The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 327. Women, Pornography, and Sadism | Dr. Del Paulhus

Episode Date: January 30, 2023

Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Del Paulhus delve deep into the Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and the newly added Sadism. From these four traits, researchers can quantify much of the darkness of humanity, and begin to study it in a way that yields numerical results, and the potential to make substantial predictions. Dr. Delroy Paulhus is a personality researcher whose work in dark personality traits, via a variety of psychometric methods, has yielded measures of the Dark Tetrad. His work has also validated measures of socially desirable responding, perceived control, free will and determinism, and over-claiming. His work has been published in over 150 articles and books, and his current citation count exceeds 43,000.

[♪ Music playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in I'm here today talking to a colleague and compatriot of mine, Dr. Dale Paulus from the University of British Columbia. He's a personality researcher whose work in so-called dark personality traits, via a variety of measurement methods, has yielded measures of the dark tetrad. Psychopathy, narcissism, macchiaianism, and last, but not least, sadism. His work has also validated measures of socially desirable responding, perceived control, free will and determinism, and overclaiming. His work has been published in over 150 articles in books, and his current citation count, which is the number of times other scientists have referred to his work and the cardinal marker,

I would say, of eminence and influence among scientists exceeds 43,000. So Dr. Paulos is definitely one of the world's most outstanding psychometric personality psychologists, that is personality psychologists who specify, who specialize in the field of mathematical measurement of behavioral and conceptual traits. Hi, Hi Dale. It's good to see you. I want to let everybody who's watching and listening know Dr. Paulus from the University of British Columbia is a researcher in personality as his bioindicated, our work in some ways ran in parallel methodologically.

I was very interested for years in statistical analysis of linguistic descriptions of personality. I concentrated mostly on trying to further develop the idea of the big five on the statistical front, the five factor personality model, extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness.

Dr. Paulus took a turn that was very interesting to me, though, as well. He's spent a number of decades studying what came to be known as the dark triad, and later the dark tetrad, originally when the corpus of adjectives was generated to extract out a five-dimensional description of personality from language, judgmental adjectives were eliminated from the corpus. The idea was to produce a set of descriptors of normative and non-pathological personality, independent in some sense of morality.

And there was some utility in that, I think, because it gave us a picture of normative personality, but the downside was we didn't develop as detailed and understanding as we might have of the dark side of personality. And that seems to be where your work, which is receiving increased public attention, I would say, perhaps in the days of internet misbehavior. That's where your research really came into its own. Is that a reasonable initial summary? Yeah, a good summary.

So, do you want to start by explaining to people, let's walk through your research on the dark triad. How did you become interested in this and how did you develop the measurement instruments and what do you measure? Well, like a lot of academics, my research can be traced back to my advisor, who was Richard Christie, the inventor of Macchi of Allianism as a trait. And he did something very clever. He went

into the books of Nicolo Macchi of Allian, who was an advisor to politicians way back when. And he took the statements, administered them to undergraduate students, and simply asked them, how much do you agree with these statements like you have to get to know important people and always be prepared for the worst in people. and always be prepared for the worst in people. And the amazing thing was the huge variance in the responses. And that's what personality research is all about. We look for and wallow in relish the fact that people give different answers.

And apparently a lot of people agreed totally with the statements that Macculey made in the 1500s. Others were horrified by them. And so that inspired Richard Christie to make a questionnaire. The Mac 4, the most popular version of his questionnaires, was administered to subject pools at his university, Columbia University, and elsewhere. And it wasn't just self-reports and predicted actual behavior. So he could show that people who scored high

on the Mac 4 manipulated others in a room, in a laboratory. So they would try to squeeze money out of other people by tricking them, and all of this could be recorded and published, hence Richard Christie is forever associated with Machiavellianism. So I thought that was a fabulous way to do research. I moved on then and took a real job at the University of British Columbia and met up there with Bob Hare, sort of the emperor of research on psychopathy, another averse of trait. And of course, he has done it all, but what he didn't do was compare it to Macchibellanism. And I've also done some research separately on narcissism, which captured attention of researchers in the 1980s, because it seems to resonate.

Everybody knows narcissists, people who want a lot of attention and think they are superior to everyone else, everyone can resonate to knowing such people. So we have three personality variables. Then when the student Kevin Williams came along, and typically in my career, I go with what the students want to do, we decided to figure out whether there were more,

or there were more averse of personalities. So we searched the literature and we did as much as we could back then, early 2000s, to cover all the literature and see if there were more personalities that were at the level of narcissism, macchivalianism and psychopathy. We call them the dark triad because they seem to dominate the literature. There are already hundreds of studies on each one of those. The unfortunate results, fortunate in the long run, I suppose, is that the literature is overlapped so much you could barely tell the difference. If you took all the literature on narcissism, all the literature on Maccabellanism and

psychopathy, you could see the same things coming up. And that was the original problem. We want to parse the dark side of traits, but you can't really do much with the literature because of this phenomenon that we called construct creep, and that is a researcher, it doesn't have the ability to research everything at once, so they focus on one variable, but it creeps wider and wider until it overlaps with other variables. And that's a problem, because you don't know which one you're actually studying when you put it into a research program, which one is responsible for the action

you're seeing. Right, right. Well, we want to talk about that in some more detail, too, because I'd like to find out a bit more about how you feel. I know that the dark thread is morphed into the dark tetrad to some degree. And I'm also curious as to what you have to say about the overlap between the dark tetrad qualities and personality disorder categories, especially in the histrronic, anti-social, and

narcissistic categories. Obviously, that shades into personality pathology. And so, can I define the three traits and have you correct my definitions if you would? So the Machiavellians, as you pointed out, Machiavelli was an advisor to princes who was really interested in some sense in the outright maintenance of instrumental power. I wouldn't say he was driven by any intrinsic ethic. It was Machiavelli gave advice to princes who wanted to maintain their position by hooker by crook, let's say. So Machiavellians are willing to use manipulation to obtain their personal ends. And narcissists seem to be driven by a high desire to obtain unearned status from others.

The most important thing for them is not status in relationship to competence, let's say, or in relationship to performance, but just in status for its own sake. And then the psychopaths, I spent a lot of time looking at hair's research and thinking about relationship to the big five, psychopaths seem to be something approximating parasitic predators. And so they're very, very low in agreeableness, and that makes them kellis and non-empathetic. And then they also seem to be very low in conscientiousness, that seems to accord reasonably well with the two factors of the psychopathy scale. And so a real psychopath is someone who is willing to take what you have, let's say, and use it, and that might be the predatory aspect, and also to live off the earnings

and efforts of others, and that's also an element of criminal behavior. And so you're looking at the nexus of all three of those, Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy. And recently, you and other researchers have added, I think this is so interesting, because I think it was a real lack. You added sadism to that, which is positive delight and pleasure taken in the suffering of others. So, can you expand it all upon the definitions of Machiavellianism, Narcissism and Psychopathy, and we can segue into sadism? Yeah, I agree with all of your definitions,

although what we did was spend a lot of time trying to find what's different among each of the characters and what the overlap is. Why is it that the literatures and the measures that were available always overlap to a dangerous degree in trying to understand what's going on? So the key thing for psychopaths in our opinion is impulsivity and sensation seeking

which is what gets them into trouble. They may not have worse motives than the others, but they can't help it. That's why they, at the extreme levels, spend their lives in prison. They can't help responding to temptation. Whatever the temptation is, they go for it and often they get what they want right away and they keep on doing it until they get caught, and they don't seem to learn from it. So that answers just a qualification to the definition of psychopath. Now, what's underlying it, we think,

is callousness for all of them. They're overlapping because at the core is a failure to have empathy. And if you have a deficit in empathy, it seems inevitable that you're going to exploit other people in one way or another because you're not getting the feedback that people with empathy get in seeing other people suffer at your hands. And the story of satism is quite a long story, but if you want me to get into the details for you to do that, yeah, yeah, please do, please do.

