getting laid anything soon. TBH from the wiki article on Machiavellism, the logical/ non-delusional answers to the Machiavellian questions seem to say you are one. 

e.g. 
"There is no excuse for lying to someone else,": Does my bum look big in this? Yes it does -> well it was nice knowing that person
"Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives": hmm of course this is true :dry: (suppose it depends on how you define ahead)


----------



## Ezra (Mar 19, 2011)

darkewe said:


> ...and I’m an INTJ with Dark Triad tendencies and find it equally illogical.
> I’m attracted to what you apparently see as feminine guys/girls, not people like me. :wink:


That's cool. Do you know much about socionics? And do you like them being whiny, clingy etc or whatever, or "reassuringly strong and able to keep up" if you get me?


----------



## PurpleTree (Nov 3, 2010)

Ezra said:


> That's cool. Do you know much about socionics?


I am not a big fan of Socionics (as their descriptions of at least the INTP and INTJ don’t consistently cross over the same into MBTI and a lot of their relationship section is total shite), but have not researched extensively enough into it to come to a strong opinion about it.

...but, I will point out this Socionics description:



firedell said:


> *By Peter Bartl [ENTj]*
> Since they are mainly concerned with analyses, ideas, and strategy, INTjs *find it extremely difficult to interact in the kind of superficial, easy-flowing casual conversations that most other people find enjoyable.* In fact, small talk tends to baffle INTjs more than anything else and they have no interest in them, in fact, they find small talk stressful. Added to the fact that INTjs do not need to constantly interact with people to feel good, that means that they tend to have small circles of friends, with whom they can carry *deeper and more substantial conversations*, than wide circles of casual acquaintances.
> 
> INTjs’s preference for deeper conversations and dislike for small talk also means that they *prefer being direct, even blunt and tactless, to careful, beating-around-the-bush conversation. *Many emotionally sensitive types then regard them as cold, unfeeling, insensitive or even rude, which the INTj would regard as totally unfair. INTjs also unconsciously *expect directness from others. Since they also have a deep need to understand what happens*...





Ezra said:


> And do you like them being whiny, clingy etc or whatever, or "reassuringly strong and able to keep up" if you get me?


I’m not sure I get you. :mellow:
I strongly dislike “whiny" and “clingy" persons (Is this what you think of as feminine? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.) I do find people "reassuringly strong and able to keep up” attractive so long as they aren’t being such in a false way, which I can usually detect. I don’t like giving a person who seems like they could easily go rogue on me even the chance of a relationship.



_To bring this more to topic:_ I’m not at all attracted to the life-of-the-party or flirts, which seem to be roles persons with the dark triad traits particularly dominant in them would take.

An additional note I would like to point out is that, after reading this: (Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths - Science, News - The Independent) 
I have to point out that their study didn’t ask women whether or not they were attracted to men with the Dark Triad traits, they based that assumption on the fact that these “self-obsessed,* impulsive*, *thrill-seeking* and callous psychopaths with the deceitful and *exploitative* nature of Machiavellianism” got laid more often.


...Duh.
*facepalm*


----------



## Ezra (Mar 19, 2011)

darkewe said:


> I am not a big fan of Socionics (as their descriptions of at least the INTP and INTJ don’t consistently cross over the same into MBTI and a lot of their relationship section is total shite), but have not researched extensively enough into it to come to a strong opinion about it.


Apparently you have. "Total shite" is pretty strong. I'm a big defender of it, and - trust me - its descriptions of relationships are highly accurate.

That description was, I'm quite surprised actually, written by an old friend of mine I used to meet up with in the pub to discuss socionics. His views I'm not sure if they've changed since then, I haven't spoken with him for a few years now, but they sound far less advanced than I expect of him.

Also, please note that the whole INTx converting into socionics shit that people like Sergei Ganin at socionics.com espouse is exactly that - shit. Don't think that because you're an INTJ you're an ILI. You could be an LIE. You could be an LII. You could be an LSI. You could even be SLE. This is one reason I HATE the four letter codes for socionics types. People get so confused when they first come to socionics from an MBTI background (me included). But I've been at it for four years, and there are some very sharp differences.