Yeah, I don't know whether I'm more sensitive to these things and other people, but then I started seeing sadism in regular people. And not only is it there and everybody people, but people seem to wallow in it when the circumstances allow it. For example, violin sports. One of my favorite sports, hockey. It's kind of pathetic watching a hockey game. The cheers are larger for the fights and for the goals. People love to see their fighter, pummel the fighter of the other team or pummel anyone. pummel the fighter of the other team or pummel anyone and the cheers that go up in a hockey stadium are incredible and the cheers only stop when the victim falls to the dual nature of positive and negative motivations that human beings have. But the fact that they love seeing the fighting, no matter how much blood is and teeth end up on the ice, is disappointing in the way.

We learned a long time ago from the Europeans. They don't have to do that to make Hockey a wonderful sport. That was just one. But then watching the undergraduate students at UBC University of British Columbia, what are they doing for fun? Well, if you recall, way

way back, they used to play these archive games. And there was some gentle ones, Pac-Man, asteroids. I don't know if you remember those. But going down into the arcade, you see that people are gathered around one of the arcade games. And so I wandered over to see it. And it was something called Mortal Kombat, which by today's standards isn't that bad. But the heads are torn off and the blood spurts out. And that's why the crowd was there because it was so much more appealing than the silly little Mario brothers stuff.

And it just struck me as the beginning of my interest in what people do, especially young males, when they have time on their own. So, it's not porn, then it seems like it's violence, and it's somewhat horrifying, but it's gotten worse. I don't know if you've been following the video games that are now available on your home computer. You don't need to go to an arcade and be embarrassed by what you're playing because you can sit at home and play whatever games you want.

And so now what's it called, a grand theft auto, you can kill innocent bystanders, step on their heads, etc. And there are actual torture sites where you can go and torture people. You can torture animals. It's all there. And so people are paying to do this stuff. They pay for violent sports. they pay for violent movies. What's the most popular television program these days? It's called Game of Thrones. And it's the most sadistic kind of television program that you've ever seen. People are paying for this in one way or another, and they're attracted to it.

They relay stories with their friends. So this, putting this picture together, suggested to me that some, not all, in fact, the variants again is there, which excites a personality researcher. Some people are highly attracted to this stuff. Other people are horrified. I know that neurophysiologically, anger is a multi-dimensional emotion. It activates positive emotion systems and negative emotion systems simultaneously. And so you can think about that perhaps as the core element of something like aggression, at least maybe both defensive and predatory aggression.

And then you could imagine that people are wired differently as individuals so that for any given person being angry might be associated with a predominance of approach motivation, right? Positive emotion and a relative decrement of negative emotion. For other people, that would be reversed. Like, I'm trying to account for what the positive pleasure is in the observation or participation in the aggression.

I mean, you could associate it with hypothetically, you could have associated actually with predatory behavior, with hunting and with combat, but it also might be a consequence of differential wiring at the neurological level in relationship to the balance between positive and negative emotion experienced by any given person with anger. Because you see this variation in people, I know some people who are real fighters,

let's say on the political front, and some of them really enjoy a good scrap, right? It really seems to get them motivated. And this isn't a criticism of them necessarily. And then other people, and I think I fall more into this cap, I'm not really very interested at all in conflict. It bothers me a lot, although I don't like delayed conflict, so I'm likely to engage in it, you in it relatively upfront.

But so we could go into that, like, what do you think? What do you think is the fundamental biological and then also ethical difference between people who are taking positive delight in aggression and those who aren't? And, well, I guess we could start with those questions. Yeah, that's the fundamental query, a puzzle in a way. Why would human beings have to have a sadistic side, at least some people?

And as you mentioned, predatory very often. So one can speculate that it helps, it helps animals, carnivores, especially hunt if they not only are willing, but enjoy the killing. And that could have been carried over to human beings. Also, a little more instrumental explanation would be that it helps dominance. That is, if you can scare off your competitors, whether they're competitors for mates or for territory, then being sadistic about it. That would be a niche theory, in some sense, I guess, is that I know that the worldwide prevalence

of psychopathy ranges between one and five percent, hovers around three, and what it seems to indicate, because it's relatively stable, is that, although being a psychopath isn't a particularly successful strategy in that 97% of people don't take that route. In a cooperative society, Anish does open up for people who are willing to use manipulation and impulsive behavior and sadism to dominate and use power oppressively

to at least what would you say carve out for them self some degree of success, and then now and then some spectacular success, I suppose, which would be the case with people who are extraordinarily successful at being tyrants. And so we have two arguments there in some sense. One is a neurobiological difference in response to the balance of positive and negative emotion in anger. And the other one is, well, there's a niche that opens up for people who are willing to use power and manipulation and so forth to attain the rewards of social dominance. And psychopaths seem to do that, right, because they'll manipulate. They often have to move from place to place because people figure them out,

but they will use short-term dominant strategies. Think you've related that, too, as well, the dark triad, to short-term mating strategies as well, right? Which is an interest. That's another thing that we could concentrate on, right, on what the dark triad predicts. The dark tetrad interested me particularly, because the literature I read on psychopaths did describe them as impulsive, so they're willing even to sacrifice their own futures to the pleasure of the moment.

But there was obviously a subset of psychopaths who delighted in being cruel, and the standard explanation of callousness, say, which is merely lack of empathy, didn't seem to be enough, right? Because it isn't merely that people are lacking in pathic and empathy, it's that sometimes there are people who take a positive delight in cruelty and that there's a new term that's used to describe online mobbing behavior or bullying behavior, troll behavior,

which is lulls, right? I just did it for the lulls, which is the plural of LOL laugh out loud. And to do it for the lulls is to go after someone on the net, often anonymously, merely for the purpose of making the miserable and wretched and put them in pain, just so that you can enjoy that. And certainly that's not mere psychopathy, right? That's not mere impulsiveness. There's an additional component that's worth concentrating on. All right.

So, you covered a lot of ground there. Picking up on the argument for psychopaths being impulsive, just to remind viewers who are not that familiar with evolutionary theory, the simple argument is you got to get mates to maintain your genes in the gene pool. There are many ways of doing that, right? One is to grab and run with whatever you want, using force if necessary, that will sometimes get you mates, more strategic, Machiavellians find ways of manipulating others

to get their genes into the gene pool, narcissists seem to attract mates, partly because of their confidence, even if it is overconfidence. Say this a little harder to see why would being sadistic get you romantic and sexual partners. Well, I think I touched on the only explanation that I could think of and I think you mentioned it too and that is, well, you scare off your competitors and you even scare off your mate into doing what you want by hurting them in a very public way. So you're deterring reactions from other people and that may be of benefit in some circumstances.

And then you went into the niche theory, or niche, as some people say. Yeah, there's a lot of niches out there for dark personalities. Each one may require very select kinds of traits, but if you want a job as an enforcer on a hockey team, you better then well be able to and willing to and like to hurt other people. It also might be. So I know someone quite well.

So I talked to him. He was often hired by corporations to fire people. And he's a very disagreeable person, but he's very high in conscientiousness, say. So I was talking to him at one point in my lab because I was struggling with a few students and who I eventually let go. And I really realized that I probably had kept them in the lab

longer than I should have, and that their poor performance was demotivating some of the people in my lab who are very high performers, and just producing a decrement in the overall quality of our work. And part of the reason I think I failed to take action is because I am a rather agreeable person, and I find firing people, let's say, very distasteful.

And so I talked to my associate, my friend, about firing people and he said, I enjoy it. And I said, that reassures you. Surprise me. And this someone I admire in respect, a very competent person, by the way. I said, well, why is that? He said, well, you know, I go into corporations and I ferret out the people who are kissing up and kicking down.