Check out this table at the bottom of the page to see what I mean re correlations:

"We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions. 
The table below represents the result of this experiment: 

*







*


And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions: 

*







"*

From HERE: Introduction into Socionics



> I strongly dislike “whiny" and “clingy" persons (Is this what you think of as feminine? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.) I do find people "reassuringly strong and able to keep up” attractive so long as they aren’t being such in a false way, which I can usually detect. I don’t like giving a person who seems like they could easily go rogue on me even the chance of a relationship.


Okay, what I was really trying to convey was this:

Aggressor - Wikisocion

Victim - Wikisocion

I think you may be an Aggressor (like me), and you like Victims.



> An additional note I would like to point out is that, after reading this: (Why women really do love self-obsessed psychopaths - Science, News - The Independent)
> I have to point out that their study didn’t ask women whether or not they were attracted to men with the Dark Triad traits, they based that assumption on the fact that these “self-obsessed,* impulsive*, *thrill-seeking* and callous psychopaths with the deceitful and *exploitative* nature of Machiavellianism” got laid more often.


It also assumes that the same women who want these kinds of men i.e. "all the girls" that it starts off talking about are actually all the girls in real life, or at least the same women who say they want a kind, caring, loving man. Just because a select group in society - casual daters etc. - say they want these men doesn't mean all women do.


----------



## Stillwater (Dec 14, 2009)

*40Machiavellianism, 48 Narcissism, 15 Psychopathy*


----------



## PurpleTree (Nov 3, 2010)

Ezra said:


> Apparently you have. "Total shite" is pretty strong. I'm a big defender of it, and - trust me - its descriptions of relationships are highly accurate.


“Total shite” was intended as hyperbole. Apologies. I thought it would be obvious given that I used “shite” instead of “shit,” but, alas, the interwebs ruins lame humor once again.



Ezra said:


> That description was, I'm quite surprised actually, written by an old friend of mine I used to meet up with in the pub to discuss socionics. His views I'm not sure if they've changed since then, I haven't spoken with him for a few years now, but they sound far less advanced than I expect of him.


I thought it fit really well as an MBTI INTJ description, which is why I used it; but, from what I do understand, MBTI=/=Socionics.




Ezra said:


> Also, please note that the whole INTx converting into socionics shit that people like Sergei Ganin at socionics.com espouse is exactly that - shit. Don't think that because you're an INTJ you're an ILI. You could be an LIE. You could be an LII. You could be an LSI. You could even be SLE. This is one reason I HATE the four letter codes for socionics types. People get so confused when they first come to socionics from an MBTI background (me included). But I've been at it for four years, and there are some very sharp differences.


I don’t think I’m an LIE. I think I’m very real.


...Hm. Lame jokes that the internet can’t ruin are pretty bad. :dry:



Ezra said:


> Check out this table at the bottom of the page to see what I mean re correlations:
> 
> "We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.
> The table below represents the result of this experiment:
> ...


Looks like I’ll have to be reading that Socionics' ENTJ description. :mellow:
I really wouldn’t have guessed that, given that I score practically 100% introverted on every personality test I take.
Why _did_ they adopt the Jung acronyms?




Ezra said:


> Okay, what I was really trying to convey was this:
> 
> Aggressor - Wikisocion
> 
> ...


Ah, that makes more sense. Although, I don’t entirely fit into either box.
I suppose that’s a good thing.



Ezra said:


> It also assumes that the same women who want these kinds of men i.e. "all the girls" that it starts off talking about are actually all the girls in real life, or at least the same women who say they want a kind, caring, loving man. Just because a select group in society - casual daters etc. - say they want these men doesn't mean all women do.


Well, the point of a study is to select a sample that is believed to be an accurate representation of each variable within a population, so that the conclusions drawn from the sample would be applicable to what you would see in the entire population. So, that assumption is to be expected. What I was trying to point out is that their way of testing the hypothesis (that men with the dark triad traits were more attractive to the opposite sex) was independent of the “attractive” psychopath’s traits. The reason they got more action is because they actively sought it more. It doesn’t mean women sought them. It very likely was the same type of woman they attracted and honed in on every time because they were the ones hunting/baiting. 

PS: Sorry for the delayed response. Job seeking + Finals. :dry:


----------



## NekoNinja (Apr 18, 2010)

Your Analysis (Vertical line = Average)

Machiavellianism Distribution

You scored 34% on Machiavellianism, higher than 3% of your peers.