I ferret out the narcissist. I ferret out the people who, as I alluded to, take credit when they haven't done anything and cast aspersions on others when they have done something and who are clearly not doing their job. And then also, I go after people who, for whom it would be better in some real sense to be off doing something else. And his continual pattern of employment for multiple years,

because he was particularly good at this, was he'd go into a corporation that was failing and start to fire people at the bottom and then climb the hierarchy. And then when he got too close to the top, they'd fire him, of course. But it was really interesting to me because it's also possible that some of these traits, the more psychopathic traits, have a positive utility socially, even speaking morally, when they're combined with other personality traits. But that are particularly... Like, maybe it's not so bad

to be low in agreeableness if you're high in conscientiousness. But maybe it's really bad to be low in agreeableness if you're really high in neuroticism or really low in conscientiousness. And so you could see that that tilt towards less empathy, which might make you capable, for example, of enforcing rules might be, well, make you capable, for example, of enforcing rules, might be, well, as I said, might be extraordinarily useful, even pro-socialy under some circumstances, but

very pathological under others. Yeah, there's a movement now, I think, to question the absolute positivity of empathy. This fellow loom from Yale University, I'm not sure if you have an interview to him yet you should, because he points out the overuse of empathy or inappropriate use of empathy, like letting a stranger into your door as a simple example, but having traits that make you react, overreact, say to blood and guts is going to prevent you from being a surgeon, you've got to be able to get your knife in there and slice people up. And to some extent ignore them, and to some extent ignore them if well up to a point if they're complaining. Right. Yeah, so there are jobs in which too much empathy is going to impede your ability to success.

So he goes through a lot of examples like that, I suppose. One of the first things they do at Bootcamp is to try to impose certain kinds of motivations in soldiers that are joining the army and make sure they understand that if you don't kill first, they're going to kill you, or they're going to kill your buddies. And that should be the way you think when you're in a war. And if you don't have that ability to reframe your normal gentle personality, then you're in the wrong place. Right. Well, and it's clearly the case that people who are very high in trade empathy,

so very high in agreeableness, they are easy to take advantage of, and they also tend to become resentful and bitter. At least that's been my clinical observation, because it's very difficult for them to stand up for themselves. And so you need a certain amount of capacity for aggression. And then there's an interesting twist here here too. I don't know. I read a book a while back called Billion Wicked Thoughts. It's a very, very interesting book. It was written by Google engineers and one of the things they did was analyze pornography use between men and women and on and with billions of searches literally. And they found, which is not surprising, that men preferred visual pornography, but females preferred literary pornography. And they found the classic literary pornography plot,

which was something like, you know, relatively innocent but undervalued and attractive, but not so obviously attractive. Young woman stumbles across this sort of commanding man who has many women at his disposal and over time, despite his relatively high levels of aggression, he finds himself attracted to this woman and then forms a sexual relationship with her. It's a beauty in the beast plot, essentially, but one of the things that's so interesting about their analysis was they listed the top five occupations or characters for female sexual or occupations or characters for female sexual literature. And they were pirate, surgeon, billionaire, vampire, and pilot. And so those are all males who I would say are marked by,

oh no, not pilot, werewolf. Werewolf was the fifth one. And so I think it reflects to some degree this conundrum that women have, because women have to pick a man who has the capacity for aggression, enough of the capacity for aggression to protect himself and others, and to move out into the world

against a fair bit of opposition, but who's also simultaneously empathic, or perhaps conscientious enough to be caring and share. And you can imagine that's a real knife edge, right? Because you need a bit of a monster in your man, let's say, to keep the real monsters away, but you don't want so much monster so that a relationship is impossible. And so then you could also imagine that there's overshoot on both sides of that target,

so that some men become too aggressive, but can appear attractive in the short term, because they have the confidence associated with that, and some men become too agreeable, and so they look easy to get along with and so forth, but they can't put themselves forward and stand up for themselves. And so, be another explanation for the potentially emergence of, say, sadism

and psychopathy is that there's this narrow target for, especially for men to hit, doesn't account for female psychopathy, but for men to hit, and it's easy to overshoot in either direction. And there's going to be variability in women's choice as well. Yeah, one of the issues that underlies my work in connection with clinical psychology, which you're the expert in, and I'm not, I try to stick to so-called sub-clinical levels, in other words, student bodies or workers. These are people who are managing to get along at everyday society, and they're available in large numbers so you can take surveys and try to tease apart the various aspects of the dark side.

But I do not, I'm very reticent, to venture to the clinical side. And I think that's been a source of criticism from of me, from clinical psychologists that I'm touching on areas that really belong to them and do not belong to me because I'm not a clinician. So when we get into sexual satism and criminal satism, which in a sense was all people associated with satism up until recently, it was the only way that people thought about it.

And interesting interplays between satism and masochism, why would it be to some extent the same people who are into both? I can ask these questions in surveys, but I hesitate to try to be an expert and accept what people are saying. Well, it's not as if the clinicians have been any more careful than the personality theorists in elucidating the actual nature of their diagnostic categories, right?

I mean, one of the reasons I'm a clinician and a personality psychologist, I mean, one of the reasons I find your work interesting and compelling is because you do the psychometrics properly, and that's not always obvious to leave the case with clinical diagnostic categories because they're basically holdovers from the psychiatric enterprise, and they weren't derived, they weren't extracted out of a primarily statistical model. And so on the downside for the clinical psychologist, it's not obvious at all that we have our nosology, our diagnostic category system straight. And so, and I mean, I'm not saying that in a cynically critical manner, because it's actually a very difficult thing to do right, but it seems to me that your work isn't unfairly

what, a poaching on the grounds of clinical psychologists, because somebody has to do the basic psychometric work. It's like, well, what are the basic categories of, let's say, predatory and parasitic behavior? Now, you can imagine that there's a place where that becomes clinically extreme and has to be dealt with in another manner, but there's absolutely no reason not to look

at some clinical manifestations as well. One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you now is because I've been reading a number of papers. I got really interested in this idea that virtualization enables, well, maybe psychopathy, but maybe more broadly, dark tetrad behavior. Because one of the open questions is, if you're dealing with someone who has these personality proclivities that you described, Machiavellian, narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic. They obviously lack a Freudian super ego in some sense. They can't regulate their own behavior in a social manner.

Left to their own devices, they will exploit and hurt. And so then you might say, well, what keeps people like that in check? And one of the answers to that would say, well, what keeps people like that in check? And one of the answers to that would be, well, the same thing that keeps the rest of us in check, which is mechanisms built into the neurobiology of our face-to-face contact. Like, we know that if you put people in a car, they'll be ruder to each other, to someone in another car than they would be face to face on the street. Like, there's a lot of direct inhibition built into our social interactions

that keeps psychopathy and narcissism under control. But then, what you see online is that all of that disappears, hey, and I don't think that there's any real price to be paid for dark tetrad behavior online, especially if it's anonymous. And that's made me think more recently, especially as our culture terrors itself apart, as a consequence of the battle between extremes on the political spectrum. It's made me wonder how much of that's actually driven by the virtualized enabling of psychopathy and narcissism because you know it's always a problem

One of the things people might not understand who are watching this is the incredibly high cost that biological organisms bear in relationship to parasitical behavior. So that'd be associated, let's say, with psychopathy. There is good evidence, although I wouldn't say it's canonical, that the reason that sex itself evolved was so that we could stay ahead of the parasites. If you just clone yourself, the parasites can chase your genome down the generations. But if you mix your genes,

then the parasites have to adapt rapidly to keep up. You can stay ahead of them. And so sex itself was driven by parasitical behavior. And so what that indicates is that the presence of parasites, as well as predators, throughout our entire biological history, has presented a canonical threat to our very civilization. And now, if it's true that virtualization enables the psychopaths and the narcissists, then it seems to me that that produces a cardinal threat once again. And there's been a spate of research more recently using the dark tetrad measures to investigate such things as narcissistic self-promotion on

TikTok and Instagram, but also trolling an online bullying. And so maybe you could tell us a little bit about what's been found on that front. Yeah, well, again, you covered a lot of ground there, but the central point I have to totally agree on. lot of ground there, but the central point I have to totally agree on. And we got into a specific aspect where satism plays a big role, and that is the trolling online. You get to say anything you want without repercussions. If you said that to the person's face, you'd be in trouble for various reasons, legal and physical reasons. But we tried to delve into asking these people who engage in trolling online. Why do you do it? And we ended up with the title of our paper, Trolls Just Want to Have Fun, because that seemed to be the most common motivation. It's just fun poking at people. You find a website where people are all happy and enjoying it. I don't know, a gardening group, and you mess with them. And that seems to be a lot of fun for certain

individuals. We correlated an interest in doing that with the dark tetrad measures and sadism stood out as the best predictor of liking to mess with happy people. So having the internet as put us into trouble, politics is an obvious example, but just being nasty to your fellow humans is now a sport. Yeah, it's a sport, it's a hobby, it's a pastime, and these people tend to spend a lot of their time engaged in various similar activities. Right. Well, we know that 1% of the criminals commit 65% of the crimes. And so it's a preto, perito distribution, like almost every other form of, let's say, creative production. And so it's also the case in all probability that a very large proportion of the pathological

online behavior comes from a relatively small proportion of committed, dark, tetrad types. And given that they're not only not inhibited by the normal mechanisms of social discourse, they're also rewarded because they get a tremendous amount of attention. And I would say, I think it's reasonable to also point out that that attention is monetized in some sense and expanded by the internal operations of social media networks themselves. It's certainly not the case that the trolls pay a price for being provocative. In fact, I think there's good reason to think that their attempts are more likely to be multiplied rather than inhibited. And that could be, depending on the degree to which we virtualize, I mean, that could pose a real signal threat to the integrity of our peaceful political

to the integrity of our peaceful political arrangements, let's say. Yeah, it's out of hand and it's hard to track down individual contributors to a level of online, but one could blame it on media polarization and just the need to attract customers, turns out that people don't like moderate media sources. They won't turn to that channel. They'll turn to a channel where they can feel warm and toasty because the other people on that channel agree with them on everything. So they don't get to hear other points of view. And many years ago, perhaps you and I were there at the time of Walter Cronkite, and there

were a few, there were a few corporations online, two or three that everybody watched, and they were more or less down the middle. If those were put online now, nobody would watch. People want to watch the extreme version of their own politics and that's unfortunate development and technology. Yeah. Well, there are some exceptions to that. I would say, I mean, I've had a lot of success, let's say, with long-form dialogue on YouTube

and other people have done the same thing and inviting people like you to have discussions for the last 90 minutes or so. And that's a pretty comprehensive discussion. And it rewards a long-term attention span, but it's definitely the case that there are selective pressures in relationship to attention to gather as much impulsive attention as possible. And of course, there's a profit motive behind that often because if you can gather people's attention,

you can advertise to them. And I'm not saying this cynically. I'm just trying to observe the way the system is working. If you can gather people's attention by whatever means, you can almost instantly monetize that. And so we also have this new technological problem, which is that we have technologies that can really reward impulsive information gathering

and simultaneously monetize it. And that means that that's fertile territory for the psychopaths and the narcissists and the Machiavellians and the sadists to exploit. And I think there's enough of that to actually undermine public trust in general because it makes, like my actual life is way less contentious than my online life.

You know, they're not even in the same universe in some sense. Is that sense of polarization? It's really very difficult to tell now in the modern world how much of that is a mere consequence and a mere appearance of virtualization and how much it actually reflects some fundamental disquiet. I mean, I know they loop, but we have no way of really knowing. And if it is true that virtualization enables psychopathy, then that's a real conundrum. That's a real tough nut to crack. Yeah, and it's scary in a way to think that,

in a way, you're getting closer to what people are really like in anonymous responses. We know that from questionnaire work, that the more anonymous response is the less desirable the answers that you get from people are. But it does sound very cynical to think that the nasty stuff you see online is really the human condition, which is something. Well, I'm more optimistic about that, because of this Pareto distribution phenomena. I think I'm pessimistic because it looks like a very small number of bad actors can cause

way more trouble than we would have thought. And that's a pessimistic idea, is that it's only 3% who are dark tetrad types, or maybe 5% it depends where you put the cutoffs, let's say. And that means 95% of people are going about their business in a decent manner. And that's a very positive thing. But the downside is, yeah, but that 5% can cause a God-awful amount of trouble. I mean, I talked to Andy Know about Antifa, you know, and I'll tell you how that came about. I was working with a group of Democrats in the US to help pull the Democrat

party towards the center, and I did that for a number of years. And there was one topic that we used to come to a fair bit of disagreement about, and that was the reality of Antifa. And the Democrats I was working with were absolutely convinced of the absolute reality of 4chan and the right wing conspiratorial groups, but they didn't believe that there was really any such thing as Antifa. And I thought, well, these were smart people.

And I thought, well, why the hell do they believe that? And they said, well, there's always been race rights in the United States. And the degree to which antifa has organized is blown out of proportion. And they're not really a formal organization, and so on and so forth. And I thought, well, that's interesting,

because some of that's true. But you could say the same thing about the hypothetical right-wing conspiratorial groups. But then I talked to Andy Nol, who's done more to cover Antifa than any other journalist. And I said to him, Andy, how many Antifa cells, let's say do you think are operating in the United States? And he thought, well, maybe 40. And I said, well, how many full-time equivalent employees,

so to speak, do you think each of those cells have? And he thought, well, maybe 20. And so if that estimate is vaguely accurate, that's 800 people in the entire United States as population of 320 million. It's really one person in 400,000, right? And that's sort of statistically equivalent to zero. So, you know, that's why the Democrats can say,

well, that Antifa doesn't even really exist, but the counter-argument is, yeah, there aren't very many of them, but a small number of people who have these dark tetrad motivations, and I'm not saying that's unique to Antifa, by the way. I'm talking more about the riotous troublemakers who love to dance in the street, you know. If it's only one in 400,000 people, that's just an indication of how much trouble someone

who has no internal sense of restraint can make manifest if they're free of all external social controls. Yeah, I don't have too much to say about that, but I would like to talk a bit about extreme niches that you brought up before and where these people end up if they have the proclivities for one of the dark tetrad. The proclivity for narcissists would be in the realm of politics because they want attention and they get it whether it's positive or negative. it seems to work for them.

The Machiavellians, I think, are among the most interesting though, stock markets, financial organizations. And although we just saw this fellow Santos who made up his CV to get elected in Long Island, an example of a politician who's both narcissistic because you have to to be a politician. And a Machiavellian, but Bernie Madoff was the classic. He was the most popular guy in his building on Fifth Avenue.

Big smile on his face all the time. Happy Gol lucky. And stealing money from thousands of people far more money than he could ever use as a billionaire. He won a more billions. But that's a niche in which macchibellianism will help you get to the top. You have to manipulate and hide and do it relatively low-key unlike the narcissist. So I think we already talked about the psychopath and the sadist, but it does play out in the occupations that one chooses to suit your niche. Yeah, well, you can also see there that that makes the issue of leadership a complicated one, right? Because we know that the big five personality profile of narcissists is something like high extroversion and low agreeableness. And so, you can see there that someone who's low

in agreeableness is going to put their viewpoint forward in a pretty aggressive manner, and someone who's extroverted is going to be enthusiastic and captivating. And you need those, you can understand that there might be situations that cry out for genuine leadership where both being extroverted and being disagreeable would be an advantage. And you know, that might be a situation

where you hope like hell that your extroverted disagreeable politician is also extremely high in conscientiousness. So that even though they might like attention and even though they might be less empathic than that there are relative lack of empathy would pose a certain risk that their proclivity to abide by a set of ethical principles would override that.