Narcissism Distribution

You scored 30% on Narcissism, higher than 2% of your peers.

Psychopathy Distribution

You scored 15% on Psychopathy, higher than 5% of your peers.



Personally I found the questions to be quite terrible, and also the terminology isn't exactly correct. You may as well just have taken my personality disorder quiz, which was basically just a joke.


----------



## Ezra (Mar 19, 2011)

darkewe said:


> the interwebs ruins lame humor once again.


lol 



> I thought it fit really well as an MBTI INTJ description, which is why I used it; but, from what I do understand, MBTI=/=Socionics.


Absolutely. As a Five, you're most likely Gamma NT, with a chance of LII or maybe SLI... those are the fits I think.




> I don’t think I’m an LIE. I think I’m very real.
> 
> ...Hm. Lame jokes that the internet can’t ruin are pretty bad. :dry:


 Cute 



> Looks like I’ll have to be reading that Socionics' ENTJ description. :mellow:
> I really wouldn’t have guessed that, given that I score practically 100% introverted on every personality test I take.
> Why _did_ they adopt the Jung acronyms?


They didn't. Idiots use the four-letter code (forgive mine arrogance). Three-letter FTW. Don't read the descriptions if you want to learn about socionics; take the time to really get stuck in at socionics.us. Once you've read everything there, check out socionist.blogspot.com. Then check out wikisocion.org (a lot of which is crap).



> Well, the point of a study is to select a sample that is believed to be an accurate representation of each variable within a population, so that the conclusions drawn from the sample would be applicable to what you would see in the entire population. So, that assumption is to be expected. What I was trying to point out is that their way of testing the hypothesis (that men with the dark triad traits were more attractive to the opposite sex) was independent of the “attractive” psychopath’s traits. The reason they got more action is because they actively sought it more. It doesn’t mean women sought them. It very likely was the same type of woman they attracted and honed in on every time because they were the ones hunting/baiting.


Fair point.


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

in the article it states: "A study has found that men with the "dark triad" of traits – narcissism, thrill- seeking and deceitfulness – are likely to have a larger number of sexual affairs."
Just because they like 'em for sex doesn't mean they like 'em for life!


----------



## dizzygirl (Dec 19, 2009)

You scored 33Machiavellianism, 61 Narcissism, 33 Psychopathy!
Ranges for the factors tracked in this test are as follows:



Machiavellianism

25% is roughly normal range.
60% of more is the level for a personality disorder.


Narcissism

25% is roughly normal range.
60% or more is the level for a personality disorder.


Psychopathy

20% is roughly normal range.
Non-psychopathic compulsive criminals range between 45% and 55%.
If you have a score of 75% or more, it's more than likely that you are a psychopath.


OMFG!!!! I AM NARCISSISTIC!!! :shocked: :O


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

*You scored 53Machiavellianism, 54 Narcissism, 41 Psychopathy!*


----------



## sea cucumber (Oct 14, 2010)

You scored 31Machiavellianism, 55 Narcissism, 18 Psychopathy!

I think that narcissism is a loke neurotisism


----------



## sea cucumber (Oct 14, 2010)

Psychosmurf said:


> *You scored 53Machiavellianism, 54 Narcissism, 41 Psychopathy!*


Mkaes sence for a *phycho*smurf


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

*You scored 66 Machiavellianism, 44 Narcissism, 43 Psychopathy!*

Ranges for the factors tracked in this test are as follows:

*Machiavellianism*

25% is roughly normal range.
60% of more is the level for a personality disorder.


*Narcissism*

25% is roughly normal range.
60% or more is the level for a personality disorder.


*Psychopathy*

20% is roughly normal range.
Non-psychopathic compulsive criminals range between 45% and 55%.
If you have a score of 75% or more, it's more than likely that you are a psychopath.


You scored 66% on Machiavellianism, higher than 57% of your peers.
You scored 44% on Narcissism, higher than 13% of your peers.
You scored 43% on Psychopathy, higher than 44% of your peers.


----------



## Azelll (Jan 19, 2011)

You scored 44Machiavellianism, 61 Narcissism, 38 Psychopathy!