But then you get people who fake that conscientiousness and fake competence, which is partly what psychopaths do when they entrap women, is to fake that competence, and then to look like you're abiding by the rules when you're just being macchivalient and narcissistic and manipulative. and then to look like you're abiding by the rules when you're just being Machiavellian and narcissistic and manipulative. Yeah, that's fascinating to think about different combinations and of the big five, but also of the dark,

the dark tetrad. I wrote a paper on Steve Jobs, for example, some time ago. It helps to be a genius, of course, but if you're a full narcissist who believes you have the right idea and the entire world is wrong about it, everyone disagreed with them, and he was right. Right, well, that's a good example of that hyper-successful niche, right? So that's a very interesting case because you're going to get the odd situation where someone

is narcissistic and hyper-intelligent and correct, in which case their narcissism and their kelessness, in some sense, is absolutely what's needed to bring forth that whole set of ideas. Well, in fact, he was fired by his own company. After having proved himself to be a genius and changing the world in so many ways, his own company said he was too obnoxious. So they let him go. Eventually, the company kind of faded out. They had to bring him back.

Right. Right. How can you be so super successful and fired by your own team? Classic case. Well, you know, I knew people who I know people who worked with jobs and One of the things they told me was that he was he was unhearing in his ability to call You know, so he had a very high eye for quality, but he also didn't let empathy stop him from killing projects he thought were counterproductive. And that's a tough one, right?

Because you can imagine, you can't say that if you're running a company and you're attempting to produce something, that keeping a faltering project going because you don't want to hurt the feelings of the employees by bringing to a halt is a moral virtue. It's not a moral virtue. And the reason for that, as far as I can tell, is that you're just prolonging the agony and awaiting the inevitable death, right? So you have the evidence in some sense at hand, but you're unwilling to draw the appropriate conclusions from it. And there is that same necessity for discrimination and elimination that might also be driving the capacity, as you pointed out earlier, of a surgeon

to go into someone's body and to get rid of the cancer, right? Independent of the fact that they have to deal with the blood and the gourd and the pain and the fear and all of that and they can't let that stop them. Yeah, I agree totally with everything you just said. I wanted to get back to the psychometrics just for a moment. I know you worked in depth worked in depth on the big five and separated into aspects and broke it down. And that's in a way characterizes a certain approach to personality. I call the distinction lumpers and splitters. And that's, to some extent, been the pro and con of my approach, trying to tease apart or parse the dark side is an approach that's just made sense to us given the overlap

in literatures that I mentioned earlier. But there's also a tendency, you mentioned earlier the evaluative sense, to lump together good traits, with other good traits, the so-called halo, has its corresponded devil effect, and that is, if you learn something bad about somebody, you naturally

assume it's hard not to to think that they have all the other bad traits too. And so there's a lot of, in a way, competitors out there working on the dark side who are trying to lump it together and call it the de-factor, the dark factor. So it will collapse them all into one and you can array people on this one dimension. That never appealed to me. I think it's a lot more interesting to break things into their components. But it's...

How intercorrelated are the four scales on average? And can you extract out a single factor? How much of the various does that factor account for? Yeah, excellent question. We started off with correlations between point three and point five with the dark triad. And that is definitely all positive. They're never negative correlations. But to some people, that was too high, especially point five or above means, well, why don't you just add them together and call it something else?

Yeah. And that's what the so-called de-factor people have done. It just seems such a silly simplicity to me that you could look at your fellow human beings and call them place them at a certain position on this single darkness. When there's so many ways of being dark, there might be one way of being a good person, but there's many ways of being dark as the approach that we took. Well, technically, what you'd want to show is that

your multiple measures interestingly predict different outcomes and differentially, and you talked a little bit about occupational choice. I mean, the rubber hits the road basically by having you demonstrate that your multiplicity of categories adds predictive power to, in some interesting way, to the solution of some complex problem. And I mean, it certainly seems to me to be useful, at least in principle, to distinguish something like sadism and positive pleasure taken in the suffering from others, from mirror impulsivity,

even though both of those can be problematic. I'd also like to suggest something else to the listeners. We might ask ourselves why in some fundamental sense are these behaviors, these dark tetra behaviors, properly regarded as pathological. And I think, especially given that you could make the case that they have some reproductive benefits, at least compared to certain other strategies. But I think the issue here, you tell me what you think about this, it has to do,

and this is like a biology of ethics in some sense, it has to do with iterability. And so there's this famous study, set of studies by Yacht Panks'ep, where he analyzed the play behavior of juvenile male rats. And what he showed was that if you put two juvenile rats together and one outweighs the other by 10%, there's about a 90% probability that the bigger rat can pin the smaller rat. And so if you just do that once, the conclusion you would draw if you were a zero-sum biologist and someone interested in dominance, is you'd say, well, the bigger, stronger, meaner, dark-ketrad

rat can win the competition and therefore has elevated himself in the hierarchy of dominance and is more likely to reproduce successfully. But Pancep being a bit of a genius knew that rats lived in social communities and had iterated interactions with one another. And so they don't play with another rat if you're a young rat only once. You play with them repeatedly. And so Pancep paired them repeatedly. And what he showed was the second time you put the rats together, the little rat had to invite the big rat to play.

And mammals have a characteristic strategy for play invitation. You can see that in dogs, they sort of bounce, and so did kids, and so do sheep, like it's extremely widespread among mammals. And so the little rat had to ask the big rat to play, and the big rat would deign to play. But if you paired them together repeatedly,

if the big rat didn't let the little rat win at least 30% of the time, the little rat would stop playing. And so I thought it was an unbelievably profound set of studies because it indicated that there was an emergent ethos that was intrinsic to repeated trades. You know, and you know, the economic games

where you take two people and you say, look, I'm gonna give you $100 and you can offer some fraction of that to your partner, but if he refuses, neither of you get anything, you play that around the world, and people average out at about 50%. And it's the case that even poor people who need the money are very likely to reject a sharing offer

that isn't something approximating 50%. And you might say, well, that's preposterous, because why not just take the money and leave? And the answer is something like, yeah, but there's an ethos of fair play that emerges out of repeated interactions. And your goal isn't to win a single game. It's to win a set of iterated games.

And the problem with the psychopathic perspective and the impulsive perspective is that even the psychopaths themselves sacrifice their own future as well as other people to the immediate gratification of their desires. And that's just not a very sophisticated strategy. Why win once when you could hypothetically win 50% of the time, 100 times? And so, I think we can get close to a technical description in this sense of what constitutes pathological behavior, right? It's pathological behavior is the proclivity

to gain in the short term, but lose in the medium to long run. Yeah, I've thought about this in terms of that the winner in animal groups, the alpha male, so to speak, is usually the meanest nastiest of the group. And in human groups, the meanest nastiness doesn't rise to the top. You have to have allies. So alliance building is an important component of success in human societies. Not so much. It is apparently in chimpanzees, but it's really important.

You get to the top if you can link, associate, and get friends, get allies to help you in getting to the top. Well, friends to wall in his work has demonstrated quite clearly that the stable alpha males, like there are alpha males who can make it to the top who are sort of dark tetra and chimps, right? They'll use just brute force, but they tend to meet pretty damn violent ends, pretty young. Whereas the stable alphas sometimes are smaller, who ally themselves with powerful females, but who are also more reciprocal often in their interactions.