Hmm about right, but the Narcissism should be in the 40s or 30s actually to quote "overindulgence at considering one's faculties or acts" Is mainly how i am narcissistic, at least I am honest XD I tend to like to flaunt my gaming and music abilities, I guess thats what happens when you come from a competitive family! XD


----------



## FXGZ (May 19, 2011)

You scored 88% on Machiavellianism, higher than 95% of your peers.

You scored 80% on Narcissism, higher than 96% of your peers.

You scored 50% on Psychopathy, higher than 61% of your peers.


Oh dear....too narcisssitic lol.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

*You scored 41Machiavellianism, 55 Narcissism, 43 Psychopathy!*

*Ranges for the factors tracked in this test are as follows:*


*Machiavellianism*


25% is roughly normal range.
60% of more is the level for a personality disorder.


*Narcissism*


25% is roughly normal range.
60% or more is the level for a personality disorder.


*Psychopathy*


20% is roughly normal range.
Non-psychopathic compulsive criminals range between 45% and 55%.
If you have a score of 75% or more, it's more than likely that you are a psychopath.
 

*The Dark Triad in Summary*


If you have just one or two of these scores in the disorder range, you definitely share some aspects with those who exhibit the dark triad. However, you likely do not gain the full social and economic advantages that a true exemplar of the Dark Triad enjoys.
If all three factors tested very close to disorder range, then you probably enjoy some of the benefits of being an exemplar of the Dark Triad. You likely get more attention than average from women, if you are a hetero male or homosexual female. Further, it is likely that you find yourself making a decent amount of money at a dependable job in a middle-management positition. It's even possible that this position has actual potential for growth.
If you have all three factors scoring into the disorder range, you are a full exemplar of the of the Dark Triad. If you are a heterosexual male or a lesbian female, you likely have women always competing for your attention or have your pick of lovers in whatever social group you find yourself in. Further, no matter your sexual persuasion, you likely find yourself to be financially comfortable or even rich, enjoying a position of great responsibility that you skate through without applying yourself to or actually doing any work to accomplish anything for. Istead, you depend on your subordinates to do all of the work, while you sip martinis and get laid. And even if you do not possess material wealth, you are likely the alpha dog of whatever social group you belong to.




*Your Analysis (Vertical line = Average)*












You scored 41% on *Machiavellianism*, higher than 10% of your peers.









You scored 55% on *Narcissism*, higher than 36% of your peers.









You scored 43% on *Psychopathy*, higher than 43% of your peers.
"enjoying a position of great responsibility that you skate through without applying yourself to or actually doing any work to accomplish anything for."

My job seems really easy to me most of the time, but an observer would probably say I apply myself fully and seem very dedicated. I tend to come across as dedicated at work, pretty loyal if my company is good to me and treats me well, which they do. 

I don't like a management role. I left a position that promised quick promotion to upper management (within a couple of months) and an extra 10 grand a year because I hated the environment. And because I didn't think I'd want to be in upper management. I like being in the front lines if the work is easy enough and I don't like telling people what to do even though I end up in a leadership role a lot due to being assertive.

I'll readily admit to a dash of narcissism but it's also very easy for me to support others emotionally and from a genuine place. I care about the people I'm close to even if I'm no longer the sort of person to constantly sacrifice my wants/needs for others. It stopped seeming like the healthy thing to do.


----------



## FXGZ (May 19, 2011)

Hmm let's see.

Straight A student and class captain in elementary school. Sold homework to dumber classmates and charged high interest for late payments. 

Enrolled in the Gifted Program in high school but was kicked out because of poor grades. Two incidences with law but no charges were pressed. 

Straight A student in a top university and numerous student initiates. Never cheated on exam earned honest grades and was very prudent. 

Now a graduate student at a top university and again plenty of student leadership positions. Didn't do anything stupid, maybe flirted with money-related issues. 

The scores sound about right?








FXGZ said:


> You scored 88% on Machiavellianism, higher than 95% of your peers.
> 
> You scored 80% on Narcissism, higher than 96% of your peers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ezra (Mar 19, 2011)

dizzygirl said:


> in the article it states: "A study has found that men with the "dark triad" of traits – narcissism, thrill- seeking and deceitfulness – are likely to have a larger number of sexual affairs."
> Just because they like 'em for sex doesn't mean they like 'em for life!


Yes, point!


----------