So more fair traders, let's say, than any other individual in the group. And so, DeWall has done this lovely job of relating, let's say, cooperative leadership to social stability and length of rain. And so the psychopathic chimp might do better than the chimp who is only withdrawing and never interacts at all.

But the psychopathic chimp who relies on aggression doesn't do nearly as well as the reciprocal chimp who builds a network of allies. And so, and I, well, I really like the Walls work for that reason, you know, because it's often the fact that people who presume that our hierarchies are based on PowerPoint to say chimpanzees and say, no, it's power that sustains dominance. It's like, no, power can provide you with dominance in the short run, but it's not an optimized

long-term strategy. And so, it's reasonable to view it in some sense as a form of deviant pathology, especially in smorgstream forms, because it's a self-defeating game. Yeah, this notion of getting people on your side or developing allies, of course, is essential for politicians.

It's the one with the most voters, the one with the most compatriots supporting them, money-wise and otherwise, who gets to the top. We, apart from Machiavelli, we've also been drawing on Sun Su, the famous art of war writer from China. And as in many cases, the Chinese got there before the West did, but he talked about building alliances.

And indeed, we tried to invoke that in our measures. And it turns out to be a key for manipulation. The Macchivellian is well aware. And you can see that in some of the items on the Mac scale of getting people on your side is essential to getting ahead. It might be the key element to it, not standing up and leading by getting people to be persuaded to your side. Right, so the Machiavellian,

then in that situation, the Machiavellian, I would say, is mimicking reciprocal sociability, right? Because if you and I form a relationship that's gonna be stable over time, it's going to be something like, let's say, a 60% 60% exchange. You'll contribute half, and all contribute half, but the reason I represented that is 60% or maybe 75% is because if you and I engage in reciprocal honest trading, the sub, the sum total of our activity will exceed the sum of our individual activities, right? We can do more together than we

could do apart. And so there's, there's all sorts of sense to be made for the establishment of these honest, durable, and reciprocal relationships. But what that also means is that if most people establish those, then people who only act as if they're establishing them can capitalize on that. Just like the narcissists and the psychopaths, with their false confidence, can mimic competence and fool, well, there's good literature evidence, for example, that the dark tetrad types, broadly speaking,

are particularly good if they're male at fooling young women. As women get older, they're better at separating out the narcissists from the competent men. But initially, because the narcissists have this confidence that is a marker of competence, even though not an invariable marker, they can easily be fooled. And so that opens up the landscape of co-operators to exploitation by a small minority of predators and parasites. So what else have you found out on the social media front?

And where do you think the interesting research is, let's, where's the interesting research going on in that area and Do you have any sense of what sort of constraints need to be put in place in online forums to keep the psychopaths under control like I've come out recently against anonymity because my sense I've read tens of thousands of online comments,

my sense is that radical proportion of anonymous posters have these dark catch-rad traits, and I know there's a research literature that actually indicates that as well. And so I've been attacked for that because people think that, you know, they're right to free speech also involves this right to anonymous posting. And I can understand that argument, but the problem is it opens up, it does seem to me to open up the landscape to the predatory parasite types, and that's a real problem. So, have you thought about, like, what have you seen that you regard as a credible deterrence if any, on the virtual side, to the dominance and proliferation of dark tetrad behavior? No, really no solutions have come to mind. It seems out of control when you go to a website and ask for comments,

which is really trying to get feedback to whatever is on your site. It seems, I think somebody calculated, it takes about 10 comments before someone says, oh yeah, f*** you. Yeah, well, so you're talking about this proclivity of open online discourse to turn into a kind of swarm and characterized by the presence of, well, I really do think it heats up the whole political environment because, you know, you alluded to earlier the fact that there's lots of things people won't say in person, partly for legal reasons, but also partly for physical reasons. And both the legal and the physical constraints are removed in the virtualized world. And that does seem to produce an unbelievable

world, and that does seem to produce an unbelievable flowering of pathological commentary. And then I really do believe that that makes everyone think the world and the people in it are a lot worse than they really are. Because it magnifies the effect of this tiny minority, especially the sadists, you know. It's been so interesting to me to watch your concept of dark triad expand to take into account that positive delight and suffering, because I don't think you can really understand like radical evil by merely making reference to narcissism and instrumental malchew value

and even psychopathy. You need pleasure and suffering to really add that last, you know, nail into the coffin, so to speak. Yeah, one interesting goal we had was to try to find the female sadists on all four of these components. We've a male score higher, and even in sadism, we figured there's the mean girls phenomenon. We all have the sense that women can be nasty in

different ways perhaps. And so we tried to develop items, especially with my colleague, Erin Buckles, at the University of Winnipeg. She's working on this. And so was Tracy Viancourt at AutoWU. They are looking at relational aggression. So women, they use different ways, not physical or less physical, and gossiping, for example, spreading lies. There are a few others that exploit the verbal abilities of women and allow them to be nasty to people that they think deserve it.

And so those people are working actively on trying to get a measure of satism that would apply to women even more than to men. I wonder if that would involve pleasure in exclusion. It's definitely the case that, well, if you use time out on a child, one of the reasons it works is because it's technically a punishment. It produces something akin to pain, but the pain is essentially, it's involuntary social isolation. And so if you exclude someone, which is what the mean girl types do, right, that's their primary, this reputation, destruction, and exclusion seems to be their particular belly

wick. You see that with female anti-social behavior. And there is a pain associated with that, which is the pain of social rejection, and it's not trivial. It's very, very hard on people. And so you could imagine that positive delight in observing the fruits of social exclusion might be a canonical characteristic of female sadism. Yeah, that's a good idea to focus on that because we know that male friendships are

more based on common interests. Female friendships are more of a bonding, an emotional bonding, and therefore the exclusion tactic would be much more devastating for women. Good idea. Yeah, well, so I studied the development of male and female anti-social behavior for a long time. And it's pretty obvious that female anti-social types by and large are less sort of impulsively criminal than males are, which is why there aren't very many females in jail. But that ability to denigrate and to gossip and to destroy reputation is much more characteristic

of the female anti-social types, and they can be really, really good at it. And the frightening thing about that, too, to some degree, is that male aggression of the physical sort doesn't scale with a dam on social media, because you can't use physical aggression on social media. But the female pattern of anti-social behavior,

which is reputation, destruction, and social media, but the female pattern of anti-social behavior, which is reputation, destruction, and social exclusion. Man, that scale is like a charm on social media, especially because of what you described as the negative halo effect. You know, and I've really noticed this, I should be very resistant to that negative halo effect when I pick out my guests for my podcast, because I have had a lot of guests on my podcast, and now and then I talk to people who've been lobbed, excluded, or had their reputation damaged for one reason or another.

You know, and even when I know perfectly well that there's a high probability that they've been lied about, and that they've been lied about and that they've been the target of this kind of malicious gossip. There's still a strong proclivity in me that I have to fight to overcome, not to assume something like, well, where there's smoke, there's fire.

You know, and you don't have to sully someone's reputation much before you raise the cost that other people need to bear to interact with them, right? I mean, we all have, in principle, thousands of people we could interact with. And so we're always looking for a reason in some sense not to interact with people. And if a terrible rumor has spread about someone, well, the cost to me to avoiding that person can be very, very low, but the cost to that person, if everyone avoids them, is unbelievably high. Yeah, most people care about how a person treats them specifically, and they can overlook

rumors often, because the other person has treated them personally well. So that's a dynamic that works in the other direction to cut down on the negative effect of rumors and gossip that sort of thing. Right. Assuming that you actually have that personal relationship, you know, one of the things I've also seen as a consequence of virtualization, you know, if I'm working with people virtually, and so we haven't established that kind of personal relationship, if any issue comes up that's negative, it seems to have a larger effect than it would

if we had established, you know, a long-term, more personal face-to-face interaction. So as long as things are going smoothly, the virtual interaction seems to go well, but it's really easy for anything negative to be magnified. And I think it's partly because you don't have that buffer that you just described, which is maybe something like the evidence of repeated interactions face to face, evidence of repeated acts of kindness and so forth so that you have that as a data body to offset the, you know, the negative event against. Yeah, right on on all of those points, I did want to talk a little bit about your work on the big five with respect to the challenges to the big five as well as the challenges to my work, kind of dovetail in an interesting

way. And that is, although the Big Five has become the consensus for the broad personality traits, so Big Fiveers mostly assume that they've covered it all because they're working at such a high level. And people like me who are working from time to time on individual traits, that would be farther down the hierarchy of the personality space. Now, it turns out that you can add at least one other dimension to the big five, and that's been contributed by Ashton and Lee to Canadian researchers who have to some extent eaten away at the popularity of the big five by talking about the big six or the hexa-cold. And what they've added is a dimension called the humility, honesty humility, which it was

a great choice I thought, but, but it turns out that that extra dimension they added Subsooms all of the dark traits that I've been working on. Oh, oh, I didn't know that. I wanted to ask you that. Oh, when was that discovered? That has been coming to light over the last five years and so coming to light over the last five years. And so I've certainly turned to favoring the big six instead of the big five in some of my recent work. In terms of, we know the personality space is rather amorphous and you can rotate dimensions in multiple ways

to suit your fancy. But this one suits me because it shows where the dark traits fall with respect to a comprehensive personality. But they all fall together under this one dimension, honesty, humility. And so I really appreciated the Ashton and Lee for it. Now, do you think that's because Ashton and Lee is it because they included, in some sense, some of the originally excluded words

from their statistical samples of adjectives, the ones that are more evaluative? Because I mean, your phrases or sentences are really quite evaluative on the moral dimension. And so they wouldn't have been considered in the initial Big Five Corpus. And then honesty humility seems to be kind of in the middle of that, right?

Because it's obviously better morally to be honest and humbled and to be dishonest and arrogant. And so you're sneaking there or stepping into the domain of ethical categorization. But I wanted to ask you, actually, if you throw your sentences into a sentence level big five, like the ocean model, I think what you just said is that the individual sentences will line up the dark, triad, or dark tetrad sentences, will line up on a dimension that's the opposite side of honesty humility.

Do they break out across other factors as well? Or like how much does honesty humility subsull the dark triad on the negative side? Well, it's pretty much, the whole thing is there under honesty humility. They do have a couple of other negative traits in there. So there is a slightly broader which suggests maybe we could add a couple of other negative traits to our pantheon of aversive personality.

Is that one direction to look in anyway? It's interesting what you say about the pulling out the negative traits which could tell did many years ago and tell again and a few others have pursued that. And indeed, I think that's there if one looks hard enough that the work of earlier personality researchers, the big seven was available in the 70s. And one of those looked like a dark personality factor. So that would make an interesting paper to track that issue. Interesting you put that together.

Has anybody done a large-scale compilation of the dark tetrad items with the hexical model, like on thousands and thousands of people? Have you done that yet? Others have done that. Yeah, yeah, it's there. The Germans have always been known as good psychometricians and they've shown in a number of large scale studies that both in German and in English,

they can work as well in English, have shown that clear pattern. Oh yeah, okay, well that's really worthwhile knowing. So what forms of behavior do you think are most powerfully predicted by the dark tetrad questionnaires? Like the sorts of things that people might encounter in their day-to-day life if we can bring this to life for people. We're focusing on a set of personality attributes. What are you likely to experience if you encounter someone who is characterized Blair Plathora of these characteristics? Well, that's been,

that's kind of a summary of our goals in my laboratory and that is we wanna develop practical measurement instruments. One can find a lot of interesting things in Freud's Thanatos and Jung's shadow, but you're not going to be able to ask people about those in a job interview. So what we want are measures that can be applied to ordinary people, whether they're job selection. You want kinds of people. And sometimes you want a little bit of the dark side.

Sometimes not. Even in these romantic websites where you're pairing up people, you want to know a little bit about the potential partners, the dark side is starting to prove useful there. that you can present to large groups or diagnosed people is what we've been aiming for. And so the psychometrics have been the most important thing, getting it right. So we tried in California on that front. This might be something you'd be interested in methodologically. So I put together a behavioral predictive battery that was very short cognitive analysis, which is basically the Ravens Progressive Matrices revised.

We made our own matrices, but we got a good central measure of general cognitive ability. And then a good fake proof measure of the big five. And we made it fake proof by forcing people to choose between positive descriptors or between negative descriptors. We lost a degree of freedom, but we made the test robust against social self-presentation. I did that with Jacob Hirsch. And then so I used those tests to predict entrepreneurial success

in thousands of people in Silicon Valley. I was working with a man, Adele Ressie, who ran an institute called the Founder Institute, which was the biggest early stage tech incubator in the world. I think he started 5,000 companies, something like that. And we can predict entrepreneurial ability pretty well, basically with general cognitive ability, trade openness, and a bit of a positive tilt for age. But this is what was happening in his classes. He'd get 50 people together to, at a very early stage, in the development of their business ideas. And now and then he'd get a couple of bad apples in the group.

And that would just destroy the class. And then he was spending all his time attending to the troublemakers. So he came back to us and he said, look, we're doing a pretty good job of finding people who are qualified, but we can't keep out the troublemakers. And I thought, well, could we do that psychometrically?

So this might be something interesting to consider in relationship to the dark triad and the personality disorders. So you know, there is a central factor in personality disorders if you turn the personality disorder items in the DSM into questionnaire items. You can extract out a single factor and one of the best predictors of failure to respond

to clinical intervention on the personality disorder side is sheer number of personality disorder symptoms. So it's kind of just like a severity index, you know. So what we did was we turned the DSM personality disorder items into questions, and then we administered them to a very large number of people, and then we pulled out a central factor, And then we found the items in the personality disorder questionnaire that best predicted the central tendency, and those that predicted it the least. And then we forced people to choose between them. They both sound bad, they both sound like pathological attributes,

but one is much more clearly a marker of the central proclivity than the other. And then we did the same thing with Wink's narcissism scale. And so then we were able to identify people who had this narcissistic proclivity and a personality disorder proclivity. And we'd screen those people out if they scored more than 95th percentile. And that cut the incidence of trouble making the classes dramatically. So the reason I'm bringing this up is because utilizing it be very interesting to see, and maybe you guys have already done this.

And so this is also a question on that front. It's like, a lot of the personality disorder symptoms look to me like their manifestations of the more severe end of the dark tetrad traits and it would be lovely to see this psychometric enterprise enter the domain of psychopathological prediction and maybe the doorway through that is the honesty humility dimension differentiated out into the you know more anti-social pathologies in the manner that you've done it. It sounds like that's an interesting bridge into the technically clinical world. Well that's been a dynamic in the development of our understanding of the link between

normal and clinical traits. Again, I don't want to step on the toes of clinicians, but I understand the movement toward trying to make all clinical disorders dimensional. And that's been a real clash between the traditional clinicians who feel that you've got schizophrenia or you don't got schizophrenia as opposed to having a dimension that represents a particular disorder and placing people on it. And so I understand why people would, some clinicians who are of a psychometric proclivity are a little bit offended at me trying to come up with labels that sound like clinical disorders, but aren't

really because all of the people I study are doing okay, and you alluded to this earlier, but there's very little maladjustment among any of those for dark personalities. You can't get them to correlate very strongly with, especially with general neuroticism or feeling of distress. They're not distressed. Whether they're high or low, there's very little relation there. Right. That's an interesting case of the absence of distress being a marker for pathology, because that is the problem with being a psychopath

in some real sense, is you do impulsive things, and they hurt you in the long run, which is why you end up in prison or with no friends, or as a catastrophic failure by the age of 40. But none of that's being marked by psychological distress along the way. So you're opaque to the trouble that your own pathology is causing.

And that means you're not getting error signals when you shouldn't. So you're not depressed or anxious, but you're also whistling in the dark as you walk towards a cliff. So not helpful. Yeah, very clever study that you're out on there. Sometimes one gets a sample or an opportunity to study a certain group,

and that's what carries one's research. But if you think about it, that's been a difficulty in doing dark side research. You've got to validate these measures, So you've got to have hard criteria, especially behavior. You can rely on the judgments of others to some extent, but hard, visible, recordable behavior is really the most persuasive kind of criterion. But think about sadism. How are you going to show that in the laboratory? That was a real challenge to us, but in a way, it was fun developing measures that can be used,

can get by these very restrictive IRB boards that look through your work and say, no, you can't do that. You can't do this. And so we came up with this notion of bug killing, which I guess I have to attribute that to Dan Jones, who came up with the notion of getting people to think that they're crunching bugs in a coffee grinder. And again, such variants, some people loved it. We tried to

anthropomorphize the bugs by giving them names. So there was a little wee container that had names like Eik and Muffin, cute little names, but they had to take these bugs, put them into the cruncher, press down, and hear what sounded like bug parts, flying apart. It was actually just coffee beans. But, again, like the Milgram study, they thought that we're doing it. And when some of the subjects say, give it, got any more, that was fun. Other people were so horrified to think about the whole idea. They just ran out of the lab when we described what we wanted them to do. Lovely to have variants like that when you're studying something sensitive like satism. We also use voodoo dolls. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that research,

giving subjects acutely low. Oh yeah. And saying, think of the person that you really dislike. Now, we're gonna leave you alone for five minutes and you're welcome to take this set of pins and stick them into the doll to represent the degree to which you hate them. And again, lots of variance there. We come back after five minutes, and some of these dolls are full of pins, and that tend

to correlate with, I think this particular study was actually showing the dark tetrad measures in comparison to questionnaire measures of psychoticism, which is, in a sense, answered the question that you often pose yourself when you're listening to a horrible crime described on television and you wonder This is such a horrible crime was the person crazy Right was the person nasty and that has legal consequences, doesn't it? You're crazy. You're not guilty You're you're just nasty,

you can go away for some time through doing nasty stuff. And we found actually that both contributed to the extent that you can measure psychoticism with a questioner measures, debatable. We found that independently, the dark tetrad and psychoticism predicted the number of pins that you stuck in this sorry little doll that you were given. So Del, you've been delving into the dark side of human behavior for a long time and you

alluded to the fact or the possibility of of certain pessimism that emerged as a consequence of your observation that sometimes anonymous responses are actually more revealing and anonymous behavior on the net has produced quite the uptick in pathological behavior. But what has been the consequence for you personally in focusing so intensely on this dark area of human proclivity? And, well, let's start with that. Oh, yes. And then the other thing was, how do you distinguish, let's say, personally and scientifically, between

the ethical issue with regard to the dark tetrad behavior and the biological motivations, right? Because your work does skirt that line, right? So you can think about psychopathy as an adaptive mating strategy in some sense on the scientific front, but then when you think about it ethically and personally,

it falls into the category of the kind of clearly reprehensible behavior that should get people locked up. So, what is this done to your view of human nature and be, how do you thread the needle of scientific evaluation versus moral evaluation? Well, for me, it started in an undergraduate course where I learned about Machiavellianism and went to work with Richard Christie. So in a sense, I was there from the beginning, what the causal direction was, I'm not sure

at that point, but it did do a lot of other work on self-enhancing and et cetera. Other researchers in my department like to study happy people. And I didn't find them as interesting as the dark side. And certainly I could give a rationale that we're more concerned with the behavior of the dark side than we are with what happy people can do to us. Maybe they could bore us at times, but they're not going to be a danger

to us. So studying the dark side is more important, arguably. And there is a light triad now, where people have put together some positive traits and kind of followed up in the notion of the dark triad. And said, why don't we look at the positive side and see who is, who gives desirable motivations for their behavior. I studied social desirability for a long time and it never really came together for me because you develop a social desirability scale. Well, it's partly true and it's partly phony and that's a terrible confounding because

do you wanna hire the person who scores high on social desirability or the person who scores low was pronounced? Right, right, right. I found that very frustrating work as well. I tried to develop scales of self-deception and self-presentation and it was, I ran into, I think very much the same problem.

It's, it's, yeah. Well, first of all, much the same problem. It's, it's, it's, it's, well, first of all, it's not obvious that it's an independent dimension, right? Because it seems to be quite affected by agreeableness, but it's also not, as you said, it's not obvious what the desirable outcome actually is. Like, do you want the person who tries to look, make themselves look better than they are during a job interview?

And the answer is, well, maybe you do want them, because at least they came to the interview and tried. You know, you could say, well, it's fake, but on the other hand, well, putting your best foot forward isn't just fake. It's also a step in the right direction. And so separating those out is extraordinarily difficult. It's also difficult to separate it out from such things as extroversion and trait optimism.

And yeah, it was a real morass. I know you did a lot of work on that for a long time, eh? I don't know if you've heard of integrity tests, but raised a real paradox because integrity tests, in the sense of the opposite rationale to social desirability tests, they ask people who are being hired by big companies. Have you stolen from an employer? And a variety of other things that would cause the company a problem

if they hired you, but they take it at face value with integrity tests. If you give those answers on a social des they hired you, but they take it at face value with integrity tests. If you leave those answers on a social desirability test, then researchers would often toss you out because no one's... Because you're lying. You're lying. Hypothetic. Yeah, yeah.

Well, I didn't know that the integrity tests seemed to be valid predictors only to the degree that they marked something like conscientiousness. I never saw any compelling evidence that they really got farther than a good conscientiousness measure. Yeah, some people have argued that the reason why both of them can work is that social desirability skills are usually used on college students who have higher cognitive abilities. If you're hiring cashiers or someone who's doing muscle work for your company, then it's a little more straightforward. And to some extent, they've got some clever methods like saying, how much money do you think the typical employee steals from the employer? And it's kind of a projective test

reiled into it in a way. To the extent that someone says, oh yeah, people steal a lot, they're inditing themselves. Right, right, right. They're indicating what they regard as normative. So, look, we're out of time here, unfortunately. So, thank you. Is there anything else we're going to turn over to the

Daily Wire Plus platform here? I'm going to talk to Dr. Dale Paulus for another half an hour about the course of the development of his interest in psychology and in these dark tetrad traits. And I'd like to thank him very much for coming to talk to or for agreeing to talk to me today and for sharing what he knows with everybody who's listening. The dark tetrad research is extremely interesting.

If you're interested in psychology, this concentration on the accurate psychometric evaluation of essentially immoral and counterproductive behavior viewed from a social perspective is very important part of the psychometric enterprise. And I think it's one of the domains of modern psychology that are reliable and valid and that might bear genuine fruit as they unfold, just like the big five has. So it's been really good to talk to you. For everyone watching and listening today, thank you very much for your time and attention as always.

And is there anything else you want to bring to the attention of people before we move over to the other interview? No, I just appreciate that you really covered all of the important issues, the full breadth. Thanks for that. Oh, my pleasure. And like I said, I'm very pleased that we had the opportunity to talk today. All right, everyone watching and listening.

Thank you very much. And thanks again, Dr. Paulus and, and, uh, shout out everyone. Hello, everyone. Hello everyone. I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com.